Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Why OSR is FAR easier to run than 5e/Pathfinder
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 мар 2024
- Today I opine (it was the right word) my thoughts on OSR being the best game genre to run, especially for new players.
#dungeonsanddragons #osrgamer #rpg #basicfantasy #becmi #dnd #oldschoolessentials #shadowdark #roleplay #castlesandcrusades #pathfinder2e #pathfinderrpg #dnd5e #
Once I started digging into old school games I realized how much more enjoyable they are for me to run. I’ve never looked back.
I love the rules lawyer voice.
5e scared me away from running games. All the specific rules and mechanics, needing to worry about encounter balance and providing a satisfying narrative arc to the players and just....bleh. It was too much all at once. Hell, the DMG teaches you about the freaking multiverse at the start, and not how to stock a basic dungeon, a section that's tucked in the back of the book where it's likely to go ignored, if the reader ever gets that far. Maybe that's how they incentivised buying their campaign modules and setting books. "Look at all this work you won't have to do if you just buy more books!"
Thank God I found the OSR. With less than fifteen dollars, I can get multiple small, but complete rulesets, and with some dice, grid paper and imagination I can run a game in no time.
Old-school play is the cure for DM burnout. The hard part is convincing a 5e group to try it.
Agreed, I'm lucky in that my group will play what I offer and I'll try anything they want to run too. I hear many refuse. Seems odd.
I think a lot of 5e players are put off by the claim that old-school games are more lethal, but i (who started in 1981) never heard of a total party kill until i started looking into 5e. I think in the old days the PCs would negotiate or just run away when faced by a more powerful foe. But because of “balanced” encounters, 5e players think they can kill anything, so a misbalanced encounter can go off the rails.
“Bravely run away “
Money Python came in handy at the Keep at the Borderlands
Agreed, it’s a difference in mindset more than anything. New-school players are conditioned to believe they’re fated to overcome every challenge they face, usually with their only loss being resources (spell-slots, potions, torches, etc.), so they are incentivized to just charge into every encounter and whack it with a stick til it stops moving.
Old-school players had to play their characters as if they were flesh-and-blood people with self-preservation at the top of their list, and as such have to approach situations much more creatively and not be afraid to engage in a tactical retreat if necessary to recalculate.
I did a video about deadliness in DnD about this yes. Thanks for the comment 😊
I guess that depended upon how you played.
Were you the type that could bribe everything in game? Yeah this is not realistic or imo even remotely fun to do. But, that was the style, all about getting the $$$
@@Sanguivore There are more than a few factors as to why that is. (sorry for the wall of text)
1st: Play balance, they're told that it's natural that everything is easy to overcome, this goes hand in hand with bounded accuracy which has made it so that yeah the monsters are kinda weak, I've successfully done the "solo the MM at the level of its CR" so a party of 3-4 players shouldn't have an issue if they know what they're doing.
2nd: Health States, the mediocre healing in BA spells and A spells + 3 death save mechanic makes that very unimersive and rather overpowered: wait till I go down then rez me at full force Yo-Yo mechanic, and just nerfing it in a home rule without creating more cracks in the system would need you to tackle all health mechanics of 5e so not worth it, either way that 2nd chance of the 2nd chance of the 2nd chance, which is unilateral makes the concept of 1 player death near imaginary past lvl 4.
3rd: Very well delineated limits all balanced for the combat round: a save every 6 seconds, this spell does this thing in this radius, for this time specifically this way. Creativity still exists but it's mostly on combos rather than expanding based on the looser ends of the text.
4th: Everything is very frontloaded, this ties in to point 3 but the game loads you with a skill tree from leveling up, not finding treasure and making it work, the incentive well is to go and use your cool abilities that you picked your class for, the game in fact recomends against magic items. Since most abilities are made for the combat round that's the route you're gonna take, combined with the idea and fact you're about to win that makes this option the best, unquestionably. Why go through the trouble of arming a trap with materials and surroundings, weakening a bridge for the enemy to fall or try some manouvre using rope and something heavy if there's a guaranteed Hold into Smite combo that's guaranteed to delete whatever it touches?
