OSR: what is it even

[T. Foster]

I didn’t come across the term OSR until G+ but there definitely wasn’t a unified way to play in the 70’s and 80’s. Each group I played with, due to moves and whatnot, had their own style. I don’t doubt a group got together to push an “idealized” playstyle prior to G+ but it was only that, an idealized way some groups played those games.

I wrote a rant-y forum post way back in 2009 out of frustration with this mischaracterization. We made no claims back then that the playstyle we were talking about and interested in was the only (or even necessarily most common) way of playing back in the 70s-80s, but only that it was A playstyle that existed back then and mostly fell by the wayside later and that we wanted to revive it because we liked it and thought it was a good and valid way to play and deserved more attention.

As you can tell looking at that old post, I was already feeling pretty frustrated by this stuff in 2009 - at having to refute mischaracterizations and straw-man arguments and people who seemed determined not to “get” what we were trying to talk about and accomplish. That frustration (along with some creepy stalkerish behavior from some “anti-fans” of my positions) led me to effectively bow out of that conversation shortly after that, and specifically to miss out on the entire Google+ era of the OSR. Which I don’t regret - it was the right decision for me at the time - but do think it’s a shame that in that era a lot of mischaracterizations and oversimplifications and shallow misunderstandings were allowed to flourish and become dogmatic “articles of faith” in that echo chamber.

 

[lategamer]

I would not say that D&D has role enforcement. My understanding of PBtA as a generalization is that each player must pick a different playbook. NOTHING in the D&D rules prevents multiple (or all the) players from playing the same character class. Yes, each character class has a silo of abilities which suggest a role, but the fighter with a sack of healing potions might be a better healer than the cleric.

Sure. I was referring to how the roles are enforced within their role, not about the meta-rule of "only one of each type" (which is presumably because every Slider is the same as every other Slider) but then I'm showing my general distaste for PBTA now.

 

[robertsconley]

You can't select a fighter with a sack of healing potions though, can you?

Just spend all the gold you have on healing potions.

Most game are designed with the possibility of the players taking all one class but very few of them are actually designed to run well played that way.

It all in how the campaign is setup not the rules.

 

[lategamer]

Opening the "what is a sandbox" can of worms again...

We have had previous discussion here where we identified that a sandbox does NOT have edges.

Some may have agreed with that. Not everyone. I may be the lone dissenter.

The only limit on a sandbox should be what is reasonable for your character to do in the setting.

.....so I think we (you and I) agree.

 

[lategamer]

My point wasn't about the word 'enforcement', which I think has some baggage. It was that D&D, as a game, does indeed strongly mitigate for certain broad party composition choices. If you don't want to call that 'enforcement' fine, but it's there regardless. Call it informed role suggestion if that makes you feel better.

There was also encouragement in the games media to design adventures for diversity. So that not every encounter was a fight. Some would allow bards to shine, some would be in the satrapy of the thief, some required a cleric. I can understand why and I'm not throwing shade on it - I think it's a good idea. - not everything should be a fight.

But when it rubs up against the very real possibility that no-one took a cleric because "a bag of healing potions is better' and everyone dies because Turn Undead would be really fecking useful....

 

[Moracai]

It’s like the current CAG movement, that’s a way to play but definitely not the unified way people played.

Church of Almighty God?

 

[T. Foster]

Church of Almighty God?

Classic Adventure Gaming

 

[ffilz]

Some may have agreed with that. Not everyone. I may be the lone dissenter.

Well, the other option was to call what robertsconley advocates a "pure sandbox" or some such terminology. It was pretty clear that Rob advocates for unlimited freedom and that artificial walls made a campaign not what he would characterize as a sandbox. But many felt that you could have something that aspired to Rob's ideal, but had to have some concrete limitations so at least many of us gave Rob the "sandbox" without any qualifiers and suggested "qualified sandbox."

.....so I think we (you and I) agree.

But in your post that I was responding to you said:

... - but all sandboxes have edges. As a matter of consideration and good play, figure out where the edges are (the story the GM wants to tell, the limits of the ruleset, the theme) and inside those limits, do what you want.

To me any mention of "the story the GM wants to tell" suggests something that isn't a sandbox. But maybe you meant something more along the lines of "the type of campaign the GM wants to run" which might point more to a qualifier for a qualified sandbox. To me "story the GM wants to tell" suggests story structures with some ending in mind, or at least some ideal ending in mind, that might play out differently. I guess for me, even something like "We're going to play to find out if one of you can claim the throne" doesn't sound like a sandbox even if the campaign is pretty open.

