D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Sacrosanct]

I politely disagree. As from the cliché, "Necessity is the mother of invention," I do believe that OS play is inherently "more clever," because I think that when you remove the tools and toys that people rely on to make life easier, or in this case some of the magic and special abilities, you do force them to have to be cleverer.

Just like if you tasked me with constructing a picnic table but you took away my power tools and handed me a pocket knife...you better believe I'd have to clever the sh*t out of that one!

I play in a current 5e game, and a current 1e game. We are the same people. In the 1e game, our thought process is different and we spend more time with "player skill" than we do in 5e.

So while 5e absolutely can have players who are really creative in solutioning problems, you're right. The tools (rules) in front of you drive how you approach the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I mean, why are you a power tool owning picnic table builder without your tools? I think thats a big part of the disconnect. Folks think of their PCs as experienced spelunkers and adventurers. Why are they constantly without their tools for the job?

That's the thing. In 1e, your PCs aren't experienced adventurers. They are barely more than commoners. You don't become experienced until after you go on several sessions and campaigns. In 5e, with backgrounds and power at level 1, you are a lot more adventurer than commoner before you set foot outside the keep, so-to-speak.

 

[payn]

I play in a current 5e game, and a current 1e game. We are the same people. In the 1e game, our thought process is different and we spend more time with "player skill" than we do in 5e.

So while 5e absolutely can have players who are really creative in solutioning problems, you're right. The tools (rules) in front of you drive how you approach the game.

Right, which is cool you have two ways of playing. I think the development over time was folks asking questions like, "if we are gonna spleunk into these death pits over and over again, why dont the characters have any tools for dealing with that?" Which the answer became more capable characters when eventually a lot of the old challeneges sort of faded away. To which left some folks saying, " no thank you I will stick with my ten foot pole and sack of flour!".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I play in a current 5e game, and a current 1e game. We are the same people. In the 1e game, our thought process is different and we spend more time with "player skill" than we do in 5e.

So while 5e absolutely can have players who are really creative in solutioning problems, you're right. The tools (rules) in front of you drive how you approach the game.

They shouldn't, and they don't force it, but most people IME on either side of the screen go for the path of least resistance, and invoking clear mechanics is simply easier than describing one's actions and coming up with a way to accomplish your goals with what you have from an in-fiction standpoint. Part of the GM's job IMO is to generate resistance to naked player invocation of mechanics without roleplaying, so the path of least resistance changes. That allows you to have all the rules you when you need them and still have an enjoyable roleplaying experience at the table.

 

[mamba]

Would you say you are of the opinion that "skilled play" is just a byword for lots of tedium, then?

generally no, because tedium does not require skill in the first place. The OSR focuses too much on tedium for my taste and tries to pass it off as skilled play however, imo.

Skilled play to me means you are using limited means and ingenuity to accomplish goals that seem hard in comparison. Scenarios like this are easier to set up when characters are less powerful and most things cannot be simply waved away with a spell. This is where the lower power OSR has the advantage, not by adding tedium many people ignored in the early 80s already

 

[AnotherGuy]

if all you do in 5e is roll a die, then I’d argue that this is not the intended way either, just like it is not for 1e.

I agree. Like I said tables have adopted a happy medium focusing on detail or zooming out as is necessary for the game.

 

[Remathilis]

OS play isn't clever.

But you are weaker

You cannot power through obstacles that are supposed to be challenging without it being risky or costly.

Modern play gives you power early. It is designed around the idea that you can just nuke or nova the first 2 challenges away because the last ones will have you exhausted for power. So you have the option to nova early, nova late, or spread evenly.

I beg to disagree. At levels 1-4 I will admit that OS PCs are far weaker than their modern counterparts, but come about 5th level OS players usually have enough power to start muscling though any reasonable challenges. Magic items, better gear, and third level spells usually start evening the playing field. By 9th, most players rarely fear anything but instant-death traps (which don't care if your level 1 or 20). Clever play at that level mostly consists of "what magic thing do we have that short circuits this encounter?"

