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

[Eyes of Nine]

I like 5e and OSR adventures (and Pathfinder, and Traveller, and and and - I like to read adventures). They offer different things, and are of course tuned for their particular system
5e rules are... fine, and I run and play a ton of it.
I don't have a local group who has the fondness for OSR play, except for the one 5e game that I am a player in - and while the GM has made overtures of trying to play an OSR game, but no one else seems to be excited by it. And it's one I never heard of, so I'm kind of side-eyeing it myself (I think he heard about it on his Facebook DMs group)

So while I like and own multiple OSR type games, I've played very few sadly.

 

[Malmuria]

DMs knew how to balance encounters by eyeball (an imperfect process, but most DMs could see kobolds were appropriate for low level, giants for higher), dice rolls were fudged, encounters adjusted on the fly, and house rules to aid in survival (Max HP at level 1, negative hp, auto succeed learning spells, etc) got added to ease pain points.

Well that's just it...texts like Matt Finch's Primer read the rules of early versions of the game assuming GM's won't be resorting to these kind of railroading tactics to ensure a heroic narrative, but of course many GMs did exactly that, leading to the 80s style of play. But if you read the rules and modules as-is, what they present is a world with asymmetric challenges that can't just be brute-forced via combat.

Again, I think that they are less designed for lethality and more for notions of puzzle solving, skilled play, and shifting the game from combat as sport to combat as war. Unbalanced encounters can involve creative problem solving that involves more than just "facerolling the problem" directly with PC abilities.

Exactly. And I would say that an edition like B/X has several tools that, if used (see above), lead to more varied gameplay:

• Encounter distance and surprise: present in 5e as well, but more useful in a game where the random encounter plays a larger role in gameplay
• Reaction rolls: monsters are not necessarily, or even often, combatants. They might be wary but defensive, indifferent, or even helpful
• Morale: monster's don't keep attacking if they are losing. They retreat, regroup, come up with new strategies
• Xp for gold: combat is not necessarily incentivized

Modules written by Gygax himself use the above in ways that evince a particular design aesthetic, one that @Gus L argues is derived from Gygax's experience as a war gamer. I would say many modern OSR modules use the above to center gameplay on exploration rather than on combat at all.

 

[overgeeked]

Well that's just it...texts like Matt Finch's Primer read the rules of early versions of the game assuming GM's won't be resorting to these kind of railroading tactics to ensure a heroic narrative, but of course many GMs did exactly that, leading to the 80s style of play. But if you read the rules and modules as-is, what they present is a world with asymmetric challenges that can't just be brute-forced via combat.



Exactly. And I would say that an edition like B/X has several tools that, if used (see above), lead to more varied gameplay:

• Encounter distance and surprise: present in 5e as well, but more useful in a game where the random encounter plays a larger role in gameplay
• Reaction rolls: monsters are not necessarily, or even often, combatants. They might be wary but defensive, indifferent, or even helpful
• Morale: monster's don't keep attacking if they are losing. They retreat, regroup, come up with new strategies
• Xp for gold: combat is not necessarily incentivized

Modules written by Gygax himself use the above in ways that evince a particular design aesthetic, one that @Gus L argues is derived from Gygax's experience as a war gamer. I would say many modern OSR modules use the above to center gameplay on exploration rather than on combat at all.

All of this.

Gamers will optimize the fun out of the game. Once it was easier to simply charge every monster, instead of any kind of creative problem solving, rushing in became the default. Then the game started being designed for that instead of anything else.

 

[Remathilis]

Not sure there is a Hickman-OSR, WWN might be the closest from your list, Hyperborea and OSRIC are basically OSE alternatives. The whole OSR seems to be 'stuck' in a OD&D / BX / 1e pre-Hickman / Dungeoncrawl loop

Which is why OSR ends up constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. It can't and won't move past that late-70's era and the mythologized style of play.

I have referenced it once, but I can't help but keep seeing comparisons to the retro-video game movement which seems to have fixated on early NES style aesthetics. To them, its always 1986. Obviously, there is advantages to that (8 bit graphics and sounds are much easier to make than later evolutions), but outside a small contingent of 16 bit style games, the retro-market has decided its mostly trying to re-invent Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, and Punch Out in perpetuity.

There is a lot of reasons for that. Part of it is a "reject modernity, embrace traditon" philosophy that believes things were better during the so-called Golden Age of gaming. Some of it is people who weren't there wishing to experience what has been mythologized by others, inflated beyond what is was to what is Should Be. Some of it is an attempt to recapture lost magic in an era of realistic graphics and microtransactions. And some of it is pure hipster culture who embrace it because its old and out of fashion.

I see the OSR as basically no different.

And hey, there are some great retro-game (both TT and video) made as testaments/love letters to there respective eras. They are legitimately good games. But there have emerged certain criteria that have boxed the idea in (in OSR, its the focus on the asymeticral "smart play" style of dungeon crawl, in RetroVids, its Nintendo-hard style difficulty spikes and limited continues/save features). Which is a shame, because I think there IS a market for a 2e-like retro-game which doesn't' think the golden age of gaming ended with Dragonlance.

Then again, maybe that audicence is still happy playing 5e...

 

[Remathilis]

All of this.

