File: osr.jpg (277 KB, 598x971)

277 KB JPG

> The OS and OSR

The Old School is the typical approach of very early roleplaying games, such as OD&D or Runequest. It's returning in style lately as Old School Reinassance, with a lot of authors producing games fitting for this

approach, and retroclones like Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Swords & Wizardry.

The OS approach divides the table between players and DM (even if lately there are masterless like Explorers) and is all about having a dungeon and beating it. So, what's this OS/R all about?
1 - the dungeon is a puzzle, an exercise in fictional problem solving
2 - players, not the characters, try to solve it using their personal experience and intellect
3 - characters are mostly just avatars for the players, allowing them to interact with the fictional environment of the dungeon. They can be seen as specialized tools.
4 - thespian interpretation of a role (aka roleplaying) is fun and cool, but it's not the focus: the focus is adventuring in the dungeon and solving it.
5 - the “story” is a welcome byproduct of adventuring, but not the main goal of playing OS/R
6 - dice rolls (combat, skills, etc) are statistically dangerous, a smart player avoids them at all costs by interacting directly with the in-game fiction.

While this might seem very close to the Traditional approach, and many confuse them, they're quite different. For example, here the DM is more a referee than a storyteller, he's fair and doesn't fudge dice, to the

point of keeping punishing results - another incentive for the players to avoid the dice rolls and interact directly with the fiction in a creative and clever way. This also pushes for detailed descriptions of

environments and of the PCs' actions.

Examples: Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), Runequest (1978), Red Box D&D(1983), Labyrinth Lord (2007), Swords & Wizardry (2008), Lamentations of the Flame Princess (2010).

File: sys0.png (7.59 MB, 2021x2784)

7.59 MB PNG

> Traditional approach or System Zero (Sys0)

This is the way most of you play when you play a roleplaying game. Even if it's absolutely the most widespread, it does exist in a shitload of different interpretations, which makes it a somewhat "tribal" way of playing. Every group has a different way of playing the Sys0 where some element are enhanced and others are marginalized. Remember this: every Traditional table has its own personal approach to the Sys0.
Anyway, there are some features that tells you we're using the Traditional approach/Sys0.

For instance, the GM is a central column where all the game rests upon. He isn't just another player at the table, he becomes the ruleset: he's a referee, an antagonist, and a storyteller most of all. He's the one applying the rules or ignoring them when he sees fit, even without telling the rest of the table first (Rule Zero), he's the one prepping the plot and adventures, he's the one managing the world, the enemies and the NPCs, and he's the one calling for dice rolls and generally having the last word on pretty much everything.

A general scheme of how it works, give or take each table personal interpretations:
1 - The GM is the only one describing the world, down to the last simple scenic props. Players have to ask every time they wanna know if there's an item or a person in a given location.
2 - Immersion is key: you need to fuse yourself with your character as much as possible. Knowledge of the player must be separated as much as possible from the character's knowledge and objectives. Metagame is evil and must burn.
3 - What happens after the dice are rolled (or cards are drawn or whatever) are interpreted and described by the GM.

Cont.

File: sys0 - 2.png (18 KB, 432x222)

18 KB PNG

4 - Task Resolution is in place: players can roll to make an action, but not to get a specific result. The GM, again, is the one deciding if you get the documents you're looking for when you successfully roll for cracking the safe.
5 - The GM is the one deciding if an action is an automatic success, is impossible or needs a dice roll.
6 - The GM can change any part of the ruleset at any given time and without telling anyone beforehand (Rule Zero)
7 - The GM can keep a part of the resolution procedure secret (his own rolls, modifiers, difficulty ratings, etc) to be able to freely ignore the dice results and enact whichever outcome he desires. And this is not necessarily "cheating", even if it's never told to anyone beyond the GM Screen.

Here's the place where you'll also find the famous dichotomy between Railroad and Sandbox, both relying on Sys0 but as opposed extremes. You're on the railroad when the GM has a pre-defined story to be unfolded, and all GM choices are for the sake of preserving his story. You're in the sandbox when you go wherever you please and there's no plot: all GM choices are made to embrace as much freedom as possible, and maybe even a little anarchy.
This approach is usually the one most tables use for whatever game they have, even for games which should be played in a (very) different way. Many games which do use this system don't even tell you how to run a roleplaying game, because it is assumed that this one, the one traditionally used, is the expected one. In past times, lacking real alternatives, many games were created with this system in mind due to simple cultural inertia. Nowadays with better awareness there are authors choosing intentionally this approach, like Savage Worlds.

Examples: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition (1989), Cyberpunk 2020 (1990), Vampire the Masquerade (1991), Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 (2000)

File: pbta.jpg (26 KB, 350x350)

26 KB JPG

> Fiction First

This approach can be also called PbtA-like, where the game system follows similar principles (like the Fiction First). They tend to be quite symilar with the Traditional approach games, and in fact the first Apocalypse World was born as a way to regulate and save all those good practices that some Traditional GoodGMs™ used in their games.
Here too there's much diversification in the medium: smaller mechanics can be very different and even narrative authority can change quite a bit, but there are similarities that create this category.

