The European OSR: Czech Mate

During the days leading up to this year's Cauldron convention, I spent not a little time reading and rereading various blog and forum posts from last year's post-Cauldron swoon. Why? Partially because I'm a glutton for punishment and I wanted to remember all the fun I would be missing with my choice to stay home. 

; )

But more than that, I think that there has been something of a shift in gaming vectors since the advent of Cauldron...a subtle change in this wind that we call "old school" gaming. Other factors (especially Prince's NAP contests and the Classic Adventure Gaming podcast) have certainly contributed, but Cauldron is an EVENT, not theoretical discussion; an event where people meet, and experience, and gain practical knowledge through actual play. This practical, tangible experience is something the con-goers can then take back to their own gaming circles, disseminating knowledge all over Europe.

Yes, Cauldron is an international convention. Located (centrally) in Germany, last year's Cauldron had representatives from eight different European nations (plus one American, *ahem*). This year, that number jumped to 14 (or more, depending on how you want to count folks from the UK). And keep this in mind: the knowledge base of D&D in Europe is far shallower than that of the United States.  The total amount of D&D gaming that Europe has been exposed to over the years...especially in countries whose native language isn't English...is quite limited considering the game's 50 year history. European gamers have simply not had the access to the game and its product, the vast majority of which have been published locally (i.e. on this side of the ocean) and in the vernacular of its American publishers.

Please note: I am not trying to disparage our friends across the pond: there are many great minds on that side of the Atlantic who have made it their mission to explore and understand the history and workings of the D&D game...people whose understanding equals or (perhaps) exceeds my own. But for the majority of Europeans, their exposure to the history of "American D&D" starts far more recently than our own. The 1990s is usually the decade I hear cited by geezers my age and, as has been chronicled elsewhere, radical changes to assumptions and expectations of play took place with the advent of 2nd edition AD&D (published in 1989).

At this point, I will use Euro gamer Michal as an illustrative example. Michal (or "Mike" as he introduced himself to me) identifies as Slovakian, and it is his posts on a Czech gaming forum that actually started me ruminating on this subject. 

I got to know Mike at last year's Cauldron con. He looks more like a professional athlete (well over 6' tall and built like a linebacker) than a gaming enthusiast, but enthusiast he is...not just for D&D, but war games as well (he is deep into the Advanced Squad Leader...). Tactically oriented, he has a cooperative, team-oriented approach, and brings focus and intelligence to the gaming table. He won the "Most Valuable Player" trophy at Cauldron 2023, voted on by both peers and DMs, and it was well-deserved. He played in two of my game sessions, and he saved the party's bacon on multiple occasions with his actions.

Mike is also quite a bit younger than myself (15 to 20ish years younger, I'd guess...he just had his first child this last year). He does play "old edition" D&D, and had no problems sitting down to my 1E games, although he found my approach somewhat...mm, "disconcerting" at first.

You see, Michal cut his teeth on 2E AD&D in the 1990s. The '90s! That means he has a quarter century of role-playing under his belt!  But 2E is not 1E. Here, I will quote from Michal's own "after action report," using the (somewhat adequate) magic of Google to translate from Czech:

"Jonathan distributed pre-generated characters...I somewhat impulsively took a 6th level human cleric Daniel...

"...I ask Jonathan, is Daniel a cleric of any specific deity? I say no, it can't be solved. Okay. And he doesn't play make believe either. Okay...?! I feel a little insecure and I want to show a little insideness on the outside. I pull out the DMG and the D30 Sandbox Companion, and with feigned self-awareness, I begin to generate Daniel's personality from the tables - that he is restless, has a sense of duty motivated by visions from childhood, that he is afraid of blood (but does not mind dirt in the heat of his faith), that he is arrogant and selfish -entitled, a morose pessimist and a coward at that, but virtuous and with pure faith. And he has a suspiciously extensive knowledge of gambling, even if he avoids it. (Additionally, Dexterity 15 and Charisma 16... coincidence?) In a burst of inspiration, I also came up with an undefined neutral good deity of Foghorn, i.e. "Hmiel Corner" (probably some deity of sailors, lighthouses and marsh guards). That's a pretty cool figure, isn't it? And do you think it mattered? Not even a bit!"

I love the honesty here. I remember this exchange: Mike was very interested in playing his character right as a character. What are my motivations? What is my religion like? How am I supposed to portray this individual? I may have been a bit terse (because time is an issue in a convention game, and I knew none of that stuff mattered), but I did explain that the focus of the adventure was on the action at hand, not any kind of character development. 