 

[lategamer]

To me any mention of "the story the GM wants to tell" suggests something that isn't a sandbox. But maybe you meant something more along the lines of "the type of campaign the GM wants to run" which might point more to a qualifier for a qualified sandbox.

Possibly I meant that. But really if a GM wants to run Masks of Nyarlthotep and everyone wants to make unicorn PCs, you just end up with a pissed GM and no game that night.

To me "story the GM wants to tell" suggests story structures with some ending in mind, or at least some ideal ending in mind, that might play out differently. I guess for me, even something like "We're going to play to find out if one of you can claim the throne" doesn't sound like a sandbox even if the campaign is pretty open.

Granted. I should have been more careful with my language.

 

[lategamer]

Yeah, that was me, heh heh

BTW, I did not ignore this. I started reading it and then work people came and wanted me to talk about work things so I'm really only sitting down again to read it again. So far, I like it.

 

[sharps54]

I wrote a rant-y forum post way back in 2009 out of frustration with this mischaracterization. We made no claims back then that the playstyle we were talking about and interested in was the only (or even necessarily most common) way of playing back in the 70s-80s, but only that it was A playstyle that existed back then and mostly fell by the wayside later and that we wanted to revive it because we liked it and thought it was a good and valid way to play and deserved more attention.

As you can tell looking at that old post, I was already feeling pretty frustrated by this stuff in 2009 - at having to refute mischaracterizations and straw-man arguments and people who seemed determined not to “get” what we were trying to talk about and accomplish. That frustration (along with some creepy stalkerish behavior from some “anti-fans” of my positions) led me to effectively bow out of that conversation shortly after that, and specifically to miss out on the entire Google+ era of the OSR. Which I don’t regret - it was the right decision for me at the time - but do think it’s a shame that in that era a lot of mischaracterizations and oversimplifications and shallow misunderstandings were allowed to flourish and become dogmatic “articles of faith” in that echo chamber.

Funny how you let your frustration blind you, I didn’t say anything different. I said the OSR is a style some played, or at least the idealized version of what they played, back in the day. I didn’t say the other ways of playing were better or worst just clarifying there wasn’t a unified way of playing which you confirm in your linked post.

 

[Fenris-77]

Just spend all the gold you have on healing potions.

I didn't see healing potions on the B/X equipment list. Or on any old editions equipment list that I remember. In any event, starting gold in D&D never extended to a sack full of healing potions.

It all in how the campaign is setup not the rules.

Sure, but that's not the point. The way the game is designed is separate and different from how an individual might choose to set up a particular game. There is a telos to D&D play in older editions that comes baked into the rules and isn't a product of specific GM intent. But yes, obviously the GM could change this as they could potentially change anything about the game. Just to pick an example, you could quite easily set up a campaign using the B/X boxes that is primarily political infighting and courtly intrigue (yes, it's extreme) but that doesn't mean that the underlying design of the game supports that choice. You could also completely remove/not include all the traps from a game because no one decided to play a thief, or stash healing potions all over the place because no one is playing a cleric. In all those examples the GM has to work to overcome the absence of a particular skill set, a fact which pretty directly shows that the base assumption of the game is that that skill set will be present.

 

[ffilz]

I didn't see healing potions on the B/X equipment list. Or on any old editions equipment list that I remember. In any event, starting gold in D&D never extended to a sack full of healing potions.

A starting OD&D cleric also gets no spells... :-)

Sure, but that's not the point. The way the game is designed is separate and different from how an individual might choose to set up a particular game. There is a telos to D&D play in older editions that comes baked into the rules and isn't a product of specific GM intent. But yes, obviously the GM could change this as they could potentially change anything about the game. Just to pick an example, you could quite easily set up a campaign using the B/X boxes that is primarily political infighting and courtly intrigue (yes, it's extreme) but that doesn't mean that the underlying design of the game supports that choice. You could also completely remove/not include all the traps from a game because no one decided to play a thief, or stash healing potions all over the place because no one is playing a cleric. In all those examples the GM has to work to overcome the absence of a particular skill set, a fact which pretty directly shows that the base assumption of the game is that that skill set will be present.

I think my AD&D campaign in high school featured pretty easy to acquire healing potions, I don't think we relied on a cleric that much. In fact, I can't even think of a cleric PC, the PCs I remember included a thief, maybe a paladin, a ranger for sure, a fighter, I'm pretty sure a magic user, but I really can't recall a cleric.

