Just found your channel…. Back story: found the Hobbit in my grade 7 library. Complained to a newfound friend (classmate) that the book was too short. Told me of the trilogy. Year is 1976. I’m blown away. He pulls out 3 books Din A5 Dungeons & Dragons and we just go to town. By grade 9 AD&D (the 3 Books come out):- game changer. Everything you said about the old school is spot on. We did not care about backstory. A wandering monster was right there when you started bickering in the group. Or trying to remove bags of heavy loot. Constantly hurt or dead: either find a cleric or “what do you know, a fighter chained to the wall in the next room who just happens to be the dead players cousin”. Spent most time running from things and sneaking past rooms with noises. Had to constantly stop the magic user (level 1) for running in front of the group shouting!” I got this” for us a magic user was someone who was weak on hit points but big on confidence. A year later I became a Dungeon Master…. Thanks for the memories
Our character backstories in our old B/X games were always simple. Our characters usually named what city, town, or village they were from, what their profession is or was and possibly their parents professions. The biggest aspect of our characters backstory was just why they decided to go adventuring. It was usually something like wanting to see the world, inspired by stories of retired adventurers, or just seeing adventuring as a way to get rich quick. Great content as usual. I enjoy your channel and your discussions about the old school games.
Yes, we did this exact thing as well. It was more about motivation for why this PC is essentially showing up as a PC in the game rather than details of a PC’s past more generally.
For us, depending on how people felt when building the character. I had characters in the 70s with deep backstories. Some, I had none at all. Just depended on how creative I felt at the time I rolled up the character. I found my players over the years have done the same thing. There is no single way it was done. About to start a new session after being away for the last 4 years or so. Eager to see what the players decide to do.
I think for me the random aspect of old school games is more like improv. It’s like watching Whose Line Is It Anyway vs Seinfeld. No one knows how the story will end or what it will be about. And like you said, random tables aren’t some random outside speed bump. They are the story. In new school play, the DM (and the players likely) know how the story will end. In old school the journey is the story.
This is a great topic and touches on one very close to my heart. I've seen an alarming trend unfold over the last 10-12 years in so-called OSR forums online. That trend being condensing millions of classic TSR D&D play sessions that have taken place all around the world over decades into a single cliched "old school playstyle." You know the one: Gritty, deadly, "gonzo," free of overarching plot structure, laser-focused on deep dungeon exploration and treasure hoarding, etc. Well, there never was such a uniformity of experience from table to table. Never. That's lazy historical revisionism, pure and simple. D&D games in the '80s, and '90s (and probably the '70s, I didn't play then) had their talky, story-focused campaigns with 8-page character backstories. They had their 4E/5E style endless superhero brawls, too. Plus everything in-between! Some campaigns rarely included proper dungeon crawls or random encounters. Some never got around to killing off PCs, even the reckless ones. Some emphasized ham acting and doing corny voices. Oh, and despite the odd edge case like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, the push for "realistic fantasy" (whatever that is) was much more prominent in published FRPG material back in the day than the wacky gonzo style. It was thus more common for DMs to channel their inner novelists and focus on verisimilitude and thoughtful worldbuilding over cramming in as much genre-bending cartoonishness as possible. Yet some would seemingly have you believe everyone played Arduin Grimoire and the like! Pardon the rant. It's just that the D&D scene has been so diverse across its history that it's really a shame to see it reduced to shallow caricature in this way.
You make some very good points - in a similar vein I remember talking to a friend about the game “ Boot Hill” , and he said oh yeah that’s the game where every session you shoot each other and die. And I thought ... no we had ranches and built up silver mines and told all kinds of other western stories and while we of course had gun fights it was much less of the game than one might think just looking at the rules.
