Gaming in Seoul: Perils and Princesses

I was up in Seoul most of this weekend (Sunday evening as I type this) for an academic conference. But I was free Friday evening, so stopped by Dice and Comics Cafe (formerly known as Dice Latte, which a lot of people still refer to it by). 

There was some sort of Western RPG in progress when I got there, but the owner told me that most pick up games start around 7pm. So I ordered some food and listened in on the Western game while I ate. I didn't interrupt to ask what game system it was, but it was definitely not Boot Hill. It had a mundane setting (no magic, undead, or steampunk from what I could tell), or at least the encounters I overhead didn't include anything like that. 

When other people started arriving, I joined them. There were two games brewing, a Call of Cthulhu game set in space, and a Perils and Princesses pirate adventure. I joined the Perils and Princesses game. Ian, who plays in Richard's online Call of Cthulhu games, was also in this game but all the other players were people I had just met. 

Perils and Princesses is an NSR type game, similar to Black Hack, Into the Odd, Mothership, PbtA games, etc. You play a princess with certain magical gifts, and need to survive adventures by wits, resolve, and sometimes swinging swords. 

Morgan was our GM. 

My princess was a knight/healer named Valerian.  

Ian played an alchemist/water mage princess named Talia.

Margot played a wild card/con man princess with a pet parrot named Whistle (the parrot was named Polly).

Oliver played a scholar/thief princess named Clara.

Riley played a barbarian/beastmaster princess named Fern. 

The adventure we went on was basically The Blues Brothers. The orphanage we were raised in (yes, we're princesses, but also orphans. Stop over-thinking) was in danger of being bought and torn down by an evil merchant. Luckily, we heard of these pirate ghosts with treasure in a sea cave south of town, and an old matron in town gave us a map if we promised to recover her family heirloom cursed dagger.

Well, after romping through town for a bit, we set sail for the caves, and avoided, fought and befriended various monsters. We recovered the dagger and other treasure to save the orphanage just in time. We literally played until the shop was closing, so had to wrap up the game in a hurry. 

It was fun, and like a lot of NSR games, it was easy to pick a character and just start playing. I'm not sure it would have a lot of long-term campaign value, though, as there only appear to be four levels to the characters (we were playing at level 2). 

_________________________________

In other news, I've almost completed my revisions to Flying Swordsmen 2E. I need to read through the monster section very carefully one more time. I've also been pondering ideas for a short campaign to play test the game with my local group. People in one of the RPOL games I play in have been asking when it will be available, so I should get to work polishing up and testing the rules.

In other other news, next weekend is the TTRPG in Korea Online SummerCon. I'm in two games on Saturday as a player. Justin is running Monster of the Week in the morning, and in the afternoon I'm in a Mothership game. On Sunday afternoon, I will run a TS&R(ish)* game, then in the evening play in a Dungeon Crawl Classics game. And then classes start on Monday...

 *I'm using my TS&R rules to run the game, but I found an old set of BECMI pre-gen PCs that I wanted to reuse, so Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are classes for this game, and all the Clerics, Fighters, Magic-Users, and Thieves are Human. No Druids, Rangers, or any of that AD&D add-on either.  

The 3E Nostalgia is Upon Us

I've been seeing all sorts of blog posts, YouTube videos, and memes re-examining Third Edition D&D, and especially 3.0 as compared to 3.5. Having played some d20 Modern with my son over the past year or so, and having dived into an aborted attempt at a d20 Star Wars game on RPOL (and currently into a Saga Edition Star Wars game on RPOL), I'm not really feeling the 3E nostalgia. Those games have reminded me of just how needlessly cumbersome the skill/feat system is in d20 games, and the limits of a "roll d20" for any task resolution is still with us in 5E today. 

But there seem to be a lot of gamers who started on 3E, or started on 2E but found their jam with 3E who are feeling that nostalgia. It does make sense. It's been almost 24 years since the game was released, 21 since the 3.5 revision. 

I've even had some people tell me that 3E is old school D&D. 

