Episode 9 of the podcast is here! For this one, Doyle Tavener joins us to talk about the OSR. I think you’re going to really like it.
I’ll tag in some of the other designers later, but Matt Finch figures prominently here.
Enjoy!
Episode 9 of the podcast is here!
Episode 9 of the podcast is here!
Also, we would be grateful if people helped signal boost this episode a bit, particularly to the OSR communities you may be a part of.
Also, we would be grateful if people helped signal boost this episode a bit, particularly to the OSR communities you may be a part of.
Episode 9: The Mysteries of the Grognard. I’m really looking forward to this one!
Episode 9: The Mysteries of the Grognard. I’m really looking forward to this one!
Somewhat unrelated, but I just checked the download stats, and the episode I consider to be the best one (Episode 6) is also the one with the least downloads. What a shame.
Seriously – Over 100 people were like “Eh, I’ll skip that one.”
Somewhat unrelated, but I just checked the download stats, and the episode I consider to be the best one (Episode 6) is also the one with the least downloads. What a shame.
Seriously – Over 100 people were like “Eh, I’ll skip that one.”
I made one serious error; I forgot to mention the place that bloggers have had in the OSR, especially guys like James Maliszewski, Zak Smith, Jeff Rients and Philotomy Jurament, to name just a few among many, many voices. I hope you will forgive my lapse.
I made one serious error; I forgot to mention the place that bloggers have had in the OSR, especially guys like James Maliszewski, Zak Smith, Jeff Rients and Philotomy Jurament, to name just a few among many, many voices. I hope you will forgive my lapse.
Doyle Tavener Good save. I certainly don’t want The Gauntlet to be on Zak’s bad side, haha.
Also, to be fair, we only had so much time, and I liked the episode’s focus on ‘the basics’ of the OSR.
Doyle Tavener Good save. I certainly don’t want The Gauntlet to be on Zak’s bad side, haha.
Also, to be fair, we only had so much time, and I liked the episode’s focus on ‘the basics’ of the OSR.
Jason Cordova Episode 6 was a really good one actually. Maybe it was the content title that people assumed “this isn’t really applicable to me as I don’t plan to build a community of gamers”?
Jason Cordova Episode 6 was a really good one actually. Maybe it was the content title that people assumed “this isn’t really applicable to me as I don’t plan to build a community of gamers”?
Sean Smith That’s kind of what I figured.
Sean Smith That’s kind of what I figured.
Good episode! But I give up. I think I’ll just have to play in an OSR game in order to get it.
Also, why are there so many different OSR games? I understand if they’re going for different things–like, this one’s first edition, this one’s AD&D, this one’s 2nd ed or whatever. But of the ones that are all based more or less on the same edition: Do they play significantly differently? Do they have different focuses (foci?)?
Good episode! But I give up. I think I’ll just have to play in an OSR game in order to get it.
Also, why are there so many different OSR games? I understand if they’re going for different things–like, this one’s first edition, this one’s AD&D, this one’s 2nd ed or whatever. But of the ones that are all based more or less on the same edition: Do they play significantly differently? Do they have different focuses (foci?)?
It may be desirable to run a series of OSR games to see the difference (or it may not). Yes, they do each have a slightly different focus, but it’s more along the lines different flavors of ice creams than, say, different flavors of chocolate ice cream.
It may be desirable to run a series of OSR games to see the difference (or it may not). Yes, they do each have a slightly different focus, but it’s more along the lines different flavors of ice creams than, say, different flavors of chocolate ice cream.
As for the ones based on the same edition – I would say It’s like listening to different mixes of the same Fatboy Slim song, if you only listened to it once or twice, you might not hear the difference between the different mixes.
As for the ones based on the same edition – I would say It’s like listening to different mixes of the same Fatboy Slim song, if you only listened to it once or twice, you might not hear the difference between the different mixes.
A fun episode. I have long sought to understand the OSR movement (I’ve been playing since 1st edition, though I really picked up steam in 2nd, and I just don’t get it). Most of my experience with proponents have been very negative. Maybe I encountered a vocal 2% but they have been some of the worst encounters in the gaming community I have had. OSR to me has become synonymous with closed mindedness, low production values, crunch rules, cheapness, and abject rejection of anything newer then 1988. While I LOVE the spirit of OSR, and you guys seemed to be focusing on that part, my experience has been anything but what you have described. Am I just unlucky in this regard or has anyone else had any experience like this?
