The state of Post-OSR content

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
@Beoric--I'm in agreement that new spells and things can create hooks. I'm not against that at all. But that is all character driven or 'on stage' (which I like too).
I'm mainly referring to Player driven stuff--i.e. being able to present the DM with a new class or kit idea or 'off-stage' stuff. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to invite that from time to time. I know some of you don't like new classes or a themed character or worried that it leads to candy classes or overpowered things--but I believe by working together, making sure the idea is balanced and as GM allowed to change it to be balanced if its not working as intended, that a player will be much more engaged in the game.
Example:
Player: I really want to play a pirate
DM: No, you can't. You can play a fighter and say 'argh' a lot though if you want.
Player: ok...umm..neat. *looks at phone 75% of the session.
Creativity stifled.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
stories regarding the disappearance of a wizard who was rumoured to have solved the problem, or legends of a lost civilization that appears to have used similar magic. I already think that about 5% of treasure should be hooks of some sort, this just inspired me as to what the hooks might be.er (which likely leads directly to the adventure...), and off they go.
Absolutely love this. So right! Every desire is a gateway to adventure and the DM should stoke those fires.

@Malrex: Yes hard, but not prohibative. I just want to preseve challenge and make sure magic-making is not a casual affair. Remember I used to love trying to doing it as a player---in part because it was a challenge.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
@Beoric--I'm in agreement that new spells and things can create hooks. I'm not against that at all. But that is all character driven or 'on stage' (which I like too).
I'm mainly referring to Player driven stuff--i.e. being able to present the DM with a new class or kit idea or 'off-stage' stuff. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to invite that from time to time. I know some of you don't like new classes or a themed character or worried that it leads to candy classes or overpowered things--but I believe by working together, making sure the idea is balanced and as GM allowed to change it to be balanced if its not working as intended, that a player will be much more engaged in the game.
Example:
Player: I really want to play a pirate
DM: No, you can't. You can play a fighter and say 'argh' a lot though if you want.
Player: ok...umm..neat. *looks at phone 75% of the session.
Creativity stifled.
Yeah. To me that's a mess on many levels. I am in the camp of the whole party gets to "play pirates" when they get on a ship and head out on the high seas. I simply won't buy into the refrain that players need access to world-authorship in order to be creative and engaged. Honestly, if a player felt the need for custom rules in order to not be bored (and check out!), he and I probably wouldn't be playing together to begin with. But I'm sure that's just me---there are probably D&D social environment where that's the norm. We do get to choose our friends and the games we play.

That said, my players come up with stuff all the time they want me to "make happen". I try to accommodate or riff off it when it's not destabilizing. But honestly 90% of it is just wish-fulfillment. e.g. the MU has a constant refrain for every treasure haul that goesa little something like this: "Is it a wand/staff/scroll of Power Word Kill?". Um...No...it's most definately not.

Makes me wonder, how much of saying "no" is just a parenting thing. Kids need boundaries to be happy. Maybe players do too. (I did!)
There's an art to it---giving them enough slack to grow without abdicating your job/responsibility....even if sometimes they don't like it.

Last note: Over at K&KA Philotomy Jurament was reminiscing about his pamphlet "Philotomy's Musing" and mentioned thieves:
PJ said:
I haven't looked at the musings in a long time. They were my understanding and interpretation at that time, so they may or may not reflect my current thinking. Mostly I think they still do, but I suspect there may be some things in them that I may have later abandoned or changed in my own games. I believe they were pretty influential among early bloggers and "OSR" enthusiasts. Sometimes that influence went in directions I found surprising (e.g., I think the musing about thieves and thief skills where I expressed a preference to run the game without thieves got turned into a kind of rule or law in some circles, which is not something I anticipated or intended).
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
@Beoric--I'm in agreement that new spells and things can create hooks. I'm not against that at all. But that is all character driven or 'on stage' (which I like too).
I'm mainly referring to Player driven stuff--i.e. being able to present the DM with a new class or kit idea or 'off-stage' stuff. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to invite that from time to time. I know some of you don't like new classes or a themed character or worried that it leads to candy classes or overpowered things--but I believe by working together, making sure the idea is balanced and as GM allowed to change it to be balanced if its not working as intended, that a player will be much more engaged in the game.
Example:
Player: I really want to play a pirate
DM: No, you can't. You can play a fighter and say 'argh' a lot though if you want.
Player: ok...umm..neat. *looks at phone 75% of the session.
Creativity stifled.
Yeah, I'm game to do that, although there are so many options available I would look for an existing (and presumably already playtested) option first. But I've tweaked classes to fit a player's character concept before, or given them "illegal" feats where there was no practical "legal" way to do it. I'm actually pretty quick to do this if there are no obvious balance issues.

