OSR OSR Gripes

Celebrim · Jul 16, 2019

Umbran said:
Or, the also not-uncommon "start at 3rd level".

Yeah, I've encountered that with one group as well.

Note that "a half-dozen people before you suggested X" does not actually mean that those half-dozen are representative. Using posts here for that is like using self-selected poll data - it does not represent what portion of people actually feel that way, as much as how strongly this small number of people feel about the point.

For the purposes of my claim, I don't require a representative sample, since the claim I'm refuting - "Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request" - is refuted by showing at least one OSR DM that doesn't see the logic of that request.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
So while your answer makes some sense, I don't think it's grounded in reality.

Well, or the alternative wasn't. More likely, it was another thing that varied a lot.

Further, if your answer does make sense, then it becomes a table rule of some sort the simplest and least time wasting version of which will be something like "max hit points at first level".

I recall Max 1st HD (because Rangers) being a very common variant.

One group even figured that, at 0 level, everyone, even mere peasants, got 1-6 hps, so your first level HD should add to those.

Umbran said:
Or, the also not-uncommon "start at 3rd level".

The version of that I encountered was the "brevet" - start at 2nd, but 0 exp...

Celebrim · Jul 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Well, or the alternative wasn't. More likely, it was another thing that varied a lot.

The one true statement you can make about old school play is, "It varied a lot."

One group even figured that, at 0 level, everyone, even mere peasants, got 1-6 hps, so your first level HD should add to those.

Now that's one I haven't encountered before, but that's a very advanced concept we really wouldn't see in an official capacity till like 4e. It does solve a potential ton of problems, but I suspect that I would have hated it on first sight back in the day by pure reflex - "A 10 h.p. 1st level M-U, inconceivable?!?!"

Umbran · Jul 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
For the purposes of my claim, I don't require a representative sample, since the claim I'm refuting - "Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request" - is refuted by showing at least one OSR DM that doesn't see the logic of that request.

Yeah, but I think you're treating the discussion as if folks are choosing their wordign along strict logical lines, when that behavior is not terribly common.

"Any DM (OSR or not)..." may not be strictly true. Though, it may be - they may *see* the logic, but reject it. But whatever the case, in spending your time refuting the strict statement, you miss the actual point that perhaps lots and lots of DMs *will* see the logic, which is probably still a major point for the discussion.

Don't allow strict adherence to logic get in the way of understanding the practicalities.

Sacrosanct · Jul 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I was more than half expecting I'd made some dumb math or table lookup error. ::shrug::

CR: 1/2.

.

Which makes the 5e orc twice as powerful compared to a level 1 5e PC than a 1e orc is to a 1e PC. As I said, apples to oranges.

But what's the point. You're arguing that AD&D rest and recovery is comparable to 5e's, and that's just laughable. Not sure why you continue to argue that because everyone knows that's not true or even remotely close. I suspect you know it's not true. I suspect you knew it was not true even before I did the math for you to show just how different the two editions are. So shine on, I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who doesn't seem to be arguing honestly.

DMZ2112 · Jul 16, 2019

I started a BECMI game for my D&D5 group at the beginning of 2018, with the intention of running the Basic canon as a palate cleanser. I started with the Great Escape scenario from Castle Caldwell and Beyond as a funnel, with everyone running three unequipped 1st-level characters generated in the traditional way (3d6 in order). I ran as by-the-book as I could, although the stilted wargame initiative system was a very early casualty. No one ended up with the character they wanted. We got through two incredibly tense and lethal adventures before the resounding response from the group was, "This was fun; we can stop now." No one made 2nd level.

The relevant takeaway, though, is that everyone in the group recalls those months fondly, and still frequently express gratitude for what the campaign taught them about roleplaying and how it has impacted their D&D5 play since. It was a worthwhile experience, and I recommend it to any group that wasn't playing in the '80s. You don't have to do it for long for it to teach you valuable lessons that have become less pronounced in contemporary D&D.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
Now that's one I haven't encountered before, but that's a very advanced concept we really wouldn't see in an official capacity till like 4e. It does solve a potential ton of problems, but I suspect that I would have hated it on first sight back in the day by pure reflex - "A 10 h.p. 1st level M-U, inconceivable?!?!"

The logic seemed irrefutable to my 15yo self.

"So, hey, Tony, it says here that peasants have 1-6 hps and or '0th' level." "Well, yeah, they're not as good as characters with classes, they don't have levels, but they do have some hps." "Right, but before you have a class you don't have a class, right?" "I guess." "So my magic-user, before he became a magic user, he had 1-6 hps." "That follows, sure." "But, if he rolled a '6,' why would his hit points go /down/ for going from 0 to 1st level?" "Oh, I hadn't thought of that." "Yeah, see, so 6 hps + max d4 = 10!"

".... wait, wasn't that '6' hypothetical...?"

Celebrim · Jul 16, 2019

Umbran said:
Yeah, but I think you're treating the discussion as if folks are choosing their wordign along strict logical lines, when that behavior is not terribly common.

Well, most of my daily communication is with computers...

Celebrim · Jul 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
The logic seemed irrefutable to my 15yo self. "So, hey, Tony, it says here that peasants have 1-6 hps and or '0th' level."...

I see where that comes from, but by my logic (at the time and since) is a 1st level M-U had never been before a 0th level peasant but had in fact been before a 0th level apprentice M-U. And before that they had been a child, and children did not have 6 h.p. Furthermore, it was never clear to me that 0th level peasants actually rolled hit points, but rather those hit points represented a range of being 'buff' based on the peasants age and profession and so were either assigned (in the case of profession first) or implied profession (in the case of hit points first). Thus, a 0th level peasant child never had 6 hit points in the first place as having 6 h.p. would have proved this peasant wasn't a child, but rather a middle aged blacksmith or stevedore.

Still, in retrospect with me being a little open minded, it's a very reasonable solution to the problem of 1st level play and if it can be justified so much the better.

I actually do something similar in my house rules with a slightly different justification: you get bonus hit points based on your size class.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Which makes the 5e orc twice as powerful compared to a level 1 5e PC than a 1e orc is to a 1e PC. As I said, apples to oranges.

There was no CR in 1e. You could totally face orcs (or heck, gnolls, zombies, an ogre, etc) at 1st level. ('Face' not necessarily to be taken literally.) Part of the appeal, I should think. (Of course, CR /guidelines/ don't prevent you from facing an Ogre - or disinterested dragon - at first level, they just wave a red flag at the idea.)

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.

But, hey, whatever, Kobolds (CR 1/8 lowly enough for you?):
1e: 1/2 HD, 1-4 hps, AC 7, hit the frontliner on 18 for 1-4(2.5) damage (0.375 DPR, no crits, officially)
5e: 5hps, AC 12 (yeesh), +4 to hit, so tag the frontliner on a 14, for 4(1d4+2) damage (1.4 DPR, 1.6 including crits).

But what's the point. You're arguing that AD&D rest and recovery is comparable to 5e's, and that's just laughable.

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.

And, the 'solution,' if you do want to go even slower - as if you were running an apocryphal/non-viable healing-less party that needed a week+ of rest - is not to re-write tons of rules, it's a simple variant that changes the length of short & long rests.