Five hard questions about OSR play

#21

I think that the OSR way to do it, if such a way there is, is to have all that happen in play, right? So you put an NPC in the landscape, and they are who they are, and a PC decides to become their student, and then, based on how you think the NPC would react, you have the NPC betray them, and then the PC swears vengeance. So the relationship between the NPC and the PC is player-created through the OSR player-creativity medium of character action.

I mean, “do it at the table” is good advice for running low-prep games of any kind, right?

But it isn’t targeted at the player other than that the GM, while coming up with the character, is thinking “I bet Beatrice is gonna like this guy.”

I think your phrasing of “the kinds of story and emotional conflict” is a good way to put it – not that there can’t be good emotional conflict or even a satisfying story in OSR play, but that it is a very different kind of thing.

1 Like
#22

To echo what people are saying, I think where player created input bumps up against OSR play is when players are creating the setting to circumvent the problems in front of them. If you are confronted by the dragon, but the player announces that the dragon is actually their adopted parent, that’s kind of against the spirit of what’s going on. If there is already some established narrative about who a particular NPC might be, I think it’d be a case by case thing as to whether what the player suggests makes the setting more or less interesting. I don’t think there is some hard and fast rule about simply having everything exist in the DMs head and his alone.

10 Likes
#23

Maybe worth saying that this kind of thing - inventing setting or situation detail for personal advantage - is pretty bad form in any game, unless it’s one of those where you spend points to do so. I would expect that, by asking my players to contribute to making the setting evocative and cool, they would leap forward with creative ideas and not think too hard about what might help their characters. And that is what they have done, in my experience.

I also wouldn’t ask them to create stuff about a live situation, except in a very focused way. Like “why does the dragon want revenge on you”, not just “tell me something interesting about this dragon”. Stuff that will add spice and a personal dimension, not stuff that will fundamentally transform a threatening situation into an unthreatening one.

In the (rare) situation that a player does narrate something that utterly undermines the situation they were in, it’s very straightforward. “Er, no. The dragon isn’t your parent. But it does seem very angry with you, roll to defy danger.” This isn’t exactly me exercising more traditional GMly authority, it’s me (as a player) saying “don’t be silly” and moving on, the same way as if someone had narrated that the dragon was called Keith Chegwin.

7 Likes
#24

I may not be ‘most people’, but I started playing D&D in the 1970’s which I believe OSR aims to recapture, and I have to say that this kind of example would happen all the time - much more often than Example 1 in my experience and in the stories that I read from other people who played at that time (as recorded in APAs which were like… slow motion forums).

:smiley:

4 Likes
#25

Part of DMing (or refereering or whatever) always involved being ready to secretly drop your plans if the players suppositions about what was going on was cooler or more interesting or just better. They didn’t necessarily know they were directly influencing the story. In fact they were ‘figuring out what was going on’ between them, and typically were delighted when they had ‘got it right’. We never knew whether the bullseye was painted around our shot or not, and I say that both as a DM and as a player!

5 Likes
#26

One of the players in my game had selected a rival magician as an infrequently encountered enemy in my game. Aside from some occasional social cutting, they didn’t have much interaction until the party’s patron’s enemy ran out ofhis stock minions and started hiring mercenaries. Naturally, the PC’s predesignated enemy showed up among them.

1 Like
#27

Here are my answers to the OP, without having read the thread.

(1) When people say that in an OSR game, we make decisions from the point of view of our characters, do they mean what our characters would do, or what would be in our characters’ best interests?

I think this does, and should, vary by table. I’ve seen both sides of the meta-gaming coin be espoused in OSR contexts.

(2) To what degree is an OSR GM responsible for pacing, and what tools are they allowed to use in service of that end?

I think this also varies by table and the participants’ preferences. But I think generally, to encourage OSR style play, the GM should not usher the party along to “story beats”, but let them make decisions at their own pace.

However, if they are super laconic or floundering on what to do, the GM should absolutely feel free to restate the situation, recall past “hooks”, etc, and to give points of information that may be missing or that the players have forgotten to help them come to a decision for how to proceed.

That said, I don’t see anything wrong about using something like Fronts and Grim Portents; especially since this goes hand in hand with a general OSR principle that the world proceeds on its own around the party. If by “tools to aid in pacing” you mean something other than this, I’m not sure what they are.

(3) To what degree can OSR games handle player-authored material without losing integrity of setting? Does player-authored material threaten any other aspects of OSR play?

