The state of Post-OSR content

squeen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gus started playing D&D in 1981, so I don't think the generational theory holds a lot of water. I started in 1991, and am also interested in Proceduralism's insights. Brendan and Marcia are newer, but are truthfully two different generations of gamers - Brendan started sometime in the late 2000s / very early 2010s. Marcia is in her early 20s right now and has been playing games for a few years as I understand it. There are many other people with widely varying amounts of experience involved in procedural work right now.

This is literally just what an intellectual revival looks like. People take up the past, irreverently analyse it, and then take it in new directions using the intellectual tools they're familiar with. I think part of the problem you're running into here is conflating many different takes and opinions held by many different people and then trying to propose some psychological explanation for the incoherence rather than realising it's an epistemic scope.

Very few "proceduralists" would, for example, claim that "classic play never existed". Brendan, Gus, Marcia, etc. would probably say something like "Trad playstyles typically discard or downplay procedures, this style eventually becomes encoded in texts, new generations picking up these texts don't have any access to the original procedures they were written in implicit contrast to, and thus don't think of these procedures" (Gus in fact does say basically this in his essay).
 
Gus' quote (from Marx) which he took for the name of his new blog, is what always gets me thinking along these lines.

Clearly I am alone in my distaste for this intellectual skullduggery/wankery---I'll shut my yap. Enjoy. :)
 
Last edited:
I used to know how to load and rewind one of those badboys.

I'm unfortunately missing the joke however...
 
Head-aching.

nuOSR I am familiar with as a term.

What does the "br" in brOSR even stand for?

Sorry to get stuck on a little thing. If I can get around this, I may be able to spend the mental energy learning more.
 
The1True said:
It seemed pretty moderate and non-confrontational to me. Not sure how you can take issue with his post...
Click to expand...
Oh no! I am not saying Psuedo said anything wrong in his reply...I just saw that you, Beroic & Johann were also into it (and I was not)...so I was bowing out of the Proceduralism discussion.

No harm, no foul from my point of view---I just thought the topic (in the linked posts) was idiotic

I do appreciate Pseudo making me aware of the latest insanity.

And sorry @Beoric, the picture-reference was lost on me too. Maybe---"someone is projecting"?
(FWIW, my Dad and I have always gotten along great. ;))
 
Last edited:
Beoric said:
My sense is it stands for the same thing as in "crypto bro".
Click to expand...

This is broadly my understanding as well. The "BrOSR" has sub-branches that call themselves "MachOSR", "VatOSR", and "TyrannOSR" and various other mid-tier jokes. Jeffro goes around calling anyone who disagrees with him a "creepy nerd" and casting aspersions on their ability to lift weights or do whatever else. It's got that tryhard feel that a lot of the contemporary public performance of masculinity does (I suspect the BrOSR overlaps with the target audience for testicle tanning machines and Rogaine).
 
squeen said:
(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.
Click to expand...
A creative movement dedicated to the exploration and cultivation of history shall always look uncomfortable next to one that seeks its radical abolition and thrives on its vilification. Likewise, there is no room for the classics in the class struggle.

This inherent contradiction shall never be resolved, and any time spent to this effect shall be a waste.
 
Beoric said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if so it's too shallow a procedure to suit me. 5E has a generic action resolution mechanic for example (ability check: roll a d20, add ability modifier, and compare it to target DC invented by the DM on the spot, adding proficiency bonuses for relevant skills), but it exists in a vacuum. If you want to sue a demon for emotional negligence in idiomatic 5E, it's clear that any uncertainty will be resolved by rolling an ability check and that things that give you a bonus on ability checks will be useful (Guidance, Bardic Inspiration). But it isn't clear to the player in advance:

1.) Whether there's any actual uncertainty involved or if the DM is just going to say, "No, that's impossible" or "sure, given your relationship, it works."

2.) How long it takes.

3.) What the possible outcomes are that the ability check is choosing between. Does it cost money? Will the demon have to pay money, or serve you for a time?

4.) What actions, if any, you can take to influence the possible outcomes? If you Feeblemind the demon's lawyer, do you win the case or just delay resolution?