1 - You play to find out what happens. I'm not fucking around here: you don't prep anything even if your life depends on it. You get to the table without prepping shit and the system lets a story freely emerge from the PCs action.
2 - There's a GM/Players division at the table, but the GM is bound to follow some principles, and sometimes depowered by finite resources to oppose the PCs.
3 - Fiction First: based on how players act in the fiction, mechanics are activated to modify the fiction with clear and codified results, or stay inert. So, you don't say "I roll to hit": first off you act in a way that can pierce the target defenses, and then we can activate the appropriate Move to see how it goes. If you don't act in an aggressive way, you won't be attacking and you won't activate the Move.
4 - GM keeps most, not all, of the narrative autorities he had in the Sys0, but he has to stick to strict principles (be a fan of the PCs, Act with honesty, Follow the fiction, etc) which are detailed in each game rules.
5 - Some regulated moments and events let players get more narrative authority to manipulate the fiction "outside" of their classic character boundaries.

Cont.

File: blades.jpg (18 KB, 400x400)

18 KB JPG

Yeah, you can skim the rulesets and think "this is totally Traditional", especially if you're too much of a GoodGM™ to actually read the GM section of the manual, and you'll end up playing a shit game with rules who don't really click. It happens more often than not. That's not the way you play these games tho.
There are huge differences between the Traditional and the Fiction First: players have much more agency over the fiction, and often they're called to worldbuild the setting as they play. The GM stops being the referee of outcomes, you can just trust the game system, and by God he's not the sole defender of the setting and the story anymore. He's another player at the table with the authority and responsability over the world and NPCs: he creates opposition and reacts to PCs actions. The game is not just the GM's anymore: it's all the table's and everyone takes responsibility for it.

Examples: Apocalypse World (2010), Dungeon World (2013), Fate Core & Accelerated (2013), Blades in the Dark (2017).

File: dogs in the vineyard.jpg (169 KB, 1024x514)

169 KB JPG

> Conflict Based Gaming

All of these games descend from mainly two progenitor games: Sorcerer and The Pool.
The category name is about the resolution system, which is indeed Conflict Resolution, which deeply influences the whole approach and becomes the main feature, even if not the only one. This way of playing was born in The Forge in ca 2000, when authors strongly felt the need to not be railroaded anymore by ThatGMs and wanted games where the story is emergent, not prepped beforehand, and generally fix a lot of what they percieved as problems in playing the games. Sorcerer came first, but was still quite primitive. Its fusion with The Pool brought a lot of more advanced and better playable games which make up this category.
The rulesets of these games can vary wildly, but there are common points besides the Conflict Resolution. There's a GM-like figure, but he isn't a referee anymore. He's the bass player in a band: he sets the rythm and the tone, where the players play solos like guitarist virtuosos, and discover/tell their own story by playing the game.

1 - You're playing to explore themes through characters and their choices.
2 - The GM plays the bass, setting the tone and rythm of the game.
3 - Techniques like Bangs and Cross are used to push players into choices significant to the themes and emerging story.
4 - Players use the Conflict Resolution rules (dice, cards, etc again) to achieve an objective, and not just to perform an action (Do I get the documents I am looking for by cracking the safe open?)
5 - Metagame is not only a thing, but a good thing, to be used and exploited as needed.
6 - Collaboration and transparency at the table are very strong, and players can get more narrative authority compared to Traditional (scene framing, narration of dice results, etc.)
7 - The game is broken into scenes, the framing of which is vital to the pacing of a playthrough.

Cont.

File: pta 2ed.jpg (406 KB, 1108x1703)

406 KB JPG

This kind of game completely abandons the "solve the adventure" approach, to instead consider the adventure as an excuse to explore a theme, through player AND character choices. There's a detachment between players and characters which is very evident, and the GM should "say yes to the players and no to the character": the will of the PCs has to find some obstacle to activate the Conflict Resolution mechanics and discover what happens. This approach protects the right of the player to pursue his character agenda, but adds some degree of randomization throuhg mechanics, and thus outcomes unexpected for everyone at the table.

Examples: Trollbabe (2002), Dust Devils (2002), My Life with Master (2003), Primetime Adventures (2004), Dogs in the Vineyard (2004).

File: polaris.png (538 KB, 670x1053)

538 KB PNG

> Structured Masterfull

Similar to the previous category, but all narrative authorities usually given to the GM are broken and shared between all the players in a more or less symmethrical way.
So no, you won't need a GM here.
Most elements keep echoing Conflict Based Gaming: scenes division, conflict resolution, bangs, themes explorations, and the adventure as an excuse for that exploration. The real difference is how the GM authorities are clearly defined and assigned each one to a different player. These newly created roles can change from player to player during the course of the game, but it's always very clear who has to manage NPCs, frame scenes, create opposition, etc. Players do still keep pursuing the agenda of their characters and explore themes, even when invested of these new roles.

