|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 29, 2014 13:50:02 GMT -6
Perilous -- Hey, I hear you. And I respect your posts. I think you have the good luck of never having left the "OS" behind.
I like "OSR," because I came back to the hobby and needed something to help me find my "peeps."
I played 1e (if you could call what we did that) as a kid and young teenager.
What I saw when I decided I wanted to play D&D again was a bunch of stuff that was really off-putting to me.
Then I found out about its history, its war-gamming roots, and that there were folks who still liked to do it that way, talk about it, and produce new material for that OS style.
The "OSR" monicker led me here. And I am happy to be here.
I don't want to label anyone. But It has certainly been a wonderful "recruitment," for me. And one for which I am thankful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 11:48:06 GMT -6
In light of tetramorph and Merctime posts, OSCR means Old School Compatible Recruitment gaming materials.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 30, 2014 14:01:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Oct 30, 2014 21:46:27 GMT -6
That T. Foster declaration or manifesto or whatever it is, is seminal, and the comments are pretty good too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 0:50:20 GMT -6
Yeah, T. Foster - I don't actually know if he has ever published anything - one of the few true friendly game-sages out there. That said, I am as much a member of the OSR as Batman is a member of the JLA. - Define less. Play more.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Oct 31, 2014 9:28:57 GMT -6
A Baptist asked an Episcopalian, "Do you believe in infant baptism?" The Episcopalian replied, "Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it."
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 1, 2014 7:39:59 GMT -6
I may not be the person to chime in about OSR since I'm not returning to anything. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's and continue to play it. However, in my mind the OSR is simply a return to the style of the "good old days" way of playing. In my mind, OD&D is what the OSR is all about. What becomes tricky is that not everyone who played RPGs back in the day agree upon what it was or should be, because our experiences were all different. Since this was all pre-internet, we all played the way made sense to us and assumed that everyone else did it that way, too. It was only later on, through boards like Dragonsfoot (and evetually here as well) that folks really compared experiences and compared interpretations and found that "the right way" looked different to different folks. Arduin, for example, isn't "real" D&D to me because I didn't play the game that way back in the day. To others, Arduin might be the core rules set and philosophy. Perhaps we can't agree on exactly what to return to because there isn't a single agreed-upon standard rules set that we came from. I guess that "true OSR" would be a rules set such as OD&D given to a player without a lot of "how to play" information. Then they figure it out and play it and that becomes how it was really done back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 16:10:10 GMT -6
I may not be the person to chime in about OSR since I'm not returning to anything. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's and continue to play it. However, in my mind the OSR is simply a return to the style of the "good old days" way of playing. In my mind, OD&D is what the OSR is all about. What becomes tricky is that not everyone who played RPGs back in the day agree upon what it was or should be, because our experiences were all different. Since this was all pre-internet, we all played the way made sense to us and assumed that everyone else did it that way, too. It was only later on, through boards like Dragonsfoot (and evetually here as well) that folks really compared experiences and compared interpretations and found that "the right way" looked different to different folks. Arduin, for example, isn't "real" D&D to me because I didn't play the game that way back in the day. To others, Arduin might be the core rules set and philosophy. Perhaps we can't agree on exactly what to return to because there isn't a single agreed-upon standard rules set that we came from. I guess that "true OSR" would be a rules set such as OD&D given to a player without a lot of "how to play" information. Then they figure it out and play it and that becomes how it was really done back then. Yeah, no "how to play" information beyond the three LBBs themselves, that was about it.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 3, 2014 14:01:40 GMT -6
I can't agree with Ron Edwards on that at all. To use *his* terminology, I see the OSR as a rejection of a focus on Gamist/Narrativist design over Simulationist preferences. Not to derail a thread I started , but I have to disagree with that, talysman. Historically, in the development of the Big Model, the Simulationist preference/agenda was never really adequately defined, though some useful headway was made. This meant in practice, in the larger Forge discussion, Simulationist-focused games weren't rejected, per se; there was simply no clear consensus on what, design-wise, a Simulationist approach would involve. This in opposition to Gamist and Narrativist approaches, which are, at this point, defined with a great deal of clarity. OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play as Simulationist. Certainly an OSR mindset rejects Narrativist play, at least consciously. For Narrativist (Story Now) play, you need completely different rules to intentionally (a priori vs. ex facto) create a "story", defined contextually as character-driven/centered change. Whew. I haven't indulged in theory-speak for awhile. Felt kinda good...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 15:43:33 GMT -6
