The state of Post-OSR content

[Pseudoephedrine]

Great find EotB, and it sums up Gygax's views on trad and how he sees his vision differing from it very well. I concur with you and Prince that nothing says you can't roleplay in classic games, but the roleplaying is understood as one component of a larger game experience, whereas trad holds it to be the privileged and most important facet of the game.

 

[Beoric]

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.

I'm not challenging the assertion that a classic style existed, I'm questioning what elements it contains. You may recall that my initial comment was:

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. [Emphasis added]

There has been some discussion here regarding what "classic" is comprised of. For example, I believe that somebody has asserted that it is primarily about challenge based play. I have also seen commenters in the OSR who seem to reject roleplaying (meaning making decisions and behiving in character), although they are fine with roleplaying (resolving actions narratively, i.e. as opposed to "roll-playing" - really we need to establish a common vocabulary). And there are some in the OSR who would equate "classic" with "OSR", although I don't think that is anybody here.

So I guess what I am really getting at is what are the elements that distinguish classic gaming from other types of gaming, including the OSR? Does it include domain play, and does that mean we need to look harder at whether challenge based play is a key component, or do we need to define what challenge based play is? What does "roleplaying" mean in the context of classic play?

EDIT: Gygax' essay in Dragon 102 does get at the way he viewed roleplaying (and it pretty close to my own view), but he also mentions that trad is a reaction to a trend of minimizing roleplay. So I think it is a valid question whether Gygax' vision had broad acceptance and therefore characterizes "classic", or whether the more broadly accepted "classic" is actually something he would have disagreed with.

 

[EOTB]

Just because some people have zero interest in roleplaying doesn't mean they define that style of play.

Roleplaying: considered a valid part but neither required nor excluded. Honestly who really cares? Why does where roleplaying fit in to something always seem to be so important? People will do it when the mood strikes them, and I hope they never attempt to force it. If that means absolutely zero roleplaying any session or string of sessions; I'm good. If that means a lot of roleplaying that makes every single participant's night more enjoyable, I'm also good. But I'm ultimately not there for the roleplaying.

Edit - perhaps the best way I can describe nearly everyone I know who approaches the game similarly, is they recognize what is salt, what is meat, and that it is very easy to over-salt the meat.

 

[Beoric]

Just because some people have zero interest in roleplaying doesn't mean they define that style of play.

Roleplaying: considered a valid part but neither required nor excluded. Honestly who really cares? Why does where roleplaying fit in to something always seem to be so important? People will do it when the mood strikes them, and I hope they never attempt to force it. If that means absolutely zero roleplaying any session or string of sessions; I'm good. If that means a lot of roleplaying that makes every single participant's night more enjoyable, I'm also good. But I'm ultimately not there for the roleplaying.

Edit - perhaps the best way I can describe nearly everyone I know who approaches the game similarly, is they recognize what is salt, what is meat, and that it is very easy to over-salt the meat.

I don't disagree with this, but I understood that the definition of "classic" was not necessarily going to be how Gygax played, or how most of the people on this board like to play, but was going to reflect the culture as it actually was. I'm not saying that doesn't include roleplaying (however defined), I'm just saying we shouldn't assume that it does.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I'm not challenging the assertion that a classic style existed, I'm questioning what elements it contains.

Your skepticism of the non canonical challenge-based Classic modus

That's a defensive response based on semantics. I am not attacking you personally, I am trying to clarify so both sides can produce the clearest argumentation that leads to the conclusion the fastest.

I will help you. You are, for whatever reason, in disagreement about the existence of a classical challenge-based style of D&D as it has now been formulated, while simultaneously asking us to define it, and questioning whether Gygax might not have agreed with it. Notice that these questions cannot be resolved simultaneously. Your attack strategy should be more focused.

Definition. I am doing your work for you.

If this culture exists/existed, I'd use the term "classic" to distinguish it from "old school" which has too many other prominent associations to do more than confuse. "Classic" would be the only culture of play that didn't have an autonym (tho' I think / hope the positive associations of "classic" would appeal to its adherents as a self-designation).

One important point of distinction between "classic" and the "OSR" would be that Gygax saw progressively escalating challenges balanced to progressively escalating PC agency as a core dynamic of play expressing a value of "fairness" or "balance" (he even uses the dreaded term "game balance" to defend specific game design decisions). OSR design tends to be more interested in variance in PC agency for its own sake. I tend to consider this distinction to support the existence of classic as a distinct culture.

