A Key Concept That You Need to Run OSR Games!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- I see a lot of posts online of DMs who've tried to switch from 5E to Old School Renaissance games only to struggle.
When I listen closely to what they are saying, I find out that they don't understand a fundamental concept of OSR games.
OSR games emphasize your interaction with the world, not the game mechanics. This is can be thought of as the "open system" It is the part of the game system that is "open" to the ideas and creativity of the players at the table. It's permeable and lets stuff you carry in your head, into the game world.
For more ideas on how to get the most out of your OSR games, you can read my blog at grumpywizard.h...
My monthly email newsletter goes deep into subjects on sword-and-sorcery gaming, movies, books, comics, and heavy metal. landing.mailer...
The wisdom comes from the beard.
Thats a LOT of wisdom
Couldn’t get past all of that wisdom .☹️
Interaction with the game world and skill checks are the main things I've been confused about since starting my recent exploration of OSR. I'm so used to rolling skill checks for literally everything in 5e that seeing little to no rules describing basic character to world interaction threw me a bit. After this video, I think I'm starting to get it.
The way I interpret it, OSR games and old-school D&D function a little bit like text adventure games. The scene is set, and the player describes what they do. For example:
DM: "You enter a room that appears to be an alchemist's workshop. There is a table with many papers strewn across it, and a mug haphazardly left on top of a small scribbled map."
Player: "I pick up the mug."
DM: "The mug is empty, but leaves a large circular stain on the map."
Player: "I look at the map."
DM: "As you look, you realize that the map's layout looks vaguely like the room you're in. The stain seems to surround a rectangle in the same area as a nearby bookshelf, and the words "4 down, 3 right" are written inside the circle. What do you do?"
Player: "I pull the third book on the fourth shelf."
DM: "You hear the sound of metallic cranking as the bookcase slides to the side, revealing a secret passageway."
No real focus on perception or investigation checks. Just basic logic and problem solving. Does that about sum up how this works in OSR?
Exactly correct. You've got it!
@@grumpy_wizard_blog Okay, awesome. Something I notice about 5e is that its reliance on skill checks seems to have fostered a player mindset that only characters who have good stats in certain things should try those things. Some players might not try looking around for a solution to the problem at hand if their character doesn't have good intelligence or wisdom modifiers, and others might be reluctant to voice a suggestion because their character isn't mechanically smart.
This happened early on in The Adventure Zone. One of the players asked if he should voice something he noticed because "my character isn't smart enough to have figured this out". He was more concerned over whether or not the game mechanics would allow him to solve the mystery than just solving the mystery.
What's funny is that in a recent 5e session, we were tasked with solving a string of murders, and during investigation segments, my barbarian with an intelligence of 8 consistently rolled high enough on those skill checks to figure things out before a lot of the smarter characters. This is why you just try things and see what happens. Sometimes, the dice tell their own story.
Even Savage Worlds has a decent incentive to just try things because of its Wild Die mechanic and normal target number of 4 to do most things. Even an unskilled character can succeed on things if they just roll max on a d4.
"Playing the world" as it is sometimes called, definitely isn't unique to OSR games. It is a common play style but has gone out of fashion in some of the more recent games.
I'm a new DM, I've held two sessions with my friends so far, and this really helped me understand how keeping the interaction with the story more natural than mechanical (as with the overuse of dice rolls) can be much more engaging. While you were explaining the trap door scenario, I imagined myself describing the room to the players and emphasizing creeking boards on the floor when they walk through, to try and draw attention to the thing they're supposed to find instead of using a check to see if they find it.
Congratulations on starting your journey as a DM! A simple rule of thumb is to limit rolls to resolve an action by players. When they go to a scene, describe what they see, let them respond, and then if there is a point where the outcome is uncertain then you roll. It is OK to rule that something works without a die roll.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog Really great information. I've been playing and running games since the 1980's. Just one piece of constructive criticism if I may from a guy who would love to see your channel take off---I think your presentation could benefit from a bullet point board. Cover your point and move on. My girlfriend and I were watching and we both felt you meandered a little too much---a little more structure would be helpful. Best and cheers!
@@andrewlustfield6079 Thank you for watching and thanks for the recommendation. i'm definitely new at this and any suggestions are worth taking into consideration.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog It's like anything else--it takes practice, and developing your own comfort level with it. A full on script might feel wooden, for you and your viewer, especially since you know that material cold. And don't be shy about asking your wife, girlfriend, friends, etc to do a dry run to see what lands. In the same way an author develops his or her voice, you are too. Best of luck!
I went through the pains of figuring this out for myself about a year ago! My first attempt at running an OSR game was Mork Borg and I called so SO MANY ability checks. I was running it like a 3e or 5e game (which I had more experience with). I could tell it had fallen flat and I eventually figure out that it's so important to run games in a way that embraces their style. For me, this requires actively checking myself for old-habits and stopping to think "oh wait, how would this kind of game handle that" before blurting out the first thing that pops into my head.
