The state of Post-OSR content

[DangerousPuhson]

Certainly seems to be a stepping away from castles and knights as the base for dnd. Perhaps not European per se, but a globalist perspective due to the internet?

I have a feeling that the whole Arthurian Age/Middle Earth aesthetic isn't going anywhere. They still make adventures set in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms - it's practically baked into the rules. D&D settings haven't changed in half a century, and I honestly can't see them changing now, regardless of small-batch retro-clones set in Colonial Argentina, or whatever.

 

[HypthtcllySpkng]

I have a feeling that the whole Arthurian Age/Middle Earth aesthetic isn't going anywhere. They still make adventures set in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms - it's practically baked into the rules. D&D settings haven't changed in half a century, and I honestly can't see them changing now, regardless of small-batch retro-clones set in Colonial Argentina, or whatever.

I agree. It's moreso that I think we'll see more of the new stuff, not a diminishing of the old norms.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It's moreso that I think we'll see more of the new stuff, not a diminishing of the old norms.

Judging by the amount of material Bryce is wading through and the low barrier to entry for the industry as a whole, I'd agree.

 

[squeen]

New from Troll Lord's "GM Tricks of the Trade" email I somehow signed up for...

#2: Forced Direction. The most common form of railroading lies in creating an environment where the characters really have no choice other than to follow the given path. You come to a beach, there is only one path, the path leads to a waterfall surrounded by cliffs, under the waterfall is a cave, in the cave is a dragon, the encounter ends with a dragon. Though an extreme example, you’ve basically railroaded them into the dragon encounter whether they wanted to do it or not, leaving no options to move to the left or right, sneak up on the cave or find it on their own. Generally, this type of railroading makes the players feel as if they aren't actually playing an RPG, but rather listening to a story that they happen to be intermittently involved with. Try to avoid this type of scenario.

#3: The Railroad Switch. A less efficient, but far more player friendly approach to driving the party to the waterfall where the dragon lies, or the end of any adventure, is to blanket the area with choices, all of which ultimately end at the water. Allow for multiple paths on the beach, these paths lead through different terrain, but meander toward the waterfall, above it, before it, to the left or right. No matter which direction they take they wander into the same scenario. The players have made multiple choices and arrived at the destination you wanted them. They are in charge of their destiny... well, they feel like they are. And you get to keep you game intact.

#4: Conducting. A freer flowing approach, and one I favor as I GM largely outdoor adventures, is make the object mobile. You can fix it in place at some point, but if the players wander far afield just move your encounter and place it on the path they are on. Its usually very simple and costs you only a little in re-imagining the encounter and its place in time. The players are none the wiser unless you tell them, your game stays intact and you really haven't herded them anywhere, you’ve simply dropped danger in front of them.

#3 & #4 are such BS. Total QO. The whole "players-none-the-wiser" thing...

 

[The1True]

New from Troll Lord's "GM Tricks of the Trade" email I somehow signed up for...



#3 & #4 are such BS. Total QO. The whole "players-none-the-wiser" thing...

#4 the Quantum Ogre rears its ugly head, eh...

I'm okay with #3 if the different choices of path offer meaningful modifiers to the fixed outcome. In fairness the DM should broadcast some clues as to what benefits/hindrances lie along the different routes though.

 

[squeen]

Agreed -- but some paths should lead you away entirely.

 

[The1True]

Sure, I'm just assuming we're on a small island with one real encounter on it. You can take a variety of ways to get there and some ways are meaningfully and quantifiably better than others, but in a strictly directional sense, the only truly alternative course is to get back on your boat and go elsewhere. Eventually you're going to find yourself at the twig-end of the decision tree and that's O. K. so long as the DM is comfortable with the possibility of the PC's choosing 'D) None of the above'.

 

[squeen]

I do like a world in which the rabbit hole almost always continues deeper. The party goes off on a tangent, which lead to another tangent, which leads to another, and so on. I feel like that communicates a deep, vibrant world. You choose a direction which opens up for more marvelous content, and more choices, and are never forced to loop back. That's the style I seek---A D V E N T U R E in a great wide world! This is only possible (I believe) when you, as DM, are the prime content creator (and willing to work your butt off). You can't bottle that.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

#3 & #4 are such BS. Total QO.