Old school is the way too go - the game moves faster.
Really does! Much more free flowing.
Thank you for the video. Just to give some counterargument to your examples, it really boils down to how you want to run your games and what kind of people you play with. There's literally nothing blocking you from improvising in pf2e. You can emulate that style with rulings based on how many actions you want to spend on given thing (1-3), modify difficulty if you feel like it (-5, -2, +2, +5, whatever) and there you go. You don't need the clearly defined rules from the book, but if you would like to read find them, they are there for you and the players. In my experience it strongly depends on the group you're playing with (obviously). I teach pf2e to new players and always tell them the classic mantra of "feel free to go through the player book & specific rules, but if you don't feel like it, just focus on what your character would do" and they just explain their actions and I rule how many actions will it take (for example 2) and adjust difficulty to support the fantasy (yeah, that should be easy for him, let's give him a +2 to that attempt). And they enjoy it, they just need some very basic core rules to play and we're all good. You don't have to be restricted by these rules is what I'm trying to say.
I often see people making fun of Pathfinder not trying to realize or understand that it can be a flexible system if you want it to, not to mention that it's often people who haven't even played the system "but they've heard/read that somewhere". With regard to "you have to give them a proper item on given level" - you can just play with automated progression and you just forget about it. When you play with people like you explained on 2:37, it's a player problem, not a game problem. As in, "don't be a d**k" rule. IMHO the rules are there if you want, you are not forced to use them. You'll have a better time probably if you make adjustments if you don't want some of them (e.g. automatic progression). I play both OSR games and pf2e and I enjoy both of them. I know it has been said hundreds of times but "the players make the game".
To give another example, sometimes I play with people who are just starting out and they don't feel super confident in terms of what they want from the game, what kind of fantasy they want to play, what *can* they actually do in the game, how they interact with it etc. and from my experience, and I would like to emphasize that *for some people*, having these options laid out is also a way to deal with their anxiety about the game and what they can actually do with their character. Other people just go full out, they role-play, feel natural about it and that's great. Others can get intimidated by the lack of the rules. As I said, different people, different needs. I've seen on multiple occasions when playing some one shots, some pretty introvert people had no idea what to do at first, then they've read their pregenerated character background, skills and feats and they kind of filled in the gaps themselves and had great fun RPing.
I do agree though that there are a lot of players who are powergaming, min-maxing, focusing too much on the mechanics of the game, not on the story etc. I just decided that I don't want that kind of gameplay. So in short, IMHO it's possible to run a crunchy system as a base and still make it as flexible as you want it to.
Pathfinder 2e works _great_ for OSR style games. You just need to be up front about what kind of game you are running. This is the reason Proffor DM has the "no rulebooks at the table" rule. You can debate about how to handle a situation after the session, but in the moment, the DM picks something reasonable and you run with it.
Can players have their expectations broken this way? Yes. Is that different from AD&D? No. As long as the table expectation is "the game keeps moving", it's fine.
Just to elucidate that point a bit further. Say you have a character want to run along a balance beam in AD&D. So you tell them to roll a D20 and get under their dex score. Then a few minutes later, they come across a ladder spanning another crevice. So they say they want to run across it, expecting you will give them a similar success chance. Instead you assign it a low percentile chance and have them roll a d100. Or possibly the next week when they go to run across the _same_ balance beam, you have them make a DC 20 death save. The fact that the expectation arose organically at your particular table doesn't change the fact that players will make (sometimes outrageous) assumptions.
I prefer to run old school, but also players do like the options from new school now days too. A combination is best for me.
Seems to be the best.
DMs like the simplicity.
Players like the options.
My rule is if it ain’t fun, it ain’t a rule
I'm making a system partially for most of the people I talk to and play with these days. A lot of them are fans of the more OSR style games, but don't mind some of the stuff that 3.5/pathfinder 1e has to offer for example. So essentially the game I'm making has some options (and very meaningful at that) but not filled with options bloat, except for one class really. But overall, I'm mostly focusing on having rules for the stuff that will likely be prevalent, and stuff that isn't going to come up as often will likely not have rules strict set rules (more of a yeah its an "x" kind of check). And for stuff that probably wont see play at all, I'm not gonna bother with it. I want a mix of Structure, but Lite.