I have read a lot of accounts by game masters and players reporting similar things. Unfortunately, most RPGs do a bad job of describing the play style particular to the game and its underlying assumptions. Quite often, people have a hard time with a game not because the mechanics suck, its because the publisher didn't include a primer about how the game should be played.
One of the most important points you made Travis, IMHO, is that the ability to adjudicate a player's actions depends a lot on your life experiences and your exposure to storytelling in the genre of your chosen game. When I started GMing at age 14, I knew very little about life even though I'd read fantasy stories (especially Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar S&S novels). We played the way kids play -- a lot of imitating what we found in published modules, etc. I craved guidance from rules because I wasn't confident enough in my life's experiences. As I got older, I gained confidence and my games reflected that.
But something happened starting with 3rd edition D&D -- my friends and I got excited by the unity of the new rules (consistency in damage types, a simplified saving throw system, specific combat mechanisms, etc.). My players also loved the "crunchy" stuff and all the theorycrafting that went with it. In hindsight I saw we were highly influenced (without fully realizing it) by design and mechanisms found in collectible card games, board games, video games, and MMOs.
By the time I finished running 8 years of D&D4e, I knew something fundamental had been lost and you've nailed it. I noticed my players had stopped using their imaginations -- they stopped playing their *characters* and instead were playing their *character sheets*. I was doing the same as DM. Even with decades of experience we were doing this. Some of us really loved having a distinct set of abilities and actions with strictly defined rules and outcomes we could apply to in-game situations. After a while, though, I noticed I couldn't remember any interesting stories from our games. Everything was playing out like a board game. Nothing memorable was happening -- just endless sessions of players (or me as DM) trying to decide which ability on a character/monster sheet to use to get through an encounter. I loved playing with my friends, don't get me wrong, but I ended up feeling like I was just a computer to my players -- something that would react the way a computer game reacts when you do one of the limited things a computer game allows you to do.
I have been using the past 7 years of running D&D 5e "return to my roots" so to speak. It started when I read the rules of the Dungeonworld RPG and had a "light-bulb" moment: the game rules serve the fiction of the game (the game doesn't exist to serve the rules).
I don't hate rule sets like 3e or 4e but now any game I run, I remind myself that the playstyle I enjoy (and the only kind I want to GM) is one where players feel free to try anything (and hopefully do) and only refer to the rules (or their character sheets) occasionally rather than constantly.
The only way this works for me is to ask my players to describe their actions, not their rules choice. If they say something like "I want to roll a perception check to search the room" I politely but firmly ask them to just describe what their character is doing and why. Then, just as you explained in the video, I think about what they said and then decide whether a die roll is needed. It may sound draconian, but it is literally the single most useful tool I have to keep the game from sliding back into a computer-game style of RPG.
This was so well written! I couldn’t agree more! THIS is how TTRPG’s should presented the guidelines in their intro guides - Thanks for explaining this in a way I’ve also felt, but couldn’t verbally express haha!
You're very welcome. I am glad you found it helpful.
One of the interesting points about _life experience_ is it sometimes promotes conversation among players (referee included) over just what reality _is_ like and how characters would experience that. Those chats can be interesting in themselves. What common experiences do we all share? Which of our experiences diverge from that? It may risk slowing game play but can be a fun thing to do with friends.
To me, the most important part of the game is the social bond created between the members of the group. Finding those common experiences through play helps to facilitate that.
Great video. I really liked Rob's book. I hope he finishes the longer one he's working on. And his thesis about open vs. closed systems nails it on the head. You've managed to articulated it perfectly.
I think the main thing new DMs coming from a more modern system struggle with is realizing they don't need mechanics for a lot of the game. Life or death stuff (combat, saving throws) or supernatural things (magic), sure. But you don't need bargaining/haggling mechanics. You can just role-play out the interaction. Maybe use a DM-rolled 2d6 reaction check. You don't need stealth/hide mechanics for a character hiding behind a large crate that fully obscures their body as the guards pass by. If the guards have dogs? Maybe use a DM-rolled d6 surprise check to see if the dogs pick up the scent.
The secret is letting the game happen and not letting the dice become an obstacle to the game. As a DM, I telegraph traps. I give clues to the ranger who looks for them. I want to give the players enough information to make an informed decision or figure out their own solution. I hear people say sometimes, "Players like rolling dice." I get that, but I find by setting DCs and skill checks for everything, you risk stopping the game due to failed dice rolls. For me, that makes rolling dice for combat, saves, etc. more exciting.
Thanks Chris. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Many times I have seen GMs who have only played games with a focus on the mechanics and rules and then struggle when they play an OSR game because they are focused on die rolls, and procedures rather than interacting with the world. Thank you for watching and commenting.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog I recently convinced my players to try 2e. Only one had played 2e before but that was 20 odd years ago. It took them more than one session to start understanding the concept of "interact with the world" instead of interact with the rules.