 

[ffilz]

I wrote a rant-y forum post way back in 2009 out of frustration with this mischaracterization. We made no claims back then that the playstyle we were talking about and interested in was the only (or even necessarily most common) way of playing back in the 70s-80s, but only that it was A playstyle that existed back then and mostly fell by the wayside later and that we wanted to revive it because we liked it and thought it was a good and valid way to play and deserved more attention.

As you can tell looking at that old post, I was already feeling pretty frustrated by this stuff in 2009 - at having to refute mischaracterizations and straw-man arguments and people who seemed determined not to “get” what we were trying to talk about and accomplish. That frustration (along with some creepy stalkerish behavior from some “anti-fans” of my positions) led me to effectively bow out of that conversation shortly after that, and specifically to miss out on the entire Google+ era of the OSR. Which I don’t regret - it was the right decision for me at the time - but do think it’s a shame that in that era a lot of mischaracterizations and oversimplifications and shallow misunderstandings were allowed to flourish and become dogmatic “articles of faith” in that echo chamber.

I'm not sure what forums I was exploring before ODD74 (which I joined a couple weeks after it opened). I know that before then I had started to look back to AD&D (and I never abandoned 1st edition RuneQuest). In 2005 I was still running Arcana Evolved, but somewhere soon I dipped into AD&D, RQ, and Cold Iron. I did run Arcana Evolved again in late 2006.

 

[Fenris-77]

A starting OD&D cleric also gets no spells... :-)

I think my AD&D campaign in high school featured pretty easy to acquire healing potions, I don't think we relied on a cleric that much. In fact, I can't even think of a cleric PC, the PCs I remember included a thief, maybe a paladin, a ranger for sure, a fighter, I'm pretty sure a magic user, but I really can't recall a cleric.

The easy availability of healing potions is a GM dial, not something that's baked into the rules. What is baked into the rules is enormously slow natural healing times, a fact which means accelerated healing is needed. That's my point. Yes, you can play without a Cleric, but other things need to be done by the GM to make that doable. Or, of course, the campaign can regularly slow to a crawl while one PC or another heals, but I don't think anyone is arguing that was a common occurrence.

 

[Skarg]

In my thesis I won't. But a peer-reviewed web site isn't a bad place to start.

Well that particular "definition" does seem like a bad place to start, to me, since it isn't even expressed as a proper definition - it's just listing one perspective on some traits of games the OSR label could apply to.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well that particular "definition" does seem like a bad place to start, to me, since it isn't even expressed as a proper definition - it's just listing one perspective on some traits of games the OSR label could apply to.

This isn't a topic where any possible opinion about what the label applies to should be given equal weight. There is no strict definition of OSR (that isn't laughable) but there is quite a bit of broad consensus.

 

[T. Foster]

I didn't see healing potions on the B/X equipment list. Or on any old editions equipment list that I remember. In any event, starting gold in D&D never extended to a sack full of healing potions.

Sure, but that's not the point. The way the game is designed is separate and different from how an individual might choose to set up a particular game. There is a telos to D&D play in older editions that comes baked into the rules and isn't a product of specific GM intent. But yes, obviously the GM could change this as they could potentially change anything about the game. Just to pick an example, you could quite easily set up a campaign using the B/X boxes that is primarily political infighting and courtly intrigue (yes, it's extreme) but that doesn't mean that the underlying design of the game supports that choice. You could also completely remove/not include all the traps from a game because no one decided to play a thief, or stash healing potions all over the place because no one is playing a cleric. In all those examples the GM has to work to overcome the absence of a particular skill set, a fact which pretty directly shows that the base assumption of the game is that that skill set will be present.

By and large old D&D is balanced around fighters and everything else is a bonus. Having a magic-user along gives you some “artillery” in combat and some exploration aids (like being able to read languages, knock locked doors, scout by ESP or clairvoyance, etc). Having a cleric along buffs the fighters and counters undead. Having a thief along makes traps less of a threat. Having a bard along helps avoid some combat and also buffs like a cleric. All of those things are helpful and make the game easier to survive and prosper in, but for the most part they’re all optional and a party of nothing but fighters (or even a party of 0-level normal humans) can still make it through if they’re smart and lucky (with an exception for impossible environments - underwater, castles in the air, other planes, etc - that require magic to get to or survive in, but in practice most adventures set in such locations handwave it by either having an NPC patron give them what they need or for sufficient magic items to “coincidentally” be found as needed).

