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

[overgeeked]

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 think we're talking past each other somewhat. Shenanigans with spells is not unique to the OSR, it's a core part of D&D. Always has been. It's necessary for something to have that old-school feel, but it's not sufficient. There's so much more to it than just that.

Maybe a comparison would be apt. Shadowdark is an OSR game built on the 5E chassis. When 5E plays like an OSR game it looks like Shadowdark. All the ways that 5E is different from Shadowdark...yeah, those are all the changes you'd need to make to get 5E to feel like an old-school game. At least to me. Plus all the cultural changes you need to bridge the gap between modern-style play and old-school play.

I bump up monster damage to 75% max and I do double max damage for critical.

Okay. Random example, ancient white dragon. Their cold breath is "72 (16d8) cold damage." So for your games that would be 96 (16d8) cold damage? That's moving in the right direction to feel more like an old-school game. That will certainly drop PCs more often. But you're still dealing with death saves, ubiquitous healing, free-casting spells, etc. It'll drain the PCs resources slightly faster, sure.

I also change multiattack to be whatever I want, so maybe the lich casts three spells back to back.

I've done something similar. Solo monsters get attacks equal to the PCs they're facing and can do whatever as their attack. I usually don't bother keeping track of spells, instead just describing the attack however I want.

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.

It's not only from people on the internet, it's my read from running 5E for all kinds of people in meat-space and online for the last decade. The vast majority was easy-mode power fantasy. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not what I'm interested in.

Humanity hasn't changed so much in 50 years that suddenly the idea of a challenge in a game is evaporate.

The first half is accurate, the second is not. We have had players who want Monty Haul dungeons and easy-mode D&D from the beginning of the hobby. There are Dragon Magazine articles about it from the earliest issues. Other hobby magazines have similar. Humanity hasn't changed so much in 50 years that suddenly the idea of power fantasy in a game has evaporated.

Different players want different things. And they tend to gravitate towards games that give them what they want. Hence 5E attracts people who like what 5E does. 5E does power fantasy by default. Nothing wrong with that, but if that's not what you want from the game, it's going to be hard to fight that current. Players who want OSR-style play flock to OSR-style games.

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.

Yeah, it's all on the referee. 5E certainly doesn't help you deliver much beyond the default power fantasy.

 

[zakael19]

I think we're talking past each other somewhat. Shenanigans with spells is not unique to the OSR, it's a core part of D&D. Always has been. It's necessary for something to have that old-school feel, but it's not sufficient. There's so much more to it than just that.

Maybe a comparison would be apt. Shadowdark is an OSR game built on the 5E chassis. When 5E plays like an OSR game it looks like Shadowdark. All the ways that 5E is different from Shadowdark...yeah, those are all the changes you'd need to make to get 5E to feel like an old-school game. At least to me. Plus all the cultural changes you need to bridge the gap between modern-style play and old-school play.

Okay. Random example, ancient white dragon. Their cold breath is "72 (16d8) cold damage." So for your games that would be 96 (16d8) cold damage? That's moving in the right direction to feel more like an old-school game. That will certainly drop PCs more often. But you're still dealing with death saves, ubiquitous healing, free-casting spells, etc. It'll drain the PCs resources slightly faster, sure.

I've done something similar. Solo monsters get attacks equal to the PCs they're facing and can do whatever as their attack. I usually don't bother keeping track of spells, instead just describing the attack however I want.

It's not only from people on the internet, it's my read from running 5E for all kinds of people in meat-space and online for the last decade. The vast majority was easy-mode power fantasy. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not what I'm interested in.

The first half is accurate, the second is not. We have had players who want Monty Haul dungeons and easy-mode D&D from the beginning of the hobby. There are Dragon Magazine articles about it from the earliest issues. Other hobby magazines have similar. Humanity hasn't changed so much in 50 years that suddenly the idea of power fantasy in a game has evaporated.

Different players want different things. And they tend to gravitate towards games that give them what they want. Hence 5E attracts people who like what 5E does. 5E does power fantasy by default. Nothing wrong with that, but if that's not what you want from the game, it's going to be hard to fight that current. Players who want OSR-style play flock to OSR-style games.

Yeah, it's all on the referee. 5E certainly doesn't help you deliver much beyond the default power fantasy.

This back and forth has big “look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power” meme energy, lol.

 

[billd91]

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

I’m not sure there is any action-adventure RPG that isn’t a power fantasy. There are just varying levels of it. But to be able to take up weapons, armor, spells and make a difference in the world or at least work to obtain wealth and power on my own terms without having to be lucky enough to inherit it? That’s a power fantasy.