@@Wiseblood2012 I have been DMing since 1979 and have had players in my current 5e games that have played since those years as well. I STILL have to remind them in 5e to act within the game first (not their character sheet). I remind them that the beauty of RPGs is that they can try ANYTHING and if we need to make a dice check we will. But so many of my players have really been hobbled by video games. They treat everything like a keyboard press -- just running around wanting a die roll to tell them what happens instead of making their own decision. It takes a lot of work to get players out of that mindset.
Here’s a thought. “Open System”, as explained in Kuntz’s book, means that the referee can amend the rules at will, even while playing the game. I think the original brown box booklets even discussed the concept in the Introduction. Pretty cool!
Yep. Rule 0: DM has the final say (or something to that effect)
That's pretty much what I do regardless of the game system. I try to keep the essence of the game intact, while keeping things as open as possible at the same time. After 44 years, I've been able to make it feel quite comfortable for any game.
Well said! Thinking about the idea of the open vs closed systems in a game really helped me put my finger on what I like about OSR games over modern editions. I’m excited to discuss the idea with my group. Thanks for the video!
You're very welcome. Once I got a grasp on the idea it really made my understanding of how to make rulings a lot more consistently.
What you are saying is pretty much spot on. New games try to codify everything and older games didn't bother. I personally think its easier to run older games because you don't have to reference rule books for everything.
If you look at things in the modern PbtA/Forged in the Dark/Indie scene, you'll find a lot of modern successful games that work with the fiction (what in this video is called the open system) as a main element of gameplay.
This video and the books in the box on your bookshelf just earned you a subscriber. Glad I found you.
Thank you! I appreciate it.
Great analogy with the cup of tea! Perfect explanation of how to run an OSR, so refreshing.
Thank you!
Great video, I have seen people touching on this but not quite articulating it when discussing world building. It’s why tropes are so important so the DM can present small chunks of information and the players can internally imagine it.
It applies to 5e as you say, but modern players often try to emulate shows and play act the action. That is great but they miss or are not aware that they are also actively engaged in the open game as well.
I think it is often a lack of awareness. Also, WotC does a terrible job of training DMs to be good DMs.
This is literally what I needed to hear. I was struggling trying to figure out how to run an old school version of D&D like they ran it back in the 70s. Hearing they had rules for combat because they knew how other games ran combat made so much sense to me. Everything else they were just making up on the fly. Your explanation on how they made it up and how I can too was eye opening. Thanks for the vid! S tier beard!
Thanks!
Thank you very much, Sir! This was extremely helpful to understanding that "mindset" for OSR games that I've always been curious to learn.
You are very welcome. I'm working on a series with more practical advice so stay tuned!
This video helps explain a lot as I started with the white box set and AD&D but until recently did not play for about 40 years.
As an old Evil DM I approuve of this video 🧔open DMing since 1984 !
Excellent advice! Thank you for the video. I've recently started DMing Shadowdark and it's been a ton of fun, but a bit of an adjustment coming from modern systems like 5e, Monster of the Week, Cyberpunk, etc. This was the advice I needed to fully get my head around it.
Thanks! I have a number of essays on my blog you might find helpful as well.
Great food for thought! I really like the tea metaphor.
Thanks!
Just leaving a comment to give my support and show my appreciation for your content! As a younger generation player, thank you very much for explaining the difference between the Old School and New School rpg essense.
Thanks for the comment. I haven't looked at my comments for months. Thank you for watching, I'm glad it was helpful to you.
I've been slinging dice since 1984 and am enthralled (failed by Saving Throw vs Spells) by that tea analogy. Much more succinct than how I've been describing it to my homies coming to my OSR-style games (primarily OSE, but also Mork Borg and , to an extent, Death In Space) from 3e/5e.
Thanks!
Excellent video and I'm happy to have found your channel.
Thank you!
Great video. Very clearly explained something i couldn't find the right words for
Thanks. Glad you find it helpful.
It's tough because you don't want a system to confine you or your players choices, but the whole point of getting a game system is so you don't have to figure things out on your own, such as fall damage, or aiming your swings at a specific body part, or crafting poisons. I'm gonna start trying more OSRs I think they may fit my GM style a little better, but from the vids I have been watching it sounds like a modern ttrpg system comes up with mechanics for the player to use to role-play their character, whereas OSRs create a system that promotes and withstands player freedom and problem solving. One of the reasons i think they have a rep of being hard or meat grindy is because the "numbers" are against the players. The dice probably should be mostly against the player to encourage players find solutions to the problem they are facing.
That's a good summation. We aren't merely playing "let's pretend" The rules do matter, however, I want to encourage the players to think in natural language and imagine a picture of what is happening to their characters, where they are at and what they are going to do. I don't want them doing math in their head to figure out the probability of success before they describe to me what they want.
The "math first" method of play is fine. It's just not what I want to do when I play an RPG.
I like this video a lot and i learned some good stuff here. Thank you for sharing some old school knowledge
Thanks for watching.
Ah, yes, the good, old dychotomy between "If it's not on the book you can't do it" and "If it's not on the book, but it makes sense, we'll find a way to do it" xD
This was really helpful information! I am staring to get a grasp on what OSR really means and should feel like.
