D&D General Why is "OSR style" D&D Fun For You?

[Zardnaar]

I think there are some good options to spice up warrior classes in OSR editions.

You could add the various manoeuvres granted to fighters (lance attack, smash, set spear vs. charge, parry, disarm)

ACKS has bonuses for warrior classes, the cleave attack which let's you make another attack if you drop an enemy, if you keep getting kills, you can keep making attacks up to your level (essentially a simplified version of the old dnd make X attacks against creatures of less than a hit die). Warriors also gain a scaling damage bonus so that they can do what they do best, dish out damage.

OSE had a short article with a half dozen specialisations for fighters, since they aren't honestly that interesting if you can play a barbarian, ranger, or paladin. You get 3 as you level, things like cleave, weapon specialisation, defender (like the 4e marking), sword and dagger fighting, etc.

Various OSR games, or even the original games, have things you can do in combat over and above "I attack" or have ways of making the fighter more badass when they do attack. I'd probably mix and match all of the above if I was running an OSE game.

I ran ACKs back in the day before 5E landed with 3.X players.

The fighter player though the fighter was so so until he realized it basically had great cleave for free, bonus damage as a fighter as in an edition where you could easily kill 2-3 HD monsters in 1 hit.

 

[Hussar]

Another excellent reason not to treat them as gospel.

But, I'm not.

That's the point. I keep getting told that my experience with older versions of D&D was either "Well, no one actually played that way" or "You don't understand the rules" or "Well, DM's would just change those rules and would always change them in a way that lines up with my preferred playstyle."

It's incredibly frustrating. What is "old school" is often built on goalposts with rollerskates. The whole "Most Lethal Edition" thread (https://www.enworld.org/threads/lethality-ad-d-and-5e-looking-back-at-the-deadliest-edition.698685/) is just this entire song and dance on repeat. People keep insisting that we have to respect everyone's playstyle, but, that only seems to apply if I happen to play the way you played. ((You being a generic you, not you @Micah Sweet)) Anyone who has differing experiences is just thrown under the bus and discounted.

And if I point to actual quotes from the books, it doesn't matter, because the "DM will just change that".

It would be really nice to actually discuss older editions and not whatever Frankengame people happened to be playing at their table.

 

[cbwjm]

I ran ACKs back in the day before 5E landed with 3.X players.

The fighter player though the fighter was so so until he realized it basically had great cleave for free, bonus damage as a fighter as in an edition where you could easily kill 2-3 HD monsters in 1 hit.

Yeah, the fighter in ACKS can dish out a lot of damage, they're great at what they do and since that damage bonus adds to all weapons, it means they can cut down enemies with melee or ranged weapons. Clerics and thieves can also cleave but at half the rate and less likely to drop an enemy with a single hit (barring backstabbing).

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, the fighter in ACKS can dish out a lot of damage, they're great at what they do and since that damage bonus adds to all weapons, it means they can cut down enemies with melee or ranged weapons. Clerics and thieves can also cleave but at half the rate and less likely to drop an enemy with a single hit (barring backstabbing).

Yup I forget the exact benefits of the character options.

A +1 bonus is great when you're rolling a d6.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, I'm not.

That's the point. I keep getting told that my experience with older versions of D&D was either "Well, no one actually played that way" or "You don't understand the rules" or "Well, DM's would just change those rules and would always change them in a way that lines up with my preferred playstyle."

It's incredibly frustrating. What is "old school" is often built on goalposts with rollerskates. The whole "Most Lethal Edition" thread (https://www.enworld.org/threads/lethality-ad-d-and-5e-looking-back-at-the-deadliest-edition.698685/) is just this entire song and dance on repeat. People keep insisting that we have to respect everyone's playstyle, but, that only seems to apply if I happen to play the way you played. ((You being a generic you, not you @Micah Sweet)) Anyone who has differing experiences is just thrown under the bus and discounted.

And if I point to actual quotes from the books, it doesn't matter, because the "DM will just change that".

It would be really nice to actually discuss older editions and not whatever Frankengame people happened to be playing at their table.

Well, I wasn't thinking of you with my comment, its just how I feel.

Everyone has different experiences though, and naturally we're going to weigh our own a little heavier. That's why I'm looking at what I did, and what the book says.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I wasn't thinking of you with my comment, its just how I feel.

Everyone has different experiences though, and naturally we're going to weigh our own a little heavier. That's why I'm looking at what I did, and what the book says.

I'm a little confused though. You said:

I have never based the assumptions of my game on that game's published adventures. They are at odds with the actual rulebooks remarkably often.

Which sounds like you are actually discounting what the books say. I would argue that if you find that the adventures are at odds with the rulebooks, then it's more likely your interpretation of the rules is not the same as the game designer's interpretations. The only way that published adventures would be at odds with the actual rulebooks is if the writers of the adventure didn't understand the game. Considering the scrutiny that most modules face, I find that a position I don't really agree with.

That's why I do struggle in these conversations though. For example, you'll often hear about how old school games are very low magic items. Your fifth level character was lucky to have a +1 sword. But, then I look at the actual play examples in the books and the modules written by the same people as the rule books, and they are absolutely chock-a-block with magic items.

