TheRPGSite

A few months into its release, 5E has a relationship with the various D&D tribes that I find surprising; particularly the relatively open and positive reaction the OSR community has had to it. There are several reasons for this, but now that I know the game better and have seen some of the offiicial support I find it difficult to guess where this will all lead.

My personal take on the issue is that 5E, seen as just a stand-alone rule set rather than a body of settings, expansions, adventures, etc., is a surprisingly good platform for OSR style play. Yes, it is more complex than 0E or B/X. The total number of character properties (skills and class abilities) is perhaps twice that in 1E and 2E; on the other hand, its resolution mechanics are simpler than either of these games. So, I interpret it as 1E-like in overall complexity and speed of play. Whether one prefers it to other editions is not terribly important; the essential point is that it is well designed and presents no obvious barriers to free flowing play. A casual gamer can sit down, create a character and navigate a session with just a few minute's introduction. So, when one considers its accessibility and visibility, it is a good choice of system if you are trying to recruit a new playing group for any form of D&D, including an OSR campaign.

Putting my time where my mouth is (?), I've spent about a month now creating an OSR-style campaign that could be played with any number of systems, but is specifically designed for 5E. And I like how it looks now that it has taken shape.

So why the discomfort? I think there are a couple of ways in which this seeming compatibility could unravel. First, I need to see more examples of what the HP recover mechanic really means for the feel of adventures. If players quickly figure out how to game this system to make death a rare and easily avoided event then the system, whatever its other merits, is ill suited to OSR campaigns. D&D without character death inevitably drifts to high-fantasy and 'story gaming' with hit points and armor class. Second, the game could easily bloat with feats and class powers and other goo-gahs if the developers are undisciplined. That would bring it out of the range of system complexities I think are compatible with OSR style gaming.

A broader reason why I worry how this will turn out is that the first indications about campaign and adventure materials sound and look really bad. The leads they are giving are that this will be supported with adventure-path style modules and 'canned' campaign world tie ins. OSR-style D&D actually has little to do with system rules (provided they are not hopelessly over complicated). It has to do with the goals and structure of the gaming session, the flow of play at the table, and the role of player and DM in creating the setting and directing the 'plot' (which should be recognizable only in retrospect!). If 5E evolves to be a mechanism for linear, scripted gaming and pre-packaged settings, people interested in OSR gaming will peel away from it and go back to whatever pre-3E system they prefer.

Thoughts?

5e can be declared a retroclone, then it's good to go. It depends on far people want to take it, but I don't see the OSR people as "moral" crusaders, like some other groups seem to be, or were. As far as hp recovery, system bloat, and bad adventures; you have already cured the third, right? Then just cut away the other two if it hurts the game.

I think the big tent approach is more or less working. While I don't think many existing games will necessarily switch rule-sets, It seems a lot of people are planning that their next game will be 5e.

The published adventures do look pretty underwhelming, but to be honest I thought that of every other edition, so it is not really a surprise. Although that said, the Starter Set looks o.k. for what it is.

What will be interesting is how much third party OSR brands start creating material with 5e in mind.

In the grim darkness of 3rd millenium, there is only flame war

In the ancient halls of Karak - l - Genev, the Grudgesculptors of clan Osirik gather around the new, fresh, Grudge Stone. On top of that solemn, black rock, the Greybeards of their order ponder whether or not the first letters shall be etched into this new Grudge Stone, to be fed to the mighty Stone Throwers, used upon the fields of the endless battles, as their kin has done since the dawn of time.

Jokes aside, this is kind of a question of concessions. If you approach 5e with mindsets of early editions, 3e or 4e, you will find something for yourself, but you do need to concede some of your expectations. It's definitely a much lighter, easier to handle game than 3e and 4e, but it is also nowhere nearly material for brutal playstyle that is nowadays more attributed to Warhammer than DnD, of the claimed "grognard" playstyle.

(holds up Blood & Treasure)
(holds up Castles & Crusades)
(holds up D&D 5e Basic Rules)

While they have their differences they one of inches. In my opinion the D&D 5e Basic Rules would definitely be considered an OSR ruleset but with a larger does of modern mechanics than the norm. Exactly the reaction I seen to C&C and B&T.

The PHB 5e would be considered too modern due to all the options. But the fact that the Basic Rules exist by themselves with complete compatibility with the PHB means the OSR is far more tolerant than usual with 5e.

It also helps that 5e have some nice innovations that makes it easier to play than some older editions particularly the advantage/disadvantage mechanics in lieu of a sea of bonuses.

However remember folks the core of the OSR, the point of it , is to play the original editions not something like them or similar to them, warts and all. That will remain unchanged.

Right now my prediction of the long term effect of 5e are:

1) It will become a second favorite edition for many. Used when participating in the wider D&D hobby like at game-stores and convention.

2) Some OSR publishers will either duel stat or mingle 5e books alongside their older edition offerings. Due to the fact you can play 5e just like an older edition.

3) It will make the larger hobby even more receptive to OSR rulesets. It won't make any one wildly popular but provide a steady trickle of people when they look for alternatives.

Right now the next hoops that Wizards has to jump through is whether they can produce decent adventures and supplements.

Phandelver from the boxed set can be easily run with any OSR ruleset. Just replace the stats with the system of choice. Even the text doesn't get in the way as the stat block are all in the back and every you need stats for is highlighted in bold. Phandelver is viewed favorably by many OSR folks i Know of.

Tyranny of Dragon also has bold text and stats in the back. But it's adventure structured more like Paizo, 3e, 4e, adventures so hasn't generated as much interest. But it doesn't commit any egregious sins either so it just being ignored as far as I can see.

Finally much hinges on whether Wizards has a sane third party publishing policy. Also their reaction to unauthorized compatible products will be important to whether their reputation continues to be rehabilitated. So far the only shutdowns have been for obvious violations like the guy with the spell database.

As for myself. I will support 5e with adventures and settings (similar to Blackmarsh). An additional hope is that the 3rd party license includes the stuff in the Monster Manual.  Some great adventure hooks in there waiting to be exploited. Far more than I think Wizards plans to publish for.

First World Problem:

Worrying about the relationship status between an rpg and some vague gamer political group. :rolleyes:

For me, 5e is a friend because:
* it's a game I'll play
* it keeps the guys in the group who are interested in the "next best thing" happy.

There's a bunch of other similar games we play already which some of us prefer to 5e, like: Blood & Treasure, B/X, AD&D 1e... 5e won't be replacing any of these games for me. But due to the guys looking for the newness, I'm happy 5e is around now so I don't have to keep saying "no, I won't play Pathfinder!"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788531First World Problem:

Worrying about the relationship status between an rpg and some vague gamer political group. :rolleyes:

When you are zeroing in on your 4000th post you've pretty much lost your rights to worldly perspective on the meaninglessness of all the discussions here.

As a somewhat hostile nonmember of the OSR (look, you guys play however you like, but quit telling me that the stuff I like objectively ruined or betrayed D&D! :) ), my reaction is "too early to say, and probably too dependent on what qualifies something as 'OSR' beyond the general core of TSR-era D&D".

  I wouldn't worry too much about the adventure or campaign support for informing how the game is played; if 4E is an indication, it can impact how much the game is played, but the game will naturally find its own level regardless of how bad the adventures are. :) More seriously, several of the issues with 3E/3.5 arose from the rules encouraging a style of play that the designers didn't initially anticipate, and it appears that the industry success stories (primarily Paizo) did so by adapting the adventures to better suit the engine that powers them.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788545When you are zeroing in on your 4000th post you've pretty much lost your rights to worldly perspective on the meaninglessness of all the discussions here.

:rotfl:

TOUCHE!

[ I still reserve the right to mock you for use of the term : frenemy]

I consider it a friend, as a guy who stuck with AD&D all these years instead of 3e and later 4e.  Admittedly I haven't played a whole lot of 3e and 4e so I don't know for certain if the big tent approach works for them.  I think it could with 3e (with the level of customization of PCs), with the exception of numbers bloat.  Some 3e fans really like that, and that's just not something 5e does.

I disagree with the OP about level of complexity, since AD&D also had non weapon proficiencies and class abilities.  IMO, having played a TON of AD&D and quite a bit of 5e, 5e is less complex than AD&D, and slightly more complex than B/X.

Re: OSR style adventures, I've played several in 5e with ease, and most importantly, the exact same playstyle I do in AD&D.  I've also created my megadungeon campaign which is to be used with 5e, but looks like it just came off the shelves in 1985 in regards to how it appears with other AD&D products.

I recently read through some of the old Grognardia bog and his perspective on the definition of OSR is useful, I think, and provides some insight into this question of 5E's relationship to that community (though he stopped posting 2 years ago, as far as I can tell!).

The key traits he talks about include problem solving as a primary activity at the table; a focus on winning/getting/finding things that enrich the character; pulp fantasy tropes; a high probability of death or other significant failure (so that completing an adventure is a hard goal rather than an assumption); freedom of player's to navigate and influence the game world; a sort of collaborative back and forth between players and DM to create the setting; a focus on adventure locations and 'staffing' rather than plots.

Nothing on this list has anything to do with differences in core mechanics between editions. With the possible exception that you can't do any of them if you are spending all your time figuring out what feats to use during your 3 hour combat.

They have more to do with how you define a setting, how you define an adventure, and just what 'jobs' the players and DM have. You could argue that these issues are the essence of what defines table top roleplaying as distinct from monopoly, stratego, chess, etc. But game books have trouble giving really clear instructions on these points; they are subjects where game authors tend to waffle or be vague, or provide loose, wandering guidance and examples. But your choices about these subjects really dictate the game you are playing. This is why someone with a ca. 1976 perspective on table top roleplaying games looks at the market ca. 2014 and sees things that call themselves D&D (or D&D like), but aren't. They have hit points and orcs and displacer beasts and clerics and so forth. But the setting isn't recognizable as a D&D setting. And the players aren't really playing. And the DM isn't really DM'ing. They are doing something they enjoy, and they demand the right to call it D&D (fine, call it what you want). But they are playing a different game.

You can use edition changes as time markers to measure this drift in the hobby over time, but the details of the rules of the editions themselves don't have much to do with it. The drift is more related to cultural shifts that arise from the feedbacks between computer games, CCG's, changes in taste in fantasy fiction and movies. All of which encourage a drift toward a game (let's say, D&D*) where DM and players are in some sense consumers of an entertainment 'unit' that has been put before them, and where adventures have an externally defined purpose that you should expect to reach (or, I would say, watch as your goal is served up to you). The dynamic is more like observing a movie or reading a book or navigating the hurdles of a computer game, where you are trying your hardest to take on the perspective of someone inside a story, but the story itself has already been written and ultimately you can only watch it unfold.

There is a lot of momentum to this drift and many factors at play. That's why I wonder whether 5E, as a big-company commercial product, can avoid getting pulled in this direction. If it does, the OSR crowd will gradually pull back away from it, as they did from late 3E, 4E and Pathfinder.

Quote from: languagegeek;788538For me, 5e is a friend because:
* it’s a game I’ll play
* it keeps the guys in the group who are interested in the “next best thing” happy.

That's tentatively where I'm at. 5e isn't my first, second or third choice... BUT it's a less repellant (than 3.5/4e/PF) choice that will let me Play (I've little interest in running it).
The fact that it's 'The New Hotness' is the only thing that even got it mentioned at our Pathfinder table... but I don't think it will see play till the guys see 3.5/PF levels of options they can tinker with. By that point it may not make any difference.
Meanwhile I haven't found anybody running a 5e Basic game.  

Quote from: Larsdangly;788571Nothing on this list has anything to do with differences in core mechanics between editions. With the possible exception that you can't do any of them if you are spending all your time figuring out what feats to use during your 3 hour combat.

Yeah, slow combats and convoluted PC creation/planning mess with that OSR style of play. Our PF GM generally has an OSR sandbox approach... but is wholly dependent on Hero Lab to run the game.

Here's the thing I just never get -

Any reason someone can give about how you can shove the square peg of 5e into the round hole of OSR was also true for both 3e (an edition I strongly disliked) as well as 4e (an edition I thought was interesting but limited in what I would use it for).

Any reason someone can give about how 3e and 4e were lousy for OSR-style games (which was the whole reason for the OSR to begin with) is also applicable to 5e.

I've read the PHB for 5e. I've played a session of 5e. It's not bad, but its certainly not OSR. 5e still feels like anime fantasy to me, not traditional D&D fantasy.

It may be toned down a bit from 4e, and have rules have been streamlined to avoid the drudgery of 3e, but the PCs in 5e still feel and play like PCs from 3e or 4e - loaded up with special skills, special powers, nearly everyone has magic, and there are no disadvantages or opportunities for instant death anywhere.

Quote from: jgants;788593Here's the thing I just never get -

Any reason someone can give about how you can shove the square peg of 5e into the round hole of OSR was also true for both 3e (an edition I strongly disliked) as well as 4e (an edition I thought was interesting but limited in what I would use it for).

Any reason someone can give about how 3e and 4e were lousy for OSR-style games (which was the whole reason for the OSR to begin with) is also applicable to 5e.

I've read the PHB for 5e. I've played a session of 5e. It's not bad, but its certainly not OSR. 5e still feels like anime fantasy to me, not traditional D&D fantasy.

It may be toned down a bit from 4e, and have rules have been streamlined to avoid the drudgery of 3e, but the PCs in 5e still feel and play like PCs from 3e or 4e - loaded up with special skills, special powers, nearly everyone has magic, and there are no disadvantages or opportunities for instant death anywhere.

I'm pretty much with you.

I like 5e well enough, but my taste was never restricted to OSR. I played 3e and 4e and didn't love them, but didn't "hate" them either, just filed them under "very different games sharing name and brand" somewhere inside my brain.

I feel 5e was an ouverture towards a rules-lighter D&D (which is not the same as "rules-light" since I feel both 3e and 4e were horribly bloated systems).

I also feel the OSR houses a considerable contingent of people who came for the rules-lightness but stayed for the playstyle. I certainly include myself here.

Some of these people will be very, very happy with 5e to the point of supplanting their TSR/OSR poisons of choice. I'm not one of them but I don't think they make up a particularly sizable fraction of the already niche OSR.

This is all vague speculation and BS but this is more or less how I see OSR/5e relations.

As someone who's a pretty strong supporter of 4E and 3E to a lesser extent AND someone who really doesn't care for ANY version of TSR D&D, I'm coming to like 5E if I want a more "old-school" vibe. I'm not sure what that says about the system but if it can get myself and my friends to play along with people who like and enjoy OSR style games at the SAME table, then I think it's done it's job well.

Some might consider it an enemy because it doesn't throw back far enough to TSR era ways. And some might consider it's the BEST they'll get in this "new" age of gaming with modern ideas taken from MMOs and other Indy games and there's just enough old values in there to keep people hooked.

Quote from: jgants;788593Here's the thing I just never get -

Any reason someone can give about how you can shove the square peg of 5e into the round hole of OSR was also true for both 3e (an edition I strongly disliked) as well as 4e (an edition I thought was interesting but limited in what I would use it for)..

I don't think I agree with this.  5e allows you to play it with a basic version (no feats), which you can't really do with 3e, and you certainly can't make 4e work in OSR unless you radically change the fundamental mechanics of it.  I.e., you can play 5e in an OSR style without changing much, but you have to make sweeping changes to the core ruleset of 3e and 4e to make it work.  We have been playing 5e in the exact same style we do AD&D with, and last time I checked, AD&D is considered OSR.

