Okay, hear me out: teamwork is a huge player skill. Listening well to the other players is 80% of it, but you can also combine items and abilities. Putting your heads together makes 4 players into a supergenius.
Thanks for paying some attention to the player and underlining the importance of player skills!
With a 'judge' role determining outcomes it becomes something slightly different.
Figure skating is considered a sport, competition, competing, it is in the Olympics, people can do better or worse; but people don't call it a game in the same sense as basketball. Because the points come from a judge and not rules.
RPG is a historical quirk that the first wargames were like Chess (a game) and then Kriegsspiel modified it to use a judge/referee instead of all rules (but still called it "game" because it was still on the tabletop) and then RPGs inherited from both.
That "gaming" has a second definition as "simulate" that less people know about. This is why the Military "games it out" to simulate what could happen.
So it turns out OSR and modern rules (or computer games) are using "game" in RPG in two different ways.
Yeah, the definition of the word "game" is famously contentious. There's all sorts of scholarly works that arrive at different conclusions. My favorite definition is: "A game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles," from Bernard Suits.
All obstacles in games are necessary within the context of the game. I believe that the definition is referring to how the obstacles are not necessary outside of the game's context. A game is a situation where you create obstacles that weren't there before so you can challenge yourself to overcome them.
This is also my favourite definition. An activity becomes a game when you voluntarily make it harder for yourself, e.g. in soccer, the goal is to get the ball into the … goal, but you intentionally make it harder by not allowing players to use their hands.
I might be one of the commenters you mentioned. My question is not whether OSR games are games, they obviously are.
My question is more of a philosophical one which is why even play a game if your goal is to try not to roll dice.
Is it because you still like picking classes just for flavor? Is it just because you like the mechanics of a certain game for when you do have to fall back on dice rolling?
The closest thing to OSR play I enjoy is like Mythic Bastionland which is not a game where you are trying to avoid rolling dice. So I'm interested in the thoughts of people who do like this style which to me often feels like trying to avoid the game as much as possible.
Edit: also thanks for letting us know Knave is on sale today. I have been wanting to grab it and did so.
In most osr games, rolling dice means determining the result of a risky situation. Personally, I find it fun to try and overcome obstacles without putting myself in risky situations. It's a fun challenge. If I manage to beat a dungeon while hardly rolling any dice, it means that I am very good at dungeon crawling.
So I've seen you say before that you think system matters a lot, a point with which I agree. So how would the system matter if you do a dungeon crawl where you never engage with the game system because you creatively describe how you want to solve each problem that comes up and never end up rolling any dice?
Is it just that the system mattered because you didn't choose a system in which the GM/referee is encouraged to have players roll dice to overcome say traps or to sneak around, and so the choice of a system that encourages the GM to allow player skill first and foremost is why the system mattered and worked well for you?
And when choosing a character to play in an OSR game, do you care what kind of character you play at all? If the goal is to not use the character, do we care whether we're playing a fighter or a thief? Or can "challenging the player" interact with game mechanics too where playing a thief allows the player to do things a non thief couldn't?
Thanks Ben, I appreciate you replying and love your content!
I actually think the degree that system matters varies a lot from group to group. I do think that the adventure you are playing and the group you are playing with probably have a bigger impact on the experience than system in most cases.
In OSR games, many of the mechanics are punishment mechanics, in the sense that they tell you what happens when you make a mistake. The system, therefore, exists to push you towards acting in the lacunae between rules. I made a video on this topic a while ago that goes into more depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UIPeQ6G6hI
I wouldn't say the goal is not to use the character. However, when it comes to selecting characters, OSR characters tend to be very minimalistic, and in the earliest D&D games everyone was essentially a type of thief, regardless of whether their class was Fighting man or Magic-User. Ability scores had very little impact on gameplay. The choice of class does affect your gameplay experience, but mostly in terms of the kinds of tools it lets you have. Fighting men could have more followers to back him up, for example, and Magic-Users had one-use spells they could deploy at just the right time. A different suite of tools to use means that you can approach problems from a new angle, which is fun.
The focus was less on gaining abstract, mechanical abilities but on in-world problem-solving through taking clever actions.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I did watch the video you linked, I generally make sure I don't miss any of your uploads. I think you're a great voice in the TTRPG space.
> So how would the system matter if you do a dungeon crawl where you never engage with the game system because you creatively describe how you want to solve each problem that comes up and never end up rolling any dice?
*Because* of this rule, the players come up with all sorts of plans to avoid having to flip a coin; they want to avoid a potential tails.
Compare that to if the rule was "When a PC takes any action that is uncertain and risky but possible, roll four six-sided dice. If they're all 1's, the players fail, and on any other result they succeed".
The chance you get all 1s is very low, so the players try all sorts of "risky" plans that just keep working. The decisions the players make are influenced by the system in both cases, just in the first case it's the *threat* of the first rule that influences the behavior.
Okay, hear me out: teamwork is a huge player skill. Listening well to the other players is 80% of it, but you can also combine items and abilities. Putting your heads together makes 4 players into a supergenius.
Thanks for paying some attention to the player and underlining the importance of player skills!
People do refer to games as set of rules.
With a 'judge' role determining outcomes it becomes something slightly different.