1 - We're playing to explore themes through characters and their choices.
2 - GM authorities are broken down and shared, often asimmetrically (thus Masterfull, where Masterless have a more symmetrical distribution) and rotating from player to player. It's always clear who can modify the fiction and how.
3 - Every player fosters his character's agenda
4 - Players use the Conflict Resolution rules (dice, cards, etc again) to achieve an objective, and not just to perform an action (Do I get the documents I am looking for by cracking the safe open?)
5 - The game is broken into scenes, the framing of which is vital to the pacing of a playthrough.
6 - Aggressive framing of scenes is widely used to keep a steady pace.
7 - Play usually lasts for one or few sessions

Examples: Polaris (2005), Contenders (2006), Dirty Secrets (2007), Annalise (2008), Shock: Social Science-Fiction (2010).

File: fiasco.jpg (44 KB, 220x326)

44 KB JPG

> Near-Freeform Masterless

Probably the most common approach among recent masterless games. The "Near" means that this is not really Freeform: there are still rules in place, they're very clear and have a deep impact to the fiction. What the rules do rule, though, is not the fiction per se, but the conversation at the table.
The rules are used as a medium for the table's tastes, to set the pacing and collaboratively explore themes. Since the roles at the table are nearly equivalent, some people commonly see this approach as "circlejerking", but those same people call "circlejerking" whatever isn't Pathfinder, so fuck them. As usual, there's no prepped story: it comes out from everyone's collaboration and contribution.
Scenes are filled with "free play", end when their point is made clear and reached, and dices and cards aren't used as resolution mechanics, but to generate twists in the story and give objective elements to all the players to build on.

1 - We're playing to explore themes through characters and their choices.
2 - Narrative authorities are shared in a very symmetrical way through players, variation between scenes are minimal.
3 - The game flow is never interrupted by resolution mechanics, save from very specific cases.
4 - Ritual phrases or keys are used to manage the fiction between players, manage the pacing and zoom over what's narrated.
5 - Aggressive framing of scenes is widely used to keep a steady pace.
6 - Play usually lasts for one or few sessions

Examples: Fiasco (2009), Montsegur 1244 (2009), Archipelago III (2012), Ribbon Drive (2013).

File: microscope.gif (4 KB, 200x210)

4 KB GIF

> Story Game

This is another word people who only know Pathfinder use to call all things non-Pathfinder. It's obviously not just that.
Here everyone at the table is a narrator, share the same power over the fiction and the declared objective of the game is to tell a story. As Ben Robbins says: "In a storygame the ability of a player to act over the fiction doesn't depend on the character's ability to do those same things inside the fiction". Rules here are all about the players, not the characters, and this leads to interesting elements. Players don't really have their own character, but pool a common cast. Rules deal with the way every player impact on the story: whoever wins the dice roll (if there's dice to roll), gets to tell how the story goes.

1 - You abandon simple character interpretation to embrace the idea to tell a whole story
2 - Every player at the table shares the same narrative authority
3 - Ritual phrases or keys are used to manage the fiction between players, manage the pacing and zoom over what's narrated.
4 - Aggressive framing of scenes is widely used to keep a steady pace.

You're basically an author. The objective is to tell a beautiful story and everything you do is about that. Usually games like these have rules about who can insert what in the narration, and help with the blank page problem with cards or similar instruments.

Examples: Microscope (2011) - Kingdom (2013) - The Quiet Year (2013)

File: virtual hug.gif (17 KB, 354x369)

17 KB GIF

There. Have fun experimenting!

>>73542508
based thread anon. very high quality

File: iron crown of lombardy.jpg (201 KB, 1280x975)

201 KB JPG

>>73542508
>posts this based
>in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty
you dropped this, king

This thread should be required reading before posting on /tg/

>>73542421
>>73542407
>>73542371
>>73542359
>>73542350
>>73542334
>>73542323
>>73542304
>>73542285
>>73542231
All this, and not one good game suggestion.
B+.
Good effort, but needs improvement.

>>73542334
I really cannot shill for Blades in the Dark enough. It's the game I've always wanted to play. If anyone is interested, you should definitely try it out

>>73542223
>false dichotomy called Old School and Traditional
>No mention of Traveller, TFoS, EotPT, Rolemaster, ADR, T&T, Toon, Paranoia, CoC, BFRP, D6, FUDGE, HERO, or a fuckton of other actually good games
>Putting games in obviously wrong categories
suck it, amateur

>>73545175
Blades is great, so is the Sci-Fi hack for it - Scum & Villainy

bump

>>73546048
>False dichotomy
The differences are there to be read. And experienced.

