The state of Post-OSR content

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I quibble on a point of order: this is not a meaningful statement and undermines your discussion.
...
IE: given the definitions, my model is correct, regardless of the market wants of the public for ToBeRead adventures.
If I had the time today, I would pick that this more: i.e. let's look at Bryce's Four Pillars and decide if they are (reasonably) objective and universal or do they have some sort of baked-in assumptions of a certain type of DM-preference or play-style.

I would find that discussion interesting.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
let's look at Bryce's Four Pillars and decide if they are (reasonably) objective and universal or do they have some sort of baked-in assumptions of a certain type of DM-preference or play-style.
ooh, I'm taking the first stab at this one, guy-who-doesn't-exist-to-me.

Ease-of-Use: universal - everyone benefits from easy use.

Evocative: universal - nobody wants to be bored.

Interactive: debatable - interactivity is highly dependent on the interaction, which is not universal. If the goal is just more interactions in general, then it's probably universal (see: nobody wants to be bored), but only if those interactions are beneficial and not detrimental. For example, it's technically considered highly interactive if every time the party wants to go through a dungeon door they have to perform a lengthy and convoluted ceremony, but I wouldn't exactly call it "good" interactivity, unless long door ceremonies are totally your thing. Bad interactions, like ones that are tedious, repetitive, or annoying, would obviously be detrimental to a game rather than beneficial.

Design: debatable - some elements, like not hiding most of the dungeon behind a single skill check, are universally accepted as sensible. Others, like zero-tolerance railroading and use of the quantum ogre, are variable depending on the user. I think the best we can hope for is design that is, at the very least, not broken.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
If I had the time today, I would pick that this more: i.e. let's look at Bryce's Four Pillars and decide if they are (reasonably) objective and universal or do they have some sort of baked-in assumptions of a certain type of DM-preference or play-style.

I would find that discussion interesting.
It would be interesting. I'm not sure if it could be counted on to be polite to our host. I try to avoid invoking Bryce in argument because it would be bound to provoke counterarguments about what Bryce really thinks, which he may eventually feel a need to intervene in. I assume he stays out of the arguments in this forum for a reason, and I wouldn't want to drag him in against his better judgment.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
It would be interesting. I'm not sure if it could be counted on to be polite to our host. I try to avoid invoking Bryce in argument because it would be bound to provoke counterarguments about what Bryce really thinks, which he may eventually feel a need to intervene in. I assume he stays out of the arguments in this forum for a reason, and I wouldn't want to drag him in against his better judgment.
Agreed. That kind of conversation does risk making the poor guy into some messianic figure and us his squabbling apostles... #LifeOfBrian
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
I quibble on a point of order: this is not a meaningful statement and undermines your discussion.

This is only true to the extent that it is ALWAYS true. NOTHING can be seen as concrete, Descartes, and we must always question everything. "Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes." Everything is opinion. But, to have a meaningful conversation we must move beyond No Accounting For Taste and put a stake in the ground and defend our molehill, asserting its reality. Otherwise we never say anything than the second and third sentences of the above quote. Further, I believe it weaken any argument when it is pointed out, akin to stating "Well, assuming my eyes and brain and the rest of me are operating in the fashion in which I expect then, yes, it is night out."

IE: given the definitions, my model is correct, regardless of the market wants of the public for ToBeRead adventures.
I don't agree that the statement is always true but I agree a more meaningful discussion should take place instead. Perhaps I get autistically fixated on the definitions of words, but objective measures do exist as objects have objective properties like weight, mass, color, molecular composition or belong to definite categories like say, a dog that are not dependent on the properties of the observer. That being said, I think a more useful question would have been to ask whether your standards are reliable (can they be reproduced) and valid (do they represent reality).

