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

[Remathilis]

Having a paltry amount of HP isn't my idea of fun, and I've been playing since 1989. It's not just "cautious play is rewarded" - having 1-2 HP where you can easily die in AoE attacks isn't a good time to me. What are you supposed to do - stay in town?
For me, old school play isn't disposable characters and hoping you roll a better one next time. We had lengthy campaigns, heroes who became lords of the realm and faced epic challenges.
Those of you who played dungeon farmers and cooks weren't playing the D&D I recognized.

Because you probably played the D&D that I did: a version that emphasizes players being heroes from low level. Hickman Revolution D&D. OSR attempts to recapture a moment in D&D's history prior to Hickman asking why the vampire was in the dungeon. A playstyle that says PCs are Kleenex and you only remember the ones who succeed. You're supposed to go through a pile of Bob the fighters until you get your Sir Robert the XIV, Duke of Furyondy.

Your experiences match mine and match most players. Most people did not play prior to 1982. We played heroes saving the realm because that's what TSR put out after Dragonlance became a hit. It's taken years and a half-dozen revisions to the rules for AD&D to catch up with that style of play.

 

[mamba]

5e's most detailed sub-system is literally a grid based tactical combat power fantasy made to be engaging and exciting, and the 2024 edition has only made this more clear.

I agree, this is also why I am bouncing off the 2024 version, 2014 was still 'bearable', 2024 feels less so

 

[mamba]

Is it really any different to say that for the earliest editions D&D's most detailed subsystems are literally miniature based tactical combat power fantasy? I don't think so.

I'd disagree with the power fantasy part, at least for the levels most games are at. As you wrote

Characters in 5e bounce back a lot more readily than Basic/1e character - that's indisputable. And the game is a lot friendlier toward avoiding PC deaths.

 

[mamba]

THe Necrotic Gnome modules re-written for 5e keep all that magic.

how many are there, I am only finding Winter's Daughter on DTRPG

 

[Shardstone]

Shenanigans with spells is as old as D&D.

To me, it's always been about finding creative uses based on those descriptions. I'm not sure what you'd gain by ignoring the descriptions. A fireball, for example, creates a big-ass ball of fire with such-and-such dimensions. You can use that however you want in whatever creative ways you want, but the spell still fundamentally does what it does.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use shape water as you describe.

I'm assuming by Haven rests you mean long rests only in designated places.

How much do you increase monster damage?

For a more gamey, 4E-style feel, setting monster damage to a specific fraction of the PCs' max HP works a treat. If you're trying to replicate OSR-style combat, you'd need to go way higher than that. Something like 1d8 or 1d10 per CR. That way a wizard can be one shot with a hit and most other classes are seriously hurting from one hit.

There's still the problem of death saves, easily avoided conditions, easy access to healing, etc.

Yeah, clocks and skill challenges are great. And that certainly adds something like action-adventure to the mix and is great fun. I'm not sure that's really quite the kind of OSR I'm talking about though.

I think I can see what you're saying here, but there's a distinction that makes a difference between limited-use found items and permanent magical kit the PCs always have access to. Sure, they're both "looking at the character sheet" but that's not typically what that phrase implies. It's mostly about thinking beyond the rules of the game. Your PC is a person in this situation with the ability to try anything reasonable, i.e. tactical infinity and all that. It's not a video game with a limited number of possible actions.

I've done things like that in 5E. The response has been...not great. It's mostly players mad at me for putting an unwinnable fight in front of them. Because they've defaulted to everything is not only a combat but a combat they can easily win. But that's related to this bit...

Exactly. But that cuts both ways. The broader culture around 5E is not OSR-style play. The vast majority of players have found the pattern of 5E. No matter what your character is safe, so the solution to every problem is charge. It's a serious hurdle to overcome that mentality.

I think the very first thing you said actually sums this up nicely.

Shenanigans with spells is as old as D&D. That's OSR. So if you're doing that in 5E, then how is it really any different? The fact that you're super accepting of my shape water and other creative uses of spells proves that the methods I work appeal to people like you who want an OSR feel in 5E.

I bump up monster damage to 75% max and I do double max damage for critical. I crit often as DM (I honestly don't know why) and I'm known for running a difficult and deadly (but fair) game in my circles. I also change multiattack to be whatever I want, so maybe the lich casts three spells back to back. Players can handle it. I'm going to be changing crits soon though to just being a bonus action; I think it might be more interesting that way.

I've only had one player feel like a fight was unwinnable and the others in his party didn't agree. When you have Fleeing rules and encourage things like ambushes and traps, it's pretty viable to use hit-and-run tactics and makes some monsters very memorable as a result.