EDIT: BTW, a 4e pirate would pretty clearly be a rogue with the Mariner theme.
 
Last edited:

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
I'm open to classes from many sources, subject to final approval. I'm less likely to whole cloth a class, but never say never.

However, I don't think players always consider the narrowness of their choices. They want to play a pirate; often that means they really want a pirate campaign...which isn't really their choice alone to make (but hey, if everyone else does too then fine by me). And then they're not happy when they're playing a fighter who's on land 90% of the time but doesn't wear heavy armor.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
This grew organically on a single page in my sketch pad.

As soon as I saw it, I knew it's exactly what you all were really thinking about how I treat my players...:mad:

ratwings-PCs.jpg
 
Last edited:

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
I'm open to classes from many sources, subject to final approval. I'm less likely to whole cloth a class, but never say never.

However, I don't think players always consider the narrowness of their choices. They want to play a pirate; often that means they really want a pirate campaign...which isn't really their choice alone to make (but hey, if everyone else does too then fine by me). And then they're not happy when they're playing a fighter who's on land 90% of the time but doesn't wear heavy armor.
That's a good point you made.....BUT...it's also THE point (at least in my case). I like the narrowness of the choices set by a new class or theme (player chosen) because it can make things MORE of a challenge. I can see squeen's point of classes becoming candy-classes with all types of powerful stuff going on...but man...I played a freakin librarian class one time limited to divination spells and it was tough (and sometimes boring) but it challenged me to come up with ways of being useful (besides knowing all the right answers, history, etc.)--especially in fights.

Or stuck casting only fire spells? It can put you in some weird spots and at a disadvantage at times. I don't know, I get bored of my characters after about 7th or 8th level because of all the magic items and powers, etc. and want to roll up a level 1 character because its a challenge again.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm open to classes from many sources, subject to final approval. I'm less likely to whole cloth a class, but never say never.
There was a Dragon article with rules for customizing classes back in the day, which saw a little use in my group. IIRC, it was pretty expensive in terms of experience, though.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
There was a Dragon article with rules for customizing classes back in the day, which saw a little use in my group. IIRC, it was pretty expensive in terms of experience, though.
Yeah, they also had a "make up your own class" table in 2E. But if you did, you couldn't "buy" as many powers as the main classes for the same XP. Probably adapted it from the article you remember
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Yeah, they also had a "make up your own class" table in 2E. But if you did, you couldn't "buy" as many powers as the main classes for the same XP. Probably adapted it from the article you remember
It was in Dragon 109, and as it turns out is was written for Basic. It has quite a few options, including flying. regeneration, and limited shapechanging abilities. The 2e table uses essentially the same algorithm, but stripped down; naturally the original author, Paul Montgomery Crabaugh, doesn't get a credit in the 2e DMG.

An interesting quote from the articles, relevant to some of the recent discussions (this is May, 1986):
In the Good Old Days, the days of the original three books of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game, the number of variants on the rules was roughly equal to X, where X was the number of players of the game.

