@@RolePlayGeek hmmm ...I'm not sure I agree with this. I'd argue that the disparate XP requirements for advancing in level sort of creates a sense of balance in and of itself. If you've never read the BX Class builder book, it breaks down the XP value of the different class abilities and personally, I think that overall is a more balanced system than trying to smooth out each class and having them advance at the same XP thresholds.
@@RolePlayGeeksounds like you are repeating tripe without actually thinking about it carefully. Is a fighter way more powerful and unbalanced than a thief, cleric or magic-user? Who is to say any of those classes can’t take out a fighter? Say they are all first level is there actually an unbalance there? Well in a face to face melee combat situation the fighter is going to win hands down and there should be unbalance as the class of the fighter is to be the hack and slash of the classes otherwise what is the point of the fighter class? So of course this should happen. But what if the situation was not a toe to toe situation? Could the fighter be defeated by those other three classes? I would say absolutely. Thief gets in a back stab from the shadows or the magic user cast sleep on the fighter from a tower or behind a bush and slits his throat while the fighter lays unconscious. Maybe the cleric gets of a command spell and puts the fighter into a predicament he will not be able to over come? Anyways, I will have to disagree with you here. Enjoy your game whatever version you choose to play.
They were very balanced, just not the way modern games are balanced. The idea was the more powerful classes started out much weaker and had a much higher commitment. Martials tended to level quickly which gives them a strong headstart. The real imbalance is between the player and DM agency. DMs have a lot more player agency in OSRs and rhe players are much more dependent on what the DMs give them. This is why people stuck with characters longer. Modern games have more player agency and less DM agency. This is why players rarely stick with there characters for any length of time before wanting to reroll.
I've found it more common in modern games for players to ask for rolls without describing their actions. I'm more of a fan of fiction first style of play which I use B/X for the rules when needed.
I not agree on a point about traps in 5e. Even in the dmg it is suggested to not use an ability check if players have done clever thing to spot or disarm a trap. "You should allow a character to discover a trap without making an ability check if an action would clearly reveal the trap’s presence. For example, if a character lifts a rug that conceals a pressure plate, the character has found the trigger and no check is required.". So I think it more DM's thing to incorporate this in game. Btw thanks for the great video!
As someone who is new to being a gm, I would feel very overwhelmed with 5e compared to the shadowdark game I'm running. Shadowdark has been super easy to learn and to adapt to what my needs are as I don't have a huge amount of rules to remember or think about.
Shadowdark for the win! I'm not a new GM, been doing it for 40+ years and played all the versions. Started my Shadowdark campaign early this year and never going back to 5e. SD is the best of the old and the new.
I can get behind this. The newer game does seem to have an automatic tendency to call for arbitrary rolls when none feel like they need to be required. I find this especially in social interactions.
This comment makes me wonder who calls for those rolls - because it is rarely in the books. There is an implication of there being social and mental attributes and I do think that this has been a problem of D&D since pretty much the beginning. But let us get into details. Pathfinder has three active social skills: bluff, diplomacy and intimidate. Looking at the text of diplomacy, it is always formulated as "you can use diplomacy to". In other words: the rules do not say you can't achieve the same through played out social interaction. Diplomacy is great for things that are out of the spotlight. If your character spends the next 30 minutes getting on the good graces of an NPC, you don't necessarily want to play through it. If your character gathers information by talking to people in the towns bars, you may not want to play through 4 hours of completely useless gossip. Even in situations in the spotlight: what if the character lies to an NPC. There is more than spinning a convincing story, there is body language, the correct use of your voice, the right point of eye contact, etc. So, asking for a bluff check to determine if the NPC notices that something is up makes sense. But this idea that nothing can have an effect without a die roll is nowhere in the books. You can have a very important IG discussion without rolling dice. I don't think it is a problem of the games. It is a problem of the dominant culture around them.
Love it when they use failure as excuse to make the character look like a fool in every situation possible, apparently everyone in Faerun carry lie detectors now.
This delema of rolling or narrating, stretches back into the past of board gaming, there's lots out there about it. But for me it boils down to simulation balance. War games simulated battle and was used as a training platform, Strategos is an example by C Totten. The problem is that simulation can become complex, abstract, and lifeless, slowing the platform down with mathematical probability. A partial solution is to add a referee who can use his knowledge of the rules and experience of war to give a ruling (narrative) or a probability (roll). Without the referee, you just have rules. With the referee, you have the ability to infinite possibility. A player can will an action into play which could fall outside the rules and the referee can allow any action. But the referee's role is not to act as an adviser but as a fair arbitrator of the players' actions and possible unforseen actions.
Depends what you want to improve. A game being liked the way it is as opposed to a newer edition doesn’t mean people are suddenly Right Wing, just as people’s liking the new rules doesn’t make them Left wing liberals?
But OSR *is* D&D for a lot of it. It was born out of a desire to recapture the feeling of older editions of D&D. And most of the systems present it in are inspired by it. I think it's more apt to say 5e instead of D&D, since that's what's actually being discussed. But I can understand that a lot of people when they think of D&D they think directly of 5e.
Somebody's been listening to Tony Robbins. ;) And fwiw, I grew up on D&D (B/X AD&D), tried 5E but not a fan of the super hero vibe though I like some of the modern mechanics. Shadowdark is the happy medium for me. Modern mechanics + low hit points, low power curve and focus on role playing over roll playing.
Thanks for the video. I must say I'm not a huge fan of downplaying improvisation in Pathfinder. You are not limited by feats, it's not like you can't do something that has a feat for it without having that particular feat. You make some adjustments and go with the narrative, just as in any other game. Everybody plays what they want obviously, but OSR games are often romanticized so much. I'd prefer to agree that every system has its strong and weak sides, something that you have mentioned later in the video. And I do enjoy OSR games, I really do. It's just that I don't like this kind of narrative going on in the internet recently where we keep putting these systems in opposition. Apples to oranges :) Cheers
I think the problem is that if there's a rule/feat/skill defined for something then that's the way you are "supposed to" do it, by the rulebook. If I can do the same without that feat then what is the value of ever taking it?
@@Shamefulroleplay Maybe I’ve been influenced by OSR, but my general method of play in 5e has been to take the player’s description of their actions and apply it to the logic of the world then roll if it’s still necessary - my go to example is: if you tell me you search the room and mention looking in the fireplace, you’re going to automatically find what’s in the fireplace, regardless of what you roll, but if you roll really well, you’ll also find the note hidden in the desk - I have a soft guideline that what you say the PC does must be something they would do - for example, if a player is a forensic investigator running an intelligence 7 barbarian with a cocaine habit who’s jonesing for a fix, Hrothgar isn’t going to break the room down into 1x1 foot squares using imaginary lines and examine each one from left to right and front to back with a magnifying glass looking for distinguishing sole patterns from the dozen local cobblers… Hrothgar is just looking around 😄
As a DM I have come dislike running both DND 5e and PF2 just due to the shear amount of rules. I prefer DMing OSR style games. As a player I like playing all of them.
