The state of Post-OSR content

I think they would prefer the latter when stated this abstractly, but this kind of high level stuff leaves out a lot of the specific details that they would use to evaluate the question and make a response, and I would not be surprised to find either answer provided as one got more detailed about what those options entailed.
Okay, so if I let players play what they want, go where they want, and do what they want, and provide opportunities for them to fulfil their goals and aspirations, what am I? Because I'm all about the agency, and letting the chips fall where they may, but I've also built campaigns around player's character concepts when there was enough meat there to do so.

I guess what I am saying is the definition seems so broad that it looks like you could be OSR and OC PR simultaneously. Unless you take squeen's position against personalized characters as a defining element of the OSR, which I don't.
 
Reading through vintage fanzines again recently, from roughly 1975-1979*. The overwhelming majority of scenarios and descriptions of play fall into a “dungeon” or “challenge-based play” category. The descriptions of play read more like a sporting event recap, as opposed to a story; though both types form narratives, the former has less of a classic story structure, and the beginning & ends correspond mainly to start and end of a play session.

More than story focus, at least in A&E, I see a lot of of rejection of perceived arbitrariness of D&D mechanics, that drive toward things like spell point systems, smoother progressions, elimination of weapon & armor restrictions, and, well, RuneQuest. Like way more of this than anything about story or even just “acting in character.”

I fully admit to selection bias, being drawn more to the potential sources of challenge-based play. So take that with a big grain of salt. Someone looking to find more story support might want to examine early stuff related to The Chaosium: Wyrm’s Footnotes, for example. Pretty sure you can buy all those on drivethru. The Elusive Shift probably mentions plenty of other sources; haven’t read it yet.

* another bias is that a sizeable fraction of the zines are from the UK. Probably a disproportionate amount relative to the number of players in the US vs UK. Could probably substantiate that based on convention attendance records.

Anecdotally, I feel like UK D&D output started tilting more toward story around the same time as US output: Tortured Souls and/or Beast Enterprises stuff that eventually became the Doomstones scenarios; and some of the TSR UK modules. But this is pure feeling without any real analysis.
 
Okay, so if I let players play what they want, go where they want, and do what they want, and provide opportunities for them to fulfil their goals and aspirations, what am I? Because I'm all about the agency, and letting the chips fall where they may, but I've also built campaigns around player's character concepts when there was enough meat there to do so.

I guess what I am saying is the definition seems so broad that it looks like you could be OSR and OC PR simultaneously. Unless you take squeen's position against personalized characters as a defining element of the OSR, which I don't.

I don't take personalising characters as anti-OSR either. I do think individual concrete people have personal styles that are often mixes of ideas taken from different cultures. The cultures form at the level of people justifying what they're doing and why to others and picking up certain explanatory frameworks to do that. Ultimately, it's you who has to decide what exactly you are.

I don't think the question you're asking splits along a significant line of division between the OSR and OC RPG. I wouldn't want to assert this as a hard line, but I'd propose a division between the OSR and OC RPG around challenge and "fairness".

Explaining the exact difference is convoluted, but I think it can be illustrated with a simple examplen: The PCs go into a dungeon, push deeper into it than expected, and end up TPKing when they run into a monster they just weren't ready for (perhaps the DM had planned it expecting them to only discover it after having gained some magic items hidden elsewhere, or a level or two of experience first).

I think OC RPG treats this as a failure state to be avoided, and the OSR treats this as a valuable part of play since it derives from character decisions. An OC RPG DM asks "What should I have changed here to make this encounter more balanced for the PCs?" and an OSR DM does not (though they might scrutinise play for how much of encountering this monster was actually caused by deliberate decisions of the PCs instead). Does that make sense?
 
I went down that thread a bit and I'm not sure exactly what you were directing our attention towards? i.e. the confusion. Are you speaking of the confusion of "How D&D has changed over the years?".

A common refrain seems to be:

"It you are having fun, then you are not playing it wrong."

