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

[TiQuinn]

yeah, I really do not need another BX / 1e clone, got enough of those already (with OSE and Hyperborea probably leading the pack for me), I want an evolution off 2e, not a step back from there

I’d love to see a system that went back to 2e and took another crack at kit design, taking the lessons learned from that and finding a happy medium between the kits in the Fighter’s Handbook versus the Complete Book of Elves, for instance.

 

[Aldarc]

Like I said, this was an eye opener because I generally believed that the consensus was it was bad and the question was how to avoid it rather than if you should embrace it.

I think that there is just an increasing sense that it's a non-problem.

 

[Arilyn]

I think that there is just an increasing sense that it's a non-problem.

Yes. People are realizing it gets awkward and frustrating for players to constantly pretend ignorance.

 

[Malmuria]

Yeah, that right there is the fundamental, inoperable division I can never reconcile. If the PC is just my avatar in the game, he's a toon (in the MMO sense) and will be treated as such. His name will be Tanks For The Memories and his personality is "ROFL". I can't get past the idea that playing a character isn't actually playing a character. I don't give names and backstories to the chess pieces when I play because the epic battle between two armies of knights, queens and kings aren't the important part, the ability to outthink and outmanoeuvre my opponents using my pieces is.

Maybe that's why I can't understand it: I can't accept that Remathilis is just my pawn piece in the game rather than an actual fictional character with his own life and story.

I think this may be mixing up a couple different things. A PC is a "pawn" when it comes to the types of actions they take in the game. The maxim for this style of play is "the answer is not on your character sheet," and this is often literally true. Even in cases where there are means to success to be found on the character sheet--the thief finding traps for example--the chances are still low and come at the expense of something else. This leaves the player in the position of having to negotiate the fictional environment using their 'own wits,' as it were, as opposed to utilizing a special ability on a character sheet.

When it comes to role play, the above is not at all incompatible with having a fully developed character. If you've decided that your character is an intimidating fighter, you can play your character that way when you encounter a rival faction. It's just that you--as a player--will have to be the one to say something intimidating, rather than relying on a high intimidate skill on your character sheet (though, the DM might decide to use an existing ability score, like charisma, as a proxy)

There are certainly pros and cons to this approach, and your tastes may vary, etc. But the point is that "the answer is not on your character sheet" game does not obviate role play or character depth.

 

[Chaltab]

Honestly that's all fine and good. My bigger problem with a lot of of OSR games is how that only half applies to Spellcasters. With the caveat that they, obviously, have far fewer spells than in later editions, the answer to a problem is often quite literally on their character sheet in a way that seldom is with some classes.

The OSE Fighter is kind of emblematic of that to me with how few class features it gets. People complain that the 5E fighter can be a bit boring--and true, it can--but something like Battlemaster Maneuvers would go a long way towards evening out the disparity.

Of course I've not read OSE exhaustively so there are perhaps extra options somewhere in the game I've missed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[zakael19]

Honestly that's all fine and good. My bigger problem with a lot of of OSR games is how that only half applies to Spellcasters. With the caveat that they, obviously, have far fewer spells than in later editions, the answer to a problem is often quite literally on their character sheet in a way that seldom is with some classes.

The OSE Fighter is kind of emblematic of that to me with how few class features it gets. People complain that the 5E fighter can be a bit boring--and true, it can--but something like Battlemaster Maneuvers would go a long way towards evening out the disparity.

Of course I've not read OSE exhaustively so there are perhaps extra options somewhere in the game I've missed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

At least in the Dolmenwood spin of OSE, the Fighter gets "Combat Talents" they can roll or pick at 2/6/10/14. Nothing crazy, like small bonuses or cleaves or stuff, but hey better than nothing I guess.

But yeah, it almost feels like you gotta really enjoy kicking down doors or roleplaying the Beefcake (valid I guess!), or it's maybe more interesting being a problem solving class w/a fighter hireling...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

DCC is probably the most friendly game for fighters since Iron Heroes in that the Mighty Deeds ability gives PCs the option to do all sorts of stuff. I suspect a lot of DMs do that with OSR fighters anyway, but Goodman has written it down and said "let your fighters and dwarves do cool stuff, since they can't cast spells," which is great.

Every fantasy RPG that doesn't do Nine Swords/Iron Heroes-style abilities ought to do something similar.

 

[Aldarc]

DCC is probably the most friendly game for fighters since Iron Heroes in that the Mighty Deeds ability gives PCs the option to do all sorts of stuff. I suspect a lot of DMs do that with OSR fighters anyway, but Goodman has written it down and said "let your fighters and dwarves do cool stuff, since they can't cast spells," which is great.

Every fantasy RPG that doesn't do Nine Swords/Iron Heroes-style abilities ought to do something similar.

Iron Heroes was basically the Martial Power Source game plus a single magic class, though I believe that there was another magic class in a latter quasi-official supplement. There were a lot of busted things about IH, but I appreciated the fact that it tried to differentiate warriors more in terms of playstyle.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But yeah, it almost feels like you gotta really enjoy kicking down doors or roleplaying the Beefcake (valid I guess!), or it's maybe more interesting being a problem solving class w/a fighter hireling...

It's also very player-dependent. I have a player in my long-running Ptolus campaign who absolutely wants to show up and stab stuff, and that's it. I have two such players, come to think of it, in a party of between six and nine.

It would make me nuts, personally, but it's good that there are options for everyone.

 

[Bluecrow]

I got my quota filled of 5E, 7 campaigns and over 1000 hours of play time. I started a ad&d 1e campaign in November, so this is a recent experiment. I played ad&d late 80's, some nostalgia involved, but even if the name of the game is same than the 5E -version it is a different game. I like low hit points, constant feeling of danger for players, xp from gp, simple characters with clear character roles. System is a mess of course, remains to be seen how long this lasts.