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

[zakael19]

Regardless the question was about the most detailed subsystem being combat. But I'd say most/many are inch based tactical power fantasy.

Edit: Which is to say fundamentally the same.

I think the most detailed subsystem in the OSE derived Dolmenwood I’ve got in front of me is spell casting. Combat gets the same 2 pages as camping. Hazards and challenges has significantly more content.

 

[shirleyishmael]

Simpler system and modules that let you get in and play quicker.

 

[Imaro]

Because the numbers scale a lot faster in 5E. A random nobleman who might decide to duel a player character because he felt shown up by the PCs at a dinner party, etc., is going to have to be one of the greatest swordsmen in the world if the PCs are over level 7 or so. It strains credulity that every village and keep has incredibly high level characters hanging around, just so the PCs can get into real mortal dadanger.

PC level goes to 20 and in a world where duels happen it would actually stand to reason that the powerful and rich 2ould have professional champions who are highly skilled combatants.

So are we talking a single noble who happens to be an exceptional duelist or tons of high level characters in every village and keep? if you want the main place PC's are getting into real mortal danger to be villages and settlements... well it stands to reason these would be populated by people like the adventurers.

In comparison, OSR games have much flatter math. A level five Shadowdark character (roughly the equivalent of a level 10 5E character) could easily get killed in a duel with a level 3 knight NPC.

Can you make 5E as dangerous as OSR games? Yes, but it requires special effort, as I said.

Eg, in Shadowdark this would very much depend on class, what talents were rolled for each combatant and so on. More importantly this is an apples to orange comparison. Above you want a non-combatant to be a danger to a level 7 PC but here you're comparing a character and a combat trained npc...

 

[Imaro]

I think the most detailed subsystem in the OSE derived Dolmenwood I’ve got in front of me is spell casting. Combat gets the same 2 pages as camping. Hazards and challenges has significantly more content.

Combat in the Dolmenwood PHB is 4 pages long. Each of the magic systems is explained in 2 pages or less.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

More importantly this is an apples to orange comparison.

If this is about comparing how OSR plays versus 5E, I'm not sure how citing OSR play versus 5E play is an apples to orange comparison.

It wasn't my intention to upset anyone, which apparently I have.

But it is my experience, in my games that putting PCs in peril in OSR games is a much more organic process than it is in 5E, an opinion you can see echoed elsewhere. But apparently YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

If this is about comparing how OSR plays versus 5E, I'm not sure how citing OSR play versus 5E play is an apples to orange comparison.

The apples to oranges comparison was a PC facing a knight in Shadowdark vs a noble in 5e. Not an OSR combat vs a 5e combat.

It wasn't my intention to upset anyone, which apparently I have.

Who? Or is disagreeing with someone's opinion considered being "upset" now?

But it is my experience, in my games that putting PCs in peril in OSR games is a much more organic process than it is in 5E, an opinion you can see echoed elsewhere. But apparently YMMV.

I think it's an easier process because there are no guidelines around expected difficulty in most OSR games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What would you say OSR games most detailed sub system is? I mean I'm sure there are outliers but in general I've found it to also be combqt....

Worldbuilding? The ones I like the most make that a system priority.

 

[Imaro]

Worldbuilding? The ones I like the most make that a system priority.

The tables in WWN are really good in this area and are definitely the most detailed subsystem in the book.

 

[Retreater]

So what's the pipeline from 5e to "Hickman revolution" OSR? Are we looking at Worlds without Number? Hyperborea? OSRIC?
I don't think it's OSE or Shadowdark.

 

[overgeeked]

This thread title was about the OSR, a specific fairly modern philosophy of gaming, with a large body of work and thought around it to curate a style of table play. “My table in the early 80s was different” isn’t really a reply to something that’s been consciously created.

The trouble is that there's a lot of people who were actually playing back-in-the-day active now on this site. And when most of them say, "Yeah, that's not new, we've been playing exactly that way since the late 70s or early 80s" it should give people pause on this whole "No, it's a completely unique and new phenomenon" take.

Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Like with the "completely new and modern" notion of West Marches games.

If you read the DMG and a few of Gary's notes on running games, you'll see that exact style of play was assumed to be the default mode of play in the early days. It's how both Dave and Gary ran things for large stretches of time. There might be a few tweaks to the set up, but it's almost identical to a very old style of play.

Same with the "utterly new OSR" style of play. It's as old as the hobby. Yes, the OSR movement is new. No, the OSR style of play is not.

That's how many people here have always played the game, and how many others used to play the game.

The best OSR modules I’ve read are very different from the classic ones in terms of scaffolding for play, because they’re designed to give anybody who opens them the groundwork to create a play experience that matches what the authors and creed espouse.

Yes, it's almost like game design has evolved in the last 50 years.

And “I’ve house ruled 5e to bend it away from the core system design promise in a way that a random dude sitting down with his character won’t expect at all” just kinda further endorses the idea that it’s not well suited for this style to play?

Yeah, exactly.