The vast majority of players IMO do not believe in their character being always safe. I think that's an inaccurate read by people who only see 5E players on the internet and not IRL. Humanity hasn't changed so much in 50 years that suddenly the idea of a challenge in a game is evaporate. Video games have only gotten harder this last decade with the rise of From Soft and things like BG3 Honor Mode. Likewise, people are always embracing in TTRPG of a difficult challenge, so long as you make it feel winnable and stimulating. A lot of the work here is on the DM to perform well enough that the players feel both tension at possible defeat while also seeing a faint light leading them to victory.

 

[Shardstone]

Why though? If it's a play preference / social contract, cool. But the system itself doesnt facilitate or encourage this unless the GM has just tossed out all the guidance. At which point, you're not really playing 5e? You're playing "D&D, Unicorn Edition" which is neat and all but doesn't have much relationship to the broad play culture nor the RAW & etc. 5e's most detailed sub-system is literally a grid based tactical combat power fantasy made to be engaging and exciting, and the 2024 edition has only made this more clear.

Like, there wouldn't be tons of OSR philosophy on why B/X spin rulesets create a fundamentally different play culture & experience they prefer if the average player sitting down to 5e was like "oh cool, I'm gonna ignore my entire character sheet and all their skills in favor of just saying things!"

I'm sorry but this is a very narrow view on the game.

Just because combat takes up a lot of space doesn't mean it's the only thing that's there. On top of that, the new DMG has a LOT of rules for things OUTSIDE of combat, including a complete journey system, basions, and other ideas.

The problem I have with views like yours is that you think just because one set of rules takes up more set, the entire game must be about that. You literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Take a step back and look at how even small things like encouraged roleplay can change the feel of a game and make it into something more. If all you see is the grid-based gameplay and don't care that there's now detailed rules for NPC attitudes and morale in the DMG, then yeah, it should just be battle all the time.

Wait.

You've...you've read the 2024 DMG, right?

 

[cbwjm]

If all you see is the grid-based gameplay and don't care that there's now detailed rules for NPC attitudes and morale in the DMG, then yeah, it should just be battle all the time.

I'm just curious, how much more detailed are these rules in 5.5 when compared with 5e? I'm wondering if they've actually expanded on them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It takes all kinds. I started in 1984 with B/X and quickly moved to AD&D. Most of the group I played with were 8-10 years older than me and had been playing for years already. We also had characters who became heroes and lords with domains and armies, etc, but they absolutely did start as farmers and cooks and were always disposable as Kleenex. Despite loving 4E and running 5E for a decade, the idea of starting as powerful heroes is still weird and not really D&D to me.

Same. I always started out a scrub and have a hard time wrapping my head around a level 1 "hero". Having to be sneaky or clever to avoid or overcome an obstacle that would otherwise kill you has always been part of the fun for me. And if it didn't work out and I died; well, that was fine too, because I could make a new PC and I always had plenty of character ideas.

One thing I really love about OSR games is the emphasis on the kind of granular, sandbox-focused worldbuilding I prefer. The Without Number series and ACKS are both game systems that particularly appeal to me for that reason, although I'm quite pleased with their more player-side rules as well.

 

[zakael19]

how many are there, I am only finding Winter's Daughter on DTRPG

You know, I’m now wondering if they ported anything but that for 5e. I can’t remember tbh, sorry!

 

[zakael19]

I'm sorry but this is a very narrow view on the game.

Just because combat takes up a lot of space doesn't mean it's the only thing that's there. On top of that, the new DMG has a LOT of rules for things OUTSIDE of combat, including a complete journey system, basions, and other ideas.

The problem I have with views like yours is that you think just because one set of rules takes up more set, the entire game must be about that. You literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Take a step back and look at how even small things like encouraged roleplay can change the feel of a game and make it into something more. If all you see is the grid-based gameplay and don't care that there's now detailed rules for NPC attitudes and morale in the DMG, then yeah, it should just be battle all the time.

Wait.

You've...you've read the 2024 DMG, right?

This discussion was/is about OSR play. The set of systems around player-health (to include all the low level create-X spells etc) mean it’s much harder to get the sort of hard scrabble survival, always at the edge of your HP type of play that OSR preaches and sets their systems up to facilitate/enjoy. Unless you gut/house rule big parts of the game (as the endless posts on Reddit & etc about “how do I make 5e a good gritty experience evidence).

If you simply don’t agree, then I’m guessing you’re not somebody who thinks that “systems matter” which means that I’m probably not gonna get anywhere?