There's really only two major things differently from AD&D to 5e:

1. Ascending AC and basic rolld20+mod mechanic
2. Saving throws and class skills (thief skills/non weapon prof) are all just essentially ability checks now, which is similar to ability checks we did in AD&D from a concept context.

It's the most palatable WotC D&D (or 3PP derivative) I've ever seen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;788606I don't think I agree with this.  5e allows you to play it with a basic version (no feats), which you can't really do with 3e, and you certainly can't make 4e work in OSR unless you radically change the fundamental mechanics of it.  I.e., you can play 5e in an OSR style without changing much, but you have to make sweeping changes to the core ruleset of 3e and 4e to make it work.  We have been playing 5e in the exact same style we do AD&D with, and last time I checked, AD&D is considered OSR.

There's really only two major things differently from AD&D to 5e:

1. Ascending AC and basic rolld20+mod mechanic
2. Saving throws and class skills (thief skills/non weapon prof) are all just essentially ability checks now, which is similar to ability checks we did in AD&D from a concept context.

I basically agree with this. The superficial look and tone of 5E is not completely in keeping with 'core' OSR games. But if you read it with an open mind it is surprisingly well put together, and the actual content is not significantly different from the content of 1E, BECMI, etc.

As for ascending AC, saving throw dice mechanics, etc. I consider all that stuff to be totally and completely beside the point. The way these things work in old versions of D&D are not essential to game play; they are just one of many ways in which the dice rolling mechanics could have been done, and the end results of pretty much all approaches that have been tried are closely similar.

The important thing is what you are supposed to do to fill time as a player and DM when you sit down. Are you waiting for or reading instructions and then more or less following what they say, or are you staring at a nearly blank canvas trying to think of your next move to turn it into a picture?

No, 5e isn't all that incredibly different from the OSR games... but it's different enough. Enough that I look at it and the tweaks I'd want to make to Basic alone that I think, "Why bother?" I've got OSR games I like already and see no advantage to running 5e.
It's only real use for me is if it creates this promised land of willing Players and GMs for a style of play somewhere closer to OSR than Pathfinder has been. Ideally running Basic... but I don't see that happening.

Friend, with benefits!😄

It's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.  

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

It's a bridge, an umbrella, the edition that all the warriors can stomach, maybe.

However, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788625It's still superheroic as written.

You can die pretty damn fast in it if you're not careful. Hell, high level characters have fewer spells than before.

QuoteIt's still includes anime influence.

Has anyone ever sufficiently explained what this means?

Or, for that matter, why taking inspiration from a medium just as diverse as the pulp novels and comic books TSRD&D took inspiration from has any bearing on anything?

QuoteIt's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.

Do I even need to tally how many pages AD&D devotes to spells, magic items, and monsters that do a unique thing?

QuoteIt's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

Great, what are they and why are they fundamentally incompatible?

QuoteHowever, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

*raises hand*

Quote from: CRKrueger;788625It's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.  

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

It's a bridge, an umbrella, the edition that all the warriors can stomach, maybe.

However, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

Totally agree. I want to run it because it's new and looks easy. That's pretty much it. If I wanted to start a really in-depth campaign with lots of time and energy I'll just continue to play 4E with my buddies as I feel that tends towards our RPG needs. Maybe 3E if there's an adventure that I really wanna run (like Return to Castle Ravenloft with d20 Modern mixed in) or my friend's idea to run d20 Modern with Call of Cthulhu and the mountains of madness.

I think for beginners and those who don't want a WHOLE lot of options thrown at them at once (something 4E is definitely known for) then 5E is a good option at that point. Once you get the basics AND the notion that you can try anything, THEN you can give them codified powers and see them go nuts. At least, that's been my experience with the playtest so far.

I think neo-clone is more appropriate to 5e than retro-clone.

I think the accusation of exception based design is spot on.

I have to hack 5E to get it to work, but I have to hack everything.

It is as close to what I want as AD&D, LOTFP or Castles & Crusades, maybe closer since I don't have to change the mechanics, just add and subtract content (don't like this feat, do want this spell, etc).

Since I worked on it, I guess that's not so surprising.

In play, the hack I did seamlessly replaced what I was doing already. So, yeah, 5e rocks.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788610I basically agree with this. The superficial look and tone of 5E is not completely in keeping with 'core' OSR games. But if you read it with an open mind it is surprisingly well put together, and the actual content is not significantly different from the content of 1E, BECMI, etc.

I definitely agree here.

I'm in a kind of weird position when it comes to the OSR because although I've written a couple of retro-clones that other people have referred to as being part of the OSR, I don't consider myself part of that movement.

To use Armchair Gamer's excellent categorisation (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?668828-Theory-Flavors-of-D-amp-D), most of the OSR prefers to play Knaves & Kobolds (and can often get quite One-True-Way about it) whereas my favoured play style is Galactic Dragons and Godwars.

Consequently, although I prefer the older TSR editions to the WotC ones (until recently my favourite edition was BECMI), I don't feel that the OSR represents me and my taste in games.

Having said that, I'm currently loving 5e. I'm DMing two campaigns currently - one using a series of BECMI adventures in Mystara and the other using a series of AD&D adventures in Greyhawk - and I'm finding that although the presentation is very "new school", the feel of the game is close to classic BECMI.

In fact at the moment, 5e has overtaken even my own Dark Dungeons as my favourite edition!

Off topic slightly here but wtf is anime influence in this context? kinda seems like a pisspoor excuse for "not the d&d i wanna see" considering most anime style fantasy these days is based on mmorpg's or light novels more than d&d and thus anime influence is a pointless gripe to make(though im guessing most the people using the term haven't actually seen any anime since slayers or lodoss war so its no surprise).

I would love to see some of the rules tweaks folks feel they need to make before its playable though so maybe we should start a thread about that(unless there is one in which case i should go find it and stop asking silly crap here).

Quote from: Zak S;788652I have to hack 5E to get it to work, but I have to hack everything.

It is as close to what I want as AD&D, LOTFP or Castles & Crusades, maybe closer since I don't have to change the mechanics, just add and subtract content (don't like this feat, do want this spell, etc).

The ability to turn things on or off, to switch in and out is what appealed to me about 5e from the get go.

I have always liked skill systems, so turn on, I hated multiclassing, turn off. I am cool with feats but could easily turn them off. I like that saving rolls and skills are all blurred.

I like society linked to powers so customised spell lists and linking feats to social organisations: tick. I like a bit more fear of death in games so I'll keep an eye on the hit point recovery thing.

But I can see how a GM can simply go down the character sheet and untick, untick, untick, untick and you get a very lean game like OSR, and a very deadly one if you untick the hit points all come back.

Of course you need to be careful since you'll see a lot more TPKs, but hey, isn't that what some of us are happy to have to give the game some edge?

In fact, I am surprised that someone hasn't done a 'very lean 5e character sheet', it would probably fit on a 5x3" card.

Quote from: jgants;788593Here's the thing I just never get

jgants nails it.

D&D5e is anime.

I don't even know what 5e is anime means.

There was an anime based on AD&D - Record of the Lodoss War. There is an anime based on Lost Worlds, which is nearly as old as D&D.

Saying something is anime is saying something like TV or a novel. There are all sorts of different styles and whatnot. The only real thing that seems to bind anime is a lack of noses on characters....

Anyway, I don't think 5e is particularly OSR or even all that good. And what's annoying/amusing is all these OSR companies are rushing to convert their modules to 5e to cash in.

Then again, I'm not sure what OSR is. It seems to celebrate a D&D that never actually existed, one more like Call of Cthulhu were characters all constantly die horribly. But when I played as a kid, characters certainly died from time to time, but it wasn't that common.

I remember in some games characters got so powerful, we used Deities & Demigods as a monster manual, and I know damn well that wasn't rare. That's partly why 2e went with that Avatar stuff.

But even look at the modules EGG wrote - most are for pretty high level characters - 7-9+. Against the Giants, S4, Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, Tharizdun. Or how Rob Kuntz's Robilar pretty much single handedly (albeit with his orc army) ransacked the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;788660jgants nails it.

D&D5e is anime.

Never thought of it that way, but perhaps it is. If so, 'tis true, 'tis pity, 'tis true. Then again, anime is mainstream among gamers born after the stone age of my generation, so it's to be expected. I don't find 5E near as superheroic as 4E (by the way, Neverwinter MMO, based on 4E? Fun game--I actually stuck with it til level 53 [so far]).

Lots of talk about hacks, dials and switches. When DMG comes out, we might find more folks on board the 5E train because the hacks are codified and easy to dispense. Players who have trust issues with a real life person but not text in a book will feel better that Ogre-GM is constrained by SOMETHING, if said GM chooses dials from the holy of holies. Just wish the release date wasn't so incredibly far off. I hate the staggered release in general, but holding the DMG for last is rough. As someone who runs more games than he plays, THAT's the tome that sells it for me.

But I digress...must get back to planning a slightly tweaked Hommlet excursion for BFRPG party this weekend.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;788660jgants nails it.

D&D5e is anime.

Never thought of it that way, but perhaps it is. If so, 'tis true, 'tis pity, 'tis true. Then again, anime is mainstream among gamers born after the stone age of my generation, so it's to be expected. I don't find 5E near as superheroic as 4E (by the way, Neverwinter MMO, based on 4E? Fun game--I actually stuck with it til level 53 [so far]).

Lots of talk about hacks, dials and switches. When DMG comes out, we might find more folks on board the 5E train because the hacks are codified and easy to dispense. Players who have trust issues with a real life person but not text in a book will feel better that Ogre-GM is constrained by SOMETHING, if said GM chooses dials from the holy of holies. Just wish the release date wasn't so incredibly far off. I hate the staggered release in general, but holding the DMG for last is rough. As someone who runs more games than he plays, THAT's the tome that sells it for me.

But I digress...must get back to planning a slightly tweaked Hommlet excursion for BFRPG party this weekend. :-)

I'm not sure what's anime about 5E as I tend to think of Anime as things like Inuyasha or Yu-Gi-Oh or more darker like Vampire Hunter D. I guess if you looked at the one Monk sub-path, it sort of resembles a Bender from Avatar: The Last Airbender animated TV series.

Other than that......yea I don't see it.

Quote from: Batman;788681I'm not sure what's anime about 5E as I tend to think of Anime as things like Inuyasha or Yu-Gi-Oh or more darker like Vampire Hunter D.

Kinda how I feel when folks toss around 'Pulp' as if it's a genre rather than a medium.
I'm guessing 'anime' is that mental animatic of the PC in mid leap/charge as he pulls off his uber-feat/charm.. all quivering action lines and wavey hair and shouty mouth.

I was using "anime fantasy" as short hand for superhero-type fantasy with the shiny "everyone can do everything, let's all have magical superpowers right from the start with no drawbacks whatsoever and forget about even trying to be all that immersion-friendly" that I see with 3e and 4e.

4e was honest about its superhero fantasy influence and tried to play to that strength. Which is why I like it if I want to run that style of fantasy.

5e tries to say it is the same game as always, but in order to buy that I have to forget about things like dwarven wizards in armor casting unlimited magic beam attacks. That doesn't wash with me.

For people that wanted an improved 3e, I can see why they like 5e because that's what it feels like to me. But as something similar in tone to AD&D - not getting that at all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788625It's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.  

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

CRKrueger's explanation is probably clearer than mine - this is exactly how I think of 5e.

I just can't see 5e=superheroic, a la 4e.

The unlimited cantrips are an argument. But they can be taken out or limited easily and aren't exactly powerful.

And they are the only argument I can see for this.


A big difference between 4e and 5e in this discussion is the context of PC and Monster. In 4e you can expect to cut through masses of minion and even nonminion humanoid (including human) opponents like a butter through hot knife. In 5e, even a few kobolds or goblins can give your low level group serious trouble.

Maybe its a generational thing. I can't deny that my username is drawn from a manga. This isn't exactly indicative of my playstyle preferences, but apparently I have a different scale of what qualifies as high powered, because I really can't see it in low level 5e.

My monk, who went down not once but twice just getting to the goddamn keep in HotDQ would argue against the 'everyone is heroic" argument ;)

5E is definitely trying to slide in somewhere between the extremes. It is a deadlier game (at least at low level; let's revisit this issue once everyone has played a few sessions with 5-10th level characters!). On the other hand, the comment above about starting play with a dwarf wizard in heavy armor who shoots unlimited pew-pew beams of laser awesomeness is also perfectly fair. That is a tongue in cheek but exact description of a first level character in 5E. And I agree it is not cool and not what interests me about D&D, generally.

Quote from: jgants;788593Any reason someone can give about how 3e and 4e were lousy for OSR-style games (which was the whole reason for the OSR to begin with) is also applicable to 5e.

Very difficult to play 3E without a grid. Impossible to play 4E without it. Easy to play 5E theatre of the mind. Huge difference right there.

Character generation in 5E is far faster and easier. Nobody has to parse a big list of skills of feats, spend skill points, or consider feat dependencies.

And combats take 10-15 minutes instead of 30 to 90 minutes. Also a huge difference.

Quote from: jgants;788593It may be toned down a bit from 4e, and have rules have been streamlined to avoid the drudgery of 3e, but the PCs in 5e still feel and play like PCs from 3e or 4e - loaded up with special skills, special powers, nearly everyone has magic, and there are no disadvantages or opportunities for instant death anywhere.

1st level 5E out of the box is lethal. A couple hits and you're dead. I'm betting the Lost Mines of Phandelver will chalk up a huge number of PC deaths, including TPKs, when all is said and done. I doubt you could say that for most of the introductory 3E adventures, or any of the 4E adventures.

Is it exactly like AD&D? No, but it checks the essential boxes that make for old-school D&D for me:

• No need of minis or grid.


• Easy and fast character generation.


• Brisk combat.


• Traditional character classes.

What the hell is a "frenemy" anyway?

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788707What the hell is a "frenemy" anyway?

It's like our alliance with many of our Arab allies to fight ISIS right now.  When ISIS is done, they'll go back to being our enemies.

Quote from: jgants;788688I was using "anime fantasy" as short hand for superhero-type fantasy with the shiny "everyone can do everything, let's all have magical superpowers right from the start with no drawbacks whatsoever and forget about even trying to be all that immersion-friendly" that I see with 3e and 4e.

Meh, there are plenty of drawbacks when looking at classes in both 3E and 4E. The question is, did / do DMs play them up or let them slide? For example, I never tell my players which monsters are "Minions" and laugh heartily when they spend their precious resources (like encounter or daily powers Or effects) cutting down 1 HP mooks or low-hp guys. Further, each class has several disadvantages when it comes to certain situations. In 4E, defenders have a very hard time doing their thang against ranged opponents. So if you have a LOT of ranged / artillery monsters all hiding up on balconies and behind bluffs that are just pelting your PCs, Defenders really don't do much except get frustrated. Not to mention targeting their weaker defenses.

Further, looking at 3E there are plenty of ways to penalize or otherwise play up PC disadvantages, largely because all the classes work on different daily scales. What's funny is throwing the BBEG or a very difficult encounter 1st thing in the morning and then watching the players tackle every single encounter from then on with a light hand on resources because they're fearful they'll run out quickly. OR just not letting them rest often and/or disrupting their rest so that spellcasters and other daily-limited classes can't get a re-charge.

Another thing is just targeting Surges in 4E. If I want my players to get really scared of an encounter I just start draining surges per round. This can be due to environmental effects like a poisoning miasma or necrotic aura or even something natural like air-born spores of deadly mold. Stuff like that while they're fighting monsters and quickly being drained of their one overall shared resource effectively cuts down on any sort of Super-Heroic Action Hero vibe the players initially started out with.  