Alas, we all get older and more conservative, and with the publication of the more detailed, more structured D&D® Basic Set, variant rules tended to become one with history.
Of course, that issue also included the barbarian cleric class and half-satyr and half-dryad races, along with an article on difference sized damage dice for weapons if they were made for smaller or larger creatures, so perhaps variant rules had not entirely disappeared.
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
The question I have learned to ask if players come to me with an idea for a character is always to ask 'why do you want to play that/what do you like about that?' Then the decision tree goes as follows:

IF the idea works in the campaign already THEN the answer is yes
IF the idea doesn't work but the underlying reason is clear and does THEN I try to find something in the campaign setting that more or less fulfill the same need (i.e. you can't be an elf but you can be a warrior-mystic from distant Ursk).
IF the idea doesn't work and the underlying reason is not something that DnD adresses well THEN you re-iterate what your campaign is about and you explain why you don't think that works (nuclear option).

Example:
Player: I really want to play a pirate
DM: No, you can't. You can play a fighter and say 'argh' a lot though if you want.
Player: ok...umm..neat. *looks at phone 75% of the session.
Creativity stifled.
This never happens in my games. Every session I have my players recite their favorite pages from the DMG in turn, and even the Monster Manual if we make it that far, and I whack them on the fingers with a ruler if they make a mistake. Then, with their voices hoarse and their fingers bruised but their souls rejuvenated from being immersed in the Lazarus pits of canonic DnD, we shake eachothers hands, nod soberly at a job well done, contemplatively sip a glass of fine bourbon, and declare the session over. On rare occasions, on their birthday, I will allow my players to explore a single room (as long as they adhere to the principles outlined in the DMG) of my procedurally generated dungeon. This opens a doorway to all sorts of unwholesome out-of-the-box thinking that is really quite unseemly, I know, but it is their birthday, so once in the year you must let them blow off some steam. A fine hobby!
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
The question I have learned to ask if players come to me with an idea for a character is always to ask 'why do you want to play that/what do you like about that?' Then the decision tree goes as follows:

IF the idea works in the campaign already THEN the answer is yes
IF the idea doesn't work but the underlying reason is clear and does THEN I try to find something in the campaign setting that more or less fulfill the same need (i.e. you can't be an elf but you can be a warrior-mystic from distant Ursk).
IF the idea doesn't work and the underlying reason is not something that DnD adresses well THEN you re-iterate what your campaign is about and you explain why you don't think that works (nuclear option).



This never happens in my games. Every session I have my players recite their favorite pages from the DMG in turn, and even the Monster Manual if we make it that far, and I whack them on the fingers with a ruler if they make a mistake. Then, with their voices hoarse and their fingers bruised but their souls rejuvenated from being immersed in the Lazarus pits of canonic DnD, we shake eachothers hands, nod soberly at a job well done, contemplatively sip a glass of fine bourbon, and declare the session over. On rare occasions, on their birthday, I will allow my players to explore a single room (as long as they adhere to the principles outlined in the DMG) of my procedurally generated dungeon. This opens a doorway to all sorts of unwholesome out-of-the-box thinking that is really quite unseemly, I know, but it is their birthday, so once in the year you must let them blow off some steam. A fine hobby!
***walks backward from the table with hands upraised, nodding the head...slowly***
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
BTW, I read the Role Aid suggestions and now agree that "Classic" (what I'll be calling it in the essay) is a play culture. So we're up to six, and I've written the classic section. I'm almost done, it's mainly putting an editing pass over the essay. This first essay will mostly just be a taxonomy with some basic notes with the possibility of a deep dive on each one to follow if there's interest.
Before you firm up what "Classic" might embody in a playstyle, you might want to look at this post from Maliszewski - and the comments, and commenters. It talks a lot about the domain game, which I think is at odds with a characterization of EGG's style as being mainly challenge based.
 

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
I tend to think of the domain game as still being challenge-based. When you look at the AD&D 1e DMG, the domain game is very much about sieging castles and other structures, taking on hordes of humanoids in their lairs to clear a hex, and gathering followers and specialists who help you find and/or take on bigger challenges. The challenges become grander in scope, and progression is slower, but the focus is on how to challenge higher-level PCs and keep things interesting.

