This conversation has reminded me of a thing I wrote when I was just dipping my toes into storygames: ponderingsongames.com/2015/04/18/m...

Particularly the understanidng and controlling the risks part. Yeah, PbtA doesn't do that.

(10 years ago, gah)

That's more aligned with my understanding of OSR, and also why I don't like it as much - it often treats engaging with its own mechanics as a failure on players' part.
And I thought your "rules bright" approach was in conversation with this very thing, too. Actually using the rules.

FWIW, I'd be annoyed if a GM simply declared my character got lost in the woods (or w/e) as the result of this sequence of events. They traded the danger of a bear for a danger of getting lost and now need to make a different kind of save.

Which is a broad generalization, but holds for PbtA. Then again, we might be talking about entirely different OSRs, it is a nebulous beast.

"there are no binary results in OSR" - uhhh, what? It's the origin of Save-Or-Die as a mechanic.

I *think* you're driving at the distinction that in OSR negotiation of potential outcomes happens up until dice are involved, whereas in storygames the negotiation often starts with the dice.

I'd say OSR thrives on players exploring hidden but defined danger: traps, ambushes, cursed items, etc. Whereas PbtA thrives on together exploring outcomes of known to all, risky situations.

Is this simply down to binary outcomes typical OSR games use? You try to run away from a bear, either you succeed or you get hit. Whereas in a PbtA, maybe you get hit, or lose an item, or get separated, who knows.

Dungeoncrawling by default strikes again! I wrote about it a few years ago, and the feeling remains: ponderingsongames.com/2020/07/10/d...
/3

Flipping through the adventures confirmed what I already expected: it's a dungeoncrawling game in a fairytale wood, as opposed to what I really wanted, a fairytale wood game. Hopefully there's enough here for the latter.
2/

MoSH has gone from a disjointed galaxy to a single overcrowded space station. The official setting of a game that doesn't have one.

Eh, I'm being too grouchy. Most of these adventures can probably be set anywhere else with little to no effort.

A Pound of Flesh (the original Prospero's Dream adventure/setting) is great. It's also likely to end with the station getting destroyed one way or another. Which had almost happened in my campaign. Would I want to go back to it? I'm sure these new adventures will be fun, but I've already been there.

It's a strange thing, and probably unjustified, but I feel like MoSH has grown smaller with these releases. Before, you had the whole galaxy of space stations and planetary outposts and derelict ships. Now, you'd be a fool not to base the game on Prospero's Dream. 26 adventures there!

And I'm just so done with figuring out why casters can't rest after every fight. As an example. Off the top of my head. Not the central headache of the entire campaign. No.

Main downside: made me want to run 13th Age instead (hello 2nd edition). In both 13A and SWW, one can tell the authors know all the common D&D pitfalls. In 13A authors go to some length to avoid them. In SWW, author trusts you to also know and avoid them yourself.

So any other follow-up plans have been put on pause, and we'll do Fate next. They will learn to make characters that want *something*. And not to be afraid of "losing", either. I fully credit Fate with rewiring the brains of Group A.

Gives me a reason to finally run Fate of Cthulhu, too.

I'm still waiting for my books to arrive. I think I'll ditch the rules (not a fan of retroclones either) and use something like Grimwild to run a game in it.

So now the Damn Horse becomes a vampire as well, by incorporating the vamp heart into its dangling organs. And a couple of extra hearts for good measure, why stop at one.

And that's how a "there are strange monsters in the world, here's one" monster becomes a major campaign threat.