Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8858686" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Good grief.  I just got done sitting through this and ... it's a lot.  The first 5 or 6 minutes is comparing page count without really discussing the rules or how the game played.Then he compares the AD&D DMG and PHB and notes that the DMG is bigger because it has all the rules for combat.  Which ... wait ... those rules were better because only the DM knew how to run a critical portion of the game (we all just had the DMG and PHB) but the original argument for OSR is better was because there was 5E is bad because the DM is expected to know all the rules.  But AD&D was better because if you listened to Gygax and the players never read the DMG then the DMG has to know all the combat rules. He doesn't see the contradiction here?Then he's ranting about how you can't have resource attrition matter in 5E.  So many issues.  Why would a newbie DM going to give a fig about old school resource attrition like torches?  But it gets better.  They claim that all races have darkvision so they don't need torches.  He seems to assume that every group has a druid so you always have goodberries. Have an encounter on a collapsing bridge?  That aarakocra will just fly away!  Literally states "The players have already conquered darkness, dehydration, hunger and gravity." Which is quite a trick.  I don't know how they're countering dehydration other than a spell to create water that was in my old books.  Yes, if you happen to have a druid in the party and they cast the goodberry spell every day you have food.  You also have a druid down a spell slot.  That aarakocra doesn't have darkvision so I guess they can blindly wave into the darkness as their compatriots fall to their doom.He complains about speed of advancement which may or may not be relevant, that depended on the group and if they rewarded XP for treasure.   They complain about how casters have spells at low levels and cantrips is a bad thing.  Because somehow it's so much worse than casting 1 spell a day before they resorted to ineffectively chucking darts.  But it's all good because you could house rule (his words) that wizards could get spells from other spell books which forced them to raid tombs.  Huh?  In 5E you don't even have to house rule scribing spells. Oh, then says PCs in 5E level up 1 level per session ... which is not the case in any game I've played and not the guidance in 5E after level 1.I love "fewer rules means fewer things to argue about".  Really?  That certainly wasn't my experience. A little later they claim that putting a note in the PHB that the DM makes the decisions would "put rules lawyers out of business once and for all".  If only it was that easy.  Then he goes on to talk about how you can tell epic stories with OSR (and alludes to making a complex rules system from scratch is somehow better) but that you don't have to. Implication there is that 5E can't do location based games for some reason.   I do agree that the DMG can be improved. If you're new to DMing you should limit some options and slow down advancement for a bit until you get a better feel for the game.  But the rest of it?  It's not a surprise to me that he, and Questing Beast, are in the business of publishing OSR games and adventures.  The bias is blatant to me.  If you like OSR games and minimal rules, that's great.  OSR and 5E are different.  That doesn't make one inherently better or easier to DM in my opinion.EDIT: minor typos.</blockquote>

Verification