Player-authored material does absolutely nothing to threaten an OSR playstyle until the point at which the players begin interacting with it in the game. If players are authoring setting material during the game, it is up to the table and the GM to trust that they won’t be doing so to “game” the game, so if you aren’t playing with butts, I don’t think it threatens it even then.

If a player is authoring the outcomes of their characters actions, however, that’s where it begins to push the envelope of the GM’s impartial arbitration. But even then, if it’s merely flavor, :woman_shrugging:

(4) To what degree can OSR games handle situations/characters/etc created specifically to target individual PCs and their interests without losing integrity of setting?

As long as the outcomes of the party’s interactions with them are arbitrated impartially, and they continue to exist as part of the setting afterward, :woman_shrugging:

(5) If OSR games offer total freedom, why are they almost always about murderhobos wandering around and smashing pots in search of rupees?

I expect this is partly due to example and cultural momentum, partly due to the picaresque assumptions of most gaming material (even not OSR), and partly due to the evil that lurks in the heart of the human. :sarc_mark:

If you haven’t seen it, https://lithyscaphe.blogspot.com/p/principia-apocrypha.html addresses some of these points in more pithy ways.

10 Likes
#28

(1) When people say that in an OSR game, we make decisions from the point of view of our characters, do they mean what our characters would do, or what would be in our characters’ best interests?

In my experience, it’s both. Within the same game, players will jump from heavy role play to heavy metagaming depending on what’s more fun in the given situation. OSR is heavy on problem-solving and more tactical problems lean toward metagaming. Social situations lean toward more roleplaying. But sometimes players do everything from their characters point of view.

(2) To what degree is an OSR GM responsible for pacing, and what tools are they allowed to use in service of that end?

In a narrative sense there is no pacing because there is no narrative being delivered. A narrative emerges during play as a result of PCs interacting with the world. In terms of gameplay pacing, if things are moving slow and players seem bored, the GM can escalate the situation. If the game is stalling because the players don’t know what to do, I make sure they have enough info to make in game decisions. If they are stalling and I feel they have a reasonable amount of info then I’ll roll on an encounter table and add that to the situation.

(3) To what degree can OSR games handle player-authored material without losing integrity of setting? Does player-authored material threaten any other aspects of OSR play?

In my games, players can add material as long as it doesn’t heavy effects on the game’s mechanics or lessen the fun of the challenges they face in game. I play a game with very simple rules where weapons are either Light(1d4 damage) or Heavy(1d6 damage). Other than the damage players describe what the weapons are and how they work. Sometimes what they come up with has slight mechanical consequences. But they can’t make a weapon that disintegrates all enemies in sight or otherwise removes the challenge of combat. My fav weapons have been a guitar hero laser rifle that only shoots when the character did a guitar solo and a plasma pogo stick that involved acrobatic jumps to attack.

(4) To what degree can OSR games handle situations/characters/etc created specifically to target individual PCs and their interests without losing integrity of setting?

I’m not sure I understand the question completely. But setting integrity is less important than having fun. But part of the fun of OSR games are the challenges and exploration opportunities provided by the setting. So setting integrity doesn’t matter to me beyond it providing a foundation from exploration and problem solving.

(5) If OSR games offer total freedom, why are they almost always about murderhobos wandering around and smashing pots in search of rupees?

Getting loot is an easy (if sometimes lazy) excuse for the down on their luck, scrappy character that are common in OSR games. In my experience combat is often avoided though. It’s easy to die if you get in a fight and dead characters don’t get rupees. I think the murderhobo thing is jokingly exaggerated. But, sometimes it’s just fun to do some murders with your friends and get rich.

2 Likes
#29

My answers are based on an ongoing Stars Without Number campaign going on now with old gaming buddies, who I’ve been gaming with for ages

(1) When people say that in an OSR game, we make decisions from the point of view of our characters, do they mean what our characters would do, or what would be in our characters’ best interests?

Interesting question. I think it is more about what their characters would do. I definitely see them playing odd little character quirks that aren’t being incentivized in the mechanics but are coming out in play anyway.

(2) To what degree is an OSR GM responsible for pacing, and what tools are they allowed to use in service of that end?

I think the GM has some responsibility for this but everyone at the table can help with getting things moving.

Tables are helpful but so is having a kind of structure to the game like Blades in the Dark but being more liberal with the freeform moments.

(3) To what degree can OSR games handle player-authored material without losing integrity of setting? Does player-authored material threaten any other aspects of OSR play?

