Quote from: Exploderwizard;836079#1,3, and 4 are staples for me and it would be a rare game indeed that would go against these that I would find interesting enough to want to play.

Thanks Exploderwizard.

On another forum I read a thread where people discussed whether the DM narrating scenes that don't involve the characters is bad or lazy. It's a truly alien to my style of playing games, so much so that I wouldn't even have thought of it, but it's illuminating that some people still think that "style of game I don't like" implies "Bad DM" or "Bad Game".

I find it illuminating that requirements(?) like these for how someone likes to game seem to define the sort of mechanics/system/style you like far better than any of that simulationist/narrative/gamist claptrap.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836189On another forum I read a thread where people discussed whether the DM narrating scenes that don't involve the characters is bad or lazy.

Oh, the 'cut scene' controversy... yeah, I'd leave a group if the GM insisted on doing that. I wouldn't say bad or lazy... just not my style.

Quote from: Brad;835733The better question is why are people so obsessed with classifying component parts of rpgs instead of just playing them?

No one can even come up with a good definition of "OSR", so good luck.

To my mind, what's great about the pioneering games is the very lack of adherence to any school. Going with what's fun just because you're having fun, and sharing it on the likelihood that somebody else might also enjoy it, that's the thing to me.

The "old school renaissance" on the other hand is a reaction against a new school (or several) that shaped official Dungeons & Dragons especially in the Wizards of the Coast era. Trying to stipulate definitive particulars is still rather silly. There's a general sensibility that inclines one either to enjoy the old TSR-era games more, or to regard them as inferior (perhaps not worth playing at all).

Drawing the line is a separate, internet-played game that some people seem to like a lot more than anything actually involving dungeons, dragons, dice and paper.

Quote from: Phillip;836227To my mind, what's great about the pioneering games is the very lack of adherence to any school.

It was the "pioneering games" that invented the schools!

Quote from: Phillip;836227Going with what's fun just because you're having fun, and sharing it on the likelihood that somebody else might also enjoy it, that's the thing to me.

Go for it!

Quote from: Phillip;836227The "old school renaissance" on the other hand is a reaction against a new school (or several) that shaped official Dungeons & Dragons especially in the Wizards of the Coast era.

I think it's people having fun, and in particular having fun doing things they have been told they're not allowed to enjoy.

Quote from: Phillip;836227Drawing the line is a separate, internet-played game that some people seem to like a lot more than anything actually involving dungeons, dragons, dice and paper.

Sorry, I'd love to discuss, but get to head off to my game...

Quote from: Phillip;836227The "old school renaissance" on the other hand is a reaction against a new school (or several) that shaped official Dungeons & Dragons especially in the Wizards of the Coast era.

I saw it as a revolt against relying so much on commercial products... against money-grubbing splat treadmills and isolationist 'brand loyalty' that tried to dictate/homogenize how we played... against lock-step adopting new editions and what ever changes the blessed designer-gods decided to make... against high-end graphics that bamboozle folks into thinking "Oh, I couldn't do that!"... against thinking that a system needs to cover every possible contingency or else it's not complete.

That was my take on the OSR and what caught my interest. That the RPG hobby could look back to it's low-fi, garage band roots and dwell amongst the blogs and zines and enthusiastic hobbyists... rather than waiting like calves for the next 'official' drip from the corporate teat.
I never thought it had to do with any specific mechanics or system... just a return to a more DIY mindset.

Quote from: Simlasa;836232I saw it as a revolt against relying so much on commercial products... against money-grubbing splat treadmills and isolationist 'brand loyalty' that tried to dictate/homogenize how we played... against lock-step adopting new editions and what ever changes the blessed designer-gods decided to make... against high-end graphics that bamboozle folks into thinking "Oh, I couldn't do that!"... against thinking that a system needs to cover every possible contingency or else it's not complete.

That was my take on the OSR and what caught my interest. That the RPG hobby could look back to it's low-fi, garage band roots and dwell amongst the blogs and zines and enthusiastic hobbyists... rather than waiting like calves for the next 'official' drip from the corporate teat.
I never thought it had to do with any specific mechanics or system... just a return to a more DIY mindset.

Yep. Pretty much sums it up for me. Specific mechanics used are less important than the DIY attitude, and reliance on your own and other hobbyists creativity instead of a steady stream of corporate bloat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;836238Yep. Pretty much sums it up for me. Specific mechanics used are less important than the DIY attitude, and reliance on your own and other hobbyists creativity instead of a steady stream of corporate bloat.

OSR was about specific mechanics - the mechanics of D&D. It expanded in various ways to be a broader church - but that description could just as easily apply to "Dogs In The Vinyard".

