An important aspect of both early D&D and the OSR is the community (newsletters, etc.). It's about starting with something simple and then tinkering.
I agree with you and also don't like funnels or glorifying character death. But I do like games where your PCs are not big damn heroes because it encourages the players to think beyond just constantly hitting the instant win button on their character sheet.
I definitely agree with that, but I don't like games where a 1st level character is just a farmer who picked up a sword. I believe that leveled characters are trained characters, otherwise you could just hand out weapons to peasants and they would magically be leveled characters who are more powerful than commoners. There's a lot of ground between "Farmer with a sword" and "Basically already a hero" though and I think OD&D and AD&D present that well.
This. As an "old man" GM/DM (I'm 54 and started playing the Holmes box in '78 and then segued into AD&D 1E around '80/'81) the clear intent of the TSR rules then was that first level PC's WERE exceptional compared to your average peasant. Note that, in this context "exceptional" does not mean "Wolverine killing five Sentinels single handedly" exceptional, but instead "can kill most normies and 0 level peasants pretty easily". In other words, even a first level character is a SIGNIFICANT cut above a zero level nobody.
In original D&D and AD&D 1E, a zero level nobody doesnt even have the POTENTIAL to become a regional or world spanning hero, whereas a first level PC is assumed to have the potential to become a world famous hero. While I haven't looked at the 1E DMG in a while (i.e., a decade LOL) , I'm pretty sure EGG even wrote a couple of sentences in there explicitly stating that even a 1st level PC is "rare and special" compared to normal peasants and zero level NPCs.
To be clear, I am not equating a 1E Fighter with the sort of 5e "powergaming" where a first level Fighter can single handle hack their way through 3 or 4 one HD opponents. However, a 1E Fighter was certainly a LOT more than just zero level peasant with a sword.
The OSR made a brand out of attacking everything from 2E to 5E thanks to the seemingly incorrect gameplay "culture" those editions instilled. But their gameplay culture is just as bland, perhaps even more absurd. At least 2E is ostensibly still AD&D.
Rolling up your third 1st level retard because you keep rushing in and dying to goblins doesn't "own the 5E tourists." It just makes you look like a fool.
OSR people sincerely have fun with mudcore, so I don’t begrudge them that. Increasingly, I do not consider OSR to be equivalent to classical. I mean no disparagement in that. “The OSR is carrot cake.”
That being said, I agree about the assumptions around classical play. I believe “mudcore” OSR games are survivable (see article “the Myth of OSR lethality) however, in order for that to be the case the players must work backwards to a play style which is very risk averse, and we arrive at things like “combat is a fail state” and such.
Classical games on the other hand, in my experience, you can enter combat right away at level 1 and reasonably survive if you fight on your own terms and play well.
My experience has been that classical games are *games where you can win* and OSR games are *games where you can make interesting choices in interesting situations.*
Good point about DCC stopping where it shouldn’t, and that’s a damn shame! The actual game at level 1 is not mudcore at all, but all the attention from outside the DCC world is on funnels.
The issue that makes me accuse the OSR of not understanding the game is the fact that so many of them balk at the idea of a 1st level fighter hiring men at arms to go into the dungeon with him. As for whether or not they have fun, I've played in games with OSR diehards and while some have been fun, a lot of them devolve into grumbling because one guy remembers the rules differently from someone else but nobody has the book to check. They don't seem like they're having fun to me.
Wild. I don’t think I’ve ever played in an OSR game before where the B module assumptions of having 6-8 character minimum to go into a dungeon at level 1 (which invariably has meant hiring men-at-arms for us.)
And someone grumbling about rules rather represents a violation of their own principles does it not? I’ve had that a few times and I suppose I’m rather harsh about either leaving such tables, or tossing such players. Hell, I’ve seen more the opposite problem, OSR gamers having an allergy to rules entirely.
Either way, I too have preferred classical gaming over the OSR increasingly, though from time to time to time I’ll throw down one of these mudcore level 1 dungeon crawls. I like to dabble in other cultures of play and approaches if time permits.
An opinionated take. I like it. I'm relatively new to the ttrpg Internet community, and missed a lot of the OSR era, and the related discussions and arguments.
It does seem to me that the momentum of the movement is more or less used up. But with WOTC's recent missteps, the indie ttrpg publishers are still well positioned to bring something new and innovative to the table.
Ryan, what are the things you want to see in the near future with indie games? What are the needs that aren't being fulfilled?