Michal gives a very detailed play report in his post, but I'm less interested in what happened in the adventure (a scenario I've run many times in the past), and more interested in his thoughts and feelings, during the session. Check out his comments (some four/five encounters into the adventure):

"At this point I began to appreciate several aspects of Jonathan's tinkering: 

• He framed our task very clearly and gave clear instructions. He also clearly listed his house rules, without justification or suggestions for compromise. At the same time, it appears confident and trustworthy - as if this system has been playing for years and knows what it is doing and what style of play it wants to achieve. It works, we accept his rules of the game and let ourselves be guided. 
• It has very brief and precise descriptions. No delay, no flowery styles, no attempt at literary realization. At the same time, the descriptions are consistently from the perspective of the characters - what we can recognize, as long as we see what we can classify (e.g. he did not name the opponents). 
• He has the game system in his little finger. Any action or intent is mechanically resolved within a few seconds, clearly limiting the characters' options - eg "you can move towards him, but you won't attack again this turn". At the same time, it isolates the players from the numerical mechanics, although it seems to me that if the player had better control of the mechanics (for example, how initiative or charge works), then this could affect tactical decision-making. Some nooks and crannies of the system are only revealed through the game. For example, I was surprised that if the character falls into the negative, after healing, he needs a week of recovery and thus is out of the expedition (and even an additional security risk). I'm beginning to feel at this point that there is very little judgment, ad hoc decision-making or "rulings" in the procedures. Instead, [the game] has its support in the rules for almost everything. It has its own game tools, a file with several pages of tables. It creates a sense of competence and impartiality. 
• He is focused and has no side notes. He doesn't push his personality to the fore, he doesn't try to stand in the spotlight. He doesn't deviate, he doesn't salt the announcements. He seems to be keeping his fingers crossed, but he is also fair. Perhaps it is precisely referring to the module that allows him to assume a bit of a teacher's position, that he helps us with these difficult exams (and he is not to blame for them, they are already in the module)…"

Reading the subtext here of what Mike feels is different about the way I run an adventure at table, one can start to get an idea of what kind of game he is more used to seeing/playing. Games without clear objectives. Games that focus on description, narrative, and story. Games with ad hoc rulings by DMs with looser grasps of the system they're using. Games where DMs want to "ham" for the benefit of the players or for their own aggrandizement. 

That's not how I run D&D.

"In this room, Jonathan shows that if the fight needs to be fought, we will fight it even with the full mechanical load. I had the feeling that even in a situation where there are only a few weak opponents left, I would itch to feel that the players are bored and that I am delaying, since there is nothing at stake. I would feel pressured to say "and you killed the rest". But Jonathan, as well as later Prince, have such respect for the rules that the situation must be resolved through them. That irritated me a bit. One possible explanation is that even fights with weak opponents have a wear and tear function. And when one of the players gets on their nerves and lobs a high-level [Area of Effect spell] to get rid of them, that spell may be missing later."

Indeed. We are not telling a story. There are game consequences to game actions. Fights can be ended short of annihilation (via surrender or retreat) when warranted. And, as Michal notes later:

"Initiative mechanics are very important in such plans. AD&D has such fast-paced fights that they rarely last longer than three rounds, and sequencing actions really matters—and AD&D's initiative mechanics, despite their complexity and wide interpretability, shine."

Yep.

"Another note about the personality of the cleric Daniel. Later I talked to Jonathan about roleplaying and he says that it doesn't matter at all. You play as you would in that situation. There is no mechanism that captures roleplaying, Jonathan also cut off the belief. He does not insist on direct speech, even he reserves in-character NPC playing only for situations when the player requests it (i.e. my Speak with Animals, Speak with Dead, or interrogation), even though he roleplays very competently. But he says he doesn't play AD&D for this - he plays it for the challenge. And I got the impression that even his home gaming is oriented towards modules and jumping straight into the action."

A slight quibble with his assumptions here: my home game is not nearly as compacted and intense as a tournament game. There are periods of downtime; there are stretches of "inaction" (or, rather, activities of less intensity than dungeon exploration and combat). Campaign play is different from one-off convention play. But even then, there is little emphasis on portraying a fictional character at the table. In fact, there is NO emphasis on doing so. The character is an avatar for the player. If the player wants to act like an ass, they're welcome to do so, but they will probably face consequences (from both NPCs and their fellow players) for their actions. Usually, this isn't a problem in my home game: I strive to create a level of hazard/risk that forces players to cooperate and get along. Usually that's enough to keep the game focused.

The responses and comments on the forum thread offer further insight and interest...if you happen to read Czech or have the time to Google Translate it. Those interested can find the full thread here, from November of 2023, mere days after ending last year's Cauldron convention.