Personally, I think "old school" is more about play style than age, but I may be biased. 

Is it time to lump 3E, and the resulting d20 system boom games, in with the "old school" banner? Make it part of the OSR? Or is it "old school but not OSR"? 

Peanut gallery, sound off in the comments!

The 5E to OSR Pipeline

It may just be that my perception is biased due to the algorithmic nature of YouTube recommendations, but it does appear as if a lot of 5E players have become more interested in the OSR as of late. 

Again, I know it may just be that having watched one video about turning from 5E to the OSR, the algorithm is recommending more similar content to me. But all of the videos that have been recommended are fairly recent. Most have been made within the past few months, and none more than a year old. 

So, why is this happening? 

Well, for one, it may just be a YouTuber fad. One streamer or vlogger tries out an OSR game, and others feel curious to try it as well. People see one person's idea, and they will copy it. Expect more of these videos to be produced if this is true, but don't expect a huge increase in new OSR converts.

Another possibility is that 5E fatigue has set in. There's a reason WotC recently announced their "One D&D" revision/new edition/whatever it will be. People have explored the possibilities of 5E, and one more splat book of new options is not gonna hold their attention much longer. Part of this is baked into the design of 5E, which like 3E and 4E, was designed as a game of system mechanics exploration more than imaginary exploration within the game world. That gives it a limited (intentionally so?) lifespan with the players. 

Final possibility? It's not a trend at all. There are a handful of people who have done this, and YT is just showing me all of the small number of videos like this. In a week, I won't be seeing any more because I'll have sampled all there is to sample.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is actually a trend.

Not every one of the videos I've watched has been positive towards the OSR games they've tried, but the majority have been. And these videos have spanned the gammut from playing the actual old editions from TSR to all the various retroclones (well, OSRIC, LL, OSE, S&W anyway), and OSR adjacent games like Black Hack and Dungeon World. 

Despite the bad reputation of THAC0, or Vancian casting, or high lethality, the fact that most of the older editions and their retro-clones encourage exploration of the game space more than exploration of the system mechanics is, I think, the reason why people are engaging with these rules again. That's what happened with me and a lot of other people 15 years or so ago. 

And then there are the folks that have been playing the old editions all along, and still are having fun with them. And new folks are joining these games, and finding out that you don't need a bunch of fiddly numbers on your character sheet, or kewl nu powrz! at ever level to have fun. 

I'm not gonna make a prediction that One D&D will flop. I'm sure there are vastly more people willing to take whatever WotC will give them. And it looks like WotC is gonna try for more of a subscription model rather than a purchase model of sales, at least for their online tools, this time. So they'll probably secure a decent revenue stream with their new version of the game. 

But I will say that the OSR is far from dead. I'd expect a lot of these 5E converts to be coming up with their own retro clones and modifications to the game and releasing them in the next few years! Even if it is just a handful of people splitting off from the 5E community (or straddling both), there's new blood in the OSR. And they will run (and create) games that attract even more people.

Into the Odd Reaction

 I got to play some Into the Odd last night. Justin pitched the game -- space hobos with massive debt are sent to an alien megastructure to recover lost artifacts. The game was ItO based, but heavily influenced by Numenera and some other stuff, Justin said. 

The system is very similar to The Black Hack, but has some differences that seem, on first play-through, to be improvements (although how much are house rules by Justin, I'm not sure). There are only 3 stats, rolled with 3d6. Hit points are just 1d6 (but once 0 you take damage from abilities). Most checks are rolled on a d20, roll stat or lower, similar to TBH. But there is also a luck die mechanic, a d6 roll high check (maybe that's Justin's house rule?). Also, in combat, you don't roll to hit or to defend as in TBH, you just roll damage (armor soaks some damage). I much prefer this combat system, as deadly as it is, over the constant rolling of TBH. I've mentioned before that I'm not one of those players who plays just to get to roll the dice a lot. ItO is definitely a step up from TBH in my mind. 

