OSR OSR Gripes

Eric V

Explorer
They're archetypal, they created a legacy, defined the hobby.
They were brilliant and innovative in their day.

You could design a technically mechanically better system, today, but it'd be derivative rather than innovative, polished rather than brilliant. And, indeed, LOTS of such systems have been designed.

Sure, and that those issues only matter as such as something to learn from. As far as the experience of replaying an ancient RPG goes, those issues were part of the experience, so correcting for then (unless you were already doing so back then) defeats the purpose, and lampshading them can enhance the experience.

Or they might appreciate it for restoring as much of it as it did.

Another way to look at it was the accomplishment was greater.

Your basketball analogy was lost on me, so I'm going with one if my own.

Like a lotta nerds I'm a fan of SFX films. I really appreciate the masters is stop-motion animation, Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen.

I have to acknowledge that CGI is a much more powerful technique. But, I don't think it often approaches the artistry of the FX in the original King Kong or Jason & the Argonauts.

And, I can also point to silver linings in the obsolete technology. For instance, CGI can move very fast, with motion blur, looking perfectly smooth and very realistic. Which means you see a blur. You get mire action and realism, but what did that creature even look like. It's a huge technical improvement over the 'strobing' inevitable in even the best stop motion, but, I at least knew what I was looking at.
In NO way did I mean to take away from the innovation and brilliance of the original games in their day. 50 years later, though...

I can understand liking the warts; I can't understand not acknowledging them as warts, though.

As far as design goes, is there a style of play from the OSR days that couldn't be replicated with modern games? It's not obvious...yes, the original games were deadlier, but even 5e can achieve that level of danger with the appropriate number of monsters and not changing the rules.

Can OSR games play in all styles that modern ones can without changing the rules? It doesn't seem so...
 

Eric V

Explorer
The purpose of bball, at least so far as those playing on the court? To score as many points as possible, which leads to innovation of design in offenses (and of course, defenses). A team can not be successful using only a playbook from the 90s.

Now, I understand RPGs don't have a numeric qualifier that way, but an rpg that could accommodate as many playstyles as possible in a fun way would seem to be a reasonable equivalent.
 

Celebrim

Legend
It's clear why some might want to go back to a previous version, based on preferences, nostalgia (not a bad thing!), or really, a bunch of reasons.
Nostalgia is the 'n word' of the OSR community. The very mention of it drives them up the wall. The average member of the OSR community hearing the word thinks that you are saying that they have no real reasons for liking OSR games. The average person using the word merely means that they have a lot of fun playing games 'back in the day' and want to recapture that magic.

What's not clear to me is how people think games designed in the 70s are designed better than modern ones. I can understand preferring them, but, as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] points out above, one would have to acknowledge the issues.
The very touchiness they have about criticism of the system is I think pretty telling. I can't imagine a player of 3.X whether 3.5 or pathfinder actually objecting to the idea that 3.X has serious issues out of the box. Indeed, I've never had a discussion with someone who is deeply familiar with a system where I'm also deeply familiar with the system about the systems problems that regularly goes in the direction talking about OSR does.

And again, for me the most telling thing is that if you do get one of these OSR people to defend the rules, like 8 out of the 10 things that they'll talk about aren't rules but play processes like rolling attributes, random magic item placement, more challenging encounters, proposition filters to use more fiction specific actions rather than 'moves', and so forth. All of those things can be and frequently are used as either rules variants or simply processes of play using more modern rule sets. Let's get real: 3e had random magic item tables and the default treasure placement methodology in its guidelines is random. Granted, it won't randomly generate a +5 vorpal sword in the hands of a low level goblin the way the 1e tables could, but then I seriously doubt that if the dice did generate that result in 1e AD&D (or OSRIC) that the results would stand, because 1e AD&D and it's emulators had the metarule "don't let the dice ruin the game" that applied to random treasure and random encounters.

And then invariably one of the things that they'll cite is that it doesn't have rules, which either undermines the claim or more telling means that they probably either don't know the rules or don't use them. Certainly, if you made the claim '1e AD&D doesn't have rules for X' you'd almost certainly be wrong. What you almost certainly meant was, "While AD&D does have rules for X, they are bad rules and therefore no one uses them."

Anyway, my whole point of all this grognardish grumbling is that what OSR is really about is not substance but style. And by that I don't mean that it is about something unimportant any more than by nostalgia I mean 'bad'. By nostalgia I mean good, as in most people aren't nostalgic about things that weren't good. Style is very important and is at least as important as rules, but it doesn't require an OSR ruleset to have an old school game.