I can't agree with Ron Edwards on that at all. To use *his* terminology, I see the OSR as a rejection of a focus on Gamist/Narrativist design over Simulationist preferences. Not to derail a thread I started , but I have to disagree with that, talysman. Historically, in the development of the Big Model, the Simulationist preference/agenda was never really adequately defined, though some useful headway was made. This meant in practice, in the larger Forge discussion, Simulationist-focused games weren't rejected, per se; there was simply no clear consensus on what, design-wise, a Simulationist approach would involve. This in opposition to Gamist and Narrativist approaches, which are, at this point, defined with a great deal of clarity. OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play Simulationist. Certainly an OSR mindset rejects Narrativist play, at least consciously. For Narrativist (Story Now) play, you need completely different rules to intentionally (a priori vs. ex facto) create a "story", defined contextually as character-driven/centered change. Whew. I haven't indulged in theory-speak for awhile. Felt kinda good... All theory-speak leaves me cold and my personal opinion is that the Forge, as personified by Ron Edwards, is a massive ongoing utter waste of band-width and that none of what has come out of the Forge is in any way positive for gaming or any portion of society at large. Saying that "OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play Simulationist." is to me completely devoid of meaning. I have no idea what "Gamist play Simulationist" means nor what "Gamist/Narrativist" or "Narrativist" means or how it is of any value to me or anyone else. How does any of this add any value to my OD&D game or to any of the "OSR" games? I followed your link to the "Big Model" and I didn't get very far until I was so offended that I had to stop reading, it was making me that angry.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 3, 2014 16:32:55 GMT -6
Well, I'm sorry it made you angry; beyond that it seems to me like you're making some pretty massive generalizations. No skin off my back if you don't like that particular theoretical vocabulary or approach (or Ron for that matter.) However, I clearly disagree. I also disagree that any theoretical approach, to RPGs or any other possible subject, is somehow "useless" and therefore, by extension, those using it are somehow, de facto, wasting their time. You may find it useless but, in the end, that's just you. To bring this back to the OT, I have found it extremely useful to run my OSR experiences through my Forge experiences and my own hard-won grounding in the Big Model theory. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 3, 2014 21:29:54 GMT -6
OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play Simulationist. Certainly an OSR mindset rejects Narrativist play, at least consciously. For Narrativist (Story Now) play, you need completely different rules to intentionally (a priori vs. ex facto) create a "story", defined contextually as character-driven/centered change. I agree with Kesher on this - I don't think there is a rejection of Gamist play in OSR (or in OD&D) at all. I would say that Simulation is overall the strongest consideration but there are plenty of places where the Gamist approach prevails. The preoccupation with balance is the clearest manifestation of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 22:59:52 GMT -6
Well, I'm sorry it made you angry; beyond that it seems to me like you're making some pretty massive generalizations. No skin off my back if you don't like that particular theoretical vocabulary or approach (or Ron for that matter.) However, I clearly disagree. I also disagree that any theoretical approach, to RPGs or any other possible subject, is somehow "useless" and therefore, by extension, those using it are somehow, de facto, wasting their time. You may find it useless but, in the end, that's just you. To bring this back to the OT, I have found it extremely useful to run my OSR experiences through my Forge experiences and my own hard-won grounding in the Big Model theory. But that's just me. You are not the one the one that made me angry and if you get into theory with all the jargon, great. I have no understanding of how any of that can be of benefit, but if it is to you that is great. I just don't understand the point of it. Perhaps you should expand on how and why you find it useful. I do have to agree with The RPGPundit when it comes to Ron Edwards and The Forge. If you do not understand how offensive, insulting and condescending the BIG MODEL and its list of definitions is, then I can only liken it to the verbal of equivalent of being sucker punched, having your 3LBBs ripped to shreds while this smug snide man tells you that everything you have done for the last 39 years is completely wrong and you should convert to his railroad model and that you are a worthless piece of dog excrement if you don't. That is how Ron Edwards comes across to me and apparently to at least a few others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 23:04:56 GMT -6
OSR-ish play, IME, is as much slanted towards Gamist play Simulationist. Certainly an OSR mindset rejects Narrativist play, at least consciously. For Narrativist (Story Now) play, you need completely different rules to intentionally (a priori vs. ex facto) create a "story", defined contextually as character-driven/centered change. I agree with Kesher on this - I don't think there is a rejection of Gamist play in OSR (or in OD&D) at all. I would say that Simulation is overall the strongest consideration but there are plenty of places where the Gamist approach prevails. The preoccupation with balance is the clearest manifestation of this. I'm sorry but I just don't understand any of the jargon and I can not read The Forge materials to figure it out, because they are written specifically to be insulting to people like me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 23:07:56 GMT -6
For these reasons, I don't really give too much thought into the philosophies of what's "Old School" (As I still feel, like I posted above, that this is different for just about everyone). So I wouldn't be interested in the stuff mentioned above. BUT. That doesn't mean I'm interested in offending you, kesher, or anyone else. I'd just be silent about it and let folks get in how they fit in I don't understand the whole philosophy of what's "Old School" thing, since to me it is an Objective Standard as to what is "Old School".