Action resolution is the easiest part of procedural design (although even there 5E is too still simplistic to feel realistic). I'm skeptical of the value of any system that purports to be a "generic and flexible" task resolution system but contains only rules for action resolution. Contrast to something like the Mythic GM-less engine's Oracle procedure which is primarily about uncertainty resolution in the gameworld ("what reward do you get for successfully suing a demon?", "will the demon try to bribe my lawyer, or just kidnap or kill them?"), not action resolution, and still requires lots of human input to interpret its Rohrshach blot-like answers.
 
Hemlock said:
Maybe, but if so it's too shallow a procedure to suit me. 5E has a generic action resolution mechanic for example (ability check: roll a d20, add ability modifier, and compare it to target DC invented by the DM on the spot, adding proficiency bonuses for relevant skills), but it exists in a vacuum. If you want to sue a demon for emotional negligence in idiomatic 5E, it's clear that any uncertainty will be resolved by rolling an ability check and that things that give you a bonus on ability checks will be useful (Guidance, Bardic Inspiration). But it isn't clear to the player in advance:

1.) Whether there's any actual uncertainty involved or if the DM is just going to say, "No, that's impossible" or "sure, given your relationship, it works."

2.) How long it takes.

3.) What the possible outcomes are that the ability check is choosing between. Does it cost money? Will the demon have to pay money, or serve you for a time?

4.) What actions, if any, you can take to influence the possible outcomes? If you Feeblemind the demon's lawyer, do you win the case or just delay resolution?

Action resolution is the easiest part of procedural design (although even there 5E is too still simplistic to feel realistic). I'm skeptical of the value of any system that purports to be a "generic and flexible" task resolution system but contains only rules for action resolution. Contrast to something like the Mythic GM-less engine's Oracle procedure which is primarily about uncertainty resolution in the gameworld ("what reward do you get for successfully suing a demon?", "will the demon try to bribe my lawyer, or just kidnap or kill them?"), not action resolution, and still requires lots of human input to interpret its Rohrshach blot-like answers.
Click to expand...
These are all issues that should be mitigated by DM description, player questions and DM answers. To the extent that uncertainty can be mitigated, that is; in the game, as in RL, the participants usually don't have perfect access to information.

The discussion between DM and players prior to the players making a decision is, of course, a procedure, and those who use it as a matter of course forget that it is not applied universally. So perhaps I should state my assumptions:
  • DM's initial description invites questions from the players
  • DM easily gives up information that trained adventurers are likely to know/notice
  • Every situation includes at least some information from which players can draw an inference
  • If players decide to do something that seems particularly unwise, DM should take a moment to ensure that the players actually understand the situation, which may include advising of likely risks of the chosen course - for example, if a course of action will take an unusually long period of time (triggering encounter checks or other timers), is unlikely to succeed, or has serious consequences for failure
  • If DM fails to do these things, or does not communicate clearly, players will ask questions
  • If players are unable to assess the risk, the DM will say so. Uncertainty as to the risk is an additional layer of uncertainty the players will have to take into account.
Also, skill systems should provide guidelines as to what DC should be set. A DM should advise, if the character can make an assessment, whether an action is "easy", "moderate", "hard", etc., and the players should know what that word means in terms of likely DCs.
 
Yora said:
Something I just found:

The OSR Should Die

You are on my old URL! You will be redirected in 5 seconds...
chiquitafajita.blogspot.com chiquitafajita.blogspot.com
And a reply to it:
lurkerablog.wordpress.com

Have you tried ANT? A response to Marcia’s “OSR is Dead” post

I don’t usually indulge in talking about “the scene” or categories like OSR or Storygamers, but this article was so nicely and lucidly written that I couldn’t help worrying …
lurkerablog.wordpress.com lurkerablog.wordpress.com
For people with nothing else to do for the weekend.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be mean, but these sour grapes literally declare the OSR dead every year, this instance in particularly breezy, logghoreaic fashion. It is almost as if they were projecting some sort of inverted negative morality towards the hobby they pretend to inhabit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top