By the time of 3E the “system math” was tightened up in such a way that what was once helpful bonuses became more effectively requirements because the encounter-challenge math assumes you have it. Things became more formulaic and predictable - what were once “best practice” recommendations became default requirements and, ironically, the fighter who was the baseline in old editions becomes the most expendable because the other classes can also do what the fighter does via magic or stealth, but the fighter can’t do what they do. So the fighter “role” became redefined as “the one who absorbs damage and buys time for the casters and strikers to make kills” which (at least to me) isn’t much fun.

 

[Fenris-77]

I would agree in a general way that fighters are the 'base' class of older editions, but that doesn't mean the other classes are strictly bonus. This is obviously true, for example, of a party of fighters in B/X (just to pick an example). Not having fighters is probably worse than not having any of the other classes of course though, that much we agree about.

 

[robertsconley]

Some may have agreed with that. Not everyone. I may be the lone dissenter.

It is not a matter of agreeing or not it how I run my campaigns. I get that some people find it not to their taste and that OK.

And to be clear it not a "superior mode" or anything silly like that. When you have time to prep you can do different things then when you come up with everything on the fly. So like any technique it is a matter of balancing the creative choices with the circumstances.

Well, the other option was to call what robertsconley advocates a "pure sandbox" or some such terminology. It was pretty clear that Rob advocates for unlimited freedom and that artificial walls made a campaign not what he would characterize as a sandbox. But many felt that you could have something that aspired to Rob's ideal, but had to have some concrete limitations so at least many of us gave Rob the "sandbox" without any qualifiers and suggested "qualified sandbox."

The root is one's willingness to let players "trash" the setting. I use trash for it negative connotation because some "going left instead right" decisions cause strong feeling on the part of the referee. You spent hours of your time prepping a adventure and the group decides for various reasons to do something else. Many referee I know would be annoyed or even upset if that was to occur.

Even I would get a little miffed at times but I would still go along with the player's choice in a fair way. The worse thing that would happen is "Hey we need to end early if you are going to continue with this as I need the time to prepare."

 

[Moracai]

The easy availability of healing potions is a GM dial, not something that's baked into the rules. What is baked into the rules is enormously slow natural healing times, a fact which means accelerated healing is needed. That's my point. Yes, you can play without a Cleric, but other things need to be done by the GM to make that doable. Or, of course, the campaign can regularly slow to a crawl while one PC or another heals, but I don't think anyone is arguing that was a common occurrence.

One DM under which I played quite a bit (RIP) always gave us a wand of cure minor wounds and a bottomless bag. This was in D&D3.5, but the point stands for earlier editions as well. Some playstyles require certain crutches, as you just expressed, is my point .

 

[T. Foster]

I would agree in a general way that fighters are the 'base' class of older editions, but that doesn't mean the other classes are strictly bonus. This is obviously true, for example, of a party of fighters in B/X (just to pick an example). Not having fighters is probably worse than not having any of the other classes of course though, that much we agree about.

Which is one of the reasons I prefer AD&D to BX: Gygax realized fighters were getting to be kind of overshadowed by the other classes in OD&D so he rebalanced the classes to make the distinction bigger - fighters get tougher and better at fighting, everybody else gets worse (worse AC & THAC0, spellcasting in combat is harder, etc). BX didn’t carry through those changes, sticking with the OD&D numbers, and even removed some of the distinctions they did have in OD&D: no multiple attacks against 1HD opponents, intelligent swords less common (30% vs 50%), clerics and thieves get missile attacks (in OD&D there were no slings and bows & crossbows were for fighters only), everybody gets Dex AC bonus (in OD&D it only applied to fighters), etc. BX is where fighters start seeming like a poor cousin. Later editions exacerbated that.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is one of the reasons I prefer AD&D to BX: Gygax realized fighters were getting to be kind of overshadowed by the other classes in OD&D so he rebalanced the classes to make the distinction bigger - fighters get tougher and better at fighting, everybody else gets worse (worse AC & THAC0, spellcasting in combat is harder, etc). BX didn’t carry through those changes, sticking with the OD&D numbers, and even removed some of the distinctions they did have in OD&D: no multiple attacks against 1HD opponents, intelligent swords less common (30% vs 50%), clerics and thieves get missile attacks (in OD&D there were no slings and bows & crossbows were for fighters only), everybody gets Dex AC bonus (in OD&D it only applied to fighters), etc. BX is where fighters start seeming like a poor cousin. Later editions exacerbated that.