That would be an interesting topic for an article in and of itself, Jack. The short answer though is that indie RPGs need to jettison the GNS theory, understand that all games are simulations, and then zero in on what they want to simulate and how high-resolution that simulation needs to be. Right now, everything is so focused on being as light and stylish as possible, but the results are not playable games. Basically, a total philosophical overhaul. I will write an article about this though.
It stands for "Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist." It originates from an RPG forum called The Forge and basically argued that there are three modes of game; those that focus on the game aspects, those who focus on the narrative aspects, and those who focus on the simulation aspects. The thrust of the argument was that gamists should just play war games, simulationists are brain-damaged (literally they said that), and narrativists are the only valid form of RPG players. I've talked about it here a few times (check out the article called It's All Simulationism).
Excellent points. Part of this issue is a misreading of the original inspirations in fiction by both current players and the originators of D&D. For example, Conan. Even in early Gods, Demigods, and Heroes, Conan is represented as a super high level character who abilities required breaking the rules to even create. But a closer reading of the stories shows that Conan at the various stages in his career can be represented as a low level character. Conan succeeded despite the odds, not because he was so awesome that he couldn't fail. Just as a fairly played AD&D character who reaches high level could have died numerous times along the way -- they just didn't happen to. I've had players quit because they felt AD&D saving throws were too deadly despite not actually having lost a character that way. Actual playing of the rules for D&D (and especially AD&D) is surprisingly fair. You win some, you lose some, but with steady play it's perfectly feasibly to reach significant levels. But one does have to play.
I'm just getting back into TTRPGS after decades of not playing and this is one of the elements that I think is the most ridiculous. Didn't know it was called Mudcore. I watched a YT video a couple days ago and the host talked about a game called Traveller, where apparently you can die during character creation? Beyond retarded. Really getting sick of all the games where everything is METAL AF.
Traveller is actually cool because character creation is a gamble. In Traveller you don't level up at all, so the skills you start with are the ones you have for the rest of the game. In character creation, you can opt to have your character take another tour in their profession so that you gain more experience, but doing that increases the chance of your character gaining an injury or dying. It's a risk/reward thing. The problem with mudcore is that it's all risk with little reward.
There is a lot more to the idea of Mudcore than just scrabbling in the mud for no reward. IMHO it can be a wonderful aesthetic all its own, and should be developed more fully.
As you say, the *ideas*, the core concepts of the OS games need to be "cleaned up" and edited for clarity and understanding, which will lead to new dimensions of gaming beyond the frameworks of what we now have.
A fundamental pillar of this philosophy is to immerse oneself in the Campaign prior to becoming immersed in one's Character.
While you're accurately describing a trend, it's unfair to blame this on DCC. DCC was influential in a lot of other ways, and if you praise Shadowdark at all, it's because Shadowdark borrowed heavily from DCC (including the funnel,) like rolling to cast spells and spell backlash.
DCC is also extremely fun. The funnels are fun because they're randomized and wacky and they result in lots of entertaining character deaths. They're not trying to simulate being poor or whatever. They're not meant to be the only mode of the game, and they won't be as soon as any of the characters level up. The DCC version of the Fighter is easily more heroic than in most other old school games and editions.
DCC does try to be offputting to normies (which is a good thing, gatekeeping is good) but in other ways like the weird dice. There's no mudcore going on.
I've had a lot of fun playing DCC, but it functions poorly for the purposes that I have. It's bad for long-running campaigns. The problems I have with DCC are largely focused on the culture around the game though. Everybody pretty much only talks about the funnel. The funnel is half the reason why you're supposed to buy the game. Shadowdark treats it as optional, DCC treats it as mandatory. I see a funnel session as fun for a con, but I don't care to have one in regular play.
You're right about the Warrior and the Magic being fun. Those are my favorite things about DCC. The problem is I seldom get to see them reach their full potential because, again, it's all funnels and one-shots.
I haven't had that experience but it is certainly a distinguishing trait that immediately sets it apart. I don't remember it being mandatory but I would have to check again.
It is more of a game for one shots rather than campaigns, sure. But it's also fun to string one shots together into a campaign and see who ends up as a weird mutant after passing through all the events and tables. I think the funnel is actually conducive to getting attached to characters long term. It's a lot like XCOM (moreso in the original 90s one) where you have a lot of recruits that die off, but then for the ones that survive you'll move heaven and earth to keep them alive. It reaches that OSR ideal where you don't write a modern-style lengthy backstory for your character because the game itself is your backstory. You weren't a hero in your other life before this, you're becoming a hero now.
