This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: The OSR needs to hold stance  (Read 2663 times)

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14069
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2021, 11:14:12 PM »
My point was more about WHY the OSR won't be able to take over the position of D&D if WotC were to collapse.

That's simply an issue of economics. If the Troll Lords guys win a billion dollar Powerball lottery, then Castles & Crusades could totally replace D&D. Any game company with $50M to blow on marketing could dethrone D&D. It's just not worth the ROI for anyone to try.

There is no one singular core rulebook for the OSR... each OSR game has its own slightly different core rules book and while collectively you might have some numbers, the odds of finding another table playing the exact same OSR system in the same area are pretty slim

The differences between most OSR systems are no more than codified house rules that were beyond common in the TSR days. I've run many OSR games - especially Swords & Wizardry: White Box - and more than half the time, players familiar with AD&D will just assume I'm running AD&D. For new players, they assume OSR is just a rules-light Pathfinder.

Also, since the OSR is built upon "rulings, not rules", the majority of players join for the experience, not the rules. Other than Ascending/Descending AC, most players would be hard pressed to start rattling off the rules differences between AD&D, B/X, LL, S&W, etc. Outside of the Siege Engine, most players couldn't tell you what C&C does differently than 2e or OSRIC.


EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2021, 11:39:07 PM »
To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude. 
Exclusion is the road to excellence!



This is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Wicked Woodpecker of West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • W
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2021, 05:53:22 AM »
Quote
The dividing line for Narrative / Storytelling games and Traditional RPGs is easily defined by WHEN the story happens. If the story of what happened can only be told after the RPG play is done, it's a traditional RPG.

To certain extent yes.
But only partially - I mean games called "Storytelling" (ironically enough Storyteller System do not helps Storytelling in any significant way) will have more predictable elements (as they are more bound by structure of play) but those are still RPG's, there are still rolls (or different sorts of resolutions), which mean there is still quite a lot of undpredictability. So you cannot really tell this story beforehand. Like "Blades in the Dark" - it falls under storytelling umbrella - as it means to emulate certain type of histories, and you know there has to be some SCORE - but well you don't know how score will work - what consequences shall happen, and so on.

Like Agatha Christie novel - you know there's gonna be a murder, detective and solution - but that doesn't mean you can get whudunnit before reading.

Quote
It's also easily defined by the role of the DM. In Traditional RPGs, the DM controls the world and the players dictate their characters' actions. If players can dictate what happens in the world beyond their own PC's actions, then it's a narrative/storytelling game.

No... not really. There are games that are otherwise very traditional that gives extra options to players to control enviroment/narrative for instance with exceptional successes, and there are narrative games that does not give players any specific power beyond that - as mentioned Blades in the Dark, really.

Quote
The stupidity is trying to make believe these two very different games are both RPGs.

But of course they are - they both fail under this wide, wide, wide umbrella.
You have roles you play both in FATE and in D&D you are bound to PC you created in general sense, and you're playing this character, and both are games with sets of rules allowing for your PC to achieve some goals or fail miserably in them. Some umbrellas are narrow, some are wide. RPGs are wide as hell.
You'd have to remove gaming elements - ergo conflict/trouble resolution mechanism of any sort - that is not based on DM's/players pure FIAT, to went beyond RPG elements by removing G-thing.

Quote
We can call a dozen things "rpgs", but improper and sloppy naming isn't going to make them the same.

No one wants for RPGs to be the same. They are wide category - like vehicles. I don't want my trucks and planes to be the same - yet they are all vehicles doing vehicle purpose - moving me from point A to point B.

Quote
Spell descriptions in 3e onward do not appear any more mystical, that is true, but in prior editions players did not insist to me that a poorly worded description in a spell write up should work exactly as written with a legalistic/rules lawyer/computer logic reading of such, if they a expected a spell to have an effect and you ruled a slight variation for the circumstances they did not spaz out and insist they were entitled to exactly the possible summons listed in the phb. They also never tried to diplomacy roll a king into giving up his crown or a dragon into having sexual relations and then insist if this did not occur that you'd cheated them of skill ranks. The problem was never descriptions, the problem was a mindset carried by players that had no experience with prior editions and made "builds" rather than "characters".

I have mixed feelings about it. I prefer clarity of rules, over DM fiat, but then if rules are not already clear then it's hard to be angry for GM on them.
Then I have a strong feeling most of Diplomancers simply have not read Diplomacy rules really.
I mean I read Pathfinder rules now: Diplomacy have 3 basic options here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy/ - and neither of Core options in any way allows you to diplomance King to give you your crown or seduce a dragon. The non-core options get more wonky - but well that's why they are non-core.


Quote
Except its not a new concept in any way shape or form.

Instead what you have is a new cult trying to push it as TRUE role playing. And invariably as all fanatics do. They eventually extend RPG to mean "everything on earth" and the term no longer has any meaning when they use it.

THIS is the problem. Not storygamers themselves. Its this cult that treats RPGs like a sex fetish and sets out to infiltrate and co-opt everything they can to push that agenda. And we are allready seeing the exact same thing forming in the OSR, just not as pervasive or hostile. Yet.

There may well come a time when we will be sitting here discussing how bad the OSR cult is as it co-opts and damages more and more games. Unlikely to be sure. But considering how these cults keep gaining momentum, it is still a possibility as long as we have more than a few nuts in the OSR.

Paradoxically I think important problem is D&D 5e. Which is in no way storytelling game. I mean it's less storytelling game than 4e, because 4e at least have those epic destinies and so on, which sort of forced GM to included in story and skew it a bit - as it was end-goals for PC's bound to mechanics of their advancements.
In 5e I see nothing storytelling really. No mechanics for it.