>Here's a list of games I like
Thank you, this never meant to be an all-encompassing list. Feel free to expand it.

>Obviously wrong categories
Either you explain why they are wrong, or you do something like this yourself, then we compare.
Otherwise you're just a seething little griefer.

>>73542231
Not bad, just going to elaborate that Runequest and its derivatives may be old school games, but are not really considered to be part of the OSR, which formed around early TSR-era D&D and is focused on compatibility with that.

Other old school (not OSR) systems of note:
Traveller
Tunnels & Trolls

>>73542223
What's the point of this thread beyond a weak bait and peak summer faggotry?

>>73548666
Teaching to fish AND giving out some fishes.

>>73548505
Thank you for your contribution! Can't edit my posts but this should have gone in there.

>>73545175
It definitely is a great game. My favourite games are the Fiction First ones, I'm having a blast with Apocalypse World right now.

>>73542526
>>73543003

Much love and hugs to you guys

>>73548666
Sorry, the thread should have been, "How would fiction-first gaming fare in 40k?"

>>73552801

I really should have put a big tits anime bikini picture in the OP, I suppose.

File: 1592978355533.png (53 KB, 590x618)

53 KB PNG

>>73542223
Good thread. Could you clarify what your mean by framing and zoom?

>>73553385
> framing
Basically what a generic GM does when he describes where you are and what are you doing. "you're in a crowded inn drinking beer, waiting for Mr. Quest Giver".
Some games, like Primetime Adventures (which actually do simulate TV series), allow the player to set up brief and basic elements of "location" (as in also temporal location) and "what I want to achieve", where the GM puts them together and creates the scene premise, giving you a scene in which to act.
You can actually decide you're not in the inn, and already be on the hunt for the goblins in the forest, for instance.

>zoom
It's a way of saying "Let's keep this element in front of the camera, I want to know more about it". The scene then revolves around that thing (concept, item, character, etc) you're zooming in to, until it's time to move on.

File: 1117-x-mas-day-6-glob-her(...).jpg (1.15 MB, 1024x1360)

1.15 MB JPG

>>73553764
Ok. So with non-sys0 systems, actions happen and then mechanics determine how successfully? For example, a player doesn't say I search for the documents (then make a roll, play cards, etc), they say "I open the safe and find the documents." What do the mechanics do in this situation?

File: 1573946710352.jpg (280 KB, 649x821)

280 KB JPG

Somebody screengrab this thread and put it on sup/tg/ in a few hours (don't put it up now though this thread only has 30 replies. Don't waste sup/tg/s bandwith like that). This is some very high quality shit OP and you're a fucking god

>>73542223
>GURPS!
When the fuck did GURPS become a mainstream?
Am I in bizarro world?

What games combine osr and sys0

>>73554069
Which bits of both are you looking for in a game? Both are pretty wide, which means crossover between the two can be very different things.

>>73553966
It became a meme in response to "Have you tried not playing D&D" threads

>>73553966

>When the fuck did GURPS become a mainstream?
Well it's not selling like D&D or WoD, but it's not that unknown either.
I'm betting more people use GURPS than they use The Pool, for instance.

>>73554151
I guess I want mostly what osr has to offer with points 1 & 2 from sys0. Don't mind the dungeon crawling, but would also like to include political intrigue and some roleplay based encounters in my games. I suppose a lot of this would be up to me as a GM, but I also have yet to try running an OSR game on its own so idk how everything would mesh together.

>>73553878
> with non-sys0 systems
It really really really depends on which game are we talking about. Resolution mechanics can be categorized, but still vary, and may vary wildly even.

What do the mechanics do in this situation?
I don't know if I got what you mean here, but I'll try answering anyway.
In most non sys0 games I played you can't just say "I open the safe and find the documents", because there's no conflict involved there: you're here to find the safe with the correct documents and you just declare you did both, no mechanics involved.
So either the conflict is somewhere else, or we're talking about a story game where you find safe and documents but maybe the juice of the scene is the final confrontation.
If there's a conflict, it can be over whether those are the correct documents or not. Your stake then is "I find the correct documents in the safe". We roll and you win your stakes: those are the documents you're looking for. There are also games where narration rights can be awarded separately from the stakes: so maybe a third player narrates that yes, those are the correct documents (you won the stakes after all), but you also find some dirt on your family in those documents.

>The plot thickens! What do you do?

>>73554476
So something with a lot of room for RP but nothing so restrictive that it forces the player in a direction, that requires a level of tactical thinking or threat avoidance, but still a lot of traditional GMing and structure?

>>73554476
I suppose that if all you want from OS/R is a dungeon, your best bet is doing it with sys0 and have your players go in the dungeon, and then design roleplay based encounters and intrigues for when they get out of the dungeon.

My real advice though is play an OS/R game strictly following the OS/R approach, because you can't really get the difference there if you don't start playing differently from sys0.
I would try also Fiction First games if I were you though, unless you really want to keep all the GM powers and mantain a strict control over everything, story and plot included.