Recall how we ultimately settled an earlier dispute with Pseudo not by producing voluminous torrents of gibberish but by providing examples of non-canonical 3rd party material very clearly centred around challenge based play (they are, indeed, tournament modules). If you want to convince people that this typography is incorrect then the easiest way is to bring up material from that era (I believe it was 1977-1983?) that does not seem to conform to that description.

I can think of Empire of the Petal Throne as something that is heavily geared towards immersion and world-building but it is clearly a more fringe game. Looking at domain play is probably not a good angle, because I do not think the underlying fundamentals of a game will suddenly alter along with the form, as by then the players have been habituated to a challenge-based style and the shift is likely to be jarring.

 

[Beoric]

Man, I have no skin in this game. I saw an article and discussion I though was relevant and stated why I thought it was relevant. I asked a question about what is the definition of "classic" play. I have no strong feelings about what is eventually decided; I think the definition should be arrived at objectively, looking at available evidence without preconceived notions, but if people around here would rather go with "truthiness" it really isn't worth my time to argue. I now regret engaging in the discussion at all. Particularly as it seems to have devolved into a pointless argument about whether we are having an argument. Let's move on.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

The essay is up!

 

[EOTB]

congrats on completing your essay! It looks well-received.

 

[The1True]

The essay is up!

Wow! What an engaging read Pseudo, thanks!
I took a deep dive on your story gamer links; I can't quite put my finger on the feeling of disquiet I got from reading up on this stuff. There's something dark and cultish about the whole sub-genre.
Anyway, it's been a hell of a discussion. It was pretty awesome until the end there.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Thanks everyone! Glad people like it.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

There's something dark and cultish about the whole sub-genre.

I think its the adoption of an entire new lexicon and the way their every pronouncement is veiled in an impenetrable miasma of pseudo-scientific jargon, coupled with the trappings of a sort of rpg-gnosticism, in which the entire world is kept asleep in an evil dream that only GNS theory can free you from. Whiffs of scientology and twitter activists.

That Sacrament of Death post linked in the essay sounds gnarly though. There's something awesome about spending the 2+ hours of character creation, then possibly dying in the first combat to an unlucky crit, but accepting that that is what makes the thing beautiful to begin with as a sort of 11th century Samurai.

 

[Osrnoob]

Guy you wrote

Temple of Pazuzu (released 2002 Mar 12)

23 page Lost World-style hex crawl & sandbox, with a Swords & Sorcery-style evil temple. For 3e/d20. Really inspiring stuff, that wouldn't be too hard to convert to AD&D, B/X, or OD&D

To convert to 0e, 1e or BX would you multiply damage and HD by 1/4?

 

[Beoric]

Really hard to convert 3e to earlier editions by simple math conversions, because IMO in early editions HD isn't as good an indicator of the dangerousness of a monster as is XPs, and there is no simple conversion of 3e CR to 0e/1e/Basic XPs.

I have made tables for myself to convert from both 1e and 3e to 4e, and could probably give you reasonable target ranges for 1e XP by extrapolating from those, but I don't have a good handle on damage expressions for higher HD 1e monsters.

Of course, you could get lucky and @Melan (if he is lurking) might have a sense of how he converted to 3e, which I suspect he did.

Also, if you are going to keep asking conversion questions you should start a conversion or monster building thread thread. I have the odd question myself, now that I am dipping my toes into 5e.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

The essay is up!

Nice job.

“The focus on challenge-based play means lots of overland adventure and sprawling labyrinths and it recycles the same notation to describe towns, which are also treated as sites of challenge. At some point, PCs become powerful enough to command domains, and this opens up the scope of challenges further, by allowing mass hordes to engage in wargame-style clashes. The point of playing the game in classic play is not to tell a story (tho' it's fine if you do), but rather the focus of play is coping with challenges and threats that smoothly escalate in scope and power as the PCs rise in level. The idea of longer campaigns with slow but steady progression in PC power interrupted only by the occasional death is a game play ideal for classic culture.“

Just some comments on the ‘classic play style’ vs the ‘OSR play style‘ in the context of appropriate challenge levels. From my experience, the emphasis you’ve placed on smoothly escalating challenges in line with PC power in classic play is true to a large extent, but the element of randomness and a disregard of the idea of appropriate challenge levels was always present too, and this to some extent doesn’t belong solely to the OSR. Look at the Wilderlands of High Fantasy; it’s essentially a pre-made world with things just existing as they are irrespective of the power levels of the PCs exploring it. PCs may naturally want to take on greater challenges, but the world doesn’t always neatly just provide what the PCs want, especially in sandbox-style play. The linking of depth with threat-levels in dungeons is a form of risk-reward play, the challenge level can be guessed at roughly by the players; but the encounter tables themselves always had elements of randomness that could throw out challenges beyond the PCs’ power levels. Wilderness encounters even more so, where there is often no relation to PC power levels and the monsters encountered. I think that the ’risk-reward’ principle is an essential element of ‘classic play’, especially PC-driven sandbox style classic play.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you.