@Will - I played campaigns thru the 80s and 90s and we had low magic swords and sorcery style games and high magic superheroic “gonzo” campaigns with the same group of players. We emulated characters we found in movies, books, tv shows (Conan, Raistlin, Drizzt, Dar, Aragorn, Gimli, etc…). It was a great time and I think you’re right that there’s a recentish trend to think the OSR was back story light and super deadly. We loved our characters and wrote backstories for them but also developed them over time. Whether we played them for a night or a full campaign, it was still something we were deeply engaged with.
@@danielrowan4716 I think the media you consumed before and while playing D&D plays a huge part in the way you play the game. It's fuel for the fire, so each edition seems to fit the expectations and requirements of playing out those stories. If you read Conan, Lord of the Rings, Fahferd & Grey Mouser and comics from the 60s while playing historical wargames you probably emulated them in your game. You watched a lot of anime, played videogames and have a long history of D&D to build on? 5e is probably your style.
As a player I've come to see the value in emergent play. Rather than coming to the table with a notional character concept I sit down and try to write story of the results of 3d6 in order. Some live. Most die, but it really makes reaching 5th level an achievement. The emergent style also lends itself to opening up classes I would not normally try (any tye of caster) and in doing so learning more about the game.
Those are a very good points, choosing a character based on stats versus a preconceived idea will have you playing class as you didn’t necessarily think of and you may find you really like them.
I can say that I have tried epic story lines and grand world building, and intricate character back stories. Looking back with my friends over the last 30+ years of weekly game sessions, no one remembers those story lines or worlds or even most of their own character back stories. They remember the emergent stories that came out of play at the table, in very much the same way stories come out of real-life adventures, such as college, military service, or a two-week hike through the Rocky Mountains. Things happen, people do and say things, and memories get made. The most memorable moments in our game history happened while playing in completely random fashion. There was no story. I jury-rigged a procedurally generated dungeon, and stocked it literally as we played with tables of traps, monsters, and treasure. And that made more memories than ten years of never-finished epic campaigns and elaborate character development. Also, that game we played wasn't even D&D. It was Rolemaster (Gasp!). The RPG so many vilify for it's many charts and tables. You know what? Those random charts and tables made that campaign great. Every round of every combat was an uncertain endeavor. As you said, the random events help make the story happen. It's real.
Agreed. I am a fan of rolling stats in order rather than arranging them. That way, the randomness of the dice presents the situation to the player that he or she has to make the most of.
True story. Although I grew up on classic d&d. ... And lost my first character in under 30 minutes at the age of like, I don't know, eight or nine. The crazy thing is I've got more characters killed in 5e than any other edition of the game. In my opinion 5e tends to make you careless and less creative at problem solving. Characters are so much more powerful that you can rush straight into combat, and nine times out of ten you're going to get through it.
My characters story grew with them, the adventures they completed, items they found, the wounds they received and the enemies they had shaped them. Your right it’s a different mindset, did l care for the PC at low level not so much but from fifth or six level yes l did, because of the investment in time you had in them and the points l mentioned before enable you to settle into the PC role and personality that had developed during the game.
Randomness works in D&D where a wide variety of threats and creatures are running around a naturalistic world. Generally there are a variety of things players can do. I let what they do move the story along. Once you get beyond the first couple levels characters tend to survive because people are careful with their characters because of their early more dangerous experience. People really like their character, because they have survived early danger. Our Back story was hugely limited. We rolled randomly for a profession the PC was exposed to in their preadventuring life. The Humans are starting this from age 17-24. The story for these characters is mostly the adventuring they are doing. Normally I start with the PC's knowing each other and the story is what they do going forward. I always cared about my character. People with the profession often had valuable things to add.
As a D&D player (& computer game player), I much prefer that we, the adventurers create the story by our choices, rather than some module writer or DM deciding for us. I prefer more “sandbox”, more options, less railroading. That’s part of the escapism for me, plus I find the game more immersive this way, where we aren’t constantly reminded that some plot railroad is happening. If I want someone else to tell the story, I’ll watch a TV show or movie or read a book.