Also, I don't think there's a usage die baked into the system, but Justin ended up defaulting to that for our "class" abilities, since the rules didn't really mention things like how many eyeball darts Denis' cybernetics addict character got and so on. 

Oh, and for deciding on character type, there was a 3x3 chart of character types. One axis was your highest ability score (STR, DEX, CHA), the other was your hit point total (1-2, 3-4, 5-6).  I had equal STR and CHA (10) as my high scores, so got to choose between the AI Parasite (an AI using a dead body as a vehicle) and the Holo-Wraith (a living hologram). I went with the holo-wraith, which was again fairly poorly defined. Justin ruled that I was basically a walking hologram with my own force field generator similar to the Doctor in Star Trek Voyager. 

The session was fun, and fast moving whenever the mechanics were called up. Combats were a mix of "just shoot everything as fast as we can" and "we'd better figure out something clever before we die" type battles. Most of the session was done exploring, which didn't really require that many Ability checks. It was definitely worth trying out again. Probably not a system I'd ever run myself, but worth playing if Justin keeps running it.

The Tyranny of the Player

I've been thinking a bit about my post from yesterday about The Black Hack. Not so much about TBH itself, but about the fact that the game only wants the players to roll dice for success/failure. I get that TBH tries to merge some aspects of indie story games with traditional TTRPG play. This one, though, sorta bothers me.

In my post yesterday, I said:

The fact that the DM doesn't roll for very much is a bit annoying for me, though. I'm not the sort of gamer that thinks, "Man, I wish I was rolling the dice more often!" So maybe I'm not the target audience. But after over three decades of games where the GM rolls to hit and saves for the monsters, this seems a bit meh to me. I mean, it allows for your ability scores to replace a separate AC number, but why not just let the DM roll?

I probably should have worded that better and taken a bit more time to organize my thoughts.

Of course no one's playing RPGs thinking the main draw of play is rolling dice. Granted, I think I've read things from WotC before about wanting to give the players more chances to roll dice. That talk was related to their idea that every character should be a vital and integral part of combat in the game. Which is a whole different topic I've touched on before and I won't go into now. Suffice it to say, if rolling dice is your thing, pure dice games are what you should be playing. Craps. Yatzee. Race track board games.

No, the real reason someone would design a game where the game master rolls as little as possible is because there's a deep distrust of the game master to be a fair arbiter of the rules and even more so a failure of trust to be a fair arbiter of things that fall OUTSIDE the rules.

Again, I'm reminded of the stories of Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign I read in Playing at the World. Coming from table-top war gaming, where a neutral referee would take spoken or written orders and then spend time consulting charts and rolling dice to find the results of the miniature battle taking place, Dave seemed to do most of the die rolling himself. Gary Gygax may have also done a lot more rolling for the players in the original Greyhawk campaign.

In a turn based war game, it's probably not a big problem to pause the game for however long it takes the ref to make all the moves and resolve all the attacks in a round. But in an RPG, it's a big burden to put on one person. Especially when it's not that hard to have the players make their own rolls. Add in several decades of play in which some people experience poor and/or arbitrary game mastering, it's not surprising that there is a push to put more of the onus on the players themselves to roll the dice and determine their own fates.

But it's a move that I reject. Maybe it's because I've mostly played under good game masters in my many years of gaming. I could have been lucky not to have had too many poor DMs. Or maybe it's that I don't have a problem dropping a game if I don't like the DM's style. People stuck with little or no choice of games to join have to put up with it, I guess.

Still, I find it odd that there's this push -- both at big companies like WotC (well, big being relative to the size of the hobby) and from the Indie crowd -- to try to neuter the game master. WotC does it by trying to spell out all the rules in lawyerly fashion so that players can litigate away a bad DM. Indie gamers seem to do it by trying to eliminate or divide the role of the referee to avoid concentration of power.

It's this second goal at play in The Black Hack. It's this idea that "to be fair" means the players must accept their own fates by rolling everything themselves. However, this very idea might lead to a deep distrust of the game master. And what good does that server? If you can't trust them to be fair at rolling the dice (and from personal experience, if I'm going to fudge die rolls, it's going to be in the players' favor), can you trust them to be fair at descriptions of the game world? Can you trust them to be fair with scenario/adventure/encounter design?