The only product from the OSR movement that really spoke to me was LofFP which I find interesting. I’m not precisely sure why that is but I didn’t think most really counted it as true OSR. So many opinions out there about what is and what isn’t OSR which is what is so damn frustrating about trying to get to the heart of it. The podcast described OSR as I have heard it told but I have never witnessed. To me, it is something elusive and I have not found anything definitive. It is like trying to find Sasquatch.
A fun episode. I have long sought to understand the OSR movement (I’ve been playing since 1st edition, though I really picked up steam in 2nd, and I just don’t get it). Most of my experience with proponents have been very negative. Maybe I encountered a vocal 2% but they have been some of the worst encounters in the gaming community I have had. OSR to me has become synonymous with closed mindedness, low production values, crunch rules, cheapness, and abject rejection of anything newer then 1988. While I LOVE the spirit of OSR, and you guys seemed to be focusing on that part, my experience has been anything but what you have described. Am I just unlucky in this regard or has anyone else had any experience like this?
The only product from the OSR movement that really spoke to me was LofFP which I find interesting. I’m not precisely sure why that is but I didn’t think most really counted it as true OSR. So many opinions out there about what is and what isn’t OSR which is what is so damn frustrating about trying to get to the heart of it. The podcast described OSR as I have heard it told but I have never witnessed. To me, it is something elusive and I have not found anything definitive. It is like trying to find Sasquatch.
Sean Smith I’m guessing you meant anything newer* than 1988 in your comment.
I haven’t personally had any negative experiences with OSR people, but I also haven’t had that many interactions with them. I’m aware of a few outspoken characters who might be giving the movement a bad name. Those same characters have certainly never treated the story game movement as fairly and thoughtfully as we did the OSR in this episode. Still, I’d like to think they are the exception and not the rule. As with most internet spaces, the trolls always rise to the top, you know?
I’m fond of the OSR aesthetic. As mentioned on the cast, I own tons of stuff for LotFP and DCC. Zak Smith always gets some of my money, because I think his stuff is terrific (even if I have to hold my nose while paying for it). And I really enjoy the One Page Dungeon contest, the work of Dyson Logos, and others.
Am I willing to dive in completely on OSR? Probably not, but I’m happy to dabble here and there, and when I choose to do so, it will be great. My Carcosa campaign, for example, is probably one of the most memorable things we have ever done as a gaming community. But I don’t think I’d want to do it all the time. There are too many stories I want to tell, in too many genres, and the OSR feels limiting.
Sean Smith I’m guessing you meant anything newer* than 1988 in your comment.
I haven’t personally had any negative experiences with OSR people, but I also haven’t had that many interactions with them. I’m aware of a few outspoken characters who might be giving the movement a bad name. Those same characters have certainly never treated the story game movement as fairly and thoughtfully as we did the OSR in this episode. Still, I’d like to think they are the exception and not the rule. As with most internet spaces, the trolls always rise to the top, you know?
I’m fond of the OSR aesthetic. As mentioned on the cast, I own tons of stuff for LotFP and DCC. Zak Smith always gets some of my money, because I think his stuff is terrific (even if I have to hold my nose while paying for it). And I really enjoy the One Page Dungeon contest, the work of Dyson Logos, and others.
Am I willing to dive in completely on OSR? Probably not, but I’m happy to dabble here and there, and when I choose to do so, it will be great. My Carcosa campaign, for example, is probably one of the most memorable things we have ever done as a gaming community. But I don’t think I’d want to do it all the time. There are too many stories I want to tell, in too many genres, and the OSR feels limiting.
Yep; I fixed my error 🙂
I thought that might be the case because at it’s heart it seems like something that should be good. I guess I have just been unfortunate. I am familiar with everything you mentioned in your post and I agree with you; I guess I have maybe just be interacting with grognards and not really true representations of the group. I find a certain reassurance in that as it is the one sour note in what I believe is the greatest hobby in the world.