Like anything else involving design, things get better as time passes, whether it's tech, social issues, education techniques, sports, whatever...and that makes sense, because designers today have access to everything that's come before.
Well, as long as you are willing to concede that this progress is not a smooth and even thing, but is filled with setbacks, mistakes, digressions, and other sorts of failed experiments, then I agree. The mistakes become part of the lessons learned by future designers, which is how we very slowly get better at things.

So, if someone says "As a wizard player, I loved 3.5" I can understand.
I can too, but if someone admitted to that it would likely imply very big things about what they really wanted in a system - most of them not healthy. For example, it would imply that they liked to have as an individual player an answer for every problem, and quite possibly that they liked to have spotlight in every challenge. Depending on the sort of wizards that they played and the sort of game that they ran, it might mean that the preferred to play a game without real challenge where they could just go from success to success. Of course, a really self-aware player might actually admit that, though that might not be the traditional metrics of good design, as a practical matter it is actually what they like.

By way of contrast, I never had a player play a successful Wizard in any of my 3.X games. Indeed, even when I was running RAW games Wednesday night in open dungeon crawls for all comers at the local game shop, the most successful returning player decided that the only way he was going to survive as a wizard was start a fighter, and then accept that a less powerful but less squishy wizard was the only thing that would work. This is so very much the opposite of CharOp decision making that I can only assume that if the CharOp people are playing anything other than a theoretical character building minigame, that they must be playing a very different game that I was running - even when I was running the same ruleset.

They might dislike 5e for addressing that imbalance...but they'd have to acknowledge that the game is better balanced. The design is better, but it no longer fits the preference.
But do they have to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the 5e spellcaster is better balanced than the 3e full casters is to say that in some sense their victories in 3e weren't earned, but they simply the result of exploiting badly thought out rules. And that word 'exploit' could very well trigger them just as hard as 'nostalgia' triggers members of the OSR community.

You have to think about why people play RPGs. There are ton of different reasons for doing it, most of them boiling down to some variation on the 'illusion of success'. And for some people, the illusion of success requires them to not see through the illusion so that it feels like real success. So for our hypothetical player that loved 3.X for its full spellcasters and what you can do with them, to tell that player that that is bad design is to attack them emotionally - you are imperiling the illusion that makes the game fun for them. You are likely to end up in a strange argument with said player about how balance isn't important to an RPG (back to the John Wick school of gaming) and really RPGs are supposed to be unbalanced (or something of the sort) where what's really going on is a proxy argument for "stop attacking my illusion of success".

Now obviously, there is something very different going on here, as I've only met a few AD&D players who hard core exploit the spell rules as hard as a 3e CharOp player - though it certainly can be done if you exploit the illusion rules, for example. And the OSR style seems to involve a lot more dying all the time (at least in theory) than the sort of mostly on rails 1-20 AP campaign that become associated with 3e.

Again, I don't fully understand it and don't claim to understand it. My best theory is still the one I put forward - for most people their habits of play get attached to particular rules set and if they want to change their habits of play they have to change the rules. From the sort of complaints that I see, the sorts of styles of play and the sorts of habits of play that became stereotypical in say the 3.X era don't appeal to them, and to get away from those ingrained habits or to get their associates away from those ingrained habits they had to change the rules and the atmosphere. And if that worked for them, then more power to them. But for me, the cost of going back to those jankier rules is less than the cost of creating new ways of thinking about 3.X rules, or just tweaking the 3.X rules to nerf spellcasters a bit. And you might have notice from my discussion of 1e AD&D, I don't mind system mastery and optimization either as a player or a DM. To me, well created and conceived characters mechanically just means that there will be greater campaign continuity because the PCs will survive long enough to not just have a great scene but a story. I mean one thing that is definitely telling to me about these discussions is how often he OSR players all assume the best stories about D&D are tales of how some character died.
 
I can understand liking the warts; I can't understand not acknowledging them as warts, though.
I've long noted a distinction between liking something in spite of flaws, and liking it for the flaws.

But, I suppose there's a further distinction between liking the flaws for their 'silver linings' vs their dismal clouds.

As far as design goes, is there a style of play from the OSR days that couldn't be replicated with modern games?
Replicated, no, of course you can use a more technically functional game to replicate the lesser one. You can show a B&W movie on a color tv. You could put strobing into your CGI. You can play a 4e (paragon level) wizard able to fly and turn invisible, in a 5th level party.

