The state of Post-OSR content

Palindromedary

*eyeroll*
I think the shift was one part players and designers wanting something different (because by the mid 80s D&D was already ten years old and for a lot of people there were only so many open-ended dungeons one could venture into), and one part not yet understanding that the difference they wanted / latched onto (comparatively rigid storyline play) was far more limiting in some ways (because it was new, after all, so its limitations hadn't really had the chance to be felt).

However, the big element for me is one last part: that the core intended purpose and gameplay loop of old D&D was so poorly explained in the rulebooks that there was lots of room for people to miss it. So after you get the mass hirings of new TSR staff in 81 and 82, just as Gygax begins stepping back from development duties, followed by the mass purges of 1984, you've got pretty much an entirely new design staff, including tons of people who largely were playing since the 70s but weren't part of the original Lake Geneva crew and so never got to learn firsthand how the game was intended to be played. They had developed their own styles of play, and a lot of those didn't mesh with the original playstyle.

One of the things that really sticks out to me as being obviously true but somewhat bewildering is how TSR never seems to have developed a House Style that was enforced at the corporate level. Perhaps because Gygax was big into the idea that each DM should handle things how they thought best, each designer really had their own ideas of how an adventure should be put together and that was readily evident on the page. TSR developed a common look and feel for their modules over time, but there seems to have never been an internal TSR document that said "this is the core purpose of D&D and, following from that, adventures should do these broad things and avoid these broad things": a sort of best-practices document. As such, as soon as he moves on (and really, even before) you get all sorts of random styles and approaches in modules, and the original style in particular is allowed to languish, because people have different ideas of how to play and because it's old and been done and there seems to be new and exciting methods of play popping up. That these new paths were often creative and gameplay dead ends wouldn't be apparent for a while (and to be fair would remain the preferred way for some regardless: there's a reason they've lasted this long no matter how much we tend to disparage them).
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
That these new paths were often creative and gameplay dead ends wouldn't be apparent for a while (and to be fair would remain the preferred way for some regardless: there's a reason they've lasted this long no matter how much we tend to disparage them).
Could you expand on this please?

Also, I wonder to what extent adventure style was influenced by improving(?) layout/publishing quality?
 

Palindromedary

*eyeroll*
Could you expand on this please?
I was referring to the shift to more story-oriented play. Tending as it does to produce the same series of hackneyed story beats, with linear story paths, a progression of "saving" storylines (save the village, save the town, save the kingdom, save the world) and always a new "BBEG", with amateur theatre added to taste, it's not exactly a rich mode of play. Certainly it can deliver more, but I think a mode of play is best defined by what it tends to produce rather than theoretical heights, and in that regard, the typical example of open-ended, player-focused play is much more robust even if there's plenty of generic dungeons out there.

That having been said, the idea of focusing on story must have appeared enormously refreshing when it first began to spread widely, after 5-10 years of lightly plotted sandbox play: "you mean we don't have constantly explore dungeons or decide what to do all the time?" The fact that that's how D&D is primarily played today speaks to its widespread appeal, since no matter how tiresome and creatively bankrupt the style seems to most of us, it just keeps trucking along decade after decade. I tend to think of a lot of the things that collectively marked the end of the old school as coming from good or at least logical places.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
That having been said, the idea of focusing on story must have appeared enormously refreshing when it first began to spread widely, after 5-10 years of lightly plotted sandbox play: "you mean we don't have constantly explore dungeons or decide what to do all the time?" The fact that that's how D&D is primarily played today speaks to its widespread appeal, since no matter how tiresome and creatively bankrupt the style seems to most of us, it just keeps trucking along decade after decade. I tend to think of a lot of the things that collectively marked the end of the old school as coming from good or at least logical places.
Lowest common denominator. D&D merged with episodic television plots makes for easy, passive entertainment. The modern opiate.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
you mean we don't have constantly explore dungeons or decide what to do all the time?
It's some kind of horrible Stockholm Syndrome. I've been running this open-ended sandbox for a few months and it's been a fight to get the players to make their own choices. Their conditioning is deep-set. They're constantly looking for narrative hooks and much happier once they're on the railroad (of their own choosing).

I mean, then they go to great lengths to sabotage the railroad. But they needed that framework there. They needed a box to think outside of.
 

Maynard

*eyeroll*
I was referring to the shift to more story-oriented play. Tending as it does to produce the same series of hackneyed story beats, with linear story paths, a progression of "saving" storylines (save the village, save the town, save the kingdom, save the world) and always a new "BBEG", with amateur theatre added to taste, it's not exactly a rich mode of play. Certainly it can deliver more, but I think a mode of play is best defined by what it tends to produce rather than theoretical heights, and in that regard, the typical example of open-ended, player-focused play is much more robust even if there's plenty of generic dungeons out there.
Giant in the Playground's Order of the Stick collected all these storybeats and tropes into one narrative. No one needs that anymore, it's been done.

