Player-side agency in OSR games - how does it even work?

[Tecmes]

One of the principles of OSR games (at least the retro-clones) is that "players describe what their PC does to solve a described challenge, rather than engaging PC rules abilities to solve rule-based challenges."

So "This is The Frog Temple, so I check the statue's mouth" or "I'll lay the 10' pool across the chasm, toss my gear across and use my belt to cross under it", rather than "I check for traps with my Trapfinder skill... 18!" or "I can jump 20' with a DC25 check, that's doable"

 

If that's a fair description of that principle,

Q1) How can it work in the long run?

After a few sessions, doesn't the player challenge's switch from "come up with clever ideas" to "come up with NEW clever ideas I haven't used three times already"?

 

Q2) How frequently would the GM say "no"?

"Sorry. That fails. Doesn't work. That idea's going nowhere. You don't understand the problem. Why would you do that?"

How frequently CAN he say that before the players quit?

[Eric]

Q1) Nothing says the solution has to be novel. The only reason a solution would have to be new would be if the challenge was laid out such that the prior solution didn't work. For instance, if the bottom of the chasm is filled with crocodiles that will snap at your dangling legs while you're swinging under the pole, you might want to consider a third way.

Q2) If the GM's done a good enough job explaining the situation, this should rarely happen. Having been behind the GM screen for several decades in OSR games, our primary difficulty lies in describing well enough that the players can come up with rational ideas. If the details aren't there, then it's much harder to problem-solve without extensive back and forth, which as we all know is difficult in PbP.

The GM's reaction for an implausible solution should be to look at the information they've provided and figure out where the players have missed the key tidbits that would lead them to a logical plan.

As my friend Ruben always used to remind us, leave three paths open. If there is only one way to solve a situation, the players will be frustrated--and it's our fault as the GM.

[matt_s]

I think it comes to the balance of player skill and character skill. Even if you say "I try to engage and manipulate the tumblers of a lock with a metal pick", if your PC has not extensive experience and practice lockpicking, they just cannot do that (and I think the old school versions did have percentile "pick lock" tables for rogue?)

Similarly, you can simply throw, jump, etc. per STR score.

It's more a mentality along with fewer tools available especially re: magic as much as mechanics. OSR leans more on player skill but not exclusively so, PF2e/dnd5e lean more on character but not entirely. Careful thinking has saved my PC bumps and bruises that "I roll perception" would not have.

[Vladim]

1 hour ago, Tecmes said:

Q1) How can it work in the long run?

After a few sessions, doesn't the player challenge's switch from "come up with clever ideas" to "come up with NEW clever ideas I haven't used three times already"?

 

Q2) How frequently would the GM say "no"?

"Sorry. That fails. Doesn't work. That idea's going nowhere. You don't understand the problem. Why would you do that?"

How frequently CAN he say that before the players quit?

Q1) It depends. As has been said, the actions don't have to be novel, but I think a secondary problem would be repetition (there's only so many times the players can describe searching a room in excruciating detail before it becomes boring, just going through the motions. Not to mention it would slow PbP to a grind). In that case, I think fast-forwarding is fine. Overall, though, I think fiction first is a good approach.

Q2) I think the GM should be able to gauge the PCs' knowledge and expertise, which may be more expansive than the players', and explain what competent characters would determine as good ideas, especially in that case you describe. In general, it's better not to just say 'No', but (at least) to offer some alternative(s).

[cailano]

2 hours ago, Eric said:

Q1) Nothing says the solution has to be novel. The only reason a solution would have to be new would be if the challenge was laid out such that the prior solution didn't work. For instance, if the bottom of the chasm is filled with crocodiles that will snap at your dangling legs while you're swinging under the pole, you might want to consider a third way.

Q2) If the GM's done a good enough job explaining the situation, this should rarely happen. Having been behind the GM screen for several decades in OSR games, our primary difficulty lies in describing well enough that the players can come up with rational ideas. If the details aren't there, then it's much harder to problem-solve without extensive back and forth, which as we all know is difficult in PbP.

