OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

[Umbran]

I don't remember voting them in as arbiters of which opinions are correct.

A convenient sidestepping of the argument.

Mod note:
Folks, someone decided to pick a fight on a post back from 2021. Consider if you want to engage in an argument based in that behavior, please.

 

[Lanefan]

Somehow I completely missed this thread the first time around, so I'm glad of the necro.

For the record I've never had a problem selling cursed items to my players - but that's because I make the curses risk/reward. For example my "Bloodseeking dagger" that if thrown at a target with blood always has advantage - but if you miss it ends up in the nearest PC. They are always a test of greed or of coolness rather than a straight "this is an unremovable piece of -1 armour".

I've never had a problem with it either, mostly because right from day one I present magic as something that carries risks and dangers along with its benefits. And so when the necklace of strangulation takes you out or the shield of missile attraction paints a great big target on you* it's just seen as part of the game; the risk-side of maybe acquiring a shield of missile deflection or a necklace of adaptation.

* - life-extension advice: never ever go up against Giants with one of these.

Or, as DCC does, a "level 0 funnel" where you get four random PCs each and the last to survive succeeds

Or more, if you're lucky and more than one survives. I love that DCC formalized the funnel idea; I've kind of always run my games as an informal funnel anyway, lasting longer and not as codified but certainly the same general idea - it takes luck as well as skill to survive.

 

[Lanefan]

Right. I was specifically speaking of the (many, many) old-school cursed items that are, fully by author intent, almost-indistinguishable from proper and entirely beneficial magic items. The ones meant to punish that "lazy" players who don't get things rigorously identified.

I don't see a problem here.

If you want to have your character throw caution to the wind there has to be some potential consequence to that. Yes that necklace might make you immune to fire, and who wouldn't want that...but there's a small chance it's going to strangle you instead. And that small chance enforces (in theory) a modicum of caution among characters and, one hopes, their players.

And I say this both as a) the author of a guide to magic-item field testing that I really should post here sometime, and b) a player who has had a whole lot of incautious (or in some cases plain unlucky) characters die through using unidentified items.

That serves a very different function, so it really would not suffice as an alternative to "novice levels." But it IS a really great piece of design, don't get me wrong. It is not design for me, but I love how smart a design it is.

The thing is, the funnel is a response to a related design issue. It isn't the need for useful tutorial levels nor to wanting to make the early levels dangerous, but rather to a knock-on problem that comes from making the early levels dangerous. Namely, it takes a long time to get anywhere with such stuff.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Low-level play can be (and IME often is) the most fun of all; people aren't as attached to their characters and so they'll try the most gonzo of stuff, leading to laughter and grand entertainment all round. And, out of the gonzo and the resulting trail of bodies some stars will emerge; for whom the Hall of Heroes waits.

When players start taking it seriously and-or start to get precious about their characters it all gets much less entertaining.

Back when D&D was new, that wasn't as much of a problem for a variety of reasons--the people playing it were younger, often single with no children, focused on college or early career stuff, and things like video games, the internet, and various other forms of fandom had not taken off yet. Requiring several months just to get off the ground with a single character is rough in the modern context.

I have no sympathy. If people are keen enough, they'll make the time.

The funnel beautifully solves that problem by compressing that in time. Every character is run through their early-level gauntlet simultaneously, and thus you're (very) likely to get at least one or two characters who survive to reasonable level, where mortality falls off pretty fast.

This assumes the funnel happens fairly quickly. Were it me, I'd extend the process out significantly.

It's a truly brilliant design move,

On this we agree, but I think for almost opposite reasons.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, the solution I would've preferred would've been embracing modularity: Place some dials on the game so that both lethality and heroic fantasy can be achieved. Make Level 3 the official starting point for heroic fantasy, and stop HP increase after Level 10 (much like it was pre-3E) for those who want the grittiness to stay at higher tiers. If 5E was as modular as was initially promised, I think this would be possible (and it'd give more space for OSR in the mainstream, as the "challenge mode"), but as it is it's unlikely to happen.

I've been saying for ages - and might as well say again - the real answer (that, sadly, we'll likely never see) is for WotC to put out two compatible but different versions of the game; one very reflective of old-school dangerous adventuring where death awaits the fool around every corner, and the other more geared toward heroic fantasy. In the first, high-level heroic play would be optional (the system might stop at about 9th level); in the second, low-level gritty play would be optional (it would start at the rough equivalent of 3rd-5th level now), and tables that wanted both would start with one and transition to the other as the characters advanced.

Ideally these would be compatible enough that some rules from one could be seamlessly ported to the other e.g. if one wanted a less-dangerous version of the low-level game those rules could be ported in from the heroic version.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have no sympathy. If people are keen enough, they'll make the time.

But why should they have to when the game does not respect the players' time? One of the reasons I do not run any form of D&D for my group that likes more danger is that any edition of it is sloooow. Why do you want players to walk the long way round the hill when the stairs are right there?

 

[Bedrockgames]

On lethality and cursed items that is very much a personal taste issue I think. As player I tend to enjoy the excitement that lethality and the possibility of cursed items bring to play (I also just like items that do weird and unexpected things).

 

[Malmuria]

To me, what makes dungeon crawlers tick is a constant risk/reward structure. Everytime you inch forward or interact with anything you might find great reward but also risk several types of peril-traps, curses, monsters, etc. But I think everyone should be on board with that, and the DM should be as transparent as possible to show they are providing a challenge not simply being malicious

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why should they have to when the game does not respect the players' time? One of the reasons I do not run any form of D&D for my group that likes more danger is that any edition of it is sloooow. Why do you want players to walk the long way round the hill when the stairs are right there?

Because sometimes the journey is the worthier part.

 

[Lanefan]

But why should they have to when the game does not respect the players' time?

I see it the other way round: the players (and DM, for all that) have to respect the amount of time the game will take and-or last, and adjust to suit.

One of the reasons I do not run any form of D&D for my group that likes more danger is that any edition of it is sloooow. Why do you want players to walk the long way round the hill when the stairs are right there?

Again, flip side: the journey's not just around/over the one hill but through the whole range of hills and across the plains beyond. Strap in for the long haul and let's get started.

 

[Clint_L]

I've been saying for ages - and might as well say again - the real answer (that, sadly, we'll likely never see) is for WotC to put out two compatible but different versions of the game; one very reflective of old-school dangerous adventuring where death awaits the fool around every corner, and the other more geared toward heroic fantasy. In the first, high-level heroic play would be optional (the system might stop at about 9th level); in the second, low-level gritty play would be optional (it would start at the rough equivalent of 3rd-5th level now), and tables that wanted both would start with one and transition to the other as the characters advanced.

Ideally these would be compatible enough that some rules from one could be seamlessly ported to the other e.g. if one wanted a less-dangerous version of the low-level game those rules could be ported in from the heroic version.

I think they'd be foolish to publish two (or more) separate versions of the game and split their base, but I think the underlying idea is great and they could dedicate a section of the new DMG to a set optional rules for creating a more old-school vibe, or even publish it as a supplement; same for your heroic fantasy idea.

Though they are probably content to leave that to 3PP. However, if they did it themselves it would be compatible with DDB, making it much more accessible.