I think given your assumptions someone can take your standards and arrive at similar conclusions. I mean our standards often overlap and we arrive at similar conclusions. Do those standards accurately represent 'most fun' for most people? Probably.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
The Quantum Ogre is controversial? I thought it was an industry standard. I'm going to have to go back and reread it...
In it's original context, it was offered up as demonstrably bad --- stealing player agency. I agree with that view point. Story gamers, for example, might not.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
In it's original context, it was offered up as demonstrably bad --- stealing player agency. I agree with that view point. Story gamers, for example, might not.
This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I go on about assessing the impact design has on your game. The quantum ogre removes player agency. A dispassionate discussion of how it does so is useful. Then the DM can decide whether that impact is negative or positive, based on his assessment of whether his players will notice or care. Arguments that it is true (it impacts agency), therefore it is negative; or that it is positive, therefore it is false; are neither true nor helpful.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
The quantum ogre removes player agency.
Ah, whoops, dusted off a classic argument - I apologize for having re-introduced such a raw topic. Sleeping dogs, and all that.

For what it's worth, I'll agree that the QO removes player agency (ish), but I also believe that the consequences of that not as game-breaking or serious as everyone makes it out to be. For example, in the "original context" post (from Courtney Campbell; one dude's opinion) - he says:

It matters for these reasons.
  • If you always pre-ordain 'your precious encounter' then the players never have the experience of choosing correctly and skipping right to the end (which is fun for them).
  • The flaw of the Quantum Ogre is that, if you have a party who plays smart, he won't be quantum long before you enter the woods, and then you've wasted time by not assigning him to a location already or you become the jerk DM where ESP doesn't work, the ground doesn't hold tracks, and if you try and teleport - suddenly anti-magic fields everywhere.
...but I personally find these to be super weak arguments. He says "players never have the experience of choosing correctly and skipping right to the end" which is A) subjective to the player/group, which I know because my players do not especially enjoy skipping to the end of something immediately and B) flat-out wrong that they never have the experience, especially if the QO is being used properly. His second point about having wasted time and his assumption that everyone must bend over backward to cater to the QO with "anti-magic fields" or whatever is also hilariously personal anecdote, and not really any sort of evidence against QOs (more of just a personal admission that Courtney knows approximately jack-shit about properly running QOs).

He also ends the post with:

What's really terrible about the destruction of player agency in the above examples is the implicit thought that 'your encounter that's sooo cool' is what makes Dungeons and Dragons fun. It's not. It's getting in that Dispel Evil on Strahd that slays him outright. It's getting that critical on that dragon while it's talking shit. It's taking down that frost giant at first level—not a fsking precious encounter.

Again, supremely specific to his particular experience, and basically worthless as any sort of evidence that he's right about QOs. I mean, what if my encounter really is good? Just because Courtney assumes nobody can write a cool encounter, does that automatically invalidate any points in the QO's favor?

Also for what it's worth, no, slaying Strahd outright with a low level spell would not be fun for many - my players would find that to be really fucking stupid.

This is the problem with these kinds of debates though... I freely admit that my own personal viewpoint on QOs is heavily colored by my experience with them, just as Courtney's and Beoric's and anyone else's is as well. You can't put a hard "yes this is bad" or "no this is fine" on most approaches to gameplay, because every person plays the game differently.
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Arguments that it is true (it impacts agency), therefore it is negative; or that it is positive, therefore it is false; are neither true nor helpful.
I thought I agreed with what you were saying...but then I reached this sentence and after three four attempts, my brain gave up trying to unpack it. :)
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I thought I agreed with what you were saying...but then I reached this sentence and after three four attempts, my brain gave up trying to unpack it. :)
I mean it should be self evident that, if the result is the same regardless of the players' choice, then the player's choice is meaningless and agency is negated. That really should not be an issue for serious debate.

I think it is possible to have a debate about whether the negation of player agency in this manner is a bad thing. My hypothesis is that is nearly universally is a bad thing, and I can point to examples from my experience, but I can't prove it.

The problem is that when you have a discussion about whether negating player agency using a quantum ogre is a bad thing, it tends to devolve into two arguments. People who think it is ok to use a quantum ogre, start denying that it results in a denial of agency, despite the fact that the description of the quantum ogre is by definition of denial of agency. And people who don't think it is ok to use a quantum ogre start to argue that a denial of agency is by definition of bad thing, which really cannot be proven logically and could only be proven (if at all) empirically using data that nobody has.

Which makes it impossible to have either a neutral discussion about the effect, or to reasonably compare opinions and experience regarding whether it is good or bad, because both sides are starting from a faulty premise.