Quote from: jgants;7886884e was honest about its superhero fantasy influence and tried to play to that strength. Which is why I like it if I want to run that style of fantasy.

I think one can do that, yes. However I also feel it's how a group approaches the system and the stories they want to tell. I can easily do dark, gothic horror and gritty with 4E it just takes a tiny bit of tweaking and creating fun things like new disease tracks. I love seeing the look of fear when their character is slowly being turned into a vampire because they've contracted Vampirism and no one knows how to cure it. Muhahaha. Same thing with Mummy Rot or Lycanthropy. Also, you can just say eveyone starts with far fewer Surges per day OR restrict how many surges they get when they rest.

In Ravenloft maybe Radiant powers are instantly weakened due to the overall dark and evil plane's influence while Necrotic powers are a bit amplified. Sure makes it harder to be super-bad ass with all the Radiant Mafia shenanigans going on.

Quote from: jgants;7886885e tries to say it is the same game as always, but in order to buy that I have to forget about things like dwarven wizards in armor casting unlimited magic beam attacks. That doesn't wash with me.

I think it's working as intended to be honest. Each DM / Group going into 5E will have to make decisions based on how they want it to play. Default will be a sort of 3E - 4E hybrid with some older ideals thrown in (like no magic shops, flat math, winging encounter design). If a DM / Group wants a different feel from an older version they're going to have to make adjustments that fit that.

For example:

• Dwarves cannot be wizards
• No multiclassing
• Paladins must be Lawful Good
• Cantrips are not at-will, instead being Ability mod (based on class) + 2 or 3 / day
• Healing is limited to 1 hp per level per long rest. If your in an Inn or other comfortable location where you can get care then maybe level + Con per long rest.

The DMG isn't out yet so we don't know what sort of ideas they'll have to change out stuff like this to give us a more old-school vibe but it's not terribly difficult to alter to make it work to older versions. And for the most part I think changing the system to this is a lot easier  than 3E or 4E. I could limit cantrips in 5E to a few per day and it wouldn't overly affect the system or adventure much but doing so with 4E would put a pretty strong strain on spellcasters overall.

Quote from: jgants;788688For people that wanted an improved 3e, I can see why they like 5e because that's what it feels like to me. But as something similar in tone to AD&D - not getting that at all.

By default, I can see why and I agree that initially looking at the rules it appears as though a paired down 3E with some 4E bells and whistles. I feel, however, the tone of the system and the way in which the game approaches PCs and their interaction with the world is FAR more TSR version than WotC has been in since they've acquired the D&D title. For example I think the focus on combat has been severely lessened, shifting more towards in-game goals and interests. Players who have bonds and flaws and things going on want to explore these elements farther instead of just picking a background that gives a numerical bonus on a skill like 4E did.

Then there's the fact that magical items are now completely void of character progression. Even if this was an option in 4E, the overall consensus of people discussing 4E was that players made lists and DMs gave the players items from those lists (which is something I've only heard, never seen or done myself nor understand WHY a DM would do such a thing). But regardless, the notion that magical items are a dime a dozen are over and getting even a +1 dagger or shield is something to be prized in 5E and not something you hold onto so you can sell later at a 40% it's market value.

Then there's the focus on less math and less "fiddly bits" and more on quick action and combts. Resolution for combat has dwindled for our group to about 10 minutes a battle. 20 if they're rolling bad. In v3.5 and 4E our combats generally lasted about 40 to 45 minutes depending. So I think that part too is also harkening back to TSR days where combat was sort of a thing you got into when all else failed and it was completed quickly to get back to the story.

Obviously it comes down to where your threshold lies. For myself, I see the 4E elements involved with the game and acknowledge them however I don't think it plays anything remotely like 4E despite it's major influences. Maybe it's because it lacks the AEDU structure or maybe because I don't feel the classes are unique enough or because all their roles are gone? I'm not totally sure. I do think it plays a lot like a 3E-lite or more TSR-ish because of the elements I described.

Quote from: jgants;7886885e tries to say it is the same game as always, but in order to buy that I have to forget about things like dwarven wizards in armor casting unlimited magic beam attacks. That doesn't wash with me.

Let's go back to the source for D&D's dwarves, shall we?

Quote from: Pg 14 of my copyThe dwarves of yore made mighty spells
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep where dark things sleep
In hollow halls beneath the fells

Quote from: Pg 43Then they brought up their ponies, and carried away the pots of gold, and buried them very secretly not far from the track by the river, putting a great many spells over them, just in case they ever had the chance to come back and recover them...

To say nothing of how magic-heavy dwarves are in mythology.

And you know what, if you don't want dwarves doing magic, you disallow it at your table like a fucking grownup, just like I allow it when I play AD&D because I don't see any logical reason why a sapient race shouldn't be able to learn magic if they like. And you know what, people still generally seldom play dwarven wizards.

And you know what else is D&D? Cantrips. They've been in every edition, eventually. Adding some combat utility to them is... somewhat more modern, I admit, but you know what you do if that really chaps your ass? Don't use them, or make them first level spells, or just accept that some players like the idea of a magic-user that actually uses magic.

Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788707What the hell is a "frenemy" anyway?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frenemy

Quote from: CRKrueger;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

You sound... exactly like the people whining about why aren't there warlords and martial encounter powers over at TBP. Which is hilarious.

(Why isn't there a "Go Back to RPGnet" smiley? Pundit?)

Quote from: CRKrueger;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

I'm surprised it took so long, honestly.

Quote from: jgants;788736I'm surprised it took so long, honestly.

It's almost like those limitations were arbitrary as fuck 30 years ago.

Quote from: LibraryLass;788735You sound... exactly like the people whining about why aren't there warlords and martial encounter powers over at TBP. Which is hilarious.

(Why isn't there a "Go Back to RPGnet" smiley? Pundit?)

Actually, you're the one whining, in case you hadn't noticed.  The rest of us are addressing the OP, just not providing the answer you liked, obviously.  The attempted button pushing though is interesting, for a fairly sedate thread.  Missing the 5e Marleydrama were we?

Quote from: CRKrueger;788739Actually, you're the one whining, in case you hadn't noticed.  The rest of us are addressing the OP, just not providing the answer you liked, obviously.  The attempted button pushing though is interesting, for a fairly sedate thread.  Missing the 5e Marleydrama were we?

Actually, you were the one to completely dismiss someone else's position using literally the exact same reason the 4venger crowd uses as their go-to excuse.

Sorry, guess I missed it.  What "position" did I dismiss?

Since I don't read 4vengers arguments over at purple I don't know, but which of my original points do they frequently make?

Quote from: What I ACTUALLY saidIt's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

It's a bridge, an umbrella, the edition that all the warriors can stomach, maybe.

However, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

Doesn't sound like a 4venger's complaint, but you never know I guess...

Quote from: LibraryLass;788737It's almost like those limitations were arbitrary as fuck 30 years ago.

I'm pretty sure the limitations weren't arbitrary so much as an unscientific attempt to thematically balance the various races and classes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

Considerering 5e was designed under the asumption Rule Zero would be in full use and to support it, as opposed to 4e, 3e or really most RPGs I've read, I find it hard tp talk about it without taking personal customization into account to be missing the point.

In particular areas often called out as problematic, such as at will cantrips and fast natural healing, have been specifically pointed out during design as areas that are meant to be "dialed". The PHB default is set at the high end of the scale, but we know the DMG will offer alternatives.

Criticising the game based on these areas is premature at best, as we obviously have no DMG and thus no "dials".

Quote from: CRKrueger;788739The rest of us are addressing the OP, just not providing the answer you liked, obviously.

Yeah, I'm not complaining about 5e. I'm saying that it is confusing to me that 5e is popular with people who like OSR games despite the fact to me it looks and plays more like 3e and 4e, games the OSR disliked so much they invented a large collection of retro-clones / retro-inspired games to play instead.

Myself, I'm just "meh" about 5e. But apparently explaining why I don't want to use it for my AD&D-style games constitutes "whining about 5e". Or something.

If you enjoy 5e, great! If you love 5e but hate 3e and/or 4e with a passion, good for you but you confuse the hell out of me.

Quote from: jgants;788748Yeah, I'm not complaining about 5e. I'm saying that it is confusing to me that 5e is popular with people who like OSR games despite the fact to me it looks and plays more like 3e and 4e, games the OSR disliked so much they invented a large collection of retro-clones / retro-inspired games to play instead.

Myself, I'm just "meh" about 5e. But apparently explaining why I don't want to use it for my AD&D-style games constitutes "whining about 5e". Or something.

If you enjoy 5e, great! If you love 5e but hate 3e and/or 4e with a passion, good for you but you confuse the hell out of me.

Mind, I'm not precisely OSR, more a 3e era starter who grew quite dissatisfied with 3e and 4e.

Your stance mirrors mine. I'm not bothered by your stance on 5e, but from your comment, I'm confused on your conclusion.

Quote from: jgants;788748Myself, I'm just "meh" about 5e. But apparently explaining why I don't want to use it for my AD&D-style games constitutes "whining about 5e". Or something.

Remember, games are the religion of some fanatics. Anything but unbridled enthusiasm means that to them, you are a heathen unbeliever and should be beheaded.

As far as the OP, 5E is the new girl in class that gives it up for everyone because she is desperate to be liked. The OSR sees 5E as an easy lay and she sees them as a steppingstone to popularity.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744Sorry, guess I missed it.  What "position" did I dismiss?

Since I don't read 4vengers arguments over at purple I don't know, but which of my original points do they frequently make?

Quote from: What you actually said;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

As to what I was getting at: See Gold Roger's post.

What I object to is you and jgants classifying 5e as being that eternal grognard cypher of "anime fantasy", and a bastion of the same quasi-superheroic school of design as 4e. I agree with you that it's not strictly OSR, but it's a hell of a lot closer to it than to 4e, and with or without the guidelines that are supposedly in the DMG, it's the work of minutes to correct. Furthermore, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that in a game that has chosen to emphasize the GM's judgment and suggest that a GM should customize the options available to their liking (and, so I'm led to understand, will even give you tools to help you do just that in the DMG), that one should do exactly that.

Obviously this is all subjective but it might help me understand your position on some things:

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744It's still superheroic as written.

I'm not sure I follow. When I think of Superheroic I think of flying, cutting goelems in half, stopping bullets, and hitting someone so hard with your fist that it caves in their armor. I'm not entirely sure what you feel is superheroic about 5E? Looking at some of the monsters and having run the PCs against them myself I've seen the players consider tactical retreat from kobolds and goblins because they don't have the resources to deal with them. That doesn't sound really heroic. Further, I've seen a Fighter go from 12 HP (full, at 1st level) to 2 HP from two attacks of 1/8 CR human guards. Again, not overly heroic.

What is it about the rules, either specifically or generally, that you feel make PCs superheroic?

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744It's still includes anime influence.

I don't follow. I could see a case being made for 4E Fighers (and to a lesser extend, those who utilized the Tome of Battle from v3.5) but that was largely due to their exclusive abilities having unique and often exaggerated descriptions and phrases to mark them as "special". Wolf Fang Strike, Stone Bones, Flying Claw Leap, stuff like that. The Battle Master maneuvers aren't nearly as 'fantastic" in their description from my gander at them and most of the spell lists are generally what we'd more or less see in any version of D&D.

The only ones that come glaring to my mind are the Elemental Monk and the Barbarian. But that's just me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.

I'm not sure what exception rule design is? Is this where you can only do something if you have a certain feat or power to accomplish? If so, I think 5E is leaps and abounds away from where we were 14 years (heck, even 5 years) ago in this area. For example I'll display a scenario:

The group is pretty exhausted, low on HP and spells. They're looking for a place to make camp but, unfortunately, come across a roving band of Orcs. There both surprised to see each other and there's only a moment to act. The fighter in the group, thinking they can't survive another battle, makes a last second decision to scare away the Orc with a display of sheer martial prowess and fearsome intimidation.

In 3E to pull this off, one might need either a Feat (to use Strength in place of Charisma for Intimidate) or a special rule (like Dual of Wills in the Tome of Battle) to achieve said effect.

In 4E to pull this off, one might need a specific power and be trained in Intimidate to even come close to achieving a DC. A DM could also make it a Skill Challenge, further strengthening the rules-hold on how people adjudicate situations. Or maybe he'll have it akin to a specific power that emulates what he wants to do, yet it's also still tied to the rules in some way or another.

In 5E, the DM can simply say "Ok, use Strength instead of Charisma for the check." If the player describes what he's doing in detail and uses great roleplay in the process, maybe the DM rewards him with Advantage on the roll against X (X can be a single DC vs. the Orc leader OR the collective average DC after the DM rolls the opposed check OR the DM uses the Orc's Wisdom score as the DC OR the DM decides to just say it works because it's a cool idea).

Now of course this idea could just as easily work in 3E and 4E too however I think the expectation from players is that there needs to be some sort of concrete structure to how this is achieved, so that they can better plan out their turn and actions. It's a very meta-gamey way of approaching the situation rather than 5E's approach of just telling the DM what you want and having them sort it out. I think this is VERY much in the spirit of TSR-era D&D and more akin to adjudication that DMs of that era are used to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

I think what is derived MOST from these two edition in 5E is Cantrip casting and Healing rates. Other than that, it removes a lot of assumptions people have about 3E and 4E when diving into 5E. No more magic shops. No more assumption of feats. No more codified abilities for everything. No more expectation OF magical items that will come to them based on system-math. No more safe assumption that lower CR creatures are nearly instant-win scenarios. Theres now an expectation for the DM to step in and make a ruling on something that the rules don't specifically cover.

However I will agree that some of the quirkier things from TSR-era games aren't in there like Varying Xp progressions, alignment requirements, racial penalties and restrictions, class restrictions, etc. I'm not sure if these are really required to achieve the "old-school" feeling but after looking at some of the AD&D 2e books I came across, I doubt it would be very hard to incorporate them into any existing 5E game. I know Rule Zero somehow is considered bad in this way, though I don't really know why? Rule Zero has ben a VERY powerful tool in OSR games so I'm not sure why it isn't embraced as a dear friend?  

Quote from: CRKrueger;788744Doesn't sound like a 4venger's complaint, but you never know I guess...

As a self-proscribed 4venger myself, I think it's similiar because you give a list of why but don't really go into detail as to the reasons behind it. It's a reason I asked you because I don't really know where your coming from. If I were to say:

It's NOTHING like 4E because:

• NO warlord
• Uses DM fiat
• No tactical choices
• Boring sub-classes
• Boring magical items
• Too lethal at low levels, NEED more starting HP

It would look similar to an 4venger complaint. Now I think there's a lot of easy answers for those complaints too and they're not very difficult to plant into the system but it's what I've been reading since the PHB / Basic rules have come out on other boards. And often times "Rule Zero" is lambasted as an answer because no one wants to apparently take ownership of their D&D nowadays.

Basically Batman what you are saying is that 5e is closer to OSR then 3e or 4e, well, I agree with you for the most part.  However, closer to X is not X, which is where I was coming from in reference to the OP.  It's about as OSR as will ever come out of WotC, which still, isn't all that close.

Super heroic - Well, let's just say I'm not expecting my 5e death thread to hit 1000 pages.
Anime - Everyone's got cool powers.  Dwarf mages wearing plate mail and casting unlimited magic beams.  PewPewWTFBBQPWNZORZ!  Dungeonpunk.  All that gets rolled into "anime", it sucks, deal with it.  "Anime" gets fucked as a descriptor just as hard as "Pulp" does, but most of the time, despite the term use being incorrect, people still know what you mean by it.  I apologize to Ninja Scroll.