I prefer B/X. My rules assortment is similar. But DnD Rules Cyclopedia is king! I also love OSE. I need the OSE Advanced Players Tome but it's expensive right now. Check out the Pathfinder 2e Basic Box set. Way easier to understand and it's amazing.
Pathfinder starter sets are great I still have the 1e box set. As you say, amazing!!! 😻
@@Shamefulroleplay The pdf is cheap at Drivethru. Although I have the books and they are my favorvite rpg books of all time so easy to find a rule!
@2.35 having a Nam flashback 😂
Every time I run 5e I make a wrong ruling. Luckily nobody has gone that badly at me. Pathfinder is the one I'll definitely get wrong feel free to read all the rule.
HAHA, how about a 1E Normandy flashback
This is why Worlds Without Number is my favorite OSR game: it has what is essentially Traveler's skill system, so mechanically, all bases are covered, but it remains abstract.
I may have a look also at this!
I am a strong fan of the OSR. It is my go to style of play.
I like it all myself, but love to run OSR for ease.
PF and 5/e suffer from a Paradox of Choice for players and too much to memorize for a DM, having run all editions. But the one thing that I personally like about OSR is that it's basic and you can bolt things on from other editions with ease and little push back from players but taking 5e and saying I am stripping this thing away you will get a lot of push back.
Agreed it's very easy to bolt stuff on. So easy to do.
Having less rules is incredibly liberating. And you get other advantages, such as the game being easier to get into and you don't have to spend 1-2 hours planning and creating your character.
Pathfinder comes to mind here. My group enjoy it, but I don't want to ever have a player killed mid game as took about 30 minutes to make a new character.
My experience has been the other way around. If a question comes up, if we can look up the answer in a few minutes it resolves the problem. If we just make a ruling, it might get debated and discussed for multiple sessions distracting from the rest of gameplay.
Rule number one, the DM has final say.
Blah, blah, blah is kinda right. Old School is just an utterly epic and philosophy-of-gaming-changing experience indeed! Like you said though, not that the others are "bad" or without fun at all. Subbed!! 👊I'd appreciate one back, please. 👍"Nice to share it with people" indeed.
Will check out your videos for sure after my weekly game tonight! Agree with you also. Thanks so much 😁
Thank You for explaining everything!
My knowledge of D&D 2 edition comes only from Baldur's Gate and Spoony One, and they don't really go in depth into rules because they don't need to. They come from a position of knowing the basis already, so I'm really happy to know how Free the old system is.
Using your head, being smart is what I absolutley love.
If I may go on a tangent; the rules obediance remindes me of a video game called "W40k: Space Marine" where we had oposing ideals on interpreting The Codex Astartes in the form of two marines. There is our main character Captain Titus and Leandros.
Titus interprets it as a guidline to your actions, whereas Leandros think's you HAVE TO do exactly as it says.
Your examples of different rulesets of different edition reminded me of such an example.
I guess it is similiar at the table at times.
Thank you for the comment. Yes there are two different interpretations of rule sets and how to go about it all.
Love a bit of 40k btw.
@@Shamefulroleplay
I personally love when the rules help the game rather than enforce things. I just prefer freedom.
That theme from "Space Marine" stuck with me ever since I played the game.
The Codex, just like the rule, are ment to guide you; help you find your own path, rather that tell you where you can and can't go.
However that is just Me. I know there are a lot of people who need rules and guidlines to know what to do. It gives structure to their inner world, and I can't fault them for that. It is when you become a slave to them when problems arise.
What is the difference between OSR and OSE?
OSR is a group of games old school in style. OSE is a specific game which is a part of the OSR style. Old school essentials in this case 😄
@@Shamefulroleplay got it
I run a B/X close for my kids, 7 and 5. It’s great. I recently bought a lot of RPG Pundit’s books and look forward to starting a campaign as Christians in the old world with them. OSR is awesome. 5e is confusing the way it’s played with so many classes and variations that are unnecessary for good world building.