I’m playing in a sector that I’ve written up but there is plenty of space for players to make things up. I’ve got a character playing a genetically altered cannibal hunter and he’s running with it, making up stuff about that planet’s culture, making up words and lists of names. I used to call it the Adopt a Highway Program, where players who play the elves suddenly start making up shit about the elves.

Having conversations about our thoughts on this player-authored world-building helps keep things consistent and are just plain fun.

(4) To what degree can OSR games handle situations/characters/etc created specifically to target individual PCs and their interests without losing integrity of setting?

I don’t worry about it. The sandbox is made but SWN is all about those sandboxes being in motion. I feel free to make that motion interesting for the table.

(5) If OSR games offer total freedom, why are they almost always about murderhobos wandering around and smashing pots in search of rupees?

Our SWN folks can be a bit muder-hoboish but I also see some scientistific theory coming into play, which is fun.

Is it because that is what the mechanics are telling the table to do or is it something about the D&D/Space Freelancer genre itself?

7 Likes
#30

Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures: Further Afield supplement has the best system I have ever seen for this. A se ret roll by the DM determines how valid the suggestion is. If they roll very well, it is totally accurate. If they just barely pass, the suggestion is accurate but with a twist like there is a different treasure or monsters there than they described. On a fail, multiple points are wrong. On a bad fail, it was all wrong. It keeps stories more collaborative and the mysteries of locations still there. And generally, the DM will be able to tweak the suggestion to fit the game as well.

2 Likes
#31

I am not an OSR expert, but started rereading some things and I think the “overall setting” has to be taken into account:

  • Poverty is omnipresent and wealth is rare and concentrated - often in the hands of “evil”
  • Treasure is from ages ago and found in “ancient ruins” - i.e. there is no owner in a legal sense
  • The PCs do adventuring for a living - I remember in 2e GM handbook reading a section on how deal with too wealthy PCs, reminding the PCs of the expenses of living (taxes et al.)
  • The PCs mostly dealing with “evil” and “killing evil”, so “murder” and “robbery” is somehow “morally accepted”
  • OTOH if they are robbing or murdering “good” people they are subject to law / prosecution - you could rob poor villagers, but when being caught, you have to deal with the consequences

So, the picture of “wandering murderhobos” is not wrong but shows a narrow picture.

2 Likes
#32

I don’t remember that format from Beyond the Wall at all; Where in the book is this stuff? Is it from the Further Afield supplement? (That I don’t have)

#33

Late to the party I guess, but I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the ethos and principle of classic play encoded in these questions. Not that that’s bad, I can see where it comes from, but it strikes me that a gentle suggestion or two might lead to a better experience with classic style games.

I’ll also say that to give full answers to some of these would get into essay length maundering, and who has time for that? I’m gonna be quick and messy - so assume some nuance.

(1) THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN IN CHARACTER AND OUT OF CHARACTER RP.
Two issues greatly effect the degree and nature of in character decision making in a classic, puzzle focus game, congenality and success.

In older games characters have no narrative control at a meta level, but a great deal at the diagetic one. That is the players have no input into the setting or its actors, but the characters aren’t constrained to any specific course of action either. What this means, especially combined with high lethality and deadly risks/puzzle is that acting in character is great until it comes up against risking your fellow player’s characters.

Yes your barbarian might hate wizards, but rushing a neutral Wizard King faction leader while the rest of the party tries to negotiate is bad play. It will likely kill the entire party (ethos demands that the GM is a neutral arbitrator, and should not intervene on behalf of PC survival) and even if it won’t it will set the narrative down a specific course - war with the Wizard King. That’s just not a cool thing to do with fellow players, force them to follow your character story. It’s not congenial. Likewise, emphasis on intra party conflict is discouraged, the world is tough enough for the whole party together - don’t split it.

This gets to the issue of success. Since many of the key challenges in classic play involve players unpuzzling things It’s detremental, and avoiding play, for a player to decide not to engage with a solution because thier character is too dumb, or incapable of offering it. Yet there’s absolutely space to reject puzzle solutions for in character moral reasons “my character wouldn’t use captured goblins as trap detectors”, but there’s sort of an expectation that the player won’t use in character traits to avoid engaging in play entirely.

(2) PACING
Pacing in the narrative sense is not a concern, to try to provide it would almost certainly require damping down player freedom through illusionism, railroading or similar disfavored techniques. This is an intentional trade of to focus on player decision rather then narrative form.

Design for locations and setting is the only tool for pacing, but can go a long way especially with campaign clocks or event tables.

(3) PLAYER AUTHORED MATERIAL
Player created material is deeply part of classic play. Most of the iconic D&D classes, starting with the Cleric, come from player desires.