>>73554629
Yeah pretty much

>>73553909
/tg/ gave me a lot in the years, I am happy if I can help and give something back.

>>73554711
I've primarily ran sys0 games so I'm used to having control over the general plot direction, except for when my players do something I didn't account for in which case good for them. I just got tired running the same garbage over and over again and really want to go into something different

>>73554723
You might want to check out Shadow of the Demon Lord then, it checks all the boxes as far as I can see. It's horror fantasy by default but the style and tone of all of that is on you, it's got a few spells and stuff you might think is gross but it's all optional and it doesn't force a specific tone of narrative on you. It's really streamlined, it's got great balance, a load of options, some rules light but expressive RP stuff, and all of it's core mechanical choices are tied into narrative in some fashion. It's not an OSR game but it does have some of the same sorts of philosophies, especially for the bits you want.

I can talk about the game at length but would rather not spam this thread, but there is a general for it here >>73431965 happy to answer any and all questions over there, and the OP has a link to the trove if you want to check it out. I think it might be a good fit for you.

>>73554803

What about Fiction First?
You won't have control over the plot. There is no plot: plot does really emerge from the PCs action, in a setting you collectively create - wich will be already full of tension and relationships very fit for intrigues thanks to the questions you ask them and their answers to your questions, so if your players enjoy having plans and execute them they'll love it.
You'll have control over world and NPCs, and detailed moments and spaces where you can act on the world as the GM (they'll be many, no worries).

I'm playing Apocalypse World and we're having A LOT of intrigues in a post-apoc city, with also no lack of bullets and violence (last session two gangs of high ranked citizens had an open field battle and one was slaughtered, it started from the spontaneous actions and plans of the girl in our group).
I didn't plan anything of what happened so far. I am just amazed like my players at what's coming out of our interaction. And everything is fitting in smoothly even if I forfeited creative control.

>>73554918
I've checked out PbtA games before but never seriously but it does sound interesting. I could probably give it a go and see where it takes me

>>73554979
One problem with PbtA OP forgets to mention - it pretends to not be traditional role-playing game. But it is. Completely basic, traditional, straightfroward if quite decent game.
It just encourages baseline thought about your character and a very fundamental level of collaborative storytelling.
It's good that it does that, but I wish people would stop treating it as revolutionary.

>>73555283
Try re-reading some of the GM sections again. As a player, PbtA can *seem* traditional, but if the GM is running the game like that then they are not playing the game to it's strengths.

>>73543095
>here are some tools to help you understand the types of games you may prefer
>>is one of those tools a spoon for you to feed me with

>>73555513
I think the problem here is you underestimate just how much collaboration there was already in role-playing games.

>>73555926
>topic is game design and philosophical approach to gameplay
>my table plays it differently than the rules lay out, so none of this applies to me

>>73555283
The main difference between PbtA and the rest of Fiction First with Traditional is the role of the GM. Which is quite evident, since the Trad approach is completely based on the GM.
Anyway, it comes up extremely soon in a PbtA game, and I think it's the kind of "hard" difference where you immediately notice what approach is being used.

In a PbtA you have no defined setting. The setting is made contextually with the PCs, where the GM asks a lot of questions about your character and the environment and whatnot. I personally played a DW game where the GM showed up with a setting of his own, and asked no questions. It was awful, and the whole bunch of mechanics of DW constantly brawled with his setting and his approach, which was a Trad one. On the other hand, I had players that were clinging on the notion of metagame = bad and immersion = king, which were literally harassed by how often I asked them about their PCs car, what they saw looking out of their window, where did they find stuff to eat and why they thought going to that specific mechanic was a bad idea. They answered, but evidently thought answering those questions was my job as a GM, that I should have given them those information. Because they couldn'nt snap out of the Trad mindset.

In fact, I feel that the GM in PbtA has a much less frontman role than in the Trad approach. Starting from not needing to prep anything, going on as not being the guardian of the story, plot, setting, and game balance. And it's an immediate thing to notice

All of this, how to play it properly, is clearly explained in the Master of Ceremonies section in the rulebook, and it's presented as hard rules, not "guidelines", or "hints", or "tips". In the Trad approach, it's the GM's game and he does what he wants with the rulebook: Rule Zero.
So all the manual can offer are guidelines, hints, and tips, and keep in mind you can ignore all of it because of Rule Zero.

Might be all a theoretical POV, but the changes are heavy

>>73556376
>Because they couldn'nt snap out of the Trad mindset
More than likely it was because you are a bad GM.
Even if your playing PbtA, it's your job to provide a framework to hang ideas on. Even players that are very enthusiastic about PbtA and other traditional forms of collaboration resent it if you leave them hanging with not a clue about what would make sense.