Yep; I fixed my error 🙂
I thought that might be the case because at it’s heart it seems like something that should be good. I guess I have just been unfortunate. I am familiar with everything you mentioned in your post and I agree with you; I guess I have maybe just be interacting with grognards and not really true representations of the group. I find a certain reassurance in that as it is the one sour note in what I believe is the greatest hobby in the world.
/snark_on
Yes, it’s called role-playing.
/snark_off
OK, Here’s the serious answer. How can D&D deal with social conflict without mechanics to support it? This question relies on two underlying yet flawed assumptions 1) that there exist no mechanics to deal with social conflict in the original versions of the game and 2) there have to be mechanics in order to deal with social conflict.
In Original Dungeons & Dragons, as well as in Basic/Expert/BECMI and 1st Edition, there is this mechanic called the reaction roll. You roll some dice and add a modifier based on your Charisma. If you succeed, the person/monster you have just met/negotiated with acts favorably toward you. If you fail, he/she/it is less than impressed, and acts accordingly. With this mechanic, used liberally with some house rules on the side, is in fact a social conflict mechanic.
One of the principles of the old-school movement that I didn’t get to talk about much is the idea of player skill, not character sheet skill. That is, there are plenty of situations where challenges can be resolved through the player simply describing or role-playing what their character is doing, rather than relying on some mechanic in the rules. If I need to get Baron Dunbar to send troops to Morden, then maybe I, Doyle, can be charming (or logical, or emotional) enough during a role-playing session to get him to agree.
It’s up to the GM/DM/Referee to decide which is more appropriate, based on the circumstance, her evaluation of player skill, and her belief of what would be more fun. Maybe she and the player role play it out, and then give a modifier based on the player’s performance, Maybe she has decided ahead of time what the Baron will say.
You might object “This is gross hand-waving!” Well, if that means the DM using their judgment about what is in the best interest in having fun, well, yeah, maybe it is. But it’s only a bad thing if she is wrong, and the players don’t have a good time.
Right?
/snark_on
Yes, it’s called role-playing.
/snark_off
OK, Here’s the serious answer. How can D&D deal with social conflict without mechanics to support it? This question relies on two underlying yet flawed assumptions 1) that there exist no mechanics to deal with social conflict in the original versions of the game and 2) there have to be mechanics in order to deal with social conflict.
In Original Dungeons & Dragons, as well as in Basic/Expert/BECMI and 1st Edition, there is this mechanic called the reaction roll. You roll some dice and add a modifier based on your Charisma. If you succeed, the person/monster you have just met/negotiated with acts favorably toward you. If you fail, he/she/it is less than impressed, and acts accordingly. With this mechanic, used liberally with some house rules on the side, is in fact a social conflict mechanic.
One of the principles of the old-school movement that I didn’t get to talk about much is the idea of player skill, not character sheet skill. That is, there are plenty of situations where challenges can be resolved through the player simply describing or role-playing what their character is doing, rather than relying on some mechanic in the rules. If I need to get Baron Dunbar to send troops to Morden, then maybe I, Doyle, can be charming (or logical, or emotional) enough during a role-playing session to get him to agree.
It’s up to the GM/DM/Referee to decide which is more appropriate, based on the circumstance, her evaluation of player skill, and her belief of what would be more fun. Maybe she and the player role play it out, and then give a modifier based on the player’s performance, Maybe she has decided ahead of time what the Baron will say.
You might object “This is gross hand-waving!” Well, if that means the DM using their judgment about what is in the best interest in having fun, well, yeah, maybe it is. But it’s only a bad thing if she is wrong, and the players don’t have a good time.
Right?
Doyle Tavener If we had gotten into player skill vs. character sheet skill on the cast, I would have actually had something to say!
Doesn’t relying on player skill essentially mean that if you’re not a eloquent and/or clever person in real life, you might as well not even bother trying to play an eloquent and/or clever character in game?
Not to mention the opposite issue where the barbarian with 3 charisma winds up being the face of the party because he’s being played by someone who, like, talks real good.
Doyle Tavener If we had gotten into player skill vs. character sheet skill on the cast, I would have actually had something to say!