Quote from: jeff37923;788752As far as the OP, 5E is the new girl in class that gives it up for everyone because she is desperate to be liked. The OSR sees 5E as an easy lay and she sees them as a steppingstone to popularity.

That is a fucking disgusting comparison. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

Quote from: Gold Roger;788747Considerering 5e was designed under the asumption Rule Zero would be in full use and to support it, as opposed to 4e, 3e or really most RPGs I've read, I find it hard tp talk about it without taking personal customization into account to be missing the point.

In particular areas often called out as problematic, such as at will cantrips and fast natural healing, have been specifically pointed out during design as areas that are meant to be "dialed". The PHB default is set at the high end of the scale, but we know the DMG will offer alternatives.

Criticising the game based on these areas is premature at best, as we obviously have no DMG and thus no "dials".

Agree to a point.  It doesn't matter how many dials there are or whether they eventually go to 11 or 1100.  What they come set with default is the assumed setting used in modules and default setting worlds and it is completely fair to address the game from that standpoint.  Also I think you're reaching when claiming that something like at-will cantrips are meant to be optional.  One warlock build is completely centered around such an at-will cantrip.

The DMG will definitely be an interesting book, both for the options, and perhaps more importantly, the lack thereof.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788774Also I think you're reaching when claiming that something like at-will cantrips are meant to be optional.  One warlock build is completely centered around such an at-will cantrip.

Warlocks are optional.

"It's superheroic" and "anime influence" are the "Mother May I" and "Rule 0 Fallacy" for the OSR set.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788774Agree to a point.  It doesn't matter how many dials there are or whether they eventually go to 11 or 1100.  What they come set with default is the assumed setting used in modules and default setting worlds and it is completely fair to address the game from that standpoint.

I expect that any group playing pure Basic with only core classes, Feats turned off, etc. is NOT going to be anywhere near that 'default'... it's going to be an extreme outlier... might as well be a different game... and might involve as much work to run 5e modules as there'd be in converting them to some OSR game. No big win for folks who'd want to play with the bells & whistles dialed down.

Quote from: JonWake;788778"It's superheroic" and "anime influence" are the "Mother May I" and "Rule 0 Fallacy" for the OSR set.

The opinion that D&D feels like a superhero game is nothing new or limited to the OSR set. Maybe not the intention of its creators but the way a lot of folks played/play it certainly feels that way... and the art often seemed to encourage it.

Quote from: Simlasa;788779I expect that any group playing pure Basic with only core classes, Feats turned off, etc. is NOT going to be anywhere near that 'default'... it's going to be an extreme outlier... might as well be a different game... and might involve as much work to run 5e modules as there'd be in converting them to some OSR game. No big win for folks who'd want to play with the bells & whistles dialed down.

That's true, Basic alone by itself is a different animal, only time will tell what the real implied default is.  Pretty sure that Core, oddly enough will be the three Core books though.

and on that note...

Quote from: jadrax;788776Warlocks are optional.

Sorry, I forgot we were going along with pretending the 3 core books weren't really core.  You do know all that Basic is the game bullshit is...just bullshit, right?

Quote from: JonWake;788778"It's superheroic" and "anime influence" are the "Mother May I" and "Rule 0 Fallacy" for the OSR set.

like drive-by comments are for the chucklehead set? ;)

Quote from: Larsdangly;788771That is a fucking disgusting comparison. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

Jeff has a talent for maximum offense per word count when he wants to push buttons.  At some point, he'll type a single word and the internet will implode. :D

Quote from: Simlasa;788779I expect that any group playing pure Basic with only core classes, Feats turned off, etc. is NOT going to be anywhere near that 'default'... it's going to be an extreme outlier... might as well be a different game... and might involve as much work to run 5e modules as there'd be in converting them to some OSR game. No big win for folks who'd want to play with the bells & whistles dialed down.

I was hoping that this would not be the case as I am personally enamored with Basic.  Is it consensus now that you won't be able to use Basic to run the standard 5E modules?

BTW, for whoever, I understand that...
"5e is not OSR"
...might be turned into...
"5e is a shit-stained piece of crap game not worthy of play and anyone who does deserves death."
...but that's your problem not mine.

I don't have a problem with powers-based exception design, I like the Battlemaster for example with all his melee powers...but I admit it's not very OSR.

I don't have a problem with a Monk in a magical fantasy world having elemental powers, but I admit the influence comes from Anime. (My beef with the Monk is that I think that the 5 Taoist elements would have been a cooler variant and no matter what the influence "Pay 2 Chi and cast Burning Hands" is boring as fuck no matter what the power is called, it's painfully uninspired.)

I freely admit that quick rests and "singing for hit point" mechanics make perfect sense given the overly abstract nature of hit points - but it isn't very OSR.

Classifying something isn't making a value judgment.  I'm not someone who exactly hides my opinions about gaming, there's no need to throw your inferred baggage into my arguments.  Ask me what I hate about 5e, I'll tell you, no need to make yourself look like a jackass through a poor Karnak impersonation.

If the above doesn't apply to you, don't take false offense, if it does, well go fuck yourself. :D

Quote from: Tyndale;788784I was hoping that this would not be the case as I am personally enamored with Basic.  Is it consensus now that you won't be able to use Basic to run the standard 5E modules?

Supposedly anything the modules have that isn't in Basic is going to be included in the modules themselves.

So will the modules include lots of stuff not in Basic? Yes.  Will you need to buy anything other then the module to make use of them?  So far, No.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788770Basically Batman what you are saying is that 5e is closer to OSR then 3e or 4e, well, I agree with you for the most part.  However, closer to X is not X, which is where I was coming from in reference to the OP.  It's about as OSR as will ever come out of WotC, which still, isn't all that close.

I think we agree on most of that. I think it's easy to get it close enough for government work, though, about as much as say, Blood and Treasure or C&C, both of which I'd consider entirely old-school.

QuoteAnime - Everyone's got cool powers.  Dwarf mages wearing plate mail and casting unlimited magic beams.  PewPewWTFBBQPWNZORZ!  Dungeonpunk.  All that gets rolled into "anime", it sucks, deal with it.  "Anime" gets fucked as a descriptor just as hard as "Pulp" does, but most of the time, despite the term use being incorrect, people still know what you mean by it.  I apologize to Ninja Scroll.

Technically speaking the dwarves will only be casting spells in platemail if they're proficient with it, which if they're mages will cost them not insignificantly in terms of resources. And I'm pretty sure that before, Fighter/Magic-User multiclass characters could cast in armor. So the only new elements in that example are it being a dwarf and unlimited cantrips. Both of which are easily done away with, and the former of which I have never understood the problem with, short of the inertia of tradition.

(To be honest I don't think unlimited cantrips are a problem either, but I know well that I like my magic-users to be a lot more overtly magical than many oldschoolers.)

I do think that the idea that a superheroic feel is some kind of newfangled thing is bizarre considering what's sometimes been called the "Galactic Dragons and Godwars" flavor developed out of OD&D, the oldest of old school D&Ds. On the other hand the OSR has been much more about the Fantasy Fucking Vietnam/"Knaves and Kobolds" side of first-generation gameplay.

Quote from: LibraryLass;788789I do think that the idea that a superheroic feel is some kind of newfangled thing is bizarre considering what's sometimes been called the "Galactic Dragons and Godwars" flavor developed out of OD&D, the oldest of old school D&Ds. On the other hand the OSR has been much more about the Fantasy Fucking Vietnam/"Knaves and Kobolds" side of first-generation gameplay.

Oh there's no doubt the post-name level AD&D could turn into "Deities and Demigods is our Monster Manual", but to be honest you'd have to do a fair amount of Monty Haul to really get there.

The difference is, and this is probably more due to video games then anime, new-school D&D characters start well on the way with special abilities & plenty of buttons to mash right out of the gate, and a healing/wounding system right out of an FPS.

Love it, hate it, whatever...but OSR? Not really, no.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788791The difference is, and this is probably more due to video games then anime, new-school D&D characters start well on the way with special abilities & plenty of buttons to mash right out of the gate, and a healing/wounding system right out of an FPS.

Yeah, I attribute a lot of that 'I want my PC to start off as competent' (where 'competent' pretty much means 'chock full of powarz') to video games... not that all video games work that way, unless using a cheat.
One of the first questions the kids I play with asked was 'what powers do I get'... and they're coming from video games. Not that that's bad/wrong... just different than my usual fantasy preference of starting at 'turnip farmer with a stick'.

5E interests me not at all, and I am also glad it exists.

As for the OSR frenemy angle, things kind of morphed over the years from playing the actual games, to playing a certain style with the actual game played as of lesser importance.  So I think it is inevitable that 5E becomes the game of choice (or at least frequent use) for lots of people who fall into the second group.

And that bothers me not a whit.  People should play what they want to play. Plus, I think that if it is close enough that publishers can dual-publish content for both 5E and the original games that it will have a subsidy effect where content for the way I prefer to play will be published in greater amounts.

Do I think it is in the same family as AD&D and OD&D?  No.  Same family as C&C, Blood and Treasure, or a host of other OSR games?  Yes.  But then I think a decent chunk of the OSR lately was trying to find a balance between what they liked when they played 3E, and the older games, anyway.  So, inevitable.

If you're gonna invoke the rule 0 fallacy as a reason to completely dismiss someone's argument that 5e can be played in an OSR style, I guess that means all those people who didn't play with strict level limits in AD&D weren't OSR either.  Or people who houseruled away weapon vs. armor table modifiers.  Or any other number of rules that were ignored in 1e.

Pretty much everyone houserules or ignores parts of the "core" rules, and has been since the get go.  So forgive me if I find it ludicrous to use that reasoning now for 5e.

Quote from: Simlasa;788794Yeah, I attribute a lot of that 'I want my PC to start off as competent' (where 'competent' pretty much means 'chock full of powarz') to video games... not that all video games work that way, unless using a cheat.
One of the first questions the kids I play with asked was 'what powers do I get'... and they're coming from video games. Not that that's bad/wrong... just different than my usual fantasy preference of starting at 'turnip farmer with a stick'.

But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

At a time when video games were somewhere between Pong and Combat for the 2600.

That's why I don't buy the competency = video game heritage angle. Lots of people were house-ruling more robust starting characters ... or even writing new games that did this.

"If you don't like it, change it." can be applied to Toon to turn it into Phoenix Command or vice versa.  It can smooth out the Anal Circumference Tables of F.A.T.A.L (so to speak).  If allowed as a valid answer to any criticism about a mechanic or a game, then any criticism or commentary of any game becomes meaningless.

"If you don't like it, change it." Is absolutely vital GMing advice, especially when coupled with advice as to how.  In regards to theory and playstyles, it's just useless obfuscation as any game can fit any playstyle if you're willing to hack it, it's just a question of how much.

It isn't worth getting into the more tangled elements of this hoary, ancient debate. But, I do agree that 'rule 0' is one of the most over used old saws in our hobby. It is hard to think of anyone who hasn't abused it in one of our nerd-rage debates. Though, the most grognardy OSR enthusiasts seem to be the guiltiest.

The version of this that drives me ape shit is when it is pulled out to rationalize the fact that OD&D is almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics. I've always wished someone would make a version of D&D that is even shorter and more to the point than the original, but founded on a page or two of rules that make some sort of sense. Wouldn't it have been amazing if our hobby was founded on a set of rules that had the creativity of the original, but expressed through the sort of rational approach you'd see in the best contemporaneous board games? Like, picture D&D as written by the people who made Panzerblitz. Pretty much everyone would still be playing with the same core rules.

Quote from: Vargold;788812But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

At a time when video games were somewhere between Pong and Combat for the 2600.

That's why I don't buy the competency = video game heritage angle. Lots of people were house-ruling more robust starting characters ... or even writing new games that did this.

I only Dnd I have ever played or even seen is Opa's online game. In my experience 1/2e used maybe 50% of the actual rules which ones differed by table, campaign and other factors. OSR is after a fantasy of what they think Dnd is and they should shut up and live and let live already.

Basically they should thank God 5e is here because it's the best gateway ever to their games and they don't really have to work that hard to get most 5e players to give them a try given 5e is so easily hackable and doesn't cater to the optimization style.

Quote from: Vargold;788812But see, my group in the early 1980s was saying precisely that: "We want characters who start out competent ... like Conan in "Tower of the Elephant" and Fafhrd and Mouser in "Ill Met" and Gimli in Lord of the Rings and even Tarl Cabot in the Gor books."

You miss the bit where I specify the folks who equate 'competent' with 'powerz'... like WOWMMPORG player who vaults in at lvl 90.
And I'd never say that video games are the entire source of that desire... but a factor that has substantially increased it.

Quote from: Simlasa;788825You miss the bit where I specify the folks who equate 'competent' with 'powerz'... like WOWMMPORG player who vaults in at lvl 90.
And I'd never say that video games are the entire source of that desire... but a factor that has substantially increased it.

Sure, but one man's "competent" is another man's "powers." To me, all of the first level fighter abilities in 4E were perfectly normal abilities that a trained warrior might be expected to have--to other people, it was like Captain America, Black Panther, and Deathstroke the Terminator had just suddenly been unleashed on the unsuspecting former pig-farmers of the Forgotten Greyhawks.

My reading of Jon Peterson's Playing the World has pretty much convinced me that we're still fighting the battles of the 1970s. Video games may inflect those debates in new ways, but they don't alter the core issues.

Quote from: Vargold;788828My reading of Jon Peterson's Playing the World has pretty much convinced me that we're still fighting the battles of the 1970s. Video games may inflect those debates in new ways, but they don't alter the core issues.

Yeah, there was a bunch of friction in the Wayback between my High School group and another one... mostly because we played low magic, low violence... and they played with PCs armed to the gills with magic gewgaws. Stupid arguments.
Once I got into college it certainly seemed that other group was largely the norm... Players see a magic ship-in-your-pocket in some game book and demand that their PC must have it. Another factor in my quick movement away from D&D.
But those were guys who'd been playing for a while, they'd done zero-to-hero a dozen times... not newbies showing up with those expectations of superheros that I started seeing a lot of later on.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788771That is a fucking disgusting comparison. Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?

I used to, but she's been six feet under for 11 years now. Do you think it might have been something I said?

Quote from: CRKrueger;788783Jeff has a talent for maximum offense per word count when he wants to push buttons.  At some point, he'll type a single word and the internet will implode. :D

Why, thank you! Sigged.

Since ya'll are in D&D is serious business mode, I'll relate what I'm seeing  outside of the internet.

There is a competition going on between the organized play groups of Pathfinder and D&D 5E starting. In my city, the competition is for FLGS game playable space and local convention recognition (although the 2014 Dragon Con rolled out the red carpet for D&D 5E DMs). It could be entirely personality driven, but with a new version of the 800 pound gorilla present the RPG tribalism has come out.

What the two sides aren't seeing is that both are good games. The fans don't need to be acting as pawns for either WotC or Paizo.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788729Ah, Rule Zero in response to definition and classification...someone had to, I guess.

Yeah, nothing says old-school like playing RAW. Could you imagine the shit-show that would go down on Dragonsfoot if someone suggest ignoring weapon speeds or racial level limits?

Quote from: jeff37923;788751Remember, games are the religion of some fanatics. Anything but unbridled enthusiasm means that to them, you are a heathen unbeliever and should be beheaded.

And to another group, anything besides blistering contempt for games published after 1993 means you fail to demonstrate proper orthodoxy and should be beheaded.