While I agree that if you are having fun "don't stop", I also see a few posts like this:
[URL='https://www.reddit.com/user/TallIan2/' said:
TallIan2[/URL]]
My early experiences of D&D are much the same as yours. A group of advebturers[sic] hacking thjer[sic] way through room after room in a monster zoo. I would say the game has evolved since then to a more collaborative story.
I think it's fair to say that (a) it sounds like TallIan2 didn't have much fun, because (b) they were in fact playing it wrong.

Is it contentious to take it one step further and say, "even if you are having fun...you may still be playing D&D wrong?"

At least originally, it was a nerd-game invented by wargammers looking for a certain flavor of cerebral fun.

Also, is "fun" or pleasure the sole end goal of all games?
  • Think about sports --- there's a lot of work and hardship and pain we put ourselves (and our kids) through to compete.
  • EOTB already made the point about hobbies as a way to pass time. e.g. Is knitting "fun"?
  • Learning to play guitar. Is that always fun? Blisters on your fingers, hours of rote practice, etc.
  • Are video games purely fun? Why was "Flappy Bird" so popular?
So I open up the debate: is instant fun the sole goal of the game of D&D? Is there more than one class of "fun"?

Of course, you see where I am going with this...laying the groundwork to argue that challenge-based D&D gives us more than just immediate gratification. And that ego-stroking D&D gives us something else...something not always best to indulge, even if it is pleasurable. Just because your players like it, doesn't make it "good" or healthy. Think opiates.

Actually, nevermind. (climbing down off of moral high-horse). :)
 
“Fun,” with its flexible meaning, stands too high a chance for my listener to project their own preferences over my statement’s intent, so I avoid using it. (Tangent: I avoid “role playing” as a verb, and “OSR,” for the same reasons.)

I play D&D because it’s worthwhile, despite not always being pleasureable, and sometimes being hard. Ditto for running 10k three times every week, and even having an enjoyable job. (I realize some people want 100% pleasure from their rpgs, and don’t hold that against them, but do warn that kind of person away from my campaign.)
 
So I open up the debate: is instant fun the sole goal of the game of D&D? Is there more than one class of "fun"?

Like with all hobbies, we play D&D because we get something out of it - be it fun, creative satisfaction, a challenge, a social outlet, whatever. However that particular fundamental doesn't need to be debated - it's axiomatic to what hobbies are. What's to debate?

However, it's one thing to say "I do X because for me it gives me a feeling of Y", but it's totally another thing to say "everyone who is doing X for Z reasons is doing it wrong - X is meant for Y reasons, so here's some more reasons why those Z people are wrong"... that's just being an asshole.

A good contrast is the car hobbyist community. There are people who like classic muscle cars, there are people who like state-of-the-art Teslas, but at the end of the day the hobby isn't about everyone getting together and saying things like "the '67 Mustang is better than any Tesla, and I refuse to even get into a car made after 1980" - it's about "wow that's a mighty fine looking car right there. How much torque has it got?".
 
Last edited:
"It you are having fun, then you are not playing it wrong."
I've thought about this a bit over the years and come to the conclusion that my personal philosophy is the above, but officially, you're playing it wrong if you go to play at a Con and the game being played by the majority of players playing whatever version you prefer diverges wildly from the game you're used to playing.
 
"Fun" isn't quite the right word for it. I'd call it enjoyment instead. The knitter gets enjoyment out of their hobby by being able to create a usable end product. They also like how it gives them a chance to think.

Enjoyment varies person to person. Some people enjoy challenges. Failure is learning experience, they're out to conquer and eventually through trial and error they'll get their victory. Other people might play the game because they enjoy interacting in the imagined fantasy environment. They like to build a story for their alterego. Challenge is part of the enjoyment, but how much depends on the person. The person who sees failure as a learning experience is going to want a lot of challenge. The person building their alterego might want challenge, but they wouldn't want it to end with character death. They'd probably prefer other stakes. Then there are those that like the challenge toned down considerably so they can "win" and feel good about themselves (*cough* Donald Trump and golf *cough*).