Its like if I say vanilla ice cream is made with vanilla (or vanillin), and someone tells me I'm wrong because vanilla ice cream tastes bland. And then I counter with the argument that it can't be bland because it has vanilla, and that person says I'm wrong, it can't have vanilla because it's bland. It is just as pointless an argument, just not as obviously so.

EDIT: What we should be doing is both acknowledging that it is made with vanilla, and limiting the good/bad discussion to matters like the impact of the presence or absence of other ingredients, or accompaniments, or regional or cultural tastes, or the neurology of taste, of a million other things that have nothing to do with the presence of vanilla, because vanilla ice cream has vanilla flavouring by definition.
 
Last edited:

TerribleSorcery

Should be playing D&D instead
Again, supremely specific to his particular experience, and basically worthless as any sort of evidence that he's right about QOs. I mean, what if my encounter really is good? Just because Courtney assumes nobody can write a cool encounter, does that automatically invalidate any points in the QO's favor?

Also for what it's worth, no, slaying Strahd outright with a low level spell would not be fun for many - my players would find that to be really fucking stupid.

This is the problem with these kinds of debates though... I freely admit that my own personal viewpoint on QOs is heavily colored by my experience with them, just as Courtney's and Beoric's and anyone else's is as well. You can't put a hard "yes this is bad" or "no this is fine" on most approaches to gameplay, because every person plays the game differently.
Dispel Evil is 5th level. Not sure if that counts as low-level magic, especially since the original I6 Ravenloft is for characters of 5th-7th level, so they would have had to bring a scroll. In that event, your group would feel robbed of their chance to slug it out with an enemy that drains 2 levels with every melee attack?

On a larger note. This seems to be a problem with discourse around TTRPGs in general. Folks seem to fall into it often around here. If all we can manage to retort is "well, maybe that's how it works in YOUR game..." whenever anyone says anything, then the sane thing to do is just stop talking.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
EDIT: What we should be doing is both acknowledging that it is made with vanilla, and limiting the good/bad discussion to matters like the impact of the presence or absence of other ingredients, or accompaniments, or regional or cultural tastes, or the neurology of taste, of a million other things that have nothing to do with the presence of vanilla, because vanilla ice cream has vanilla flavouring by definition.
You've been drinking, right? It's OK to admit you post while dunk. We're all adults here. Malrex and Bryce have already established it as the culture norm, so...no shame, man. Maybe we could come up with a little "tell" so everyone knows not to bother take it too seriously---is there an I'm-drunk-right-now emoji?

:geek:
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Also for what it's worth, no, slaying Strahd outright with a low level spell would not be fun for many - my players would find that to be really fucking stupid.
My players would feel pretty clever about it, as would I if I was playing. And its rarely just "casting a low level spell", its usually some elaborate scheme that ends with dropping a mountain on a dragon, or in Strahd's case perhaps contriving to trap him in sunlight.
 

Reason

A FreshHell to Contend With
Killing Strahd that way is inventive- I like to encourage creative uses of spells.

I'd give Strahd a save vs spells though. And if he saves, it's indicative that Strahd can't be killed that way. So can't just spam cast it at him until he fails a save eventually.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
My players would feel pretty clever about it, as would I if I was playing. And its rarely just "casting a low level spell", its usually some elaborate scheme that ends with dropping a mountain on a dragon, or in Strahd's case perhaps contriving to trap him in sunlight.
As a player, when I put in the work to assassinate a BBEG, I fucking hate getting foiled by DM fiat. But when I'm playing I'm more interested in exploration, investigation and planning, so I could see how some DM's would see it as defending the rights of the other players to a good fight. But honestly, if the whole party worked together to figure out the BBEG's weaknesses and how to sneak into his lair undetected and then drop on him full nuclear; no monologue, no cutscene; the DM should suck it up and let the dice fall where they will, and if we gank the guy in one round as a result it's a real win for us. Our hard work has paid off; possibly differently than was expected having chosen to take on a different set of risks and challenges, but paid off nonetheless. I get it; as a DM I've put hours into planning a climactic encounter, it hurts to get got like that, but is this about you or your players? And if you have built up trust with your players by not foiling their dirty tricks with your own even dirtier ones, they might even do their planning in front of you so you can make the planning and preparation fun and challenging.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Here's a thought about the "Next Wave" of RPG's...and I'm basing it on some things I've read recently --- maybe it's European.
After all, the cloning-magic is now out of the bottle...so the "new D&D" can come from any direction.