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Nov 4, 2014 4:13:46 GMT -6
First, I must say I don't understand how the glossary kesher linked could be offensive. As all glossaries, it was designed to be used in a particular set of discussions (that is, ones on the Forge) to further facilitate understanding each other (that is, by providing a clearly defined vocabulary). In everyday life or certain other discussions they may be incorrect or untrue (for instance, currency and colour have very different meanings in everyday life, or tell, a term borrowed from poker terminology).
Second, stating that nothing positive came out of the Forge is only true if you consider the many games published as a direct result (and in participation of the then ongoing conversations there) of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2014 7:38:38 GMT -6
First, I must say I don't understand how the glossary kesher linked could be offensive. As all glossaries, it was designed to be used in a particular set of discussions (that is, ones on the Forge) to further facilitate understanding each other (that is, by providing a clearly defined vocabulary). In everyday life or certain other discussions they may be incorrect or untrue (for instance, currency and colour have very different meanings in everyday life, or tell, a term borrowed from poker terminology). Second, stating that nothing positive came out of the Forge is only true if you consider the many games published as a direct result (and in participation of the then ongoing conversations there) of it. How about right off the bat: I see that as one, condescending, and two, down right insulting. While most of the jargon I don't know, I am aware from posts on another forum that, Old School D&D is considered to be Incoherent. And he says it is easily correctable. So he starts out with his first jargon laced definition indicting Old School gaming as something that needs to be corrected. While you may not, I consider it to be offensive that one of the foundations of the BIG MODEL is that Old School Gaming is a bad thing and needs to be corrected. To the best of my knowledge, which I admit is not extensive, is that Ron Edwards and the games he supports are about one thing and one thing only, tightly defined railroads.
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Nov 4, 2014 8:45:48 GMT -6
@ The Perilous Dreamer I'm not sure if you read the terms related to "abashed", but - generally speaking - every time one ignores or alters a rule to better facilitate whatever he wants better facilitating engages in correcting the rules ("drifting"), because the agenda supported by said rule is incompatible with the agenda he pursues (otherwise there would be no need to ignore/alter said rule), which incompatibility is referred to as "incoherence".
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 4, 2014 12:29:57 GMT -6
My problem with any RPG Theory is that people are not just one thing or the other. They have multiple interests which can vary from year to year or even session to session. As a consequence the distinction various theories draw don't exist except in the most general of sense.
What does work are specific techniques that when used led to specific results. Whether in running, designing, or playing a RPG Game or campaign. Techniques have advantages and consequences. And the specific combination of techniques is what gives a campaign, or game a particular focus and feel. But whether that bundle of techniques results in sales or popularity depends on the tastes of the audience and that is a matter of luck and circumstance.
This to me is why RPG theories of any stripe are not only useless but self-defeating. Too often the resulting games are too narrowly focused to develop lasting popularity and endurance. It better to learn specific things people have done in designing, playing, or promoting RPGs, why did they opt to do it in the first place, what happened, what were the advantages, and what were the consquences. Then pick and choose that which interests you.
Too often what I see is a hyper focus on the rules whether it from the expected, (3.X and 4e) or the unexpected (Story Games). The former is because the tendency is to treat the RPG as a wargame focused on individual character, the latter because what seems to be a general dislike and distrust of an authoritarian referee. Both extremes opt for rules fixing their respective issues. Which like theories in general is both not only useless but self defeating as well. My opinion that the root of most bad campaigns is either bad referee, most likely, bad players, or both. In short it is a people problem not a problem of rules.
The focus on the rules distracts from what makes tabletop RPGs unique, their ability to present an experience. Their ability to function as a pen & paper virtual reality. Computer games and software have grown in leaps and bounds in their ability to transport gamers to new worlds. But tabletop RPGs strength is that it allows a small group to experience alternate worlds with a relatively small investment of time. What it takes a team of programmers in make in World of Warcraft a tabletop referee can do in an afternoon. Granted it not as visually spectacular or as convenient but it more enough to make tabletop RPGs an enduring pasttime.
And if you focus on the experience rather than the rules then that the focus will be on the players acting as their characters in the setting with the expectation that they can do anything they can do as if they were there as their character. Unfortunately while rules can be aide for this, no set of rules can be designed to cover every possibility. Requiring that at some point a referee needs to make ruling. The only way around this is to limit the experience to the point where the campaign can only be about what the rules cover. But then you are not playing tabletop RPGs but some other type of game.