The GM's reaction for an implausible solution should be to look at the information they've provided and figure out where the players have missed the key tidbits that would lead them to a logical plan.

As my friend Ruben always used to remind us, leave three paths open. If there is only one way to solve a situation, the players will be frustrated--and it's our fault as the GM.

I'm also an OSR GM and I endorse this post.

[cailano]

The longer I GM, the less I roll skill checks. I try to give a good description and in PbP I even use bold text to draw the player's attention.

When the players use their characters to interact with the game world, describing how they do it instead of asking what to roll, you're about 50% of the way to an immersive game.

As far as the player tactics, I would suggest the GM remember that RPGs are partially about simulation and partially a form of group storytelling. Never have just one way in mind for the PCs to solve a puzzle or find information. Instead, look for opportunities to reveal information and secrets. If a player comes up with a good idea, it should work! Don't leave it up to the dice unless the risk is part of the fun.

[cailano]

And all this brings up one of the great unspoken facets of OSR games, which is the contract between the players and the GM. Unlike a game in the vein of Pathfinder 2E, Older editions of the game don't have rules to cover every situation. Some of the really rules-lite versions, like B/X, are going to require the GM to exercise "rulings over rules" in most sessions.

Here is the contract: The Players agree that the GM is the final word in all situations. The GM agrees to be fair. Everyone agrees that they are there to create an adventure story and have a good time.

So, there has to be trust all around. Can a bad GM ruin the game? Absolutely.

Then again, find me a multiplayer TTRPG where that isn't the case. I'll wait.

 

 

[Powderhorn]

Funny enough, @matt_s and I are playing this sort of interaction out right now in a game. The back and forth is important, and the posts I did last night were definitely from my phone to keep things moving (thank you, @Eric, for your work on v6 once again).

Essentially, for me at least, I'm perfectly happy to let players problem-solve through RP, but if they also wanted to throw dice because they couldn't quite see a path through, that'd be fine too and I'd work with that. It kinda answers the question I used to have, "How do I run a character that's smarter than me?" - let the dice handle that :)

[Tecmes]

Well thanks a bunch for all these thoughtful reactions. Helps me much on my Quest to Understand OSR. But I'm not done yet.

So let me gather stuff you said and make a list of key OSR advantages:

• Flexible/open. You're not constrained by a list of powers/actions you have before you. This encourages creativity.
• Immersive. You're thinking within the fiction, not within the rules. You've got to visualize the scene, not check the rules options.
• Coherent. GM's running all of it, not some of it with the rest run by the rules (i.e. the author).
• Rich. GM's not constrained by one-roll challenges, or situations that connect to the players' powers and abilities. E.g. you can go beyond "Roll Survival to Sense Direction in the woods" and into some complex issue with dusky, dense, faerie-trodden woods in a confusing storm, and expect solutions to be rich as well.

Interestingly, richness is not an option. A GM can't just push a one-solution challenge, else the gameplay will be even poorer than a non-OSR:

Player: "mmm okay, I'm a Ranger. I try to find a safe path through the woods"

GM: "No sweat. You reach the other side."

[cailano]

On the Coherent point, as an OSR GM I do try to stick to the rules of the system as they provide an important consistency to the game. The GM fiat comes in situations the rules don't cover.

On the Ranger example, if the woods aren't inherently dangerous to a skilled woodsman, then yes, the Ranger navigates them without a roll. On the other hand, if the woods are challenging for some reason the GM might require a Wisdom check daily. If there is something that requires decision making, then it's time to zoom in and describe the situation in detail and let the player describe his actions. That may or may not require additional dice rolling.

[RedMax]

On 10/25/2023 at 6:24 AM, Powderhorn said:

It kinda answers the question I used to have, "How do I run a character that's smarter than me?" - let the dice handle that :)

Yeah!

