A Key Concept That You Need to Run OSR Games!

The wisdom comes from the beard.

Interaction with the game world and skill checks are the main things I've been confused about since starting my recent exploration of OSR. I'm so used to rolling skill checks for literally everything in 5e that seeing little to no rules describing basic character to world interaction threw me a bit. After this video, I think I'm starting to get it. The way I interpret it, OSR games and old-school D&D function a little bit like text adventure games. The scene is set, and the player describes what they do. For example: DM: "You enter a room that appears to be an alchemist's workshop. There is a table with many papers strewn across it, and a mug haphazardly left on top of a small scribbled map." Player: "I pick up the mug." DM: "The mug is empty, but leaves a large circular stain on the map." Player: "I look at the map." DM: "As you look, you realize that the map's layout looks vaguely like the room you're in. The stain seems to surround a rectangle in the same area as a nearby bookshelf, and the words "4 down, 3 right" are written inside the circle. What do you do?" Player: "I pull the third book on the fourth shelf." DM: "You hear the sound of metallic cranking as the bookcase slides to the side, revealing a secret passageway." No real focus on perception or investigation checks. Just basic logic and problem solving. Does that about sum up how this works in OSR?

Here’s a thought. “Open System”, as explained in Kuntz’s book, means that the referee can amend the rules at will, even while playing the game. I think the original brown box booklets even discussed the concept in the Introduction. Pretty cool!

I went through the pains of figuring this out for myself about a year ago! My first attempt at running an OSR game was Mork Borg and I called so SO MANY ability checks. I was running it like a 3e or 5e game (which I had more experience with). I could tell it had fallen flat and I eventually figure out that it's so important to run games in a way that embraces their style. For me, this requires actively checking myself for old-habits and stopping to think "oh wait, how would this kind of game handle that" before blurting out the first thing that pops into my head.

I'm a new DM, I've held two sessions with my friends so far, and this really helped me understand how keeping the interaction with the story more natural than mechanical (as with the overuse of dice rolls) can be much more engaging. While you were explaining the trap door scenario, I imagined myself describing the room to the players and emphasizing creeking boards on the floor when they walk through, to try and draw attention to the thing they're supposed to find instead of using a check to see if they find it.

Great video. I really liked Rob's book. I hope he finishes the longer one he's working on. And his thesis about open vs. closed systems nails it on the head. You've managed to articulated it perfectly. I think the main thing new DMs coming from a more modern system struggle with is realizing they don't need mechanics for a lot of the game. Life or death stuff (combat, saving throws) or supernatural things (magic), sure. But you don't need bargaining/haggling mechanics. You can just role-play out the interaction. Maybe use a DM-rolled 2d6 reaction check. You don't need stealth/hide mechanics for a character hiding behind a large crate that fully obscures their body as the guards pass by. If the guards have dogs? Maybe use a DM-rolled d6 surprise check to see if the dogs pick up the scent. The secret is letting the game happen and not letting the dice become an obstacle to the game. As a DM, I telegraph traps. I give clues to the ranger who looks for them. I want to give the players enough information to make an informed decision or figure out their own solution. I hear people say sometimes, "Players like rolling dice." I get that, but I find by setting DCs and skill checks for everything, you risk stopping the game due to failed dice rolls. For me, that makes rolling dice for combat, saves, etc. more exciting.

Well said! Thinking about the idea of the open vs closed systems in a game really helped me put my finger on what I like about OSR games over modern editions. I’m excited to discuss the idea with my group. Thanks for the video!

