D&D 5E A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming

[Nebulous]

Frog God also has this free download, and i think it is more than applicable to 5th edition, which seems after all a throwback to earlier editions. I for one am going to lean toward "less die rolls, more description" in this game.

http://froggodgames.org/quick-primer-old-school-gaming


The mechanics of searching a room for goodies is of particular interest to me. In general, i don't think ANY die roll is needed if something can be found with a minute or two of thorough looking. If something is deliberately hidden, then that would probably require a search roll. Even then, players might have to specify the exact area.

This sort of scenario, below, i would like to avoid:

The Mysterious Moose Head (Modern Style)
John the Rogue: “We open the door. Anything in the room?”
GM: “No monsters. There’s a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall.”
John the Rogue: “I search the room. My search skill is +5. I roll a 19, so that’s a 24.”
GM: “Nice roll. You discover that the moose head slides to the side, and there’s a secret
panel behind it.”

 

[mach1.9pants]

It is a great piece of work, Mr Finch's OS Primer. Has been out since 2008 but still a great insight into how to play in a more OS player skill rather than character skill type way

 

[Nebulous]

What a great little booklet, surprised i never saw it before. Looks like it came out right at the start of 4th edition. The wheels are turning in my head as far as 5e, it's going to be a blend of old school "player creativity" bolstered by rules and dice where needed, but not die rolls just by default.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, the Quick Primer. Otherwise known as Strawmen R Us. In which Matt Finch picks or makes up some pretty bad modern DMing and compares it to what he thinks is good old school DMing.

And even in this case the terrible modern DM he comes up with is still ends up with better results in at least one one of his cases (the Ninja Jump) - in this case the player of John The Roguish is eventually going to learn that he shouldn't actually try anything interesting in combat because it's a fast way to a Darwin Award so combat is going to devolve into a series of bland attack rolls (utterly trashing the Tao of the GM about Abstract Combat-Fu). As for searching the room? There are times this is interesting - and others where I can't be bothered to click every single pixel on the computer screen to find the right one and would rather cut the whole tedious process short.

The third zen moment? Means you're not playing D&D, certainly not old school D&D where wizards can create fire from nothing and the fighter was quite literally called a Superhero at level 8.

The fourth zen moment? Don't make me dig my Gygax quotes up on the subject of balance balance. But suffice it to say that there has literally never been an RPG with more attention paid to balance and playtesting than Brown Box D&D. Claiming that oD&D wasn't about balance is completely contrary to what happened.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This sort of scenario, below, i would like to avoid:

The Mysterious Moose Head (Modern Style)
John the Rogue: “We open the door. Anything in the room?”
GM: “No monsters. There’s a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall.”
John the Rogue: “I search the room. My search skill is +5. I roll a 19, so that’s a 24.”
GM: “Nice roll. You discover that the moose head slides to the side, and there’s a secret
panel behind it.”

OMG... my character who is skilled in searching uses his skill instead of my own guess work on what the DM thinks is clever... oh no!?!?!

can someone please explain what a better way to do this is? Because what I see is a text book example of how to play a game... maybe a bit wordy...

 

[Agamon]

OMG... my character who is skilled in searching uses his skill instead of my own guess work on what the DM thinks is clever... oh no!?!?!

can someone please explain what a better way to do this is? Because what I see is a text book example of how to play a game... maybe a bit wordy...

In the grand scheme of things, there's no right or wrong, there's only preference. Finch is just pointing out to people that are used to having things like "Search +7" on their PC sheet how to play a game (such as a number of OSR games) with no skill rules.

The Primer is for someone that hasn't played anything older than 3e that looks at something like S&W and wonders, "How do I do anything in this game?" What it isn't, is a treatise on BadWrongFun that people should get bent out of shape over.

