OSR OSR Gripes

lowkey13 · Jul 16, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct · Jul 16, 2019

I know I shouldn't reply again and against my better judgement, but now you're just flat out lying. I find it even more disingenuous because what your'e lying about was already address upthread, so I have to assume you're either not reading anything I'm writing, or you're intentionally lying.

Tony Vargas said:
So it's an Orcs to Orcs comparison. Orcs just have bigger hp/damage numbers in 5e, like most every monster, just like 5e PCs have more healing to patch themselves up after fighting 'em.

No it's not an orcs to orcs comparison. Once again you're totally ignoring how level 1 PCs in AD&D routinely faced orcs in combat on a roughly 1 to 1 basis. An orc was the equivalent to a level 1 PC. In 5e, the design team decided to improve the orcs, making them the equivalent to a 2nd level PC. In AD&D modules, orcs were were a routine opponent of level 1 PCs. In 5e adventures, they almost never are. I can't think of one example where level 1 PCs in a 5e published adventure are meant to fight an equal # of orcs. Comparing them as if they were equal is simply a dishonest comparison.

I get that it /seems/ that way, when you look at overnight recovery vs 1hp/day + CON mod/week or whatever you used back in the day. But that's not a meaningful comparison, because the latter just didn't happen if you had any renewable daily healing resources. Instead, you healed using those. The difference on that end is thus largely bookkeeping. In 5e, you just recharge everything in 32-48 hrs (depending on exactly how you rule the 24 hr hard limit, getting back all your HD adds at least 24 hrs). A low level party in 1e could go through a number of re-memorization cycles in that time, and also be at full hps with all their spells ready. It's just not a major difference in the way the system dictates pacing to the campaign.
.

This is a flat out lie, as has already been pointed out to you before you even made this claim. Look at my posts above. In 5e you recover everything after one long rest (8 hours). Not 32-48 hours. Not only do you recover everything, you also get a whole bucket load of healing available before said long rest (and I didn't even factor in class recover abilities or healing kits that don't exist in AD&D). In that example I used above of a typical 5th level party, it takes the AD&D party 7 days to has as much healing available as the 5e party has in 8 hours, with the cleric spamming healing/rememorize/cast. That is a major difference. The entire campaign changes dramatically in that time frame. That's just on a macro level. ON a micro level it's even more of major difference, because in AD&D you can run out of those 5 cure light wounds spells in one battle and still have to either continue on due to need, fight your way out, or otherwise find a place where you can spend anther day to get 5 more spells. Contrast to 5e, and in the adventuring day, you have all slots available to cure spells (many are empowered at higher level), as well as all of those hit die recoveries. And when you do find a place to spend a day, you get back everything. Not just 5 cure light wounds spells.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

lowkey13 said:
TLDR; Yes, at low levels (say, level 1 and 2) combat in 5e can still be a little swingy, especially with monster crits, but the differences between the two systems are so vast that saying that 5e is a little swingy at first level therefore it is similar to 1e doesn't seem quite right.

And, at high level, in 5e, they get a lot safer, which is /also/ similar to 1e, as you accumulate hps and get better saves and more protective items and more spells to negate/reverse bad things happening to you.

While the details of the systems are quite different - 5e has bigger hp/damage/healing numbers, 1e has much more significant scaling on d20 targets (which it used moreso than bonuses, though those were to be expected) - the cadence, the 'dynamics of play,' and the 0-to-hero story arc (and thus feel) they provide are quite similar.

It's actually a little hard to suss out /why/ they feel so similar... I just noticed that they did, in how it felt to run them, so I spare it a little thought now and then.

(I guess I'm off topic, because I'm not really griping about OSR, more just boosting 5e as a sort of OSR game in its own right.)

lowkey13 · Jul 16, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

lowkey13 said:
Yes, but no. I think it depends on your frame of reference?

It feels more similar than, perhaps, 3e or 4e.

Definitely. I played 3e & 4e each for their full runs. 5e was like coming back to AD&D, in contrast. If I'd never left, it'd seem radically different, because I'd be noticing all the little (and huge) technical differences, rather than the broader similarities, the ways in which the game had changed, rather than ways it changed back.

Maybe a more interesting question is what OSR and 5e share that, say, 3e and 4e don't

/The/ major thing, IMHO, is the privilege of the DM relative to the other players. 3e works so well for PvP, because PCs, monsters, & NPCs all follow the same creation rules. By the same token the DM can engage the players on a more equal footing, following the RaW rather than interpreting it, sticking to a set of CR/EL guidelines to keep it 'fair,' and 'play to win.' 4e was easier on the DM to run because it off-loaded responsibility, the rules ran well (arguably best) with complete transparency, it didn't matter - might've helped - if the players could look right at the monster's stat block, for instance.

In the classic game, the DM /needed/ to make a lot of rulings, pick or author variants, keep a lot of info behind the screen, and so forth, it was just the way those eds had turned out, in part because they grew out of wargames, in part because they were being developed in uncharted territory. In 3e RaW & 4e Balance, not s'much, so players were more accustomed to questioning the DM, and less accustomed to depending on DM judgement. 5e - by design rather than by wargame-hobby habbit or early-game-development accident - put the DM back in the driver's seat, and made the players /need/ the DM, and need to trust his judgement, for the game to run properly. In so doing, it brought back the feel of the classic game.

lowkey13 · Jul 16, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So, as someone who went from 1e to 5e, I can tell you that there are more than just technical differences! The similarities (such as classes, races, ability scores, etc.) mask a deeper structural difference which becomes more obvious (to me at least) over time.