I really like your approach to these videos. I also agree that running OSR is a completely different animal to more modern editions and I find myself to prefer them. When I run Patahfinder 1e, I need a ton of books and a computer up to check the online SRD sites. I almost give myself a hernia getting all the books out of my office to the living room. Castles & Crusades requires maybe two books or an adventure module and a core book or two for me and the group. Much simpler.
Thanks for the video!
Such a lovely comment really appreciate it. does a lot to encourage me.
I know what you mean about having the PC up to check rules etc for pathfinder. I still enjoy running it but constantly second guess myself and look up rules.
@@Shamefulroleplay I'm thankfully running for a group of players who trust me enough to let me focus on what makes sense and overall story flow over strict interpretations of the rules. I in turn give them a lot of trust to know their own character rules and keep track of constructing magic items. So far, we haven't had balance issues and it's not at all an adversarial me vs. them relationship. I'm sure not all groups are that lucky.
It's easier to run 5E, because players are plentiful. It's more satisfying to run OSR or games that are pre-3E because generally, the 5E crowd/culture hates DMs and caters toward players/player coddling (keeping characters alive, making sure they’re going to achieve greatness, making them look badass, and other things that the players should be doing and not the DM). I don't know the Pathfinder 2 crowd so I can't respond to that, but it is rooted off the same game (WotC D&D), so it’s likely same rules apply.
There's a distinct misconception around the OSR in general above and beyond the overarching misconception regarding political leanings (which I won’t get in to). This is the misconception that it's all simple hand-wavey games where nobody cares about rules and it’s all just GM rulings. That partially depends on the ruleset you pick and is partially just bunk. Let me explain:
If you pick a lighter ruleset there will be more rulings by the nature that there will be less rules there. Microlite20 or White Box will see a lot of rulings by nature of all the empty space where there’s nothing to reference. You will still be playing White Box if you rule a d6 check modified by Dexterity is required to see how well you can play a game of darts in a tavern. It is still possible to deviate and no longer be playing White Box, though. If you rule that searching an entire 30’x30’ room for secret doors only takes one turn and requires a Wisdom check on a d20 vs stat to complete, you have deviated. You’ve essentially walked away from the game system. Elf players would/should be annoyed with a “ruling” of this sort. Because you failed to meet the expectations implicit by sitting down to play White Box. And the OSR like nowhere else will dismiss this behavior as “rulings not rules”. Well it’s not. It’s bad DMing and poor system mastery, especially in an extremely light game like White Box.
If you pick a heavier ruleset you will be expected to know it, and rule outside of it just like the lighter ruleset but with less real estate and even more system mastery expected. This means heavier rulesets are for more systemically minded and mechanically invested GMs. For example: if you’re playing Castles & Crusades, the SIEGE Engine will be expected to be present in the game. If you’re playing Hackmaster, Honor, BPs, and advancement rules will be expected features. Managing expectations is key; it’s the thing that keeps you all playing the same game in everyone’s mind. In this regard the ruleset really doesn’t matter and I think OSR has a real problem with this mantra of “rulings not rules”. It’s misunderstood and widely misused. It’s not about ignoring rules. It’s about making rules where none are present, and then keeping them around. If you play darts in White Box again with that group it better still be a d6 roll modified by Dexterity. You made that rule part of the ruleset now. It’s become expected.
For this reason I think most older players who know a dozen or more different D&D-alikes are at a distinct disadvantage, myself included, when running a multitude of D&D-alikes and not sticking to one. Sure you can run 350 minimalist games with 4 rules, but it takes real effort and study to remember the nuances of one systemically heavy game, or even multiple systemically medium games concurrently, if they’re all similar but not the same. Example: OD&D is d6 individual initiative modified by Dexterity (higher is better). AD&D is side-based d6 initiative and you have to understand surprise, segments, and weapon speed etc (also that higher is better because you’re rolling for your opponent’s starting segment). AD&D2E is d10 based individual initiative modified by Dexterity and various speed factors, where lower is better as you are rolling for your own starting “segment”. That’s just one rule along one game’s edition lifecycle.
It behooves one to pick a single game or very small selection of games and own them, in every sense of the word. Earn that Game Master title.