One interesting thing in those comments is the repeated refrain from multiple commenters that they did this in the early 1980s, and then stopped doing it as the game became more story-oriented across the 1980s and 1990s. Rob Kuntz himself shows up about halfway through to say:

We had no qualms at all at DMing even higher leveled PCs in the original campaign, such as godlings, etc. Why? Because everything's equal if you scale it, just different and more involved intrigues, more Machiavellian, more pronounced with sinister dealings, more at stake, etc.
I think that shows that a progressive development of challenge was also at the root of domain play in classic play.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm not sure that I agree, although I'm open to being convinced. For starters, the rewards for defeating opponents in the domain game seem to be more narrative in nature, or at least there are few structures for non-narrative rewards. Do you get XP for income earned from your estate? Is each peasant on a fighter's estate worth 0.35 XP per month? What is the reward for defeating another lord's army? I somehow doubt Gygax gave the value of an occupied castle in XPs.

Moreover, the domain game itself is fundamentally different, and much less structured, than basic exploration based games. I don't see how it is possible to run the domain game with the existing (lack of) mechanics without there being a lot of free form play, with a large social and political element. And from what I have read about Gygax' campaigns that is the way they were run. I can point to the "history of the temple" in ToEE, but I have seem similar anecdotes elsewhere. And consider this quote from DMG p. 112 (sadly, it is not possible to have a pithy Gygax quote):

While it might seem highly unlikely to those who have not been involved in fantasy adventure gaming for an extended period of time, after the flush of excitement wears off — perhaps a few months or a year, depending on the intensity of play — some participants will become bored and move to other gaming forms, returning to your campaign only occasionally. Shortly thereafter even your most dedicated players will occasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges. It is possible, however, for you to devise a campaign which will have a very minimal amount of participant attrition and enthusiast ennui, and it is not particularly difficult to do so.

... Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be
evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement. [Emphasis added]
Furthermore, there are a lot of game structures and anecdotes that strongly support roleplay. For example, there is the existence of alignment, and rules punishing alignment deviation, and game elements that force alignment and gender changes (accompanied by an express expectation that players will run the character as though it has the new alignment, and not seek to change it back).

I admit my ideas on this are not fully formed yet, but I often feel like Gygax' game was a lot more narrative based than a lot of OSR commentators seem to give it credit for. Not in the Hickman, forced plot sense, but at least to the extent that challenge alone was not enough. On the other hand, maybe there is a discernable "classical" style, but maybe it deviates from how Gygax really played or even presented the game. I have always wanted to play in a domain game, but I neve have, I'm not sure if any of the posters here ever have. It sounds like the commenters in Maliszewski's post may have dabbled with it, but ended up abandoning it (and there are a few comments lamenting the lack of game structures to support it). I'm not sure the domain game ever really caught on. Maybe the classical style omits domain play, and possibly other more narrative elements as well.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Have you read Gygax’s essay in dragon 103? Of course there was roleplaying in his game. And he considered the game to have drifted, as well. His ratio was different
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
You mean on his vision for 2e? I'm not seeing how it relates.
Your skepticism of the non canonical challenge-based Classic modus as described by Pseudoepinephrine is based on two seperate points, but both of them are either fallacious, or you must elaborate on your reasoning.

1) Classic D&D had a domain component. Leaving aside that most people did not play at domain level, Pseudoepinephrine then states that domain-games can also be based on challenge, and your objection stating that the definitive rewards of such a game are much less clearly defined then that of a wilderness-game or a dungeon crawling game are true, but this is a Non Sequitor. You get rewarded for the size of your domain, thus by increasing it you increase in power, and there are (presumably) ways to go about this, from clearing a hex to get rid of monsters to hiring an army of mercenary and beating up some other Baron. The point of a challenge-based method of play is that the primary focus is on overcoming obstacles through the use of player skill, with the roleplaying element taking a backseat to this and you can easily combine this with a domain-level game.

Incidentally, for challenge based domain or sub domain level, I'd point you to X10, C1 and...C2? There are a few rare examples but they are there.