There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, but like Squeen infers, if you are going to play dungeon crawls you might be better off playing "pre-trad". That example of a dungeon as a "monster zoo" could be an example of playing it wrong, because you need more challenges than just straight up fights. I think both Bryce and LARPers can agree on this.
 
I went down that thread a bit and I'm not sure exactly what you were directing our attention towards? i.e. the confusion. Are you speaking of the confusion of "How D&D has changed over the years?".

Yes, basically. I think this is one of the more successful exchanges I've seen about the game's evolution on Reddit, but people are still struggling to explain what exactly has changed and how, they're still chauvinistic about their preferred styles, and OP's own confusion about whether he was playing the game "wrong" when he encounters the new play culture are all indicative to me of the problems I'm trying to resolve with the taxonomy.
 
So I've been working on the essay, and specifically elaborating the proto-culture / pre-trad piece. As background, I spent the past week refreshing myself by rereading:

1) OD&D white box
2) Empire of the Petal Throne
3) Boot Hill
4) Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry
5) City State of the Invincible Overlord
6) The Strategic Review's entire run / The first two years of Dragon
7) The Judge Guild's Journal
8) The 1977 Holmes Basic set
9) The 1979 AD&D 1e DMG

So one of the interesting things about the OD&D Whitebox is how much of the instruction about what one can do with it is implicit. For example, it never describes what the point of the game is, and the guidance on using the material is mainly restricted to advising one to starting off with a dungeon of a certain size. Even a straightforward statement like "This is a game where you take on the roles of individual characters exploring ruins with the hope of recovering treasure while braving perilous foes" isn't in it.

EPT, similarly, gives you a lot of ideas of things you could do, and even a basic campaign premise (the PCs are recent immigrants looking to move up in social status through taking on missions) but leaves ideas about what these missions could be mostly implicit, outside of some suggestions of the high politics of the empire.

It's actually Boot Hill in 1975 that first contains an explicit statement of what one is supposed to be doing in the game, in its foreword and introduction.

"These rules are aimed at enjoyment on a plane unusual to wargaming, the individual and personal. Rather than commanding hordes of troops players typically have but a single figure, their "character". With these figures the players recreate the individual gunfights, saloon brawls, and Wild West action as has come down to us from the pages of history — and the celluloid of Hollywood Westerns."

and

"The players then go about the actions appropriate to their chosen roles in the game — or the roles assigned to them by the game referee — more or less letting the nature of the Wild West take its course. Within a turn or two things begin to happen, and before long all hell has broken loose... These games can be played as single events, each unrelated to the next except for the "experience" which the characters might have gained or the substitution of a new personal figure due to the incarceration or demise of a former one during the course of the previous game. It is better if games are strung together as an epic of action, with the whole taking place in some general locale and past happenings being reflected more directly in each successive game"

The introduction also suggests that Boot Hill can be played with or without a referee and "While it is possible to structure rigid scenarios — in the manner of the two included herein — we suggest that free-form play will usually prove more interesting and challenging. Set up a town, give a few background details, and allow the participants free-rein thereafter."

That's basically it. There are some interesting similarities to D&D obviously, but this is not by any means a statement of what D&D is about or how to use its rules.

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and City State are all similarly silent. Really, Gygax's first address to the public of what the game is about is in the April 1976 issue of the Strategic Review, where there are a number of articles dealing with facets of the game and along the way he begins to elaborate a specific idea of what D&D is about.

In that issue, in his article "The Dungeons and Dragons Magic System", he says "While miniatures battles on the table top were conceived as a part of the overall game system, the major factor was always envisioned as the underworld adventure, while the wilderness trek assumed a secondary role, various other aspects took a third place, and only then were miniatures battles considered."

Later in this same article Gygax mentions that there are people who are already drifting away from his vision of D&D.