The nice thing about the OSR is that because it built on a foundation of open licenses and open content a variety of techniques and approaches can be tried and tested. It doesn't exist at the whim of one or a few IP holders. Rulings not rules is a popular technique not because that what the OSR is about. But rather people in the OSR tried it and found it to work. Now it is one of many options available in the hobby and a popular on at that. The same freedom allowed games like Torchbearer and Dungeon World to be developed and released. It gotten to point where the combined OSR has an audience similar to any other game publishers that is not Paizo or Wizards. Which makes me happy because this means it is highly likely people will be playing, publishing, and promoting classic D&D but more importantly trying new things with classic D&D and similar games.
I realize that I wrote a lengthy and passionate post. I just want to say I what I felt on the matter, to point out what I feel make tabletop RPGs strong in general, and that the freedom to create is what make the OSR what it is.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 4, 2014 12:53:54 GMT -6
I think back over the last how ever many years it has been since the term OSR started being bandied around and with everything I have read over that entire time period and including this thread I still have no real clear idea of what the OSR is. I have read all kinds of different definitions, some are really narrow and some are really wide. As the RPG Pundit said there are definitions out there by people who claim there is no definition. One thing the RPG Pundit and I agree on is his opinion of Ron Edwards. Ron Edwards whose whole existence is centered around trying to eliminate fun from the universe. I do not fully buy the RPG Pundits definition, since it is quite broad and I suspect that our definitions of old school would lack a lot of having major overlap. Well the thing to remember why some, like myself, say it has no definition is because of how the term OSR originated. Understand what I saying are facts not opinion you can look up the dates and read accounts of what happened. And there is the fact that from 2008 onwards I was personally involved. Circa 2004 a group of gamers realized that if you take the d20 SRD subtract feats, subtracts skills, and subtract other mechanics what was left was very similar to classic D&D. The first expression of this was in the Castle & Crusades project from Troll Lords Game. When that turned out to be more of a d20 lite system then a clone of any classic D&D edition, other gamers broke away and developed OSRIC. Alongside this Chris Gonnerman had a similar idea and developed Basic Fantasy. This takes up to 2006. With OSRIC and Basic Fantasy as examples people like Matt Finch (Swords & Wizardry), and Dan Proctor (Labyrinth Lord) started to create their own rules. Which lead to another wave of people like James Raggi, myself, and other to create supplements that are definitely related to classic D&D but also their own thing. The whole thing was driven by the fact that it rested on d20 SRD that was released under the open game license. Along with the rise of the internet, print on demand, and PDF stores which greatly reduced the barriers to distributing product. Around 2008 the whole thing merged in with the pre-existing classic D&D communities they started to take notice of the quantity and diversity of product being produced. A blogging community gained a lot of steam as well. Soon people were using the term Old School Renaissance to describe the whole thing and its shorthand OSR. Because the people involved are not one-dimensional caricatures they brought in other games as well. Some that are generally considered old school other just because they were of interest like Pacesetter. What the OSR is today is the result of the individual actions of thousands of gamers doing their thing. To define the OSR you need to describe what they do and who they do it. And that what the OSR is. But whatever the OSR is, it is definitely something that I am not part of. In addition, there is the whole renaissance or revival or resurrection, or return or whatever you have the R stand for. To me Old School is Old School, period, end of the sentence. There is no R in my Old School. I've been old school the whole time and have never changed away from it so there is nothing to revive or resurrect. I understand that there are people trying old school for the first time or for the first time in years, but to me that is just normal or if you have to have an R, then perhaps recruitment. You are not to first to take such an attitude. However based on what I observe people will label you as part of the OSR whether you like it or not by the fact you play an edition of classic D&D. This been the case since at least 2008. The OSR is more than just classic D&D because people who label themselves as part of the OSR, like myself, are interested in more than just classic D&D. But in the larger tabletop hobby community OSR = classic D&D of some sort. Of course you have the freedom not to claim membership and say why. However coming from my own personal experience you will find it a futile effort for the next couple of years. And you will also find that it doesn't really make a difference either way. There nobody in charge of a OSR standard. So much of it is built on open content and things that have low barriers to use (like Print on Demand, Blogger, etc) that situation is such that if you want to ignore any segment you can do so with little consequence As for the OSR I don't really see it as being very relevant. I don't see any purpose in creating a label that people can misuse and claim their work is OSR when it is clearly garbage with no old school to it. I don't see the lack of a label preventing any retro-clone or retro-game or retro-game materials from being produced. The only label I really want to see on something that I might be enticed to try is the simple statement "This item is fully compatible with the original 1974 roleplaying game." If that statement turns out to be a lie, then it should be shouted from the hilltops that "so and so" produces garbage and can not be trusted. Anyone can use a definition to claim their product is OSR, but it is a lot tougher to claim compatibility and not deliver. I think you find many OSR Publishers that focus on classic editions do just that. I can't speak for everybody but I always spells specifically what I am compatible with within the limits of the licenses I am allowing to use. And the successful publishers that don't do that generally have a brand they are promoting like Lamentation of the Flame Princess. So the usefulness of any material depends on the core rules of that brand.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 4, 2014 13:05:30 GMT -6
@ The Perilous Dreamer I'm not sure if you read the terms related to "abashed", but - generally speaking - every time one ignores or alters a rule to better facilitate whatever he wants better facilitating engages in correcting the rules ("drifting"), because the agenda supported by said rule is incompatible with the agenda he pursues (otherwise there would be no need to ignore/alter said rule), which incompatibility is referred to as "incoherence". Or the referee just ran into a situation that the rules don't quite cover in which case a ruling is needed. It could be argued that well if the rule system was well designed in the first place this wouldn't be a problem. The problem with this that it ignores the fact that tabletop RPGs started out at presenting experiences. Initially it was Arneson' Blackmoor campaign, then Gygax's Greyhawk Campaign, then El Raja Key, and multiplied from there to thousands of unique settings where players play characters in pen & paper virtual realities attempting whatever the hell they want to attempt. When you make that your focus, then there will be situations that the rules won't cover and a ruling is needed. The only way around it to limit the experience, to narrow the focus to the point the rules could cover everything. But when that happens the result is either a wargame, a railroaded adventure, or something that would be an adventure or supplement to a traditional RPG.