I never found fighters to be a subpar choice in B/X for the simple reason that the importance of AC and HP can't be overstated. Not when combined with the highest damage weapons anyway. A B/X party without fighters, in my experience, is going to get a pasting handed them. An interesting difference of opinion.

 

[lategamer]

One DM under which I played quite a bit (RIP) always gave us a wand of cure minor wounds and a bottomless bag.

That sounds nice! The few times I’ve been coerced into playing D&D in the last few years, we were only able to buy around five potions of CLW and that was it. Everything else was on the low level cleric.

And then we nearly got massacred by some giant frogs who lived in a pond not far from the town so we were fecked even before we got to the destination.

Heroic fantasy eh? Not in my experience

 

[ffilz]

Heroic fantasy eh? Not in my experience

That's an old school thing... Early D&D is much less about heroic fantasy than 3.x

 

[lategamer]

That's an old school thing... Early D&D is much less about heroic fantasy than 3.x

This was 5e!!!!

 

[ffilz]

It is not a matter of agreeing or not it how I run my campaigns. I get that some people find it not to their taste and that OK.

And to be clear it not a "superior mode" or anything silly like that. When you have time to prep you can do different things then when you come up with everything on the fly. So like any technique it is a matter of balancing the creative choices with the circumstances.

The root is one's willingness to let players "trash" the setting. I use trash for it negative connotation because some "going left instead right" decisions cause strong feeling on the part of the referee. You spent hours of your time prepping a adventure and the group decides for various reasons to do something else. Many referee I know would be annoyed or even upset if that was to occur.

Even I would get a little miffed at times but I would still go along with the player's choice in a fair way. The worse thing that would happen is "Hey we need to end early if you are going to continue with this as I need the time to prepare."

I have at times been pretty annoyed by players not buying into the adventure I showed up with. The most recent was in my Arcana Unearthed campaign. And that incident is one thing that feeds my preference for old school games where setting up an adventure is a lot less commitment. In my RQ campaign, I used two different Dyson Logos maps for some adventure in the Big Rubble. The first one the PCs mostly explored, but I was disappointed they didn't visit the tavern I had set up, but it didn't ruin my day. The second, they didn't even half explore before leaving. Disappointing, but again, not a ruined day.

In either Cold Iron or RQ, if the PCs suddenly hared off in some different direction than I thought they were going for the session, I would either fly by the seat of my pants, or like you say, if I couldn't do that, we'd spend some time chatting about the direction they want to go and end early.

On the other hand, there are directions players could hypothetically go where I would say, "no thanks. either pick a different direction, or find another GM." But I have only hit that kind of wall once or twice. In my 2006 RQ campaign, I did reach a point of being frustrated by how the PCs were using torture. I didn't end the campaign or anything, but it was a place where "trash the setting" became close to a deal breaker.

 

[ffilz]

This was 5e!!!!

Well, 5e does try and capture some of that old school feel...

 

[T. Foster]

I never found fighters to be a subpar choice in B/X for the simple reason that the importance of AC and HP can't be overstated. Not when combined with the highest damage weapons anyway. A B/X party without fighters, in my experience, is going to get pasting handed them. An interesting difference of opinion.

True, I was forgetting that in BX clerics are limited to d6 weapons (probably the reason why the two-handed d8 damage cleric-usable flail and morning star from OD&D were both deleted). That is a big advantage, both the d8 swords and battle axes and the d10 2H swords and polearms (also spears that can be set to do double damage vs charges). Thieves can still use those big weapons, but with d4 hit dice and bad AC they probably shouldn’t. So I’ll agree that fighters are still needed in BX; they just feel a little boring (to me).

 

[robertsconley]

I didn't see healing potions on the B/X equipment list. Or on any old editions equipment list that I remember. In any event, starting gold in D&D never extended to a sack full of healing potions.

OD&D Page Men & Magic Page 7


B/X Expert Page X51


AD&D DMG Page 121

Sure, but that's not the point. The way the game is designed is separate and different from how an individual might choose to set up a particular game. There is a telos to D&D play in older editions that comes baked into the rules and isn't a product of specific GM intent. But yes, obviously the GM could change this as they could potentially change anything about the game. Just to pick an example, you could quite easily set up a campaign using the B/X boxes that is primarily political infighting and courtly intrigue (yes, it's extreme) but that doesn't mean that the underlying design of the game supports that choice.

All roleplaying games have at the core the mechanic where the referee describes to the player their circumstances, then the players describe what it is they do, and then I figure out how to adjudicate it either by me or them rolling some dice or making a decision based on what circumstances are.