I still maintain that the problem is people doing it wrong, not the QO idea on the whole. I guarantee I could pull off a QO on squeen if he were one of my players, and he wouldn't even notice it (not that I'd ever want squeen at my table, what with his complaining about millennial snowflakes from one side of his mouth while insisting that his D&D has to be exactly a certain way from the other side).

That's the problem with analyzing the QO through the lens of a DM who knows all and sees all, rather than a player working on limited information as it is - it seems far more egregious than it really is in play, because in play the idea is to use the QO in away that makes it indistinguishable from what was going to happen anyway.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

That's the style I seek---A D V E N T U R E in a great wide world!

the usual

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

 

[Beoric]

I'm okay with #3 if the different choices of path offer meaningful modifiers to the fixed outcome. In fairness the DM should broadcast some clues as to what benefits/hindrances lie along the different routes though.

I'm generally NOT ok with #3. I could easily see myself picking a path, finding myself at the beach, deciding I don't want to go that way, backtracking, picking a different path, finding myself at the beach again, possibly repeating this a third time to be sure it was a total railroad, and then leaving the path to go overland in the opposite direction from the beach because FUCK YOU DM THIS IS MY STORY TOO.

Railroads concealed with illusionism are anathema to players who like to think outside the box, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENCOURAGING OUR PLAYERS TO DO. Every time I have ever seen friction between a (non-disruptive) player and a DM occurred because the player thought he was being railroaded in some fashion. Even the suspicion of railroading can be a problem - although the suspicion usually arises from past experience with the DM.

@DangerousPuhson you might pull off the illusion once or twice, but you could not possibly keep it up over the course of a campaign. Players may tolerate it because modern adventure writing has taught them not to expect any different, and it may be better than not playing D&D, but you can't infer from that that it doesn't cheapen the experience. I've played both ways, and I know it cheapens the experience for me. If you want to draw any conclusions, you need to run a campaign (not just a couple of sessions) that give the players the chance to get used to true agency and thinking outside the box, and then drop in a couple of QOs and see how they feel about it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

@DangerousPuhson you might pull off the illusion once or twice, but you could not possibly keep it up over the course of a campaign.

I disagree.

My regular weekly campaign (3 years running) is 100% improvised. I keep sparse notes from previous sessions, but have nothing going into the game beyond a couple of general ideas and the blank map my players have been filling-in since level 1 (they're at level 17 now). I spend exactly ZERO hours a week in prep time, if that's any further indication of how improvised this campaign is.

Understand that my players, most of whom have been playing with me for over a decade, enjoy our improvised campaign (we've run many module-based and scripted campaigns too, so they've experienced enough "normal" D&D to know the difference). They are not the kind of people who would hold their tongue if they weren't enjoying our games (especially my girlfriend - she does not mince words), so I consider our campaign a successfully-played game of D&D.

Here's the clutch distinction: I define improvisation as being akin to a "floating" plot element - one that only comes into existence when I invent it and communicate it to my players. Everything in my game exists exactly where I intend it to exist. I consider the Quantum Ogre to be comparable, by design - a monster, or situation, or whatever other element that "floats" and settles into the game when needed. Improvisation... Quantum Ogres... they're both essentially cases of unresolved game elements, and can be whatever or wherever the need to be without interfering with the flow of the game because they are the game.

So for that reason, I maintain that I can indeed keep it up (heh, dick joke) over the course of a campaign, because I have been doing so successfully for the past 3 years.

If you want to draw any conclusions, you need to run a campaign (not just a couple of sessions) that give the players the chance to get used to true agency and thinking outside the box, and then drop in a couple of QOs and see how they feel about it.

First of all, you don't need to run an experiment to draw a conclusion; any idiot can draw any conclusion they want out of thin air... but enough about **insert DP aggravator of the week**.