Lovely bit of commentary here constructive and a brilliant point. Thankyou for it. 🤠
Lovely insight! I played old school nearly 40 years ago and it had a specialness I could not put my finger on. You nailed it bang on.
That's exceedingly kind, thank you.
Actually we had very crunch roles: it was called GURPS
We even make fun that in GURPS you could make a monk elf warlock who hide a talking unicorn.
Today Dungeons an Dragons pretty much become GURPS fantasy.
Hail the old gods of OSR!!
Indeed! 😀 👑
Im just coming off a massive campaign for 5E (which technically isn't finished, we hit a break point) and I needed to get out of the system for a little while. Combat takes so long 😫 and is my least liked part of the game.
We've since been playing Shadow of the Demon Lord but even that gets bogged down with more combat options.
I think I'm going to try Shadowdark next as it will give my group the mechanics of 5th but the freedom and brevity of OSR.
We like shadowdark love the torch mechanic and it's simplicity. Go for it.
I think it's important to differentiate between easy to run for experienced gms and easy to make a good game out of for new gms.
Definitely if you know what you are doing you can run good light weight games, but the skill required to establish a shared imaginary space, manage the flow of the game, establish expectations etc need to be learnt, and rules heavy games help take the burden off newer gms.
If you are experienced, the training wheels become burdens so just throw them away.
As someone who is a big fan of Pathfinder (1e not so much 2e), I like having rules as a reference, but overall for people to keep in mind that at the end of the day not every rule needs to be used and some can be changed. I'm up front about it for my games so there is less arguing, but again, I like the rules because until you get more experience and see why you may or may not like a rule to just run that. Because I know way too many people who overcomplicate making their homebrew rules, or completely overthrow the balance.
Fair point! I get that some people really like that structure. I don't mind it either. I just find it easier to run OSR style games.
Like that OSRIC cover. I saw it on amazon. How is the print quality and paper? Want to pick up a physical copy of it myself 😁
It's not bad quality and doesn't bend as quickly as really cheap printed books, but it's not exactly top notch. I prefer it to the hard bound book however for table referencing.
@@Shamefulroleplay Aw ok thanks :-) I might just get it printed locally so, better paper for a not much more in price.Thanks again.
Or here’s a novel idea for the 5-ers … you want to chat up the barmaid and get some critical info? How about roleplaying the conversation… here I’ll be the barmaid 😂 it’s not for every player but if I think the players on to something, I rule in favour of it. Not a whiff of a Feat, or die roll or whatever…
the best rule in D&D is HAVE FUN
Exactly!
Player: "Well ackchyually, on page 187 the rules book says--"
GM: "Is this meant to be your shield?"
* rips page *
GM: "A piece of paper?"
* continues ripping *
.
.
.
Player (in disbelief): "Those were Gary's rules..."
😆😭
What about Stars Without Number, which adds skills? In practice does that ruin the OSR freeform or did he design them in a way that didnt ruin that?
I use OSR games to introduce new players to D&D and they pick up on it really quickly. I think it's really intuitive for them.
Very much agree. Extremely easy 😄
I’ve been collecting and playing a long time and it seems I’ve come full circle in the complexity I want in a game. Started with B/X as a child and now want to play super simple like Tiny d6 or Tricube Tales. They are not D&D/D20 based, but I would argue they are old *old* school because they are practically pure imagination with a simple die mechanic. Advanced Fighting Fantasy is in that same category, just slightly more complex.
The OSR is the real legacy of DnD and is the future of our hobby.
WONDERFUL VIDEO!!!! As you said, one can run OSR style games without much prep. I have a number of drop-in scenarios ready, a few in-town NPC's and you're good to go. Thanks and best of luck with your channel.
Thank you for watching it means the world. I like the drop in scenarios myself. So easy 😄
I have a three page system of homemade rules from which I can play anything. This is all I really need, but occasionally it is nice to revisit older editions of Dungeons & Dragons.
You use it for everything do you? Like a universal system?
Yes. I've been using it since I first put it together about eight years ago.