Thanks for your comment. I'm glad its helpful.
As someone who was raised Basic/BECMI, yeah. This pretty much nails it on the head. Not having a character sheet with 5000 skills and feats on it we had to pretty much convience DMs something could work. Our imaginations set more rules and guidelines than any actual rules. This was we we rejected wotc early on after they took over. I never played 4 0r 5e but it was clear with 3e where it was heading, players stop using their imagination and only did what their skill and feat tree told them they could do.
It seems like such a minor thing but at the table it makes all the difference.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog That's right.I found when giving 3e a try back when it started, all those options and rule sets generally turned into prison bars pretty fast. I'd see people crunching odds and going on about +'s instead of just trying to do a thing. When back in the day if we wanted to say, jump on the dragon's back and try to stab it we just tried it and hoped for the best. However with a "modern" group of players they would likely burn an hour to check their sheets and books to, "see what we CAN do".
@@TKFKU It's a shame really. Just crushes creativity.
This is just what the doctor ordered. Thanks for this video man
You're welcome. I'm glad you found it helpful.
I find your comparison to 4e interesting. That's kind of the version that brought me back around to OSR. Basically for my D&D path I dabbled in AD&D2e then really played in 3.5 and then DMed in 4e, played but didn't really like 5e, played OSE, DMed a srtipped down OSE like version of 4e and now am on to castle and crusades.
Once I got good enough to understand how 4e worked I was able to strip away more and more of the rails. Like how the level bonus serves no purpose other than to help the DM figure out what monsters to throw at the party. On the other side the class powers help players figure out what they can do with their actions instead of just attack, attack, move, attack. I still have a soft spot for 4e (obviously) but I can say it's a D&D trainer without condescension. For gamers new to D&D I think it can be a good spot to start off from. Not everyone does well from being thrown into the deepend of the pool. Maybe they're not used to using their imagination in that way.
But yeah, open world is definitely moer fun and actually easier to run as DM once you have all the skills and tools in place.
The moment I saw this man I felt he was trustworthy, like in case I was stuck in a tough situation and I looked to the east, at the first light of the fifth day, he'd be riding down a hill, bringing help.
LOL. Thank you!
As a grognard with a long-running game the way we use the 'open system" is in character description trumps dice rolls - roles over rolls we say - essentially diceless. The only mechanistic resolution is combat and even then it's dependent. On combat: xp for gold makes combat very optional and the parties do more fighting retreats than pitched battles. The Pc's actively look for ways around fights and avoid them as much as possible. I track actual HP values as the DM; Players only know the HitDice of damage they have taken not the value of an actual hit - this causes real tension in the Players. Encumbrance is a real thing in Xp for gold gaming as you need to track the carried loot - we use a simplified version based on the pound and pound equivalents. Its interesting as the party want Henchmen not for added fighting ability so much as for two-legged beast of burden. Light sources become more important as well ( no demihuman in our world has "darkvison" or equivilant although Dwarves have limited ability to navigate in pitch black tunnels, its not sight based). Mapping is very important and the Map artifact very much a tresured item. While in a dungeon the Players have adopted a "stick and ball" diagram style with measurements annotated on the stick and ball to speed the process. The "who" is mapping, who is carring light etc are also a critical decisions.
Keep old school content alive! /sub
Player1: How deep is the well?
DM: You can't see the bottom.
Player 1: I drop a big rock in it, to get an idea of how deep it is.
DM: Make an investigation check.
Player 1: What? Um... alright. [ 7 ]
DM: You can't tell. Could be 100 feet; could be 5 feet. You're completely clueless.
5e PLAYERS & DMs CANNOT UNDERSTAND JUST HOW WRONG THIS IS!
It works but it's not that engaging and doesn't promote creative problem solving, that is for sure.
Other than the investigation check, can you explain what's wrong with it? Or is that the key difference? I played D&D in 1991 and 1e AD&D and that's how we would act as well, minus of course investigation since that wasn't a thing. But the dialog would go the same way unless the DM felt the need to tell you how deep you think it might be.
@@Nobleshield - Because it relies solely on dice, rather than a player figuring it out through the narration, to glean information that would make zero difference in the game.
And if it _is_ information that is crucial to the game, what's the DM's backup plan, when everyone fails their skill checks?
> _"Well, Watson, we both failed our Perception and Investigation checks. Looks like we're not going to solve this murder."_
> _"Quite right, Holmes. Nothing to do now, but go back to Scotland Yard, eat some donuts, and shoot some cocaine."_
> _"Capital idea! Cocaine gives me inspiration. Then I can roll again!"_
DM: Um... OK. I guess, make a Constitution check when you shoot up.
Isn't this fun, kids?
Precisely so. Playing the game instead of playing the world
holy shit you look like a guy that plays OSR games. fully a compliment. that beard is magnificent.
Thanks!