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Nov 4, 2014 13:25:54 GMT -6
@ robertsconley I agree that the strength of role-playing games in general is that everything can be adjusted so that there are no real hard boundaries that cannot be overcome somehow. However, not every role-playing game is concerned with exploring the same "What happens if?" questions; RPGs have very different focuses, and that's why there can be many different systems. Thus, if a game has or lacks a subsystem that specifically addresses summoning a demon, the narrative impact of having sex with another protagonist, or duelling in front of your king is not considered a bad game - it only communicates where the focus is.
Also, you say a bad campaign is the result of a "bad referee, most likely, bad players, or both", which is exactly one of the sort of generalisation communicating nothing useful that led to the development of the Big Model, which - in part - attempts to describe why people have bad experience with a game in a given session. The theory suggests that to a large extent it is because of the differences in their expectations.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 4, 2014 14:47:09 GMT -6
@ robertsconley I agree that the strength of role-playing games in general is that everything can be adjusted so that there are no real hard boundaries that cannot be overcome somehow. However, not every role-playing game is concerned with exploring the same "What happens if?" questions; RPGs have very different focuses, and that's why there can be many different systems. Thus, if a game has or lacks a subsystem that specifically addresses summoning a demon, the narrative impact of having sex with another protagonist, or duelling in front of your king is not considered a bad game - it only communicates where the focus is. I probably wasn't clear about this point. Tabletop RPGs are used in campaigns to adjudicate the actions of players acting as their characters interacting with a setting. The setting is the key element here. Even if your setting only contains a desert town haunted by supernatural forces in Utah that town will have everything that logically exists in such a place regardless of what the chosen rules focuses on. A campaign could starts by the being a group of of troubleshooter sent by the mormon church to combat moral decay and supernatural evil. The group could then decide for a variety of reason say to hell with being troubleshooters and become Jesse James style outlaws robbing stagecoaches. Perfectly plausible as stagecoaches carrying valuable do exist in the setting. Of course there is the consequences of ignoring the supernatural menace, but if that what the players want to do as their character what happens happens. That what roleplaying means, playing your character as if he really existed in the setting. The character has a gun, see a stagecoach with valuables, decides to rob it for reasons that are his own. Then reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences. If rules like Dog in the Vineyards are used then this aspect of tabletop RPGs is lost. Discouraged in favor of whatever the rules focus on. In short the players are railroaded by the rules into doing only what the rules allowed. Obviously a lot of people have fun with these games. And it is understandable. Adventures and supplement with a narrow focus have been available and enjoyed throughout the history of tabletop roleplaying. But until the Forge movement and constellation of theories it was rare that a game was designed so that it was only thing you could do with it. New games and new types of game arise all the time. Which is why I feel many of these games are better off establishing their own identity in order to develop techniques that are best suited for what they are trying to accomplish. As opposed to trying to be Tabletop Roleplaying Game Version 2.0. It wouldn't the first time a new type of roleplaying game has spawned of, look at MMORPGs and Live Action RPGs. Also, you say a bad campaign is the result of a "bad referee, most likely, bad players, or both", which is exactly one of the sort of generalisation communicating nothing useful that led to the development of the Big Model, which - in part - attempts to describe why people have bad experience with a game in a given session. The theory suggests that to a large extent it is because of the differences in their expectations. You are correct in that it is a generalization. I didn't get more specific because it falls under the heading of "How to get along with people." and "Interpersonal communication". Both very broad general topics with tons of resources for a motivated person to use. Gaming is no more special in this regard than any other activities involving groups of human beings. Wheaton's Law, "Don't be a dick", is the best expression of this. I would twist it around and phrase my variant as "Learn NOT to be a dick."