>>73557506
My job is to ask questions and explain how the rules work. It doesn't require a Game Master Academy bullshit for Good Game Masters like the Trad approach shills. I did, and those are exactly 2 players out of 12 (I had 3 groups of 4 people), so I think I'm doing my job right, since everyone else is enthusiastic. But thank you for the cute jab, it was lovely.

>>73542231
Oh huh, I thought the idea of the OSR approach was more about the simplicity than the gameification, which is what I wanted to do with it. So I'm assuming I'd be better off with more a traditional based system?

>>73557768
It really depends on what you want to get out of it.
Do you want to keep control of all aspects of the game, but want lighter rules than - say - Pathfinder? Cypher System can be good for you. It's still Sys0.
Do you want to challenge your players intellect and problem solving abilities? And do you want the game not to be that grounded in the char sheet but more into creative solutions? OS/R might be good for you.

Simplicity can be found even in Conflict Based Games, The Pool itself is like 8 pages total, cover included. It depends on what you're thinking about when you say "simplicity".

>>73557871
Would you say one is more prone to shorter games than the other? Cause I like the sound of short form games, though idk how well they'll work in practice (cause I've only really been running one long form game)

>>73558037
Fiasco is very good for one-shots. Ten candles is also very good. PbtA really shine after the 6th session so I'd say no. Dungeon crawls can be summed up in just one session, be them OS/R or Sys0. The Quiet Year or The Skeletons can be done in one session as well.
Again, being a one-shot or a longer game is not really a good filter: sorry if I am repeating myself but it depends on what you want out of it.

>>73542231
>tfw I saw this post's image out of the corner of my eye and assumed it was a basedjak

File: criminalfrog.jpg (55 KB, 1280x720)

55 KB JPG

>>73557735
>shills
Projecting.

>>73556376
>>73557735
You have some fucking weird ideas about role-playing games

>>73542223

Interessante traduzione dall'italiano. Dovresti dirlo però che hai copiato Maiorani.

>>73558563
Chi è? Un mio amico mi ha girato un PDF senza autore e l'ho tradotto. Se mi dai il nome completo lo cito, per quello che può valere qui. E magari approfondisco pure io

>>73558655

Quello dei giochi del Nuraghe.

>>73542231
>>73542285
>>73542304
>>73542323
>>73542334
>>73542350
>>73542359
>>73542371
>>73542407
>>73542421

Translated by me, original author is Maiorani from Games of Nuraghe.
I'll keep answering any questions related to the contents to this work if needed, as I did so far.

>>73555283

Can't remember a single phrase about "being something different" in the book. Citation is severely needed.

>>73558736
It's a fact that they are a different game from Sys0, you don't need to advertise it as such. You just need to play both to be aware of it even if you have half a brain.
To be honest they never even tried to masquerade as something similar, so I don't know how one could think they are, or think they pretended they were.

>>73558540
lol k

>>73558504
> implying it's not true that everybody who runs that kind of games is on a neverending quest to show his nerdy social circle he's the most expert and best GM ever, and has a gigantic ego.

File: shove your dick in me.png (137 KB, 297x481)

137 KB PNG

>>73542231

>>73561161


this thing kinda looks like a soijak

>>73561161
>>73561460

Its an obstacle in Tomb of Horrors, but you gave me a heartly laugh. Thanks anon!

>>73557768
ICRPG is my jam. Ode with some of the newer ideas. Real easy to run.

Bump

I liked reading through this. It is definetly written through the lense of an elitist so I took it all with a pinch of salt.

>>73561743
Hankerin from drunkens and dragins isa boss

File: chansyception.jpg (2 KB, 125x125)

2 KB JPG

>>73554597
I guess I'm still having trouble seeing what makes the difference then. Is it just that there's less narrative control in one person's hands? That sounds like it could be fun, but even playing with friends and not randos would get exhausting considering people trying to steer the flavor in their favor.

So this thread is literally just shilling the rants of a literal nobody

>>73565788
Can you please make me a very concrete example of what you mean? Even better if it is an actual description of what happened in one of your games.
Talking in baseless theory only breeds misunderstanding.

>>73546120
I've played and thoroughly enjoyed Blades, and scum and Villainy is definitely on my to play-list.

>>73566134
Shilling what, exactly? I assume you're not referring to >>73558724 as that would be pretty dumb, so I'm not sure what's supposedly being shilled here.

> rants of a literal nobody
You mean opinion of an anon? What do you think an anonymous board like this is for, exactly? Literal nobodies discussing things is what the site is for.

>>73563671
> elitist
If it's short for "played a lot of different games". Not really berating one game or another here. I am glad you enjoyed the reading though

>>73566134
Yeah I think like half the posts are OP.

>>73542334
Interesting, this is basically what the NatRP system is.
(A type of /qst/.)

>>73542508
Thanks.

>>73542223
But why try and of these when D&D can do it all?