Think about the various back-and-forth "invasions" of popular music. Perhaps we are on the verge of a European infusion of D&D alternatives.

Also, thinking a bit about the OSR-As-Movement...I think we saw one of those rare surges when D&D was a "fad" again. Like all fads it brings with it a lot of BS. I think things are a lot more comfortable now that the fad-stage has passed.

The fact that one of it's most vocal proponents (he-who-shall-not-be-named) was living in Hollywood California and associated with the "film" industry should have been evidence enough D&D had cracked the trendy mainstream...and the hobby's old guard should have braced itself for some uncharacteristic ups-and-downs by putting on it's heavy-duty noise filters (perhaps they did).
 

HypthtcllySpkng

*eyeroll*
Here's a thought about the "Next Wave" of RPG's...and I'm basing it on some things I've read recently --- maybe it's European.
After all, the cloning-magic is now out of the bottle...so the "new D&D" can come from any direction.

Think about the various back-and-forth "invasions" of popular music. Perhaps we are on the verge of a European infusion of D&D alternatives.
I have been seeing a lot of stuff in the 5e realm like the Midgard setting becoming more popular too. Just an emphasis on the inclusion of more diverse cultures to draw inspiration from. The Maori gods being included in a pantheon, or the African ones. 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?
 

Mage Hand

*eyeroll*
Here are the details.

Don’t confuse the way 4e was presented in a multitude of god-awful adventures with the way the mechanics actually work. As I said above, with the exception of the XP system, there is not a single mandatory mechanic in 4e that stands in the way of having a 1e play experience (unless your experience depends on rules nostalgia, of course).

The mechanic that drives every edition of D&D is that it is a game of attrition that requires players to manage scarce resources that are periodically replenished, usually daily. Most of the resources are identical in 4e, with the exception that health is more properly measured in healing surges than in hit points.

Lets start with the skill/ability check system. The core mechanic in 4e for every type of check including combat is: roll 1d20, add your modifiers, compare to a target number.

That 4e “rules heavy” approach replaces the following 1e “rules light” mechanics: different strength modifiers to hit and damage; roll low on a d6 to open doors, except when you roll low on a d8; roll low on percentile dice to bend bars/lift gates; wisdom bonus to certain types of saves; different dex modifiers for AC and missile discharge; roll low on a d6 and apply a dex modifier to determine surprise; roll low on percentile dice for eight different Thief skills, with six different dex modifiers, eight different racial modifiers, plus a number of armor modifiers I can’t remember; different con modifiers for fighters and non-fighters; roll low on percentile dice for system shock; roll low on percentile dice for resurrection survival; different cha modifiers for loyalty and reaction adjustment; assassination table; assassin spying table; chance for a sage to know something table; roll low on a d6 to detect secret doors; weapon speed factor; armor class “to hit” adjustment; loyalty of henchmen table (percentile based, with a couple of dozen modifiers); detection of invisibility table; listening at door table; encounter reaction table (percentile based); morale table; ranger tracking (percentile based); evasion of pursuit mechanics (percentile based, lots of modifiers); matrix for clerics affecting undead; psionic v. psionic combat table; psionic v. defenseless psionic table; psionic v. non-psionic table; saving throw tables; entirely different combat system for sieges; entirely different, percentile based system for weaponless combat, with different tables for grappling and pummeling; rolling under ability score with 1d20 or 3d6, depending on your preference; and rolling under or over an arbitrarily chosen number on an arbitrarily chosen die any time you need to determine something randomly and can’t figure out what ability score to apply. Have I missed anything?

My point is, rolling a die to determine success or failure is common to 1e and 4e, and the only difference between using a unified mechanic and using a few dozen subsystems is how any charts you have to look at.

Social skills are just reaction and loyalty checks. Perception checks replace the find traps mechanic, the find secret doors mechanic, and the surprise mechanic. Ability checks are in pretty much universal use now, whether you are rolling a d20, adding mods, and comparing to a target number; or rolling a d20 or 3d6 and trying to get under your ability score.