Yes, poor DMs may use things like quantum ogres or railroads or too much fudging of dice. And yes, it can suck for a player. But by taking away things like the ability to roll the dice from the referee, it won't help the problem ref to improve. Getting good at anything requires practice. It requires making mistakes. And if the game master is never directly testing the probabilities of the scenarios they run, they won't be getting as good a practice or making as many mistakes as they otherwise would. So their growth as a game master will be stunted. And I think that may be a bigger problem. Instead of a few spoiled sessions while the game master learns the ropes leading to fair to average sessions and eventually good sessions, you'll end up with a lifetime of mediocre sessions.

A new age begins

So Google+ is going away soon. It killed the blog scene, sucking the oxygen out of the OSR blogosphere. And people are wondering if the OSR will survive its nexus of interaction disappearing.

But remember, the OSR was around for years before Google+. It will be around after.

Zak S. is out. I read his stuff occasionally, and he had a lot of good ideas. But he was also pretty terrible to certain people. Yes, he was a highly visible figure in the OSR for many years. Now, he's persona non grata. I won't miss him. And the OSR will go on without him.

I'm going to be working on some academic papers over the next several months, trying to publish the one I have recently revised plus two more. But I'll also be trying to maintain the blog here more. I think if the OSR reverts to blogs and forums it will be better anyway. There were a lot of good conversations on G+, but the format is too ephemeral for my tastes (I've been saying that for years, I know). I tried MeWe, and it's got the same ephemeral nature of G+ so I doubt I'll use it much. Hell, I mostly just used G+ for promoting this blog and trying to sell my stuff anyway. MeWe will likely be the same. And if I get on Discord or any of the other places people are going to, ditto.

Now, here are my potential RPG related projects for this year:

1. Converting my West Marches 5E game to Labyrinth Lord. Some players won't like it, but I'm ready to get back to basics. Fewer classes, fewer spells (but often more powerful in effect), and a lower power level; but hopefully more action/interaction.
2. Starting an online Chanbara campaign. Probably with the usual Hangouts/Roll20 gang (Busan Gaming Group plus any of Dean's 5E gamers I can lure into it). If any blog readers are willing to make time on Saturday evenings East Asia/Australia time (Saturday morning North America, midday Europe/Africa), let me know.
3. Finishing up my next set of paper minis (just need to format the book then get it online). It has the Isle of Dread module monsters plus the creatures in BX that aren't in BECMI's Basic and Expert books. 
4. Moving on to the Mentzer Companion Set for the next set of paper minis? Or making a set for OA/Flying Swordsman/Chanbara? Or AD&D monsters? Or AD&D/later edition character types? 
5. Releasing the dungeons/locations of the Chanbara game, plus some for more standard D&D type play, as cheap modules for sale through Hidden Treasure Books.

So it comes to this...

A week or so ago, Stuart Robertson, who I consider one of the cooler heads in the OSR scene and who I respect quite a bit, posted that he didn't want this OSR logo, which he designed, being used on products, blogs, or other places that supported and contained hate speech.

He politely asked that if you want to post content or publish content which might be considered hate speech under Canadian law (where he lives), to not use this particular logo.

And of course the shit hit the fan immediately. A small number of very vocal people started bitching that somehow this was gatekeeping the OSR, and that their free speech rights were being abridged unilaterally. Another small but vocal group were complaining that they now felt compelled to use this logo or else be perceived as a hateful chud.

And so Stuart dropped off of G+ (it's dying anyway) and possibly the OSR scene in general.

Well, I feel bad because I didn't speak up right away about the issue. Life is hectic, and there are a lot of bigger concerns in my life right now than the latest round of "what is the OSR?" navel-gazing and arguments about what should or shouldn't be allowed in the OSR, and who should or shouldn't be allowed in the OSR. But now that Stuart is gone, all I can do is write this post as a better-late-than-never move to show my support for him.