That why I absolutely HATED Tracy Hickman's modules like the Oasis series, Ravenloft, or Dragonlance Modules. "Get the whip and Cattleprods! We need to herd some adventurers into doung what we want them to do!" Its a shame because plotwise the Oasis Series, and Ravenloft have/had potential. Don't get me started on the Dragonlance Modules. I read the books, I don't want to play the books.
Having an Adventurer's Guild is a big help. A hub where PC's come together from all backgrounds, with varying back stories. They don't have to be tied together.
Wandering monsters had a purpose. They were to prevent the PCs from checking every single stone block for a trap or listening to every door. It was the means by which the DM prompted the players to pick up the pace. Yes, the game was more deadly. If your character failed a poison save, he died. There wasn't much non magical healing, so managing your resources was a big part of the game. You avoided some encounters with undead because every time you got hit, you lost a level. There were no short or long rests, so you had to spend 1 day in bed to heal 1 hp if magical healing wasn't available to you. This meant that you often had multiple characters going at a time. When one was healing, you ran the other. The other big difference is that each class had its own niche and you needed 1 of each to be a successful party. If you didn't have a thief or a dwarf, your lead character was going to take a beating because his chance of finding a trap was 1 in 10. Same for secret doors. You needed that elf to find it before the wandering monsters found you. You needed a cleric because there was little natural healing. You needed a martial class because your thief and magic user were liabilities in combat. Another big difference is surprise rounds. You had to carry torches back in the day because most of your party was going to be human or the hirelings were human. Carrying a torch meant that about one in every six encounters, the party got surprised. A group of six archers with a rate of fire of 2 and 2 surprise rounds could pump 24 arrows into the party before the party could act. Bad day to be at the front of the party. It was just as bad to be in the rear. A thief or assassin who got surprise got the chance to backstab the trailing member of the party sometimes multiple times.
Very little of what you’re saying cannot happen in a modern game. Also, we never played with the “correct“ party mix and were able to play no problem. I can’t remember ever having somebody in the group play a cleric for instance
@@BanditsKeep There are things that are not in 5e that were in 1e and thus cannot happen. You can't lose levels from the undead because life drain doesn't work that way in 5e. You don't roll for surprise rounds as part of the combat sequence in 5e. Poison from a spider or a lowly centipede in no longer deadly in 5e. Unless you have scrolls or potions on you, you can't heal without a cleric or paladin (barely) in 1e. There was no mechanism for healing during rests. Unless your cleric had the Find Trap spell, you had a 1 in 10 chance of finding and disarming a trap unless you had a dwarf in the party (who could only find the trap in stonework, not disarm it) in 1e. It doesn't sound like you've ever played 1e or OSRIC or Swords & Sorcery. What "modern" system has these mechanics?
True, there is no level drain in 5e, but some undead drain STR or CON and if reduced to 0 you die. There are not surprise "rounds" in 5e, but there is surprise. Most poisons are not save or die, but they do damage when a save is failed so you still can die. In ALL versions of D&D you heal by resting - it's just faster in 5e. The mechanics for finding traps are based on your perception and investigation.. while "easier" it's still something you have to do. Not sure where you are getting the 1 in 10 from, but in OD&D (the 3 main books) there is no rule for finding traps (number wise) - you have to Role-Play that you are looking to find traps - and it states dwarves find them (could be read as automatically?), in BX and most other (OSR and clone) games I've played it's 1 in 6. Clearly I have played all of this system and more. When you play the OSR type games, you play differently. If you play them with the knowledge that the things you list can kill you and you are a smart player, you will not be more likely to die than someone who charges into battle in 5e (the presumed way to play that system).
@@BanditsKeep Well, with the undead, if you don't die in 5e, you get your stats back after a rest. In 1e, you don't get those levels back. If you don't die from a poison in 5e (by loss of HP), you get your HP back on a rest. That's a lot different than instant death. Anyone can use perception and investigation to find a trap in 5e. In 1e and other OSR, you've got little or no shot to find that trap (a moving dwarf would have a 1 in 6 chance to find a trap involving stonework in Swords & Wizardry) without a specialist. So based on your reply, playing some OSR games (I haven't played them all) and earlier editions of D&D are more deadly than the current edition. It's not a myth. The games are less forgiving and there's less room for error. It's a reality that has to be managed through player skill , spell selection, and party composition. There's nothing wrong with it being more or less deadly, it just is what it is and there's no reason to blow smoke about it.