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836293OSR was about specific mechanics - the mechanics of D&D. It expanded in various ways to be a broader church - but that description could just as easily apply to "Dogs In The Vinyard".

Stars Without Number and Mutant Future are regarded as an OSR games and they have very little to do with D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;836296Stars Without Number and Mutant Future are regarded as an OSR games and they have very little to do with D&D.

A game with six attributes STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHR rolled as 3d6 has "very little to do with D&D"? Do you really mean that?

But that's in agreement with what I said - OSR has expanded to be a broad church, i.e. it includes all sort of stuff such as these, but it certainly does *not* include "Dogs In The Vinyard".

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836300A game with six attributes STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHR rolled as 3d6 has "very little to do with D&D"? Do you really mean that?

But that's in agreement with what I said - OSR has expanded to be a broad church, i.e. it includes all sort of stuff such as these, but it certainly does *not* include "Dogs In The Vinyard".

Not familiar with Dogs in the Vinyard, whatever that is.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;836315Not familiar with Dogs in the Vinyard, whatever that is.

Indie Story game Forge RPG from 2004. By Vincent Baker. Antithesis of OSR play, but is entirely accurately described as "DIY attitude, and reliance on your own and other hobbyists creativity instead of a steady stream of corporate bloat."

I think people did OSR because they found they enjoyed it, and probably didn't analyse why!

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836318Indie Story game Forge RPG from 2004. By Vincent Baker. Antithesis of OSR play, but is entirely accurately described as "DIY attitude, and reliance on your own and other hobbyists creativity instead of a steady stream of corporate bloat."

I think people did OSR because they found they enjoyed it, and probably didn't analyse why!

I suspect this is the truth of the matter.

Well, historically, there are technological, legal, and commercial precursors to the OSR.

Technological--the Internet, especially the web, fora, and Web 2.0; also all the stuff that enables DTP (even though the result is often consumed in html or PDF format)

Legal--the OGL and similar licensing schemes have made it easy for people to publish variants of existing rules, especially D&D, without fear of legal action and without being suppressed. This is really important because D&D is a lingua franca; without a common rulebase around which to coalesce, the following would only have led to more fragmented fandoms--people scattering in a dozen different mutually-unintelligible directions.

Commercial--D&D 3.0 through 4.0 ceded an increasingly large mindspace/market space to DIY and to rules that are simpler, faster to play, and more malleable.

At this point it's hard to imagine a world without the technological foundation but the legal and commercial factors could have easily not emerged. Then again 4.0, which really pushed the OSR into overdrive, might never have been such a radical departure if it weren't WotC trying to respond to the OGL market environment.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836189Thanks Exploderwizard.

On another forum I read a thread where people discussed whether the DM narrating scenes that don't involve the characters is bad or lazy. It's a truly alien to my style of playing games, so much so that I wouldn't even have thought of it, but it's illuminating that some people still think that "style of game I don't like" implies "Bad DM" or "Bad Game".

I find it illuminating that requirements(?) like these for how someone likes to game seem to define the sort of mechanics/system/style you like far better than any of that simulationist/narrative/gamist claptrap.

I'm not going to read that whole thread.  But here's what I think about cutscenes.

Cutscenes are like any GM tool.  They can be good or bad.  There are certain situations they can add something, but there are just as many, if not more, where they are the wrong tool for the job.

I've had some good cutscenes that players have remembered for decades.  I've had many that sucked, and cast a dark shadow over whatever I was trying to run.  In fact, the last one I tried to do flopped hard.

I find they work best as stingers at the end of a session, in much the same way the Marvel movies all have after-credits stingers.  It's a good way to get players excited for next session, or fit in a joke which might have messed up the pacing of the episode itself.

The big catch is that good cutscenes need to be about something the players are interested in, but they can't do anything about.  That inherently makes a cutscene a precarious balancing act.  Plus, it's very easy to fall to the dark side and the GM to make the cutscene a form of GMPC theater, which will usually make it suck.

Never seen anyone do a "cut scene" as you fellas are describing. Personally I'd prefer as a player that the GM not reveal goings-on for which my PC was not present, unless in some secondhand form (rumors, accounts from witnesses, etc.) Otherwise to me it feels like I'm watching a play or film or television show rather than an active participant in a game. Feels a bit precious of the GM to be presenting his "story" to me in that way. Seems rather gauche as well. As a GM I would not want to inflict this on my players. Maybe that's just me, though; as I indicated I have never seen this done. Perhaps there's a better method to convey the information one wants to today rather than a "cut scene." Or perhaps there's a better method of doing a "cut scene" than I seem able to envisage.