D&D General 5e D&D to OSR pipeline or circle?

[Remathilis]

A very common house rule for many OSR games and old-school TSR-era D&D. I'd argue it's the most common house rule. A close second is probably average hit points when you level up.

I thought part of the charm was the fact you could (and will) create unviable characters and have to play them for as long as you can. Maybe that 1 HP wizard doesn't make it past his first kobold, but the next one you roll one up might. It's natural selection at work.

 

[zakael19]

I must have missed this memo, but I tend to think the whole "OSR games make combat a last resort" line a load of bunk. I've played a lot of AD&D 1e and Basic Modules; they were full of rooms with monsters who live to roll initiative. I played more than a few Goodman Games DCC's whole prided themselves on "No NPC is unkillable" style of module design. Hackmaster mocked how forward D&D combat was, DCC-RPG mocked how forward D&D combat was. The only place I ever see people discuss how OS play was about avoiding/minimalizing combat is this board. I have come to believe this is more wishing it to be true (and constantly creating games that force it to be true) than any objective truth about OS play.

I see it noted in the guidelines to players of multiple recently released OSR games (Dolmenwood, HMTW, others): "Avoid Unnecessary combat...players are advised to avoid direct confrontations where possible (DPG p. 143)"; "You should never expect the world around you to be fair...don't fight fair...don't be afraid to cut your loses and run away (HMTW, 16)." It shows up on OSR/NuSR focused blogs and forums all the time.

OTOH, there's a degree of expectation in D&D from at least 3.5 onward via the DM guidance & encounter builders & play culture that encounters are generally prepared to be something the PCs can win in a direct fight; and if there's loses you can probably recover them via Raise Dead, wands, whatever. Can you absolutely drift this away into whatever you want? Sure! OF course! But the system and ruleset is not set up from the basic point to do so in a way that has 0 expectation of "encounter balance."

 

[abirdcall]

I see it noted in the guidelines to players of multiple recently released OSR games (Dolmenwood, HMTW, others): "Avoid Unnecessary combat...players are advised to avoid direct confrontations where possible (DPG p. 143)"; "You should never expect the world around you to be fair...don't fight fair...don't be afraid to cut your loses and run away (HMTW, 16)." It shows up on OSR/NuSR focused blogs and forums all the time.

OTOH, there's a degree of expectation in D&D from at least 3.5 onward via the DM guidance & encounter builders & play culture that encounters are generally prepared to be something the PCs can win in a direct fight; and if there's loses you can probably recover them via Raise Dead, wands, whatever. Can you absolutely drift this away into whatever you want? Sure! OF course! But the system and ruleset is not set up from the basic point to do so in a way that has 0 expectation of "encounter balance."

I play published adventures and it is often the case that the PCs can't just fight everything.

The DM of course can make it so they can but that isn't part of the adventure design.

For me 'balance' means that the players get opportunities to make meaningful choices. It isn't good design to have situations that truly have no choices.

Ultimately people play the game how they want to play it. 5e can be played with guaranteed player success if the table wants it that way. It isn't my preference but if they're having fun then that is great for them.

I have a friend who tried out a game with a new group and didn't have fun for a few reasons. One was that it wasn't difficult. He told me about the chapter they had played so I looked it up. I'm the adventure it tells the DM over and over that if the monsters are disturbed in one room they all come because they have telepathy with each other. But the DM had the players fight them one at a time and there was also 6 players. So of course they can just fight and kill whatever they want.

 

[Remathilis]

I see it noted in the guidelines to players of multiple recently released OSR games (Dolmenwood, HMTW, others): "Avoid Unnecessary combat...players are advised to avoid direct confrontations where possible (DPG p. 143)"; "You should never expect the world around you to be fair...don't fight fair...don't be afraid to cut your loses and run away (HMTW, 16)." It shows up on OSR/NuSR focused blogs and forums all the time.

OTOH, there's a degree of expectation in D&D from at least 3.5 onward via the DM guidance & encounter builders & play culture that encounters are generally prepared to be something the PCs can win in a direct fight; and if there's loses you can probably recover them via Raise Dead, wands, whatever. Can you absolutely drift this away into whatever you want? Sure! OF course! But the system and ruleset is not set up from the basic point to do so in a way that has 0 expectation of "encounter balance."

And my point is there is nothing "old" about such advice, it's purely a style of play people THINK old school play was like, but the majority of play in actual old TSR play wasn't anything like that. It's faux -old and an idealized vision of what that older style was rather than what it actually was.