We are not playing a boardgame or a wargame trying to meet some arbitrary set of end game conditions via a set of printed rules. The telos or "ultimate aim" of D&D or any RPG system is to have fun having adventures as a character in some interesting setting in the time one has for a hobby. The primary method by which RPGs work is the above mechanic.

I have stated several times the point of the rest of system to help make the campaign happen in a fun and interesting way within the time you have. But if the system is used to limit what possible given the campaign premise then that is missing the point or the telos of RPGs in the first place.

You could also completely remove/not include all the traps from a game because no one decided to play a thief, or stash healing potions all over the place because no one is playing a cleric.

Or you could not and let the players figure out how to deal with traps and the lack of immediate healing. They are well aware of the situation as you the referee are and if that how they want to roll then hopefully whatever tactics they had worked out does well as plan.

In all those examples the GM has to work to overcome the absence of a particular skill set, a fact which pretty directly shows that the base assumption of the game is that that skill set will be present.

Perhaps. On the surface the Dune RPG and the Fire and Ice RPG as well GURPS Social Engineering all offer explicit mechanics and procedures to handle political infighting and courtly intrigue. But how much time does it take to study and learn them? Does it align with how YOU think political infighting and courtly intrique ought to go.

I submit the situation is a wash.

For some Dune, Fire & Ice, Social Engineering is an absolute benefit that make things more fun and easier. For others it garbage and gets in the way. Or more common there is another set of mechanics that works better with how they think.

The only thing I take issue with is the thesis that system is destiny. If D&D system interferes with how you want to run a campaign involving politics and intrigue that understandable. But it doesn't for me nor does GURPS Social Engineering. When it comes to GURPS the primary benefit is that it allows players to quantify in detail what their character is good at when it comes to politics and intrigue. Whereas when I use D&D the details are considerably less.

 

[Fenris-77]

True, I was forgetting that in BX clerics are limited to d6 weapons (probably the reason why the two-handed d8 damage cleric-usable flail and morning star from OD&D were both deleted). That is a big advantage, both the d8 swords and battle axes and the d10 2H swords and polearms (also spears that can be set to do double damage vs charges). Thieves can still use those big weapons, but with d4 hit dice and bad AC they probably shouldn’t. So I’ll agree that fighters are still needed in BX; they just feel a little boring (to me).

Most fighter type classes in old games are pretty boring compared to spell casters especially. That said, not dying is a pretty keen mechanical advantage but one that sort of lurks in the background because it's nothing you do, but rather the ability to soak up more things that are done to you. And whack 'em really hard with big metal sticks, which I always find satisfying.

 

[Fenris-77]

OD&D Page Men & Magic Page 7
View attachment 79253

B/X Expert Page X51
View attachment 79254

AD&D DMG Page 121
View attachment 79255




All roleplaying games have at the core the mechanic where the referee describes to the player their circumstances, then the players describe what it is they do, and then I figure out how to adjudicate it either by me or them rolling some dice or making a decision based on what circumstances are.

We are not playing a boardgame or a wargame trying to meet some arbitrary set of end game conditions via a set of printed rules. The telos or "ultimate aim" of D&D or any RPG system is to have fun having adventures as a character in some interesting setting in the time one has for a hobby. The primary method by which RPGs work is the above mechanic.

I have stated several times the point of the rest of system to help make the campaign happen in a fun and interesting way within the time you have. But if the system is used to limit what possible given the campaign premise then that is missing the point or the telos of RPGs in the first place.



Or you could not and let the players figure out how to deal with traps and the lack of immediate healing. They are well aware of the situation as you the referee are and if that how they want to roll then hopefully whatever tactics they had worked out does well as plan.


Perhaps. On the surface the Dune RPG and the Fire and Ice RPG as well GURPS Social Engineering all offer explicit mechanics and procedures to handle political infighting and courtly intrigue. But how much time does it take to study and learn them? Does it align with how YOU think political infighting and courtly intrique ought to go.

I submit the situation is a wash.

For some Dune, Fire & Ice, Social Engineering is an absolute benefit that make things more fun and easier. For others it garbage and gets in the way. Or more common there is another set of mechanics that works better with how they think.

The only thing I take issue with is the thesis that system is destiny. If D&D system interferes with how you want to run a campaign involving politics and intrigue that understandable. But it doesn't for me nor does GURPS Social Engineering. When it comes to GURPS the primary benefit is that it allows players to quantify in detail what their character is good at when it comes to politics and intrigue. Whereas when I use D&D the details are considerably less.

