D&D General They were all dead. The final arrow was an exclamation mark on everything that had led to this point.

[overgeeked]

Reading some Dragonlance and Drizzt novels and you never worried about Drizzt or Tanis etc dying to a rando goblin or trap (lets not get to far into Tanis' BS death but the point stands). These characters didn't start at 1, more like 3 (and they had awesome stats). But yeah Raistlin or Regis survived their first few adventures. OSE/BX Fighter, Elf, Thief, Cleric, Dwarf, Halfling, etc et etc did not.

This is mostly down to D&D not being a game about generating a story and storytelling not following the rules of D&D. Even D&D-based stories don’t follow the game’s rules.

Though I suppose on the flip side, OSE/BX characters are so simplified and easy to play compared to 5E making, understanding, and playing a whole new character is fairly simple. But yeah I want them to be Big Damn Heroes with some actual danger.

Yeah, that’s a tough one.

 

[Dbudzik]

The whole goal of combat in B/X, and by extension, OSE, is NOT to fight fair. If players are dying because they keep rushing headlong into fights, the lesson they need to learn is to plan the battle and stack the odds in their favor. If they’re dying to traps, either they need to be more careful, or the DM needs to make the traps obvious and treat them more like hazards to be overcome with the players’ wits instead of dice rolls. And if the players are just outclassed by opponents or monsters that are too high a level for them, they need to learn how to run away and come back later. That’s why the best settings are sandboxes: so players can go where they want, find out where the more approachable dungeons are and skip the harder ones until they’re higher level. And sometimes, the only way to figure out which dungeons are the hard ones is by going in and getting jumped by something mean and running away.
Sure, bad rolls happen, but good planning and role-playing trumps bad dice rolls all the time.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

so what you're saying is that 5e is...a bit closer to heaven?

 

[Lanefan]

I've been running OSE IE Old school B/X with some modern flair for the last few months in a sort of sandbox style game. It's been super awesome. Most fun Ive had DMing in a long time.

Easy to run and play. It's D&D without all the chaff and bloat.... and yeah it's deadly. A bit less so with some house rules for more HP and better saves etc etc.

But stuff like instant death poison or a well rolled damage roll, it's still got claws.

A month ago I'd have said that's just the way it is. It's tough but fair (No save sleep spell is a good balancer) and the chance of death makes the successes all the sweeter. Winning a battle or surviving a deadly trap by the skin of your teeth is such a good feeling.

Yet.

None of the original party remain.

Yep, that happens. Sometimes one or two originals hang around for the long run, other times you turn 'em all over - sometimes more than once - before any start to stick.

Usually this wouldnt be a big deal in the sandbox style. The premise being "Go out and amass gold and glory...

...or die trying."

Problem is, I gave them a specific quest at one point to save a party member who's life is on a timer. No one is left alive to care except the cursed party member. Which again not really a big deal as its all apart of the gold and glory thing.

TBH, that's perhaps a mistake on your part. Tying any adventure to a single character is fraught with risk, as you've here found out.

Reading some Dragonlance and Drizzt novels and you never worried about Drizzt or Tanis etc dying to a rando goblin or trap (lets not get to far into Tanis' BS death but the point stands). These characters didn't start at 1, more like 3 (and they had awesome stats). But yeah Raistlin or Regis survived their first few adventures. OSE/BX Fighter, Elf, Thief, Cleric, Dwarf, Halfling, etc et etc did not.

And that right there is the difference between novel-writing and RPG-running. With a novel the author gets to decide who lives or dies and can plot out the characters' entire story arcs ahead of time. With a TTRPG you-as-DM don't get to make these decisions, and the players and-or dice can throw monkey wrenches into any plan.

OSE works pretty well and it's easy to house rule up and down. Perhaps poison isn't almost always a death sentence?

It shouldn't be in any case; though they should all pose a problem, there can easily be a variety of poison strengths from put-you-to-sleep to make-you-sick to kill-you-dead. Early D&D gets this wrong IMO.

I get how "Your character is the one who survived to level 3" is in fact true and also "Living to level 3 is your character's back story" is also true. A rite of passage and all that.

I look at it almost as being a slow-motion version of the DCCRPG funnel.

A corollary question - two, actually:

1. What sort of wealth or magic amounts are the survivors coming home with? Can said survivors afford good gear or magic, to improve their odds of surviving again?
2. Is revival magic availabe in your game, where the PCs pay a high-level NPC to Raise someone?

Though I suppose on the flip side, OSE/BX characters are so simplified and easy to play compared to 5E making, understanding, and playing a whole new character is fairly simple. But yeah I want them to be Big Damn Heroes with some actual danger.

Much to consider....