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 4, 2014 15:53:07 GMT -6
I'm going to take PD's excellent advice and make some explicit connections between my understanding of the Big Model and my understanding my experience of OSR-ish play. It will hopefully be coherent. However, to achieve this, I'm going to need to summarize some Big Model terms first, for context if for nothing else. PLEASE NOTE: I'm not acting here as a Forge or Ron Edwards apologist--if either of those terms causes you to see red or want to break things, it's probably best if you skip this post. I'm also not asking anyone to drink any sort of coolaid; Personally, I think the Big Model, in its final form, is utterly ground-breaking. If you don't, no problem. It's also worth pointing out that the Big Model is not, in any way, the singular brain-child of Ron Edwards; it was developed over five or six years, through literally thousands of discussions by hundreds of people. The Forge (which started out as a meeting place to support creator-owned RPG publishing ventures) simply became ground zero for the discussion. When the Big Model (connected to the Glossary) reached its current state, the decision was made that further discussion was getting lost in the weeds and that, armed with a critical (in the broadest sense) vocabulary, people would be better served focusing exclusively on Actual Play (which, again, is something that was always stressed.) The Big Model did not develop in an Internet vacuum; it took form and depth through constant reference to people's experiences of games in the act of playing them. Though, at times, some, Ron included, took it in an ideological direction, that was never its core purpose. [/PREAMBLE] For reference: Big Model Wiki This is a more comprehensive resource than the bald Glossary linked above. The Big Model Diagram used here I find much more intuitive. robertsconley: Yes! Exactly! And this is what the Big Model theory does on its most basic level--provide a vocabulary to talk precisely and more-or-less coherently about every aspect of play. This is also the core meaning of the much-maligned "System Does Matter." This also. The Big Model allows cogent critique of something a lot of gamers don't seem to like to talk about: The social interaction at the core of all gaming (which is, in itself, common grounding of whatever rules are in play. See the Lumpley Principle). Creative AgendaIn short, an individual's creative agenda is simply the primary reason they play, which the Big Model has distilled down to three core terms (in my paraphrase): Step on Up (Gamism)The main focus in play is on social recognition of skill and/or guts in the play of the game itself. Story Now (Narrativism)The main focus in play is on addressing premise (a pressing issue or issues directly connected to characters). The Right to Dream (Simulationism)The main focus in play is on exploring the in-game environment, with an emphasis on game-world causality and verisimilitude. The problem in many, many gaming groups (certainly in mine over the decades) is when a group assumes they have the same agenda (reason to play), when in fact they don't. This is the root of "four hours of play for 15 minutes of fun." It's important to remember that these agendas are describing general styles of play; they aren't labels for people (as in, "Kesher's a raging Narrativist"), though it's exceedingly tempting to use them that way. Okay, I'm going to have to make this two posts. I'm writing at work and I need to go catch my bus. I'll bring it back around to the theme of this thread later tonight...
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Nov 4, 2014 16:13:00 GMT -6
Ah hah! I think I get it. I am a simulationist. And system matters, because in OD&D/AD&D you are rewarded mostly for gaining treasure, while in 3rd edition you are rewarded mainly for killing monsters. While 3rd edition is a fine game, my preferred style of world exploration works better for me with 1st edition
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Nov 4, 2014 19:28:03 GMT -6
The Big Model did not develop in an Internet vacuum; it took form and depth through constant reference to people's experiences of games in the act of playing them. Though, at times, some, Ron included, took it in an ideological direction, that was never its core purpose. I will add that it been out long enough that people made games based on it principles. There is now a wealth of completed examples and in my opinion the weakness the majority of them share is too narrow of a focus. In the name of coherency they sacrificed flexibility and one of them (D&D 4e) flamed out so spectacularly it allowed a competitor to take the top rung in RPG sales. It no longer a case of "Oh if they only took the time to study and implement it properly." Yes! Exactly! And this is what the Big Model theory does on its most basic level--provide a vocabulary to talk precisely and more-or-less coherently about every aspect of play. This is also the core meaning of the much-maligned "System Does Matter." I didn't fully explain myself if that what you got out of it. What I mean by a list of techniques I mean exactly that. A list organized perhaps by what aspect of the game the technique addresses (prep, character creation, rulings, etc). There is no over arching theme other than "These are things I found useful, why I found them useful, what happened when I used, and the downside to using this technique". Just like a cookbook of recipes has no overarching themes other than these are meals you can prepared and how to prepare them. It can't help you predict which one you like or don't look. The Big Model is a useless generalization that boils down too. "The group should talk about the type of game they want to play and what rules to use before starting a campaign." To understand where I am coming from, understand I been dealing the issues that the Big Model is attempting to address for years. It came to a head in the mid 90s when I was involved in running boffer LARPS events