Quote from: Brand55;1139226Beat me to it. The Boon/Bane system absolutely crushes Advantage/Disadvantage in terms of granularity and realism, and it allows players to roll multiple dice which is a big plus for a lot of people. I'd have to look at the math behind everything, but if I were to run D&D 5e I'd likely look into swapping in the Boon/Bane system with rolls capped at 20 or 1 instead of using Advantage/Disadvantage.

Edit: Okay, the Boon/Bane system. Basically, you have a d20 roll like normal, but different things can make your effort easier or harder. For each of those, you roll an extra d6. If it's good, it's a Boon and it can add to your roll. If it's a Bane, it would subtract. Boons and Banes cancel out, and you only ever add or subtract the highest roll. So as a D&D example, say your character is trying to climb a rock wall. You're proficient at climbing (Boon), but the rock face is really smooth (Bane), it rained earlier today (Bane), and you're doing it in a hurry because there are a bunch of guards firing arrows at you (Bane). You'd roll a d20 with 2d6, subtracting the highest d6 roll from your d20 to get your total.

But in D&D you aren't going for a representation of realism. You are going for cinematic heroic fantasy. The whole point of the game is to be big damned heroes. Larger than life. That's what it has always been, and what it will always be.

Pundit's games, like Dark Albion, go for a portrayal of realism as a defining feature. But that is what makes them different. They provide an alternative approach to the market leader. And that is totally fine. It's good in my mind that they exist. Pundit provides a counterpoint to heroic fantasy. And there is plenty of room in the hobby for that.

My view of the OSR is to provide alternative ideas and approaches for those looking for them. If they are good solid products, I will absolutely recommend them. Just as I do with Pundit's games. And I do that because I respect their writer. He does good stuff. And though it may not be what I want out of gaming, I like being prepared to point people in the proper direction should they ask me to. Because it may appeal to them.

Quote from: finarvyn;1139276My solution was to change the way rests work. A short rest works just like the book says, but in the wilderness I ruled that a night's sleep was only another short rest and that the only way to get an actual long rest was to spend a few days in "Rivendell" (any decent sanctuary). This made my characters rethink use of spells and other things that only recharge on a long rest, and this made resource management a thing again. So, I'm not sure about the "6-8 encounters per day" thing, but that could be reasonable if "per day" is interpreted as "between long rests."

It even makes perfect sense. If you've ever been on a camping trip, you'd know you aren't exactly getting deep and meaningful sleep. Add in the need to take watch rotations and spending half the night listening to strange sounds emanating from deep within the dungeon (or forest) and there's no way you've gotten a full 8 hours of rest. I don't generally required D&D to be "realistic" by any stretch of the imagination, but you just can't beat that kind of verisimilitude.

I had not realized that Shadow of the Demon Lord was considered OSR. I have it, and I really like it, so I'll have to remember that the next time I enter a conversation about OSR games (which, in my mind, have almost always been based on pre-2e D&D rules).

My experience with dis/advantage is this; it absolutely crushes granular modifiers in terms of fun at the table.

Background: I've been playtesting my own system for a few years now and originally I did not like advantage/disadvantage at all as part of a general hate-on I had for 5e.

So obviously I used granular modifiers initially, but over time they went from +1-2 to +3-5 because effects needed to feel meaty for the majority of playtesters to remember they were there.

Anyway, because one of my design mantras has been question everything; especially sacred cows; I decided I would run some tests using an advantage/disadvantage type of mechanic in place of the static modifiers. I'll also admit that I was entirely biased and went in fully expecting the test to prove that static modifiers were superior (and thus why originally it was only going to be in my optional rules chapter).

Except they weren't and I can cite the exact moment that static situational modifiers died in my system;

It was in a big fight where things had gone against the party. One player hoping to turn the tide burned a whole bunch of resources on an attack... and whiffed. They needed a 11 on the die to succeed and rolled a 2, but the target was flat-footed (my condition for roll twice use best in the test) and so they got to roll again when reminded of that and rolled a natural 20 and dropped the monster with the critical hit.

No static modifier you forgot about could have saved that roll, much less compete with the Endorphin rush of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat with a natural 20. That table started calling the mechanic "save vs. failure" due to the way it worked to give you another shot at success when the first roll failed and I've found it a handy shorthand to explain it to others.

Related to that is that dis/advantage also makes it easier to retroactively fix something when you forgot a situational modifier. With static mods you have to remember what the original roll was and add the forgotten modifier to it. With the re-roll the only thing you have to remember is did the original check pass or fail.

Also, unlike Banes/Boons there's no math heavier than compare two numbers in the resolution and that makes it much quicker to resolve when it comes up.

All of those combined... endorphin rush of save vs. failure, easy to apply retroactively when you forgot, and faster math resolutions for combat... are ultimately why dis/advantage is such a successful mechanic for so many and why it ended up as my system's default situational modifier mechanic while my static modifiers got moved to the optional rules chapter.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1139279But in D&D you aren't going for a representation of realism. You are going for cinematic heroic fantasy. The whole point of the game is to be big damned heroes. Larger than life. That's what it has always been, and what it will always be.