I don’t know if it counts as a “myth” but some folks seem put off by the lack of character skill mechanics. They don’t seem to grasp that narrative can actually be born OUT OF the lack of skills. It keeps ppl from looking down a list of skills for a solution and instead incentivizes engaging the story to solve problems.
What’s interesting here to me is that in games that are strictly skill-based you don’t seem to have that issue as much as games that are “hybrid“ with class/race and then some skills tacked on. Of course I’m only going off my experience and I could be completely off base.
@@BanditsKeep Agreed. Now that you mention it, in WEG d6 StarWars we never seemed to have this issue. It’s definitely related to having a class-based system somehow.. although I have no idea why.
Excellent, excellent video. I’m very glad I stumbled upon your channel, and I look forward to more of your insights! This video really felt like having a chat with a close friend, which is great.
You're very humble knowledgeable and to the point kind of guy I enjoy gaming with you bro keep up the good work with this You make my drives way more easy going to work rock on
I really appreciate your approach in this video. Subbed.You don't come across as a grumpy old gamer who is out of touch with newer gamers. As a big OSR fan who even uses it in the high school club run, I can admit sometimes the community doesn't do a good job at connecting to different styles. The community is wonderful, creative, highly artistic,and fiercely independent and those are all things I love and I want my students and new players to love. But there also has to be an acknowledgement that we as an osr Community can do better in terms of introducing the style of play and products to gamers use two different systems. It's nice to see a video where you're talkin about the differences between the systems but not spending the whole video bashing 5e. I just felt like it was a real conversation and the calm,explanatory nature of it is the best way to approach these things.
i always loved campaign play much more than just going down in random dungeons and sure deadly dungeons tend to end the role-play of that character when the party has to drag their head back to town to give a burial but when it worked then you had a reason to go down that dungeon and risk your life and then it pays off so much more
I believe that the random/wandering monster mechanism is there to create incentive for the players to not waste a lot of time. The longer they are in a dangerous location the more chance there is of being attacked by something. It's a risk the players take.
Hi, there, Daniel! Great video, as always. I think the greatest discrepancy between the two school of play is in how heroic the characters feel at 1st level. I've only played 5e, but I read DCC and older editions of the game. I believe I can replicate that old school feel while using the more modern mechanics. It seems that a hybrid approach works best for my table.
Awesome - I would say you are correct, while I believe style of play is influenced by the system, the table and DM ultimately decide how they want to play.
Addiction to content (graphics, ideas, already available, pre-packed and shiny...dopamine, that is) has been, and still is, the nemesis of the original diy spirit of the game, to me it's plain simple. It's aggressive, well made, market against the individual's own ingenuity when professional performance is mistaken as quality of experience in an instance of the game that precedes actual play in the mind of people. As much as "old school" isn't beneficial at all and the community should get rid of that instantly in favor of "classic". Good point, Daniel, I loved this one!
Marco - I was just thinking about this too. I love that there’s some awesomely artistic content being produced out there. I beg borrow and buy what I can but think that like old school sci-fi shows of the 60s and 70s (think original Star Trek) the production value wasn’t the draw, it was engaging storylines and great character development. I tend to go that way with my campaign and group. Yeah the bright shiny stuff is terrific but it’s not completely necessary. I’ve made incredibly immersive dungeons, cities, wilderness maps with only MS Paint that’s super basic. We laugh about it but at the end of the day the players and even myself fill in the blanks with our own imaginations.