There are costs, yeah, but that ain't exactly the equipment list either, is it? That's also a whole lot of gold to replicate a single cleric spell. I don't think the bag of healing potions thing really works unless the GM takes a hand.

I get your point about letting the players figure things out, and in general I agree that that's the ideal way to run a game. That said, if you leave all the traps in and don't provide extra healing at all (to a party with no thief and/or no cleric) then that party is going to suffer by comparison, even if they figure things out quite a bit. Or at least they will if the GM doesn't run the game in a way that helps mitigate things. So the common healing potions or less traps and/or the heavy telegraphing of traps. Neither of those things are the standard for older games, in general anyway.

I'm not saying any of this is bad btw, just that it's the case.

 

[T. Foster]

Not to mention that you have to be at least 6th (AD&D), 9th (BX), or 11th (OD&D) level in order to produce those healing potions. The DM may allow lower-level characters to purchase them from higher level NPCs but presumably only in limited quantity and not “at cost”: if the wizard is spending 500 GP and 1 week of time to create each healing potion it seems likely that if they put them up for sale at all they’re going to want at least 1000 GP apiece for them. Which is a lot to pay for a one-use item that reproduces the effect of a 1st level spell.

 

[robertsconley]

There are costs, yeah, but that ain't exactly the equipment list either, is it? That's also a whole lot of gold to replicate a single cleric spell. I don't think the bag of healing potions thing really works unless the GM takes a hand.

Where there is a price there is a way. As for not being on the equipment list ....

Spoiler

come on, who are you trying to kid?

I get your point about letting the players figure things out, and in general I agree that that's the ideal way to run a game. That said, if you leave all the traps in and don't provide extra healing at all (to a party with no thief and/or no cleric) then that party is going to suffer by comparison, even if they figure things out quite a bit.
Do they suffer by comparison? It a challenge of a different kind amid a sea of challenges that adventures throw at a player.

This is Johann Schwartz. I call your attention that he is B/X Cleric with 1 point and no healing spells at first level.

I didn't reroll, instead I worked with what I had. I spend the bulk of my starting money on hirelings. Made sure it had enough for two months of support and wages. It was a challenge I enjoyed. Others may not have enjoyed or had any idea what to do in this situation. In which case I say reroll and make something else that is enjoyable.

This is Johann a year later after many adventures.

The point here is you can't rely on the dice rolls and stats to thrive in a RPG. You have to use your wits and figure out what can be done with the situations. The best combination is one's wits and your character abilities. A lot of my early success as Johann was to convince the party to go after undead where my turn ability was very useful. I would position myself strategically and turn them and they were forced to run away in a direction that was advantageous to the party when it wore off.

Neither of those things are the standard for older games, in general anyway.

They are not standard because players are proactive and figure out how to deal with the consequences of their choices. Just as they would if they were playing as fantasy superheroes or drunken investigators who just stumbled across "things man wasn't meant to know".

 

[Fenris-77]

Specific examples can always be made to sour a general example. So in the specific example of that cleric at first level, sure. But that doesn't really inform a conversation about clerics in general at a range of levels.

I'm not kidding about the potions. AT the listed costs its faintly ridiculous to argue that they can take the place of a cleric as a purchased item and that same cost also places them well, well, out of the reach of low level characters for the same application. It only works if the GM makes them cheaper or salts the dungeon and wilderness with a ton of coin to buy them or a ton of potions to avoid buying them. Not that my experience is anything more than anecdotal, but I have never played in a D&D game of any of the editions in question where potions took the place of healing spells. Supplementing the Cleric through NPC casting was way more common, and that does help, but not whilst in the actual dungeon or wilderness.

 

[Skarg]

Oh my. let's see if I remember this. No Myth applies to games where the improv nature is totally out in the open. So in a No Myth murder mystery, the GM doesn't know who the killer is any more than the players and the players know the GM doesn't know this. The GM just provides genre appropriate details rather than what you might consider a genuine clue, and together with the players weave a plausible story. It's term from The Forge.

Wow, to me, that's nightmarish on so many levels, I can't even track them all.

 

[xanther]

A starting OD&D cleric also gets no spells... :-)

Also no thieves, those only came about with Supplement 1: Greyhawk

I think my AD&D campaign in high school featured pretty easy to acquire healing potions, I don't think we relied on a cleric that much. In fact, I can't even think of a cleric PC, the PCs I remember included a thief, maybe a paladin, a ranger for sure, a fighter, I'm pretty sure a magic user, but I really can't recall a cleric.