2) There is a roleplaying component in Gygaxian ADnD. EOTB points out that you are inadvertently creating a false dichotomy; that challenge-based games cannot have roleplaying. He points to the fact that virtually every game, Gygax-included, has roleplaying in it, but that the percentage of which the entire game is devoted to this is much different then that in the Traditional school (Roleplaying vertiam est etc. etc.), with its elaborate backstories, deep setting immersion, roleplaying xp etc. etc. I run my game pretty vanilla basic, module crawl, but even I try to encourage it every once in a blue moon, even if it is only by threatening them if they start acting too uppity towards my NPCs.
 
Last edited:

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
You mean on his vision for 2e? I'm not seeing how it relates.
Sorry, issue 102

Realms of role playing
Let’s start pushing the pendulum the other way
by Gary Gygax

There was a long period of time when
action, rather than role playing, was the
major focus of gaming, and this was especially
true with respect to tournament scenarios
at conventions. Thus, an AD&D®
game scenario would typically stress combat
with monsters to achieve the goal set before
the characters. Now, the pendulum has
swung the other way much emphasis is
being placed on how well the player takes
on the role of his or her character. Personification
and acting are replacing action of the
more direct and forceful type be it sword
swinging, spell casting, or anything else.
Before this trend goes too far, it is time to
consider what the typical role-playing game
is all about.
First, it is important to remember that
(role-playing is a modifier of the noun
game. We are dealing with a game which
is based on role playing, but it is first and
foremost a game. Games are not plays,
although role-playing games should have
some of the theatre included in their play.
To put undue stress upon mere role-playing
places the cart before the horse. Role playing
is a necessary part of the game, but it is
by no means the whole of the matter.
Role playing is similar to, but not the
same as, role assumption. The latter term is
generally used to identify the individuals
acceptance of a part which he or she could
actually perform. While a child might play
the role of a parent, an adult would assume
that role when dealing with his or her children.
This distinction is important in the
context of gaming because of the stress now
being placed upon role playing. Too much
emphasis in this direction tends to make
playing out an adventure more of a children
s lets pretend activity than an
action-packed game which involves all sorts
of fun, including the playing of a role but
other fun aspects as well.
A role-playing game should be such that
players begin the personification portion as
role play, and then as they progress the
activity should evolve into something akin
to role assumption. This does away with
stilted attempts to act the part of some
character. In place of this, players should
try to become that person they are imagining
during the course of the game, and
conduct the actions of their characters accordingly.
A spy, for example, speaks in one
way to his superiors, in another way when
he converses with his equals, and in yet an
entirely different way when he is attempting
to penetrate an enemy installation and is
impersonating a plumber, perhaps. Imple-
mented in this fashion, the concept becomes
one of roles within roles.
This applies to all role-playing games, of
course. Straining to play a role is certainly
contrary to the purpose of the game. The
actual reason for gaming is fun, not instruction
in theatrics or training in the thespian
art. Role playing is certainly a necessary
and desirable part of the whole game, but it
is a part. Challenge, excitement, suspense,
and questing are other portions equally
necessary to a game of this nature.
Problem solving is the typical challenge
in a role-playing game. Whether it is discovering
a murderer, finding a magic
sword, or seeking to expose a gang of criminals,
this element is an integral part of such
interactive gaming. And note that problem
solving, in this context, has to do with a
problem to be solved by the character, not a
problem (such as How do I role-play this
situation?) to be solved by the player.
Combat, survival amidst threatening
conditions, or stalking an opponent are
typical means of adding excitement and
suspense into the whole. These are actionoriented
portions of the game activity which
call for little role playing but a fair amount
of role assumption. The magic-user character
(and thus, the player of that character)
must know his or her spells and how to
utilize them efficiently. The explorer must
know outdoor craft. Whatever the situation,
setting, or character being played, skill
not theatrics is what is called for here.
Having a goal, understanding it, and
the hands of the game master and the players.
If a particular group desires to stress
acting, or combat, or problem solving, or
any other singular feature of the whole, that
is strictly up to the individuals concerned.