Doesn’t relying on player skill essentially mean that if you’re not a eloquent and/or clever person in real life, you might as well not even bother trying to play an eloquent and/or clever character in game?
Not to mention the opposite issue where the barbarian with 3 charisma winds up being the face of the party because he’s being played by someone who, like, talks real good.
Alright, since I was snarky earlier, let me be a little honest here.
This was a serious issue with at least one of my regular players when I attempted to switch over to an OSR-style game. The individual in question was not a bubbling font of gab, and perhaps as a consequence, more attracted to building characters that could, as we used to say, “…point-fuck…” the rules.
When I switched games on him to something that he really uncomfortable with, he decided to stop playing, because he didn’t think he could have fun anymore.
I very much wished he would have stayed, and been able to articulate what I had to suss out over time. Because, fundamentally, I would have done anything I could to make feel comfortable and happy at the table.
And that’s the flipside to the not actively relying on rules for your outcomes at the table: there is no one to blame but yourself (the GM) if things go wrong.
.And there were thing I could have done. I could have figured out a way to give him a high modifier to social rolls on the reaction chart I mentioned earlier, and glossed over the role playing when it came time for him to speak in character to others. This doesn’t mean talking for him, either, but allow him to extend himself just as much as I think was enjoyable and then gloss over the rest of it and roll some dice.
And, in fact, this is just the sort of technique I use for my player who does have the gift of the gab – I remind him to play his character in such a way that accentuates annoying aspects of his low charisma character and I always ask for the reaction roll to determine how successful his persuasion is. In essence, I set the bar a little higher for him than I would others.
And this is the sum and substance of most of my OSR-based advice, which I think useful to running any sort of RPG: always adjust for circumstance, and use a rule set that allows one to easily do so.
Alright, since I was snarky earlier, let me be a little honest here.
This was a serious issue with at least one of my regular players when I attempted to switch over to an OSR-style game. The individual in question was not a bubbling font of gab, and perhaps as a consequence, more attracted to building characters that could, as we used to say, “…point-fuck…” the rules.
When I switched games on him to something that he really uncomfortable with, he decided to stop playing, because he didn’t think he could have fun anymore.
I very much wished he would have stayed, and been able to articulate what I had to suss out over time. Because, fundamentally, I would have done anything I could to make feel comfortable and happy at the table.
And that’s the flipside to the not actively relying on rules for your outcomes at the table: there is no one to blame but yourself (the GM) if things go wrong.
.And there were thing I could have done. I could have figured out a way to give him a high modifier to social rolls on the reaction chart I mentioned earlier, and glossed over the role playing when it came time for him to speak in character to others. This doesn’t mean talking for him, either, but allow him to extend himself just as much as I think was enjoyable and then gloss over the rest of it and roll some dice.
And, in fact, this is just the sort of technique I use for my player who does have the gift of the gab – I remind him to play his character in such a way that accentuates annoying aspects of his low charisma character and I always ask for the reaction roll to determine how successful his persuasion is. In essence, I set the bar a little higher for him than I would others.
And this is the sum and substance of most of my OSR-based advice, which I think useful to running any sort of RPG: always adjust for circumstance, and use a rule set that allows one to easily do so.
Well, Mark Siwel, it was a snarky joke, and not meant to be taken that seriously.
That said, what would you consider a game with good social mechanics? For the purposes of discussion, let’s say Dungeon World, even though that might not be the game you would suggest (and I still want to hear your suggestion).
In a Dungeon World game, let’s say an NPC, Oberon, Lord of the Faerie, must be persuaded to withdraw his vendetta against a human lord, in order to get the nobleman to go along with something the Players want to have happen.
The bard approaches Oberon in the Faerie court, and tries to persuade him to leave off his vengeance. This triggers the Parley Move. the player rolls 2d6+Cha (say +2 for a high stat?) the average is 9 but our imaginary player rolls an 8 or a total of 10, and persuades the Faerie king to forgiveness. If our bard had rolled the average and gotten a score of 9, then perhaps Oberon would been persuaded only if the players gave up their own vendetta against the assassin Moiras.
Let’s replay that scene in original D&D, shall we?