Interesting, cleric were common for us, the combination of armor plus d8 for HP plus healing magic made them powerful, some said too powerful. Healing potions were essentially never for sale (certainly not in sufficient quantity for a bag of them even if we had the gold) and to the extent we used TSR and JG modules, not common enough to replace a cleric by any means. Paladins with lay on hands were also a favorite.

 

[Sharrow]

You can't select a fighter with a sack of healing potions though, can you?

Role 'enforcement' suggests must but I think that's misleading. This isn't even true of PbtA where yes the players all have to take different playbooks but there are usually far more playbooks than players and the choice there does not in way ensure a specific mix of skills/abilities X. 'Must' certainly isn't true of D&D classes. At best it gets to 'should' based on experience. However, if the base game has an imagined which ur adventure that has, for example, fiendish traps (as would be true of D&D I think), then there is certainly some emphasis on including a thief. Can you take all fighters? Sure you can, but it's probably going to be suboptimal in most editions. No healing, no stealth and no environment control. The simple possibility of selecting all one class isn't the same thing (at all) as suggesting that the game pushes a party toward a different outcome, which D&D certainly does.

Most game are designed with the possibility of the players taking all one class but very few of them are actually designed to run well played that way.

Pre-3e D&D, fighters could be stealthy. They couldn't 'Hide' or 'Move Silently', but that didn't mean they had no stealth unless the GM ignored the surprise rules and was one of those 'only MS and Hide let you be stealthy' types (which wasn't what the rules said).

Then 3e came along and said "No stealth skill ranks? Sucks to be you."

 

[Toadmaster]

I find OSR an unfortunate term that has led to far more confusion than it should. To me OSR has zero value for any meaning other than based on some form of pre-3E D&D.

I find "Old School" a basically meaningless term.

What is Old School? D&D?, sure. T&T? 1975, again yes. Traveller? 1977, hard to argue that is isn't.

Boot Hill 1975 / 1979, Runequest 1978, Bushido 1979, Rolemaster 1980, The Fantasy Trip 1980, Aftermath 1981, Call of Cthulhu 1981, Champions / Hero system 1981, Recon 1982, Behind Enemy Lines 1982, GURPS 1986

Where does it stop being "old school"? Other than being old how much is there really in common with the above games?

By 1981 we have already covered class /level, classless, hit points, "not" hit points, core stats, armor class, damage absorption, random roll, point buy, critical hits, skills, d20, d6 and d100 resolution systems... Really there has been little truly new in mechanics since the early 80s.

Playstyle, again, I think this gets very overblown. Certain playstyles may have been popular early on, but rules lite, theatre of the mind, lets write a story together are not "new" things. They were around from early on.

Published railroad scenarios in D&D didn’t really start until Dragonlance, so that’s not exactly true.

As to what the term OSR even means now, I’m not entirely sure? Early on it was just a loose community of people that coalesced around the notion of playing earlier versions of D&D and a banner to publish new material, then it seemed to morph into a ton of people publishing their own heartbreakers. Then some people tried to market semi adjacent games which weren’t exactly clones. Finally a few giant assholes showed up, picked big fights with other assholes on the internet, it got weirdly political and the so-called “community” fractured into a bunch of splinters and I kind of stopped paying attention.

There were railroady D&D adventures, because a lot were written for tournament play so had to be narrow in range to make sure each group had a fair shot at completing the challenge, but these seem to have been more of the exception. I started playing in the late 70s and we tended to have a fairly sandboxy experience (of course we didn't have a name for that, or railroads). Dragon Lance definately stepped it up a notch as they were basically choose your own adventure modules closely tied to the novels. One of the guys in my group in high school tried to run us through one of the Dragon Lance modules and we bounced off it it hard, because it was so constraining. It didn't help that most of us were in our reject anything D&D stage.

 

[Fenris-77]

Pre-3e D&D, fighters could be stealthy. They couldn't 'Hide' or 'Move Silently', but that didn't mean they had no stealth unless the GM ignored the surprise rules and was one of those 'only MS and Hide let you be stealthy' types (which wasn't what the rules said).

Then 3e came along and said "No stealth skill ranks? Sucks to be you."

Yup, for sure. One of the problems with discussing old editions of D&D played at the time is the huge range of variations in how people actually deployed the rules at their table. I agree that you are correct about the rules, but I also know that I played in many games where stealth of any kind was indeed limited to the Thief. It's not like we didn't have fun though.