First of all, let's look at the various claims. Is what Stuart posted gatekeeping? Is it abridging the free speech rights of other OSR publishers and bloggers?

I say a resounding NO. He never said you can't publish hateful content, or questionable content, or risque content, or anything of the like. He said if you do that and it might possibly be considered hate speech under Canadian law, don't use the above logo. You can publish a book on OSR Nazi baby rape if you like. Just don't use THIS logo on it. Your right to free speech is in no way affected by this, just your ability to use this symbol.

Second, is every member of the OSR who's not a hate-filled low life now required to use this logo to show that they're not a hate-filled low life? Of course not. Before this logo appeared, and after this logo appeared, there were plenty of other OSR logos to choose from. Check Google for examples. Yes, Stuart's one is at the top of the list, but there are plenty more.

Now, using the logo created by I think Benoist Poire immediately in the fallout of the above might seem to send a message like that. Hopefully not, as I don't think that was the intention of Benoist (but he'll have to speak for himself on that). But it does kinda look bad when one member of the OSR says he doesn't want his logo associated with hate speech and another member makes a new logo in response. It implies the new logo was created specifically for use by people who want to create hateful OSR products/blogs. Again, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intention, but it does seem to send that message.

So what should you, the OSR blogger/publisher do? Well, if you're sure you're not creating hate speech products, use whatever the fuck OSR logo you like. If you think your products might contain hate speech under Canadian law, use whatever the fuck OSR logo you like EXCEPT for Stuart's one.

How is this a controversy again?

Is it time for the Third Wave of the OSR?

The OSR started about eight years ago, with the sudden interest in publishing the first round of retro-clones, OSRIC, BFRPG, and hot on their heels Labyrinth Lord, followed soon after by Swords & Wizardry.

Cue the slew of other retro clones, both of various versions of D&D and of other old school games. 

The second wave included new imaginings of what might have been, and new/old systems that merged more modern design elements with classic game play.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mazes & Minotaurs, with its "what if Bullfinch, Hamilton and Graves had inspired Gygax and Arneson more than Howard, Tolkien and Lieber?" motif, was the first of the second wave games. 

I just downloaded yet another free old school game on pdf.  It's over 400 pages, and really, most of the stuff I'd probably use from it will be any new monsters, maybe a class or race, possibly some magic items. 

I really don't need the "rules" anymore. 

Now, don't get me wrong.  There will always be room for complete rulebooks.  New gamers need them.  Old gamers sometimes appreciate only needing one book.  Game writers want to feel that their game is complete and "all you need."  I get that.

But if I were to download a document with just the basic information for players: race, class, spells, equipment, and any special rules necessary, maybe a bestiary if it's sci-fi or non-European/D&D-goulash, plus some setting/milieu/genre information, I could run the game.

Will this be the next phase of the OSR?  Supplemental rulebooks that bolt onto your favorite rule set to change the flavor/setting a bit, but otherwise follow the rules of the parent game?  Some publishers would actually create both a full version and a cut down "stage three" version.  Maybe give away the Stage Three supplement for free, and sell the whole rulebook for those who like to consult a single volume when they play?

Long story short, I'm thinking a1) I don't need to download any more 400+ page rulebooks of what is basically the same game, even if they're free.  I've already got my Franken-D&D rules the way I like them.  b2) Chanbara is likely going to end up like this.  I don't have time to rewrite all the rules for the whole game, at least not if I'm going to release it any time soon.  I'll give you enough info to make your character and to create a weird mytho-Japan setting.  You'll need to use your favorite version of Ye Olde Game for the rest.

A strange confluence

Last night, in one of my Ph.D classes, our professor showed us part of this TED Talk while discussing the limits of copyright/IP law with regards to creating English teaching materials or having our students get involved in creating similar content and then releasing it online as a teaching tool. 

And the whole time, I was thinking, "That's so OSR."  It's also very "Indie RPG."  As Gygax famously said, "Why should we do any more of your imagining for you?"