 

[Beoric]

Nice job.

“The focus on challenge-based play means lots of overland adventure and sprawling labyrinths and it recycles the same notation to describe towns, which are also treated as sites of challenge. At some point, PCs become powerful enough to command domains, and this opens up the scope of challenges further, by allowing mass hordes to engage in wargame-style clashes. The point of playing the game in classic play is not to tell a story (tho' it's fine if you do), but rather the focus of play is coping with challenges and threats that smoothly escalate in scope and power as the PCs rise in level. The idea of longer campaigns with slow but steady progression in PC power interrupted only by the occasional death is a game play ideal for classic culture.“

Just some comments on the ‘classic play style’ vs the ‘OSR play style‘ in the context of appropriate challenge levels. From my experience, the emphasis you’ve placed on smoothly escalating challenges in line with PC power in classic play is true to a large extent, but the element of randomness and a disregard of the idea of appropriate challenge levels was always present too, and this to some extent doesn’t belong solely to the OSR. Look at the Wilderlands of High Fantasy; it’s essentially a pre-made world with things just existing as they are irrespective of the power levels of the PCs exploring it. PCs may naturally want to take on greater challenges, but the world doesn’t always neatly just provide what the PCs want, especially in sandbox-style play. The linking of depth with threat-levels in dungeons is a form of risk-reward play, the challenge level can be guessed at roughly by the players; but the encounter tables themselves always had elements of randomness that could throw out challenges beyond the PCs’ power levels. Wilderness encounters even more so, where there is often no relation to PC power levels and the monsters encountered. I think that the ’risk-reward’ principle is an essential element of ‘classic play’, especially PC-driven sandbox style classic play.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you.

I'm waffling on this myself. Today (and I might say something different tomorrow) I am thinking that classic challenges escalate, but not necessarily smoothly. There is also a strong element of choice in terms of how much risk you take on; you can choose to stay on level one of the dungeon (at least until a slide trap or elevator room forces you onto level four), so that you are more likely to have manageable encounters (but not guaranteed to have manageable encounters). And you can stay in civilized/patrolled areas for your overland travel to somewhat mitigate your risk. But the implied setting in the DMG encounter tables does include a lot of potentially deadly encounters for lower level characters.

By contrast, the examples of Gygax' modules tends to support putting the more dangerous stuff far from where beginning players were likely to start out. The Moathouse and the Caves of Chaos were both near small population centres/havens. The Temple of Elemental Evil is further from civilization, but has a haven of sorts nearby along with higher level allies. I'm not sure what Greyhawk hex they were in or how close to civilization, but IIRC the wilderness around Tsojcanth and the Temple of Tharizdun had monster's but weren't super deadly, and also included potential allies. The Giants series was in the deep wilderness with no allies in evidence, and D1-3 were in a sense beyond the wilderness in an environment you would expect to be deadly.

So I suppose risk is determined in part by geography (depth of dungeon or distance from civilization), but how smooth that progression is depends on whether the culture comes more from the rulebooks (I don't know 0e or B/X well, but I believe they are like the DMG in this regard), or from the examples set by the modules.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Yeah, there's some variance, but within comprehensible ranges, and I agree, the ability to assess risk (both by PCs and DMs) is an important aspect of ensuring the progression of challenges is "fair". I used the term "smoothly" there perhaps a bit idiosyncratically - I mean they were predictable within a risk-reward calculus, usually within bounded ranges of difficulty that kept the worst options as extremely unlikely, had a clear ranking that was filled with options at each step, and there was an element of player influence over the bounded range (by choosing dungeon level and other factors).

One contrast I cut from the OSR / Classic discussion was to contrast the presentation of gods, which I think expresses some of the difference between the two cultures. Gods in Classic play, if they are not sublime beings outside of play who operate more as pure mechanisms of DM authority, are usually presented as particularly powerful monsters. You can, as a group of high level PCs, even expect to defeat them in combat. You wouldn't expect them to be thrown at you at low levels, but seeking them out and defeating them using only the rules-as-written is fine once you're powerful enough (tho' obviously still risky and dangerous).