Glad about the growth spurt, your content is always thought provoking and inspiring, it is easily up there with my favourites anyway! Wandering monsters can set the tone of a region, they also set a kind of time pressure as well as resource management. In a dark dungeon where the Dwarves delved too deep and awakened an ancient shadow, orcs, trolls and collapsing structures build the sense of needing to stay quiet, hidden and also on the move rather than taking rests all the time, that way rests become more appreciated too and more considered. Crossing wilderness regions is the same and also they dont always have to be negative outcomes and can share information, willingly or unwillingly. The thief background example you gave is all you need to start, as the setting and the movers and shakers in it start to reveal themselves in tangible ways, that background then has all the chances of developing into something 'real' for the player, much more so that a very premeditated one might. Great vid
I've swapped out backstories and the like and have players give me one word for each category of Appearance, Background, Calling, Passion, Profession, and Weakness. These can be used to auto-resolve actions when appropriate, and players can use them to justify getting a mechanical advantage on rolls. And they serve as dead simple handles for me to grab on to as a GM. These categories do some of the work of skills and the like and the abundance of proficiency checks, but without all of the formalized rulings. It works pretty well, and I think it helps players used to more modern systems get into the old school systems. I'm still messing around with the balance on this (and it varies depending on the system). What I'm liking right now is having each usage of the mechanical advantage cost 1hp and netting a d6 on the roll.
I think you nailed it. Backstories can definitely be to over done by players, KIS can offer more creativity down the road in the story created through play
I think old-school players certainly care about the characters they create. My players put heart and soul into their characters at any rate. I agree regarding old-school play not being so deadly if the PCs are clever. Reaction rolls are an important mechanic too. The randomness of old-school play is not something I have considered. I do feel it’s important to tie things together though (wandering monster encounters, etc.) - but sometimes it’s good not knowing why something just occurred.
I actually used some of my surviving BECMI D&D and 1e characters, as Parents/Older Relatives for 2e or 3.5e characters, or used them as High Level NPCs to act as patrons for new players adventuring groups.(Many of My BECMI characters were able to reach 20+level or the Demihuman equivlent).
"random monster encounter" could be taken as meaning the selection of which monster is entirely random (which is lazy), or it could be referring to the process for determining when/how/if the encounter happens (instead of tracking patrol paths, time of day, activity patterns, etc). Sure, one play style is to simply flip open the monster manual to a random page and call for initiative. That's a choice. It's notable though that pretty much every published module or adventure, if they had "random encounters", had a curated list of narratively appropriate creatures. Doing a heist against a country manor? There will be guard dogs roaming the grounds .. a random encounter.
Having so much information about the world at Character creation is a major drawback of 5e to me. I feel like the exploration of Old School games, you learned about the world as you played. I guess after 40 years people have a lot of metadata about the Forgotten Realms that we just didn’t have in the 80s and that’s fine. But I prefer learning about a home brewed world that I don’t know the mechanics of way more.
@Daniel -with my group we’ve done the lengthy backstory thing and had a great time with it but generally tend to build PCs with lighter background. In our latest campaign we started at 5-8th level for I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City where I handed out pregenerated PCs with backstories that were three points and then let the group fill in (emergent play) as we went. What was going to be a 4-5 session run has become a full on campaign because the blanks getting filled in helped the players uncover new and exciting avenues for their characters to pursue. So, I am a fan of providing a hook then letting the group tell the story from there. We haven’t enjoyed DnD this much in decades
I think the main differences between old and new is that the newer games have mechanics that suggest your character is not a normal member of your race or class. You're elite, special, rare, or lucky. Therefore you are seen as a protagonist and the DM is encouraged to make the game into a story. If you died you died but the DM was discourage from adding the anticlimactic in purposely. In the old school this was more optional. You could be nobodies or protagonists. And some DMs revelled in the random and plot killing elements to cull nobodies.
I’ve found player facing rolls to largely remove the adversarial problem [if it ever existed] with players. It’s so much easier to prove you are on “their” side when you are just as invested in their Defense rolls/Dmg rolls as they are. You get to cheer right along with them when they successfully Defend themselves. It doesn’t remove the “sting” per se when bad rolls put a PC down, but it sure removes the stigma from the GM.