I don't hate the OSR, I played it from 1982 to 2009 and i played all the classes and kits worth playing! Palladium Fantasy was better than 1E! In 1E you had to be well read or well watched or you would be cut to shreads going through Razor Grass! I saw many players with well built characters die because they weren't very knowledgeable! My favorite TTRPG's and Systems: 1-Cypher(generic), 2-Teenagers From Outer Space(anime), 3-Gamma World 4E(not based on D&D 4E)(post apocalyptic), 4-All Flesh Must be Eaten(zombie), 5-Battlelords of the 23rd Century(sci-fi), 6-Pathfinder 1E(fantasy), 7-5E(fantasy), 8-Palladium system(generic), 9-AD&D(fantasy), 10-Shadow of the Demon Lord(sci-fantasy/horror) and 11-Star Frontiers(sci-fi)
Hey thanks for the comment! Speaking of Palladium, what do you like about the system. I had dead reign myself and found it alright, but attributes were rolled and didn’t do much.
@@Shamefulroleplay The Alignment system is better since it has some rules for alignment, unlike any version of D&D! The spell and Psionic systems are better! It had skills, while the combat system is slow because of Dodge, Parry and Roll, it isn't quite as bad as the straight boxing of D&D combat! Multi classing is more like dual-classing! And Armor gets destroyed in combat unlike D&D!
I am glad OSR exists for the purple who like its style of game. I learned RPGs with AD&D and a bit of the old D&D basic, and while I remember those games fondly, but I really don't connect with them anymore. I bought Lament of the Flame Princess to check what OSR games were like and still didn't connect with them. I feel many of what is described here can be achieved with most modern games. But i feel one of the most important things for me that is the customization that is present in modern games is lacking in the old games. But I am glad that the hobby is able to provide so much variance that anyone can find games that they enjoy.
I totally agree, you can do these things in 5e but the game pretty much tells you to roll for nearly everything, which to me makes it a bit too random and makes our choices mean less. Totally agree mechanically though and character building wise 5e is great.
@@Shamefulroleplay I dose not make your choice mean less, it means you have to play your character. Back in the white box days too much of the time we played our own knowledge, not what our iq 3, ws 4 character could do. Your other option is live action with no dice, just try to do the climb, jump, swim or swing a weapon. While 5E is not may favorite form of D&D it is much better than white box or ADD.
@@danielward7747 metagaming was common, but clearly frowned upon ( and is even more common now with players looking everything up on their phones). I don't think listing a ton of options on a character sheet makes anyone "play your character", and I have yet to see 5e players mix up their attack options once a clear order of effectiveness has been established. You cannot move about the battlefield in 5e unless you can disengage as a bonus action, so combat is very static. Illusion of choice is real, and real choice often results in paralysis by analysis for many players which leads to ridiculously long combats which limit time for exploration and interaction. I still enjoy playing 5e with my friends, but not because it's 5e...
@@danielward7747 this is true, but only partially. After so many years being a GM only, I have come to realize that not everyone can handle the development of a character from the bones of old games. I remember many of my players developed great characters and engaged with the story pretty easily. But not all. I have some friends that after many many years (well over a decade), they still are not able to engage with the system in that way. This is where the character customization has worked wonders. It gives them a framework for them to do certain things that feel unique. They connect with the game in a different way and the rules allow them to find solutions within a set of boundaries. In any case, I feel 5e is deficient as a game, but that is just me. If I had to select a D&D edition, I would probably say 3.5 was my favorite, but I play PF2 now and I this system allows for players who would excel at the freedom of old D&D to continue to excel in what they already did, and give the sense of uniqueness to the players who are having a hard time with that creativity that is required in older games.
people think the osr is all death and dungeon crawling because the younger advocates of the osr just talk about death and dungeon crawling. when I played ad&d in the 90's, i played it exactly how i play 5e now. Literally the exact same way. and i always found d&d of any edition to be way less deadly that the other rpgs i played. mostly because d&d was the only system i ever played that had a level class system... and due to the abstractness of combat and having no active defense rolls for standard combat, you wanted your characters to level up quick early on because despite what the advocates say, none of us liked dying in one it back then either. the 30 something's that didnt grow up on ad&d have this wired idea that we all loved our characters dying all the time, and rolling up new characters on the fly cuz its so quick... yeah, that wasn't the case then. maybe for the adults playing it back then, because they were still in the wargame mentality, but iof you were a kid / teenager playing dnd death sucked, and no one liked it. if i have any issue with modern dnd, its not the power level, its the complexity of leveling up (back then, you didn't get something new and shiny every level) 3e up thru PF2e i never touched because of the insane complexity behind character development (and the advent ofg "builds". i hate that word outside of video games). people like to say 53 makes superheroes. i used to complain that adnd made demigods. and both are fun to play when you know what your getting. IF you want grit, low power, and death? try warhammer of BRP/Runequest/Stormbringer.
I feel exactly like that. OSR has become golden calf people dance around because it is hip at the moment. And no, on the character sheet it said dwarves had a 2 in 6 chance to find a secret doors. So they just rolled the dice. That's it. No elaborate explanation of what the character would do. I check for secret doors. "You're a fighter, you don't have the ability so no" That's what was going on.
I know what you mean. lol. The more I hear that particular story, the more I think of osr meaning old school revisionist. But, that being said, a lot of them are great for one shot style pick up games, and they can be a lot of fun. When I play dnd- any edition, I’m roleplaying a character I’m invested in and came up with a backstory, personal goals, and a personality for. When I play osr- I’m playing an avatar meant to be myself input into that world with no real differentiation. I tend to name all my osr characters the same 2-3 names regardless.
@@angelocano6041 No doubt. They are great for one shots. And I have a warm fuzzy feeling when i think of D&D Basic and Expert. They opened up a whole new world for me. I'll speak out in defense of them any day. But they were not that vastly superior game with better players. I mean honestly exp for gold? I had a friend whose character sold his magic sword for a shit load of gold and then triumphantly declared:" I just made level 36!". His friend sold the sword back and also reached level 36. So much for better adventures and players. When I tried to run DCC one of the players named his characters literally 1,2,3 and 4 because "most will die anyway in the funnel so why bother?" Are OSR worse? No. I strongly believe you can have excellent games and characters with almost any system. I just happend to like being invested in the character before the first game. I like backstories and all that s... And I've always tried to play them that way since the mid 80s (after my young teenage self was done goofing around in dungeons). It doesn't need OSR to play well developed characters. On the other hand OSR doesn't keep you from playing that way either.
@@doomhippie6673 While no description was required, nearly every DM I played with would ask what my character was doing, so I think it was a common play style. I still require it now when I DM 5e, so I guess it's not edition specific. All classes could find secret doors though...
I'd like to offer a counterpoint if I may. As my avatar suggests, I go way back with D&D (10 years running 1E). Yes, the systems were a lot looser, and far more open to adjudication. But this very fact, in the hands of the WRONG kind of players, can become a tormenting strain--as it did for me as DM. Try anything? With a combat round of a minute? Really? It led to a never ending stream of "I wanna do this...and this...and then this..." , with players begging for the freedom to turn their PCs into pinballs (well, didn't I just date myself). Stuff that defied physics, common sense, the spirit behind 1E mechanics, and every instinct of self-preservation. It sucked a LOT of my energy whenever it came up, and the game ground to a halt while I weighed my options. And I if I made a ruling one way and a different one nine months later for near-identical circumstances, you should hear the wailing--like a pack of huskies. My point is simple: in the blink of an eye, the freedom of imagination in 1E and todays OSR games can become a two-edged sword for the poor shmuck behind the screen.
