OSR Why does OSR Design Draw You In?

[Micah Sweet]

That's the only thing I idealize about 3e - not the class builds and theorycrafting, but the breadth of the simulationist toolbox that it provided DMs (and simpler mechanics). AD&D was similar in many regards, but the rules are not as smooth for those who are only used to 5e. Maybe a5e is my best option for that - I've been wishing that there was a simulationist 5e. I'm curious what your rules doc looks like.

It's very long, because it's also a reference for my players, and I wanted to not have to go through a bunch of documents to find a specific rules widget. I'm in the process of transcribing everything I'm using that's not from an explicitly A5e source (WotC D&D or some other 5e). I'd be happy to share it if you send a message.

 

[Retros_x]

If you want to be a pirate, be a pirate, instead of making your Pirate Check.

I think this summarize perfectly what I enjoy about OSR. Its more player-driven, actual roleplaying instead of finding the right skill or rule. I also really enjoy the community and very diverse collection of adventures, rules, hacks etc.

 

[Retros_x]

1d20 + descending AC ≥ THAC0 starts out as single-digit addition compared to a double-digit target number, but as the levels go up, the numbers get smaller. They don't consistently turn negative and involve subtraction until very high levels indeed.

Its just unintuitive. It makes more sense for most people to add an attack bonus to an attack roll than the targets AC. There is a reason most player and DM prefer the the new version if they didn't grew up with Thac0.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think this summarize perfectly what I enjoy about OSR. Its more player-driven, actual roleplaying instead of finding the right skill or rule. I also really enjoy the community and very diverse collection of adventures, rules, hacks etc.

This comment might shed some light on the debates raging in a couple of other threads about "playing your attributes". OSR has a "Cops and Robbers" feel to me, the kind we played as kids using sticks or even fingers as guns. It worked...it works...because we are all invested in the fun of the game. We didn't need no stinkin' rules, largely because we didn't worry about "cheating": everybody was invested in the fun.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The PCs in 5e also get exploration-negating spells/skills at a fairly low level that make the challenges of wilderness exploration moot. Then, if you ban or alter those spells, skills, or rules, you run into a player-culture issue.

One thing that's fascinating is that, while most of those spells existed back in 1e, the ways they functioned were very different. Leomund's Tiny Hut, for example, takes until at least 8th level for it to be able to last long enough for a proper sleep, depending on the DM. And without Rituals, it would've required a spell slot.

And then there's Passive Perception, which, while I get why it was added, also makes exploration more, well, passive.

 

[Xenolith234]

One thing that's fascinating is that, while most of those spells existed back in 1e, the ways they functioned were very different. Leomund's Tiny Hut, for example, takes until at least 8th level for it to be able to last long enough for a proper sleep, depending on the DM. And without Rituals, it would've required a spell slot.

And then there's Passive Perception, which, while I get why it was added, also makes exploration more, well, passive.

I really don’t know how to work around the Perception issue. If you accept that skills existed in OSR just in an X-in-6 or percentile manner, then something akin to Perception has always existed, but with a really low chance of success. Is it that Perception (and really all skills) are just too easy in 5e?

I’m inclined to delete any skills that remove interaction with the world - specifically Perception and Insight, and at minimum leave them as passive-only.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m inclined to delete any skills that remove interaction with the world - specifically Perception and Insight, and at minimum leave them as passive-only.

Same.

Plus knowledge skills. If a player can't answer the question, "How do you go about it?" then it's not a skill. But I'm a bit extreme.

 

[Xenolith234]

Same.

Plus knowledge skills. If a player can't answer the question, "How do you go about it?" then it's not a skill. But I'm a bit extreme.

That’s a good way of thinking about it. Although I can’t explain how to craft some items…but still think it should be a skill. It’s stuff that you reasonably, as a person, should be able to explain how you go about doing something that should absolutely not be an active skill. Of course, if I got rid of Perception entirely, then I think rogues could end up being in a worse spot for their class niche (niches that I personally believe are valuable).

I know Shadowdark doesn’t have skills or perception and thieves do just fine, but I think lots of those DMs just let thieves spot traps when they enter an area, which is probably perfectly fine with me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That’s a good way of thinking about it. Although I can’t explain how to craft some items…but still think it should be a skill. It’s stuff that you reasonably, as a person, should be able to explain how you go about doing something that should absolutely not be an active skill. Of course, if I got rid of Perception entirely, then I think rogues could end up being in a worse spot for their class niche (niches that I personally believe are valuable).

I know Shadowdark doesn’t have skills or perception and thieves do just fine, but I think lots of those DMs just let thieves spot traps when they enter an area, which is probably perfectly fine with me.

I really like the Shadowdark approach. Basically for thief-y kinds of things, Thief characters are assumed to be successful if they have no time pressure or other complications. They're gonna open that lock eventually, ya know? And if they do have time pressure or other complications, they roll with advantage.

And it's similar for other classes (with other skills of course) as well as background. The entire "rule" for backgrounds is:

Your background knowledge and skills might prove useful during your adventures.
Work with the GM to determine if your background provides you advantages in a given situation.

How....simple. It's a thing of beauty.

 

[Xenolith234]

I really like the Shadowdark approach. Basically for thief-y kinds of things, Thief characters are assumed to be successful if they have no time pressure or other complications. They're gonna open that lock eventually, ya know? And if they do have time pressure or other complications, they roll with advantage.

And it's similar for other classes (with other skills of course) as well as background. The entire "rule" for backgrounds is:



How....simple. It's a thing of beauty.

I think I saw something in the Knock zine - Time, skills, tools, potentially environment. If you have all of them, no roll needed. Missing one? Roll. Missing two? Roll with disadvantage. Missing three? Impossible.