Quote from: jeff37923;788833Since ya'll are in D&D is serious business mode, I'll relate what I'm seeing  outside of the internet.

There is a competition going on between the organized play groups of Pathfinder and D&D 5E starting. In my city, the competition is for FLGS game playable space and local convention recognition (although the 2014 Dragon Con rolled out the red carpet for D&D 5E DMs). It could be entirely personality driven, but with a new version of the 800 pound gorilla present the RPG tribalism has come out.

What the two sides aren't seeing is that both are good games. The fans don't need to be acting as pawns for either WotC or Paizo.

Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

5e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

5e is what is it is. Like 3e and 4e, if you like a particular edition, enjoy it for what it actually does for you without some bullshit pretending that your edition is somehow inclusive of the playstyles of the others.

But hey, 5e is the new shiny and it will make waves for a year. When its obvious the lack of marketing hasn't expanded the hobby and instead its just another edition cannibalizing the dwindling fanbase, the knives will come out and blame the edition...instead of blaming the lack of marketing.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

At the moment, the rules for Encounters and Expeditions and Epics are draconian (excuse the pun) with the idea that WotC wants to shove D&D into the mode of Magic where you have Friday Night Magic, then regional events and then the special national events.

The idea is simple. People who hang around their FLGS buy more stuff. WotC has decided stores are key to the hobby's success. I do not know if this is true, but they *might* have a lot of data behind the decision.

Let's not forget that WotC is NOT a game company. It's a book publisher. They need people to buy stacks of books so if the bookstore model works for them better than Amazon, then their Public Play concept makes sense.

Back in 4e, LFR let you print out your adventures and run them at home. Now in 5e, all official D&D has to be coordinated through the FLGS or you do not get the download and thus, can't run OFFICIAL D&D for your friends.

We will see how long this lasts.

BTW, the new rules are meaningless to home campaigns, just the Official Organized Play events (previously called RPGA and Living campaigns).

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785BTW, for whoever, I understand that...
"5e is not OSR"
...might be turned into...
"5e is a shit-stained piece of crap game not worthy of play and anyone who does deserves death."
...but that's your problem not mine.

I hope you don't mean that I took what you said to mean that. No lots of people have things they want changed in Next, at least from the official "default" standpoint. I've been on the other side (with 4E) and I look at criticisms with as much merit as I can. In this case, you've presented yourself well, if a bit short on the reasoning.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I don't have a problem with powers-based exception design, I like the Battlemaster for example with all his melee powers...but I admit it's not very OSR.

With the exclusion of the Battle master (a sub-path intended to bridge the gap to 3E and 4E players), is there anything else that jumps out at you as exception based? Something that I felt they did a great job with was Two-Weapon Fighting. In v3.5 it was practically abysmal to use it if you didn't have the prerequisite feats and in 4E, well you can nearly forget about it if you didn't have a power that allowed two-attacks in the same turn (however one could illustrate this via multi-attack powers and the rules didn't negate the use of Two-Weapons, just didn't delve into the intricacies of how most people view it).

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I don't have a problem with a Monk in a magical fantasy world having elemental powers, but I admit the influence comes from Anime. (My beef with the Monk is that I think that the 5 Taoist elements would have been a cooler variant and no matter what the influence "Pay 2 Chi and cast Burning Hands" is boring as fuck no matter what the power is called, it's painfully uninspired.)

An interesting viewpoint. But I'll agree that it does seem to me very anime-based.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I freely admit that quick rests and "singing for hit point" mechanics make perfect sense given the overly abstract nature of hit points - but it isn't very OSR.

True, yet I have a feeling this will be addressed in the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785Classifying something isn't making a value judgment.  I'm not someone who exactly hides my opinions about gaming, there's no need to throw your inferred baggage into my arguments.  Ask me what I hate about 5e, I'll tell you, no need to make yourself look like a jackass through a poor Karnak impersonation.

If the above doesn't apply to you, don't take false offense, if it does, well go fuck yourself. :D

Thanks for your insight. I find that the more I see someone else's perspective about a topic the more easier it is to have a discussion about it.

I think Next so far is that gap that can bridge two distinctly different playstyles. I, for one, don't like older versions and if someone invited me to play pre-WotC D&D I'd respectfully decline. However if the same group wanted to play 5E with houserules and caveats (like alignment requirements, different XP charts, racial restrictions, no feats, etc.) I'd be more willing to play along with that group because I feel the overall mechanics are still there and can keep me engaged.

Quote from: Batman;788862An interesting viewpoint. But I'll agree that it does seem to me very anime-based.

That's interesting.

I've never watched any anime - unless "Spirited Away" counts - and the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the elemental monk was "that's Streetfighter/Mortal Kombat", and when describing the classes to my players (none of whom watch amine either) I described the class as a martial artist who can do things like Shoryukin and Haduoken moves (and I've no idea whether I've spelled either of those right).

The point I'm making is that I really have no idea whether elements of 5e are inspired by anime or not - and it doesn't matter.

After all, the "traditional" D&D cleric class was inspired by Van Helsing. The "traditional" magic-user class was inspired by the books of Jack Vance and many of their spells were inspired by a terrible Vincent Price film. The "traditional" monk class was inspired by the disco song "Kung Fu Fighting".

All of the above have been adapted from their source material to better fit a pseudo-medieval and slightly Tolkeinesque setting.

So who cares where the inspiration for particular game elements comes from, or whether people even know what that inspiration was. All that matters is whether or not the game elements are any good.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836And to another group, anything besides blistering contempt for games published after 1993 means you fail to demonstrate proper orthodoxy and should be beheaded.

1993? This proves you are unbeliever! 1983 is cutoff date for true games of the people!

OSR Taliban will hunt you down. Death to false prophets. :p

Quote from: EOTB;788804As for the OSR frenemy angle, things kind of morphed over the years from playing the actual games, to playing a certain style with the actual game played as of lesser importance.  So I think it is inevitable that 5E becomes the game of choice (or at least frequent use) for lots of people who fall into the second group.

While not entirely germane to the topic at large, I feel I need to pick at this. You seem to postulate that the "OSR", whatever it is, was FIRST about playing the actual old games via strict retroclones, and then LATER evolved into games which are not clones but rather properly new products with old-school sensibilities.

Lots of self-professed OSR fans seem to perpetuate that notion, but it just ain't true. The first strict retroclone was OSRIC, and it was preceded by both Encounter Critical and Mazes & Minotaurs, both of which fall firmly in the "not a clone, but with old-school sensibilities" category, and any definition of "the OSR" that excludes them would be an asinine one. The strict retroclone idea did not start the OSR, it was just one of two completely parallel motions.

Funny thing is, the Pundit has just wrote a blog post (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.hu/2014/09/historical-blinders-in-origin-story-of.html) about this the other day.

Castles and Crusades was published in 2004, or two years before OSRIC, and has to be counted as part of this family of publications (whether you consider it a clone or inspired-by)

Quote from: Spinachcat;7888385e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

5e is what is it is. Like 3e and 4e, if you like a particular edition, enjoy it for what it actually does for you without some bullshit pretending that your edition is somehow inclusive of the playstyles of the others.

But hey, 5e is the new shiny and it will make waves for a year. When its obvious the lack of marketing hasn't expanded the hobby and instead its just another edition cannibalizing the dwindling fanbase, the knives will come out and blame the edition...instead of blaming the lack of marketing.

screeching?  Where have I been screeching in this thread?  I don't even think marleycat has even posted.  You're gonna have to do much better than that.  Your haterade is showing so hard it's almost laughable.  Heck, I never even claimed 5e = OSR.  I said you can play it that way.  Which you can because myself and many others play 5e exactly like we played the game back in 1981.  Oh, I suppose we weren't playing the "one true OSR way" in the early 80s ...rolleyes

Quote from: Spinachcat;7888385e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

The core assumptions of 5e include that many of what would otherwise be core assumptions should be adjustable options. If some of the suggested adjustments correspond to the assumptions of the OSR re: those things, then it is OSR.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;788879screeching?  Where have I been screeching in this thread?  I don't even think marleycat has even posted.  You're gonna have to do much better than that.  Your haterade is showing so hard it's almost laughable.  Heck, I never even claimed 5e = OSR.  I said you can play it that way.  Which you can because myself and many others play 5e exactly like we played the game back in 1981.  Oh, I suppose we weren't playing the "one true OSR way" in the early 80s ...rolleyes

I suspect a lot of the dissonance can be laid on people meaning different things when they say "playstyle".  The playstyle examples Spinich lists do not even hit my radar as things affecting my own playstyle.  While at they same time, such things are obviously crucial as to affecting Spinich's playstyle.

I haven't played 5E yet but reading the PHB it honestly looks like it has a little bit of everything in it. Parts of the game remind me of 2E and older editions, parts resemble 3E and 4E. I think they were doing what they said and trying to get everyone, so that means it isn't going to be purely old or new school. I could definitely play 5E. But there are a couple of bits I don't care for.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

Serious answers.

Don't know. Don't care.

But if the first question is what WotC is basing their business decisions on, they are already screwing up. Because WotC should not care if their customers have homes, they should care whether or not their customers have money and the desire to buy their products.

Quote from: Old One Eye;788887I suspect a lot of the dissonance can be laid on people meaning different things when they say "playstyle".  The playstyle examples Spinich lists do not even hit my radar as things affecting my own playstyle.  While at they same time, such things are obviously crucial as to affecting Spinich's playstyle.

That's another really good point I hadn't thought of!

Quote from: LibraryLass;788893That's another really good point I hadn't thought of!

Despite the ubiquity of "playstyle" references, I have yet to see the community have a comprehensive discussion as to what it really means.

A real old school is the one in which the dungeonmaster sets the rules for the campaign. Don't like the standard hp recovery rules? Replace them with what works for you. Don't want a given ability or character type in your game? Don't allow it.

You're the master of the rules, not a slave to splatbook publishers.

The "OSR" initially was a renaissance in publication of scenarios and other materials for use with the out of print TSR editions of D&D.

With apologies to the Grognardia guy, I think that's the heart of the matter. Trying to turn it into some kind of global ideology contributes little except fulminating tiresome "enemies" blather.

How useful are 5e materials to someone using the old rules, or old-rules/retroclone materials to someone running 5e? That, I think, is the question in relation to the OSR.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788816"If you don't like it, change it." can be applied to Toon to turn it into Phoenix Command or vice versa.  It can smooth out the Anal Circumference Tables of F.A.T.A.L (so to speak).  If allowed as a valid answer to any criticism about a mechanic or a game, then any criticism or commentary of any game becomes meaningless.

"If you don't like it, change it." Is absolutely vital GMing advice, especially when coupled with advice as to how.  In regards to theory and playstyles, it's just useless obfuscation as any game can fit any playstyle if you're willing to hack it, it's just a question of how much.

How much is indeed the question. Moreover, the "old school" in question is a TSR-D&D school; adaptation to/from T&T, C&S, RQ, RM, Legendary Lives, or whatever else, is not the test.

Some things are in my experience non-issues. We could use D&D scenarios with Arduin rules (or vice versa, although the published Arduin dungeons were pretty lackluster) regardless of whether the latter included the hit point rules from Runes of Doom.

However, I'm coming from a very old-fashioned, pre-AD&D concept of what the game is. Nowadays, a lot of people - perhaps a majority even of self-described "old school" players - regard D&D as a set of actual fixed rules, like Contract Bridge or something. "Official" defaults are a big deal to them even when to me they can be ignored easily.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788821It isn't worth getting into the more tangled elements of this hoary, ancient debate. But, I do agree that 'rule 0' is one of the most over used old saws in our hobby. It is hard to think of anyone who hasn't abused it in one of our nerd-rage debates. Though, the most grognardy OSR enthusiasts seem to be the guiltiest.

The version of this that drives me ape shit is when it is pulled out to rationalize the fact that OD&D is almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics. I've always wished someone would make a version of D&D that is even shorter and more to the point than the original, but founded on a page or two of rules that make some sort of sense. Wouldn't it have been amazing if our hobby was founded on a set of rules that had the creativity of the original, but expressed through the sort of rational approach you'd see in the best contemporaneous board games? Like, picture D&D as written by the people who made Panzerblitz. Pretty much everyone would still be playing with the same core rules.

You appear to be confused. If what you really wanted was a cleaned up version of D&D, it's been done: Moldvay, Cook and Marsh, TSR Hobbies, 1981.

That can have that (or Tractics). You can have 4e (or Panzerblitz). You can have 3e (or Advanced Squad Leader). You can have the Dungeon! board game.

But those are very different things.

Quote from: Phillip;788907You appear to be confused. If what you really wanted was a cleaned up version of D&D, it's been done: Moldvay, Cook and Marsh, TSR Hobbies, 1981.

That can have that (or Tractics). You can have 4e (or Panzerblitz). You can have 3e (or Advanced Squad Leader). You can have the Dungeon! board game.

But those are very different things.

If I had a penny for every time some useless bore graced me with a condescending explanation of how confused I am about a 64 page book I've owned for 100 years and read a trillion times. And 4e is so non panzerblitz it is not worth explaining. I'll give you the 3e ASL analogy if you will promise to not say anything more on the subject.

The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes). There are several outstanding OSR games that have original, well engineered rules. But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way. That is what I was thinking when I made the panzerblitz analogy. The rules for PB are fully contained on one fold out pamphlet sized document. And they are essentially compete and satisfying as is nearly 50 years after their original publication. That's what the core 'engine' of rules in D&D should look like.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925If I had a penny for every time some useless bore graced me with a condescending explanation of how confused I am about a 64 page book I've owned for 100 years and read a trillion times. And 4e is so non panzerblitz it is not worth explaining. I'll give you the 3e ASL analogy if you will promise to not say anything more on the subject.

The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes). There are several outstanding OSR games that have original, well engineered rules. But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way. That is what I was thinking when I made the panzerblitz analogy. The rules for PB are fully contained on one fold out pamphlet sized document. And they are essentially compete and satisfying as is nearly 50 years after their original publication. That's what the core 'engine' of rules in D&D should look like.

Well, obviously you live in a TARDIS; which might explain a historically eccentric notion of what "all the essential bases" or "the point" of D&D is. TSR got it wrong, and hundreds of thousands of players got it wrong?

And you really are after Panzerblitz, not Squad Leader. To what extent, I wonder? How much scenario flexibility are you really willing to sacrifice to get rule completeness? D&D is not a mere tactical board game, limited to a narrowly stereotyped set of possibilities.

You're going to cover "comprehensively" in just 5 pages enough to justify your claim that the original is "almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics" and BX is likewise inadequate - but your game is not like that? And it's somehow still going to be D&D?

If you're not confused, perhaps you can clear up my own confusion. What was missing that you would add? How are your elaborations privileged over those favored by fans of other editions?

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes).[...] But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way.

Indeed? (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite74) (Well, as Phillip points out, for a sufficiently liberal value of "comprehensive". It does require a bit of know-how.)

Microlite was actually my game of choice for quite some time (and is still what I go back to when I feel like experimenting.)

Quote from: LibraryLass;788883The core assumptions of 5e include that many of what would otherwise be core assumptions should be adjustable options. If some of the suggested adjustments correspond to the assumptions of the OSR re: those things, then it is OSR.

Ok, but for that reasoning to be valid re:5e, then 5e must include options other then "take that out and replace it with nothing" or "rewrite that yourself".  At the present time, with regards to just two elements, healing and magic, 5e does not.  I know, I know, the DMG will be filled with options for everything (or so we are told), but as the rules stand now, they do not meet your definition of "OSR available modules make it OSR".