Of course alternative views are more than welcome and as I said in the start a 6 is a 9 depending on how you look at it. Don’t happen to be a Pinball Wizard do you?
@@Shamefulroleplay When I was a kid, pinball machines used to see me coming an laugh, "Well, here comes a sucker! Let's see if we can squeeze a roll of quarters out of this clown."
I never needed OSR. I started playing D&D in 1987 and I never changed editions. There wasn’t any need to. I was able to modify the game to suit my needs whenever necessary. It seems like many people are finally waking up to the idea that that after Wizards of the Coast took over the brand they completely changed everything. They bought the name D&D and then proceeded to create a completely new game. They just continued to call it Dungeons & Dragons. As they changed and modified it over the decades it has become the game you now call D&D. If you played old TSR D&D and also played Magic the Gathering, AND played the modern D&D game… you can’t help but see how WoTC has changed the characters from being the products of imagination and creativity and into walking magic card decks with triggered interlinked abilities interlaced with an action economy mechanic. That’s fun in its own right. It has been fueling their card game for decades. It just isn’t what I want for my gaming table. The only real tragedy was, by continuing to call what they made D&D they have managed to confuse young people who didn’t know any better for the better part of a quarter century. Now they are old enough to realize it and they are understandably wanting the game we all loved. It has been here the whole time. Silently waiting for the world to come to their senses. Just like the Gen X folks who played it. Welcome and enjoy. BECMI forever! Long Live King Elmore!!
It seems to me what you're saying is modern D&D promotes lazy DMing and lazy players. You're probably right, but at the end of the day, that's a human issue more than a system issue. It wouldn't be that to play 5e with an OSR feel if you had a good DM. I go for a "half-and-half" feel with my games. I like the heroic, rules heavy feel of modern games, but I still know when to throw it out the window and do something weird.
I’m not sure I think it’s lazy, but it does vex me that it is all decided by a dice roll a lot of the time in most games I’ve played as opposed to common sense.
@@Shamefulroleplay Yeah, I guess so. I always try to make rolling dice a tool to keep the DM neutral rather than to completely replace player decision making.
Totally get what you mean. As a DM i always feel "forced" to play totally RAW when i play 5e because the system is balanced around that, while 1e isnt balanced at all and i feel like i can be more free. I know it's a psycology problem, because i could be more free even in 5e, but the sensation Is there.
Back in 1999-2000, when Wizards of the Coast was getting ready to release 3E, I was hesitant about the edition change over. But I decided to give 3E a chance, and bought the PHB. I began reading it, and I not only liked the way 3E combined simplicity with depth of character building, but 2E began to seem much less appealing to me. Now 3E is not a perfect system. No roleplaying game system is. But it attempted a simulationist RPG much better than 2E had. Why am I bringing this up? Because the basic system for resolving checks that 3E introduced in 2000 is still being used in 2024 in the new PHB. Its also used in Pathfinder 2E and Shadowdark. I think there is value in old school games. As you mentioned in your video, many times rather than describe their PCs' actions, 5E (and Pathfinder 2E) players often announce that they want to roll an ability/skill check. The ideal way would be for the player to describe what they want their PC to do, then I as the DM announce which ability or skill will need to be rolled, if any. Sometimes a check isn't even necessary. OSR games which promote player ingenuity are great, but they're not necessarily for every player. This could be because these games often attempt to mimic the rules of AD&D or B/X or OD&D rather than the feel of playing those games. The problem with modern games isn't the streamlined, consistent rules, its the players not describing the actions of their PC in enough detail (or at all). Using percentage chance of Find Traps for a Thief or rolling under your ability score isn't the solution. The solution is for the DM to have a discussion with their players about what are the expectations for the game.
I have been interested in that system since I heard a rumor that it was what the boys were playing at the table in ET. Where would a beginner access the game?
@@Wesley_Youre_a_Rabbit All you need is the 2015 Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls book which is on DriveThruRPG. T&T has a ton of solo adventures in a choose-your-own-adventure format. You can adapt just about any adventure into T&T rules. And you need D6's. LOTS of D6's. If you don't want fantasy there is also a spinoff called Mercenaries Spies and Private eyes for modern adventures, mysteries, Lovecraft type stuff.
It depends on the type of player you are. But IMO if you're a storyteller type of player, you wont enjoy OSR. One reason for that is that you roll dice on the wrong occasion: at character creation and at level-ups. This makes you create a random character instead of the character you want to tell a story about. The second issue I think makes OSR bad for story driven campaigns is XP system. OSR games award XP for killing and looting, thus rewarding murder hobo behavior and making the game more like fantasy GTA than Lord of the Rings or Dragonlance. The third reason I think OSR is bad for story driven campaigns is the high lethality. No game, where players bring backup charakters can ever tell a coherent story. Life and death lose all meaning when players change characters every other session. The limited options regarding classes and species also greatly limits the possible character concept. The worst culprits in this regard are games with "species as class", such as every dwarf being a fighter variant. For quite similar reasons, OSR is bad for power gamers. You can't plan a build, when everything is random. There are limited options for character creation, feats usually don't even exist und magic is too chaotic for a more calculated use. The power ceiling is much lower than in D&D and in most cases, characters wont live long enough to reach it anyway. If you're a simulationist however (I'm not), you will certainly enjoy OSR games to a very high degree. Random stats are not how optimized builds are made and even less like stories are written, but how real life people are made (unless you play far future science fiction where people created through genetic engineering). Different XP tables and characters of different levels playing together terribly screws up a game's balance, but it is certainly realistic in the context of the game world, where different people learn at different speeds. The other group that will likely enjoy OSR are casual players who like party and pub games and don't invest too heavily in a character. With a quick character creation, they can directly start the campaign, and if a character dies, there is no drama, just switching to a different one. It allows a more light hearted playstlye that will fit the needs of these players.
Yeah, I think what one wants/likes as a player/DM is also important. In the choice of game. I like telling stories as both and couid never get satisfied with OSR systems, the style is working great, but something like Ironsworn works better. And character building is also a game for me, so I think something is lacking when I cannot think about it.
I personally award XP for things other than Gold, but I get your drift with that line of thinking. I do believe you can keep a game going that is interesting if a character dies. Their relatives coming in to avenge them etc. makes it very invested (game of thrones death rate was a good example of killing main characters which made the story exciting), however again excessive character death I can see would be a turn off for many a group. I agree the game could be considered simulationist. That’s a good way to put it! Thanks for your comment it gave me some things to think about. Appreciate it.
@@Shamefulroleplay You can certainly use any system for any campaign style with a bit of homebrew and improvisation. I know, narrative campaigns were a thing before modern editions, but I think modern editions grew from the improvisation and homebrew DMs used when running campaigns focused on story telling in old editions. I do however agree that a lack of rules in certain areas can sometimes be a blessing, if players prefer to simply act without rolling social or investigation skills. As far as character deaths go, I think it really depends on the frequency. If characters die every session, that will IMO destroy any semblence of a story. Death needs to have an impact to remain significant. To continue using A Song of Ice and Fire as an example: Ned Stark's death certainly was significant and a plot twist, readers didn't see coming. It worked well. Deaths in later books however... not so well, because readers got used to frequent character deaths, so death lost it's impact. Character death can be a powerful narrative tool, but not if the audience gets desensitized to it.