MY GOD! That BEARD!!!... I want it
This is similar to the changes in video games over the years. It used to be that it would tell you what you had to do and then you would have to figure out the rest for yourself, now it has arrows telling you where to go and instant travel to get you there. There's also been a simplification of customization options, like it's telling you how you need to build your character.
There definitely seems to be a culture of hand holding and guiding players along a path the designer wants them to go. I'm not much of a video game player these days. The little bit that I look into the video game scene, I've noticed some push back against that from some indie video game developers.
Huh, I already was doing something like this but never had a good way to put it into words. It's just something my dm did and I picked up on
This guy looks like he's called Travis. Love your work btw!
Thanks!
Great stuff! It would be really cool to have you show us various examples of what you're talking about here to help us clear out the "junk". 🤓🤣
Good suggestion. As I learn more about how to create videos I'm seeing that specific examples are helpful. Here's one that keeps coming to mind. I was listening to a 5E actual play. The players were on a ship. One of them was on guard. The character hears a loud sound on one side of the ship. The player says they go to the side of the ship and look. DM asks for a perception roll. It's a dragon turtle attacking the ship. It was never clear to me what the point of the perception roll was. If a dragon turtle is attacking a ship, it doesn't take a much perceiving to know what's going on. That was followed by players trying to find useful things on board with dice rolls. There was very little interaction with the scene or the ship it was all, I use X ability.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog Nice example here, and that's nearly exactly what our modern system games turn into. It even affects my tuning and running after a while of DM-ing them. Some systems are worse by far than others for this, but many do it and that's a REALLY HARD habit to break away from and break your players away from. 😕
Don't really know if I even can, or they can, or both at this point. I would love to go back and have started then on BX or BECMI first, but hindsight is 20/20 as they rightly say most of the time. 🤔
All great advice, mate. Thank you.
You're welcome. I'm glad you find it useful.
Nicely done. Subbed!
Thanks!
Been playing since mid-February 1977 (over 46 years). This info is so spot on it's almost painful that it has to be explained. Covid forced me out of A2e, and into VTTs and 5e. Staying with the older methods has allowed my players to enjoy the transition with minimum trouble - the streamlining in 5e can be appreciated (no more THAC0, thank you!) without disturbing the flow we've become used to for literally decades.
Thanks for the nod.
You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to watch and write in. I appreciate it.
i loved 4e beacuse all i needed was a solid closed system, and then the players and GM could do whatever they want with the open stuff
"Because those specific problems had known solutions, because Gary and Dave had played a bunch of board games and miniatures war-games they had already solved the ways that were satisfactory to them about how to resolve these issues."
The idea that the rules that the guys in the 1970s deemed worthy of codifying were such because they had already been solved but that later solving of problems by subsequent gamers (things like skill systems started to show up as early as the 80's, as I'm sure you know) really speaks to the revisionism and romanticism of the OSR of recent years (I was a fan of the OSR stuff in its early days). The ridiculous extreme of an example of throwing a rock down a well or "search rules every time a player checks a room" or constantly asking for ability score checks exaggerates and assumes what some more recent games actually expect. People basically stopped reading DMGs after the year 2000 and its a shame because, especially in 3rd edition (the most misunderstood of them all), the DMG is actually very heavy handed about a lot of the stuff that the OSR preaches. Skill checks can *aid* in your chances of doing something AFTER you've already explained what you're doing and how you're doing it.
Some people like the actual game part of the game rather than everything being make believe outside of spell casting, AC, hit points and movement rates. I like dungeon crawling, and dungeon crawling can be super rewarding when its based in various rules that engage with each other and a procedural approach. Engaging with rules systems and seeing the results unfold at the table, especially as they relate to your character can be super interesting, exciting, weird and makes for great immersion.
AD&D 1e is one of my favorite games, and I really appreciate some OSR games, I've been playing for long time, but the OSR narrative, rules-light stuff, the revisionism, the fetish of re-enacting a certain period of time in a way that we mostly only imagine a handful of people (who are lucky enough to have been documented) played is misdirected and its out of control lately.
Hell, the original west marches game (a play style that many OSR, rules-light, open table, sandbox etc. people hold in high esteem) was done in 3rd edition, and that original DM makes it a point to praise the mechanics and strengths of the 3.0 ruleset for enabling that game to be as successful as it was. Sometime in the mid-2000's the unfortunately WotC message boards and crazy min-maxers became the loudest voice and ended up driving the entire direction of the industry for the following two decades (WotC over pivoting with 4e to be as far away as the late 3.5 style as they could, the OSR emerging out of a reaction against late 3.5 era play), but really the majority of people playing late 2, 3.0, 3.5 etc were just having a grand old time playing normal fantasy campaigns at home and enjoying the strong rulesets.
Quite right. This creates a need for a high level of trust between the referee and the players. Some players want the closed system to "protect" them from GMs they do not trust, but that isn't actually possible.
It seem so fundamental and yet there are many game designers that believe the system can beat culture. That has never been my experience.