File: 1426387836251.jpg (51 KB, 247x440)

51 KB JPG

>>73542334
> players have much more agency over the fiction, and often they're called to worldbuild the setting as they play
As has been done since the 80s.
>you can just trust the game system
As has been done in plenty of systems, from narrative to play-focused
>He's another player at the table with the authority and responsability over the world and NPCs: he creates opposition and reacts to PCs actions
Literally what the role of the GM is in basic roleplaying games.
You're trying to invent radical differences in places where only minuscule evolution exists in order to feel special.

>>73568031
> they're called to worldbuild the setting as they play
> As has been done since the 80s
Depends on your GM. Otherwise, post screencaps of the ruleset where we all can read it.

> trust the game system
> As has been done in plenty of systems, from narrative to play-focused
If there's a rule in the system telling the GM can ignore whatever he wants of the manual, then you are trusting the GM, not the system.

> Literally what the role of the GM is in basic roleplaying games.
He's not prepping the adventure, not prepping the setting, not deciding beforehand any plot, and more. I could go on but it's already written in his own paragraph.
Either you are not reading it, and then I advise you to read it, or you're ignoring it on purpose. And most of all I can tell you never played them properly by the attitude you come and reply with.

I wonder if somehow the existence of different games beside sys0 rub people in a wrong way.

>>73542223
Thanks, this is an amazing summary

>>73568295
Only bad GMs prep plot.

>>73568353
In the Sys0 everything depends on the GM, so if you play Sys0 the chance of having a bad GM is a risk you have to take.

>>73558724
Could you link to where these thoughts are originally posted please? I would like to see them a bit more in the original context/original format.

>>73567941
Because, while DnD actually is a pretty serviceable games and fun can be had with it, it's not really the best game for much anything.

>>73568518
I got it linked as a pdf from a friend, in Italian, which I translated at the best of my abilities (and added very small contributions). I have yet to reach the source myself.

File: commission___lantea_sword(...).jpg (77 KB, 900x920)

77 KB JPG

>>73542223
>>73558724
Excellent thread. I'm almost convinced to go non Sys0, man. It's a big leap... The mandatory faggotry of OPs aside, you deserved quads. Good job, fampai. Conjugating Romance languages sucks, thanks for putting in the effort for everybody.

Give this man some (safe) tits, faggots. Hey look at pic related, she's measuring OP's cock. What a friendly treefucker.

File: 1504298102673.png (88 KB, 301x289)

88 KB PNG

>>73569102
Thanks for all the good thoughts friend. I appreciate each one of them very much.

About going non-Sys0, well, you can try anything you want and only get enriched by it, and if you don't like it you can always go back.
My only advice is to try following the rules as litterally as you can. For your best case scenario, play it with someone who alredy played it correctly. Best of all friend!

weird people mad in this thread for no discernible reason. why would you be mad that games like PBTA have a different relationship between DM and players? it’s like the selling point of those games.

>>73548440
>The differences are there to be read
The differences are false and stupid.
>Here's a list of games I like
that is not what OP wrote - OP wrote 'examples'.
The examples are truncated, niche, many of low quality, and often don't match the (bullshit) categories
And what part of "obviously" escapes you--?
Oh. Right.
You're OP, so you're retarded.

Trying to separat OS/OSR from the actual Old School is fucktarded and your explanation is just dim.
The dungeon is not a puzzle; it is the territory of play. Dungeons can be extremely straightforward.
The idea that in the OSR people don't play as PCs and only metagame is frankly ludicrous and claiming that in Old School this was the norm with PCs as "avatars" is a betrayal of a total ignroance of the old school.
And trying to separate OD&D/Runequest/Basic from AD&D2e/etc. as if there was any discontinuity is play/playstyle is equally fucktarded. Trying to claim that the people who played brownbox 'only had PCs as avatars' but a few months later switched to 'total immersion' sounds like something a 22 year old dreamed up from reading blogs, not even vlose to what the play was like at the time nor how experienced players write about it.
That's more than enough. Any grognard reading this is laughing at yhis stupidity as hard as I am (and I'm laughing pretty hard).
And you are completely missing references to any decent game other than early D&D nor the massive variety of play and playstyles present from week two in the '70's.
tl;dr - your unsupported hilarious opinions are unsupported and hilarious no matter how much you puff out your chest

File: nate.jpg (125 KB, 689x652)

125 KB JPG

>>73556376
Players sit down.
Player One
>"What's the adventure?"
GM
>"tell me about your backstory"
[20 minutes of the GM asking questions about backstory he could have read from the emails passes
Player two
>"So what is the adventure?"
GM
>"What would you like it to be?"
Player Three
>"...uhhh, we go to stop a bank robbery?"
GM
>"Cool, bro, cool. OK, how do you get there?"
Player One
>"...in a car?"
GM
>"Tell me about your car, man"
[20 minutes of the GM asking questions about the imaginary car later
Player Two
>"So how far away is the bank?"
GM
>"Tell me what your characters see out the window as they drive in your sweet, sweet car, maaaaan."
[20 minutes of the GM demanding more and more details about what they see]
GM
>"well, we're out of time. Next time you can tell me how the bank robbery went."
[players don't come back the next weekend
GM
>"Fucking trad players, man. They, like, don't get it."