I can tell stories off of random. I like to use a background generator for characters. I give the raw output to DMs and tell them we can flesh things in later , which they all like as I don't write something so specific that it may change something in the game world. I can also take the same output and write a 6 page backstory for a NPC.
@@ShamefulroleplayI think that the important diffrence between the occurrence of death in "Game of Thrones" and PC death in a narrative driven roleplaying game is this; The author of Game of Thrones deliberately and by purposeful design had planned for those very specific Characters to die before pen was set to paper. This is the exactly what a DM should not generally be trying to do with Player Characters.
It's simple: 5E isn't real D&D. It has the license/brand, but it's not the same people, it's no the same rules, it's not the same spirit of creation. It is the end point of the Ship of Theseus. No part of what made the originals D&D -- the phenomenon that shaped the hobby from its birth -- are still present in modern Dungeons and Dragons (TM). Just like the latest Fallout games don't feel like Fallout, the latest Star Wars projects don't feel like Star Wars, and so on. We can all point to something and, at a certain point acknowledge that just because it carries the label doesn't make it the thing we originally identified with that label. None of this is to say 5E is inherently bad (it is for what I want to do, but some people enjoy it), but it's more like a marvel game with the serial numbers filed off than any sort of medieval-fantasy adventure roleplaying game.
This has got to be one of the stupider comments I've seen on 5E. So you would have rather Dungeons & Dragons died back in 1997, because Peter Adkison and Wizards of the Coast didn't buy it? Or maybe you're a real grognard purist, who would have liked to see TSR collapse in 1984 rather than have Lorraine Williams take control. The fact is that D&D the brand is what people associate with the TTRPG hobby. Not Pathfinder, not Shadowdark, certainly not more obscure games like OSRIC, D&D. When new people come into the hobby to play D&D they buy what's on the shelves or available on Amazon. Like it or not, that's the 2024 version of 5E, the most modern D&D available. As for 5E not feeling like earlier editions, this is blatantly wrong. I was there for the D&D Next playtest in 2013 and 2014. The game designers used concepts from 1E through 4E to design 5E. Is 5E perfect? No, it isn't, but it suits my needs for most games. Pathfinder 2E is a little too hard for me to run, unlike 5E. I have heard promising things about Shadowdark, but Shadowdark in its own way borrows heavily from 5E. If 5E isn't fulfilling your needs for a medieval fantasy dungeon crawl, then don't play it. But stop with the "No True Scotsman" nonsence that 5E isn't D&D.
I disagree with a number of the points here. First, the idea that OSR games are better for role playing because of the narrative over dice roll approach to things like traps. Searching for traps that way can be fun - I played in a game where there was a trap where the room's floor was actually a giant stone disk balanced on a thin pole, and it became unbalanced when we entered. We had to figure out what was going on, then had to both move carefully to get to the next doorway without tipping it faster, but also move fast enough we got away before it tipped. That was a lot of fun. But I feel like describing how I search for pressure plate dart traps or whatever else in every room sounds really boring, it would get old fast. That feels like wasting roleplaying time. If I resolve that with a quick check then I could instead use that time to be engage in dialogue that would further establish my character, or the party dynamics, that would be more meaningful and fun. Second, when you want a game that's more freeform and with simpler rules, I wouldn't be playing D&D, Pathfinder, OSR, or anything like that. I would be playing a rules light narrative focused game. That said, I don't think OSR games should be avoided. I recently started reading the rules for Trespasser and I'd like to try playing it. Although that probably won't happen any time soon because I can get my friends to play different games by running them myself (I run PF2e and Paranoia) but not really as a player, and I can only run so many games.
Hi thanks for the comment. I would actually say, saying what you do in detail is very role play and if we were to migrate that traps example to a social encounter. It doesn’t matter if you try like mad to convince somebody or say a few words, you are reduced to a dice roll. Now you can be in OSR, but it’s a lot more open with it. Not that you can’t do this with 5e, but games there tend to always be about the role. I’d agree the best storytelling style game would probably be worlds of darkness or chronicles of darkness for me.
@@Shamefulroleplay the best storytelling system is one where you take the dice away from players. I've done that in a ravenloft game and everyone loved it , however it was too much work for me and I wouldn't want to do it all the time. They also can't have a character sheet with everything listed on it. They have to remember what they have, or take time to look for it.
Yeah, describing every single search for traps sounds really tedious, and potentially very frustrating if you're expected to guess the mechanism every time. I'd want at most a hybrid solution where detecting a trap or hidden door was automatic or rolled for, but actually finding it was roleplayed.
The black and white art is terrible. I don't understand how people can stomach it after seeing real art in DND 5E. Thank you for the video - I disagree with everything you said but I appreciate the effort you spent.
Thanks for the comment! I think both sides of the argument can be true for and against and that there isn’t an objective truth. However we all have our own tastes.
I actually feel the complete opposite to this. I love the black and white artwork you get in OSR style games where as I feel the artwork in 5E just doesn't do it for me at all. Those black and white images often give a more darker sword and sorcery feels to games that I find more modern systems steer clear of, which the older I've gotten I've come to really appreciate and miss.
I didn't like Elmore's art in 2e. It starts to look like they just hired someone to make flat generic artwork. 5e is even worse. May as well be done by AI.
i use a lot of concepts of OSR but i do it with dnd rulesets. Like I will use things like spot checks but ONLY if the players have indicated that they are looking around for things, OR if i think a thing is happening that someone "should have" seen. like an explosion in the sky might be too far to hear, but i think its likely at least one player should have seen a bright flash in the corner of their eye, i will have them roll high spot checks out of the blue, just to see if they all manage to fail it, or to see which of the players is the one who spots it (because a lot of my players often are secretly scheming and plotting against each other anyway) THAT BEING SAID... have you ever tried the Amber diceless game? Thats a whole new world of RPG i really think people need to play at least a few times
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
My favourite thing about old school games was the lack of "balance". Balance is the death of drama. Even balance between classes.
Myself also! Love lack of balance. But it was sort of balanced as “stronger” classes took longer to level up.
@@Shamefulroleplaydo a video about class balance? I’d find that interesting in OSR as there was none really.
@@RolePlayGeek hmmm ...I'm not sure I agree with this. I'd argue that the disparate XP requirements for advancing in level sort of creates a sense of balance in and of itself.
If you've never read the BX Class builder book, it breaks down the XP value of the different class abilities and personally, I think that overall is a more balanced system than trying to smooth out each class and having them advance at the same XP thresholds.
@@RolePlayGeeksounds like you are repeating tripe without actually thinking about it carefully. Is a fighter way more powerful and unbalanced than a thief, cleric or magic-user?
Who is to say any of those classes can’t take out a fighter? Say they are all first level is there actually an unbalance there? Well in a face to face melee combat situation the fighter is going to win hands down and there should be unbalance as the class of the fighter is to be the hack and slash of the classes otherwise what is the point of the fighter class? So of course this should happen. But what if the situation was not a toe to toe situation? Could the fighter be defeated by those other three classes? I would say absolutely. Thief gets in a back stab from the shadows or the magic user cast sleep on the fighter from a tower or behind a bush and slits his throat while the fighter lays unconscious. Maybe the cleric gets of a command spell and puts the fighter into a predicament he will not be able to over come?
Anyways, I will have to disagree with you here.
Enjoy your game whatever version you choose to play.