I've been playing D&D since 1980. In the past year we started playing a highly modified version of Pathfinder 2e (3 action economy), but most everything else is stripped down to nearly an OSR. You want to do something, go ahead try it sort of attitude. The problem is the younger players (in their 30's) all want to reference the rules. 80% of the rules are optional to help you if you need them, you don't have resolve everything through multiple dice roles.
Sounds like a good time to me!
This is a cool gaming point of view. But I would argue that the modern gaming era is way past things like 4e D&D and those "more closed systems". Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark games i.e are the very front line of tabletop rpgs today and on these, this idea of "the open system" exists as "the fiction", which is the most important element in the game. You play the game by working with the fiction and the rules all follow the fiction as a basis, this is something true for both PbtA/Story Games and OSR games, the difference is just that the OSR is more concerned with the adventure and immersion in the fantasy rather than creating a dramatic story.
The only disagreement I have is that modern gaming is past closed systems. Take a listen to a random actual play podcast or stream. You'll find a lot of dice rolling for things that shouldn't, in my opinion, require dice rolling. The vast majority of people playing RPGs right now have only and will only ever played 5E DnD. More than 60% of the games on Roll20 are 5E. You can find it in Target, Walmart, and Barnes and Nobles. Most gamers have never heard of PbtA games and only a vague notion that DnD existed back in the 80's and that's only because they watched Stranger Things. They walk right past Apocalypse World on their way to the new shiny thing WotC has put out. That is if their shop even carries it, which it probably doesn't.
Really helpful ty
You're welcome. Glad to be of help
0:28 YES!
Any video about how to dm a sandbox? Im trying to get there
I am about half way finished with a video on how to build encounters for sandbox games. I have a series of four videos planned on the subject. In the meantime, if you join my email newsletter , you get access to a cloud folder. There are four essays entitled "Grumpy Wizard Quarterly" that are about how I build sandbox games. landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/v8c9s8 That's going to end up being revised and expanded into an ebook sometime 2023 .
To sum up, use your nog not the dice to determine the outcome.
More or less. We have to maintain the balance though. There are points where the rules and dice are the tool for the job. When it is appropriate, use a rule or the dice. Did the goblin surprise the party? Roll a D6 per the surprise rules. 1. Yes the party is surprised and the goblin gets to act before they do. Roll 2D6 for a reaction. 12 Seems like he wants to be friends. What does that look like? There we don't need to roll the dice and the DM decides that the goblin is a weakling that the other goblins pick on and he wants revenge so he is hoping the party will be his friends if he tells them where the goblin chief keeps his gold.
In my opinion, DMs are not storytellers (and a roleplaying game is not best played as a storytelling game. If you want to play a storytelling game, there are games designed as storytelling games that do that much better). A GM places challenges in front of the players, the players try to solve the challenges, and after you are done playing, then you can tell the story (or stories) about what happened at the table. As a byproduct of play, a story may emerge.
It occurred to me recently that, at some time in the past (maybe around 3rd edition of D&D?), professional writers took over the design and adventure making of D&D; as opposed to the original D&D material which was written by a shoe repairman and a security guard, and other wargaming hobbyists. Sometime around then the game became about telling stories (which is just what you would expect a writer to be interested in) rather than the exploration of maps by PCs and combat with fierce creatures to obtain treasure [in a hexcrawl or a dungeon delve]. Video game influences (which are much more linier or like chose your own adventures) also began to influence TTRPG design [for the worse in my opinion]. Modules began to be written as movement from plot point to plot point, rather than allowing characters to roam around in the sandbox pursuing their own ideas and motivations. It seems like this was around the time that the term "railroading" arose and was used as a derogatory term by those of us who had grown up playing the open world/sandbox type of campaign to describe these ‘plot driven’ 'straightjackets' type of adventures. The linked videos are a great example of this point of view (which I agree with): ua-cam.com/video/4c9BoqE-jeY/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/PIQpVNbLwuE/v-deo.html
The story is what happens at [or away from] the table AFTER they game is finished for the evening, when tales are told of what happened during the game. When I hear GMs, game designers and others talking about the three-act structure, overlaid by the Shakespearian five act structure, and then talking about the realization moment in screenplays [coming at approximately page 80], and the climax of the story, and [heaven help us] the denouement, etc., etc., I know that I am listening to someone who likely learned to play after the rise of the 'storytelling/video game' type of adventure.
Back in 1974, when age 10 to 25 year old 'kids' were putting together their D&D worlds and building sandboxes for others to play in, we/they had little formal education about story structure and the like [and wouldn't have thought about using it in the design of a 'dungeon' or wilderness adventure anyway] , but we/they knew enough to create challenges for players to overcome, which creates the environment for conflict (which is critical to drama), and with players having created motivated characters who were seeking fame and fortune, and were placed in such a sandbox environment, they organically created story through play. Look at things like the Judges Guild materials from the late 70s. They are filled with locations, creatures, NPCs, random tables and such and not plot points, a main narrative, etc. A DM is not a storyteller and RPGs are best used as role playing games, and not storytelling games.