There's also a column towards the end of the issue called "D&D is Only As Good as the DM" that emphasises Gygax's own beliefs that challenge is central to the game (and that creating and managing these challenges is explicitly the job of the DM) - while also specifically calling out another crew of players who aren't playing the game the way he envisioned:

"Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,” tells it best."

He also complains that no one can have reached higher than level 14 yet according to his vision of how the game is to be played because no one has done so yet in Blackmoor or Greyhawk, the oldest campaigns that follow that vision.

So this seems pretty clear to me that even by 1976, we're already having people abandon the progressive, challenge-oriented gameplay and campaign structure Gygax envisioned but did not articulate explicitly in OD&D.

Interestingly, the Judges Guild Journal in its first issue (October 1976) is already talking about "plots" and "dramas" tho' these are mostly exhortations that are taken as self-explanatory. In general, reading through the journal's run in the late 1970s, you get Bledsaw and Holsinger elaborating very very different takes on D&D from anything Gygax is doing (even tho' Gygax signs off on a lot of it whenever they see him at GenCon and ask him about it). Bledsaw elaborates in a latter issue that he was introduced to roleplaying games in 1975 with a Middle Earth game that appears to have departed heavily from Gygax's vision of how to play the game, although we don't get a ton of details about it.

Holsinger's articles are very clearly focused on creating a plausible campaign setting that enable "scenarios" to be run that feature large-scale miniature combats, with dungeon-delving as at best a prelude to that. He actually recommends in one issue that any new player who wants to join a campaign has to provide a prewritten scenario of this sort for the DM's use (and he seems to believe PCs will continue to do this as the campaign goes on as well). Holsinger and a number of other contributors to the Judges' Guild Journal's emphasis on realism is explicitly against Gygax's own statements on the matter about D&D.

Around this time the Judges Guild is also experimenting with modules - the first D&D modules available to the public so far as I can tell (Tomb of Horrors existed since 1975 but TSR hadn't published it by 1977). Holmes will launch with the Tower of Zenopus in 1977 as well, tho' it also provides little insight into what one is supposed to do with the game and rules beyond this example.

Anyhow, to cut this very long post short, it seems like until late 1977 there's definitely no single culture of roleplaying, partially aided by the fact that D&D is extremely vague about what you're supposed to be doing / trying to do when you play it. Judges Guild and the Strategic Review provide very different visions of the game - I'm sure if I dug through Alarums and Excursions I'd find even more variation. These aren't just minor stylistic variations either - Holsinger's elaboration of how a campaign runs in the JGJ is radically different that Gygax's, and Gygax is frequently complaining that people are playing D&D so incorrectly that it's no longer D&D.

It seems like from sometime in 1978-1981 there's an attempt to create a shared understanding of the game, expressed through the gradual publication of AD&D and of adventure modules by TSR and the Judges Guild (and the rollout of TSR modules at GenCon and other conventions to normalise them as models of play in the larger community), and to a lesser extent through artcicles in the Dragon and Judges Guild Journal. It's unclear to me how successful this effort is.
 
Following from EOTB’s last paragraph, that’s exactly what Chivalry & Sorcery and Runequest were, and the respective authors say as much (directly and indirectly) in contemporaneous articles. I get a kick out of imagining the veins popping out on the foreheads of Edward Simbalist and Steve Perrin as they wrote some of the comments; I don’t think they were actually having such strong reactions, but that’s where my imagination takes me. (Steve Perrin was a pretty cool, relaxed guy when I first got the chance to meet him, as a coworker of my mother in law. I geeked out a bit and told him how much I like the Stormbringer game, and then let him get back to work.)

@Pseudoephedrine I want to pool some resources with you. Stand by for a PM...
 
Last edited:
I believe the real "red pill" of role-playing games is the understanding that "role-playing" was not originally meant to refer to "you are now playing the role of Robin the Woodsman, so behave accordingly", but "how would YOU proceed if YOU were placed in the position of Robin the Woodsman?" That has a lot of repercussions on approaching play, using the rules to your advantage, interacting with your fellow players and the GM, and so forth. It puts the experience in - perhaps not in its proper place; that would be arrogant to assume - but how about "in a place that is both logical and comfortable"?
Yes! This was exactly the "hook" that got a lot of us into playing RPGs back in the day (so that our characters wouldn't make those "mistakes" our beloved action heroes and whatnot did on screen for the purposes of "drama").