It's some kind of horrible Stockholm Syndrome. I've been running this open-ended sandbox for a few months and it's been a fight to get the players to make their own choices. Their conditioning is deep-set. They're constantly looking for narrative hooks and much happier once they're on the railroad (of their own choosing).

I mean, then they go to great lengths to sabotage the railroad. But they needed that framework there. They needed a box to think outside of.
It comes down to structure. Players need a box so they can think outside it. They love getting railroaded and finding their own way through it. It's one of the reasons I wrote Throught the Foglands the way I did. Give the players, "move left to right" is direction enough, they'll find tons of ways to have fun optimizing through it.
 

The Heretic

Should be playing D&D instead
It's some kind of horrible Stockholm Syndrome. I've been running this open-ended sandbox for a few months and it's been a fight to get the players to make their own choices. Their conditioning is deep-set. They're constantly looking for narrative hooks and much happier once they're on the railroad (of their own choosing).
What's that called again? Choice paralysis or something like that. If you have too many choices you find yourself unable to choose.
 

The Heretic

Should be playing D&D instead
I think the shift was one part players and designers wanting something different (because by the mid 80s D&D was already ten years old and for a lot of people there were only so many open-ended dungeons one could venture into), and one part not yet understanding that the difference they wanted / latched onto (comparatively rigid storyline play) was far more limiting in some ways (because it was new, after all, so its limitations hadn't really had the chance to be felt).
I suppose it was a change from setting based adventures to plot based adventures that marked the change from 'classic' to traditional. The character based adventures came even later.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I think the fundamental issue is that, after Gygax, nobody paid attention to the process of DMing, or the way procedures drive play. And Gygax never really described how he handled out of dungeon play. So when non-dungeon adventures came into vogue, designers just puked their ideas up on paper. So you get a wall of text trying to either create a railroad or describe every possible outcome, instead of short entries with procedures that help you to improvise.

Why do they keep writing them this way? Because very few people are writing better modules for this playstyle; and those that do are relatively obscure and aren't really competition. The WotC stuff continues to sell, Hasbro is risk averse and seemingly always happy to fire people, so who is going to take the risk of experimenting with other approaches?

I think customers started buying modules to collect and read them more than play them as well. A pretty product with a cool story became more desirable. Modules became aspirational. I remember my friends, who were players rather than referees in the group buying adventures. I remember when I had a couple of dry years where I couldn't scrape together a group, buying adventures anyway. Playability wasn't necessarily the first criterion. I know I wasn't alone in that buying habit; the corporation followed the money.
@bryce0lynch always says this too, but I find that type of module completely unreadable.

my guess based on what I've read and also observed about WotC is that module writers basically follow Steve Brust's Cool Stuff Theory of Literature
That would be fine if they wrote like Brust.

For me I just ask up-front what the game is "about" from the 8 Kinds of Fun perspective (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/, best article AngryGM ever wrote), and then decline based on that instead of getting into a semantic argument about what "D&D" means.
No, the best articles the AngryGM ever wrote were his early skill system and adjudication articles. Unfortunately, the last time I tried to look at them it appeared the webpages had been hacked.

It's some kind of horrible Stockholm Syndrome. I've been running this open-ended sandbox for a few months and it's been a fight to get the players to make their own choices. Their conditioning is deep-set. They're constantly looking for narrative hooks and much happier once they're on the railroad (of their own choosing).

I mean, then they go to great lengths to sabotage the railroad. But they needed that framework there. They needed a box to think outside of.
Yeah, there need to be perceived constraints or they get completely lost. Basically, you need hooks, and the hooks need to either have obvious paths of investigation associated with them (say, because the hook is a trope that invites a particular type of action), or the hooks need to have the path of investigation built in (for example, a treasure map).

I note using the AD&D treasure tables, if magic items were indicated you had about a 10% chance of getting a map. That's an early hook. I don't like to be that obvious, but I often include hooks in treasure - say, a deed to property, or treasure with a history that will get noticed when you sell it (B1 did a lot of that). Finding one part of the Rod of Seven Parts is a hell of a hook.

I also think sages are badly underused, and information-providing NPCs are generally used poorly. Modern modules have NPCs dispense information, instead of suggesting how PCs can find information. Like, what is going to drive play more, telling the players some relevant history, or telling them that the answers lie in the diary of the Dread Pirate Roberts, which you heard was buried in his tomb in the Saltmarsh Cemetery, at least until the Yellow Skull Gang robbed it last year? A common fault of modern modules is they don't encourage players to play actively.