 

[mamba]

I’m not sure there is any action-adventure RPG that isn’t a power fantasy. There are just varying levels of it.

same difference, the 5e level is considerably higher than the 1e one, whether you want to call only 5e a power fantasy or both of them, at least for the lower levels most games are at

 

[Jahydin]

Off the top of my head:
1) Adventure modules took way too much of my time to make work.
2) System designed to make players feel powerful and unstoppable; I like stories where the protagonists succeed despite the odd against them.
3) Attribute bonuses are too impactful. They should not influence success as much or more than being Proficient in a skill or being high-level in a class.
4) Had (has?) the worst version of Ranger, my favorite class.

 

[cbwjm]

Attribute bonuses are too impactful. They should not influence success as much or more than being Proficient in a skill or being high-level in a class

This is definitely one of the things I don't like about 5e, it drives people to get that 20 ability score as soon as they can when there are often more interesting (ie, feats) things to get. One of the things i liked about 3e and earlier is that a warrior advanced in combat skill faster than everyone else and their ability score helped but wasn't so impactful that they needed any bonuses (well, 3e did, maybe this is one of the things I liked about 2e and earlier).

 

[Aldarc]

It's a "living conversation" I'm having with myself. Right now I'm feeling frustrated that there's a hesitancy in the group to learn system mastery, so I'm reluctant to deviate too far from D&D.

I think that's fair. I have also been trying to find TTRPGs that better interest my partner, who also cares little for system mastery. However, I have had some luck so far with Fabula Ultima and Fantasy AGE.

Fantasy AGE is not d20. It's 3d6; however, I would describe it as an essentially d20 fantasy game that is played with 3d6 instead. It's not a game that I would say particularly cares too much about system mastery. IME, it's more new player friendly than D&D 5e. I think it's a bit more concerned about the excitement of generating stunt points on doubles when rolling 3d6, which may offer both tactical fun and awesome moments for two of the players you have described in the past.

What I think I'm missing in my life is a feeling of creativity and world building. I've been running published adventures for almost two decades, and that's led me to feeling like I'm not a player at all - just someone to relay content. I feel like a DVD player.

Here is where I would again perhaps suggest checking out Worlds Without Number. There is even a world-building section in the book, where you can use random tables to generate your world. There is a free version of the book that you may enjoy reading, though I would recommend the paid full version for rules such as more heroic characters, other PC options, and other rules. There are no published adventures for the game, because it is a sandbox game.

I want the system to evaporate. I want to be able to describe what happens in combat without just explaining why a hit triggers a raise and if the damage bypasses DR.

I'm not sure if there is any one game or system type where that would work for both you and the rest of your players. For me, I often get this feeling of the system evaporating while also, in something of a contradiction, pleasantly getting in the way when playing PbtA games like Dungeon World. It was a system created with Vincent Baker's wife's freeform RP style in mind.

I know that this should be possible in any system, but it ends up just confusing my players because they don't know the rules.

I imagine that jumping around to different systems looking for the magical solutions probably doesn't help either.

Again, it's a bit of a shame about Dragonbane. It sounded like it worked for you and one of your other players, but maybe not for 1-2 of your other players. I suspect that we will both be watching with anticipation when Free League releases their Expert and Magic books in the upcoming future.

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.

I was invited to play B/X with an older group in Vienna. The GM said that it would be "old school," and he used his old used B/X and 1e books. I came ready to play, and I intentionally went in with an OSR mindset. I rolled my stats in order. But I also played as if my character was potentially disposable. I put him into the line of danger. I was ready for him to die. I was ready to roll up a new character. Except he never did.

Old school style in this case basically felt like the GM pulling their punches, making stuff up as they went along, and playing it loose with the rules. That experience pretty much dispelled myths I had about how the game was played "old school."

 

[Shardstone]

This back and forth has big “look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power” meme energy, lol.

Idk what you mean in this particular case.

 

[Shardstone]

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?

Man I hate to say it but this response only really makes sense if you ignore my other post about that included some of the minor rules changes I made.

You don't need to gut or house rule big parts of the game, you just need a handful of minor changes.

I think the system does matter, but I think that 5E's bones are a lot closer to the OSR then any of you are willing to admit. If the OSR is fried chicken, 5E is roasted and it isn't hard to make roasted chicken crispy and delicious.

One comment I want to make: people with opinions like yours and Overgeek's are exactly who I was talking about in my original post when I said people are very resistant to this idea. Like, you guys legit get offended when someone assumes 5E can produce an authentic OSR experience without much change. It makes it feel like I'M not going to get anywhere because you guys are passive aggressively hostile in your lust to tear down 5E as a non-OSR system.

 

[Retreater]

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.

That's very likely right. My RPG experience started with 2E. It was very story driven. While we used the old rules, I think there was a lot of fudging to save characters - and players who had access to splats that greatly imbalanced the game in their favor.
My first RPGs weren't even TTRPGs. I was introduced by console JRPGs like Final Fantasy 1 and Dragon Quest on the NES.