I think a blend of the two styles works best. 40 years ago the concept of a long narrative game was less common and those of us who learned to play the game from the first books and modules engaged in a lot of mimicry because of that. However, I do remember my games eventually developing into somewhat fantasy stories where there were long term consequences and recurring characters. So a game that adheres strictly to the dungeon crawl style is not very appealing to me now, but one that uses the grittiness and simplicity of old school but still has elements of story is most appealing to me.
Taking those three initial concerns at face value. 1) Too random. Only if you choose to play it that way. Having all those random tables simply offers the lazy DM the opportunity to knock together a Random Dungeon in ten minutes, if the group suddenly decide that "We'll play tonight!" I know this from experience... The rest of the time there ain't nuthin' stopping you from planning it out just like with 5E or any other modern game. 2) Too deadly. Well, yeah... and this ties into point 3. Those original rules didn't focus on world building and back story, so for the main part the game was all about having fun running round a dungeon playing a weirdo with a wand or a nut job with and axe. But eventually people playing those games started to evolve the nature and understanding of what a RPG character could be. All my D&D games still have NO Resurrection magic in them, once you are dead... you are gone. And I still run mainly 2E. And characters still manage to survive. But they are far more careful and try to avoid doing brainlessly dumb stuff that might get them killed. 3) No backstories and stuff. Again... back in the early 80's this WAS true. But all the people who raise this criticism fail to understand that it was because the folks back then began to evolve the game that that shit became PART of the game. It didn't just appear because millennials are smarter so they needed a smarter game. There is nothing to stop a group of people who have only ever played BX to craft carefully thought through characters with elaborate back stories The fact is... WE INVENTED THAT SHIT!!!! One of the biggest issues I've encountered shifting people into a "Backward Compatibility" mind set doesn't seem to cover those concerns half as much as, "So, how do I bolt together a meta-monster split class, hybrid Paladin Warlock, who is Dragonborn... you know... for the stats... who twin wields with specialisation, and perma-Advantage, and has both a God and a Demonic patron, so I can cast 15 types of magic, while Tanking, and fur... I need FUR! Preferably Fire resistant so which background path do I need... err... help?" Cos it appears, that "Fuck that shit..." doesn't seem to help them out.
It’s interesting you say that, I started a group in 5e a while back (running a 1e module) and we decided we wanted to run 1e, not wanting to convert everything I asked people if they’d be ok switching - that had all played only 5e. The Tiefling Paladin became human born with a curse and choosing the path of good. The dwarven cleric became a fighter that was highly religious. The halfling rogue ... well, every edition had that lol. What I’m saying is that instead of “f that” maybe exploring WHY they want to play that character might be a better way to get them on board. Just my experience YMMV. Thanks for the well thought out breakdown.
@@BanditsKeep The way I run these days is, "Tell me about the character" and we find the class, race and stuff from that. I don't use alignment, so the "Paladin" is not really a thing, we use the template for "Holy Warriors" who can essentially be from any religion as long as it supports militant behaviour. (Dropping alignment was one of the best things I ever did. We use a system based on the condition of one's soul or spirit, so there are "Free" "Dedicated and "Bound" Free is exactly what it suggests, the basic human condition... Dedicated means a character has dedicated their soul to ene God or another, and "Bound" which is where someone or something else owns your soul, and can control you.) If someone describes their ideal character in terms of damage output, or tries to min max, I don't tend to let them get too far before saying that I'm not interested in their statistics, I want to know about the character of the character. In most games players don't even roll stats... we come to an agreement over what gives them the best chance to play the character they want, without being too Uber.