I was creating a sort of retro science fiction adventure for my group, and as that adventure grew I realized that I was also creating a game system. I ditched my plans to either use White Box or a generic system I had found in a used bookstore a while back, and I tried out my system notes. It ended up being one of the best games I have ever run, and my group enjoyed it so much that we stuck with it.
It has given me a great deal of perspective on using game systems in general, and it has kept me from investing in products from modern game companies, most of which are usually either flogging a dead horse or are spinning some licensing deal they acquired.
The hobby was built on notes and system ideas figured out over play. I'm happy to have continued that tradition.
@@Tabletop_Epics What dice system do you use?
agree 100%!
every video has been great man, keep em coming!
That is so great to hear, thanks it honestly means a heck of a lot.
I've never understood why people equate Rulings and free form. Rulings still need to be based on some sort of precedent. Otherwise it's just fiat. A lack of rules doesn't make something free form. There are real free form RPG games out there to compare to.
Go to the OSE online rules and it's very clear how regimented the game is. Not saying it's bad, but it's not free form. You want free form look at PBTA games, or better yet Microscope.
That said I appreciate the simplicity of old school. I think for DMs they should play B/X, or one of its clones, to really understand how the tempo of d&d is supposed to go. The structure the rules give makes it fun. Having everything on a clock made it easy to understand the objective of the game.
And just to set the record straight, 4e was the edition that really codified the rulings not rules mentality, outside of combat that is. They gave generic tools to use outside of combat, such as skill challenges, to resolve pretty much any adventuring/social encounter quickly. A lot of the tables and predetermined DCs of 3e were abandoned in favor of allowing the DM to fill in those minor details at the moment. A lot of complaints against the game were likely based on a failure to grasp those concepts, especially by DMs. (That and the tightening up of combat to counter "optimizers" annoyed many people.)
The wide spread use of the style 4e uses in newer non-d20 games shows that it is a viable system.
I would argue most D&D/D20 players don't like free form. They want the direction. The rise in dominance of APs is clear evidence of that. And while the sandbox style of older versions allows for more freedom than the current popular mishmash of adventure on rails and mother may I, they are still on par with Minecraft.
I suppose it's what the individual wants. Some people certainly need structure (for which is heartily recommended Pathfinder).
Mostly running FKR these days - no ruleset, only play
Do tell me more please?
@@Shamefulroleplay Questing Beast did a video on it a while back, which is quite a good watch.
FKR stand for Free Kriegsspiel Roleplaying which is essentially ancient school. Dave Arneson used to run games this way, say.
For the most part, it's extreme GM fiat - the players engage with the game almost exclusively through description and sometimes the GM calls for rolls too.
I used to play it with opposed 2D6, players winning ties with complication, though these days I'm leaning more on a Tunnels & Trolls ripoff
I'll take a look thanks!
I much prefer 2e (which is somewhat OSR) but I can see others not liking it on both sides of the table. It can be easier for a DM who can come up with rules on the fly but there are some DMs who don't have that skill. There are also some players who want to play a tactical combat game and not really roleplay. 4e or Pathfinder is good for that.
We had a nice role play but in pathfinder but as you say it's far more of a tactical game.
THIS IS THE WAY!
SWADE is what I use to run old dnd
i always loved the nwp's in ad&d
Me too!
NWP is Non-Weapon Proficiencies, correct?
Yes @@Sanguivore
Thanks!@@Grymreefer
I run Basic Fantasy (huge fan of it) and considering the cost alone, I don't know why anyone would ever use DnD 5e. Basic Fantasy is free for every PDF in their collection and the books are just a few dollars each if you want a physical copy. The rules are simple but they cover almost every situation you're going to encounter with enough rules for the GM to make logical leaps to create new rules for things on the spot. Not to mention that everything from Moldvay DnD and all of the OSR-like RPG's are compatible with it so if you like something from a different book series, just add it to your game.
I am also a champion of Basic Fantasy. Even if you don't run the game all the extra stuff that comes with it. Awesome game and so cheap (free online). Really can't lose.
Pathfinder is vastly easier than DnD 5e. 5e is an absolute hot mess.
As a primarily OSR-oriented person who’s currently running a Pathfinder game (players’ choice, not mine), I have to agree.