and later run an entire LARP organization. At that time there was a bunch of theories of how to make a fun LARP event most of which originated in a influential article about types of players namely Killer, Socializers, Achievers, and Explorers. All of these theories floundered on the simple fact that no individual gamer is ever just one thing or even has a primary thing. They have interests but it was far more nuanced. The only way to do things was to do the work to get to know your audience and not ever assume anything. Through trial and error you found what worked for the group. And it didn't stop there because the group changed over time both in terms of individuals and interest. So it was an on-going process. When I resumed tabletop as my primary form of gaming in the early 00s, the same thing applied the smaller groups I ran as it did for the 80 odd players I had at a LARP event. So when I read the Big Model and the various supporting documents. My conclusion is that like the stuff I dealt during LARPing it had little utility because it did have anything that allowed me to design games or run campaigns aside from "Talk to everybody and see what they want to do.". How to do that is something everybody has to learn in their own way. This also. The Big Model allows cogent critique of something a lot of gamers don't seem to like to talk about: The social interaction at the core of all gaming (which is, in itself, common grounding of whatever rules are in play. Games don't like to talk about it because people in general The Lumpley Principle is incorrect. The books or referee/player head is the reason why things happen the way they do. There may be a dozen elements of the campaigns that only exist in the referee's notes (or the player for that matter). But only one or two ever enter into a specific session. But the other ten elements are still important because of the "For want of a Nail" effect. The campaign may have only have seen the horse and the battle. But the referee is keeping track of all this. Whatever the players did with the horse impacted the rider that they never saw, the message they never saw, and ultimately the battle that they did see and got involved in. Player have a different focus but also can have details, goals and motivations that they themselves only know until the right moment in the campaign. By this point, you gathered that I am pretty down on the Big Model, and probably concluded that I think it use by you is useless and counter productive. That true only in part. See I realize how people learn and what it take to get something varies. That it can't predicted as to what that exactly is. While I didn't get anything out of the Big Model it is obvious you did. The value you got out of the Big Model is that it inspired you think about how you play. I am assuming here but from that point you start to do things differently in how you play, referee, and prep. To a greater or lesser degree. The specifics of what you did and what you learned from trying them, that the valuable knowledge you possess. The Big Model was just a trigger to inspire to try something different. Which is good. But the true general principle is that you have to try something different period. And be honest enough with yourself and your players to understand why some things worked, why others doesn't, and why some just sorta of worked. That you have to keep on trying different things as your group composition changes and as they age. That the best thing that any gamer can do as a player and referee is to have a big list of techniques as they can to in order to give them the best chance at enjoying a fun tabletop campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2014 22:46:31 GMT -6
Creative AgendaIn short, an individual's creative agenda is simply the primary reason they play, which the Big Model has distilled down to three core terms (in my paraphrase): Step on Up (Gamism)The main focus in play is on social recognition of skill and/or guts in the play of the game itself. Story Now (Narrativism)The main focus in play is on addressing premise (a pressing issue or issues directly connected to characters). The Right to Dream (Simulationism)The main focus in play is on exploring the in-game environment, with an emphasis on game-world causality and verisimilitude. kesher I'm contemplating creative agenda here and I don't feel any of the three represent some sort of exclusive priority I hold when playing in a game session. I've played in your games many times, and I'm curious if you believe you have observed a pattern of me pursuing one or more of the three? Also is this thread still on topic, or is the OSR people arguing about the big model? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 4, 2014 23:05:20 GMT -6
Ah hah! I think I get it. I am a simulationist. And system matters, because in OD&D/AD&D you are rewarded mostly for gaining treasure, while in 3rd edition you are rewarded mainly for killing monsters. While 3rd edition is a fine game, my preferred style of world exploration works better for me with 1st edition You're on exactly the right track, makofan! Again, the agendas get pretty skewed when used as synonyms for people; I'd say that instead of being a simulationist, you're someone who enjoys sim-focused play, especially when there's an agreement that treasure is an important factor of game-world causality/reality. This also doesn't necessarily mean that you're a fan of immersive, "lose-yourself-in-your-character" play. Immersion is one of many (Big Model) Techniques, while Simulationism is a fundamental Creative Agenda. And in Big Model Theory (which from now on I'm going to call BMT because my fingers are getting tired), system does matter for the very reason you pointed out. You certainly could still play 3e, but chances are that you're going to have a harder time enjoying the experience because the rules don't offer much support for a particular element of sim-exploration you enjoy. In BMT, it's never that you can't address a particular CA