An important aspect of both early D&D and the OSR is the community (newsletters, etc.). It's about starting with something simple and then tinkering.
I agree with you and also don't like funnels or glorifying character death. But I do like games where your PCs are not big damn heroes because it encourages the players to think beyond just constantly hitting the instant win button on their character sheet.
I definitely agree with that, but I don't like games where a 1st level character is just a farmer who picked up a sword. I believe that leveled characters are trained characters, otherwise you could just hand out weapons to peasants and they would magically be leveled characters who are more powerful than commoners. There's a lot of ground between "Farmer with a sword" and "Basically already a hero" though and I think OD&D and AD&D present that well.
This. As an "old man" GM/DM (I'm 54 and started playing the Holmes box in '78 and then segued into AD&D 1E around '80/'81) the clear intent of the TSR rules then was that first level PC's WERE exceptional compared to your average peasant. Note that, in this context "exceptional" does not mean "Wolverine killing five Sentinels single handedly" exceptional, but instead "can kill most normies and 0 level peasants pretty easily". In other words, even a first level character is a SIGNIFICANT cut above a zero level nobody.
In original D&D and AD&D 1E, a zero level nobody doesnt even have the POTENTIAL to become a regional or world spanning hero, whereas a first level PC is assumed to have the potential to become a world famous hero. While I haven't looked at the 1E DMG in a while (i.e., a decade LOL) , I'm pretty sure EGG even wrote a couple of sentences in there explicitly stating that even a 1st level PC is "rare and special" compared to normal peasants and zero level NPCs.
To be clear, I am not equating a 1E Fighter with the sort of 5e "powergaming" where a first level Fighter can single handle hack their way through 3 or 4 one HD opponents. However, a 1E Fighter was certainly a LOT more than just zero level peasant with a sword.
The OSR made a brand out of attacking everything from 2E to 5E thanks to the seemingly incorrect gameplay "culture" those editions instilled. But their gameplay culture is just as bland, perhaps even more absurd. At least 2E is ostensibly still AD&D.
Rolling up your third 1st level retard because you keep rushing in and dying to goblins doesn't "own the 5E tourists." It just makes you look like a fool.
OSR people sincerely have fun with mudcore, so I don’t begrudge them that. Increasingly, I do not consider OSR to be equivalent to classical. I mean no disparagement in that. “The OSR is carrot cake.”
That being said, I agree about the assumptions around classical play. I believe “mudcore” OSR games are survivable (see article “the Myth of OSR lethality) however, in order for that to be the case the players must work backwards to a play style which is very risk averse, and we arrive at things like “combat is a fail state” and such.
Classical games on the other hand, in my experience, you can enter combat right away at level 1 and reasonably survive if you fight on your own terms and play well.
My experience has been that classical games are *games where you can win* and OSR games are *games where you can make interesting choices in interesting situations.*
Good point about DCC stopping where it shouldn’t, and that’s a damn shame! The actual game at level 1 is not mudcore at all, but all the attention from outside the DCC world is on funnels.
The issue that makes me accuse the OSR of not understanding the game is the fact that so many of them balk at the idea of a 1st level fighter hiring men at arms to go into the dungeon with him. As for whether or not they have fun, I've played in games with OSR diehards and while some have been fun, a lot of them devolve into grumbling because one guy remembers the rules differently from someone else but nobody has the book to check. They don't seem like they're having fun to me.
Wild. I don’t think I’ve ever played in an OSR game before where the B module assumptions of having 6-8 character minimum to go into a dungeon at level 1 (which invariably has meant hiring men-at-arms for us.)
And someone grumbling about rules rather represents a violation of their own principles does it not? I’ve had that a few times and I suppose I’m rather harsh about either leaving such tables, or tossing such players. Hell, I’ve seen more the opposite problem, OSR gamers having an allergy to rules entirely.
Either way, I too have preferred classical gaming over the OSR increasingly, though from time to time to time I’ll throw down one of these mudcore level 1 dungeon crawls. I like to dabble in other cultures of play and approaches if time permits.
An opinionated take. I like it. I'm relatively new to the ttrpg Internet community, and missed a lot of the OSR era, and the related discussions and arguments.
It does seem to me that the momentum of the movement is more or less used up. But with WOTC's recent missteps, the indie ttrpg publishers are still well positioned to bring something new and innovative to the table.
Ryan, what are the things you want to see in the near future with indie games? What are the needs that aren't being fulfilled?