 

[TwoSix]

And my point is there is nothing "old" about such advice, it's purely a style of play people THINK old school play was like, but the majority of play in actual old TSR play wasn't anything like that. It's faux -old and an idealized vision of what that older style was rather than what it actually was.

Sure, most development in the OSR over the past 10-15 years or so is focused on building out from principles derived from the old texts, not out of a desire to actually replicate the exact play from the '70s and '80s.

You're right that it isn't old. But I think that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[overgeeked]

I see it noted in the guidelines to players of multiple recently released OSR games (Dolmenwood, HMTW, others): "Avoid Unnecessary combat...players are advised to avoid direct confrontations where possible (DPG p. 143)"; "You should never expect the world around you to be fair...don't fight fair...don't be afraid to cut your loses and run away (HMTW, 16)." It shows up on OSR/NuSR focused blogs and forums all the time.

It's also evidenced from the fact that combat in TSR-era D&D is just so deadly. Yes, there are room-after-room of monsters who attack on sight...that doesn't mean you're expected to just go toe-to-toe or that combat isn't deadly or that you can't think your way out of fights instead of stand there hacking away.

I mean, look at the perennial favorite Keep on the Borderlands. Level 1 PCs against the Caves of Chaos. If you just charge in, you're going to die.

It's also built into the advice for referees, see the early modules and the AD&D DMG. Players were expected to play smart from the start and not rush into combat.

OTOH, there's a degree of expectation in D&D from at least 3.5 onward via the DM guidance & encounter builders & play culture that encounters are generally prepared to be something the PCs can win in a direct fight; and if there's loses you can probably recover them via Raise Dead, wands, whatever. Can you absolutely drift this away into whatever you want? Sure! OF course! But the system and ruleset is not set up from the basic point to do so in a way that has 0 expectation of "encounter balance."

Right. You can try to make 5E play like an old-school game but it's going to fight you just about every step of the way.

Some stuff you can easily do in 5E to make it harder or more like OSR games is the setting, crazy monsters, gonzo references, etc. But you're still going to have PCs with easy access to attack cantrips, darkvision, infinite bag space, long rests, lots of healing (even more with 5E Revised), overpowered spells, silly ritual spells like Tiny Hut, laughable exploration rules, etc.

Besides pulling out all the toys from the PCs, which the overwhelmingly vast majority of 5E players will not go for, you can drastically up the monsters. Start with double or triple deadly encounters in 5E or double to triple high-difficulty encounters in 5E Revised.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, most development in the OSR over the past 10-15 years or so is focused on building out from principles derived from the old texts, not out of a desire to actually replicate the exact play from the '70s and '80s.

You're right that it isn't old. But I think that's a feature, not a bug.

No, he's wrong. It's very old. It's from the dawn of the hobby if not shortly thereafter.

 

[Shardstone]

I have never had a problem running 5E like it was an OSR game. It's literally just about tweaking damage and health numbers and encouraging players to think outside of the box with solutions to problems.

I've had lots of people explain why you can't use the 5E ruleset for OSR play easily, but yet I've always found it easy. I hate to say this, but I think it's a limitation in the form of bias that most people have, and that most people who have this opinion (that you can't run 5E like an OSR game) are resistant to anyone telling them otherwise.

 

[overgeeked]

I have never had a problem running 5E like it was an OSR game. It's literally just about tweaking damage and health numbers and encouraging players to think outside of the box with solutions to problems.

I've had lots of people explain why you can't use the 5E ruleset for OSR play easily, but yet I've always found it easy. I hate to say this, but I think it's a limitation in the form of bias that most people have, and that most people who have this opinion (that you can't run 5E like an OSR game) are resistant to anyone telling them otherwise.

I would honestly love to hear what you've done. What all do you do? I've fiddled with monster damage and HP. To me, that's nowhere near enough to get OSR-style play from the 5E chassis. How do you encourage out-of-the-box thinking? All I get it blank stares.

 

[Aldarc]

I want the d20 familiarity. This is for players who haven't thought about the game for a week, won't look at rulebooks when they aren't sitting down to play, etc.
I don't want to try to teach them a new system (after beating my head against a wall to get them to understand D&D 4E, Dragonbane, and Savage Worlds.)

It's a shame that things didn't work out for some of your players with Dragonbane. I made my recommendation for Fabula Ultima and Fantasy AGE in another thread, though here you are more explicit for wanting a d20-esque game.

I would potentially recommend Worlds Without Number by Kevin Crawford. It's a bit of a hybrid of B/X, Traveller, and True20. If you want more robust characters, there are optional rules in the back of the full version.

Another d20-based option would be Shadow of the Weird Wizard by Robert Schwalb.