Watching Youtube videos about the OSR last night, a thought came to my head about why the OSR is so wonderful, eye-opening to role players, and allows for the greatest freedom of expression in tabletop gaming. I said out loud:
You don't need complexity, and you never will.
Now, I used the word "it" instead of complexity, and to make it more clear I changed the line for this context to be more clear. This complexity could be the form of actual rules, like the ones that handle combat and actions in the game. This complexity could be in character depth. The complexity could be in narrative rules systems that tell you how you should roll the dice and what happens to the story as a result. The complexity could be in detailed rules for "social combat" or some other artificial system of interaction.
You don't need any of it to have fun.
In fact, adding complexity to these areas takes away choice, freedom of thought, and clarity of action more than it does add anything to any of those areas.
The more rules you add, the more you lose.
The Decision
Let's take a single decision in an OSR game. It starts with the gamemaster. And a question comes up about an action with an uncertain result.
We have a locked door. The character wants to bash the door down.
Most games would stop you before this point and require either a skill or ability roll to determine success.
Stop. A typical OSR set of rules doesn't really require anything. The referee is free to make a ruling that the character bashes the door down, no roll needed. The referee considers the circumstances and makes a ruling. No rules get in the way, are needed, or needed to be looked up and referenced. You can't get this wrong.
Say the character is a dwarf and understands construction. Maybe the character has a 2-handed battle axe and and just bash the door down with ease. Maybe the character is so strange the door just gives. Maybe the character is so encumbered and heavy just running at the door at full speed will allow them to crash right through it at the expense of taking damage like being hit by a club.
Maybe they can't bash the door down with a short sword or a club. Maybe the character's strength is too low. Maybe the door is just too well built for anything to work, or it needs magic to open. In a white box game where all weapons do a d6 damage, and you need to know the difference between a battle axe and a dagger? Here is your chance. That axe will make short work of a door while that dagger will just create wood shavings for a tinderbox.
The Roll
Perhaps the referee may rule the character has a chance, and it needs to be rolled for. This isn't to "be fair" by some rule in the book telling you so, this is just wat it is for this particular door in this moment in this situation. Roll a d20 and roll equal to or under your ability score. You can put a positive or negative modifier on that, if you would like, or just leave it be.
Door Combat?
Maybe the door is treated like a creature and heeds to be "hit" with an AC number and broken down with 20 hit points of damage. Not every door is the same. Not every situation is the same. If the characters are trapped in a room with rising water and they all want to hack at the door, start a small combat and see how far the water rises and if they break through.
The next door they come to will likely be a different story. We don't really need detailed door AC & hp rules, unless that is your thing, and then you can make some or find some and use those.
The Something Else?
Maybe to open to door it requires a saving roll. A random chance on a d6. Pick a card and play higher or lower. A 50-50 chance. Lockpicking. Roll higher than the referee on a die. Special lore knowledge. Problem solving with leverage on a nearby pillar and that sturdy pole you found in the other room. I once have had a party escorting a freed lizard man dig under the door.
Whatever decision the referee makes, if it is no decision at all, or automatic success or failure, is the right one.
The Modern Game
Whenever you run into one of these situations you are always playing the game wrong. You are missing a rule, ignoring an obvious skill check, missing a character ability, ignoring the rules section on doors, denying the players a chance to use a character ability, messing up the ability check system in some way, and to get this one situation right it takes 30 minutes out of the game to stop, open the book, find the rules, and read through them while 5-6 people wait.
Do that enough times and you can finally play the game the "right" way.
And then you are onto the next rule you inevitably get wrong.
This is why a lot of players who only played modern games get into an OSR game, and all of a sudden their minds open up and they often say, "You can do that?" Yes, if you say it, the referee says yes, no, or do a special something, and you either do it or you don't. You are completely free to try anything.
These players are too used to being told, "No, you can't do that." Or, "Is it an ability on your character sheet?" Or told to look up a rule they have no ideas covers an action and justify what they just tried to do within their character build. The rest of everyone else's fun at the table depends on that player's ability to "play the game right."
Players on the Defensive
Players of more modern games, especially new ones, are often put on the defensive way too much about justifying what their characters can do and the actions they take. Before a player acts, their mind stops them and asks the question, "Is this a legal rules action?"
Because if they get it wrong and their character "cheats" and does something cool without the rules saying they can do that, the character builds and fun of every other player at the table is negatively impacted.
Now granted, many groups are not like this. They can tolerate a new player and the mistakes everyone makes when learning a game. Players of tabletop games are a lot more tolerant than say, your average online competitive 3d shooter.
