Showing posts with label OSR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSR. Show all posts
Thursday, August 24, 2023
Thanks for your comments, friends!
Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Then I remembered what it was derived from: Dungeons & Dragons. Then I went down
an internet rabbit hole of research. Back in 2013, the OSR was not quite over. I
would say, it was just on the other side of its hey-day. I was swept up, and,
because of the kind of person I am and because of waht fascinates me, I
discovered the original game. I have now enjoyed hours of joy, terror, fun,
play, entertainment as a player, and service to others as a referee.
I have
something I share with my children, young in 2013, now almost out of the house.
We "speak" D&D and we have grown formed in its culture.
Friday, June 12, 2020
Mike's Dungeons, a brief review
Brief Review:
Mike's Dungeons
Geoffrey McKinney
I ran this module twice for Table Top Events Convention of Champions. The players covered most of the first level and some of the second level. So please keep this limited exposure to running this module in mind as per this review.
This is a perfect dungeon module in terms of format. Each map is on one page and almost all the key fits on exactly one page opposite the map so that it can lay open on the table for the referee. Perfect. The room descriptions are short, curt, concise, and to the point, empowering straightforward fast-paced play.
It is important to note, however, that NPCs are referred to by level title, so, if you do not have level titles memorized, you will have to look up what level that NPC is. And no monsters have any stats or special descriptions. The module assumes grounded knowledge in the standard D&D monsters and that you have easy, ready access to monster descriptions in rule books.
I did not enjoy having to look up some levels based upon titles for NPCs. It seems to me easy enough to say, "2 Warriors (FM2)," or something like that. But I had no problem with missing stats. It cleaned up the key and enabled it to all fit on one page. I have refereed for some time, I have many standard monster stats memorized, or nearly so, and I can, in general, run most encounters on-the-fly with little to no look-ups. So this absence of presentation did not slow me down, much. Others may find this annoying, so, in order to run the module smoothly, you many need to write in monster stats, say, for three levels ahead of the players, before each session, to make sure you feel like you can keep things running at a good pace.
As McKinney urges, this is a module to be played, not studied, and I can confirm this from my own experience. What content there is, is rock solid. This is a "funhouse" style dungeon in the sense that there are very few rooms entirely empty of content and most of the content has no concern for so-called "ecology." This is, for me, a bonus to be commended. But if you like "ecology," be forewarned.
In the main what we have is monsters, some with treasure. There is very little treasure unguarded by monsters that might otherwise be hidden or trapped. There are no descriptions of motivations, little indication of how monsters will react to the characters (but some) and no description of the relationship between monsters. This is not a problem for me. In fact, I welcome this sparseness. I enjoy making those things up for myself. But, again, if you like "factions," and those kinds of things, you are going to have to make them up for yourself.
What I will say, however, is that, for me, I had to add content to make this feel right and provide a full "old school" session. There are virtually no tricks (wonderful things that require interaction and problem solving) or traps at the initial entry levels, and the treasure is very sparse. I have not studied beyond the ninth level (hey, it is for playing, not for studying, remember?), but this is the case for me through the ninth level. I added a pit or deadfall trap in a corridor per level. I added hidden and trapped treasures, especially in dead-ends. I added false doors, teleportation points, etc., also in dead-ends. I elaborated certain decoratively described rooms in order to turn them into tricks or wonders that gave players something to interact with and solve. I added clues to these traps and tricks. I added clues to the monsters and treasures that were already there. I elaborated on description. Etc.
Now, I loved doing this extra work. This is exactly the kind of module I love, because it leaves much room for me to fit it into my campaign setting and add my own creativity. It gives me boundaries within which to work, and empowers my own imagination. This extra work, however, may not be everyone's cup of tea, so just be aware that, for many, this module will need some work in order for it to play like the kind of old school dungeons we usually enjoy.
I had fun running this and I recommend it.
Fight on!