That would be an interesting topic for an article in and of itself, Jack. The short answer though is that indie RPGs need to jettison the GNS theory, understand that all games are simulations, and then zero in on what they want to simulate and how high-resolution that simulation needs to be. Right now, everything is so focused on being as light and stylish as possible, but the results are not playable games. Basically, a total philosophical overhaul. I will write an article about this though.
Looking forward to it!
Um, what's GNS theory? Is that Game Not Simulation?
It stands for "Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist." It originates from an RPG forum called The Forge and basically argued that there are three modes of game; those that focus on the game aspects, those who focus on the narrative aspects, and those who focus on the simulation aspects. The thrust of the argument was that gamists should just play war games, simulationists are brain-damaged (literally they said that), and narrativists are the only valid form of RPG players. I've talked about it here a few times (check out the article called It's All Simulationism).
Thank you! I'll check it out
Excellent points. Part of this issue is a misreading of the original inspirations in fiction by both current players and the originators of D&D. For example, Conan. Even in early Gods, Demigods, and Heroes, Conan is represented as a super high level character who abilities required breaking the rules to even create. But a closer reading of the stories shows that Conan at the various stages in his career can be represented as a low level character. Conan succeeded despite the odds, not because he was so awesome that he couldn't fail. Just as a fairly played AD&D character who reaches high level could have died numerous times along the way -- they just didn't happen to. I've had players quit because they felt AD&D saving throws were too deadly despite not actually having lost a character that way. Actual playing of the rules for D&D (and especially AD&D) is surprisingly fair. You win some, you lose some, but with steady play it's perfectly feasibly to reach significant levels. But one does have to play.
I'm just getting back into TTRPGS after decades of not playing and this is one of the elements that I think is the most ridiculous. Didn't know it was called Mudcore. I watched a YT video a couple days ago and the host talked about a game called Traveller, where apparently you can die during character creation? Beyond retarded. Really getting sick of all the games where everything is METAL AF.
Traveller is actually cool because character creation is a gamble. In Traveller you don't level up at all, so the skills you start with are the ones you have for the rest of the game. In character creation, you can opt to have your character take another tour in their profession so that you gain more experience, but doing that increases the chance of your character gaining an injury or dying. It's a risk/reward thing. The problem with mudcore is that it's all risk with little reward.
There is a lot more to the idea of Mudcore than just scrabbling in the mud for no reward. IMHO it can be a wonderful aesthetic all its own, and should be developed more fully.
As you say, the *ideas*, the core concepts of the OS games need to be "cleaned up" and edited for clarity and understanding, which will lead to new dimensions of gaming beyond the frameworks of what we now have.
A fundamental pillar of this philosophy is to immerse oneself in the Campaign prior to becoming immersed in one's Character.
While you're accurately describing a trend, it's unfair to blame this on DCC. DCC was influential in a lot of other ways, and if you praise Shadowdark at all, it's because Shadowdark borrowed heavily from DCC (including the funnel,) like rolling to cast spells and spell backlash.
DCC is also extremely fun. The funnels are fun because they're randomized and wacky and they result in lots of entertaining character deaths. They're not trying to simulate being poor or whatever. They're not meant to be the only mode of the game, and they won't be as soon as any of the characters level up. The DCC version of the Fighter is easily more heroic than in most other old school games and editions.
DCC does try to be offputting to normies (which is a good thing, gatekeeping is good) but in other ways like the weird dice. There's no mudcore going on.
I've had a lot of fun playing DCC, but it functions poorly for the purposes that I have. It's bad for long-running campaigns. The problems I have with DCC are largely focused on the culture around the game though. Everybody pretty much only talks about the funnel. The funnel is half the reason why you're supposed to buy the game. Shadowdark treats it as optional, DCC treats it as mandatory. I see a funnel session as fun for a con, but I don't care to have one in regular play.
You're right about the Warrior and the Magic being fun. Those are my favorite things about DCC. The problem is I seldom get to see them reach their full potential because, again, it's all funnels and one-shots.
I haven't had that experience but it is certainly a distinguishing trait that immediately sets it apart. I don't remember it being mandatory but I would have to check again.
It is more of a game for one shots rather than campaigns, sure. But it's also fun to string one shots together into a campaign and see who ends up as a weird mutant after passing through all the events and tables. I think the funnel is actually conducive to getting attached to characters long term. It's a lot like XCOM (moreso in the original 90s one) where you have a lot of recruits that die off, but then for the ones that survive you'll move heaven and earth to keep them alive. It reaches that OSR ideal where you don't write a modern-style lengthy backstory for your character because the game itself is your backstory. You weren't a hero in your other life before this, you're becoming a hero now.