Let’s look at hit points and healing. In 1e the character loses hit points over the course of the day and if he runs out he dies (unless someone binds his wounds: DMG p. 82). However, he can use magic to recover hit points. In 4e the character loses healing surges over the course of the day and if he runs out he dies (no exceptions). There is no way other than rest to recover healing surges. In practice these mechanics provoke the same behaviour from players; when they get low, it is time to hole up somewhere and heal.

In 1e, after a fight the party takes 10 minutes to search the bodies, search the area, etc., bind wounds, and those who need to heal apply resources in the form of potions (a consumable resource) and spells (a daily resource) in order to do so. In 4e, after a fight the party takes 5 minutes to search the bodies, search the area, etc., and those who need to heal apply resources in the form of healing surges (a daily resource). In practice these mechanics provoke nearly the same behaviour from players.

In 1e, if a character drops to 0 hit points, he bleeds out until he hits -10 hit points, at which point he dies. Bleeding and death can therefore take up to 10 rounds, and can be prevented by binding his wounds or applying healing magic. In 4e, if a character drops to 0 hit points, he makes death saves until he fails three, at which point he dies. Death can therefore take as few as three rounds, but on average occurs in six rounds, and can be prevented by binding his wounds or applying healing magic. In practice the mechanics provoke identical behaviour.

At the end of the day in 4e you sleep and recover all of your healing surges. At the end of the day in 1e you sleep and, if you use no magic, recover only 1 hit point (with certain modifiers for constitution). So theoretically natural healing is slower. In practice, I have never found that to be the case. Healing spells are recovered daily, and can be purchased from clerics in town (and the characters get a lot more gold from adventuring in 1e). At worst the cleric spends a whole day casting healing spells. I see little practical difference.

(It’s also worth mentioning that diseases are more prevalent in 4e and often take several days to heal if you don’t have access to magic.)

Let’s talk about light. In 1e, torches (40’ radius) cost 1 cp and last an hour. Noone ever runs out of light. We were discussing it in this thread and I don’t think anyone had ever run a campaign where someone ran out of light. Any risk is completely obviated by third level, when either the MU can cast continual light (60’ radius) on a stick, or you can pay a MU to cast continual light on a stick, always assuming you haven’t picked up a magical sword or dagger. By fifth level your cleric definitely has continual light (120’ radius). And pretty much all the demihumans in the party have infravision.

In 4e, torches (25’ radius) cost 1 sp and last an hour. Sunrods (100’ radius) cost 2 gp and last four hours. An everburning torch (25’ radius) costs 50 gp and lasts forever. (Note that characters can expect to get about 1/14th the amount of gold from adventuring between levels 1 and 2.) A light spell (20’ radius) costs nothing. As with 1e, there is not much chance of running out of light, but it is more expensive and it gives off considerably less light. And unless you have a drow, duergar, kobold, shade or svirfneblin in your party, nobody has infravision. And fewer parties include wizards.

If anything, light is more of a problem in 4e; but in most instances, the only difference in playstyle is that the 4e party will get surprised more, and the encounter distances are shorter.

Diplomacy checks, a charisma based mechanic, replace reaction tables, a charisma based mechanic.

There is no express mechanic for morale, but the skill system can accommodate it without making any new rules (Intimidate check, made whenever you would check in your favourite old school system). We found the 1e morale system clunky anyway, and tended to just roleplay NPC reactions based on their personality and the circumstances. I suspect using the 4e skill system for morale is more like Basic, if I am remembering it correctly, in that it is a simple roll against a target number.

Skill Challenges are a poor mechanic, but they are discretionary. I, and I think most people who still play 4e, generally use our discretion not to use them, which breaks no rules.

Character options can slow down character creation and level advancement. Fortunately, it can be done between sessions, so it has no effect on playstyle. It is also allowable to limit options. Lots of DMs limit options to just those in the PH, and there are actually fewer classes in the 4e PH than there are in the 1e PH. Others use the Essentials books, which contain fewer classes with fewer options and simpler mechanics. And for those spur of the moment sessions, I keep a bunch of pregenerated first level characters around, and convert 1e modules on the fly.
It would have taken me three hours to write an essay like this. Bravo.
 
Top