How they enjoy gaming, and what constitutes
fun, is theirs alone to decide.
This last point extends not only to players
but to products as well. A particular game
might be designed to stress one aspect over
others. Role playing can be the major
thrust, or action and combat, or any of the
other elements. Similarly, the underlying
game might offer one or another while its
accessories and scenarios develop some
different aspects. Most games and support
material are general and offer a reasonably
well-balanced mix.
But is this true for competition situations
as well? In contrast to a long period when
such tournaments tended to feature hackand-
slash, shoot-em-up, and blast-em-out
situations, there is now a trend toward
downplaying everything
cal side of gaming. This
except the theatritendency
has evidenced
itself to a lesser extent in some
support materials, it must be noted. The
reaction is not altogether unwarranted, for
many particpants seem to have been ignoring
role playing completely, or nearly so,
their games. Instead, it is usual for such
in
games to stress direct, usually violent,
remaining steadfast in its completion are
likewise necessary to role-playing games.
This questing, if you will, again has little or
nothing to do with role playing in the acting
sense. It is closer to role assumption and is a
measure of gaming ability and skill.
Role-playing games are different from
other games in that they allow participants
to create a game persona, develop this
character, and enhance his or her skills and
abilities. While some considerable amount
of acting is most beneficial to play, this is by
no means the sole objective or purpose. The
fun of such gaming includes all the other
elements mentioned, plus the interactive
relationships which develop between the
various characters of the players participating.
In the well-balanced game, role playing
should quickly become role assumption,
which then again leads to character role
playing roles within roles!
Not every game of this sort must be
action. This is a true detriment to fully
appreciating the scope of role-playing
games; as with most things, one extreme is
just as undesirable as the other.
The current vogue of placing seemingly
undue importance on the role-playing portion
of the game is simply meant to inform
and educate participants about a very important
segment of what differentiates these
games from other types of games. It is to be
hoped that the needed training thus afforded
will enable game participants to go
beyond role playing of their characters and
enter into role assumption instead. Once it
is understood that role playing is a vital
ingredient of the game, and players understand
how to actually accomplish it, the
undue attention can be discarded.
Balanced games are certainly the most
enjoyable sort for the great majority of
players. A meal does not consist of but one
thing if it is to be an enjoyable one. By
the same token, a role-playing game must
have all the ingredients which allow it to be
varied and enjoyable. Playing and assumption
of roles, interpersonal dealings, action,
completely balanced with regard to all of
these aspects. Such a decision is entirely in
problem solving, excitement, suspense, and
questing are all important to make the
whole. The portions can be mixed in different
amounts, but each should have a degree
of existence within the scope of the whole.
It is common for scenarios to identify the
level of experience and skill recommended
for those utilizing the material they provide.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to also
identify any particular stress the scenario
places upon a certain aspect of the game
activity role-playing, action, problem
solving, or any other.
Tournament scenarios and competitions
might also benefit by such identification.
Prospective entrants would then be able to
determine which aspect they favor, or possibly
need to learn more of, before they entered
the event. Participants who find their
enjoyment lies in one area or another would
thus be able to select events optimal for
their tastes and avoid those which they
might find less fun making the competition
experience more enjoyable for everyone
who does take part. Is the player who has
difficulty personifying a well-understood
character any different from an excellent
thespian who misplays the game otherwise?
By being able to identify the focus of a
scenario, not only would players be informed,
but they would also be given the
opportunity to round out their abilities in
weak areas if they chose to do so.
Play of the game is the thing. Play includes
development of the character and
personification thereof, role assumption and
role playing, and the rest. After all, fantasy
in whatever form is integral. Whether fighting
a dragon, piloting a starship, or shooting
it out with evil enemy agents, the action
imagined during the game is what really
makes it fun. The pendulum did need to
move a bit to balance things, but it must
not go too far, or the realms of role playing
will become small and constricted instead of
being as they should be as broad and
varied as the imagination.
 
Top