Quote from: Phillip;788930Well, obviously you live in a TARDIS; which might explain a historically eccentric notion of what "all the essential bases" or "the point" of D&D is. TSR got it wrong, and hundreds of thousands of players got it wrong?

And you really are after Panzerblitz, not Squad Leader. To what extent, I wonder? How much scenario flexibility are you really willing to sacrifice to get rule completeness? D&D is not a mere tactical board game, limited to a narrowly stereotyped set of possibilities.

You're going to cover "comprehensively" in just 5 pages enough to justify your claim that the original is "almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics" and BX is likewise inadequate - but your game is not like that? And it's somehow still going to be D&D?

If you're not confused, perhaps you can clear up my own confusion. What was missing that you would add? How are your elaborations privileged over those favored by fans of other editions?

Somewhere in this a-grammatical babbling is a common argument: if original D&D has such sucky writing and rules structure then why is it such an awesome game? One of our hobby's deep mysteries.

My point is simpler and narrower than you might be imagining. The problem is not really additions or subtractions or the validity of standard D&D-isms like armor class or hit points or whatever. I'm fine with all that stuff. The main problem is that the rules themselves are a turgid glop of unrelated things.

Ask yourself: how do I hit something? how do I tell if I fall when I climb something steep and dangerous? how do I decide whether or not I'm strong enough to break something? If I wrestle someone, who wins? If I'm hiding, does someone notice me? If someone or something is hiding, do I notice them? And so forth. There are answers to most of these things, but they are all idiosyncratic, unrelated rules; some refer to your stats, while other similar seeming things don't; some have over-elaborate mechanics with tables and so forth; other similar things are basically DM fiat.

The details are an unbelievable mess. But we, including myself, put up with it because the underlying ideas and the basic structure of the human interaction that happens at the table are amazing. This is the unresolvable paradox of OD&D. One solution to the paradox is to declare quasi-religious undying fealty to every little booger stain on your 1974 boxed set. Another is to throw it all in the shit can and play a glossy, carefully structured, but bloated and soul-less re-hash of the game. I think the best outcome would be to have some world-striding genius re-write the original with a technical skill that matches the creativity and a total page count of something like a 64 page staple bound book. Futura 10 point, obviously.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes)..

Microlite74 3.0 Basic (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/forum/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=1) might come somewhat close. Microlite74 1.1 (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/forum/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=11) is even smaller.

Quote from: RandallS;788952Microlite74 3.0 Basic (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/forum/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=1) might come somewhat close. Microlite74 1.1 (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/forum/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=11) is even smaller.

That's certainly in the spirit of what I mean. I suppose the next trick would be to work a bit more on the creative spirit side of things and brighten it up with a bit of artwork so it feels good to take off the shelf and read.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788944Ok, but for that reasoning to be valid re:5e, then 5e must include options other then "take that out and replace it with nothing" or "rewrite that yourself".  At the present time, with regards to just two elements, healing and magic, 5e does not.  I know, I know, the DMG will be filled with options for everything (or so we are told), but as the rules stand now, they do not meet your definition of "OSR available modules make it OSR".

Okay. Conceded, at least for the next two months.

Quote from: Premier;788873While not entirely germane to the topic at large, I feel I need to pick at this. You seem to postulate that the "OSR", whatever it is, was FIRST about playing the actual old games via strict retroclones, and then LATER evolved into games which are not clones but rather properly new products with old-school sensibilities.

Lots of self-professed OSR fans seem to perpetuate that notion, but it just ain't true. The first strict retroclone was OSRIC, and it was preceded by both Encounter Critical and Mazes & Minotaurs, both of which fall firmly in the "not a clone, but with old-school sensibilities" category, and any definition of "the OSR" that excludes them would be an asinine one. The strict retroclone idea did not start the OSR, it was just one of two completely parallel motions.

Funny thing is, the Pundit has just wrote a blog post (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.hu/2014/09/historical-blinders-in-origin-story-of.html) about this the other day.

Another game that wanted to bring earlier playstyles back into published work is BFRPG; it was published prior to OSRIC.

But I'm not talking about first to publish, I was more thinking about how there was a traction, an excitement, that new material could be published for expressly TSR-style games again that seemed to really take off around 2006-07 with the publishing of OSRIC.

This excitement was the first thing to really latch onto a self-label of "OSR".  But I agree with Pundit that it is really irrelevant, outside of a historical footnote.  And I don't see that footnote as diminishing all the promotion of earlier play that went before, that didn't go as far in faithful reproduction.

But I think that an examination of any depth will reveal that the intent always was, and continues to be (at least from OSRIC's perspective), that the cloned rules serve as a safe harbor for new supporting materials to be published for 1E.  Not to replace it.  Hell, I don't even think it was printed in full "game" form until after things had well and truly exploded.  There is no lack of posts by the editors in various forums recommending that people who wanted to "play OSRIC" should buy the original rules instead and use them, as they aren't expensive.

I don't understand the hostility or sneering condescension in that blog post towards creating a safe harbor for publishing new support materials expressly for 1E (or any other TSR-era game).  Sure, people did so before OSRIC, and also afterwards, but is there any real doubt that for a large number of possible authors, the threat of asserting fair use of the original trademark for compatibility purposes was a risk they didn't want to deal with?  Why is creating an alternative mark that many 1E-lovers would understand, to encourage publishing new support materials, a bad idea?

If enthusiastic people who came after that point, that established separate communities, in some way slighted Pundit or were disinterested in his efforts and credentials, does not excuse the inaccuracies he continues to promulgate about the intent of the close clones.  

What the OSR is will always be different things to different people, but I never thought that attacking people who want to support the originally published games would ever be part of it.

Is 5e osr? I dunno, probably not, but probably closer to osr than 3e/4e. It certainly has the AD&D feel, wich 3e/4e lacks.

It does follow the 3e/4e idea of having lots of options. Wich is the good thing about WotC D&D, so I'm not complaining. It doesn't seem more complicated than AD&D.

Edit to add:
1) Not sure 5e and OSR Are friends. After all Being pretty much a modernized take on classic D&D, 5e will attract gamers that wouldn't touch earlier WotC editions, meaning it will grab osr gamers and thus kinda hurt the OSR. OTOH OSR was started to give folks Pre-WotC D&D gaming and given that 5e is close enough, I'm not sure this is bad really.

2) Tired of the "anime" bullshit!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788889I haven't played 5E yet but reading the PHB it honestly looks like it has a little bit of everything in it. Parts of the game remind me of 2E and older editions, parts resemble 3E and 4E. I think they were doing what they said and trying to get everyone, so that means it isn't going to be purely old or new school. I could definitely play 5E. But there are a couple of bits I don't care for.

If I may echo this...

I feel the same way. And though I really do very much like older editions, I'm wondering if I should have just gone with the basic 5E rules for our current group. Some of the things they want, things we have modified out BFRPG campaign to reflect, are already in 5E. For example:

1)Backgrounds
2) Specialties
3) Combat Options (with some weapon specialization)
4) Making PCs slightly harder to off (we went with MaxHP at every level, at 0, you're dead [no "death save]).
5) More spells desired by players with casters.

Most of this is handled via 5E already. In retrospect, feel like we might should have just used the Basic packet. It's not entirely the same thing as BFRPG, but I feel like my players might have preferred it in the long run. We'll see. We've only run 3 sessions, so we'll see how it goes when they hit 3rd, where the Specialties kick in and they get some of their first options.

I tried to reply to this great post earlier but this week was kinda crazy.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655I definitely agree here.

I'm in a kind of weird position when it comes to the OSR because although I've written a couple of retro-clones that other people have referred to as being part of the OSR, I don't consider myself part of that movement.

If writing a retro-clone doiesn't qualify as "being part of the OSR" I don't know what does.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655To use Armchair Gamer's excellent categorisation (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?668828-Theory-Flavors-of-D-amp-D), most of the OSR prefers to play Knaves & Kobolds (and can often get quite One-True-Way about it) whereas my favoured play style is Galactic Dragons and Godwars.

Blimey, that's an awesome breakdown. Awesome enough that I'm spinning this off into a thread of its own.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655Consequently, although I prefer the older TSR editions to the WotC ones (until recently my favourite edition was BECMI), I don't feel that the OSR represents me and my taste in games.

I don't think so, unless I've woefully misunderstood just what "Galactic Dragons & God Wars" means, in which case I'll be only to happy to be corrected. Blair's Planet Algol and Aos' Metal Earth; Anomalous Subsurface Environment; DCC, AS&SH and their respective modules; Fantastic Heroes & Witchery; nearly everything Jeff Rients has ever blogged about; hell, even Dwimmermount has its moments. There's more gonzo, pulpy, science fantasy D&D goodness out there than you can shake one of Jack Kirby's cigars at.

In fact, next time I run D&D, this is what I want to tackle.

In any case, since you've already shown willingness to put your money where your mouth is in the recent past (love DD and Masks is my favorite FASERIP retro-clone, BTW), have you ever considered writing some OSR-friendly GD&GW modules, or even a setting?

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655Having said that, I'm currently loving 5e. I'm DMing two campaigns currently - one using a series of BECMI adventures in Mystara and the other using a series of AD&D adventures in Greyhawk - and I'm finding that although the presentation is very "new school", the feel of the game is close to classic BECMI.

In fact at the moment, 5e has overtaken even my own Dark Dungeons as my favourite edition!

Here I become intrigued, because 5e comes across as a fairly different game from BECMI/RC.

(1) In which way(s) do you feel 5e "feels close" to BECMI/RC? I have yet to play it but my reading impression was "3e lite" and/or C&C.

(2) What advantages do you feel 5e offers over BECMI/RC?

Quote from: Larsdangly;788947Somewhere in this a-grammatical babbling is a common argument:

Somewhere in your contumely, between the contemptuous "useless" and the absurd "a-grammatical," is an abandonment of any just expectation of being taken seriously.

Quoteif4 original D&D has such sucky writing and rules structure then why is it such an awesome game? One of our hobby's deep mysteries.

Only if one grants both predicate premises.

QuoteMy point is simpler and narrower than you might be imagining. The problem is not really additions or subtractions or the validity of standard D&D-isms like armor class or hit points or whatever. I'm fine with all that stuff. The main problem is that the rules themselves are a turgid glop of unrelated things.

Ask yourself: how do I hit something?

The referee has Men Attacking and Monsters Attacking matrices. They fit on a letter-size page along with Saving Throws and Clerics vs. Undead. Another page can hold the Reaction table and other commonly used data. Such notes see less reference as the material becomes familiar through use.
 

Quotehow do I tell if I fall when I climb something steep and dangerous? how do I decide whether or not I'm strong enough to break something? If I wrestle someone, who wins? If I'm hiding, does someone notice me? If someone or something is hiding, do I notice them? And so forth.

"And so forth " proceeds not only from 56 pages to 360, but to infinity. That's the first part of the paradox that makes you seem confused. The implication, if you're not going to be subject to the same complaint about "needing to make up most of the rules," is heading down the road that leads through AD&D, RuneQuest and Champions to 3/4/5e D&D.

The other roads lead either to the board-game neighborhood of Panzerblitz (rules comprehensive because whatever does not fit is simply excluded), or the Forgista expressway (rules comprehensive because the game is reduced to pure mathematical abstractions).

Either way, we're talking about a different game.

OD&D provides stereotyped formalisms for key things, by design leaving countless others up to referee judgement. This reflects the priority of the "role-playing" game over the abstract game. If you have different priorities, there are many different games on the market!

QuoteThere are answers to most of these things, but they are all idiosyncratic, unrelated rules; some refer to your stats, while other similar seeming things don't; some have over-elaborate mechanics with tables and so forth; other similar things are basically DM fiat.

The details are an unbelievable mess.

Opinions are like navels; everybody has one. I say the 1981 edition is quite orderly, and very easy to play precisely because it so elegantly addresses the essentials without a clutter of needless rules.

QuoteBut we, including myself, put up with it because the underlying ideas and the basic structure of the human interaction that happens at the table are amazing. This is the unresolvable paradox of OD&D. One solution to the paradox is to declare quasi-religious undying fealty to every little booger stain on your 1974 boxed set. Another is to throw it all in the shit can and play a glossy, carefully structured, but bloated and soul-less re-hash of the game.

Another is just to play the game actually intended. If you're spiteful toward that, then go do whatever rocks your boat and cut the crap.

Trouble with you crusaders is, everybody's got a different One True Way. All you're ever going to accomplish is pissing off one majority after another.

Give it a rest. Accept that diversity delivers more happiness. Let each game be itself, and be a player instead of a put-downer.

QuoteI think the best outcome would be to have some world-striding genius re-write the original with a technical skill that matches the creativity and a total page count of something like a 64 page staple bound book. Futura 10 point, obviously.

Who could be the Moses to lead us to the Promised Land after 40 years of wandering in the desert? See ya when you're done writing it, oh world-striding genius.

Quote from: Phillip;789032Somewhere in your contumely, ...

You are acting like a fucking dick. And, unlike TBP, this is a place where I can just tell you that without having to join your douche bag debating club.

Quote from: Phillip;789032"And so forth " proceeds not only from 56 pages to 360, but to infinity. That's the first part of the paradox that makes you seem confused. The implication, if you're not going to be subject to the same complaint about "needing to make up most of the rules," is heading down the road that leads through AD&D, RuneQuest and Champions to 3/4/5e D&D.

The other roads lead either to the board-game neighborhood of Panzerblitz (rules comprehensive because whatever does not fit is simply excluded), or the Forgista expressway (rules comprehensive because the game is reduced to pure mathematical abstractions).

Either way, we're talking about a different game.

I think there's a tendency to look at OD&D from the perspective of AD&D and/or Moldvay/Mentzer (or indeed, everything that came after 1975) and see it as a kind of "unfinished" product.  Like Gygax & Arneson were trying to make AD&D or Moldvay Basic and just failing.

I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion, but I've come to a different one.  I think OD&D is something completely different.  I mean, you can take it to where AD&D went, or to where B/X went, picking and choosing resolution mechanics you like, or making them up as you go along.  But in intent I think it was much more open, with greater Arnesonian "There are no rules; only Referee" influence than anything that came after.  AD&D, B/X, even Holmes, they all in their various ways attempted to make it so that different tables would essentially be playing the same game, even if heavily houseruled.  OD&D, on the other hand, seems to me intended for every table to be playing a different game, because the Referee was the game.  The booklets themselves were just some simple structures the Referee could refer to.  The Referee could run combat entirely by adjudication if he wanted -- that would be playing as intended.  By the time we come to all the supplements, Holmes Basic, AD&D, and Moldvay Basic, such a method of playing could only be considered an unusual variant.

To put it another way, the game published by Tactical Studies Rules was one thing, while the game published by TSR Hobbies was something similar going in a completely different direction -- to where they saw the market was going.

Quote from: Iosue;789094I think there's a tendency to look at OD&D from the perspective of AD&D and/or Moldvay/Mentzer (or indeed, everything that came after 1975) and see it as a kind of "unfinished" product.  Like Gygax & Arneson were trying to make AD&D or Moldvay Basic and just failing.