They were very balanced, just not the way modern games are balanced. The idea was the more powerful classes started out much weaker and had a much higher commitment. Martials tended to level quickly which gives them a strong headstart.
The real imbalance is between the player and DM agency. DMs have a lot more player agency in OSRs and rhe players are much more dependent on what the DMs give them. This is why people stuck with characters longer. Modern games have more player agency and less DM agency. This is why players rarely stick with there characters for any length of time before wanting to reroll.
Here's my pitch. In OSR you're not glued to your character sheet constantly thinking of what those stats and abilities can be used for.
Exactly, but that may also be what some people love. For me, I like free formness.
I've found it more common in modern games for players to ask for rolls without describing their actions. I'm more of a fan of fiction first style of play which I use B/X for the rules when needed.
And this is what I’m a fan of too. Not over reliance on rolls.
I not agree on a point about traps in 5e. Even in the dmg it is suggested to not use an ability check if players have done clever thing to spot or disarm a trap. "You should allow a character to discover a trap without making an ability check if an action would clearly reveal the trap’s presence. For example, if a character lifts a rug that conceals a pressure plate, the character has found the trigger and no check is required.".
So I think it more DM's thing to incorporate this in game.
Btw thanks for the great video!
As someone who is new to being a gm, I would feel very overwhelmed with 5e compared to the shadowdark game I'm running. Shadowdark has been super easy to learn and to adapt to what my needs are as I don't have a huge amount of rules to remember or think about.
Me too! Exactly this.
Shadowdark for the win! I'm not a new GM, been doing it for 40+ years and played all the versions. Started my Shadowdark campaign early this year and never going back to 5e. SD is the best of the old and the new.
I can get behind this. The newer game does seem to have an automatic tendency to call for arbitrary rolls when none feel like they need to be required. I find this especially in social interactions.
I definitely find this especially.
This comment makes me wonder who calls for those rolls - because it is rarely in the books.
There is an implication of there being social and mental attributes and I do think that this has been a problem of D&D since pretty much the beginning. But let us get into details.
Pathfinder has three active social skills: bluff, diplomacy and intimidate. Looking at the text of diplomacy, it is always formulated as "you can use diplomacy to". In other words: the rules do not say you can't achieve the same through played out social interaction.
Diplomacy is great for things that are out of the spotlight. If your character spends the next 30 minutes getting on the good graces of an NPC, you don't necessarily want to play through it. If your character gathers information by talking to people in the towns bars, you may not want to play through 4 hours of completely useless gossip.
Even in situations in the spotlight: what if the character lies to an NPC. There is more than spinning a convincing story, there is body language, the correct use of your voice, the right point of eye contact, etc. So, asking for a bluff check to determine if the NPC notices that something is up makes sense.
But this idea that nothing can have an effect without a die roll is nowhere in the books. You can have a very important IG discussion without rolling dice.
I don't think it is a problem of the games. It is a problem of the dominant culture around them.
Love it when they use failure as excuse to make the character look like a fool in every situation possible, apparently everyone in Faerun carry lie detectors now.
This delema of rolling or narrating, stretches back into the past of board gaming, there's lots out there about it.
But for me it boils down to simulation balance.
War games simulated battle and was used as a training platform, Strategos is an example by C Totten.
The problem is that simulation can become complex, abstract, and lifeless, slowing the platform down with mathematical probability.
A partial solution is to add a referee who can use his knowledge of the rules and experience of war to give a ruling (narrative) or a probability (roll).
Without the referee, you just have rules.
With the referee, you have the ability to infinite possibility.
A player can will an action into play which could fall outside the rules and the referee can allow any action.
But the referee's role is not to act as an adviser but as a fair arbitrator of the players' actions and possible unforseen actions.
Because OSR keeps the Original Spirit of Roleplaying ;)
Exactly my friend!
and as we know things not improving is the very essence of civilisation and not the hallmark of the conservative idiot.
Depends what you want to improve. A game being liked the way it is as opposed to a newer edition doesn’t mean people are suddenly Right Wing, just as people’s liking the new rules doesn’t make them Left wing liberals?
But OSR *is* D&D for a lot of it. It was born out of a desire to recapture the feeling of older editions of D&D. And most of the systems present it in are inspired by it.
I think it's more apt to say 5e instead of D&D, since that's what's actually being discussed. But I can understand that a lot of people when they think of D&D they think directly of 5e.
Honestly I used the word D&D to help with the algorithm as opposed to 5e. Believing most people associate DnD with 5e.
Somebody's been listening to Tony Robbins. ;) And fwiw, I grew up on D&D (B/X AD&D), tried 5E but not a fan of the super hero vibe though I like some of the modern mechanics. Shadowdark is the happy medium for me. Modern mechanics + low hit points, low power curve and focus on role playing over roll playing.
I work in mental health so try to be up to date on all that stuff. Good spot!
Also love shadowdark. It’s an awesome go between.
Excellent video. Thank You.
Thanks for the video. I must say I'm not a huge fan of downplaying improvisation in Pathfinder. You are not limited by feats, it's not like you can't do something that has a feat for it without having that particular feat. You make some adjustments and go with the narrative, just as in any other game. Everybody plays what they want obviously, but OSR games are often romanticized so much. I'd prefer to agree that every system has its strong and weak sides, something that you have mentioned later in the video. And I do enjoy OSR games, I really do. It's just that I don't like this kind of narrative going on in the internet recently where we keep putting these systems in opposition. Apples to oranges :) Cheers
I think the problem is that if there's a rule/feat/skill defined for something then that's the way you are "supposed to" do it, by the rulebook. If I can do the same without that feat then what is the value of ever taking it?
Bit of a cheat, because I knew the walls were blue
Ha ha, yes that doesn’t work if you’re in a blue room at all lol.
@@Shamefulroleplay Maybe I’ve been influenced by OSR, but my general method of play in 5e has been to take the player’s description of their actions and apply it to the logic of the world then roll if it’s still necessary - my go to example is: if you tell me you search the room and mention looking in the fireplace, you’re going to automatically find what’s in the fireplace, regardless of what you roll, but if you roll really well, you’ll also find the note hidden in the desk - I have a soft guideline that what you say the PC does must be something they would do - for example, if a player is a forensic investigator running an intelligence 7 barbarian with a cocaine habit who’s jonesing for a fix, Hrothgar isn’t going to break the room down into 1x1 foot squares using imaginary lines and examine each one from left to right and front to back with a magnifying glass looking for distinguishing sole patterns from the dozen local cobblers… Hrothgar is just looking around 😄
As a DM I have come dislike running both DND 5e and PF2 just due to the shear amount of rules. I prefer DMing OSR style games. As a player I like playing all of them.
Totally get where you’re coming from there.
I don't hate the OSR, I played it from 1982 to 2009 and i played all the classes and kits worth playing! Palladium Fantasy was better than 1E! In 1E you had to be well read or well watched or you would be cut to shreads going through Razor Grass! I saw many players with well built characters die because they weren't very knowledgeable!
My favorite TTRPG's and Systems: 1-Cypher(generic), 2-Teenagers From Outer Space(anime), 3-Gamma World 4E(not based on D&D 4E)(post apocalyptic), 4-All Flesh Must be Eaten(zombie), 5-Battlelords of the 23rd Century(sci-fi), 6-Pathfinder 1E(fantasy), 7-5E(fantasy), 8-Palladium system(generic), 9-AD&D(fantasy), 10-Shadow of the Demon Lord(sci-fantasy/horror) and 11-Star Frontiers(sci-fi)
Hey thanks for the comment!