But, you probably won't so faithfully replicate the experience, because you know you're doing it on purpose, not as a consequence of normal, or only-available, process.

Can OSR games play in all styles that modern ones can without changing the rules? It doesn't seem so...
Actually, thing is, they probably were played in those styles, back in the day, by changing the rules, and that's why we have modern games tgat do em better, now. Also, that means changing the rules is a legit part of the Old School experience.
 
What's the purpose of an rpg, then?
There are many different goals of rpging, some mutually exclusive, including but not limited to winning, simulation, storytelling, socialising. Rpgs are an unusual activity in this respect. It's the main reason we argue about them so much on the internet.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Actually, thing is, they probably were played in those styles, back in the day, by changing the rules, and that's why we have modern games tgat do em better, now. Also, that means changing the rules is a legit part of the Old School experience.
Changing the rules was definitely a part of the experience I think renovating the spell casting system seemed to be par for the course unless you were at a convention or just starting out with a newbie DM of course that is an anecdote not data.
 
Now, I understand RPGs don't have a numeric qualifier that way, but an rpg that could accommodate as many playstyles as possible in a fun way would seem to be a reasonable equivalent.
GM A likes to create their own house rules, it's their favourite aspect of rpg-ing. They love that pre-3e D&D has no universal mechanic and consists of many discrete subsystems. Their house rules won't have many knock-on effects and they won't look 'out of place'. In fact it's even to their advantage that many of the rules of AD&D 1e are crap - it means their house rules are better than the rules they are replacing and the players like them.

GM B hates to house rule. They want a complete system. They like games with a universal mechanic because it gives them a foundation to make rulings, something they're not all that comfortable or confident doing. GM B prefers the WotC editions of D&D.

These hypothetical GMs show that system preferences can be mutually exclusive. There's no way you could create one system that appeals to both GM A and GM B.
 
Changing the rules was definitely a part of the experience I think renovating the spell casting system seemed to be par for the course unless you were at a convention or just starting out with a newbie DM of course that is an anecdote not data.
"Mana Systems" seemed pervasive back in the day, at least in my area - though I heard about 'em a lot more than had to play under them. I feel like they were often regarded as broken, but, 30+ years later, that could just have been me. ;)


These hypothetical GMs show that system preferences can be mutually exclusive. There's no way you could create one system that appeals to both GM A and GM B.
I think part of 5e's appeal (or, at least, comparative immunity from criticism) is that it /does/ at least accommodate both sorts of DMs. (Among other sorts of DMs and players.)

DM A emphasizes the latitude exercising his judgement in the "play loop" gives him, not only narrating success/failure often, but calling for resolution tests other than standard-issue checks. His players will angle for the resolutions that tend to go in their favor - if that tends /not/ to be a check vs a DC, they'll be a lot more accepting of his variants, too, when he gets to introducing those.

DM B emphasizes the extant rules, exercising judgement only in so far as setting DCs. He'll call for a DC 5 or 30 check rather than narrate success/failure. His players develop some faith in the system, and his game runs the way he likes.


DM A doesn't normally use optional rules, only on a case-by-case, approval basis, but he's open to evaluating anything, and will introduce his own stuff, too.

DM B taps into the tribal knowledge and officialdom of AL and runs using those rules & interpretations. Nice & neat.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
GM A likes to create their own house rules, it's their favourite aspect of rpg-ing. They love that pre-3e D&D has no universal mechanic and consists of many discrete subsystems. Their house rules won't have many knock-on effects and they won't look 'out of place'. In fact it's even to their advantage that many of the rules of AD&D 1e are crap - it means their house rules are better than the rules they are replacing and the players like them.

GM B hates to house rule. They want a complete system. They like games with a universal mechanic because it gives them a foundation to make rulings, something they're not all that comfortable or confident doing. GM B prefers the WotC editions of D&D.

These hypothetical GMs show that system preferences can be mutually exclusive. There's no way you could create one system that appeals to both GM A and GM B.
I am DM C which is a little like A in that I am fond of making my own stuff however I like have a game system that creates solid reliable foundations so when I change its bits and pieces, I can predict the results and make fewer errors up front.
 

Eric V

Explorer
GM A likes to create their own house rules, it's their favourite aspect of rpg-ing. They love that pre-3e D&D has no universal mechanic and consists of many discrete subsystems. Their house rules won't have many knock-on effects and they won't look 'out of place'. In fact it's even to their advantage that many of the rules of AD&D 1e are crap - it means their house rules are better than the rules they are replacing and the players like them.