Also (and this just occurred to me), it would probably help if you had useful elements introduce themselves. I get frustrated that players don't take the initiative and seek out purveyors of information, but it occurs to me that information brokers want to find clients, and low level information brokers can't be too choosy; they might seek out adventurers and hint that they can be useful in finding stuff out. The concierge at the fancy hotel might make it really clear that they can hook you up with all kinds of bizarre and illegal stuff. The local thief taker might advertise his ability to find people and things.

Hell, maybe you just tell the players that they know people with information. The cleric knows that temples and monasteries tend to have collections of historical and theological works. The wizard knows where the sages like to hang out. The rogue knows how to ask around to find fences and the like. The fighter knows who the court gossips are.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
but I find that type of module completely unreadable.
What? As opposed to the first edition of Steading of the Hill Giant Chief? The only way I know that's any good is because I've played it twice and DM'd it once. From a simple read-through it's just a scrawl of numbers and dry sentences. A shit-ton of OSR classics are like that as well. I have no idea how reviewers like TenFootPole and Prince of Nothing are able to look over some of these shabby products and see the gem it will be in play.

Like I've said, I've got more material than I'm ever going to be able to run in this lifetime. I'm buying this stuff to be entertained at this point. Every once in a while there's something SO awesome that it jumps the play queue. Artwork and presentation/readability are what will get it through the door. Compelling ideas and storytelling (and by storytelling, I mean the act of reading the product unfurls a story. Not walls of text.) are what will keep me reading to the end. Playability is rarely important to me as the consumer, but it's what's going to move the product to the top of the queue where it's likely to get played and talked about by me as the DM.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Hell, maybe you just tell the players that they know people with information. The cleric knows that temples and monasteries tend to have collections of historical and theological works. The wizard knows where the sages like to hang out. The rogue knows how to ask around to find fences and the like. The fighter knows who the court gossips are.
I feel like Eberron has pretty comprehensive rules for exactly this kind of thing, doesn't it? Favoured in Guild etc?
Definitely, I've been exploring ways to democratize Gathering Information and Research so it's not just the party Face and Skill Monkey (often one and the same PC) having all the fun. For sure, one of the benefits of oldskool rulesets was that any player could take the wheel and drive (things maybe fell apart a bit if the half-orc barbarian tried to charm the shopkeeper into a better deal, but otherwise...)
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I feel like Eberron has pretty comprehensive rules for exactly this kind of thing, doesn't it? Favoured in Guild etc?
3e Eberron had feats like that. The 4e, and I think 5e, systems also have character features that do it. But I'm talking about something more bespoke than that.

Definitely, I've been exploring ways to democratize Gathering Information and Research so it's not just the party Face and Skill Monkey (often one and the same PC) having all the fun. For sure, one of the benefits of oldskool rulesets was that any player could take the wheel and drive (things maybe fell apart a bit if the half-orc barbarian tried to charm the shopkeeper into a better deal, but otherwise...)
You know I'm all about having the group track down Jimmy the Snitch (who is hiding from the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang) rather than making a gather information check.

What? As opposed to the first edition of Steading of the Hill Giant Chief? The only way I know that's any good is because I've played it twice and DM'd it once. From a simple read-through it's just a scrawl of numbers and dry sentences. A shit-ton of OSR classics are like that as well. I have no idea how reviewers like TenFootPole and Prince of Nothing are able to look over some of these shabby products and see the gem it will be in play.
Fair. I have said before, I think some of the appeal of these modules in knowing what other DMs have done with them over the decades. Also, if you know that you need to look inside the module for some of the good bits (like the slave revolt in Steading) it makes it easier to get something out of them. But these are a good case for having a really short summary that tells you the key elements to look for.

But the writing from late 2e onwards is just the most miserable hackneyed prose. Bad enough that it's a wall of text, but now it has to be a poorly written wall of text?
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
Also (and this just occurred to me), it would probably help if you had useful elements introduce themselves. I get frustrated that players don't take the initiative and seek out purveyors of information, but it occurs to me that information brokers want to find clients, and low level information brokers can't be too choosy; they might seek out adventurers and hint that they can be useful in finding stuff out. The concierge at the fancy hotel might make it really clear that they can hook you up with all kinds of bizarre and illegal stuff. The local thief taker might advertise his ability to find people and things.
This is brilliant. Consider it stolen. In particular I plan to use it in scene framing at the end of an adventure, as in:

"You get back to town and purvey your loot. [roll dice] Bard the Bard can get $4500 for the sword and $14,000 for the gems through his wealthy contacts. However, you also get a note delivered to you which says, 'Don't sell the sword. Come see me at the palace. -Haven Sadfurst, Imperial Historian.'"