Speaking of Palladium, what do you like about the system. I had dead reign myself and found it alright, but attributes were rolled and didn’t do much.
@@Shamefulroleplay The Alignment system is better since it has some rules for alignment, unlike any version of D&D! The spell and Psionic systems are better! It had skills, while the combat system is slow because of Dodge, Parry and Roll, it isn't quite as bad as the straight boxing of D&D combat! Multi classing is more like dual-classing! And Armor gets destroyed in combat unlike D&D!
I am glad OSR exists for the purple who like its style of game. I learned RPGs with AD&D and a bit of the old D&D basic, and while I remember those games fondly, but I really don't connect with them anymore. I bought Lament of the Flame Princess to check what OSR games were like and still didn't connect with them.
I feel many of what is described here can be achieved with most modern games.
But i feel one of the most important things for me that is the customization that is present in modern games is lacking in the old games.
But I am glad that the hobby is able to provide so much variance that anyone can find games that they enjoy.
I totally agree, you can do these things in 5e but the game pretty much tells you to roll for nearly everything, which to me makes it a bit too random and makes our choices mean less.
Totally agree mechanically though and character building wise 5e is great.
@@Shamefulroleplay I dose not make your choice mean less, it means you have to play your character. Back in the white box days too much of the time we played our own knowledge, not what our iq 3, ws 4 character could do. Your other option is live action with no dice, just try to do the climb, jump, swim or swing a weapon.
While 5E is not may favorite form of D&D it is much better than white box or ADD.
@@danielward7747 metagaming was common, but clearly frowned upon ( and is even more common now with players looking everything up on their phones). I don't think listing a ton of options on a character sheet makes anyone "play your character", and I have yet to see 5e players mix up their attack options once a clear order of effectiveness has been established. You cannot move about the battlefield in 5e unless you can disengage as a bonus action, so combat is very static. Illusion of choice is real, and real choice often results in paralysis by analysis for many players which leads to ridiculously long combats which limit time for exploration and interaction. I still enjoy playing 5e with my friends, but not because it's 5e...
@@danielward7747 5e is so much better is it? lol
@@danielward7747 this is true, but only partially. After so many years being a GM only, I have come to realize that not everyone can handle the development of a character from the bones of old games. I remember many of my players developed great characters and engaged with the story pretty easily. But not all. I have some friends that after many many years (well over a decade), they still are not able to engage with the system in that way.
This is where the character customization has worked wonders. It gives them a framework for them to do certain things that feel unique. They connect with the game in a different way and the rules allow them to find solutions within a set of boundaries.
In any case, I feel 5e is deficient as a game, but that is just me. If I had to select a D&D edition, I would probably say 3.5 was my favorite, but I play PF2 now and I this system allows for players who would excel at the freedom of old D&D to continue to excel in what they already did, and give the sense of uniqueness to the players who are having a hard time with that creativity that is required in older games.
i've never seen the Poag FMAG cover!!
Haven’t you? Glad to show it to you!
All great points
Thanks!
Try Advanced Crimson Dragon Slayer with Cha'alt!
people think the osr is all death and dungeon crawling because the younger advocates of the osr just talk about death and dungeon crawling. when I played ad&d in the 90's, i played it exactly how i play 5e now. Literally the exact same way. and i always found d&d of any edition to be way less deadly that the other rpgs i played. mostly because d&d was the only system i ever played that had a level class system... and due to the abstractness of combat and having no active defense rolls for standard combat, you wanted your characters to level up quick early on because despite what the advocates say, none of us liked dying in one it back then either.
the 30 something's that didnt grow up on ad&d have this wired idea that we all loved our characters dying all the time, and rolling up new characters on the fly cuz its so quick... yeah, that wasn't the case then. maybe for the adults playing it back then, because they were still in the wargame mentality, but iof you were a kid / teenager playing dnd death sucked, and no one liked it.
if i have any issue with modern dnd, its not the power level, its the complexity of leveling up (back then, you didn't get something new and shiny every level) 3e up thru PF2e i never touched because of the insane complexity behind character development (and the advent ofg "builds". i hate that word outside of video games).
people like to say 53 makes superheroes. i used to complain that adnd made demigods. and both are fun to play when you know what your getting. IF you want grit, low power, and death? try warhammer of BRP/Runequest/Stormbringer.
Thanks for the insightful comment 😊 warhammer fantasy roleplay is definitely deadly af.
I feel exactly like that. OSR has become golden calf people dance around because it is hip at the moment. And no, on the character sheet it said dwarves had a 2 in 6 chance to find a secret doors. So they just rolled the dice. That's it. No elaborate explanation of what the character would do. I check for secret doors. "You're a fighter, you don't have the ability so no" That's what was going on.
I know what you mean. lol. The more I hear that particular story, the more I think of osr meaning old school revisionist. But, that being said, a lot of them are great for one shot style pick up games, and they can be a lot of fun.
When I play dnd- any edition, I’m roleplaying a character I’m invested in and came up with a backstory, personal goals, and a personality for. When I play osr- I’m playing an avatar meant to be myself input into that world with no real differentiation. I tend to name all my osr characters the same 2-3 names regardless.
@@angelocano6041 No doubt. They are great for one shots. And I have a warm fuzzy feeling when i think of D&D Basic and Expert. They opened up a whole new world for me. I'll speak out in defense of them any day.
But they were not that vastly superior game with better players. I mean honestly exp for gold? I had a friend whose character sold his magic sword for a shit load of gold and then triumphantly declared:" I just made level 36!". His friend sold the sword back and also reached level 36. So much for better adventures and players.
When I tried to run DCC one of the players named his characters literally 1,2,3 and 4 because "most will die anyway in the funnel so why bother?"
Are OSR worse? No. I strongly believe you can have excellent games and characters with almost any system. I just happend to like being invested in the character before the first game. I like backstories and all that s... And I've always tried to play them that way since the mid 80s (after my young teenage self was done goofing around in dungeons). It doesn't need OSR to play well developed characters. On the other hand OSR doesn't keep you from playing that way either.
@@doomhippie6673 While no description was required, nearly every DM I played with would ask what my character was doing, so I think it was a common play style. I still require it now when I DM 5e, so I guess it's not edition specific. All classes could find secret doors though...
I'd like to offer a counterpoint if I may.
As my avatar suggests, I go way back with D&D (10 years running 1E). Yes, the systems were a lot looser, and far more open to adjudication. But this very fact, in the hands of the WRONG kind of players, can become a tormenting strain--as it did for me as DM.
Try anything? With a combat round of a minute? Really? It led to a never ending stream of "I wanna do this...and this...and then this..." , with players begging for the freedom to turn their PCs into pinballs (well, didn't I just date myself). Stuff that defied physics, common sense, the spirit behind 1E mechanics, and every instinct of self-preservation.
It sucked a LOT of my energy whenever it came up, and the game ground to a halt while I weighed my options. And I if I made a ruling one way and a different one nine months later for near-identical circumstances, you should hear the wailing--like a pack of huskies.