No, that's what D&D has been warped into over the years, culminating with 5e were characters where characters cannot die and recover overnight back to their full health. But older editions of D&D were far grittier, with characters recovering only one single hit point per day through natural healing and only reaching heroic proportions at higher levels, once they've actually endured countless adventures and had the chance to overcome many obstacles and perform actual heroic deeds. But lower level characters were always relatively frail, relying on their wits, their luck and each other to survive.

The whole point of D&D was that adventuring life was dangerous and you were supposed to work together just to stay alive--strongly emphasizing the value of cooperation and reliance on each other, rather than self-aggrandizing notions of "heroism"--in the hopes that you might live long enough to eventually become big damn heroes at much higher levels. But even then that does not preclude using "realistic" mechanics to handle certain functions, such as the effects that situational factors and complications might have on your ability checks.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1139288No, that's what D&D has been warped into over the years, culminating with 5e were characters where characters cannot die and recover overnight back to their full health. But older editions of D&D were far grittier, with characters recovering only one single hit point per day through natural healing and only reaching heroic proportions at higher levels, once they've actually endured countless adventures and had the chance to overcome many obstacles and perform actual heroic deeds. But lower level characters were always relatively frail, relying on their wits, their luck and each other to survive.

The whole point of D&D was that adventuring life was dangerous and you were supposed to work together just to stay alive--strongly emphasizing the value of cooperation and reliance on each other, rather than self-aggrandizing notions of "heroism"--in the hopes that you might live long enough to eventually become big damn heroes at much higher levels. But even then that does not preclude using "realistic" mechanics to handle certain functions, such as the effects that situational factors and complications might have on your ability checks.

I'm not a grognard. I believe growth and change are not just good for the hobby. But vital for its continued existence.

That D&D has become more appealing to the mainstream is a good thing in my eyes.

Grognards are antithetical to growth and evolution. They oppose those factors vigorously. They would rather live in the past than let time and new ideas develop. They don't want growth.

I've fought grognards in the past. And honestly? I have seen a lot of good game systems submit to the will of the grognards. And the result has been nothing but the same. Games that no longer sell and only appeal to a very thin sliver of the overall available RPG audience. The Hero System is big example where the grognards drained absolutely every shred of life from it. To the point that the products no longer sell.

If you look at Pathfinder. It's a very different game than D&D 5e. It has its own style, focus, and design goals. But honestly? I think variety is the spice off life. Different products that appeal to different sorts of gamers is a good thing to me. A healthy hobby needs constant variety. So the audience does nothing but grow.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1139279But in D&D you aren't going for a representation of realism.

Not perfect realism, no, but you still want things to be believable. I've yet to see anyone put up a decent argument how it makes sense having 287 things giving advantage gets completely negated if just a single complication comes up. Or why having just one thing in your favor should be the same as having literally everything going your way. No system is perfect, but Advantage/Disadvantage (the way it's implemented) is just too dumbed-down and unrealistic for my taste.

Quote from: Brand55;1139291Not perfect realism, no, but you still want things to be believable. I've yet to see anyone put up a decent argument how it makes sense having 287 things giving advantage gets completely negated if just a single complication comes up. Or why having just one thing in your favor should be the same as having literally everything going your way. No system is perfect, but Advantage/Disadvantage (the way it's implemented) is just too dumbed-down and unrealistic for my taste.

That's the beauty of the OSR. You can have or write something that exactly fits your taste. You really don't have to settle for something you don't like.

The OGL and System Resource Documents uncorked the bottle and let the genie out to play. in a way that can never really be withdrawn. You can have it your way. And you don't have to adhere whatever Wizards or Paizo puts out.

Creating new stuff is anti-grognard. In the best way possible.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1139125I figured that I would post this here. Because my feelings on D&D 5e are pretty straightforward. I like the implementation of the rules that had been done in this edition. They speak to me more than any other since 3.5. And I love the game's simplicity and accessibility.

I have the core rulebooks and many of the general rules supplements. Along with Volo's Guide To Monsters, and Mordenkainen's Tome Of Foes. So I'm almost ready for anything that character has to offer.

I honestly don't care about the politics behind the scenes. I just like the fact it is a good game. And it is. Kudos to Pundit for his part in its development.

I don't buy every supplement for it. But there are those I want to buy. Mostly character additions.

Well, there is the rub. I find D&D 5e to be passable, but the culture that surrounds Organized Play and worships WotC have been a royal pain in the ass who try to drive away any TTRPG gamers who play games other than D&D 5e.

Quote from: jeff37923;1139295Well, there is the rub. I find D&D 5e to be passable, but the culture that surrounds Organized Play and worships WotC have been a royal pain in the ass who try to drive away any TTRPG gamers who play games other than D&D 5e.

I've heard the same wail from wargamers for most of my adult life. That RPGs were displacing them from a spot they believed was there's by divine right. I have no sympathy for the RPG gamers of today who are now engaging in that same old wail. It was crap when I was just starting the hobby back in the '80s. And it is still crap now. Life moves on. Get with it, or get bulldozed.