Which then spins off the argument - "oh, well, players don't find the treasure that's in the adventure, it's well hidden". Which spurs actually looking at the written adventures and realizing that nope, most of the treasure isn't hidden (although, yes, some is). Most of it is not only very easy to find, but, often really obvious as well - magic swords do glow after all; that potion or scroll isn't really all that hard to figure out that it's magical.

Now the argument is, "Oh well, modules don't count. I never used them and modules don't actually follow the rules". That's a pretty bold claim from someone who says they don't actually run modules. I would like to see some pretty strong examples of modules not following the rules before I'd buy that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a little confused though. You said:


Which sounds like you are actually discounting what the books say. I would argue that if you find that the adventures are at odds with the rulebooks, then it's more likely your interpretation of the rules is not the same as the game designer's interpretations. The only way that published adventures would be at odds with the actual rulebooks is if the writers of the adventure didn't understand the game. Considering the scrutiny that most modules face, I find that a position I don't really agree with.

That's why I do struggle in these conversations though. For example, you'll often hear about how old school games are very low magic items. Your fifth level character was lucky to have a +1 sword. But, then I look at the actual play examples in the books and the modules written by the same people as the rule books, and they are absolutely chock-a-block with magic items.

Which then spins off the argument - "oh, well, players don't find the treasure that's in the adventure, it's well hidden". Which spurs actually looking at the written adventures and realizing that nope, most of the treasure isn't hidden (although, yes, some is). Most of it is not only very easy to find, but, often really obvious as well - magic swords do glow after all; that potion or scroll isn't really all that hard to figure out that it's magical.

Now the argument is, "Oh well, modules don't count. I never used them and modules don't actually follow the rules". That's a pretty bold claim from someone who says they don't actually run modules. I would like to see some pretty strong examples of modules not following the rules before I'd buy that.

I don't use modules except to pull for scenarios and maps.

To give an example from 5e, the game as per the DMG considers magic items unnecessary. But as you say the published adventures are full of them. That's a discrepancy, don't you think? Which way is actually how they expect you to play?

 

[pemerton]

I would argue that if you find that the adventures are at odds with the rulebooks, then it's more likely your interpretation of the rules is not the same as the game designer's interpretations. The only way that published adventures would be at odds with the actual rulebooks is if the writers of the adventure didn't understand the game.

In the context of early AD&D modules - G, D, S, A, C1 and C2 - I don't think this is quite right.

In the minds of the designers at that time, there seem to be two different sorts of D&D play: tournament competition play; and Gygax-DMG-style campaign play. The modules exemplify the first sort of play; the rules in the rulebooks are written mostly to support the second sort of play.

A comparison would be when I went to a friend's house once for a bridge party. The cards weren't randomly dealt - the host had put together curated hands that he thought would make for interesting bidding and play. This is still bridge, but it's obviously not the same as just sitting down and dealing the cards. That doesn't mean anyone's confused about how to play the game, though!

What turns out to have happened, it seems, is that Gygax-DMG-style campaign play turns out not to have been the main approach to D&D play. We can see this in the DL modules, the express and radical changes in tone and instructions in the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, the emergence of the AP as the premier sort of module, etc.

For example, you'll often hear about how old school games are very low magic items. Your fifth level character was lucky to have a +1 sword. But, then I look at the actual play examples in the books and the modules written by the same people as the rule books, and they are absolutely chock-a-block with magic items.

This is a different thing again, at least to an extent: the MM rules under the Men entry for magic items on high level bandits, pirates etc are reasonably generous, compared to the Treasure Table rules. And then there are the also-quite-generous rules in the DMG for magic items on NPC adventuring parties. That's before we even get to questions of module design.

And of course magic items are one of the most fun parts of the system, so it stands to reason that if there is any deviation from the stated norms, it will be in favour of more items.

 

[dave2008]

I don't use modules except to pull for scenarios and maps.

To give an example from 5e, the game as per the DMG considers magic items unnecessary. But as you say the published adventures are full of them. That's a discrepancy, don't you think? Which way is actually how they expect you to play?

Not exactly. If you follow the DMG treasure tables then you are expected to have magic items. The point of 5e is that you don't have to have magic items.

 

[Hussar]

I don't use modules except to pull for scenarios and maps.

To give an example from 5e, the game as per the DMG considers magic items unnecessary. But as you say the published adventures are full of them. That's a discrepancy, don't you think? Which way is actually how they expect you to play?

No, I didn't say that. I said that AD&D modules are full of magic items. 5e modules aren't actually that heavy at all. I'm finishing up playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen and at 15th level, my paladin has a magic sword. That's it. No magic armor, no magic shield. Oh, wait, I have a girdle of giant strength. Two magic items in a 14th level character.

I just ran Candlekeep Mysteries. There's virtually no magic items in any of the adventures. If I hadn't added stuff (this turned in a REALLY gonzo campaign, tons of fun) the party would have virtually no items. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has next to nothing either. Certainly nowhere near the level you see in AD&D adventures, which is rather funny considering that most of those adventures actually ARE AD&D adventures.

IOW, no, I'm not seeing the discrepancy.