My point is simple: in the blink of an eye, the freedom of imagination in 1E and todays OSR games can become a two-edged sword for the poor shmuck behind the screen.
Of course alternative views are more than welcome and as I said in the start a 6 is a 9 depending on how you look at it.
Don’t happen to be a Pinball Wizard do you?
@@Shamefulroleplay When I was a kid, pinball machines used to see me coming an laugh, "Well, here comes a sucker! Let's see if we can squeeze a roll of quarters out of this clown."
I never needed OSR. I started playing D&D in 1987 and I never changed editions. There wasn’t any need to. I was able to modify the game to suit my needs whenever necessary.
It seems like many people are finally waking up to the idea that that after Wizards of the Coast took over the brand they completely changed everything. They bought the name D&D and then proceeded to create a completely new game. They just continued to call it Dungeons & Dragons. As they changed and modified it over the decades it has become the game you now call D&D.
If you played old TSR D&D
and also played Magic the Gathering, AND played the modern D&D game…
you can’t help but see how WoTC has changed the characters from being the products of imagination and creativity and into walking magic card decks with triggered interlinked abilities interlaced with an action economy mechanic. That’s fun in its own right. It has been fueling their card game for decades. It just isn’t what I want for my gaming table.
The only real tragedy was, by continuing to call what they made D&D they have managed to confuse young people who didn’t know any better for the better part of a quarter century. Now they are old enough to realize it and they are understandably wanting the game we all loved.
It has been here the whole time. Silently waiting for the world to come to their senses. Just like the Gen X folks who played it.
Welcome and enjoy.
BECMI forever!
Long Live King Elmore!!
It seems to me what you're saying is modern D&D promotes lazy DMing and lazy players. You're probably right, but at the end of the day, that's a human issue more than a system issue. It wouldn't be that to play 5e with an OSR feel if you had a good DM. I go for a "half-and-half" feel with my games. I like the heroic, rules heavy feel of modern games, but I still know when to throw it out the window and do something weird.
I’m not sure I think it’s lazy, but it does vex me that it is all decided by a dice roll a lot of the time in most games I’ve played as opposed to common sense.
@@Shamefulroleplay Yeah, I guess so. I always try to make rolling dice a tool to keep the DM neutral rather than to completely replace player decision making.
Totally get what you mean. As a DM i always feel "forced" to play totally RAW when i play 5e because the system is balanced around that, while 1e isnt balanced at all and i feel like i can be more free. I know it's a psycology problem, because i could be more free even in 5e, but the sensation Is there.
Weeeeeell, anything that allows you to play actual D&D, and also allows you to give Hasbro the bird, can't be bad eh.
Which OSR game would you recommend to a newbie DM?
my game is more related to OSR than anything that i can think of. NAT20 = instant death to the monster in SNS. :)
Back in 1999-2000, when Wizards of the Coast was getting ready to release 3E, I was hesitant about the edition change over. But I decided to give 3E a chance, and bought the PHB. I began reading it, and I not only liked the way 3E combined simplicity with depth of character building, but 2E began to seem much less appealing to me. Now 3E is not a perfect system. No roleplaying game system is. But it attempted a simulationist RPG much better than 2E had. Why am I bringing this up? Because the basic system for resolving checks that 3E introduced in 2000 is still being used in 2024 in the new PHB. Its also used in Pathfinder 2E and Shadowdark.
I think there is value in old school games. As you mentioned in your video, many times rather than describe their PCs' actions, 5E (and Pathfinder 2E) players often announce that they want to roll an ability/skill check. The ideal way would be for the player to describe what they want their PC to do, then I as the DM announce which ability or skill will need to be rolled, if any. Sometimes a check isn't even necessary. OSR games which promote player ingenuity are great, but they're not necessarily for every player. This could be because these games often attempt to mimic the rules of AD&D or B/X or OD&D rather than the feel of playing those games. The problem with modern games isn't the streamlined, consistent rules, its the players not describing the actions of their PC in enough detail (or at all). Using percentage chance of Find Traps for a Thief or rolling under your ability score isn't the solution. The solution is for the DM to have a discussion with their players about what are the expectations for the game.
Love this comment and insight.
Thank me later currently reading 3e PHB myself having a nose 👃 through it.
Tyreek Camp
Would 1st/ 2nd editions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay count as OSR, or does umbrella only include games built from a dnd basis?
No it definitely does encompass those also.
I can't see blue things, *'cause I can't see shit with my eyes closed, now, can I?* xD
😅
I've got 2 1/2 words for you: Tunnels & Trolls. For me it addresses all the things I don't like about D&D's rules.
I have been interested in that system since I heard a rumor that it was what the boys were playing at the table in ET. Where would a beginner access the game?
@@Wesley_Youre_a_Rabbit All you need is the 2015 Deluxe Tunnels & Trolls book which is on DriveThruRPG. T&T has a ton of solo adventures in a choose-your-own-adventure format. You can adapt just about any adventure into T&T rules. And you need D6's. LOTS of D6's.
If you don't want fantasy there is also a spinoff called Mercenaries Spies and Private eyes for modern adventures, mysteries, Lovecraft type stuff.
Will give it a look!
sad thing is that T&T has been sold too and isn't put out by it's original publishers anymore.
Mikayla Point
#reald&d
645 Deron Village
Is this a spy code word? Are you working for the Russians?
It depends on the type of player you are. But IMO if you're a storyteller type of player, you wont enjoy OSR. One reason for that is that you roll dice on the wrong occasion: at character creation and at level-ups. This makes you create a random character instead of the character you want to tell a story about. The second issue I think makes OSR bad for story driven campaigns is XP system. OSR games award XP for killing and looting, thus rewarding murder hobo behavior and making the game more like fantasy GTA than Lord of the Rings or Dragonlance. The third reason I think OSR is bad for story driven campaigns is the high lethality. No game, where players bring backup charakters can ever tell a coherent story. Life and death lose all meaning when players change characters every other session. The limited options regarding classes and species also greatly limits the possible character concept. The worst culprits in this regard are games with "species as class", such as every dwarf being a fighter variant.
For quite similar reasons, OSR is bad for power gamers. You can't plan a build, when everything is random. There are limited options for character creation, feats usually don't even exist und magic is too chaotic for a more calculated use. The power ceiling is much lower than in D&D and in most cases, characters wont live long enough to reach it anyway.
If you're a simulationist however (I'm not), you will certainly enjoy OSR games to a very high degree. Random stats are not how optimized builds are made and even less like stories are written, but how real life people are made (unless you play far future science fiction where people created through genetic engineering). Different XP tables and characters of different levels playing together terribly screws up a game's balance, but it is certainly realistic in the context of the game world, where different people learn at different speeds.
The other group that will likely enjoy OSR are casual players who like party and pub games and don't invest too heavily in a character. With a quick character creation, they can directly start the campaign, and if a character dies, there is no drama, just switching to a different one. It allows a more light hearted playstlye that will fit the needs of these players.
Yeah, I think what one wants/likes as a player/DM is also important. In the choice of game. I like telling stories as both and couid never get satisfied with OSR systems, the style is working great, but something like Ironsworn works better.
And character building is also a game for me, so I think something is lacking when I cannot think about it.
I personally award XP for things other than Gold, but I get your drift with that line of thinking.
