D&D General Why Combat is a Fail State - Blog and Thoughts

[Thomas Shey]

No, sorry, its the folks that wont let figurative be figurative that make it useless. While, I'll also say the aggressive single-minded owners are of no help either. There is a very common link between them in these discussions.

I get your impatience here, but I do need to point out (which you may be referencing in your second sentence) that there are people who've probably taught them it isn't figurative. Not being able to separate the two off isn't a virtue, but its easy to happen, especially in a world where people will say things then when called on it play the "just kidding!" card frequently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. There's a lot of different personalities in the mix that make the term OSR intractable.

Does it really mean 1970s level generation and random encounter tables that could mean you find a vampire on the first level?

Was that one possible even then? I remember the old D6 "1-2 first level monsters, 3-4 second level monsters, 5 third level monsters and 6 4th level monsters" business, but I'd have thought vampires would have been above even the fourth level table.

Does it really mean roll 3d6 straight for ability scores, and roll for HP at first level even if you get a character that will die immediately?
If your character dies, are you supposed to start off with a first level character again even if the rest of the party is 5th level?
Is the GM supposed to be a neutral arbiter, or a quasi-adversary of the PCs?

I think the answers to all of those have a great deal to do with the personality of the GM.

I can't say entirely, though I wouldn't be surprised with some full-blown retroclones not still essentially saying that.

(Wonder how many people know that by the book the GM was actually supposed to be the one rolling up the characters in OD&D? I didn't even know that one in '75...)

 

[Mannahnin]

Was that one possible even then? I remember the old D6 "1-2 first level monsters, 3-4 second level monsters, 5 third level monsters and 6 4th level monsters" business, but I'd have thought vampires would have been above even the fourth level table.

It was not. Vampires (like Balrogs, Wizards and Giants) appear on the level 6 encounter table (the highest one in Book III The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures ), and you have to be on at least the third level of the dungeon to have those show up randomly. But certainly you can easily encounter really dangerous stuff if you venture a couple of levels down.

(Wonder how many people know that by the book the GM was actually supposed to be the one rolling up the characters in OD&D? I didn't even know that one in '75...)

I always figured that was assuming that the DM was the only person who'd have a copy of the rules, but it may have also been a holdover from how Dave Arneson ran the game back then.

We know from other sources that he preferred to keep the rules relatively opaque to the players, and sometimes even experimented with running as a kind of black box, where he physically hid himself so the players had to rely on their imagination and the info he gave them verbally, without reference to even his facial expressions.

 

[Remathilis]

Kelsey Dionne was writing for 5e D&D. Why didn't she continue making 5e D&D but using OSR principles? Why was she attracted to the OSR scene and games like B/X, Index Card RPG, and Dungeon Crawl Classics instead of just playing 5e D&D? Why did she just make her own game? Even people like Bob World Builder have gravitated towards OSR despite coming into the game with 5e D&D. I don't think that we should be dismissive of why people do genuinely feel that the OSR is different enough from 5e D&D to play OSR games over WotC D&D or PF.

I dunno, why?

I assume you aren't actually asking me because you genuinely don't know, nor are you asking a rhetorical question. So answer it. Why did Kelsey and Bob move from 5e to OSR?

 

[Aldarc]

I dunno, why?

I assume you aren't actually asking me because you genuinely don't know, nor are you asking a rhetorical question. So answer it. Why did Kelsey and Bob move from 5e to OSR?

When you assume you make an @$$ out of you and me, which may be your goal. Who knows? I would nevertheless be curious about your thoughts about why there are people who played 5e D&D, particularly those who came into the hobby with 5e D&D, who feel in good faith that they can't get the same experience out of D&D 5e that they do from the OSR.

 

[MerricB]

I think there are PLENTY of reasons of why you'd want a lighter or heavier system than 5E.

Pathfinder is a thing, after all.

 

[Remathilis]

When you assume you make an @$$ out of you and me, which may be your goal. Who knows? I would nevertheless be curious about your thoughts about why there are people who played 5e D&D, particularly those who came into the hobby with 5e D&D, who feel in good faith that they can't get the same experience out of D&D 5e that they do from the OSR.

Oh, you really DON"T know and you're expecting me to provide the answer.