Figure skating is considered a sport, competition, competing, it is in the Olympics, people can do better or worse; but people don't call it a game in the same sense as basketball. Because the points come from a judge and not rules.
RPG is a historical quirk that the first wargames were like Chess (a game) and then Kriegsspiel modified it to use a judge/referee instead of all rules (but still called it "game" because it was still on the tabletop) and then RPGs inherited from both.
That "gaming" has a second definition as "simulate" that less people know about. This is why the Military "games it out" to simulate what could happen.
So it turns out OSR and modern rules (or computer games) are using "game" in RPG in two different ways.
Yeah, the definition of the word "game" is famously contentious. There's all sorts of scholarly works that arrive at different conclusions. My favorite definition is: "A game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles," from Bernard Suits.
My favorite is Sid Meier's: " ... a game is a series of interesting choices ..."
That's a really good one too
If I wanted to paint a room (voluntary) would the obstacles in my way be unnecessary?
This would not cover military wargaming as the obstacles are necessary elements of simulation.
All obstacles in games are necessary within the context of the game. I believe that the definition is referring to how the obstacles are not necessary outside of the game's context. A game is a situation where you create obstacles that weren't there before so you can challenge yourself to overcome them.
This is also my favourite definition. An activity becomes a game when you voluntarily make it harder for yourself, e.g. in soccer, the goal is to get the ball into the … goal, but you intentionally make it harder by not allowing players to use their hands.
But military wargaming is a situation where you create obstacles that weren't there before so you can simulate what would happen (given assumptions).
I might be one of the commenters you mentioned. My question is not whether OSR games are games, they obviously are.
My question is more of a philosophical one which is why even play a game if your goal is to try not to roll dice.
Is it because you still like picking classes just for flavor? Is it just because you like the mechanics of a certain game for when you do have to fall back on dice rolling?
The closest thing to OSR play I enjoy is like Mythic Bastionland which is not a game where you are trying to avoid rolling dice. So I'm interested in the thoughts of people who do like this style which to me often feels like trying to avoid the game as much as possible.
Edit: also thanks for letting us know Knave is on sale today. I have been wanting to grab it and did so.
In most osr games, rolling dice means determining the result of a risky situation. Personally, I find it fun to try and overcome obstacles without putting myself in risky situations. It's a fun challenge. If I manage to beat a dungeon while hardly rolling any dice, it means that I am very good at dungeon crawling.
So I've seen you say before that you think system matters a lot, a point with which I agree. So how would the system matter if you do a dungeon crawl where you never engage with the game system because you creatively describe how you want to solve each problem that comes up and never end up rolling any dice?
Is it just that the system mattered because you didn't choose a system in which the GM/referee is encouraged to have players roll dice to overcome say traps or to sneak around, and so the choice of a system that encourages the GM to allow player skill first and foremost is why the system mattered and worked well for you?
And when choosing a character to play in an OSR game, do you care what kind of character you play at all? If the goal is to not use the character, do we care whether we're playing a fighter or a thief? Or can "challenging the player" interact with game mechanics too where playing a thief allows the player to do things a non thief couldn't?
Thanks Ben, I appreciate you replying and love your content!
I actually think the degree that system matters varies a lot from group to group. I do think that the adventure you are playing and the group you are playing with probably have a bigger impact on the experience than system in most cases.
In OSR games, many of the mechanics are punishment mechanics, in the sense that they tell you what happens when you make a mistake. The system, therefore, exists to push you towards acting in the lacunae between rules. I made a video on this topic a while ago that goes into more depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UIPeQ6G6hI
I wouldn't say the goal is not to use the character. However, when it comes to selecting characters, OSR characters tend to be very minimalistic, and in the earliest D&D games everyone was essentially a type of thief, regardless of whether their class was Fighting man or Magic-User. Ability scores had very little impact on gameplay. The choice of class does affect your gameplay experience, but mostly in terms of the kinds of tools it lets you have. Fighting men could have more followers to back him up, for example, and Magic-Users had one-use spells they could deploy at just the right time. A different suite of tools to use means that you can approach problems from a new angle, which is fun.
The focus was less on gaining abstract, mechanical abilities but on in-world problem-solving through taking clever actions.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I did watch the video you linked, I generally make sure I don't miss any of your uploads. I think you're a great voice in the TTRPG space.
> So how would the system matter if you do a dungeon crawl where you never engage with the game system because you creatively describe how you want to solve each problem that comes up and never end up rolling any dice?
Imagine the game's only rule was "When a PC takes any action that is uncertain and risky but possible, flip a coin. If heads, they succeed. If tails, they fail.“ per https://dreamingdragonslayer.wordpress.com/2020/03/28/advantage-and-impact/
*Because* of this rule, the players come up with all sorts of plans to avoid having to flip a coin; they want to avoid a potential tails.
Compare that to if the rule was "When a PC takes any action that is uncertain and risky but possible, roll four six-sided dice. If they're all 1's, the players fail, and on any other result they succeed".
The chance you get all 1s is very low, so the players try all sorts of "risky" plans that just keep working. The decisions the players make are influenced by the system in both cases, just in the first case it's the *threat* of the first rule that influences the behavior.
Thanks for sharing this reply. This is a great illustration of the point that really makes sense to me. Appreciate that.