this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
4545 readers
5 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
- No AI-generated content. Discussion of AI generation pertaining to RPGs is explicitly allowed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks, this is a very thorough answer.
I was a bit skeptic of the character building aspect as well. SD looks a lot simpler and barebones even compared to DnD, which is already peetty barebones if you don't pick a caster. My players really enjoy building a specific character and most of us homebrew their own class/subclass (with the master's consensus). Hopefully they'll be able to embrace the more freeform playstyle of SD.
Your point about different OSR tables having different gameplay is interesting. I was under the impression that the dungeon was the entire point of OSR. At least at first glance, Shadowdark doesn't look like a game where the social/investigation aspect has time to shine - there is no skill system, and the spellcasting rules seem balanced around the assumption that you're dungeon crawling... That's probably me being a bit too tied to the familiarity of DnD though. I'll look up some gameplay videos and see how other people who are more skilled than me do it.
Thanks a lot for the tips!
One of the commonly touted tenets of OSR play is "diegetic progression"; most character progression is in the world, not on the character sheet. This is why you see a lot weird magic items in OSR resources, stuff that gives particular abilities that encourage creative uses rather than just a + to stats. This type of progression also includes relationships with NPCs and factions that players can call on for assistance. Players don't need to be able to defeat the Ogre in combat if the local chieftain owes them a big favour for rescuing his daughter and will send a squad of his best soldiers to fight it for you/chase it off.
Not having skills on the character sheet is one of the core ideas of OSR play, the idea that players should be coming up with creative solutions in the game and not just relying on the pass or fail of a dice roll to solve problems. Hand in hand with this is, as the above commenter mentions, "rulings over rules" which emphasizes the GM making decisions about how player actions play out in the world rather than looking for mechanics in a rulebook. This encourages stuff like creative tactics in combat, e.g. a player tips over a bookshelf onto the group of goblins; the GM decides the goblins next to it have a 50% chance of dodging out of the way or getting knocked down, or players have advantage against them on their attacks next round as the goblins dive out of the way, etc. There's no rules for this, so the sky is the limit for players to try out cool ideas. Players stop looking at their character sheets and rulebooks when presented with a problem in the game, they engage harder with the game, usually asking questions about details of the situation to see if there is anything they can use to their advantage. For groups that embrace this style of play it is much more immersive than playing a game where your options are dictated by game mechanics rather than the game world.
The most important idea in this, imo, is that a lot of stuff shouldn't even be rolled for; if its reasonable that a player could do it, then it just succeeds. If the players come up with a good idea, just have it work for them unless they are under stress (e.g. hurrying to pick a lock while a boulder rolls down the hallway at them) or there is some adversarial element where an opponent's skill could counteract the player's, e.g. seeing through a player's disguise, avoiding 2 players trying to wrap them in a rope, etc. This really incentivizes the players to think creatively, when their good ideas are rewarded without being at the fickle whims of the dice.
It's kind of funny but I really like how Fate is open ended, but absolutely hate it in OSR games. I think because OSR games often feel unilateral and top down from the GM, and I don't enjoy that. Reminds me of teenage games where the DM would be like "you're crippled now because the orc hit your leg" just because they said so, and your only options are deal with it or quit.
I also never play in the "I am my character!" mode. I'm more of the writer's room style where we're writing a story together, so it doesn't take me out of the scene to be like "what if my succeed-at-a-cost roll means I get the window open, but wake up every dog in the house?".
I mean, terrible GMs will be terrible no matter what system they are running.
You are talking about a completely different style of game.
True, but I think osr games encourage unilateral GMing, which encourages terrible behavior.
I think that's an ignorant take. "Unilateral" GMing is completely necessary to the style of play and opens up player creativity and engagement in the ways I discussed in other comments. Do you really think the OSR would be thriving if it actively encouraged terrible behaviour? It seems like you play with young or immature groups, if you think this is a pervasive problem in the scene.
Players in OSR games want simulation, not collaborative story telling. They want to test themselves against an organic, immersive world where their actions have consequences, good or bad. You cannot get that experience from collaborative storytelling games, and games with a lot of fixed rules can't cover all of the possibilities of a complex world. This is the core appeal of OSR play and changing it removes the reason most people play it.
I don't think a unilateral GM and the mother-may-I it implies are the only way to get player creativity and engagement.
Maybe?
Imagine a scene where the players are trying to jump from one roof top to another to escape pursuit. It's a pretty long jump, and there aren't explicit rules in this game for jumping distances. The GM says to roll the dice. On a good roll, they'll make it. The dice come up Bad.
In one mode of play, the GM unilaterally decides what happens. Maybe you fall and get hurt. Maybe you land in a pile of trash. It's all on them, and you have to accept it to keep playing. The actions have consequences.
In the mode I prefer, the player has more of a say. Maybe they suggest they succeed at a cost. They can offer "What if I make it across, but lose my backpack?" and the group can accept it, or say that's not an appropriate cost. They can also fail, and offer up ideas for what that looks like. The group achieves consensus, and the story moves on. The actions have consequences here, too.
That first mode, where the GM just dictates what happens and you take it? I hate it. I want either clear rules we agreed to before-hand, or a seat at the table for deciding ambiguous outcomes.
We don't have to play together. Many people want to immerse in their character and any sort of meta-game mechanics (like succeed-at-a-cost) ruin it for them. Some people love metal and some people love jazz. Neither's better than the other.
I probably shouldn't have posted in an OSR thread knowing I dislike the genre.
You really sound like you don't trust the GMs you play with. If that's the case, why are you playing with them.
Yes.
I didn't like the last few GMs decisions and calls, so I don't play with them anymore.
Dungeon delving is probably the default mode of play, and best supported by the rules, but that does not mean it has to be at the center of every session. characters still have a charisma score for social checks, they still have backgrounds that can give them advantages in a given situation, if the dm grants them, it's just more free form and less guided.
for example one of my players rolled up a thief with pretty high charisma with the "noble" background, we decided that he belonged to a lower house before adventure called and he fell into disgrace, nothing major but with enough renown that his sigil ring would be recognized in parts of the world which gave them an in with an opportunistic mayor hoping for a favour. roles where mostly used if i was not sure how the mayor would react to offers of vague promises in exchange for information or making sure the city guards would not be patrolling the harbour during the night so they had a chance to inspect the shipment of a merchant they believed to be a supporter of an evil cult.
stuff like that does not need much support from the rules, just something to resolve questions the dm does not know the answere to and people being able to improvise a bit. neither of us knew much about that low noble house, i don't even think the sigil ring was my idea, but they are now a thing. they are magical and hurt everyone trying to wear them who does not belong to the house and my players house apparently controls some fruitful tracts of lands and is known for a very sturdy horse breed.