Pathfinder is a well-oiled machjne compared to 5E by a longshot.
I find pathfinder more of a worry if I want to house rule it due to the math being so tight.
@@Shamefulroleplay That’s definitely a just concern. I’ve had similar concerns while running the game I’m running now, but luckily the wheels are still pretty secure on the train even after some houseruling. But time will truly tell. xD
I'm not against pathfinder just aware I want to do it right. I'm sure with experience it will get easier to house rule.
If you have any experience running 3.5, that should help quite a bit in discerning what you can more easily bend without breaking when it comes to PF2E. That's what's getting me by so far.@@Shamefulroleplay
I love the commentary, my favorite in the OSR realm is Castles & Crusades, so i was tickled to see you reference it!
I love it too, very much
It's funny... All the clones and derivatives of D&D seem slow and tedious to run. And OSR games are no exception.
For me, GURPS has been the game where the game really feels fast, fluid and with a lot to do.
The last time I played and GMed a D&D clone (C&C), a level 2 group in a combat against 8 enemies lasted 3 hours. 3 hours of just miss, miss, miss, miss, miss rolls... For 3 hours. The last time I played a 5e session the combat felt slow because my party was taking too long to make decisions... Not because the combat itself was 3 hours of failing rolls, and no one asking for surrender or withdrawal.
In GURPS a typical combat when I play and GMing does not last more than 30 minutes, even when a miss roll happened, something interesting happens.
OSR is not better, it's just nostalgia talking, and nostalgia is not a good argument.
I've not had a 3 hour miss combat in any OSR game of course it could happen in any game with poor rolls. You may of been very unlucky.
Never played GURPS myself is it any good?
OSR to me is much easier to run than say for example Pathfinder. I'm sure there is nostalgia and a cognitive bias in play, but that's true for everybody's opinions.
I haven’t played C&C myself so I can’t speak to that system specifically, but I have *never* had an OSR session play out in the manner you described. 3.5E and 5E? Oh absolutely. But an OSR game? Always lightning fast and grease smooth for me and my friends.
Sadly, the problem with gurps is it's too hard to get into. While I'm sure otherwise in practice under a good game master, a game with every single option listed just isn't what your average player considers fast and fluid.
(Also, the books are a pain in the ass to read)
Did you start playing TTRPGs with old school/osr games?
Originally 2e DnD and then World of darkness White Wolf 😁
I've all those and C&C is the simplest for new players.
Despite “lethality” and (incorrectly) assumed ‘sameness’ of characters in an older iteration or other older game…fans of Pathfinder or whatever else would be surprised at all the fun and awesome stuff their characters could do and accomplish in my game/at my table …be it B/X or WB:FMAG or even RISUS!
Fun is king!
(Part of that fun is failure from poor decisions, too! lol)
Also, I’m frankly kinda weirded out by fans of crunch.
Like…I don’t even want to be bothered to read a PF or 5th Ed monster’s stats…let alone read the rulebooks even marginally!
Haha! What a waste of fun!
I’ve run B/X and other similar games for decades…. Have I read every last word of even their slim page count?
Nope! lol
Cheers! 🙂
I have a far superior option. It doesn't even require dices. Whenever I need a roll from the players we decide by rock paper scissors.
Hmmm. Is it FAR better or better to run at times?
For me far better to run. If I don't want to have to worry as much about getting it spot on. However, nothing wrong with newer games. I still run them.
@@Shamefulroleplay I assume you play where every encounter is more of a 'we can bribe around it' scenario
And/or
Group of 4-7 players plus 16 henchmen and 23 hirelings style.
Umm no usually 3 players with a couple of hirleings. However also remember NPC reaction tables too 😊
@@Shamefulroleplay Yes, the reaction tables is the 'we can bribe around it' scenario.
Tell us what normally happens in your games.
To play devil's advocate here, there is something to be said for thoroughly structured rules. In rules light games since so much is up to interpretation, it forces the dm into more of an oppositional role, rather than a referee. This can lead to conflict between players and DMs. Well structured rules help eliminate that friction.
