The state of Post-OSR content

Pseudoephedrine said:
If it's any comfort, I think we're actually about to go through a big revival of classic style play, but now attached to new rulesets and more strongly formalised that it was during Gygax. I don't think it's a new play culture such that I would call it "neo-classical" but it's an interesting third wave (after the original and then the early 2000s revival).
Click to expand...
Settembrini and Prince had an interesting (English) podcast together on this topic

Nominally a B/X vs. AD&D smackdown --- it stays pretty friendly as PoN's heart has secretly been slowly turning towards AD&D in recent times (in my estimation).

I have no idea what "procedure heavy" precisely means, but like anything else you try to put a label on, it will most likely get misinterpreted and over used. :p
 
Maybe it's something to do with procedural generation? There is an awful lot of that (and I'm a fan when it's judiciously applied!), but I feel like that's been around as long as the DIY movement has.
 
The1True said:
Maybe it's something to do with procedural generation? There is an awful lot of that (and I'm a fan when it's judiciously applied!), but I feel like that's been around as long as the DIY movement has.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought of that!

That fits---and is also barking up the wrong tree. That's not at the heart of the new/old difference.

It's appropriately gauged challenge defined by:
  1. Not being an idiot DM who tries to kill the party...but just a dangerous world that has the potential for lethality if not approached cautiously.
  2. Not giving the players what they want. No pandering to wish fulfillment. The opportunity exists for success, but you have to work for it, and it's almost never 100% complete or without caveats/cost. There is always something more, frustratingly out of reach.
  3. Putting in the hard work as DM to create a campaign world with many, many layers where just about anything is possible if you search long and hard enough, as well as dynamic enough it keeps the players generally on the back-foot and out of their comfort zone. The DM does not fabricate a a story, he/she just constructs an environment and moves around the scenery.

Good rule-sets support this. Bad edition rules almost always break #2. If your D&D game lacks the push-pull balance of the real world, it will not engage a human being for very long---we are too well made to fit this world and none other.

#3 is hard---there are no short-cuts, procedural or otherwise. Good DMs are like pro-athletes...few have the stamina and discipline to function at the required level. Anthony Huso comes to mind as a pro willing to put in the sweat so that his players have a great time and that the classic game "works".
 
squeen said:
Not giving the players what they want.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, my bros and I are at least partially in it for the wish fulfilment. We're not alone in this, and it's been around as long as I can remember playing the game.
Obviously there's a difference between adolescent power-fantasy shit like letting your friend stomp around in a Glitter Boy suit in Rifts or drive a big-rig with a naval cannon bolted to the trailer in Car Wars vs more adult hopes and dreams; but if my player writes an intention to rule a kingdom or ascend to demi-godhood in a glorious apotheosis, or just wield the Holy Avenger in service of justice etc. into his character, I'm going to help them work steadily and noticeably towards that goal.
The real world sucks. It is arbitrary and unfair. A gameworld does not have to be. Things have meaning. Getting rewarded for great deeds is deeply satisfying. A little stress from the DM is awesome. The odd death and TPK where appropriate is excellent. A constant 'them's the breaks' real-world grind is not.
 
The1True said:
Maybe it's something to do with procedural generation? There is an awful lot of that (and I'm a fan when it's judiciously applied!), but I feel like that's been around as long as the DIY movement has.
Click to expand...
squeen said:
I hadn't thought of that!

That fits---and is also barking up the wrong tree. That's not at the heart of the new/old difference.

It's appropriately gauged challenge defined by:
  1. Not being an idiot DM who tries to kill the party...but just a dangerous world that has the potential for lethality if not approached cautiously.
  2. Not giving the players what they want. No pandering to wish fulfillment. The opportunity exists for success, but you have to work for it, and it's almost never 100% complete or without caveats/cost. There is always something more, frustratingly out of reach.
  3. Putting in the hard work as DM to create a campaign world with many, many layers where just about anything is possible if you search long and hard enough, as well as dynamic enough it keeps the players generally on the back-foot and out of their comfort zone. The DM does not fabricate a a story, he/she just constructs an environment and moves around the scenery.

Good rule-sets support this. Bad edition rules almost always break #2. If your D&D game lacks the push-pull balance of the real world, it will not engage a human being for very long---we are too well made to fit this world and none other.

#3 is hard---there are no short-cuts, procedural or otherwise. Good DMs are like pro-athletes...few have the stamina and discipline to function at the required level. Anthony Huso comes to mind as a pro willing to put in the sweat so that his players have a great time and that the classic game "works".
Click to expand...
@squeen, you probably shouldn't make assumptions that @Pseudoephedrine is wrong until he clarifies the term. I note that 1e is pretty procedure heavy - a good example is the surprise/initiative/combat phase procedure, but also grappling, morale, combat positioning (flank, rear, etc.), disengaging from combat, running away, finding and hiring henchmen, overland travel rules, airborne travel rules, waterborne travel rules, etc., etc.

Here is a quote from the site @Pseudoephedrine linked:
What does that mean? Well, it means that the rules you need to play Errant are simple to understand and minimal. At its core, the basic mechanic is to simply roll a twenty-sided die and try to get a result that’s in between two numbers (“roll high under” or “blackjack”) to resolve tasks.

However, Errant has a number of procedures that are designed to help you navigate different play situations in fair and interesting ways. Want to know how to run an exciting chase scene, or establish a fried cockatrice restaurant, or sue a demon for emotional negligence? Errant has procedures that can help you do that!

Procedures are not rules, but neither are they vague, general guidance. They provide a framework to structure the game, and can be adjusted, ignored, hacked, mangled, broken, stolen, or seasoned to taste.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much defines it.
 
I wasn't imply he was wrong...just being pessimistic that the emphasis was on target for the desired result.
 