>>73570519
honestly, butthurt-kun, you demonstrated pretty well that you don’t really get how PbtA is designed...
>T. not OP

>>73546048
>>false dichotomy called Old School and Traditional
This bothered me too. Its not as if any of the points raised for either approach are exclusive, either. In practice its never been this way so I wonder why OP felt the need to do this? Run Tomb of Horrors for your traditional approach game for example, and tell me how that plays out.

File: commission__ogre_monster_(...).jpg (168 KB, 1024x1449)

168 KB JPG

>>73569709
You're welcome, fren. That's good advice, thanks. I'll keep thinking it over. The current malaise is probably a good time to try something new.

It looks like several of the bitching anons are trying to equate you with the author, at certain points. No one said you have to take the hits or defend the author on every little position stated. If they were real grognards, they'd have realized that first.

So don't worry about it, senpai. Have a hot ogre girl. There's nothing like a woman who's willing to solve a complex debate with vaginal attacks.

I know half of /tg/ is still hung over, but here's to hoping this good thread stays up. I suspect that even the salty neckbeards recognize the value of this thread, despite their bitching.

>>73542508
Quality post, quality person

>>73570422
>and I'm laughing pretty hard
I can just imagine you guffawing, tears runming down your face, slapping your leg with tears running down your face. Positively shrieking, grampa.

>>73554069
You should go with OSR, you can add some sys0 if you want too but the OSR base is stronger.
Grab something like Lamentation of the Flame Princess and 1 or 2 module like Death Frost Doom, Broodmother Skyfortress or Deep Carbon Observatory and your set.
Go to the /OSR/ thread, last time I checked everyone was very welcoming to new players.

>>73573016
You, sir, are a comet of goodness and of sexy light in a sky full of dark shit.

You should be passing through here more often, to remind us of the good things among all the bitching.

Much, much love.

File: ROLE PLAYING GAME SELECTI(...).gif (190 KB, 1627x1052)

190 KB GIF

>>73542223
What it your opinion on this?

>>73542223
>It's 2020
Eh. I find there is less variety now a days since 5e's big hit. There was more interesting stuff floating around when during 3.5's death thrones and through 4e's floundering. Really wish the brand died off there, oh well.

>>73577217
It needs an update... and some corrections.

>>73577303

I like that it has so many old systems and editions, but yes it could use some modern stuff too.

I agree.

>>73574437
Close enough

>>73570583
What did he write that differs from the post he's responding to?

>>73573016
>>73575382
samefagging is cringe

>>73570422
Not OP, I agree with your post. However, a good chunk of the modern OSR movement promotes these values, the ones written by OP, and ignore other playstyles or even how the original games actually play. If anything, separating OSR from actual Old School is the right choice here.

>>73570422
> your differences are peepeepoopoo
k.

> Here's a list of games I like
> that is not what OP wrote

OP didn't write a list, you wrote it. Because among those examples, you felt your favourite games werent' included. It's ok, I can't edit posts, but I did thank you for the list. Even if you keep making a point about how short the examples were, like a dense cunt.

> dungeons can be extremely straightforward
You couldn't really read "puzzle" as a metaphor for "challenge to overcome" right? You really needed someone to speak it out loud for you. Dungeons can be two rooms and a corridor, of fucking course, but you can't leave out the challenge aspect, which in that case won't come from the complexity of the dungeon. It isn't so hard, is it?

>all the rest I can't bother to multiquote

You're that kind of person that takes everything literally, and probably think that after 476 AD Classical Age people immediately started to cake themselves in shit and mud and unlearned to read, because that year the Middle Age started, according to history books.
Learn this, boomer: every periodization is a model, it's simplifying reality, but it does take from reality. Categories are clean cut to let you understand stuff which in reality is messy and confused.
OS/R and Traditional approach are different things, otherwise Tunnels and Trolls and Vampire the Masquerade would return the same experience. Are you sure you want to go that way?

>>73577787
The fact that PbtA games don't play out like he wants to parodize because he makes him feel clever.

>>73577217
I don't think that categorizing by what genre you want to simulate is a good way to give a broader picture of the RPG offer. Many RPGs don't even want to simulate a genre, after all.
It may be for sys0 games - save for Burning Wheel, which is not one of those - but not for other kinds of approach.
Nonetheless, it is be fun if I want to see which kind of Trad game deals with which genre, but as other said, it needs an update and some corrections here and there. I'll save it.

>>73567941
It's not D&D which can do it all. Your GM can, with Rule Zero.
That's called Freeform: he decides everything and gives you the setting and adventure you want.

>>73577217
Someone with autism had too much free time at his hands