I've written a lot about this on my blog over the last few years. It's on my list of videos to make.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog I look forward to seeing it.
In a broader sense, the GM places a situation in front of the players and they decide how to act upon it. This can be a challenge to overcome, or a threat to persevere against... but it could also be about fostering relationships or making observations and the like.
The thing is, Dungeons & Dragons and similar games have never actually been very good delivering a strategic combat experience. The strategy challenges and experience offered by a lot of games (including plenty of video games) is far superior in challenge, especially once online gaming became widespread enough that a really good player could play with people from all over the world to find the other really good players. It's probably partly because D&D really couldn't compete well at all in that area that D&D began to shift away to selling itself more as an RPG than as a kind of war game, because it just wasn't going to be able to compete.
You also really can't do roleplaying well without it being storytelling. A 'role' can only exist in the context of a larger story that informs it, even if most of that story is implied and in the background (our generic idea of what a "wizard" is rests on stories, and you can only play out the role of a particular wizard by having a character with continuity that remembers experiences etc, which you can't do without it being a story in itself). You seem to be trying to use the term "storytelling game" as if it's more like "Novel-writing" or "movie-script-writing" but storytelling is a much broader thing.
@@fadeleaf845 Precisely so. I talk about this a bit in my encounter design video and a new video I hope to get out soon.
So if I'm not mistaken, what you mean by "open system" is relying on things beyond "just roll a skill check"? I played Basic D&D in 1991 and 1e AD&D before going to 2e and then 3.x, and I'm looking at various OSR rules but thus far haven't found any that really appeal (just reminding me of the stuff I didn't like, like how cheap character survivability is). But one thing I like about OSR compared to say 5e or Pathfinder is the lack of "Make me an X check" rules, instead being more of a "Okay that sounds good" from the DM, although I can see some reasons why the DM would ask for a skill check (bluffing a guard, for example, although in this case the CHA check wouldn't be to see if it worked, but if the guard realizes he's been tricked before the PC can get away)
That's the basic idea. It probably seems fairly obvious having played back in the 90's cause that's just how we played.
I was a little distracted before and have a moment now. It is partly about focusing on what's going on in the setting instead of the mechanisms of the game. However, it is also about bringing in elements that aren't explicitly in the game rules. A lot of more contemporary games discourage players and game masters from doing anything that are not in the rules or can't be resolved using the existing mechanisms. Others have very broad universal mechanisms that can be applied to most anything. There is a bit of a problem with that if the game master accepts whatever nonsense the players suggest and just apply an existing ability or skill to roll.
For me, the major part of what I called "open system" in this video is that I prefer a game that encourages the players to spontaneously come up with an idea that is plausible and avoids a purely mechanistic approach. "What if I drink a strength potion, carry the anvil to the balcony, and drop it on the guy when he comes out the door of the inn?" There are no rules for that in the game but a game master with a basic understanding of gravity could make a ruling about the likelihood of the anvil hitting the guy, and the probability of it killing him if it does. To me, that's the more important element of "open system" thinking .
I never ran OSR but coming from PBTA, I'd probably run OSR no problems. The philosophies align with one another.
Indeed. The basic idea of "playing to find out" is very similar.
Been GMing since 1975. Open is the way.
6:04 constantly asking for rolls isn't a mechanic of modern games. If you sit down to read most of them, going "oh yeah, that works" is the default assumption for most of them still. There's nothing in the 4e phb saying the player should roll perception rather than just lift up the rug themselves.
In fact, the example of play (p. 10) has one player going "i want to have a closer look at the gong" and the dm doesn't call for a check, just offers a closer description.
Tldr; you're just making up a game and getting mad at it
You're absolutely right there's nothing that requires DMs to call for rolls for routine actions but they do. That's part of the culture in contemporary RPG play. I have seen it personally at conventions and game shops and heard game masters do it on many streams and casts. There are many mechanisms in WotC versions that require or encourage rolls that simply get dealt with by the referee saying, "Yeah, that works" in old school game.
Good stuff! I much prefer open-system RPGs.
I run games for twenty years now, and I guess I somewhat do the open system method, even though my teabag is rather full with narrative tropes and thus it plays usually not like a setting simulation sandbox that I see so often OSR games becoming, which feels rather bland to me, but more concerned with character arcs and pacing.
I think the key to making sandbox games exciting and interesting is building active NPCs, engaging adventure locations and dilemmas into the setting. I'm working on outlines for a video series on the subject now. Emergent narratives are my specialty.
I don't like the idea of thinking of a character arc in advance, cause that will make me protective of the arc i planned. When i let go of that idea, i end up giving MORE control to the players in the game.
@@JohnCavalcante.Oficial I never said that a character arc should be pre-planned. I mean I am totally with you, having that already decided is bad. So, my point is not to have that in advance, but have that as an option, like with a lie the character tells themselves, or some other aspect that haunts them, which gives then something the character can express a personal story and not just live in an world that has no impact on who the character is.
Great video
Thanks!