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Understanding Original Dungeons & Dragons
Here is my answer: (original) D&D is an approach, not a set of rules. It is an approach to a hobby, called "wargaming." It is an approach to a particular interest of that hobby: the wargames campaign. It is an approach to giving that hobby-interest a "Sword and Sorcery" feel.
It is not a product designed to be consumed. Repeat: not a product made by experts to be consumed by an unprofessional public. It is a set of suggestions for fellow hobby-ists, who have a rich amateur knowledge and interest in their avocation. And those suggestions were sold at a price to make the effort worth it for the fellow-hobby-ists who did the work to put it out there for you.
So, don't get me wrong, obviously, in one sense, it was a product -- Gygax and Arneson did publish and sell it. But what we need to remember is that back in that day the market for such pamphlets was small and highly specialized and understood to be a way to get ideas out and shared with some minimum compensation -- no one got into publishing about miniature wargaming so that they could quit their day job! (This is something so easily do-able because of the internet and part of the DIY vibe of some of the best "OSR" stuff that is out there. We can share today in a way that the hobby-ists of 1974 couldn't have dreamed.)
Later "editions" move more and more towards "product identity" and changing the very semantics of the name "Dungeons & Dragons" from referring to three little pamphlets that suggested how to set up a medieval fantasy wargames campaign, itself intended for an audience of other wargamers, towards more of a product making money for a particular company from a non-expert set of consumers.
Thus these companies become increasingly concerned about their rights over this "product" -- and taking ownership for its development out of the hands of the consumers. This really changed the nature and vibe of things. Remember, for quite some time Gygax simply could not understand why any fellow-hobby-ist would want to by a "Dungeon Masters Kit," or "module." Why borrow someone else's creativity? The point is to have an outlet for your own! (Then he saw the cash available in it! I do not blame him for this. It was a smart, and, probably, the right business and even hobby-supporting move. I'm just giving this as an example for the subtle shift in things.)
Why do I keep putting "original" in parentheses? Just exactly because of the above. The three little brown books are not an edition. They are suggestions from hobby-ists, to fellow hobby-ists about a particular area of interest: wargames campaigning in a medieval fantasy setting. This is not an "edition," of a "game," with a unified mechanic and defined setting.
To many of us who play (original) Dungeons & Dragons, the other "editions" of Role Playing Game rules with the title "Dungeons & Dragons" look to us like many various house-rule variants of these suggestions for medieval wargames campaigns. (But, in this case, it often feels like someone else is telling us that their house rules are now the RULES, period.)
So AD&D is Gygax' tournament house rules made official.
3.5, 4, and 5 are Wizards of the Coasts house rules made official.
All the retro-clones are cool house rule variants, shared for the rest of us.
And good for them! In fact, thanks for sharing! They are all, also, D&D! But we don't have to use their house rules, we can make up our own. And we certainly don't have to view them as "official."
So, Dungeons & Dragons (original) is an approach to setting up medieval fantasy wargames campaigns. Back in the day, giants of the miniature war-gaming hobby would share their rules for how to resolve individual combats. But sometimes they would share rules for how to string together a series of combats into a coherent war campaign. In these documents, they would not focus on rules for the wargames themselves -- they assumed they were writing to wargamers who already knew such rules and probably already had their own house rules as a local, hobby, gaming group.
So, for example, they were in no way interested in a "unified mechanic." They wanted mechanics that made sense for the type of thing they were trying to resolve, at the appropriate level of scale. (Not everything scales up and down well, like, say, a fractal. More like the cube law, sometimes things need to change to work well.) This alone explains a lot of misconception about what the original little brown books were trying to do and to offer. Folks would do better, and understand original D&D far more, if they compared the three little brown books to other books on setting up wargames campaigns, rather than to later books that came to be called "role playing games."
Here are the three I would suggest anyone interested in understanding (original) Dungeons & Dragons:
Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming including Setting Up a Wargames Campaign:
Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaings:
And, finally, Grant's Wargames Campaigns.