But because 5e is promoted by various hired actors and other goons, people overall, especially left-leaning drama queens get really bad ideas about it.
I do not consider what let's say Mercer do with his characters backstories and so on, to be bad per se, in fact in a way that's sort of cool - problem is of course it's in no way bound to mechanics of 5e - that's his pure fiat as GM, to create quests based on those backstories, and moments for characters to evolve in some direction. That's neither bad or good, problem is when people starts to think - that's how 5e should be played. And multiplicity of various mostly D&D shows, streams and so on makes this swamp even murkier.

Then of course SJW agenda to take over RPGS is not directly connected to it - I mean storytelling boom would happen even without SJWs because simply we have much more nerds now, much more geek stories, much more fantasy and sci-fi in mainstream, so lot of new gamers will come to gaming with promise to relive or make equally cool new stories. That would happen even without SJWs, as it's desire to fullfil certain hunger.

Quote
WTF?  I thought one true wayism is about playing games?  Not politics.  The OSR is not fundamentally anti-SJW - that's just the Pundit.  The OSR as a whole has always been fundamentally anti-political and that's what it must hold to.

Agreed.
And tbh not just OSR.

Quote
Exclusion is the road to excellence!

Intelligent Design is a road to excellence. You can say "no" and still make wonky system.

Quote
This is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".

It also openly allowed GMs to ignore any edition "no" that was written down. Which basically was like saying "no but you know really it's up to you". And so we get all other editions and D&D clones.





RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 962
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2021, 10:44:37 AM »
To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude. 
Exclusion is the road to excellence!



This is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".

Deny by default, permit by exception. That is the only way to do chargen.

In play, you can try anything, and the dice determine the outcome.

The rest is commentary.

Wicked Woodpecker of West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • W
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2021, 12:02:46 PM »
Quote
Deny by default, permit by exception. That is the only way to do chargen.

And boom - empty character sheet because by default you denied everything :P

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #65 on: February 05, 2021, 12:21:26 PM »
Some day you’ll let go of however 1E disappointed you personally, and not feel compelled to respond to every post praising it by people who use it by preference

The look isn’t quite what you imagine it to be
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Wicked Woodpecker of West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • W
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #66 on: February 05, 2021, 02:26:20 PM »
Quote
Some day you’ll let go of however 1E disappointed you personally, and not feel compelled to respond to every post praising it by people who use it by preference

Nah, just contrarian banter towards OTWs ;) Personally I've just read 1e, as I went into RPG only 15 years ago. Nevertheless read of book was enough for me.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14069
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #67 on: February 05, 2021, 07:46:17 PM »
But of course they are - they both fail under this wide, wide, wide umbrella.
You have roles you play both in FATE and in D&D you are bound to PC you created in general sense, and you're playing this character, and both are games with sets of rules allowing for your PC to achieve some goals or fail miserably in them. Some umbrellas are narrow, some are wide. RPGs are wide as hell.

By your definition, the umbrella covers everything because you are desperate for wanker PtBA bullshit to be mistaken for RPGs. How shocking. Not like we haven't seen this dance repeatedly endlessly since the earliest days of the Forge.

Definitions matter because otherwise, BitD = Soccer as both are games played by people, and surprise, surprise words become useless as anything means anything we want.

Wicked Woodpecker of West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • W
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: The OSR needs to hold stance
« Reply #68 on: February 06, 2021, 03:40:16 AM »
Quote
By your definition, the umbrella covers everything because you are desperate for wanker PtBA bullshit to be mistaken for RPGs. How shocking.

No. By my definition this umbrella covers everything where players control some fictional character and there is any mechanism to resolve conflicts/challenges such characters met by fiat of DM, or any other possible challenge-making-mechanism. And this is commonly accepted definition in 95% of RPG-world, and that's enough. Why - well because umbrella terms does not work on basic of some authistic wordplays and definition-games but based on social consensus of what given word mean. That why some words tends to change definitions every few generations.
So both Vampires true-drama LARPers claiming D&D is not true RPG but simply combat tactical boardgame, and OSR OTW-ist authist claiming PBTA is not RPG, are just fools.

And I'm in fact mostly Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu and D&D players, quite dissapointed with my Blades in the Dark trials, so believe me I have no personal love for "New Wave" even if few mechanisms of it picked my attention.

Quote
Definitions matter because otherwise, BitD = Soccer as both are games played by people, and surprise, surprise words become useless as anything means anything we want.

Yes by soccer lacks what we call role-playing which is commonly understand as well having PC, that is controled by player in fictional situation.
As I said linguistic consensus - that's how language works - even in professional dialects of philosophy, science or theology - consensus arise in time, not always concioussly often by simple custom to name certain things in certain way, often without any strict logic behind it. And it's fine. That's how it works.

Both OSRs, Warhammer, FATE, PBTA and even freaking Microscope are widely regarded as RPGs. And consensus of society decides therefore they are, and no amount of internet authists with their own tiny authistic definitions won't change it, because their internal authistic logic is not how real language, how real word works - so of course no - it cannot be anything you want, but if it's something 90% of society wants, then yes meaning changes. And it's still USEFUL, because there is still meaning behind word, even if new one, recognized by majority of society, which means it's USEFUL FOR COMMUNICATION, and that's all words are really useful for.

And in this case anyway non-simulationist narrativist games are way older than PBTA, and they were always accepted by majority as form of RPG, even if not very popular till last decade.