Since that time, I've had the opportunity to interact with Michal via the CAG discord on multiple occasions, usually offering suggestions or advice with regard to running 1st edition AD&D. Despite the newborn, Michal has continued to game (not always easy!) and is, I believe, currently DMing his home group through the old Slaver series, modified for campaign play.  In June of 2024, nearly eight months after meeting, he sent me a message (in English) which read (in part):

"Hello Jonathan, I wanted to reach out and thank you for the thoughts you placed in my head and the experiences you have shown me at the Cauldron Con. I have noticed that my game has shifted to a much more engaging playstyle than it was, say, one year ago, and it was strongly influenced by you. Before my goal was to show the players a somewhat whimsical and bizarre sandbox world with peculiar characters and monsters (such as a medusa repairing a bridge using petrified passersbys, or a rakshasa collecting religious scriptures) and yet internally coherent, however allowing interaction with the world in numerous registers akin to the literary style of the picaresque (i.e. if the players would decide to run an inn, we would I guess focus on the inn - although there was an explicit social contract that the PCs are ne'er-do-wells motivated to explore dungeons), and with much less focus on combat and other types of challenge. Characterisation of NPCs and PCs had a place too. I have the feeling there was some similarity to how Gabor Lux runs his games, except in reality my players never properly, intently, pursued XP or treasure.

"Meeting you has opened my eyes to challenge-oriented play where the GM plays more adversarially and provides hard situations for the players - and there is now much less focus on characterisation or whimsical (non-player) characters. I construct open environments and scenarios which are hard and tactically complex, and which are placed in a simulated sandbox world with its own (economic, ecological, political, military) dynamics. There is a bit of classical wargaming heritage in there, both in the sense of the role of terrain, manoeuvre and deployment of combined forces on the micro level, as well as simulation of the wider macro context...It is in a way liberating, since it feels much more authentic and enriched by my wargaming hobby and knowledges and skills I acquired throughout my life and academic career...."

Kind words indeed!  Would that it were so easy to change hearts and minds as just sitting down at a gaming table and throwing imaginary snake men at players!

But I didn't attend Cauldron to change hearts and minds, nor even to change people from one edition of D&D to another. The fact is, the first Cauldron was advertised as a venue for 1st edition AD&D...and I wanted to play 1st edition AD&D! That's why I went there (though, I do love Germany...). What I found when I got there was a lot of people who didn't have all that much experience with 1E (because, again, 1E doesn't have the history in Europe that it does in the United States), and the games I ran were as much demos for a particular playstyle as they were a chance to stretch my DMing chops.

Michal, unlike myself, was able to attend Cauldron this year. He did not win the MVP trophy this time, nor was he on the docket to run/DM any of the sessions. But he did have an excellent time at what he calls "the most focused and best organized RPG convention" he's ever attended. And regarding the actual gaming at this year's Cauldron, he had the following, telling comments:

"I seem to have noticed a much sharper, agile and action-oriented atmosphere and approach in the sessions I attended as compared to the previous year. It seems to me that in 2023 many of us have just come to witness 'proper' playstyles and GMing approaches and were fairly shy. But we have been marked, we have taken something precious with us when leaving the Schloss Hohenroda. In the year between, the Classical Adventure Gaming approach has spread like a virus to many of our homes and gaming rooms, and this year we returned more experienced and emboldened. Seeing the same faces again, retelling old battle stories and delving once again into the unknown, risking life and limb, felt like coming home. Thanks to the organisers we are witnessing the rise of a new European gaming culture, with ties and friendships across the continent and beyond, with passionate heralds as well as a new generation of designers..."

There is a shift that is taking place among certain groups of D&D hobbyists. Michal is not the only person touched by the change. Last year's Cauldron offered 16 sessions of AD&D, four of which were offered by Yours Truly. This year's Cauldron saw 20 registered 1E sessions plus 7 registered OSRIC sessions (the 1E retro-clone). For roughly the same number of convention-goers. I find that both amazing and encouraging. What will 2025's Cauldron convention look like?

I hope to see it in person.

***EDIT & ADDENDUM***

After sharing this post with Michal, he had a few comments/corrections he asked me to add:

1. Any suggestion or inference that Mike was a "storygamer" (his word) prior to his first Cauldron attendance is false. While he has gone through several different gaming phases (2E trad, 3E tactical, Indie/weird), he has been strictly "OSR" since the mid-2010s, and even had his own OD&D retroclone in circulation. His games used gold for x.p. had numerous player deaths and ran a number of (presumably OSR) modules.
2. Michal disagrees with my "subtextual assumptions" regarding the style of play he was used to, and upon further review, I agree that I allowed my own bias to jump to the conclusion of "games without clear objectives." However, my intent was not to insult but to distinguish 1E's measurable goals from objectives that are arbitrary, hidden, or (DM) fiat-based...all things endemic to 2E (and now 5E) play. That being said, Michal was talking about my clear-cut, goal-oriented obbjectives, which are part of (my) convention play, and not indicative of (my) normal campaign play.
3. Michal states the Google translation is "terrible."
4. Mike also corrected my assumptions about his age...we are actually quite close in age (he just looks a lot better/younger than I do...all that hair!). He has been playing role-playing games for 32 years.

Having hopefully set the record straight (feel free to skewer me in the comments section, man!), I believe I have been inspired to post a (somewhat) related follow-up that is NOT "Euro OSR" specific. Stay tuned!