Ditto hooks at the beginning of an adventure.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
This is brilliant. Consider it stolen. In particular I plan to use it in scene framing at the end of an adventure, as in:

"You get back to town and purvey your loot. [roll dice] Bard the Bard can get $4500 for the sword and $14,000 for the gems through his wealthy contacts. However, you also get a note delivered to you which says, 'Don't sell the sword. Come see me at the palace. -Haven Sadfurst, Imperial Historian.'"

Ditto hooks at the beginning of an adventure.
I remember running a module with expensive but really creepy, and cult related, art objects. I thought, who is going to buy this stuff? Party had to ask around to find dealer who would offer a decent price ("Yeah, none of my customers are gonna want that!")- by which time word got out to the local cultists...

This sort of thing is hinted at in B1, where a lot of the treasure is basically branded with Zelligar and Rogahn's names and/or images.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Party had to ask around to find dealer
I do this occasionally, particularly with ancient coins. Sure, it's worth it's equivalent weight in gold/silver/etc. but a slightly higher than average Appraise or Knowledge History reveals those coins might be worth much more to the right collector. Usually, a simple comment while detailing the treasure can do away with the necessity of 2.5-5e-style skill checks. Now you've got a possibly useful sidequest while in town.
 

grodog

*eyeroll*
I think the fundamental issue is that, after Gygax, nobody paid attention to the process of DMing, or the way procedures drive play. [snip]
I note using the AD&D treasure tables, if magic items were indicated you had about a 10% chance of getting a map. That's an early hook.
And it's so critical that I bump the map % to 20% in my campaigns.

I also think sages are badly underused
Agreed, along with class-based guilds/organizations or teachers/mentors which cover nearly all of the PC types in AD&D: clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, magic-users, illusionists, thieves, assassins, monks, and bards---perhaps leaving only fighters out in the cold by default, but it's easy enough to introduce a "Slayers Brotherhood" or whatever to cover them too.

Thieves clearly know fences, for example. Clerics are part of a local temple's staff, and have higher-ups who can neutralize poison or raise the dead (for the right cause, a hefty donation, or both). Druids and bards party at college together. Etc.

it occurs to me that information brokers want to find clients, and low level information brokers can't be too choosy; they might seek out adventurers and hint that they can be useful in finding stuff out. The concierge at the fancy hotel might make it really clear that they can hook you up with all kinds of bizarre and illegal stuff.
A very nice idea!---the adventure does find your character, sometimes!

Hell, maybe you just tell the players that they know people with information. The cleric knows that temples and monasteries tend to have collections of historical and theological works. The wizard knows where the sages like to hang out. The rogue knows how to ask around to find fences and the like. The fighter knows who the court gossips are.
Yes, networking is definitely important in campaign campaign, and an underrated activity for active play as well as downtime.

Allan.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Agreed, along with class-based guilds/organizations or teachers/mentors which cover nearly all of the PC types in AD&D: clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, magic-users, illusionists, thieves, assassins, monks, and bards---perhaps leaving only fighters out in the cold by default, but it's easy enough to introduce a "Slayers Brotherhood" or whatever to cover them too.

Thieves clearly know fences, for example. Clerics are part of a local temple's staff, and have higher-ups who can neutralize poison or raise the dead (for the right cause, a hefty donation, or both). Druids and bards party at college together. Etc.
A good reason to belong to a Thieves Guild. Eberron has many such organizations for all classes, complete with the organizations' goals, suggestions for how to gain favour with them, and indications as to what they will or will not do for you depending on your standing in the organization.

I note training rules force your players to engage with at least some of these contacts, and can lead to some interesting choices about who you choose to train with, and just what the cost will be ("I don't care about your money, but aren't you friend's with the Duke's youngest son?").
 

Avi

A FreshHell to Contend With
OI....
Bread Scientist is a serious business ;-)
But I really would like to learn how to get "Leveled up" in the top 2 categories ;-)
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I am on record shilling for my buoy Greg Gillespie (over and over again). Gotta say though; kinda disappointed to see him jumping on this bandwagon.
Being forgiving, I assume it's a response to that WotC SRD dustup last winter. But still. Does the world really need another retro-clone:rolleyes:? My inbox is all bunged up with Dolmenwood kickstarter spam as well. I guess people are buying this stuff. My question is: Are they actually playing these things or are they just supporting their favourite bloggers?

It is an impressive list of artists though. His ability to wrangle classic TSR artists for his projects is pretty epic...
 
Top