But I would especially emphasize Tony Bath's book.
Another big difference in the slow transformation from a small, wargames hobby to a large, consumer role-playing game product is the vibe of play, and what the goal of play is. And this is, in many ways, far more important for understanding the difference between "original" and later "editions" of D&D -- but that is for another post.
Before I write that post, my next post will be a kind of imaginary example of what D&D might have been worded like if it had more of the form of some of the above classical examples of wargames campaigns books.
To conclude this post, I will say, if you are involved, as a fellow hobby-ist, in a local medieval fantasy wargames campaign that, through play, has developed its own vibe, feel and corresponding house-rules, then you are playing Dungeons & Dragons, whatever other name you call it.
Fight on!
Saturday, October 13, 2018
OSR Questionnaire
When I first became aware of the OSR, I was excited about it and learned as much as I could. After discovering Dungeons & Dragons (original) and the communities that support it, I no loner feel like I am "a part of" the OSR in a straightforward way.
It seems at first the OSR was about a return to the original, wargame style of play at the time of the birth of D&D as a hobby. Part of this included a return to a more DIY approach, both in terms of setting (not relying upon someone else's published, professional, setting) and "rulings not rules" (realizing that the local referee, group and game play itself was more important for developing both the rules and the shared setting than strict adherence to a professionally developed set of rules and settings).
In other words, the OSR represented to me a return to D&D as a hobby, rather than a consumer product. The hobby approach empowers creativity. The consumer approach makes passive clients. As a hobby it comes with a hobbying community of idea-sharing and mutual support. The internet facilitates such a hobby community in a large and broad way.
Much of what I have seen the OSR become since I got back into gaming in 2013 is a proliferation of small-scale or semi-professional game-resource publication. There is a lot of really good stuff out there. But, just exactly because of my more hobby-based, localist approach, I do not find myself using other people's modules very often, however professionally slick or "old school."
However, much of the stuff published as "OSR" falls into the current cultural zeitgeist that "creative" indicates, or is equivalent to, being edgy, troubled, dark, or "morally ambiguous." A lot of talk out there is about how we need to eschew "tropes" of fantasy in order to be "truly creative." In some cases it seems that the goal is to be as edgy as possible while still playing in a new school, story-game style. "Mapping sucks." "Challenge people with a moral dilemma." Etc. I find none of this attractive.
The following questionnaire comes from a big OSR personality named Zak. I do not follow his work much, honestly. But I stumbled across the questionnaire from other folk's blog posts and google+ posts where they filled it in in interesting ways. That is a good gift to the community, so, thank you, Zak. So if you are still reading, here goes:
1. One article or blog entry that exemplifies the best of the Old School Renaissance for me:
Philotomy's Musings
2. My favorite piece of OSR wisdom/advice/snark:
My own pithy zen-like saying in the spirit of Matt Finch's "Primer":
Amateur hobby, not professional product.
Medieval fantasy wargames campaigning is a hobby, so dive in for amateur fun. Stop expecting "professional production quality," and go for the joy and creativity that comes from a community of amateurs sharing ideas and swapping stories -- hobbyists who do it for the fun of it, not for profit. Don't passively receive wargames campaigning as some product rendered to you as a mere consumer of what "experts" say you are supposed to like or agree upon as standard. Instead, Fight on!
3. Best OSR module/supplement:
Tomb of the Sea Kings
4. My favorite house rule (by someone else):
"Crits" & "Fumbles": "Natural 20" does full (not double) damage. Don't do fumbles. Fumbles punish everyone with unfun. Both rulings come from Philotomy (see above).
5. How I found out about the OSR:
In 2013 I was surfing the web and remembered D&D then I plunged into what was going on and found my way to the OSR and, through them, to the original rules for medieval fantasy wargames campaigns.
6. My favorite OSR online resource/toy:
Mr. Josh Bear's ODD Referee Tool. I use it every session.