The bolded is the bit that raises red flags for me. First off, OSR-type games aren't nearly as well suited to Big Damn Heroes play as are the newer versions of D&D. Second, while you might want this, what about your players - do they enjoy the more gritty survival-is-job-one style?

 

[Theory of Games]

That’s why the best settings are sandboxes:

 

[Minigiant]

A while ago I came out with the idea that 3e-5e's saves based on stats was a mistake.
and 0e-2e's saves vs conditions was a mistake as well.

The numbers are too low. They should be combined. A level bonus, class bonus, and stat bonus.

Stability (STR)
Reflex (DEX)
Fortitude (CON)
Psionics (INT)
Willpower (WIS)
Magic (CHA)

Poisoning and instant killing a mid-level Fighter should be hard. Knocking them down almost impossible.

Imagine a 5th level fighter with a +5 level bonus, +3 class proficiency bonus, and +2 Con bonus vs a DC 13 death poison. You can still fail butt you gotta roll bad.

The wizard however is screwed if the poison death arrows hits him.

 

[GobHag]

The whole goal of combat in B/X, and by extension, OSE, is NOT to fight fair. If players are dying because they keep rushing headlong into fights, the lesson they need to learn is to plan the battle and stack the odds in their favor. If they’re dying to traps, either they need to be more careful, or the DM needs to make the traps obvious and treat them more like hazards to be overcome with the players’ wits instead of dice rolls. And if the players are just outclassed by opponents or monsters that are too high a level for them, they need to learn how to run away and come back later. That’s why the best settings are sandboxes: so players can go where they want, find out where the more approachable dungeons are and skip the harder ones until they’re higher level. And sometimes, the only way to figure out which dungeons are the hard ones is by going in and getting jumped by something mean and running away.
Sure, bad rolls happen, but good planning and role-playing trumps bad dice rolls all the time.

SO what if I just throw myself like lemmings at everything then? Just keep dying and I won't care then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OSE works pretty well and it's easy to house rule up and down. Perhaps poison isn't almost always a death sentence? Or perhaps just start at level 3 or 4?

Alternative:
Let 1st level characters have HP equivalent to what would have been a level 3 or 4 character before, but reduce the amount of HP they gain from levelling up thereafter. That way, the first level is not likely a death sentence, but death remains a reasonable possibility.

This is what 4e did. The precise numbers may not have been where they should be, but the concept is sound. It allows you to have that cushion without forcing a ton of mechanics (e.g. being level 3-4!) The only missing component, then, is "novice level" rules, which would allow folks who really want that grim-and-gritty. "surviving to level 3 is your backstory" experience to have their cake, without taking away the cake of the folks who don't want to deal with that.

That combination--higher base HP, slower HP scaling, and novice levels--is the mirror image of what actual OSR games have done to address the "it's really pretty annoying/bothersome to have to spend months on end waiting to get that character who survived to 3rd level." That is, those games (specifically DCC first, others have since copied them) developed the funnel dungeon, where you run a bazillion low-level characters through, and the ones that survive become your starting stable of characters to draw upon.

I get how "Your character is the one who survived to level 3" is in fact true and also "Living to level 3 is your character's back story" is also true. A rite of passage and all that.

As noted above, it's a fun challenge for those who desire it, and thus should be supported. But "a fun challenge for those who desire it" is a bad state to force EVERY player to go through--and right now, there are no good options for people who don't want that. Either you get the nice, simple, easy-to-make characters and really difficult survivability, OR you get survivable but much more complicated characters. That's not great. DCC's funnel solution doesn't work for something like 5e (or really any other version of WotC D&D or PF). A different solution is needed, like the one above. That's not saying it's the only possible solution, but it is one that accepts what the game has become while declaring that those who like what the game used to be cannot be left behind.

That's why I advocate so strongly for developing robust, flexible, well-tested "novice level" rules, preferably ones that can spool levelling out almost indefinitely for those folks who really really like taking multiple years to reach even teen levels, let alone max. I have no use for those rules--but I consider them the second-most-important thing for future D&D game design, second only to making actually robust well-made encounter building tools (like what 4e had, specifically).

Though I suppose on the flip side, OSE/BX characters are so simplified and easy to play compared to 5E making, understanding, and playing a whole new character is fairly simple. But yeah I want them to be Big Damn Heroes with some actual danger.

Much to consider....

This, for me, is why having really really well-made, highly accurate encounter-building rules is so important. When you have such rules, you KNOW (up to the reasonable variation of statistics) that what you're doing is going to push the players to their limits, if that's what you want it to do. You can KNOW that, if you want a fight to be a cakewalk, it should in fact be a cakewalk unless the players do something to make things worse. Etc.