This is the age of the internet. There are plenty of interest groups online that can match people up with similar interests. They are there if you really put in the effort to look for them. You don't have to rely just on game stores as social hubs for your gaming fix.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1139293That's the beauty of the OSR. You can have or write something that exactly fits your taste. You really don't have to settle for something you don't like.

The OGL and System Resource Documents uncorked the bottle and let the genie out to play. in a way that can never really be withdrawn. You can have it your way. And you don't have to adhere whatever Wizards or Paizo puts out.

Creating new stuff is anti-grognard. In the best way possible.

That's not exclusively an OSR thing, that's just the way house rules go with any system. I can port the Boons & Banes from Shadow of the Demon Lord into 5e without really changing much of anything else (and those exceptions can themselves be house ruled too), and I now have the ability to show varying degrees of Advantage/Disadvantage while still playing what is essentially 5e.

Ok, was this forum thread meant as a 12-step program for grognards?  I misread.

Quote from: Brand55;1139226Beat me to it. The Boon/Bane system absolutely crushes Advantage/Disadvantage in terms of granularity and realism...

A nice layout of the mechanic and better than I could have explained it, but that one sentence doomed your thoughtful response to be picked apart.  Well, at least you elucidated on the mechanic question and one person liked the idea enough to steal it.  Heh

Quote from: HappyDaze;1139281I had not realized that Shadow of the Demon Lord was considered OSR. I have it, and I really like it, so I'll have to remember that the next time I enter a conversation about OSR games (which, in my mind, have almost always been based on pre-2e D&D rules).

Sorry the mechanic was not officially 'OSR' that I mentioned.
Regarding the ADV/DIS itself, Delta does an interesting article on breaking it down:
https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2017/06/advantage-and-disadvantage.html
He does mention FASERIP which is TSR 1984 so does that fit the specific requirements set forth better?


Nothing wrong with the 5e 'Advantage/Disadvantage'.  I would agree that the it works well with the grandiose nature of the system:  The dizzying highs and lows.  Still, you eventually end up with high-level heroic, resilient characters who eventually become nigh unstoppable when played by the book.  Some players like to win all the time, which is fine but then eventually you're just at the table making stories with the DM, where the dice rolls have just become some Pavlovian bell to keep ringing.

Sure, modify and houserule (and some good ones were mentioned in this thread), but with all the automation tools that have become almost ubiquitous with using 5e, that becomes harder and harder to do.  Your players come to expect the magic, automated style and you're stuck.  Remember, these days, it is expected you ensure that the players enjoy themselves: The 'good' DM is reduced to being the waiter at the table handing out the menu and that's how WoTC likes it!

Quote from: VisionStorm;1139288No, that's what D&D has been warped into over the years, culminating with 5e were characters where characters cannot die and recover overnight back to their full health. But older editions of D&D were far grittier, with characters recovering only one single hit point per day through natural healing and only reaching heroic proportions at higher levels...

Yea, was about to mention something similar.  That's the problem these days, due to 5e's prevalence, the concept of all D&D has been painted with its broad brush.  Many know not the legacy of the old skeleton of the 1rst level, 1HP wizard, with the crappy spell, lost somewhere in the dungeon.

Quote from: Chris24601;1139283My experience with dis/advantage is this; it absolutely crushes granular modifiers in terms of fun at the table.

During a 6 month campaign I had with friends and an open mind, my experience was that it got less fun as we went along. I guess it would work for some people otherwise it wouldn't be so successfull. Again the case for me is that it has no space for depth.

D&D 5e is also not the only system with a reroll mechanic.

My group have been playing PF1 for quite a few years and last year I was about to switch over to DnD5e (I bought core rule books for my kids a while back) but then Pathfinder 2E came out and we are using that system instead.   The 3 action system works well and so far my players are having a blast.   I find it has plenty of crunch that 5E lacks.    I don't use Paizo's world since I have a homebrew world that I have been working on for years and years annnnnd years.   Corerule book, Gamemaster guide, Bestiary's and soon to be released Advanced Player's Guide about the only books we need to keep playing for years.   No need for premade adventures not like players can stay on track anyways

Quote from: Krugus;1139305...The 3 action system works well and so far my players are having a blast.   I find it has plenty of crunch that 5E lacks.    I don't use Paizo's world since I have a homebrew world that I have been working on for years and years annnnnd years.   Corerule book, Gamemaster guide, Bestiary's and soon to be released Advanced Player's Guide about the only books we need to keep playing for years...

Yea, that 3-action system is really the standout feature for PF2e .  I think with Paizo going off the deep end with their official stuff, your homebrew world concept is definitely the way to go.

I bought the two special edition books when they came out.  They've been sitting on my bookshelf as I need to decide if I want to go down that road again of heavy mechanics and put the time in to learn them.  I can see how it has enough meat on the bones to keep players entertained with all the facets for an extended period of time.  Maybe time to crack the books again once more.