Secondly, I have run such a campaign. All this QO stuff isn't coming from a place of speculation; I've been using it with great effect for years. So when people say "it's terrible and agency-robbing and cheapens the whole game", I am understandably put off by their inability to look beyond their own experience and their deafness to what I've been saying this whole time.

@TerribleSorcery uhhh... I don't know what to say to that, other than I hope you didn't spend much time on it?

**Cue the angry response**

 

[Beoric]

I disagree.

My regular weekly campaign (3 years running) is 100% improvised. I keep sparse notes from previous sessions, but have nothing going into the game beyond a couple of general ideas and the blank map my players have been filling-in since level 1 (they're at level 17 now). I spend exactly ZERO hours a week in prep time, if that's any further indication of how improvised this campaign is.

Understand that my players, most of whom have been playing with me for over a decade, enjoy our improvised campaign (we've run many module-based and scripted campaigns too, so they've experienced enough "normal" D&D to know the difference). They are not the kind of people who would hold their tongue if they weren't enjoying our games (especially my girlfriend - she does not mince words), so I consider our campaign a successfully-played game of D&D.

Here's the clutch distinction: I define improvisation as being akin to a "floating" plot element - one that only comes into existence when I invent it and communicate it to my players. Everything in my game exists exactly where I intend it to exist. I consider the Quantum Ogre to be comparable, by design - a monster, or situation, or whatever other element that "floats" and settles into the game when needed. Improvisation... Quantum Ogres... they're both essentially cases of unresolved game elements, and can be whatever or wherever the need to be without interfering with the flow of the game because they are the game.

So for that reason, I maintain that I can indeed keep it up (heh, dick joke) over the course of a campaign, because I have been doing so successfully for the past 3 years.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you are describing is actually a Quantum Ogre. With your floating plot elements, do you determine that you are going to use a particular element in a given session regardless of what the players do, or do you have a bunch of elements out there and choose the element based on what the players do? Because the first is a QO but the second is not.

 

[squeen]

Maybe quasi-relevant to the discussion --- today's Gronardia post on a mechanic that surprises the DM and takes things out of his hand.

I think it's a good thing to keep in mind for the Old School style of play. The DM watching the game unfold---as oppose to directing it. It might be at the heart of many Quantum Ogre objections (as oppose to solely player agency).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

With your floating plot elements, do you determine that you are going to use a particular element in a given session regardless of what the players do, or do you have a bunch of elements out there and choose the element based on what the players do? Because the first is a QO but the second is not.

Yes, the first. With an improvised game, any idea you have that you can't/don't use at the moment you have it becomes shelved for use later on, so I always have a cluster of ideas in my back pocket. If there's an especially good idea I've held on to for a while, then it's going to make it into my game, regardless of player choice.

My players are not upset with this being the case because: 1) I know how to make everything fit together organically in a way that makes a QO encounter feel natural, 2) I keep plenty of moments in the campaign where the party gets to make meaningful choices, 3) if I've kept an idea around because I think it's good, my party usually agrees and likewise enjoys my idea when I choose to use it, and 4) my players don't know what I know, and so don't know what the "intended outcome" is meant to be (thus preserving surprise).

A QO is a tool, like a hammer - if used to hammer nails, a hammer's value as a tool can be seen immediately... but if all you've even known of a hammer is in using it to beat people over the head, then you'll believe it's a dangerous, savage weapon with no practical purpose.

I argue that QOs are only bad when a DM has no ability to manage them. I also believe that anybody can learn to use QOs if they can teach themselves how to develop organic-feeling story structures and fluid narration technique.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Maybe quasi-relevant to the discussion --- today's Gronardia post on a mechanic that surprises the DM and takes things out of his hand.

I think it's a good thing to keep in mind for the Old School style of play. The DM watching the game unfold---as oppose to directing it. It might be at the heart of many Quantum Ogre objections (as oppose to solely player agency).

I've read through that Grognardia post, and realized something: James was thrilled and had so much fun because he got to do something unconventional by giving someone Gout to interrupt a war. What's ironically funny is that the very thing he had fun with was a Quantum Ogre - that Gout card was in his hand, waiting to be played when it would be the most fun to play it. If the opponent did something else, then he may or may not have played the Gout card depending on whether or not it would be appropriate to do so. But either way, the Gout was out there, floating around waiting to be dropped into the game. QOs when run properly are more or less the same concept, and if run properly, can be very fun (as James seems to be attesting).