GM B hates to house rule. They want a complete system. They like games with a universal mechanic because it gives them a foundation to make rulings, something they're not all that comfortable or confident doing. GM B prefers the WotC editions of D&D.

These hypothetical GMs show that system preferences can be mutually exclusive. There's no way you could create one system that appeals to both GM A and GM B.
Does the existence of rules or mechanics -stop- GM A from creating their own house rules? I don't see why it would...

Put more simply,post 2e games don't stop GM A from house-ruling, so he's fine, no? Meanwhile GM B would be up the creek in pre-3e games.

IN post 2e games, GM A is as free as ever to house rule, but GM B is also accommodated within this system, right? Doesn't that make it a better system (preferences aside)?
 
Does the existence of rules or mechanics -stop- GM A from creating their own house rules? I don't see why it would...
Nothing can stop a DM from house ruling, or, y'know, just running a different system, but a system might not present as much perceived need or opportunity to do so.

And, a system can set the stage for players to enthusiastically accept or violently resist outright house-rules or even any deviation from RAW orthodoxy.

IN post 2e games, GM A is as free as ever to house rule, but GM B is also accommodated within this system, right? Doesn't that make it a better system (preferences aside)?
Objectively, sure, but when are these things ever objective?

Subjectively, DM A will feel constrained by a more technically consistent, balanced, clear, and/or polished susyem; subjectively his players may feel more comfortable with and invested in that system, and resist changing or overruling it.

Its not even as simple as good systems are bad and bad systems are good (though that's a claim with some solid history behind it), DM A can be bent out of shape by technically-broken systems, too, if his players are invested in leveraging that brokenness in their favor, he has the perceived need to fix it, but faces resistance to his fixes, however well-intentioned they may be.

Not to let DM B off the hook, either. As long as a system doesnt crash and burn on him, he's inclined to leave systemic problems in place, even entirely unquestioned, and, if they're pointed out, rationalize excuses for them rather than come up with a fix, or even just adopt a well regarded alternative.

Heck, A&B are probably more common as hypothetical examples, possibly stuffed with straw, than as actual DMs. A lot of people who game actually /arent/ jerks.

I know, you could never tell from how we sound on-line. Hazard of the medium.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It's clear why some might want to go back to a previous version, based on preferences, nostalgia (not a bad thing!), or really, a bunch of reasons.

What's not clear to me is how people think games designed in the 70s are designed better than modern ones. I can understand preferring them, but, as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] points out above, one would have to acknowledge the issues.

Like anything else involving design, things get better as time passes, whether it's tech, social issues, education techniques, sports, whatever...and that makes sense, because designers today have access to everything that's come before. They have seen what works, what gets in the way, what is worth keeping, what isn't...
And then far too often take all that information and somehow use it to make the wrong decision, often for reasons external to the actual process (in RPG design, it might be furthering of an idea just because it's yours even though objectively it's not the best; in the corporate world it might be choosing an objectively lesser design because it's more profitable...that sort of thing).

None of that means anything for preferences of course: some miss their NES and find modern games too complex to be worth the effort; some prefer desks in rows and rote learning, etc. We should be able to acknowledge that we sometimes prefer the not-best-designed-thing, though.
Question then becomes whether the definition of the "best-designed thing" also comes down to preference; and I'll posit that quite often it does, simply because for any given person the best design is usually the design that works best for that person.

Example: The NBA today has extremely efficient teams that have employed a lot of analytics to arrive at the conclusion that the shots worth taking are 3s and layups, and that's it. Like any innovation, lots of other teams followed suit, and it has resulted in a very different-looking game than the one I grew up watching. Do I prefer the new game or the old one? Not sure...there's aspects of the old way that I miss, for sure, but...I could never argue that the old game was more efficient in terms of basketball. Offensive schemes are designed better today, and a lot of it is access to greater information and data from the past.
And of course the result of that is that teams now mostly practice drive-and-kick plays for 3-pointers or plays designed to produce layups, meaning the data feeds on itself: plays that were previously only a bit less efficient (assuming accurate data!) become further and further less efficient as teams no longer practice them.

To say that the design is better from games back in the 70s, though...I don't see how that's possible, not with how design works in almost literally everything else.
The design is certainly both different and more complete now than it was then; but improvement in design since then certainly hasn't been constant or consistent and for many may well have reached its high-water mark at some point between the '70s and now...and those who think it largely reached that high-water mark* quite early on are those who are either driving the OSR or who - like me - really never left old-school at all.