I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion, but I've come to a different one.  I think OD&D is something completely different.  I mean, you can take it to where AD&D went, or to where B/X went, picking and choosing resolution mechanics you like, or making them up as you go along.  But in intent I think it was much more open, with greater Arnesonian "There are no rules; only Referee" influence than anything that came after.  AD&D, B/X, even Holmes, they all in their various ways attempted to make it so that different tables would essentially be playing the same game, even if heavily houseruled.  OD&D, on the other hand, seems to me intended for every table to be playing a different game, because the Referee was the game.  The booklets themselves were just some simple structures the Referee could refer to.  The Referee could run combat entirely by adjudication if he wanted -- that would be playing as intended.  By the time we come to all the supplements, Holmes Basic, AD&D, and Moldvay Basic, such a method of playing could only be considered an unusual variant.

To put it another way, the game published by Tactical Studies Rules was one thing, while the game published by TSR Hobbies was something similar going in a completely different direction -- to where they saw the market was going.

It is hard to understand exactly what changed in the approach between OD&D and 1E. The content is more similar than most people realize; OD&D, including all the supplements, contained all the essential classes, spells, monsters, etc. and the basic mechanics for everything people really used in 1E were there (i.e., omitting armor vs. weapon tables and weapon speeds). So, it isn't quite right to think of OD&D as significantly simpler than 1E. But it was 'looser', perhaps because it accreted over time instead of being written all at once.

I was about 10 at the time and a 'consumer' of the products as they were, so I'm not sure what the thought process was at the time. But in retrospect I'm not really so sure Gygax was approaching it in a way that OSR purists approach it now. There is a lot of complexity in there when you really pay attention (hit location damage, the thief and monk class, etc.). And when he re-organized it and presented it as one volume it came out even more mechanically complicated and with a surprisingly rigid 'tone' (presumably because of the growing size of the hobby and importance of tournaments).

Quote from: Larsdangly;789096It is hard to understand exactly what changed in the approach between OD&D and 1E. The content is more similar than most people realize; OD&D, including all the supplements, contained all the essential classes, spells, monsters, etc. and the basic mechanics for everything people really used in 1E were there (i.e., omitting armor vs. weapon tables and weapon speeds). So, it isn't quite right to think of OD&D as significantly simpler than 1E. But it was 'looser', perhaps because it accreted over time instead of being written all at once.

I'm not talking about OD&D with all the supplements, really.  I'm talking about those original three booklets.  Everything that came after that was a result of chasing the market.  I think originally the intention was that people would create their own content; you see in some places an incredulity that people would actually pay for someone else's content.  What the original three booklets represent is essentially an idea: instead of commanding units, take control of one character, and lead him through an adventure.  The mode of play is black box: you say what your character does, the Referee handles the rest.  An overlooked aspect of OD&D is that the Referee would roll your stats, indeed they would roll everything.  The player's job was to communicate their intentions.  Resolution fell to the Referee.

The game soon evolved from that particular form.  ("Evolved" in the sense of changing to adapt to the environment, rather than any kind of sense of "improvement".)  The game came out, people wanted content to buy, they were saying, "Shut up and take my money!" and if TSR wouldn't, other companies happily would.  So the Thief class appears, even though in conception all three of the original classes were supposed to fill that function.  More spells appear, AC, originally strictly bound, is cracked wide open, to allow for more, and more powerful, monsters.  TSR got on the content train, with the supplements, The Strategic Review and later Dragon magazine, modules, and eventually AD&D finally appear.  There's no clear "OD&D vs AD&D" demarcation here.  There's the original three books, meant to be a stand alone game, but one of many games that Tactical Studies Rules intended to publish, and there's everything afterwards, when Tactical Studies Rules became TSR Hobbies, Inc., and became the Dungeons & Dragons Company.  I'm saying there was a distinct shift after the original set of three books was published, that is often overlooked when viewing OD&D, particularly through those three books, with the supplements tacked on as an afterthought.

QuoteI was about 10 at the time and a 'consumer' of the products as they were, so I'm not sure what the thought process was at the time. But in retrospect I'm not really so sure Gygax was approaching it in a way that OSR purists approach it now. There is a lot of complexity in there when you really pay attention (hit location damage, the thief and monk class, etc.). And when he re-organized it and presented it as one volume it came out even more mechanically complicated and with a surprisingly rigid 'tone' (presumably because of the growing size of the hobby and importance of tournaments).

You might find this (http://randomwizard.blogspot.jp/2013/02/grognard-games-rob-kuntz-conversations.html) of interest.  Particularly Kuntz's ideas of open form vs closed form.

Quote from: The Butcher;789006In any case, since you've already shown willingness to put your money where your mouth is in the recent past (love DD and Masks is my favorite FASERIP retro-clone, BTW), have you ever considered writing some OSR-friendly GD&GW modules, or even a setting?

My current project is a Known World conversion (including a conversion of the Immortals rules) for 5e.

QuoteHere I become intrigued, because 5e comes across as a fairly different game from BECMI/RC.

(1) In which way(s) do you feel 5e "feels close" to BECMI/RC? I have yet to play it but my reading impression was "3e lite" and/or C&C.

To me - and we are talking about feelings here, rather than objective measures - the main distinguishing features that the two games share are:

1) Very "chunky" character customisation. The 5e feats are more like BECMI Weapon Mastery levels than 3.x/4e feats in terms of of how big a character customisation element they are, and serve a similar function in that they tend to not just give you a bit of bonus damage or to hit (like 3.x feats and AD&D Weapon Specialisation) but distinguish between different fighting styles.

2) Spells in 5e remind me very much of those in BECMI as they don't have huge numbers of moving parts. Whereas in both AD&D and 3.x spells would have lots of fiddly variables that are modified by character level, BECMI and 5e both have spells that are pretty static and usually only have a single variable that gets modified (by character level in BECMI or spell slot level in 5e).

3) The fact that 5e really ramps back the "character build" and "optimisation" elements of the game makes it feel much more like TSR editions (both BECMI and AD&D) than WotC editions.

4) The "everything's an ability check, and having a 'skill' just gives you a bit of a bonus on some checks" way of doing skills feels very similar to the skill system used in the various BECMI Gazetteers.

5) The default setting for BECMI (The Known World / Mystara) is probably the most high-magic of any of the D&D settings, yet despite that it doesn't have the caster dominance that the other editions have. I haven't played very high level 5e yet, but it looks to be pitched at the same sort of balance. There's lots of magic around (there isn't a single class that doesn't have access to spell casting if they choose the right sub-class) but it doesn't appear to suffer overly from caster dominance at high level because of the changes to the spell slot system and the way concentration is handled.

Quote(2) What advantages do you feel 5e offers over BECMI/RC?

The biggest ones are the Advantage/Disadvantage system (even though BECMI has less round-to-round bonus tracking than most other editions, this is still a much nicer way of doing things), and the fact that there are so many more classes and races to choose from.

5e manages to be bigger than BECMI and offer more stuff, without being overly complex and shifting the emphasis to builds and optimisation. In fact I'd say that combat in 5e is actually simpler than BECMI (assuming you're using Weapon Mastery).

Darker Dungeons already adds a new class to Dark Dungeons, and shortly before 5e came out, I was in the middle of working on a new edition of Darker Dungeons which was going to include another three extra classes (the equivalents of Warforged, Warlocks and Warlords). Once I saw 5e I abandoned that new edition.

Quote from: Iosue;789094I think there's a tendency to look at OD&D from the perspective of AD&D and/or Moldvay/Mentzer (or indeed, everything that came after 1975) and see it as a kind of "unfinished" product.  Like Gygax & Arneson were trying to make AD&D or Moldvay Basic and just failing.

I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion, but I've come to a different one.  I think OD&D is something completely different.  I mean, you can take it to where AD&D went, or to where B/X went, picking and choosing resolution mechanics you like, or making them up as you go along.  But in intent I think it was much more open, with greater Arnesonian "There are no rules; only Referee" influence than anything that came after.  AD&D, B/X, even Holmes, they all in their various ways attempted to make it so that different tables would essentially be playing the same game, even if heavily houseruled.  OD&D, on the other hand, seems to me intended for every table to be playing a different game, because the Referee was the game.  The booklets themselves were just some simple structures the Referee could refer to.  The Referee could run combat entirely by adjudication if he wanted -- that would be playing as intended.  By the time we come to all the supplements, Holmes Basic, AD&D, and Moldvay Basic, such a method of playing could only be considered an unusual variant.

To put it another way, the game published by Tactical Studies Rules was one thing, while the game published by TSR Hobbies was something similar going in a completely different direction -- to where they saw the market was going.

Gary Gygax stated as much. As with his statements on many things, there was nuance - which is anathema to rigid ideologies of whatever stripe.

The "meat and potatoes," though, was mainly a collection and revison of OD&D material already published in the Supplements and The Strategic Review/The Dragon.

So, there was a difference between the lens through which OD&Ders read the AD&D books, and that through which many (most?) newcomers read them. That includes many of the "old school," for whom the background we pre-AD&Ders took for granted is fascinating archaeology.

Once a text is "in the wild," gamer culture starts to impart its own definition of the game. I think that was one contributor to disenchantment with 3e, the initial reception of which appeared to me to have been almost as enthusiastic as that of AD&D.

For instance, if somebody gets a kick out of "building" non-player figures for 3e (or Hero System or GURPS or whatever), then more power to her. But if it turns into a drag, then it's like the proverbial guy who says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor says, "So stop doing that!" But then you get a bunch of gamers who insist that it's necessary.

Likewise, whatever the writers had in mind or even explicitly wrote regarding "level-appropriate encounters" or persuasion skill factors or treasures or magic-item creation or feats or prestige classes - or anything else - often got trumped by a gamer-culture conventional wisdom.

I don't happen to think that 5E is old school but that is perfectly OK. I enjoy 5E for what it is and that doesn't diminish my love for old school games in any way.

When I want an actual old school experience, OD&D, B/X, and AD&D are still there. The idea that 5E has to be accepted as old school in order for those who enjoy old school games to enjoy it is BS and so is the idea that one must either love 5E above all other games or consider it a worthless piece of trash.

5E is simply a game like many others, to be enjoyed or not.

Some things Larsdangly might find worth a look:

Legendary Lives
Talislanta
Savage Worlds
The Pool
Risus
TWERPS
The Window
Dungeon World

John Kim's Bigass List of Games

There are literally thousands of published rules sets, catering to every dice-rolling fetish or other "school" that 4 decades of invention could contrive. A too-special snowflake for everything therein might as well pack it in.

Sooner or later, this hobby is going to confront you with its basic nature, which demands creativity.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;789181I don't happen to think that 5E is old school but that is perfectly OK. I enjoy 5E for what it is and that doesn't diminish my love for old school games in any way.

When I want an actual old school experience, OD&D, B/X, and AD&D are still there. The idea that 5E has to be accepted as old school in order for those who enjoy old school games to enjoy it is BS and so is the idea that one must either love 5E above all other games or consider it a worthless piece of trash.

5E is simply a game like many others, to be enjoyed or not.

AD&D and 3e were products I liked, but did not fall in love with. I'm happy to play those rules sets when the occasion arises, but I have no reason to abandon my OD&D books (which are for one thing easier to carry).

4e just did not hold my interest at all, and I think it was probably a bad move for the brand. But again, if I had enjoyed it enough for what it was, that would have implied nothing whatsoever as to my continued enjoyment of older games.

I don't get the contrary attitude. If I introduce a D&Der to Columbia Games' Napoleon and Rommel in the Desert, does that mean we can never play SPI's Napoleon's Last Battles or Avalon Hill's Afrika Korps?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;789181The idea that 5E has to be accepted as old school in order for those who enjoy old school games to enjoy it is BS and so is the idea that one must either love 5E above all other games or consider it a worthless piece of trash.

Happily, the only person I'm getting that vibe off of is Marleycat, who seems to think 5e is a gift from God itself.
5e isn't going to have much direct impact on my gaming unless my Wednesday group adopts it or something happens that makes me actually want to run it... like if some little third party starts pumping out really cool stuff for it that tweaks it out of its bland corporate coccoon.

Quote from: Phillip;789183Some things Larsdangly might find worth a look:

[list of games everyone knows about]

There are literally thousands of published rules sets, catering to every dice-rolling fetish or other "school" that 4 decades of invention could contrive. A too-special snowflake for everything therein might as well pack it in.

Sooner or later, this hobby is going to confront you with its basic nature, which demands creativity.

You are acting like such a pretentious little puke.

5E is to me the soccer of rpgs.  I'm aware that it exists, but I can't fathom why anyone would want to play it.  Friend?  Enemy?  It's more like the weird neighbor that keeps borrowing my tools and bringing them back broken.

Quote from: JRR;7892845E is to me the soccer of rpgs.  I'm aware that it exists, but I can't fathom why anyone would want to play it.  Friend?  Enemy?  It's more like the weird neighbor that keeps borrowing my tools and bringing them back broken.

Um, okay?

I've briefly looked through the 5e Basic rules.  Based on that, I think of basic 5e in much the same way I think of one of the modern RPG influenced "pseudo-clones."  That is, not really a clone, but a mostly compatible "inspired by" kind of rule set with some elements from recent editions or other modern RPG systems.

Seems okay for what it is, but I can't say I'm interested, just like I'm not terribly interested in most of the pseudo-clones.  I don't think of 5e in terms of "enemy" or "friend," mostly I just don't think of it (except when I read forums).

I think 5E may be most like C&C with a glossier art style. Which works fine for me; 90 % of the D&D I've been playing in the last couple of years has used C&C as the base rules.

Quote from: Larsdangly;789322I think 5E may be most like C&C with a glossier art style. Which works fine for me; 90 % of the D&D I've been playing in the last couple of years has used C&C as the base rules.

I'd been wondering about that. I don't know C&C but I've heard it described as 'streamlined 3.5'... and seen similar descriptions of 5e.
What are the main differences between them (besides the art/gloss)?

Quote from: Simlasa;789325I'd been wondering about that. I don't know C&C but I've heard it described as 'streamlined 3.5'... and seen similar descriptions of 5e.
What are the main differences between them (besides the art/gloss)?

C&C offers even less toys for the PCs to play with. C&C class writeups hew closer to 1e than 5e.

Still, I think they have the best Bard and Cavalier/Knight, and one of the best Ranger writeups in TSR/OSR D&Dland.

A difference you notice in play is that C&C characters tend to have fewer clubs in their golf bag; a 5E character might think through the options a bit where a C&C character grabs a die and rolls whatever he did the turn before. If it sounds like a subtle shift toward 4E I'm sure that's intentional. But they did it thoughtfully enough that I don't really notice play being slowed by 'decision constipation'

Quote from: Simlasa;789325I'd been wondering about that. I don't know C&C but I've heard it described as 'streamlined 3.5'... and seen similar descriptions of 5e.
What are the main differences between them (besides the art/gloss)?

There's even less character-building stuff in C&C. No feats, no subclasses, no backgrounds, etc. C&C doesn't include a Warlock or Sorcerer in the core rules, but does have an Illusionist and a sort of Warlord-y Knight. Of course the Proficiency and Advantage/Disadvantage rules aren't (quite) present, either. It does have saves corresponding to each save. If you want to get an idea of how C&C is, here's the quickstart guide (http://www.trolllord.com/downloads/pdfs/cnc_qs.pdf), compare and contrast Basic 5e.

I don't think WotC is in a good position to carry the "old school" torch, for the same reasons later TSR was not. The OSR is by nature a thing for hobbyists and small firms.

If the 5e line happens to include some "cross-over" products, wonderful; but I would not expect to see a steady stream of fresh material evoking the best of JG and early TSR.

On relation to C&C: Does 5e also follow the (basically  3e) model of keeping saves vs. magic and such basically static assuming "level appropriate" foes/situations? That seems to me to throw things out of whack unless there's considerable revision of the spell lists and casting allowances.

