D&D General On Grognardism...

[Ancalagon]

As has been pointed out old school rule sets are not light.



Debunking the misinformation you are spreading from your description of modern systems as complex when compared to arcane older systems to your leap to it being about trust issues.

Well... which old school system are you looking at? AD&D 1e (which as you say, is a mess), or B/x? Look up the OSE version.

The thing is that happened in 3e was that they did great work in solidifying and unifying the mechanics. BUT once they had that solid foundation, they built up on it. All the simplification gains were lost because of this.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not really. Old school used several different mechanics and rolls by default. Optional rules add more.

Many players can't even handle easy butt 5e as is.

And since I disagreed with someone for calling old school super complicated, I must now disagree with you regarding 5e. I had a player who chose to play a Monk and simply couldn't manage it until I made them a "chart" illustrating what they could do in a round.

5e is not rule light. It's "medium crunch". Look up Troika!, or perhaps the GLOG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Most of the criticism I see of mainstream or traditional modes of play is a lot more directed at something like the playstyles of something like Critical Role and what Matt Colville espouses than it is at Moldvay or Traveller. Speaking as someone who has been at times a critical voice when it comes to things like the prevalence of GM storytelling and spotlight balancing on this board I'm quite fond of both the classic game and many OSR games.

Agreed. It's also worth remembering that Ron Edwards' notorious "brain damage" comment wasn't made about D&D at all but about Storyteller - and the approach called Trad in the Six Cultures of Play blogpost. And I think the huge root of my argument with @transmission89 is that he appears to think what the six cultures of play called Trad is somehow the New School rather than looking past that decades old paradigm.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well... which old school system are you looking at? AD&D 1e (which as you say, is a mess), or B/x? Look up the OSE version.

B/X I'd consider acceptable and could be re-written to be light but a table had better provide something important to be decent in play. That said the B/X the saving throws slightly confuse me; I've a mental model that works with why Rod/Staff/Wand, but why are wands on their own important enough to require their own category? On a tangent I actually like the old school saves.

As for OSE, I've given it a couple of minutes of research but the seeming inability of the SRD to use hyperlinks at appropriate places in the pages is currently annoying me and that plus the short sections are breaking my flow while reading. Is there something better?

The thing is that happened in 3e was that they did great work in solidifying and unifying the mechanics. BUT once they had that solid foundation, they built up on it. All the simplification gains were lost because of this.

Entirely agreed.

 

[transmission89]

Well... which old school system are you looking at? AD&D 1e (which as you say, is a mess), or B/x? Look up the OSE version.

The thing is that happened in 3e was that they did great work in solidifying and unifying the mechanics. BUT once they had that solid foundation, they built up on it. All the simplification gains were lost because of this.

Spot on this.And this:

“5e is not rule light. It's "medium crunch". Look up Troika!, or perhaps the GLOG.”


My comments have only been made in context of D&D based systems, as I have little interest in other systems or latest flavours of the day. B/X is wonderfully light, complete system at 128 pages.
But, I shouldn’t elucidate further with my views, when others can state my opinions for me, I wouldn’t want to deprive them of that fun!!

 

[Neonchameleon]

And since I disagreed with someone for calling old school super complicated, I must now disagree with you regarding 5e. I had a player who chose to play a Monk and simply couldn't manage it until I made them a "chart" illustrating what they could do in a round.

5e is not rule light. It's "medium crunch". Look up Troika!, or perhaps the GLOG.

Definitely agreed that 5e isn't rules light either

One thing I would say is that in defence of both old school and 5e (and something 4e didn't catch on to until Essentials*) is that if you are playing a class-based game with a light structure you can then set your classes and subclasses to different complexities to suit different players. A monk is one of the more complex classes in 5e.

* Referring to 4e's own internal edition war I consider Essentials to be a terrible replacement for the PHB but excellent splatbooks because of this.

 

[Minigiant]

And since I disagreed with someone for calling old school super complicated, I must now disagree with you regarding 5e. I had a player who chose to play a Monk and simply couldn't manage it until I made them a "chart" illustrating what they could do in a round.

5e is not rule light. It's "medium crunch". Look up Troika!, or perhaps the GLOG.

Never said 5e was rules light.

I said 5e uses fewer mechanics than pre3e

 

[CleverNickName]

Fewer rules doesn't necessarily mean lighter rules. Some of the older versions of D&D might not have had as many rules as the newer versions, but the rules they did have were messy and counterintuitive. THAC0, for example.

For me, BECM was the right mix of complexity and simplicity. I wish the rules set was available on Roll20; I'd totally run The Isle of Dread if I could. (It'll have to wait until we're all vaccinated, alas.)

 

[transmission89]

Fewer rules doesn't necessarily mean lighter rules. Some of the older versions of D&D might not have had as many rules as the newer versions, but the rules they did have were messy and counterintuitive. THAC0, for example.

For me, BECM was the right mix of complexity and simplicity. I wish the rules set was available on Roll20; I'd totally run The Isle of Dread if I could. (It'll have to wait until we're all vaccinated, alas.)

I mean, I guess that would depend on how you define light? Id say for me, fewer rules makes a game inherently lighter by definition.
This is one reason I prefer b/x to becm because becm started to become clunky with its (admittedly optional) skills and weapon masteries etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

I mean, I guess that would depend on how you define light? Id say for me, fewer rules makes a game inherently lighter by definition.
This is one reason I prefer b/x to becm because becm started to become clunky with its (admittedly optional) skills and weapon masteries etc.

Agree. Most people will define "light" as having only the rules they need, in an easy to understand format, with no extra stuff that must be omitted, or houseruled away. But what rules are needed/not needed, and the acceptable amount of complexity, will vary from table to table. I've never met two DMs who played the same rules in the same way, and that's been true since the 1980s.