However, the GMs and player roles are fairly well defined and the ethics of classic play frown on unprompted player creation. GMs often request content “What God does your cleric worship?”, “What does your wizard’s magic missile look like” or “What distant land is your PC from” for example, but this sort of thing generally stops at mechanical effect. E.g. you might say your cleric worships “The Fire Bull”, but your GM and fellow players will take umbrage if you insist this means you get a special charge attack and immunity to fire. Now your GM might be inspired and make a subclass for you or add in your temple as a faction, but that’s not expected.

On the other hand there’s a tradition of player ingame creation: spell research, item creation and even classes (You charmed some goblins, made them henchmen and now want a goblin as a replacement PC) - but again this is almost always through collaboration with the GM.

Okay these are getting long. I will do the rest after work.

4 Likes
#34

Design for locations and setting is the only tool for pacing, but can go a long way especially with campaign clocks or event tables.

This is confusing to me. You state that “Design for locations” is the only tool for pacing, and then explicitly mention two other pacing tools?

#35

The sentence is that “Design for LOCATIONS and SETTING” is the only pacing tool.
Obviously the implication is that campaign clocks and event table are a sub-set of setting or location design.

That is I can put a clock or event table at a setting level or within a specific location. An event that ticks towards occurring between setting factions by session, or within a location by turn for example. This is never absolute of course because players can decide to engage or not engage with hooks to prevent/delay/change these events or the triggers that start clocks.

2 Likes
#36

Ah, thank you; So you consider those to be part of setting/location design. That was not clear to me on first reading.

Edit: In retrospect, saying “Location and setting design are the only tools” feels a little like “Draw the rest of the owl” – more specific breakouts of things like encounter charts, which may be part of setting design, but which might not be obvious to the uninitiated, might be helpful.

#37

Yes, it’s kind of the core of Further Afield.

#38

Ah, interesting, maybe I should check that out.

#39

These are short answers, or they are trying to be short. I have a classic play theory blog at All Dead Generations that is more detailed:

https://alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

Assuming you want to read long winded thoughts on early D&D, the Dungeoncrawl and such directed at 5E folk. Others have done it better and I’m about 1/2 way through core concepts - so it doesn’t hit on campaign design much, I do talk I fair bit about light in the last post though.

Alternatively you can expand on my attempts at short answers to questions if you like, I won’t be sad.

4 Likes
#40

Back. Dinner in the oven, 1/2 a bottle of red wine in my belly (1967 - 2014 - Grifone - Tuscany - $4.99 - Sangiovese, CabS, Syrah blend. Muddy clarity/ dull, rusted color/hot herbal nose/ mellow fore with cherry, middle is stoney with more berry and black pepper, finish hot with black pepper, grass, pine & herbs)

(4) CHALLENGES TARGETED AT PCs.

This must happen, but unless it’s a result of an enemy adapting to player tactic it would be really bad form. GM role is to arbitrate situations and setting reaction to player actions. Creating challenges specifically to mess with player tactics, or worse changing things on the fly, would certainly fall under the dreaded “antagonistic GMing” category. That said smart or experiences foes will have tactics prepared to deal with common adventurer shennanigans. A dragon will expect deals to be broken by humans and even goblins likely have ways of dealing with oil bombs.

More importantly it doesn’t matter. There are no big bads, who must escape clever player action and no challenges that represent climax. If the players defeat or outwit a pussiant for via good ideas that’s grwat, the GM can cheer, the open world will provide more foes and complications.

(5) IS A C.R.E.A.M SENSIBILTY REALLY CONDUCIVE TO PLAYER FREEDOM? ALSO MURDERHOBOS!

Well “XP = GP recovered from the wilderness” does encourage treasure hunting. A very strict interpretation of “wilderness” can discourage murderhobousm for the player who wants to play as a moral void, but generally this is fairly unintersting. Better to consider the wages of good and evil. I call this Moral Play, and It’s a core component of classic play.

Saving orphans from durance vile rarely has pecuniary rewards. Conversely being a blackguard can be an easy path to riches. Both make the setting react differently. A murderhobo is soon chased into the wilderness and hunted by worse and worse things. A paragon of virtue is besieged by requests for do-gooding.

This is player choice. Wealth as XP makes has no moral valence, characters can invest in assassins’ guilds or orphanages. Player can gain wealth by robbing merchants on the road or defeating evil liches. This is all on them.

Oddly many players like to explore being mercenary jerks.

2 Likes