In the OSR, gods tend not to operate in the same mechanical matrix as characters. They are traps, puzzles, and problems who are undefeatable in combat. One doesn't encounter them because one has surmounted level 20, but simply because their appearance in the game provides interesting, even spectacular, challenges to overcome (even if just survival). The challenges the gods pose encourage creative diegetic engagement, even in low level characters. Their incidence is unpredictable because they aren't easily slotted into a progressive set of challenges which are the the top level of, like in Classic play. This strikes me as far more "jagged" and "variable" in the difficulties they pose than the gods of Classic play.

Does that make sense?

 

[The1True]

Also, if you are going to keep asking conversion questions you should start a conversion or monster building thread thread. I have the odd question myself, now that I am dipping my toes into 5e.

Yes please.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

Yeah, there's some variance, but within comprehensible ranges, and I agree, the ability to assess risk (both by PCs and DMs) is an important aspect of ensuring the progression of challenges is "fair". I used the term "smoothly" there perhaps a bit idiosyncratically - I mean they were predictable within a risk-reward calculus, usually within bounded ranges of difficulty that kept the worst options as extremely unlikely, had a clear ranking that was filled with options at each step, and there was an element of player influence over the bounded range (by choosing dungeon level and other factors).

Maybe the ‘OSR play-style’ should be called ‘Neo-Classical’, seeing it shares similarities and is derived from a re-imagining of how old versions of D&D were played.

I wonder if you have looked at Trent’s breakdown of old-school play style:

Taxonomy of Old-School D&D

 

[Beoric]

Yeah, there's some variance, but within comprehensible ranges, and I agree, the ability to assess risk (both by PCs and DMs) is an important aspect of ensuring the progression of challenges is "fair". I used the term "smoothly" there perhaps a bit idiosyncratically - I mean they were predictable within a risk-reward calculus, usually within bounded ranges of difficulty that kept the worst options as extremely unlikely, had a clear ranking that was filled with options at each step, and there was an element of player influence over the bounded range (by choosing dungeon level and other factors).

One contrast I cut from the OSR / Classic discussion was to contrast the presentation of gods, which I think expresses some of the difference between the two cultures. Gods in Classic play, if they are not sublime beings outside of play who operate more as pure mechanisms of DM authority, are usually presented as particularly powerful monsters. You can, as a group of high level PCs, even expect to defeat them in combat. You wouldn't expect them to be thrown at you at low levels, but seeking them out and defeating them using only the rules-as-written is fine once you're powerful enough (tho' obviously still risky and dangerous).

In the OSR, gods tend not to operate in the same mechanical matrix as characters. They are traps, puzzles, and problems who are undefeatable in combat. One doesn't encounter them because one has surmounted level 20, but simply because their appearance in the game provides interesting, even spectacular, challenges to overcome (even if just survival). The challenges the gods pose encourage creative diegetic engagement, even in low level characters. Their incidence is unpredictable because they aren't easily slotted into a progressive set of challenges which are the the top level of, like in Classic play. This strikes me as far more "jagged" and "variable" in the difficulties they pose than the gods of Classic play.

Does that make sense?

Yes, "predictable progression of challenges" makes sense to me.

Fighting gods was very dangerous if you used the variant standard divine abilities presented by Gygax in Dragon 67. But yes, they were not technically undefeatable.

 

[Melan]

Guy you wrote

Temple of Pazuzu (released 2002 Mar 12)

23 page Lost World-style hex crawl & sandbox, with a Swords & Sorcery-style evil temple. For 3e/d20. Really inspiring stuff, that wouldn't be too hard to convert to AD&D, B/X, or OD&D

To convert to 0e, 1e or BX would you multiply damage and HD by 1/4?

This was originally a d20 scenario, with the Hungarian version later re-released in a properly polished and expanded old-school version that kept the delightfully crappy pencil artwork, but redid and expanded on the rough initial manuscript. This was a total conversion effort, with everything reworked to fit the old-school power scale. For most creatures, plain substitution from the MM and a little extrapolation would work. NPCs were rebuilt from the ground up, and a lot of content was added, fleshing out the island with encounter areas. With these changes, it worked out fine.

Unfortunately, there is no way this is going to be released in English ever again, which is a pity, because I do believe it holds its own against Isle of Dread.