Sidestep the Complexity
But with the OSR everything is sidestepped. For the most part, you don't need to justify an action with the rules. If an ability falls within your class, say thieves and lockpicking, that percentage roll on that table is just a suggestion, and can be modified up or down depending on the circumstances. Want to lockpick as a fighter? Well, does it make sense? If not, no. If it does, like a thief who is tied up trying to explain how to pick the lock to a fighter on the other side of the door, let them roleplay it, put huge penalties on the rolls, and have a hilarious time with the entire situation.
Or handle it another way, this is the OSR.
Some actions will fall within your class, and some won't. You may have automatic success with them (I have ruled automatic success/failure at lockpicking many times for thieves when the chart says to roll, just because of the lock and situation), or you may not. Some may need a roll. Some may require logic and puzzle solving. Some may require random luck, or a game of chance.
Whatever the referee rules is fine.
D&D 3.0: The Gathering
The huge blow to referee and player freedom came when D&D 3.0 arrived, and this game intended to take power out of the referee's hands and put it into the rules. The game player like a game of Magic the Gathering, with class builds, optimal build strategies, and a loss of freedom and an exponential increase in rules complexity.
The freedom to say a character did or didn't do something was lost in volumes of rules that really did not add to much, and added a layer of "no, you can't because" upon every action and interaction between players and the referee.
Where is the fun in the referee being the one who tells the players, "No, you can't because of this rule," to every action? D&D 3.0 was the moment game and dungeon masters became sports referees. The more rules the game has, the less fun it is to referee, and the less freedom and improvisation the players have at the table.
Though I feel the ultimate goal of modern D&D is to remove the need for referees, since the game's growth is limited by the number of trained and experienced gamemasters. Magic the Gathering's exponential growth came from the fact for a lot of players could play this game without a referee.
You see a clear step back from this goal with D&D 5, and the game is more popular and feels like it is getting back to the basics. With D&D 3.5 and 4, the game played like a tactical wargame with powers, power cards, special combat and positioning rules, and you could play this without a referee as just a one-on-one wargame or battle simulator.
Still, I feel the modern rules sit in this confused state where players expect complicated rules, class builds, and cool powers like a Magic the Gathering deck build, but the game's success and appeal lies in the power of what great referees bring to the table. The success of Youtube role playing shows these days lies in the shared storytelling elements, players, and the referee - and the rules could change and the show would still be as fun to watch.
You Don't Need It...
...and you never will.
Modern games try to trick you with the theory, "The more rules, the better the game." I have four shelves full of Pathfinder 1e books that give me rules for everything, but do nothing. One OSR book and I have everything I need, forever.
If I get another OSR book?
If I want, I can make that book work with my first one and have a Frankenstein game. It's cool. It is all OSR. No two monsters should ever be the same. It all works.
I find the investments I make in OSR games, even if they are completely different rules sets, like Old School Essentials and Labyrinth Lord - those books can be used with each other. I haven't wasted my money. If I want a Labyrinth Lord demon in my OSE game, I just adjust a few numbers and make it fit. Want that demon in Stars Without Number to terrorize a space station crew?
You got it.
I can't do this easily with Pathfinder 1 or 2, Starfinder, and D&D 5.
So all my OSR games sit on a shelf and are ready to use, and all my modern games are boxed up, and I feel like a happier person. Every choice on that shelf is the right one. Any choice I make in the future with an OSR game will also be correct. No purchase I make will ever go to waste or be unusable. I can pick any game on that shelf and it will work with the others.
Most importantly, the referee just rules what happens when any action is taken. The story keeps moving. Only the most dangerous and dramatic events matter. The game isn't preoccupied with the mundane. Player choice matters, and encompasses a majority of the power at the table. The referee has less power than the players in the OSR, when you look at it logically, because the players are the ones with agency and creativity.
Social combat, roleplaying rules, and narrative systems? They take power from the players and referee, and put that in the book. Complicated combat and feat systems? They take away from exciting, dynamic, creative combat and put the power in the book. The book ends up having more power at the table over the game's fun than does the story, referee, or players.
All power should all begin with the players. This is the OSR.
The referee is just there to present the setting and make fair rulings as a neutral party.
The rules should stay out of the way as much as possible for both sides. They are just there to provide a little structure.
The thing that frees my mind in regards to games that try to "rule" their way into fun is the statement that, I don't need all that complexity, and I never will.
No comments:
Post a Comment