The bard approaches Oberon in the Faerie court, and tries to persuade him to leave off his vengeance. The DM decides to use the reaction roll table. The player rolls 2d6 (+2 for a charisma of 18) the average is 9 but our imaginary player rolls an 8 or a total of 10, and persuades the Faerie king to forgiveness. If our bard had rolled below the average and gotten a score of 8 or 9, that would indicate a failure.The GM then decides that Oberon will be persuaded only if the players gave up their own vendetta against the assassin Moiras.
Did ya notice any difference there? OK, it’s a coincidence that the reaction roll and the Move use the same dice mechanics, roughly. A more important distinction was that in the latter example, the DM had to to make positive decisions to use and interpret the rules he had in order to make the game more interesting and fun, while in the first example the rules spelled it out a little more.
Jason Cordova, among others, insist that we need better rules. I think we need better GMs, and better players, which is why I think the Gauntlet is so cool. The more you play, the better you get.
Well, Mark Siwel, it was a snarky joke, and not meant to be taken that seriously.
That said, what would you consider a game with good social mechanics? For the purposes of discussion, let’s say Dungeon World, even though that might not be the game you would suggest (and I still want to hear your suggestion).
In a Dungeon World game, let’s say an NPC, Oberon, Lord of the Faerie, must be persuaded to withdraw his vendetta against a human lord, in order to get the nobleman to go along with something the Players want to have happen.
The bard approaches Oberon in the Faerie court, and tries to persuade him to leave off his vengeance. This triggers the Parley Move. the player rolls 2d6+Cha (say +2 for a high stat?) the average is 9 but our imaginary player rolls an 8 or a total of 10, and persuades the Faerie king to forgiveness. If our bard had rolled the average and gotten a score of 9, then perhaps Oberon would been persuaded only if the players gave up their own vendetta against the assassin Moiras.
Let’s replay that scene in original D&D, shall we?
The bard approaches Oberon in the Faerie court, and tries to persuade him to leave off his vengeance. The DM decides to use the reaction roll table. The player rolls 2d6 (+2 for a charisma of 18) the average is 9 but our imaginary player rolls an 8 or a total of 10, and persuades the Faerie king to forgiveness. If our bard had rolled below the average and gotten a score of 8 or 9, that would indicate a failure.The GM then decides that Oberon will be persuaded only if the players gave up their own vendetta against the assassin Moiras.
Did ya notice any difference there? OK, it’s a coincidence that the reaction roll and the Move use the same dice mechanics, roughly. A more important distinction was that in the latter example, the DM had to to make positive decisions to use and interpret the rules he had in order to make the game more interesting and fun, while in the first example the rules spelled it out a little more.
Jason Cordova, among others, insist that we need better rules. I think we need better GMs, and better players, which is why I think the Gauntlet is so cool. The more you play, the better you get.
Here’s the rules I mention, from Men & Magic, pg 12 You will note the original rules are meant to determine if a NPC or monster enters the service of a player character, and have to be adapted to use the rule for negotiation outside of that context, but the general nature of the table practically begs for the rule to be used in this way.
The monster will react, with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma:
Dice Score
2
3-5
6-8
9-11
12
Reaction
Attempts to attack
Hostile reaction
Uncertain
Accepts offer
Enthusiast, Loyalty +3
An “Uncertain” reaction leaves the door open to additional reward offers, but scores under 6 do not.
Here’s the rules I mention, from Men & Magic, pg 12 You will note the original rules are meant to determine if a NPC or monster enters the service of a player character, and have to be adapted to use the rule for negotiation outside of that context, but the general nature of the table practically begs for the rule to be used in this way.
The monster will react, with appropriate plusses or minuses, according to the offer, the referee rolling two six-sided dice and adjusting for charisma:
Dice Score
2
3-5
6-8
9-11
12
Reaction
Attempts to attack
Hostile reaction
Uncertain
Accepts offer
Enthusiast, Loyalty +3
An “Uncertain” reaction leaves the door open to additional reward offers, but scores under 6 do not.
Finally, there is a way to ‘role play it out’ in combat in OSR games. It’s called stunting.
As I mention in the podcast, one of the things that the DCC RPG does is to make explicit, with simple rules, what should be happening all the time. During stunting (or Mighty Deeds, the name for stunting in that rules set) a player describes something cool that gets incorporated into his attack mechanic.