How about "There is a giant wave of anti-WotC sentiment in the hobby right now and content creators are riding that wave while looking for new content to provide?" My answer is no less legit or correct than yours, so unless you actually want to find out and say why they left, I recommend dropping this inquiry.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When you assume you make an @$$ out of you and me, which may be your goal. Who knows? I would nevertheless be curious about your thoughts about why there are people who played 5e D&D, particularly those who came into the hobby with 5e D&D, who feel in good faith that they can't get the same experience out of D&D 5e that they do from the OSR.

I know nothing about those specific people, but I can say with certainty that a number of the major TTRPG podcast groups out there have become disenchanted with 5th edition as they go along. Some of them have heavily reworked the rules for their own purposes, some have developed their own new systems, some have branched out into using other systems instead of 5e (generally not as a total replacement, but as a "this campaign will use X system, the next one will be 5e.")

And, more or less, the sentiment I've gotten from all of them is that 5e is...somewhere between "gateway system" and "compromise system". It often does things the participants aren't entirely happy with, but the system is the 900-lb gorilla of TTRPGs. There's friction when using it, but there's friction when not using it, so they're sort of caught in an uncomfortable position where none of the options quite fit.

Which...is not super far off from some of the stuff I had said about the longer-term consequences of the approach 5e ended up taking. People have poo-poohed me on here for using the "everyone's second-favorite edition" argument, but that really does seem to be an issue some of these podcasters are running into. It's not their preference in terms of design, but the thing that would be their preference in terms of design doesn't have the social awareness, nor the massive budget, that D&D has. As 5e grows long in the tooth and folks become more keenly aware of the places where it chafes, some of the luster is wearing off, but the practical "it's the only TTRPG that nearly everyone knows" considerations remain.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, you really DON"T know and you're expecting me to provide the answer.

How about "There is a giant wave of anti-WotC sentiment in the hobby right now and content creators are riding that wave while looking for new content to provide?" My answer is no less legit or correct than yours, so unless you actually want to find out and say why they left, I recommend dropping this inquiry.

Your hostility is palpable and it tastes nasty and toxic. It's not about knowing or not knowing. It's not about simple single answers either. However, I did ask "why there are people who played 5e D&D, particularly those who came into the hobby with 5e D&D, who feel in good faith that they can't get the same experience out of D&D 5e that they do from the OSR" (emphasis mine), and I don't really believe that you are answering that question.

I believe that people are genuine in their look at the OSR. I don't believe that it's all about anti-WotC sentiment as I do know that Kelsey Dionne was in the OSR scene before that and working on Shadowdark before the OGL fiasco. I believe that the same is also true for Bob World Builder who was budding out before the aforementioned anti-WotC sentiment. It's not as if the OSR only became appealing to people after WotC various muck-ups. There were a fair number of OSR products winning ENnies before that. Again, I assume that most people in our hobby are pursuing their interests in this hobby in good faith. It would be nice if you weren't just assuming the worst about these people and why they may be attracted to the OSR.

 

[Aldarc]

I know nothing about those specific people, but I can say with certainty that a number of the major TTRPG podcast groups out there have become disenchanted with 5th edition as they go along. Some of them have heavily reworked the rules for their own purposes, some have developed their own new systems, some have branched out into using other systems instead of 5e (generally not as a total replacement, but as a "this campaign will use X system, the next one will be 5e.")

And, more or less, the sentiment I've gotten from all of them is that 5e is...somewhere between "gateway system" and "compromise system". It often does things the participants aren't entirely happy with, but the system is the 900-lb gorilla of TTRPGs. There's friction when using it, but there's friction when not using it, so they're sort of caught in an uncomfortable position where none of the options quite fit.

Which...is not super far off from some of the stuff I had said about the longer-term consequences of the approach 5e ended up taking. People have poo-poohed me on here for using the "everyone's second-favorite edition" argument, but that really does seem to be an issue some of these podcasters are running into. It's not their preference in terms of design, but the thing that would be their preference in terms of design doesn't have the social awareness, nor the massive budget, that D&D has. As 5e grows long in the tooth and folks become more keenly aware of the places where it chafes, some of the luster is wearing off, but the practical "it's the only TTRPG that nearly everyone knows" considerations remain.

I think that this is a fairly good answer that dovetails nicely in what I was saying about how there is something about OSR games that some of these content creators find more satisfying than 5e D&D. Some of these content creators have talked a bit about why they have been attracted to other games, including those in the OSR, so it is not as if it's all just shooting in the dark. Some of what they have said has touched upon what you say here.