OSR OSR Gripes

Monayuris · Jul 10, 2019

Celebrim said:
Naked contradiction is fine, but you'd be a lot more convincing if you were willing to tackle any of the issues I'm bringing up. If I started bringing up the problems with a having narrow wheels on an all steel body car with a high center of gravity, and you just told me, "It always worked for me." you wouldn't really convince me you had a lot of experience with the car no how matter how you told me you still drove one weekly.

So I think this conversation may have got off to the wrong foot a little.

If you thought that my post was an insult to you, I apologize I didn't intend that.

My point was more addressing the assertion that running a game based on rulings somehow means you can't have an objective game. My assertion was that with practice and learning, it is indeed possible to run a game based on rulings that is 100% objective.

It is something that requires work and study and skill. This is a statement of fact and not a supposition of your own capabilities as a DM. In fact, it is something that I work on all the time and try to improve at. Personally, I feel the work I put in helps make me a better DM, so I find the endeavor worth it and satisfying. I love D&D and anything that helps me be better at it is something worth doing. I also run and play 5E... the same work helps me be better at that game as well.

To the actual post:

I'm really not sure of what I need to convince you. You said this, here:

When someone says "old school games play absolutely fine" it really makes me wonder if you played them. Like as soon as I read the 'scent' rule in 3.0e, I smelled the 1980's and the old pizza and the table arguments as we tried to get realism and the rules to mesh into something everyone at the table agreed to. And if that didn't happen for you, were you even there?

You are projecting your own experiences on me.

You are making the assertion that older versions of D&D are broken and old and busted and are to be abandoned for newer versions. I simply don't share the same viewpoint or experiences with the game. You go on to assert that if I don't have a similar outlook as you towards the game, then I'm lying and I have not actually played these games.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

I don't need to convince you or anyone. If you don't believe me, I don't care.

I don't need to tackle any of the issues you bring up. You already have a multitude of versions of D&D that serve you better. Enjoy playing those games.

Zardnaar · Jul 10, 2019

People have different tastes.

Don't like it don't play it's fairly simple. If you are somewhat competent it's hard to die in 5E. Throw in whack a mole bonus action healing it gets boring after a while.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Monayuris said:
I don't need to convince you or anyone. If you don't believe me, I don't care.

I don't need to tackle any of the issues you bring up.

Ok. Here's the thing. There are plenty of people on this board that run 1e AD&D. But my general experience with them is when I bring up specific rule issues, they either agree that it is a problem or they talk about how they've rulesmithed their way around them - often decades ago. What they generally don't do is tell me in very general terms how its not a problem because they got skills, or try to convince me that rulings are somehow 'objective'. It's one thing to go, "Hey, that's just your opinion man.", and another to tell me that and also assert that the DM's opinion is objective.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Zardnaar said:
People have different tastes.

Don't like it don't play it's fairly simple. If you are somewhat competent it's hard to die in 5E. Throw in whack a mole bonus action healing it gets boring after a while.

Difficulty is always a matter of encounter design. All you have to do to make it easy to die is throw a party up against more than the 'expected' danger. And that's not particularly challenging. If you want to replicate the terror of being first level and maybe going down to a single hit in say 3e, you just throw a Ogre at the party with say a large sized two-handed sword, or throw a gargoyle at the party. Games like LotFP basically do that sort of thing. It's not that the game is challenging, it's that it just throws encounters at a party when they don't have the answers to the problems that they'll have at a higher level.

I don't claim to be a 5e expert, but I would generally expect the same sort of encounter design strategy to yield the same sort of 'challenge'.

S'mon · Jul 10, 2019

I generally prefer 5e, but running OSR helped me be a better 5e GM.

Zardnaar · Jul 10, 2019

I went back and played old adventures for training basically.

Samloyal23 · Jul 10, 2019

You want to survive? Fight dirty, use poison, be prepared to run. If you are being chased by a monster, you do not have to outrun the monster, just outrun another party member. If the monster is getting too close, knock out the guy next to you and then keep running. Also, use ranged weapons. Keep the enemy at a distance. Run and gun, keeping your distance from the enemy. You can be noble when you get another hit die.

Zardnaar · Jul 10, 2019

Samloyal23 said:
You want to survive? Fight dirty, use poison, be prepared to run. If you are being chased by a monster, you do not have to outrun the monster, just outrun another party member. If the monster is getting too close, knock out the guy next to you and then keep running. Also, use ranged weapons. Keep the enemy at a distance. Run and gun, keeping your distance from the enemy. You can be noble when you get another hit die.

Plan A drop food.
Plan B drop the other person.

NPCs surrendering often meant volunteers for trap finding.

Ralif Redhammer · Jul 10, 2019

I like my RPGs like I like my cars…small and easy to park? I drive a Honda Fit. It lives up to the name, which in a city, is a good thing.

Although, maybe there is something to the analogy. One of the surest ways to turn me off on an RPG is to have a giant core book.

lowkey13 said:
I like my cars like my RPGs. Old and gorgeous.

Ralif Redhammer · Jul 10, 2019

I think that’s just arguing semantics. Sure, I enjoyed the paladin trying to pull something like that off. To me, that’s the sort of sacrifice that a classic paladin would make, when hope is nearly lost. I adjudicated an opposed role and the villain failed their check.

The player came up with something that used the environment, played to the DM’s game style, and wasn’t just “I swing my sword, use a magic item, cast a spell, or use a class ability.” Call it whatever you like, but I stand by my original statement.

Celebrim said:
With respect, if we are talking about a game like 1e AD&D or BECMI that's not playing smart.

That's simply entertaining your DM. You weren't outwitted. You just enjoyed the scene and so allowed it.