Now I want to sue a demon for emotional negligence...

actually reminds me of an ex-girlfriend now that I think about it...
 
I hate to say it, but this sounds a lot like having a core mechanic and a robust and flexible action resolution system.

(Actually, I don't hate to say it.)
 
Wanted to add this teaser from the Errant kickstarter, which reveals an aesthetic I think a lot of you will appreciate:
You have no home.

You have no job.

You have no friends.

You have no family.

You have no prospects.

What you do have are a particular set of skills, the kind that make respectable folks avoid you, a handful of pennies, and a suitably blithe disregard for your own life.

Out there, beyond civilization, lies danger: monsters and magic and ancient ruins pregnant with treasure. Death is likely, but what did you have to live for anyway? At least out there is the chance to make something of yourself, and maybe even get back at those who wronged you.

Surely, this is no life for decent folk. But you’re not decent folk. You are an Errant.
Click to expand...
 
The1True said:
Could you remind me what proceduralism is?
Click to expand...

Gus posted his take on it today. Marcia posted her take on it about a month ago. Their takes aren't identical, nor are they quite what Ava means when she describes Errant as "rules light, procedure heavy" but all three of them are expressing slightly different takes on a shared idea. That idea is that using what Beoric IMHO accurately describes as "a robust and flexible action resolution system" allows one to structure play in ways that give it a distinct feel.

One of the outcomes of their focus on procedure is meaningful decisions because the procedures provide a clear sense of what the system is or isn't sensitive to. Another is that it allows both players and DMs to accurately gauge the difficulty and thus challenge of different kinds of tasks, aiding people to develop a well-structured progression of challenge.

Also, some elaboration on the BrOSR/MachOSR both which sound satirical - Like the kind of epithet I would slap on some of the more regressive things I've seen written hereabouts - would be appreciated...
Click to expand...

The BrOSR is half 3/10 tedious joke, half serious, unfortunately. If you're familiar with Jeffro Johnson, he's effectively the leader of a group who are mostly active on Twitter. A brief summary of what they see as the pillars of "correct" play are available here. I find some of their ideas interesting, but the way they express them much less interesting.
 
I think the #BroOSR will probably give AD&D an even worse rep than it already enjoys.

Ay-ay-ay! If there's a way to screw things up, someone will find it. Why do we do this to ourselves?

Semtembrini talks about Jeffro at the beginning of the podcast he did with Prince---which I did enjoy.

On Gus' post, I see it as a very verbose attempt for the OSR to save-face on the fact that they grossly underestimated the value of elements of AD&D that they scoffed at and abandoned for "rule lite" alternatives---only to find out that rules-lite (and Trad play) has a very limited self-life.

The youngsters will now re-wind the clock, and make it clear that the reason they misunderstood and got OD&D/AD&D wrong was not THEIR fault (due to inexperience) but was, in fact, Gygax's (once again) for not explaining it well enough. All the dang self-satisfied grognards who blissfully ignored all the post-Gygax TSR/WotC blunders and the nu-OSR "innovations" to merrily continue playing AD&D, can now shut up about "understanding the spirit of the game" because NOW (DAMN IT!) we are finally going to codify these "classic-play procedures" and isolate all that stinkin' nerd culture once and for all...so that it can be bottled, dissected, and ultimately altered (once again) by this generation (the only one that matters, not all those dead ones!). This time the secret-sauce shall be canned (so that it may be properly disposed)!

Too cynical?
 
Last edited:
Pseudoephedrine said:
The BrOSR is half 3/10 tedious joke, half serious, unfortunately. If you're familiar with Jeffro Johnson, he's effectively the leader of a group who are mostly active on Twitter. A brief summary of what they see as the pillars of "correct" play are available here. I find some of their ideas interesting, but the way they express them much less interesting.
Click to expand...
Wait, the post you linked to isn't meant to be a parody? Just, wow.
 
I just read Brenden's post Psuedo just linked and also his latest "The Confucius Maneuver". Coupled with Gus' post, I am seeing that there is a serious angst in the generation that came to D&D this millennium about the hobby's past.

Is it all stemming from the fact that Trad play got it so wrong, and the (original) OSR was such a blast of cold water to the head? Is the current generation still undergoing some sort of psychotherapy for that trauma---that their notion of D&D had morphed and was is some way disconnected from the original style of play? There was a sort of denial phase (classic play never existed), and now some sort of weird overly-scholar-ish dissection via the nom-du-jour of "proceduralism"? Is this game really that hard to learn, such that it needs to be diced up so finely?

All the while, the undercurrent of Gygax-as-villian lurks beneath the posts...because to allow otherwise, permits some sort of nebulous generational "other side" to "win" a one-sided argument? A mass Oedipus Complex?

(shakes head) This is all getting too weird. The joy of the just playing D&D is nowhere in any of this that I can see.
 
Pseudoephedrine said:
If you're familiar with Jeffro Johnson, he's effectively the leader of a group who are mostly active on Twitter. A brief summary of what they see as the pillars of "correct" play are available here. I find some of their ideas interesting, but the way they express them much less interesting.
Click to expand...
We've seen how this "leadership" role plays out in the OSR social-media space before...haven't we?

Has anyone tried pulling on "Jeffro's" hair to see if he's Zak wearing a latex mask?
 
Last edited:
Beoric said:
Wait, the post you linked to isn't meant to be a parody? Just, wow.
Click to expand...

I think Jeffro is half-joking. That is, I think he believes all of his points and positions, but adopts a consciously confrontational, and obnoxious personality in his interactions and writing because he thinks it's funny. I'd compare it to John Tarnowski's original Pundit persona, and expect it to go in a similar direction over time, towards the persona consuming the real person underneath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top