That’s when role playing (or narrative flair, if you prefer), comes into play in combat. This can be easily incorporated into any genre where this sort of stunting is appropriate, once you get the hang of it.
Finally, there is a way to ‘role play it out’ in combat in OSR games. It’s called stunting.
As I mention in the podcast, one of the things that the DCC RPG does is to make explicit, with simple rules, what should be happening all the time. During stunting (or Mighty Deeds, the name for stunting in that rules set) a player describes something cool that gets incorporated into his attack mechanic.
That’s when role playing (or narrative flair, if you prefer), comes into play in combat. This can be easily incorporated into any genre where this sort of stunting is appropriate, once you get the hang of it.
Doyle Tavener Let me assure you there are some players who don’t get any better, no matter how many games you play with them.
Good GMs and good players always make a game better. I think what I and others are talking about is how a solid ruleset establishes a floor, not a ceiling. The Final Girl is my favorite example here. I have played it at least twenty times, with players of varying skill levels, and it is always fun. The game’s rules have a certain amount of fun baked in (quick pace of play; funny and fast character creation; a steady story progression; and so forth). Is it better with more highly skilled players? Of course it is. But there is a ground floor below which you cannot fall
A bad ruleset, on the other hand, will always lower the ceiling. If you have to spend time pouring over the rulebook in the middle of the game to figure out how things work, you are automatically lowering the amount of fun anyone is having at the table. If your game is slowly paced because you have to engage with an onerous initiative system, or because the spotlight player can’t figure out the various parts of his character sheet, people are definitely having less fun. Good GMs and good players can only, at best, stop the ceiling from being lowered too much.
Doyle Tavener Let me assure you there are some players who don’t get any better, no matter how many games you play with them.
Good GMs and good players always make a game better. I think what I and others are talking about is how a solid ruleset establishes a floor, not a ceiling. The Final Girl is my favorite example here. I have played it at least twenty times, with players of varying skill levels, and it is always fun. The game’s rules have a certain amount of fun baked in (quick pace of play; funny and fast character creation; a steady story progression; and so forth). Is it better with more highly skilled players? Of course it is. But there is a ground floor below which you cannot fall
A bad ruleset, on the other hand, will always lower the ceiling. If you have to spend time pouring over the rulebook in the middle of the game to figure out how things work, you are automatically lowering the amount of fun anyone is having at the table. If your game is slowly paced because you have to engage with an onerous initiative system, or because the spotlight player can’t figure out the various parts of his character sheet, people are definitely having less fun. Good GMs and good players can only, at best, stop the ceiling from being lowered too much.
As a counter question, Jason Cordova , would you rather play Burning Wheel with the late Rob, or Dungeon World with Spiffy McSpiff, Archetypal Bad Player?
As a counter question, Jason Cordova , would you rather play Burning Wheel with the late Rob, or Dungeon World with Spiffy McSpiff, Archetypal Bad Player?
Doyle Tavener Is Spiffy a jerk, or is he just an unskilled player? If it’s the latter, I choose DW, because it might help him get better, and that’s a game I like to run.
Doyle Tavener Is Spiffy a jerk, or is he just an unskilled player? If it’s the latter, I choose DW, because it might help him get better, and that’s a game I like to run.
If Spiffy is a jerk, I just kick him out of the Gauntlet and then wonder why the fuck Rob wants to play Burning Wheel.
If Spiffy is a jerk, I just kick him out of the Gauntlet and then wonder why the fuck Rob wants to play Burning Wheel.
OK, your rhetorical skills have defeated me. I will say no more on this subject.
But as a consolation prize, when is my Call of Cthulhu Delta Green scenario scheduled for? Daniel Lewis?
OK, your rhetorical skills have defeated me. I will say no more on this subject.
But as a consolation prize, when is my Call of Cthulhu Delta Green scenario scheduled for? Daniel Lewis?
Burning Bakers would be the best Burning Wheel campaign ever. And I totally think it was intentional that Luke put those skills in there.
Burning Bakers would be the best Burning Wheel campaign ever. And I totally think it was intentional that Luke put those skills in there.