Modern tries it's best to spread that out over the lower levels because (outside of masochists) rolling up 100 PCs to feed to Tucker's kobolds isn't very fun. It does have a knock on effect of making higher levels feel stronger, but I would argue outside of some specific FU-gotcha abilities (save or die, energy drain) 9th level AD&D and 9th level 5e RAW is about equally lethal.

So I agree with you that OS PCs are more fragile and less powerful if you keep to the Red Box levels, but the gap starts to close moreso than people think once you gain higher level.

(This is all prefaced on some important caveats: you are more or less playing RAW with appropriate levels of treasure and challenge in the correct ballpark level range. You can far easier short circuit this by giving PCs no magic items, limited wizard spell access, and making them fight giants at 5th level. But assuming we are being fair, this should be more or less correct. Note that it's completely possible to tpk a 5e party as much as it is to have AD&D players kill things far above their weight.)

 

[AnotherGuy]

The natural state of being is ignorance. We only change that state by asking questions. I will always prompt my players to ask questions, generally with descriptions I hope are evocative and curious, inherently inviting, "But why would that be so...?"

If something genuinely doesn't make sense, then I have erred and I am 100% always willing to correct my mistakes. I will, in general, default to whatever interpretation is maximally favorable to the players when a mistake is noted, within the limits of established fiction and general decorum. That said, I do expect a player to demonstrate that I have made a mistake. This is usually extremely easy if I have in fact made a mistake.

A player who gave the first three excuses would be given three chances to correct their behavior going forward. The first time, I'd simply gently admonish them and suggest a better approach. The second time, I would tell them that that isn't how I run my game, and what they need to do differently in order to work with me. The third time, I would have a private conversation with them where I tell them precisely what is wrong with their behavior, why it is disruptive, and discuss what changes need to occur--including offering my own effort to try to meet them in the middle about it. If, after those three tries, the problem continues to persist, I would politely but firmly tell them they are no longer welcome at my table.

I don't tolerate bad-faith play. Period. And I don't think anyone else should. I do, however, give people a chance to correct their mistakes (because God knows I'll make too many).

The fourth thing is an actual argument with potential merit--it depends on what LMNO and P are. But if the player is genuinely abusing my leeway, claiming things don't make sense that demonstrably do (especially if the other players generally agree with me on that), then they'll be given the exact same three chances as before, just tailored to this specific issue. Perhaps I am tooting my own horn, but I am generally a very patient GM.


Okay. As noted, I don't tolerate bad-faith player behavior, so...I don't see the gap here.

The experience I was referring to was solely with friends.
So, when I made that comment about temporarily irritating about the inattentive participant, I mean it. It doesn't weigh on me - in fact it is more of a running joke that player A missed something or misinterpreted something. We all take jabs at each other as friends do.

I do not have nearly enough experience running games with acquaintances let alone strangers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

generally no, because tedium does not require skill in the first place. The OSR focuses too much on tedium for my taste and tries to pass it off as skilled play however, imo.

I used the quotes to mean the label usually used, rather than the actual thing itself.

Skilled play to me means you are using limited means and ingenuity to accomplish goals that seem hard in comparison. Scenarios like this are easier to set up when characters are less powerful and most things cannot be simply waved away with a spell. This is where the lower power OSR has the advantage, not by adding tedium many people ignored in the early 80s already

What I would say, then, is that skilled play is not actually harmed in newer editions--it is simply something that the GM cannot achieve with minimal effort. If the GM wishes to provide a challenge, they themselves will be challenged, which is something I personally value.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The experience I was referring to was solely with friends.
So, when I made that comment about temporarily irritating about the inattentive participant, I mean it. It doesn't weigh on me - in fact it is more of a running joke that player A missed something or misinterpreted something. We all take jabs at each other as friends do.

I do not have nearly enough experience running games with acquaintances let alone strangers.

I only run for friends, so this is mostly theoretical on my end as well.

But I am quite sincere when I say I won't tolerate bad-faith participation.