At that point, the vagaries of the dice are no longer the driving factor in encounter difficulty. Instead, it is player skill and DM skill that are the driving factors. Player skill because good plans lead to much better results, and bad plans lead to much worse results. DM skill because knowing how to push your players hard but not too hard is something only a living, breathing DM can do. It's something only a human with sensitivity and discernment can do. The rules can, in fact, help you to make the combat be as much what you want it to be as possible, but it's on you to actually DO that, to actually make it come to life and be scary or relaxed as you see fit.

Well-made tools make it easier to make beautiful finished work. They cannot replace skill--but excellent tools in the hands of an experienced user make the final result much, much better. Shoddy, flawed tools can still be brute forced into producing acceptable results, but they will be working against the maker, not with them. And while good tools in inexperienced hands will still produce rough results, the best tools include guidance for their use--and DMing tools are no exception.

We can, we should, we must demand better of the tools and teaching we impart to our DMs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A while ago I came out with the idea that 3e-5e's saves based on stats was a mistake.
and 0e-2e's saves vs conditions was a mistake as well.

The numbers are too low. They should be combined. A level bonus, class bonus, and stat bonus.

Stability (STR)
Reflex (DEX)
Fortitude (CON)
Psionics (INT)
Willpower (WIS)
Magic (CHA)

Poisoning and instant killing a mid-level Fighter should be hard. Knocking them down almost impossible.

Imagine a 5th level fighter with a +5 level bonus, +3 class proficiency bonus, and +2 Con bonus vs a DC 13 death poison. You can still fail butt you gotta roll bad.

The wizard however is screwed if the poison death arrows hits him.

Hmm. Not really sure I understand the difference between "Stability" and "Fortitude." What would you say to, for example, mingling Stability and Fortitude, and allowing the higher of the character's STR or CON bonus to count?

Not really sure I get why psionics is Int and "magic" is Cha. Always seemed to me that Charisma--one's "force of personality"--would be the defense against psionic assault. Meanwhile, "magic" is hella vague, but one would expect the Wizard to be particularly good at not letting magic get them down, given they've studied it so much.

Or we could just go back to the 4e way, of three non-AC defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) that are each, as above, taking the best of two stats (Fort is best of STR/CON, Ref is best of DEX/INT, Will is best of WIS/CHA).

 

[Minigiant]

Hmm. Not really sure I understand the difference between "Stability" and "Fortitude." What would you say to, for example, mingling Stability and Fortitude, and allowing the higher of the character's STR or CON bonus to count?

Not really sure I get why psionics is Int and "magic" is Cha. Always seemed to me that Charisma--one's "force of personality"--would be the defense against psionic assault. Meanwhile, "magic" is hella vague, but one would expect the Wizard to be particularly good at not letting magic get them down, given they've studied it so much.

Or we could just go back to the 4e way, of three non-AC defenses (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) that are each, as above, taking the best of two stats (Fort is best of STR/CON, Ref is best of DEX/INT, Will is best of WIS/CHA).

Stability is for what we consider STR saves in 5e: Pushes, Trips, Knockdowns, Grapples

Fortitude is more body immunity and for Con saves: Poisons, Disease, instant kill, cold, poison, or necrotic damage.

Big muscles won't help you survive poison gas. But it would make you harder to push over or back.

Allowing Fortitude to use STR or CON is a mechanical crutch to make sure more PCs has good Fortitude.

But why don't we just have the strong and tough classes have bonuses to being both strong and tough?

Why are do we make PCs only good at 2 of 6 saves or 1 of 3 saves then complain that PCs are weak to too many saving throws?...then nerf to compensate effects?... then say the game is too easy to win but PCs are too vulnerable to bring hosed?


In 2e, a fighter's saving throws were all in the low teens or tweens. Poison and Death was ~50/50. And from there they barely grew.

To me, a level 10 fighter might be a king's champion or a nationwide known swordmaster. Poisoning them or Knocking them down should be next to impossible unless you are also one or huge in size. They should be quick enough to dodge most fireballs and breath attacks. To take them out you need Psionics or nonphysical Magic.

Excellent vs Stability (STR)
Good vs Reflex (DEX)
Great vs Fortitude (CON)
Bad vs Psionics (INT)
Okay vs Willpower (WIS)
Bad vs Magic (CHA)

But a level 10 rogue who is a high ranking thieves guild member or a infamous Asian might be different.Speedy but crafty.

Terrible vs Stability (STR)
Excellent vs Reflex (DEX)
Great vs Fortitude (CON)
Great vs Psionics (INT)
Good vs Willpower (WIS)
Bad vs Magic (CHA)

The core idea is that saving throw bonuses should start low but grow fast with level and have multiple options for bonuses.

Death poison vs the stablehand: Certain Death.
Death poison vs the squire: Likely Death.
Death poison vs the knight: Unlikely to kill.
Death poison vs the knight commander: HAHAHAHA! I've sipped stronger wine. Give me another dose, coward.