* - though useful new ideas that can be incorporated into an old-school game or system are always welcome!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
As far as design goes, is there a style of play from the OSR days that couldn't be replicated with modern games? It's not obvious...yes, the original games were deadlier, but even 5e can achieve that level of danger with the appropriate number of monsters and not changing the rules.

Can OSR games play in all styles that modern ones can without changing the rules? It doesn't seem so...
To make 5e play the least bit old-school you'd have to change some rules too, so it goes both ways.

There's many examples, but I'll just start and end with resting and recovery rules...
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
GM A likes to create their own house rules, it's their favourite aspect of rpg-ing. They love that pre-3e D&D has no universal mechanic and consists of many discrete subsystems. Their house rules won't have many knock-on effects and they won't look 'out of place'. In fact it's even to their advantage that many of the rules of AD&D 1e are crap - it means their house rules are better than the rules they are replacing and the players like them.

GM B hates to house rule. They want a complete system. They like games with a universal mechanic because it gives them a foundation to make rulings, something they're not all that comfortable or confident doing. GM B prefers the WotC editions of D&D.

These hypothetical GMs show that system preferences can be mutually exclusive. There's no way you could create one system that appeals to both GM A and GM B.
If 5e had really lived up to the degree of modularity promised during design and playtest it might actually have been nicely on its way to being just the system you posit is impossible: a functionally complete system that'll keep GM B happy but fully modular and kit-bashable such that GM A can mold it into the game she wants to run without too many unforeseen knock-ons.

But, that modularity ideal seems to have kinda dropped off the map somewhere between design and release. Sad, really.
 

Cleon

Adventurer
Returning to the original premise, my biggest gripe with Old School Renaissance games is the same as my gripe about most forms of roleplaying games - I haven't got to play them!

Due to lack of spare time, accessibility of gaming groups and scheduling difficulties I have not been gaming anywhere near as often as I would like to.

I've got all these OSR games sitting on my shelves or occupying hard drive space but so far have only got enjoyment from reading them instead of the "full experience" of actually playing or running the dang things.

The closest to Old-School gaming I've done recently is being a player in a Twilight 2000 derivative for a few sessions.



As for the games themselves, offhand I can't think of any gripes about particular mechanics - overall they're far better written and consistent than 1E AD&D rules ever were. I do have a bit of a gripe for some of campaign flavour of Lamentations of the Flame Princess which veers to far into "trying to be shocking" territory for my tastes, but that's a settings issue rather than a rules issue.
 

Cleon

Adventurer
People play what they want to play. Frankly I have no idea why anyone would EVER want to play 3.5 D&D. I find it baffling and illogical myself. That doesn't mean I would go into a thread about 3.5 and aggressively demand justifications for the fans of it. I'm sure they love it and would have answers that make sense to them on why it's the best game ever.
Of the forms of D&D I've had much playtime with 3.5 is my least favourite. It feels way too "prescriptive" compared to earlier editions and is way more unbalanced than later editions.

Which makes it ironic that it's also the edition I use/play/reference the most often.

As to why, the answer's simple - the OGL. Anyone can play it for free, so it was way easier finding 3.5 players. Most of those people have moved over to Pathfinder now though.

I still refer to the rules a lot more often than any other D&D edition - but that's because of the Creature Catalog being SRD-based rather than me currently being in a 3.5 game.
 
To make 5e play the least bit old-school you'd have to change some rules too, so it goes both ways.

There's many examples, but I'll just start and end with resting and recovery rules...
Not a great point, actually. Old-school did actually have something akin to a 'short rest.' Play progressed in 10-min 'turns,' and if a combat didn't take 10 rounds, the balance was assumed to be spent resting, binding wounds and repairing gear. And, recovering hp & spells 'overnight' is a mere simplification of the complicated rules for recovering spells (requiring anything from 4 to 8 hrs of actual sleep, plus considerable time "memorizing") and the de-facto rate of healing accomplished /by/ memorizing, castings and re-memorizing full slates of healing spells. (That is, the rest & time rate of healing was moot.)
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Not a great point, actually. Old-school did actually have something akin to a 'short rest.'
No it didn't. Nothing in AD&D had rules where you regained spells from a short rest. Or had the ability to engage in non-magical hit point recovery in a short rest. And AD&D not only did not have heal back to full on a long rest, but you only got what? 1 hp back per day? If you think PCs just sat around for hours after hours casting/memorizing/recasting healing spells, then that tells me your experience with AD&D was limited to the goldbox PC video games. You didn't sit around for 38 hours doing that in an actual AD&D TTRPG while on an adventure (unless your DM paused the game world to allow their game to emulate said goldbox video games, but I never saw that once). Getting all hit points back after 8 hours in 5e is much different than the days of trying to do that in AD&D (even by your method). That difference is not "moot". The rate is significantly different.