7. Best place to talk to other OSR gamers:
Because of what I mean by "OSR," as a return to old school, war-gaming style of play, together with, but not limited to a DYI attitude:
Finarvyn's ODD74 proboard, and
The Knights & Knaves Alehouse forum.
These are old-school internet formats that actually encourage conversation and not disappearing content:
This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.8. Other places I might be found hanging out talking games:
My own blog (you are here). I just don't post very often or very consistently. Sorry about that. (I hope that it is due to the fact that most of my hobby energy goes to actually gaming weekly.)
I also hang out and talk about games with real-live people that I know. Once a year I get to go to the North Texas Role-playing Game Convention and I get to talk to even more real live people about the game.
I followed folks on google+ but just used it to share my blog posts. It is now going the way of the dodo. We will see what happens with the migration to MeWe.
9. My awesome, pithy OSR take nobody appreciates enough:
It is not my own, but Delta's Target 20 combat and save resolution, combined with my own house-ruled hit-dice approach for distinguishing classes from one another. This has recently been "historically justified" by none other than Jon Peterson himself!
10. My favorite non-OSR RPG:
Diplomacy.
11. Why I like OSR stuff:
The OSR stuff that I like, when I like it, is stuff that has come out of someone's loving, amateur DYI hobby that is full of archetypal fantasy, full of interesting puzzles to solve, and immediately usable at the table (= good, easily readable, well-keyed maps).
12. Two other cool OSR things you should know about that I haven’t named yet:
Wayne Rossi's The Original D&D Setting. Just so good.
Paul Gorman's Magic Swords.
13. If I could read but one other RPG blog but my own it would be:
Please, don't read mine if you are only going to read two RPG blogs! I don't have nearly enough content. So, I get to name two. Since I have already mentioned Delta's D&D Hotspot, Jon Peterson's Playing at the World blog, and Wayne Rossi's Semper Initiativus Unum blog, above, then I get two more:
Jeff's Game Blog.
Hack & Slash.
Dyson Logos' Dodecahedron should get an honorable mention. His mapping skill and artistry is only improving. Unfortunately, for me, the actual gameable content of the maps has become increasingly blah and unusable over time. Dig back into his earlier stuff. Less pretty (perhaps, I still think it is great), but far more usable for old school play: lots of overlapping rooms and corridors, secret hatches, passageways, doors, traps. Just more interesting and inspiring for my style of play.
Finally, Bryce Lynch's Ten Foot Pole should receive another honorable mention. I agree with his module criteria about 80%, and that is about as much as any mature adult can expect to agree with another mature adult if they are not members of a cult. My main points of disagreement are where he tends towards "realism" and "ecology," whereas I enjoy a more "funhouse" approach.
14. A game thing I made that I like quite a lot is:
My own cumulative setting and house rules. I mean not just The Perilous Realms supplement I published or the simplified version I have as a page on my blog, but all of the cumulative rulings I've tracked due to actual play in the campaign. I have it all compiled in a readable but loving imitation of the Judge's Guild Ready Ref Sheets. I call it "Campaign Aids and Inspirations." It is where I put all my generative charts, tables, and decision trees. I haven't shared that document and I may never. The point is for you to develop your own settings and rulings.
15. I'm currently running/playing:
The Perilous Realms, a medieval fantasy wargames campaign. I use my own campaign world based upon an anachronistic mash up of our own medieval and ancient past. Each particular wilderness is the Outdoor Survival board set in such a way that the river flows to the nearest major body of water. The particular wilderness right now I call the Hollow Lands. They lie underneath the Mazandarin Sea, the nearest major city being Hecatompylos along the Silk Route. I use my own house rules built upon Dungeons & Dragons (the original rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns).
16. I don't care whether you use ascending or descending AC because:
If I am at your table, I trust you will tell me if my attack was successful. If you are at my table, I will tell you if your attack was successful. Thank you, Dave Arneson.
17. The OSRest picture I could post on short notice:
Please see above.
Fight on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)