with any set of rules you want; it's simply that the less a given set of rules supports the way you want to play, the more you're going to have to fight it to enjoy yourself, and the more likely it is you're going to experience incoherent play (which is what that glossary term is actually referring to), and drift the rules (i.e., change or house-rule them) to make them support the kind of play you enjoy. Which, btw, isn't in any sense "bad" or "wrong"; however, drift the rules far enough, and though you might view yourself as playing the game you started with, you're actually playing something completely different (which Gary himself stated in more than one Sorcerer's Scroll...) Incoherent Play: Playing a game using rules that don't support your reason for playing, and gets in the way of your enjoyment of play. @the Perilous Dreamer: Using the vocabulary of BMT, I can't tell you, de facto, that the game you're playing is incoherent. If we talk and you describe your experience playing, I might be able to infer that your play is suffering from incoherence. That's it. NO GAME is inherently "incoherent", in BMT vocabularly--it's a term that analyzes play experience, not game rules. Okay. Now I need to go to bed. @rob, I'll get to your excellent points tomorrow and will also, I promise, make a connection to my experience of whatever the OSR is.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Nov 4, 2014 23:23:28 GMT -6
Creative AgendaIn short, an individual's creative agenda is simply the primary reason they play, which the Big Model has distilled down to three core terms (in my paraphrase): Step on Up (Gamism)The main focus in play is on social recognition of skill and/or guts in the play of the game itself. Story Now (Narrativism)The main focus in play is on addressing premise (a pressing issue or issues directly connected to characters). The Right to Dream (Simulationism)The main focus in play is on exploring the in-game environment, with an emphasis on game-world causality and verisimilitude. kesher I'm contemplating creative agenda here and I don't feel any of the three represent some sort of exclusive priority I hold when playing in a game session. I've played in your games many times, and I'm curious if you believe you have observed a pattern of me pursuing one or more of the three? Also is this thread still on topic, or is the OSR people arguing about the big model? ;-) Okay, I need to answer @droll before I go to bed. That, my friend, is an excellent question particularly relevant to this thread. I would say that, in our particular play group, we all more-or-less have a Step On Up attitude, where the "social recognition of skill and/or guts" is focused, not on mastery of the rules, frex (which it could be), since we're usually playing with so few rules, but instead on individual quickness and inventiveness in creating or reacting to any given in-game situations. Especially where such reactions largely circumvent or loophole the basic constraints or assumptions of the rules. One example would be your particular love of taking what most would consider a weakness-ridden character and using those very weaknesses to make him a shockingly viable character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 7:46:07 GMT -6
The Right to Dream (Simulationism)The main focus in play is on exploring the in-game environment, with an emphasis on game-world causality and verisimilitude. OK, just to summarize, to me this is the main focus of what I enjoy about OD&D and what I believe that OD&D's greatest strength is and I would enjoy any game that has this as it primary focus. This is what I want most when I Referee and from a Referee when I get to play instead of Ref. Step on Up (Gamism)The main focus in play is on social recognition of skill and/or guts in the play of the game itself. If this is taking about, as in the later post regarding Droll, about quick thinking and good decision making in the game(but instead on individual quickness and inventiveness in creating or reacting to any given in-game situations)and (One example would be your particular love of taking what most would consider a weakness-ridden character and using those very weaknesses to make him a shockingly viable character). (We need more Drolls in the world.) I view this as a given in OD&D, intelligent players that are not decision challenged is crucial to an enjoyable game since that helps ensure that the game moves at at a fast pace and doesn't bog down. Someone that never gets past the "agonizing over each and every decision should probably find some other game to play. This is also why I strongly believe that if you play OD&D you are by definition above average in intelligence (regardless of what any test or school might claim). Story Now (Narrativism)The main focus in play is on addressing premise (a pressing issue or issues directly connected to characters). IMO if this is your focus, then save yourself and everyone else a lot of grief and read a book instead of playing games with other people. The problem in many, many gaming groups (certainly in mine over the decades) is when a group assumes they have the same agenda (reason to play), when in fact they don't. Be clear, here is the game I want to run and this is the way it works, if you think you would enjoy that, then come to my game. Incoherent Play: Playing a game using rules that don't support your reason for playing, and gets in the way of your enjoyment of play. @the Perilous Dreamer: Using the vocabulary of BMT, I can't tell you, de facto, that the game you're playing is incoherent. If we talk and you describe your experience playing, I might be able to infer that your play is suffering from incoherence. That's it. NO GAME is inherently "incoherent", in BMT vocabularly--it's a term that analyzes play experience, not game rules. Ah, then IMO the people I have read talking about OD&D being Incoherent don't know what they are talking about, I do not see Incoherence being any part of OD&D. Looking forward to the rest of your posts!
|
|