Welcome to this week’s blog club. This week we are looking at “Quick Primer for Old School Gaming” from 2008 by Matt Finch.
Next week we’ll discuss “Gygaxian Naturalism” from 2008 by James Maliszewski (Grognardia). You can see a list of previous blog club posts here.
This was one of the first things I read when I found out about the OSR. I haven’t had a chance to read it again for blog club yet (busy week!); I’ll post again with my thoughts when I have.
It’s hard to even talk about this one. So very influential. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it - but I also can’t say my disagreements are anything beyond personal preference.
The main thing about it is I think the quick primer is that it has a good tone and the descriptions of its principles are sound, far sounder then the maxims that many of them have been reduced to in the years since it was written.
This is a reminder I still haven’t read Swords & Wizardry.
I agree with a lot of what Matt Finch proposes here about Old School Gaming allowing for more dynamic situations and improvisation, and I agree it’s at least in part because of fewer rules. For context, I encountered OSR style play via DCC and Labyrinth Lord some time after DMing D&D 3.5E.
One of the things these breakdowns tend to lack, but would have made a compelling case for retroclones to me at the time, is discussion about how a GM spends prep time. In mid-to-high level D&D 3.5E I would regularly spend more than an hour building an enemy wizard, choosing their spells, feats, skills, and magic items that might get immediately disintegrated by a PC. Instead, I get to spend much of that same hour thinking about the situation I’m prepping, factions, interesting traps, or other dungeon elements. While I’m not saying this isn’t possible to do in games like D&D 3.5E and do well, I like that I get to spend more of my limited prep time focusing on those things.
There are also a couple “Tao of the GM” elements in the primer that are framed a little differently than I typically think about play in OSR games these days:
I do like and agree with this summation near the end:
Make it fast, make it colorful, and make it full of decisions for the players.
It‘s an interesting document. I first came across it a couple of years ago (long after the first release). Didn‘t care all that much. Probably because I‘d never really encountered the „modern style“ he‘s attacking. I was coming back to roleplaying after a long break.
Today, I find the Primer well written, especially the dialogues. I love gameplay examples and group dialogues. These are great, they do so much work. I also can see more clearly what infuriated him, what style of play he is up against.
Looking at the trap example, I admit I still find both alternatives pretty boring, gameplay-wise. I do get the point now, though. And I realize the example wasn‘t meant to show anything original, but a rather dull trap.
i haven’t read this in a long time. still going through it but got caught up on the section talking about skills vs free form. he uses the example of the 10’ pole that detects pit traps, if the players always have it, and it factors into their decision making, i don’t see much of a difference between inventory and skill.
i’m really happy to come back to this after so long.
the player tip to view the dungeon as the battleground butts against the notion of stuck doors, but i suppose that’s what iron spikes and dungeon allies are for, it all goes back to the idea of dnd batman which is cool.
the gm too, should be like the batman, the bm, using tools and focusing on space and time and procedures and a wealth of creative thinking and extraordinary situations.
When I first discovered the OSR, this text and Principia Apocrypha were the ones the internet often pointed to as the “reading assignment” to get what the playstyle is going for.
I definitely think Matt Finch’s Primer has a better approach of using actual game scenarios that would come up in play and breaking down how they would be handled differently in modern dnd and in old-school.
For me, this and actually playing old school games, hammered home how player skill is what should get better, not necessarily character skill.
Actually wasn’t until I sat at a table playing Swords and Wizardry with a skilled player that it all clicked. You can certainly get that satisfaction in 5E, but it comes in a different way where you know what feats to pick vs what gear to take and how to use it.
[O]n the section talking about skills vs free form. he uses the example of the 10’ pole that detects pit traps, if the players always have it, and it factors into their decision making, i don’t see much of a difference between inventory and skill.
I have to disagree here - I get where this is coming from but there are considerable difference between skills and equipment. First and most traditionally cited is that skills don’t cost inventory. You can have all the PCs skills the referee will give you, but encumbrance should limit the number of tools one can bring.
More compelling to me are the way that equipment represents an alternative thing of value for the dungeon to “attack” besides HP. A trap can be something that breaks the 10’ pole (and generally more dungeon design/refereeing should focus on using up equipment like this) but it can’t use up a “detect traps skill”. Related but more interesting is the type of play that using equipment brings vs. the type of play a more generalized skill brings. When the player is searching for traps with a pole they need to describe how the character does it - where they tap, what they look for - while “I use my detect traps skill on the 10’ of corridor” is less interesting. It also allows for less interesting play in my opinion. Likewise detect traps is successful always finds a trap, but tapping the floor might not be good enough to set of a pit trap that only opens for 100+ pounds of pressure and it won’t find a magic eye that triggers a gout of flame etc.
Yes the distinction can be small, especially if description is vague - but this is a refereeing and design issue - traps and such in older style games need to have enough detail so the referee (and players) can plausibly understand how they work and how to disable them. Will a glob of mud cover the firebreating magic eye? Can the party lay a shield across the pressure plate and walk over it safely? Can they step over the tripwire etc. You don’t get that with skills usually.
lots of good points here, though i do think more interesting gameplay could come from thinking about skills more like equipment.
the number of skills a player has is, usually, limited. if you get more it’s from some kind of major investment of time or advancment, instead of coin (but also, maybe coin).
they do have unlimited uses, but i’d argue, could be just as vulnerable in the dungeon as a 10’ pole either through direct attack via mind bullets of some kind, or through radical recontextualization ("sorry wizard, the magic at work here is like nothing you have ever seen before, and it changes everything!).
detect traps is a good example of a bad skill. for skills to work like equipment they probably need to be more specific, or at least, less specifically about dungeon delving. angles not solutions
i think that you are right about skills as they are used traditionally, and the primer is responding to skills used as an ejection seat rather than a lense for problem solving. skills and equipment are not the same thing but i think they could be used similarly for more interesting gameplay.