Gamers will optimize the fun out of the game. Once it was easier to simply charge every monster, instead of any kind of creative problem solving, rushing in became the default. Then the game started being designed for that instead of anything else.

Players will always default to the simplest or most effective method of handling a problem. Typically, people do. If combat solves a problem, they do that. Which is why so much of OSR is about breaking players (via breaking their PCs) of that habit.

 

[Malmuria]

Which is why OSR ends up constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. It can't and won't move past that late-70's era and the mythologized style of play.

I have referenced it once, but I can't help but keep seeing comparisons to the retro-video game movement which seems to have fixated on early NES style aesthetics. To them, its always 1986. Obviously, there is advantages to that (8 bit graphics and sounds are much easier to make than later evolutions), but outside a small contingent of 16 bit style games, the retro-market has decided its mostly trying to re-invent Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, and Punch Out in perpetuity.

There is a lot of reasons for that. Part of it is a "reject modernity, embrace traditon" philosophy that believes things were better during the so-called Golden Age of gaming. Some of it is people who weren't there wishing to experience what has been mythologized by others, inflated beyond what is was to what is Should Be. Some of it is an attempt to recapture lost magic in an era of realistic graphics and microtransactions. And some of it is pure hipster culture who embrace it because its old and out of fashion.

I see the OSR as basically no different.

And hey, there are some great retro-game (both TT and video) made as testaments/love letters to there respective eras. They are legitimately good games. But there have emerged certain criteria that have boxed the idea in (in OSR, its the focus on the asymeticral "smart play" style of dungeon crawl, in RetroVids, its Nintendo-hard style difficulty spikes and limited continues/save features). Which is a shame, because I think there IS a market for a 2e-like retro-game which doesn't' think the golden age of gaming ended with Dragonlance.

Then again, maybe that audicence is still happy playing 5e...

I think this is ignoring the extravagant creativity of the OSR in everything from non-retroclone game design to the imaginative world and setting creation to innovations in information-presentation. Per your analogy, I don't think people like video game platformers just because of nostalgia, there was just a realization at a certain point that not every game needs to have the latest in realistic graphics and have frequent cut scenes or be open world; an indie studio with limited means can also produce something simple but fun, which is the point. Similarly, the OSR is a bunch of indie designers working on their own or in small groups to produce things that might not have the high fidelity of glossy wotc adventures, but which are still really creative and fun.

 

[Aldarc]

Which is why OSR ends up constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. It can't and won't move past that late-70's era and the mythologized style of play.

I can't say that I agree with this in the slightest. Even a cursory glance at OSR games shows a lot of innovation, creativity, and new directions beyond late 70s game design. That said, I don't think that OSR is trying to reinvent the wheel. I think that they are trying to create good games that they enjoy. Simple as that. You don't enjoy them? Then don't play them. No need to talk ill about them because they don't suit your fancy.

There is a lot of reasons for that. Part of it is a "reject modernity, embrace traditon" philosophy that believes things were better during the so-called Golden Age of gaming. Some of it is people who weren't there wishing to experience what has been mythologized by others, inflated beyond what is was to what is Should Be. Some of it is an attempt to recapture lost magic in an era of realistic graphics and microtransactions. And some of it is pure hipster culture who embrace it because its old and out of fashion.

And part of this is just veiled insults about the OSR movement that attempts to depict it with shallow reasons such as just these people being backwards thinkers, pursuing rose-colored nostalgia, trend chasing hipsters, and people that hate all things modern. Maybe there are other reasons for this that don't involve negatively characterizing people and games? I don't really see the need for this sort of negative characterization, Remathilis.

Which is a shame, because I think there IS a market for a 2e-like retro-game which doesn't' think the golden age of gaming ended with Dragonlance.

Then again, maybe that audicence is still happy playing 5e...

ding, ding, ding We have a winner! You are already playing the game that exists as 2e nostalgia! Trad and Neo-Trad games ARE and HAVE BEEN the hegemony of the TTRPG scene. It is already the lion's share of the market.

 

[mamba]

Which is why OSR ends up constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. It can't and won't move past that late-70's era and the mythologized style of play.

agreed, but I did not care for that style of play when 1e was new, so them circling that all the time just means I am not interested in any of them

Which is a shame, because I think there IS a market for a 2e-like retro-game which doesn't' think the golden age of gaming ended with Dragonlance.

agreed, I consider Hickman to be the start of what made it interesting, I basically used that style before knowing of him.

I’d much rather have a good 2e+ OSR game than all these 1e- clones

Then again, maybe that audicence is still happy playing 5e...

not me, characters are OP, I want a step back from that, but OSR is like 5 steps back…

 

[TiQuinn]

I’d much rather have a good 2e+ OSR game than all these 1e- clones

 

[Micah Sweet]

The main split between OSR and 5e gaming is player skill vs character skills.

Power in 5e escalates to the point where past level 5, doing this off your character sheet is suboptimal.

OSR play relies on the players remaining in a flat low power curve as long as possible. Pushing a statue has to be as strong as swinging your sword. Once your sword vastly outmatches the statue, you ignore the statue.

The 5e -> OSR is mostly for those who enjoy low level helplessness to the point that it becomes the game

I doubt many OSR fans think of what they're doing as "low level helplessness to the point that it becomes the game". Feels biased.