Quote from: Phillip;789715I don't think WotC is in a good position to carry the "old school" torch, for the same reasons later TSR was not. The OSR is by nature a thing for hobbyists and small firms.
.

WotC isn't in a good position to carry the "old school" torch because no one is because no one can agree what "old school' is.  We all played differently in the 70s and early 80s, and who's to say which one of us was more old school than the other?  The phrase "old school" seems to infer a date range of gaming, rather than a style of gaming.  So technically we were all old school, right?

Just play how you want to play, and realize that "old school" and "new school" are more subjective than anything else, meant to be used only in somewhat general terms.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;789717WotC isn't in a good position to carry the "old school" torch because no one is because no one can agree what "old school' is.  We all played differently in the 70s and early 80s, and who's to say which one of us was more old school than the other?  The phrase "old school" seems to infer a date range of gaming, rather than a style of gaming.  So technically we were all old school, right?

Just play how you want to play, and realize that "old school" and "new school" are more subjective than anything else, meant to be used only in somewhat general terms.

Whatever OS means to you, it's not likely to come from WotC unless it means:
1) Managers issue product specifications and deadlines.
2) Writers crank out assigned product regardless of whether they have a context of actual play from which to draw, much less a rare inspiration.
3) Enough people are ready to pay enough for what comes out of this pipeline to pay the rent and show the profit Corporate expects.

That's not how most of the works regarded as classics by self-described OSers arose. Unlike the 1970s, the D&D market is not undergoing explosive growth. Unlike the 1970s, hobbyists can share their creations freely via the Web. And WotC is not a couple of guys in a garage, never mind a couple of guys happy to make enough from game publishing to buy a few cups of coffee at Starbucks.

Quote from: Phillip;789716On relation to C&C: Does 5e also follow the (basically  3e) model of keeping saves vs. magic and such basically static assuming "level appropriate" foes/situations? That seems to me to throw things out of whack unless there's considerable revision of the spell lists and casting allowances.

Not... really? There's encounter guidelines, I guess, but it seems to be less of a thing. The Starter Set adventure features a dragon that the PCs are probably FUBAR if they actually get in a fight with it. Spell save difficulties do increase with caster level but never to the same extent, so it's still quite possible to save against an extremely powerful caster or fail against a weaker one.

5e and the OSR are definitely friends.  The existence of the latter influenced the creation of the former, and both benefit mutually from the existence of the other.

Quote from: Phillip;789720Whatever OS means to you, it's not likely to come from WotC unless it means:
1) Managers issue product specifications and deadlines.
2) Writers crank out assigned product regardless of whether they have a context of actual play from which to draw, much less a rare inspiration.
3) Enough people are ready to pay enough for what comes out of this pipeline to pay the rent and show the profit Corporate expects.

Old-school is a way to play the game at the table. I couldn't give two shits how the game materials I use are designed, published, and marketed.

Quote from: Haffrung;789944Old-school is a way to play the game at the table. I couldn't give two shits how the game materials I use are designed, published, and marketed.

Thanks for the bull, Pope. Reality check: Most other people using the term don't buy your dogma. They care about the nature of the material. They tend to find more value in stuff that arises -like the works from the 1970s and early '80s that they disproportionately cite when naming classics  - from the context of actual play, than in stuff created in isolation from it. You won't find a lot of praise for the "old-school goodness" of the deluge of factory-produced Forgotten Realms potboilers in the 2E AD&D era, compared with Ed Greenwood's seminal articles in The Dragon.

Quote from: Phillip;790167Thanks for the bull, Pope. Reality check: Most other people using the term don't buy your dogma. They care about the nature of the material. They tend to find more value in stuff that arises -like the works from the 1970s and early '80s that they disproportionately cite when naming classics  - from the context of actual play, than in stuff created in isolation from it. You won't find a lot of praise for the "old-school goodness" of the deluge of factory-produced Forgotten Realms potboilers in the 2E AD&D era, compared with Ed Greenwood's seminal articles in The Dragon.

Oh, you mean they're hipsters!

That explains a lot.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;790207Oh, you mean they're hipsters!

That explains a lot.

Oh, you're a pompous vapid-cliche thrower.

That explains a lot.

Seriously, Blacky, your know-nothing attitude explains a lot. It's not just D&D, is it? Anyone in any field who prefers the right tool for the job must be a "hipster" if his choice is just the opposite of current fashion. Can't have your Newspeak condemnation of people not in harmony with the groupthink commit the infraction of making sense, can you?

 Afghanistan and Iraq? Anyone who actually knows anything about either country or has actual counterinsurgency experience is just a "hipster" (almost as much as that so-trendy Clausewitz).

Quote from: Phillip;790211Oh, you're a pompous vapid-cliche thrower.

That explains a lot.

Quote from: Phillip;790217Seriously, Blacky, your know-nothing attitude explains a lot. It's not just D&D, is it? Anyone in any field who prefers the right tool for the job must be a "hipster" if his choice is just the opposite of current fashion. Can't have your Newspeak condemnation of people not in harmony with the groupthink commit the infraction of making sense, can you?

 Afghanistan and Iraq? Anyone who actually knows anything about either country or has actual counterinsurgency experience is just a "hipster" (almost as much as that so-trendy Clausewitz).

Man, that's the most hilarious over-reaction to a throwaway one-liner that I've ever seen! Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

Blacky, why do spout such brain-dead trash in the first place? Do you think it's "cool"? Talk about hipsters!

I dunno, I kind of see where he's coming from.

We built up out little clique around liking this thing that's "underground", or if we like the thing that's mainstream, we like the older version of it, an annoying number of us act like that preference makes us better, and from what I've seen most of us are so up our own ass with aesthetic that if a book has good production values and attractive illustrations, we'll reject it in favor of one that looks like a 15-year-old metalhead's math homework.

(Although personally, I just threw my lot in with the OSR because it was, until recently, a lot less complicated and therefore more conducive to my enjoyment than mainstream D&D.)

Quote from: Phillip;790244Blacky, why do spout such brain-dead trash in the first place? Do you think it's "cool"? Talk about hipsters!

I dunno, when a certain chunk of the OSR have a history of acting derisive of the "mainstream" version of D&D, ascribing mercenary financial motives to new editions while treating older ones as having done it purely for the love of the game, prizing crappy teenage-metalhead-homework-doodle aesthetics over slicker, higher-production-value ones, and being all cliqueish about our tastes in  games about elves and wizards, I can kind of see what he means. Not a majority, necessarily, but there's an annoyingly vocal minority that seems to turn up now and again.

AD&D1e is just better than other editions.

I don't really care whether the motives for writing it were artistic or mercenary, still less do I care about any heuristic readings of the "appendix N roots of the hobby", and as for aesthetics, mostly I care more about the contents than the packaging. I'm cliqueish in that it seems more fun to game with people who like my playstyle than those who don't. But I'll discuss games with anyone.

So much for your taxonomy.  

AD&D1e is just better. Sorry if that means than an old grognard doesn't fit your neat taxonomy (all taxonomies place the categoriser at the top of the hierarchy, discuss).

John Wick is still a commie mutant traitor storygamer.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;790296AD&D1e is just better than other editions.

I don't really care whether the motives for writing it were artistic or mercenary, still less do I care about any heuristic readings of the "appendix N roots of the hobby", and as for aesthetics, mostly I care more about the contents than the packaging. I'm cliqueish in that it seems more fun to game with people who like my playstyle than those who don't. But I'll discuss games with anyone.

Why do you prefer 1e?

Quote from: The Butcher;790300Why do you prefer 1e?

I had the same question. I wouldn't think it's because 1E is "better," but more because, if you REALLY know a system -- and old farts who've been playing the same system for 30 years know that shit -- and it does what you want, why WOULD you change? That said...

Wanna bet none of those old farts runs the damned thing by RAW? Which begs the question -- if it's the best system, why would it need to be changed in any way?  Makes no never mind to me. I'M one of those old farts, as well, having come to this hobby in 1978 (that's what my old 1E DMG tells me, anyway). I have my own sacred cows (I STILL play Strat-O-Matic, which hasn't changed a great deal since the 60s). Eventually, the whole world changes into something unrecognizable. Familiarity breeds contentment among the familiar, contempt from the outside. 1E "better?" Sure. Better for some.

Quote from: cranebump;790302I had the same question. I wouldn't think it's because 1E is "better," but more because, if you REALLY know a system -- and old farts who've been playing the same system for 30 years know that shit -- and it does what you want, why WOULD you change? That said...

Wanna bet none of those old farts runs the damned thing by RAW? Which begs the question -- if it's the best system, why would it need to be changed in any way?  Makes no never mind to me. I'M one of those old farts, as well, having come to this hobby in 1978 (that's what my old 1E DMG tells me, anyway). I have my own sacred cows (I STILL play Strat-O-Matic, which hasn't changed a great deal since the 60s). Eventually, the whole world changes into something unrecognizable. Familiarity breeds contentment among the familiar, contempt from the outside. 1E "better?" Sure. Better for some.

As an old fart, this is true to an extent.  1e certainly isn't written more user friendly than all the other editions, and it certainly isn't less complex than other editions from a rules standpoint.

That said, I do think 1e is better than most editions because how well I personally rate a game factors in things like numbers bloat and rules mastery* (two things that turned me off of 3e in a heartbeat), and the feel of the game (a major thing that turned me off on 4e; it's seemingly utter dependance on a battlemap, super slow combat, it felt more like a tactical boardgame or MMO than D&D).

Now THAT all being said, I am very happy 5e doesn't seem to have those issues that turned me off on 3e and 4e.  It's going to rank right up there with AD&D as my favorite edition to play.  I know 5e isn't everyone's cup of tea, and that's OK, because we all have different things that we consider good.


*players shouldn't be penalized for not knowing every rule or exploitation, which is what happens in 3e if you have one player charop their PC to be twice or three times as powerful as every other PC

Much as I like elements from various other editions and knock offs, I have to say that if 1E is the edition I grab on my way out of a burning house or while packing for my descent into madness on a deserted island. There is no right reason for these sorts of preferences, but I think it is right for several reasons:

1E basically is OD&D, pulled together into an organized framework and pumped up with a bunch of related stuff. So, it has a mainline connection to the structure of the game as first created, but can be navigated.

That first one doesn't really matter; the thing that really matters is that 1E is the wellspring of the look and feel and vibe of the fantasy roleplaying hobby. The artwork, the pastel modules, the monsters, the spells, the items — its all in there. It is kind of amazing to see people arguing about little niggling details of the game now (how gauntlets of ogre power work, etc.) and realize that they are, knowingly or unknowingly, talking about a paragraph of text that was written in 1977 or so.

If you leave your UA and wilderness and dungeon guides on the shelf, it is essentially a bloat-free game that never lost control of its shit.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;790296AD&D1e is just better than other editions.

  Better for what purposes? Better by what measure?

  I will freely grant that AD&D 1E is the best at being AD&D 1E--and while that's a bit tautological, it did create a whole new genre and mood that no other game has captured quite so well. The thing is, there are people interested in things that overlap to a degree with that genre, but aren't identical with it--more or less 'realistic', more or less pulp/S&S/weird fantasy, more or less logistically concerned, etc. For folks like us, other games are better suited to what we want, since what we want resembles AD&D in some ways, but isn't exactly the same as the precise flavor of the strange melange AD&D 1E created.

Quote from: Simlasa;789186Happily, the only person I'm getting that vibe off of is Marleycat, who seems to think 5e is a gift from God itself.
5e isn't going to have much direct impact on my gaming unless my Wednesday group adopts it or something happens that makes me actually want to run it... like if some little third party starts pumping out really cool stuff for it that tweaks it out of its bland corporate coccoon.

FUCK YOU. Notice that I have said nothing or been in any conversation like this subject since the actual books are out? It's because as I had been saying the game is flexible and won't break if you play it to your preference. So do so or not and don't take underhanded swipes at me punk.

Currently I'm too busy playing the game to really care about what you think or don't think of the game and I don't see that changing going forward given once the DMG is out it's unlikely any two games will be remotely the same. Similar to how 2e played out in the wild.

Quote from: Marleycat;790322FUCK YOU.

Such a charmer.

QuoteNotice that I have said nothing or been in any conversation like this subject since the actual books are out?

Yes! And the absence of your brand of 'boosterism' has done wonders towards improving my mood towards 5e... which I've been playing regularly over on Roll20.
 

QuoteSo do so or not and don't take underhanded swipes at me punk.

Not underhanded, merely a paraphrase of your insistence that OSR fans should 'thank God' for 5e.
I'll happily accept the 'punk' accusation though.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;790296AD&D1e is just better than other editions.

I don't really care whether the motives for writing it were artistic or mercenary, still less do I care about any heuristic readings of the "appendix N roots of the hobby", and as for aesthetics, mostly I care more about the contents than the packaging. I'm cliqueish in that it seems more fun to game with people who like my playstyle than those who don't. But I'll discuss games with anyone.

So much for your taxonomy.  

AD&D1e is just better. Sorry if that means than an old grognard doesn't fit your neat taxonomy (all taxonomies place the categoriser at the top of the hierarchy, discuss).

John Wick is still a commie mutant traitor storygamer.

And therefore, you're not a hipster.

I'm not saying all of us are hipsters, just enough of us to give people the wrong impression.

If this were a taxonomy intended to put people like me as the top, I'd probably characterize the OSR as high-minded philosopher kings with crystal spires and togas. It's not. It's just an assessment that assholes in the OSR are assholes.

25 years ago, TSR products got value from (1) being readily available, and (2) being "official."

Availability is not such a distinction today, because the Web makes it easy for hobbyists to share ideas. The notion that an official book is the Law has gained currency, but being an exception is one way to be "old school."

OS refs are more likely to create their own milieus, less likely to find added value in reams of "canonical" background and "metaplot" continuity. They get more out of material available for free, and what they're willing to pay for cannot be so reliably produced by the institutional culture of a game industry giant.

This is not a big issue for WotC, because the OSR is a small market.

Having run one session of 5th edition D&D (using the Starter Set), and having looked a bit at the Players' Handbook and the online Basic Rules, it is clear that D&D 5e is not an 'old school' game.  It simply has too many 'new school' elements for it to be that (such as 'at will' cantrips, full recovery of hit points with every 'full rest,' and so forth).  

Nor do I think that it ever was intended to be an 'old school' game.  Rather, it was designed to be as ecumenical as possible.  Usually such efforts turn out to be horrible, in my experience, since in trying to please everyone the product in question ends up pleasing no one.  But in this case it seems that one can run D&D 5e in an more-or-less 'old school style' without too much difficulty – something that was not easy to do with 3e D&D in my experience (and, I gather, simply impossible with 4e).

Moreover, there is no reason why a 5e game cannot borrow elements and ideas from older editions and existing OSR games and settings, and vice versa.  At the very least, it looks quite feasible to run, say, a 1st edition AD&D module using the 5e rules without too much conversion work.  Both games belong to the same genus.  

From an 'old school perspective,' so to speak, I would say that 5e D&D resembles Castles and Crusades more than anything else on the market these days.  Like C&C, it can be run in an 'old school' way, and clearly draws much of its inspiration from classic D&D and AD&D.  Yet it also includes a number of 'innovations' and employs a more unified underlying structure.  Indeed, if I wanted a pithy way to describe (how I would run) 5e D&D, I would say that it is a superior version of C&C.

So D&D 5e and the OSR should be friends – or at least peaceful neighbours – and not enemies.  (I'm not sure how they could be 'frenemies'.)