You can summarize a lot of this video down to: use your imagination and make something up.
No rule set can actually cover every possibility. With 5e the expectation is the GM will cram their story and random situations into 5e rather than expecting the rules to bend. Which can never work. The result is a rule set that is overly complicated yet lacking at the same time.
That doesn't mean you go XP To Level 3. Never go XP to Level Three. Where the rules mean nothing and the "Chad DM" just drops the big bad at the end when they feel like it.
5e is "here is this world you will be having an adventure in."
OSR is "here is a world, have an adventure in it."
I started playing tabletop rpg's with 5e and admit that I've grown to dislike that kind of style. 5e games can tend to be like "here is the quest you will be doing, there is a solution to it you need to find it". They can feel very restrictive. I would much rather give my players situations and see what solutions they can find using their own creativity. I want to just fill a world and let my players interact with it and let them carve their own path.
I balked at having to make a roll to walk up stairs in a 5th ed game.
That's terrible and I hear it all too often.
In short. If you play an ancient game without the 45 years of evolution of game design that we achieved, be ready to make shit up.
It's just a different approach. It's not for everyone. Some people feel the modern ruleset to be overly restrictive and constrains certain kinds of creativity. Different games for different people
What you call open system is the reason for me to play and run RPGs. Otherwise I would be playing Board Games or Video Games.
In my opinion, it is what differentiates RPGs from those other game forms.
YESSSSSSS
I’ve been hacking together all kinds of rules from different systems in order to make up for the things I think 5e is missing or that I feel my game is lacking
That's my favorite way to run a game for a home campaign. It's fun to hack and mod a game system and customize it for my preferences.
916 Georgianna Mill
Drink Mountain Dew?
Also an important principle of old school play!
Please teach me your OSR secrets
They aren't secrets so much as they are methods that have been forgotten because shifts in the game and the culture.
If you think of it as "running" a game, you'll probably get a lot of closed-system results.
Certainly. Those results will be far more unpredictable and less constrained than when thinking of a game as a story. Stories have fixed intentions and compulsory scenes and beats that must be hit in order for the story to fit the genre the story sits in and to have the meaning the storyteller intends.
If a storyteller wants a heroic story then the scenes must follow down a heroic sequence. The way I run my campaigns, I have NO set outcome in mind. The choices of the players, the rules applied where they apply and a fair and reasonable adjudication when they don't (open system) allows for a vast range of possibilities that a referee "telling their story" can not even begin to imagine.
I was once part of a v3.5 game where this player had an extremely high Diplomacy skill check bonus. Instead of trying to articulate a well thought-out speech or persuasive comment, he would simply look at the GM and say, "I roll a Diplomacy check to try to convince this person." Nothing else, just "Let me roll the die to see if I convince him."
They say that if you truly understand a concept, you can explain it simply.
You clearly don't understand the concepts you're trying to discuss.
This is video is rough. I've been thinking about remaking it.
Earline Drives
Erin Stream
Have new DMs (new to Old School Play) read the Old School Primer and Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs, or, A New OSR Primer. Then hand out a copy to the players. See below for the links. The GM may want to read about the FKR s well (see link below).
In short, do stuff!
More or less.
No, you don't need this concept to run an OSR game.
Sounds like you have a superior alternative.
Those Old School Habits in 5e were put there by Zack S on purpose. They do not credit him anymore or want to acknowledge him anymore.
True. RPG Pundit was also involved. Unfortunately, the way both of them seem to seek out conflict makes people doubt the value of the methods.
Why do Americans pronounce Game master as "Gay Master"? Strikes me every time. They leave out the M.
I'm a rustic. Might be my redneck upbringing coming out
Everything recently has been going through a bit of a determinism / authoritarianism / appeal to authority bent.
IMHO it's corrupted what D&D was. Even if the DM was the ultimate arbiter, even this is not supposed to be true in the newer systems. At times it's disgraceful. OSR is an appropriate resolution to this.
Let's not forget Gary's introduction to the AD&D DMG where he goes on about how too much variance from how he told us to play would result in a sub-standard game. Certainly, WotC has been far worse in that regard, but they didn't start that ball rolling. Uncle Gary did.
@@grumpy_wizard_blog To me, that pales to the current dictates of WotC. I read from Gary not to allow players to choose crazy things Half Dragon, Phoenix Teiflings. (Or elven chainmail ;-) )
And honestly seeing what we have today I think Gary was onto something.
WotC is running up against things like "Even though that eldritch horror would destroy you inside and out with barely a thought... It has feelings too. So watch what you say."
For me, the only struggle is with how easy it is for player characters to get killed. They don't get enough hit points at Level 1 to make it very far. That being said, the beauty of OSR games is that (at least when it comes to White Box FMAG) they're ridiculously easy to homebrew new rules and content for.
Also see the Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs, or, A New OSR Primer: lithyscaphe.blogspot.com/p/principia-apocrypha.html
Free Kriegspiel Revolution: followmeanddie.com/2021/10/02/fkr-free-kriegsspiel-revolution/