Pointing out how you'd have to radically change the rest/recovery rules from 5e to OSR is a great point, because it's so radically different in how each edition handled them.
 
No it didn't.
"Something akin to" is, I think, a pretty low bar. Admittedly, the balance of a 10 minute turn is a lot less resting than 5e's one hour. But it's still a rest, and it's still short. Some variant I vaguely recall even let that 'bind wounds' assumption heal d3 hps. Which, at 1st level, in particular, was nothing to sneeze at.

Nothing in AD&D had rules where you regained spells from a short rest.
Not spells in any standard class, now, but there were the occasional n/turn items or special abilities.
Or had the ability to engage in non-magical hit point recovery in a short rest. And AD&D not only did not have heal back to full on a long rest
Aside from the 'non magical' proviso, though, recovering hps between combat, and between forays into the dungeon /was/ a viable strategy, while waiting weeks to recover hps 'naturally' was pretty pointless. So the cadence was not that different, just the bookkeeping was more involved.

then that tells me your experience with AD&D was limited to the goldbox PC video games.
100% wrong. Never touched 'em. Actually played and ran AD&D, both eds, from '80 through '95. Sitting around resting for weeks to heal naturally, when your party /needed/ a cleric for both healing & turning, anyway, seemed pointless to every group I ever gamed with. I won't completely discount the possibility that there were groups out there who never had a cleric - actually, I won't challenge that claim when made by anonymous posters in an internet forum, because that'd be impolite.

You didn't sit around for 38 hours doing that in an actual AD&D TTRPG while on an adventure
Depends on how large & demanding the adventure you were grinding against was. If you couldn't tackle it in one 'day' and "went back to town" there was very little point in not doing a few re-memorization cycles to get everyone up to full hps and have a complete set of spells when you returned. It's not like there was a clear, universally applied limit on how often you could take that 4hr nap to get back low-level spells, for instance. Indeed, the classic game varied so much in how it was interpreted, modded, & actually run, that there's very little we /can/ authoritatively say about it.

That difference is not "moot". The rate is significantly different.
It's really not. 8hrs once in a 24hr period vs 4 up to 8 several times in succession, with extra memorization time is /mainly/ just less bookkeeping - but then, the bookkeeping was a lot more detailed in the olden days across the board. Accounting for spells, coin, gear, expendable items (from ammunition that you had a % chance of recovering, to potions to magic items with uncertain #s of charges), etc, all more detail than in the modern game.

Pointing out how you'd have to radically change the rest/recovery rules from 5e to OSR is a great point, because it's so radically different in how each edition handled them.
The meaningful impact is minimal. And, it's not like it's hard to change the rest/recovery period. The standard 8hr short rests, 1 week long variant, for instance, will get you a cadence not unlike the classic game, just still with less bookkeeping.

If you /want/ the greater detail, though, it impacts far more than just the rests, and I'd agree it makes very little sense to adapt a modern ed rather than dust off an older one & dig in.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
Not a great point, actually. Old-school did actually have something akin to a 'short rest.' Play progressed in 10-min 'turns,' and if a combat didn't take 10 rounds, the balance was assumed to be spent resting, binding wounds and repairing gear. And, recovering hp & spells 'overnight' is a mere simplification of the complicated rules for recovering spells (requiring anything from 4 to 8 hrs of actual sleep, plus considerable time "memorizing") and the de-facto rate of healing accomplished /by/ memorizing, castings and re-memorizing full slates of healing spells. (That is, the rest & time rate of healing was moot.)
There were no short rest equivalents in B/X or AD&D. Combats were, indeed, rounded up to the nearest turn, but there wasn’t any actual resource or hit point recovery involved.

The ‘rest period’ up to 10 minutes was more to maintain time keeping and to maintain the time pressure of a delve. There was also a 1 turn test period required for every 5 turns of activity. But these rest periods did not allow for recovery of resources.

Their intention is to keep the clock moving and keep the time pressure moving. Interesting enough, the one turn rest for every 5 actually coincides with torch duration, as well as with wandering encounter checks. They are kind of akin to blinds in poker, they maintain pressure on the game by forcing resource depletion.
 

Advertisement

Top