This is the way I look at it and the way I play and GM. Mostly I play the old school way, meaning, the characters explain what they try to do and then the roll comes after. If I'm playing an AD&D 1e game, maybe the assassin's player searches the treasure chest for traps. I say, "Yeah, he found a trap." BUT, then I say, "You've seen this before--a trick designed by an old thief named Sven the Slick. It looks like when you open the lid, it pulls a string that releases a cloud of gas."

So then the player says, "Okay, my assassin tries to Find/Remove Traps. But he tells everyone to get out of the room and he holds his breath." The player might add, "It sounds like the lid opening pulls the string, so if that's the case I'll try to cut that string instead of throwing the lid open like a jackass."

For that extra comment I might add 10%, because the player is really giving some thought to the mechanics.

I really prefer this style rather than:

"I search for traps."

DM rolls

"You found a trap."

"I remove the traps."

DM rolls

"You think you removed the trap."

 

 

[cailano]

That's a fantastic way of handling traps. I do it much the same way, but if the player is able to describe exactly how to disarm the device, I'd probably just give it to them without a roll, unless the trap was set by a master thief or something.

[Tecmes]

On that topic of using the rules more or less, here are two gameplay situations. I'm using a combat example for reasons related to this thread.

1) Retro-clone narrative smart action adjudicated by the GM.
 

Player: "This is a Ravenbear. It relies on keen sight and hearing, right? So I take my horn out and blow it loudly, to confuse it, while I strike with my mace, making good use of my smaller size to duck under its defences. Now I expect a 10-foot flying bear to have hollow bones - a strike to the shin is gonna hurt. My plan's to unbalance it so we can cross through the narrow exit it cannot squeeze through."

GM: "Great! It works, you escape, though the as you pass by, the Ravenbear is twitching in pain and lacerates your backpack and you lose all your magic cheese."

 

2) Clever in-rule action adjudicated by rulebook.
 

Player: "I make a Monster Knowledge check. <roll>Superior Success! I Ready my horn and use the Blow Horn action. <roll> It's deafened one round and because of its Sound Vulnerability I have learned, it's also Stunned one round. With my second Partial Action I make a Deft Strike Power Attack with my +1 Light Mace, aiming for the limbs at -2, but +4 for the stun. I know it's vulnerable to crushing damage. <Roll>With that special crit wound it's now Prone, plus the stun this gives all allies time to Combat Stride across the 45' span to the 5-foot door, which the Ravenbear cannot squeeze in less than 10 minutes, according to p. 238 rules. We're safe!".
 

GM: "Hey, that was a good one. However the Ravenbear has a Instinctive Slash attack it can use even when stunned, as you pass by. <roll> Your leather armour is damaged."

 

You get my point. How is player ingenuity and smart planning not equally showcased and rewarded in the non-OSR version?
Also there is no trade-off: #2 seems to me as immersive and narratively rich than #1, equally more so than "I attack the Ravenbear. 18 to hit. 8 damage"?

Edited October 27, 2023 by Tecmes (see edit history)

[cailano]

@Tecmes, that's a good point, although since the player is rolling far more often, there is more room to get dice screwed. Also, if any of those rules need to be referenced in a 600-page rules tome, that might break the flow of the game.

But, assuming the GM and player both knew and agreed on the rules and the dice were being cooperative, then I say... great! If the player feels immersed even with all that rules jargon getting thrown around, and in his mind, he's still there with his character, facing the ravenbear, then that's awesome.

I've run many different systems, including some very crunchy ones. I like to think I was able to create immersive games in each, although I think the more complex systems have pulled me out of that immersion (usually to look something up) more often than rules-lite systems have.

[Tecmes]

7 hours ago, cailano said:

If the player feels immersed even with all that rules jargon getting thrown around, and in his mind, he's still there with his character, facing the ravenbear, then that's awesome.
I think the more complex systems have pulled me out of that immersion (usually to look something up) more often than rules-lite systems have.

That got me into figuring out what we really mean by "Immersion"! Is it something else that narrative flow?

Hence can we be "immersed" in rules, or just in narration?