Ok...

I posted this in the other thread, but the prevalence of magic, alone, is such a huge factor, and the difference between innate abilities and magic items creates a massive difference in play and expectations.

Magic has always been /so/ pervasive in D&D. It's an infinitely-renewable, daily (or 4hr-nap) resource. You kill a few monsters, one of them'll eventually drop a magic item. There's /fewer/ items, in theory, in 5e, and not really a lot more spells/day (and fewer spells overall)…

… and then there's cantrips, which seem to freak people out, but if you've played with Warlocks and at-wills for a decade, you've gotten used to the idea of at-will magic that just isn't that impactful, not, well, making much of an impact.

Mmm.... maybe? I'm not sure I'd use the phrase privilege, "privilege of the DM" because that might carry some baggage today, but I do understand your point.

Empowerment, responsibility, force, illusionism, POWER! Mwuahahahahahah! Take your pick.

They're all often used for good, and often made to sound bad.

To my mind, this gets into a lot of other issues, specifically the primacy of RAW (ugh!) and DIY (yay!) and divergent play styles and player trust etc.

I would say that 5e allows you to emulate certain aspects of OSR, while having more modern underpinnings.

Not entirely unfair. I feel like 5e just natural falls into the groove of /feeling/ like a return to the classic game (from the WotC era, as you rightly point out), prettymuch without trying (but then, that's with me, an old-timer, running).
And, yeah, I suppose that classic-game feel is just /an/ aspect of OSR.

(Though, if I'm being honest - and, apparently, I'm not

- I'm not so sure I grok what those other aspects are, at least, what they are that I can't as (or more) easily recapture by just actually playing 1e, itself. I guess OSR falls between the two? A little bit /less/ exactly 1e than 1e, a good deal more exactly 1e than 5e...? ...and, yes, I can only really consider 1e-emulating OSR, having no meaningful experience of B/X (not my c1979 Blue Basic book, it turns out) and little of 0D&D.)

lowkey13 · Jul 16, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

lowkey13 said:
The difference between limited Vancian spellcasting, as you had in OSR, and today's spellcasting, is VAST.

The difference in ease of use is certainly there, that's been the game's direction the whole time, it's one thing the WotC era hasn't deviated from.
Maybe it was just 'pervasive' that threw me.

Because, yeah, neo-Vancian is way more versatile than old-school Vanican, and way less limited in in-combat used. OTOH, the breadths of spells isn't as great, and some of them are, well, 'less broken' in some ways... ;|

And the difference between very few characters having the ability to cast spells, and every .... single ... character ... being able to cast spells (if not as a base class, then as an archetype, or at a minimum, they can take a feat) is also vast.

You could absolutely have a 1e party who could all cast spells. The option to have a non-caster isn't gone, in 5e, either, it's just isolated to a few sub-class choices. So you can still have a population in which casters are just as rare as you like. Doesn't speak to pervasive, in the setting.

Yes, OSR had magic items that (roughly) approximated the character class abilities we now have.

Old-school magic items are a little bit of a difference from 5e. Again, it's one of those things where if you see them /returning/ from their relative absence of the prior decade or so, it's a different impression if you see them getting tweaked from 'what they'd always been' (from '74 or 79 through 1999). One of the stand-outs, for instance, is that items that replace stats, Gauntlets of Ogre Power &c. They were changed to stat boosts in 3e, basically erased in 4e, and, now, boom, they're back. But 18/00 and 19 aren't the same thing, and they're "not assumed" anymore...

...then again, that can be little more than a polite fiction. Ultimately the DM places magic items in all eds, anyway.

I tend to use "OSR" as generic term for OD&D, B/X, and pre-UA 1e, in addition to the retroclones that model those rules. In my opinion, those rulesets are all part of a continuum that is easily distinguishable from "OSR 2.0" (1e post UA, 2e) which has a different feel.

OK that's an interesting take. I thought of OSR as /distinct/ from the games they were cloning or evoking, which was one of the things that always made me wonder about it. Like, I can just dust off the old books... right?

One of the interesting things about 5e, IMO, is that it manages to have just enough of other editions that people always say that it's like their favored edition, if you just do X.

That's certainly one of the things it was going for.

It starts out AD&D-like … OK, 2e-AD&D-ish. Kit's are called Backgrounds, MCing doesn't work right, but you can kinda fake a fighter/magic-user with an EK, and any whatever/Thief with the Criminal background, and how much other MCing was there, really?

Turn on Feats & MCing and it's more 3e-like, but you really have to re-invent make/buy, and the lack of PrCs is sad.

Flip on the 'gritty' rest settings if you really need them to get a slower pacing.

It might be tempting to think you have to trash the skill "system," but, really, the DM can straight-up ignore it where it doesn't map to things that feel right. Because of the "play loop" - y'know, DM describes the sitch, player declares an action, DM /determines how to resolve it/ and narrates results. You just never punt to the un-D&D-feeling skills like Diplomacy or whatever (and players figure that out and never take said skills).

Umbran · Jul 16, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I know I shouldn't reply again and against my better judgement...

Yes, well, then you really should have paid attention to your better judgement. Let me help you: Don't post again in this thread.

Everyone else - treat each other with respect. If you can't, it is time to take a break.