I do believe you can keep a game going that is interesting if a character dies. Their relatives coming in to avenge them etc. makes it very invested (game of thrones death rate was a good example of killing main characters which made the story exciting), however again excessive character death I can see would be a turn off for many a group.
I agree the game could be considered simulationist. That’s a good way to put it!
Thanks for your comment it gave me some things to think about. Appreciate it.
@@Shamefulroleplay You can certainly use any system for any campaign style with a bit of homebrew and improvisation. I know, narrative campaigns were a thing before modern editions, but I think modern editions grew from the improvisation and homebrew DMs used when running campaigns focused on story telling in old editions. I do however agree that a lack of rules in certain areas can sometimes be a blessing, if players prefer to simply act without rolling social or investigation skills.
As far as character deaths go, I think it really depends on the frequency. If characters die every session, that will IMO destroy any semblence of a story. Death needs to have an impact to remain significant. To continue using A Song of Ice and Fire as an example: Ned Stark's death certainly was significant and a plot twist, readers didn't see coming. It worked well. Deaths in later books however... not so well, because readers got used to frequent character deaths, so death lost it's impact. Character death can be a powerful narrative tool, but not if the audience gets desensitized to it.
I can tell stories off of random. I like to use a background generator for characters. I give the raw output to DMs and tell them we can flesh things in later , which they all like as I don't write something so specific that it may change something in the game world. I can also take the same output and write a 6 page backstory for a NPC.
@@ShamefulroleplayI think that the important diffrence between the occurrence of death in "Game of Thrones" and PC death in a narrative driven roleplaying game is this;
The author of Game of Thrones deliberately and by purposeful design had planned for those very specific Characters to die before pen was set to paper.
This is the exactly what a DM should not generally be trying to do with Player Characters.
Is there a problem with the audio?
I can’t hear anything wrong when i watch it?
@@Shamefulroleplay sorry I think my phone was lagging for some reason
It's simple: 5E isn't real D&D.
It has the license/brand, but it's not the same people, it's no the same rules, it's not the same spirit of creation. It is the end point of the Ship of Theseus. No part of what made the originals D&D -- the phenomenon that shaped the hobby from its birth -- are still present in modern Dungeons and Dragons (TM). Just like the latest Fallout games don't feel like Fallout, the latest Star Wars projects don't feel like Star Wars, and so on. We can all point to something and, at a certain point acknowledge that just because it carries the label doesn't make it the thing we originally identified with that label.
None of this is to say 5E is inherently bad (it is for what I want to do, but some people enjoy it), but it's more like a marvel game with the serial numbers filed off than any sort of medieval-fantasy adventure roleplaying game.
This has got to be one of the stupider comments I've seen on 5E. So you would have rather Dungeons & Dragons died back in 1997, because Peter Adkison and Wizards of the Coast didn't buy it? Or maybe you're a real grognard purist, who would have liked to see TSR collapse in 1984 rather than have Lorraine Williams take control. The fact is that D&D the brand is what people associate with the TTRPG hobby. Not Pathfinder, not Shadowdark, certainly not more obscure games like OSRIC, D&D. When new people come into the hobby to play D&D they buy what's on the shelves or available on Amazon. Like it or not, that's the 2024 version of 5E, the most modern D&D available.
As for 5E not feeling like earlier editions, this is blatantly wrong. I was there for the D&D Next playtest in 2013 and 2014. The game designers used concepts from 1E through 4E to design 5E. Is 5E perfect? No, it isn't, but it suits my needs for most games. Pathfinder 2E is a little too hard for me to run, unlike 5E. I have heard promising things about Shadowdark, but Shadowdark in its own way borrows heavily from 5E.
If 5E isn't fulfilling your needs for a medieval fantasy dungeon crawl, then don't play it. But stop with the "No True Scotsman" nonsence that 5E isn't D&D.
I disagree with a number of the points here. First, the idea that OSR games are better for role playing because of the narrative over dice roll approach to things like traps. Searching for traps that way can be fun - I played in a game where there was a trap where the room's floor was actually a giant stone disk balanced on a thin pole, and it became unbalanced when we entered. We had to figure out what was going on, then had to both move carefully to get to the next doorway without tipping it faster, but also move fast enough we got away before it tipped. That was a lot of fun. But I feel like describing how I search for pressure plate dart traps or whatever else in every room sounds really boring, it would get old fast. That feels like wasting roleplaying time. If I resolve that with a quick check then I could instead use that time to be engage in dialogue that would further establish my character, or the party dynamics, that would be more meaningful and fun. Second, when you want a game that's more freeform and with simpler rules, I wouldn't be playing D&D, Pathfinder, OSR, or anything like that. I would be playing a rules light narrative focused game. That said, I don't think OSR games should be avoided. I recently started reading the rules for Trespasser and I'd like to try playing it. Although that probably won't happen any time soon because I can get my friends to play different games by running them myself (I run PF2e and Paranoia) but not really as a player, and I can only run so many games.
Hi thanks for the comment.
I would actually say, saying what you do in detail is very role play and if we were to migrate that traps example to a social encounter. It doesn’t matter if you try like mad to convince somebody or say a few words, you are reduced to a dice roll. Now you can be in OSR, but it’s a lot more open with it. Not that you can’t do this with 5e, but games there tend to always be about the role.
I’d agree the best storytelling style game would probably be worlds of darkness or chronicles of darkness for me.
@@Shamefulroleplay the best storytelling system is one where you take the dice away from players. I've done that in a ravenloft game and everyone loved it , however it was too much work for me and I wouldn't want to do it all the time. They also can't have a character sheet with everything listed on it. They have to remember what they have, or take time to look for it.
Yeah, describing every single search for traps sounds really tedious, and potentially very frustrating if you're expected to guess the mechanism every time. I'd want at most a hybrid solution where detecting a trap or hidden door was automatic or rolled for, but actually finding it was roleplayed.
The black and white art is terrible. I don't understand how people can stomach it after seeing real art in DND 5E. Thank you for the video - I disagree with everything you said but I appreciate the effort you spent.
Thanks for the comment! I think both sides of the argument can be true for and against and that there isn’t an objective truth. However we all have our own tastes.
I actually feel the complete opposite to this. I love the black and white artwork you get in OSR style games where as I feel the artwork in 5E just doesn't do it for me at all. Those black and white images often give a more darker sword and sorcery feels to games that I find more modern systems steer clear of, which the older I've gotten I've come to really appreciate and miss.
Yeah...art is inherently subjective but this is the worst take I think I've ever seen as it relates to TTRPG art.
I have a friend that hates 5e art, he says is too digital and soulless.
I didn't like Elmore's art in 2e. It starts to look like they just hired someone to make flat generic artwork. 5e is even worse. May as well be done by AI.
i use a lot of concepts of OSR but i do it with dnd rulesets.
Like I will use things like spot checks but ONLY if the players have indicated that they are looking around for things, OR if i think a thing is happening that someone "should have" seen. like an explosion in the sky might be too far to hear, but i think its likely at least one player should have seen a bright flash in the corner of their eye, i will have them roll high spot checks out of the blue, just to see if they all manage to fail it, or to see which of the players is the one who spots it (because a lot of my players often are secretly scheming and plotting against each other anyway)
THAT BEING SAID... have you ever tried the Amber diceless game? Thats a whole new world of RPG i really think people need to play at least a few times
Have you tried shadowdark in that case. Its exactly this but better for an OSR style