One of the most important points you made Travis, IMHO, is that the ability to adjudicate a player's actions depends a lot on your life experiences and your exposure to storytelling in the genre of your chosen game. When I started GMing at age 14, I knew very little about life even though I'd read fantasy stories (especially Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar S&S novels). We played the way kids play -- a lot of imitating what we found in published modules, etc. I craved guidance from rules because I wasn't confident enough in my life's experiences. As I got older, I gained confidence and my games reflected that. But something happened starting with 3rd edition D&D -- my friends and I got excited by the unity of the new rules (consistency in damage types, a simplified saving throw system, specific combat mechanisms, etc.). My players also loved the "crunchy" stuff and all the theorycrafting that went with it. In hindsight I saw we were highly influenced (without fully realizing it) by design and mechanisms found in collectible card games, board games, video games, and MMOs. By the time I finished running 8 years of D&D4e, I knew something fundamental had been lost and you've nailed it. I noticed my players had stopped using their imaginations -- they stopped playing their characters and instead were playing their *character sheets*. I was doing the same as DM. Even with decades of experience we were doing this. Some of us really loved having a distinct set of abilities and actions with strictly defined rules and outcomes we could apply to in-game situations. After a while, though, I noticed I couldn't remember any interesting stories from our games. Everything was playing out like a board game. Nothing memorable was happening -- just endless sessions of players (or me as DM) trying to decide which ability on a character/monster sheet to use to get through an encounter. I loved playing with my friends, don't get me wrong, but I ended up feeling like I was just a computer to my players -- something that would react the way a computer game reacts when you do one of the limited things a computer game allows you to do. I have been using the past 7 years of running D&D 5e "return to my roots" so to speak. It started when I read the rules of the Dungeonworld RPG and had a "light-bulb" moment: the game rules serve the fiction of the game (the game doesn't exist to serve the rules). I don't hate rule sets like 3e or 4e but now any game I run, I remind myself that the playstyle I enjoy (and the only kind I want to GM) is one where players feel free to try anything (and hopefully do) and only refer to the rules (or their character sheets) occasionally rather than constantly. The only way this works for me is to ask my players to describe their actions, not their rules choice. If they say something like "I want to roll a perception check to search the room" I politely but firmly ask them to just describe what their character is doing and why. Then, just as you explained in the video, I think about what they said and then decide whether a die roll is needed. It may sound draconian, but it is literally the single most useful tool I have to keep the game from sliding back into a computer-game style of RPG.

Ah, yes, the good, old dychotomy between "If it's not on the book you can't do it" and "If it's not on the book, but it makes sense, we'll find a way to do it" xD

This video and the books in the box on your bookshelf just earned you a subscriber. Glad I found you.

What you are saying is pretty much spot on. New games try to codify everything and older games didn't bother. I personally think its easier to run older games because you don't have to reference rule books for everything.

Thank you very much, Sir! This was extremely helpful to understanding that "mindset" for OSR games that I've always been curious to learn.

This video helps explain a lot as I started with the white box set and AD&D but until recently did not play for about 40 years.

The moment I saw this man I felt he was trustworthy, like in case I was stuck in a tough situation and I looked to the east, at the first light of the fifth day, he'd be riding down a hill, bringing help.

Great analogy with the cup of tea! Perfect explanation of how to run an OSR, so refreshing.

Excellent video and I'm happy to have found your channel.

Player1: How deep is the well? DM: You can't see the bottom. Player 1: I drop a big rock in it, to get an idea of how deep it is. DM: Make an investigation check. Player 1: What? Um... alright. [ 7 ] DM: You can't tell. Could be 100 feet; could be 5 feet. You're completely clueless. 5e PLAYERS & DMs CANNOT UNDERSTAND JUST HOW WRONG THIS IS!

Great video, I have seen people touching on this but not quite articulating it when discussing world building. It’s why tropes are so important so the DM can present small chunks of information and the players can internally imagine it. It applies to 5e as you say, but modern players often try to emulate shows and play act the action. That is great but they miss or are not aware that they are also actively engaged in the open game as well.

I like this video a lot and i learned some good stuff here. Thank you for sharing some old school knowledge

This is literally what I needed to hear. I was struggling trying to figure out how to run an old school version of D&D like they ran it back in the 70s. Hearing they had rules for combat because they knew how other games ran combat made so much sense to me. Everything else they were just making up on the fly. Your explanation on how they made it up and how I can too was eye opening. Thanks for the vid! S tier beard!