I've had some of those problems exactly, both while playing as a player (not necessarily me in that game) and as a GM. Having the structured rules gave those involved more expectations on how things will be ruled. If I'm a GM, I am VERY up front with any homebrew and rule changes too just so I can again, avoid such a dilemma. If a rule needs to be added or changed on the fly, it then also gets added to the list (sometimes clauses are added for particular situations).
Maybe I've been lucky with my OSR games then. Not had too much problem or felt adversarial. However I get what you mean and could invisage that at a table.
That only arises from misaligned expectations. In rules light games the gm has a much harder time setting expectations because they do not have the aid of rules. When players feel like the gm is making stuff up to hinder them, the gm feels adversarial. However if you set expectations properly in a rules light system that problem will not arise.
I just don’t understand why OSR heads are so at odds with crunchy TTRPGs like pathfinder 2e.
They are different games. Different target audiences, different play styles. OSR games are often meat-grindery and not particularly “heroic” feeling, and that’s ok. That’s fun for some players. But Pathfinder 2e makes you feel like a super hero as you reach higher levels, and it targets people who want super crunchy combat with structured rules.
Liking lighter games with less rules doesn’t make you some ascendant being. Neither is better than the other, it’s just different tastes.
I'm not at odds I run pathfinder. However I find it much easier to run OSR style games.
The sheer number of different "to hit" bonuses used in conjunction an attack matrix table. This wasn't a highlight of 1e AD&D.
Agreed, the OSR games which have come since have made it simpler, but how the whole of 1e was set out originally was totally off putting to me.
Your point isn't really convincing if you have to resort to a "well ackshually" strawman fallacy to make it.
How is it a fallacy? Interested to learn.
It distorts the counterargument to your point. Of course OSR are going to sound like the better option if you compare it to the single most asshole behavior someone can have under rule-heavy systems! It's inherently a biased argument since it's not a realistic point of comparison to OSR. Most D&D or PF players don't behave like that, they instead say stuff like "Hold on, if you rule it like that, my character's ability won't be able to trigger anymore."
Strawmen are also fallacious because it subtly changes the subject while seeming not to: "Well actually, if you check on THAT page" isn't an example of the disadvantage with rule-heavy systems compared to OSR, it's an example of problems with asshole players, a problem that isn't exclusive to D&D or Pathfinder. The same player from your example at an OSR table would likely say "You ruled it differently last week!"
Strawmen are at best it's a moot argument, since they address outlier or unrealistic examples instead of pertinent ones. At worst though, it can sound like the person using a strawman can't defend against a sound argument, so he mounts up an unreasonable one to defend against instead.
Finally, it's also unsound because it appeals to the listener's emotions rather than reason. Don't we all HATE with a passion this "Well actually" player who stops the game just to be pedantic about rules? Screw that guy, go OSR! But we're not supporting it because it makes more sense anymore, but because it's the one that was made to *feel* nice in this scenario.
Sorry for the long post, but since fallacies are insidious by nature for both the speaker and the listener, they're hard to debunk simply. Anyhow, I'm really glad you asked!
You see, as I set the debate of this video. And a straw man by definition is "a straw man (also known as "strawman") argument is one in which the person sets up and then attacks a position that is not actually being debated.". I don't get it. I'm the one setting the debate on this video. So how am I straw manning my own point?
Also how is it straw manning to say people are more likely to counter your ruling in a newer DnD game Vs and older one? Newer versions have more rules.
@@Shamefulroleplay You're misunderstanding the definition you're putting forward. You're not a strawman yourself; you're setting up a strawman (the "well actually" guy, in this example) to defend against.
Hence, another definition of strawman: A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person’s argument, and then attacks the distorted version of the argument instead of genuinely engaging.
(This "other person" can absolutely be an hypothetical one, as is the case in the video.)
But isn't that what you're doing by exaggerating my argument as a straw man?
I've said basically some people at a table will disagree with your rules. They will quote pages from the book. I know of games where whole evenings have been mostly "well actually". So again, I'm not sure how you can say my experience is a straw man if it's actually happened to me? That's denying my reality which is a bit strange?
Old man rant?
More like mid life crisis rant.