 

[howandwhy99]

The Mysterious Moose Head (Modern Style)
John the Rogue: “We open the door. Anything in the room?”
GM: “No monsters. There’s a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall.”
John the Rogue: “I search the room. My search skill is +5. I roll a 19, so that’s a 24.”
GM: “Nice roll. You discover that the moose head slides to the side, and there’s a secret
panel behind it.”

As an old school gamer I for one don't agree with everything in that booklet. I applaud any attempt to clarify what early D&D was like and what people talked about, but there was endless rules discussion out of game about balance and correct level for things like monsters, magic items, and spells.

The quoted method isn't early D&D because it's using skills (checks), but dice rolls are part of that game. They enable the abstraction of very complex situations into simple odds for any player attempted action. And those odds are expressed by the chance inherent to the roll.

If we explore a room 30'x20'x10' high and there are 5 of us working together, 2 humans, an elf, and 2 halflings, then the odds of our group are unique, yet pliable. So is the chance of the room based on its size, composition, contents, possible traps, lots of stuff. When we make a roll, we spend time. A set time based on all those factors above. When we fail and make another, we spend more time. It's up to the players on when they want to quite rolling/searching or when they switch back (or forth) to more specified actions.

I heartily applaud too D&D Next for allowing player-directed discovery, but it should never be a requirement. All those scrupulously detailed searching actions might still result in a roll of chance (but hopefully a better one). Rolling isn't bad, but it needs a predetermined structure prior to the roll derived from the progressing situation of the game.

Rolling could be a strategy based on the limited session time available
Or the desire not to get involved with searching, but rather just roll until you find something or quit
Or the use of a preset SOP you've already worked out speeding up game play
Or the first few times you've played so you haven't thought to try and search specifically
Or the belief that there isn't anything of value to really specifically search in the room.
Or a hundred other reasons.

I'm not trying to come down on you. It's not really about doing one or the other. But doing either should be navigating the maze of the game. Something not currently supported.

 

[dd.stevenson]

OMG... my character who is skilled in searching uses his skill instead of my own guess work on what the DM thinks is clever... oh no!?!?!

can someone please explain what a better way to do this is? Because what I see is a text book example of how to play a game... maybe a bit wordy...

I don't like getting involved with old school primer threads because I strongly believe that there is no right or wrong way to play the game, long as everyone's having fun. And it's hard to find kindred spirits in such threads.

That said. If you are interested in replacing search/perception/spot with player skill, you'll want to probably observe a few things:

1) An informal action economy. Each player gets to search one thing or do one thing, and the DM rolls for an encounter, or pops a preset encounter depending on how the players narrated their search.

2) Gentleman's agreement about what may or may not be searchable. Usually, only specific objects named by the DM can be searched, meaning that unless the DM specifically calls out individual cobblestones, players don't need to worry about checking them.

3) A player skill-friendly dungeon will likely have lots of telegraphs about traps and hidden items that the players are expected to find. (Lightning marks on the walls, etc.)

4) The key about old school play is that you really have to keep things moving. If players want to stop and search every cobblestone, you're better off either imposing some cost, or just falling back on search(int).

Just remember that anyone who claims one style of play is unequivocally better than the other is pulling your leg. Both exploration styles have their own strengths and weaknesses, and IME the best games are able to switch between them as the situation warrants.

(If you're interested, you might also want to check my sig for the dungeon world exploration houserules.)

Happy gaming!

 

[ExploderWizard]

After a brief read through of the basic rules, it seems 5E has enough flexibility to let individual DMs determine how much player specific action is required for play. This is perfectly in line with DIY old school methods. The only folks likely to be offended by such flexibility are the ones who look to others outside of their playing group to be the voice of authority at their table.

The cult of "official" needs to die a very permenant death. If you are not willing to assume responsibility for running the game they way you like it then perhaps someone else should DM.

There are only preferences, and the group as a whole needs to decide which options are right for them.

 

[Charles Wright]

I prefer to use the search role to be used to see if a character notices, say, something odd about the moose head and perhaps he would like to take a closer look. Play out the scene quickly and let them worry about traps, perhaps.