Yeah, I tend to agree with Lich Van Winkle; the founding myth of the OSR is that is harkens back to a universal playstyle (EDIT: or universal culture) that never was. There is much useful to be gleaned from the OSR, but its foundational myths, like most foundational myths, are myths.
Are people really arguing that, though? I might be ignorant on this, so apologies in advance.

At any rate, the way I see it, the OSR was only meant to capture a playstyle (and aesthetics that go with it with little to no friction) that by the mid-2000s was not only out of official support but also dismissed and looked down upon. Certainly, aspects of the then prevalent playstyle were present from the 80s (or maybe even the late 70s), but by 2004 or so a certain style of gameplay was seemingly replaced, kept alive only by grognards on obscure forums.
 
Are people really arguing that, though? I might be ignorant on this, so apologies in advance.
I used to see it argued a lot by its more militant proponents. I see it less now, but then I tend to stay in the kinder, gentler corners of the OSR, which became easier when the OSR fragmented and you didn't have everybody commenting on every site.

I think LVW absorbed the whole firehose of the OSR at once, and everybody's positions tend get associated with the obnoxious people they share a comments section with.
 
I've been looking in my copies of the Kobold Quarterly to see if I could find that reference for Guy. In the meantime, I discovered something interesting. We can blame tinker gnomes on Jeff Grubb! Shame on him!
 
Sorry, I've been unexpectedly busy with a personal project the past two days (Guy, I owe you an email, my apologies!), but also stumbled across a link to some interesting claims by Gygax re: the early culture of the hobby as transmitted by James M:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/02/gygax-on-od-and-ad.html

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2020/09/od-as-non-game-again.html

I'm coming around to the possibility that "early period" RPGs - ranging from about 1970-1977 aren't a culture in themselves but that Gygax & TSR might have tried to put together a culture of play using the Holmes Basic set (1977) / the G series of modules (1978) (and follow-ups) / The Dragon after its first few issues (1976-) and AD&D 1e (1979-1981). The later Judges' Guild Journals too seem to firm up around this Gygaxian idea of play vs. the more anarchic conceptions in the early issues of 1976-1977. This is roughly contemporaneous with when Trad is forming (1978-), with both having key texts come out in 1981 (the AD&D 1e DMG, and Call of Cthulhu, respectively), tho' I think Gygax beats Hickman's start by about two years since he must've commissioned Holmes Basic in 1976 for it to come out summer '77.
 
Sorry, I've been unexpectedly busy with a personal project the past two days (Guy, I owe you an email, my apologies!), but also stumbled across a link to some interesting claims by Gygax re: the early culture of the hobby as transmitted by James M:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/02/gygax-on-od-and-ad.html

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2020/09/od-as-non-game-again.html

I'm coming around to the possibility that "early period" RPGs - ranging from about 1970-1977 aren't a culture in themselves but that Gygax & TSR might have tried to put together a culture of play using the Holmes Basic set (1977) / the G series of modules (1978) (and follow-ups) / The Dragon after its first few issues (1976-) and AD&D 1e (1979-1981). The later Judges' Guild Journals too seem to firm up around this Gygaxian idea of play vs. the more anarchic conceptions in the early issues of 1976-1977. This is roughly contemporaneous with when Trad is forming (197:cool:, with both having key texts come out in 1981 (the AD&D 1e DMG, and Call of Cthulhu, respectively), tho' I think Gygax beats Hickman's start by about two years since he must've commissioned Holmes Basic in 1976 for it to come out summer '77.
The real question is how successful he was at this. If the comments in the "Gygax on OD&D and AD&D" post are any indication, his efforts had limited success. If only because of the amount of disagreement in the comments.
 
Back
Top