 

[Beoric]

I've read through that Grognardia post, and realized something: James was thrilled and had so much fun because he got to do something unconventional by giving someone Gout to interrupt a war. What's ironically funny is that the very thing he had fun with was a Quantum Ogre - that Gout card was in his hand, waiting to be played when it would be the most fun to play it. If the opponent did something else, then he may or may not have played the Gout card depending on whether or not it would be appropriate to do so. But either way, the Gout was out there, floating around waiting to be dropped into the game. QOs when run properly are more or less the same concept, and if run properly, can be very fun (as James seems to be attesting).

That is not a QO, it was merely an action. Another player made a move, and he responded with a countermove.

It is a dissociated mechanic, which means it would have to be handled carefully if he was playing an RPG, but he isn't playing an RPG, so it doesn't matter. Notice that in his discussion of using the event in an RPG, he attaches it to a random events mechanic, which is neither dissociative nor a QO.

 

[Beoric]

Yes, the first. With an improvised game, any idea you have that you can't/don't use at the moment you have it becomes shelved for use later on, so I always have a cluster of ideas in my back pocket. If there's an especially good idea I've held on to for a while, then it's going to make it into my game, regardless of player choice.

My players are not upset with this being the case because: 1) I know how to make everything fit together organically in a way that makes a QO encounter feel natural, 2) I keep plenty of moments in the campaign where the party gets to make meaningful choices, 3) if I've kept an idea around because I think it's good, my party usually agrees and likewise enjoys my idea when I choose to use it, and 4) my players don't know what I know, and so don't know what the "intended outcome" is meant to be (thus preserving surprise).

So, most of the time it isn't a railroad, but sometimes it is. And your players aren't bothered by "sometimes", in part because you try to hide your sometimes railroad from them, and you think you are successful at it.

I'm skeptical, but you do you.

 

[HypthtcllySpkng]

So, most of the time it isn't a railroad, but sometimes it is. And your players aren't bothered by "sometimes", in part because you try to hide your sometimes railroad from them, and you think you are successful at it.

I'm skeptical, but you do you.

Without judgment or criticism, I find I personally would not enjoy being in DP's game for this reason. Obfuscation of the railroad is still a railroad, and i would mind, I believe.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Without judgment or criticism, I find I personally would not enjoy being in DP's game for this reason. Obfuscation of the railroad is still a railroad, and i would mind, I believe.

Question: let's say your group is playing Keep on the Borderlands - is it railroading if the party goes to the Caves of Chaos, because you've spread enough rumors and hooks to get them there? The difference between my games and KotB is that I have no Caves of Chaos waiting in the wings, because everything is invented as we go along.

Here's the thing with obfuscation: it fails when it is recognized as obfuscation, HOWEVER, if you've hidden the obfuscation enough that it becomes indistinguishable from reality, it circumvents all the inherent downsides.

If I told you I was an astronaut, you wouldn't take me seriously and assume I was pulling some kind of swindle. Your trust in me would be broken, and you'll assume I lie all the time.

But what if I told you I was an accountant? If you don't know me, and don't know what my job is, then your "something fishy" radar wouldn't register anything, and so you'll probably go ahead on the premise that I am an accountant. It's a pretty unremarkable job, so there's really nothing lost in assuming that I was an accountant. You'd only feel duped if you somehow found out that I'm not an accountant, right? Well what if you never found out - would you still feel duped while operating on the assumption that I am an accountant?

Here's the problem with these arguments: you guys are seemingly incapable of looking at the issue through the eyes of a player in the moment, rather than a DM on a forum peeking out from behind the curtain of DM notes and dungeon maps. Stop arguing the merits/problems of a player-facing interface from the DM's point of view - it doesn't matter what the DM knows or doesn't know about the adventure; the only thing that matters is what the players experience in the game. Use THAT experience to define how you should feel about a game element, not the nitpicking of metagame things that players never see.