Watching this again a year or more from the last time. Great stuff. I think we didn't have a whole lot of backstory in the BECMI times because we were kids and new to the game. Cyberpunk had background generator but I don't think it added that much either. Personally I think I started occasionally creating multi-page backstories in the 3ed days when I was in my twenties. But that varied a great deal. It was mostly due to coming off age combined with my deep investment in Forgotten Realms where we often played. To this day it really depends on the inspiration and how I happen to relate to my character and how much backstory affects play varies a great deal as well. In OSE games I like to use grievous wounds table or recently just a 1d10 roll where 10 is instant death etc instead of dieing right away at 0.
5e books have sort of done both. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is an example of stringing a series of classic modules that all have a common thread. (Then two random unconnected modules but that’s another topic)
Hi Daniel! Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it. I know it's a couple months old, but I wanted to suggest another "myth": the lack of choice. Since there is almost nothing on the PC sheet (no special powers, no feats, basically no skills, etc.), there must be very little the character can do!
The randomness that I don't like about early editions is the stuff like 'you touch this staff and your hand falls off' or 'this chair has hundreds of gemstone buttons on it, you have to push them to find out what they do, and some of them instantly kill you.'
The OSR style vs the new style of play can be summed up as a simple "versus" statement Exploration and exposition vs grand narrative. The narrative in OSR gaming is implied where the narrative in modern gaming is overt. Think of TSR modules. B2- a keep on the frontier in a perpetual state of crisis. You can play all the way through B2 without ever knowing about the cult in the caves or the sketchy stuff happening in the keep. N1- a village under psychological assault from a serpent lady. It is possible to play through the entire module without connecting the dots between the crazed villagers and the Naga. In fact, the party could skip the town entirely, get ambushed by troglodytes on the way to town, track them via a hexcrawl and defeat the Naga. Modern games are all about the set-piece interactions that drive the story forward. It's a lot like community theater mixed with football in a lot of ways, especially with combat. Rules as written it is actually impossible to do an exploration/crawl with 3e+ because the necessary procedures are absent and the de-facto mode of play is narrative. By the book, player characters could explore an entire dungeon with no torches or food in about 10 minutes in game time due to the way movement and cantrips work in the modern game. I really wish wizards would publish a "dungeons and dungeons and dragons" to go alongside their narrative game because clearly there is a market for those of us who prefer the game as it was compared to what it is now.
I’m not sure it’s impossible to do a dungeon crawl - one of the first adventures I wrote for 5e was a classic dungeon crawl - I do agree the time issue is a “problem” but I just adjudicated searches etc based on the situation. That’s being said, I do think the rules skew towards narrative driven story arcs.
Wandering monsters were justified thusly: A CAREFULLY curated list of random encounters can create realism and a bit of mystery in a dungeon. More importatly, there can be an "ecology" to the dungeon. Gygax and his buddies were fond of this idea. It wasn't just L0L RAnDoM monsters tossed at players willy-nilly. Monsters like carrion crawlers, gelatinous cubes, otyughs and other "janitorial" monsters serve the function of cleaning up a dungeon. They roam around looking for and easy meal, not just haphazardly seeking tough groups to fight. But if they come up against a weak party, well then, shit's going down. When players start wasting time in a room or getting distracted by things outside the game, the DM can bring them back by throwing a random encounter at them. Combat requires players to pay attention to what's going on and demands interaction so that's what it's there for. But a random encounter might also be a humaniod/goblinoid patrol. They are on a patrol route to make sure nobody interferes with their plans further on. It might be an Illithid travelling from a destination to another within the complex. Like you said, it need not turn into a fight. The players could ambush the monster OR, get this, FOLLOW the monster to where they are going and thus learn about a secret door or room. OD&D offers a lot of what the kids call "emergent game play" that they love in sandbox video games.
It is the result of how role playing games came into existence. To use evolution terminology; then Role Playing Games is a branch of War Games. It started out as a war game getting a little role play added to it, and over the recent years, modern role playing games continue along that branch, getting more and more role play in it, while at the same time reducing the amount of war game elements. I like the comparison to evolution, as in evolution there are aspects that stay, no matter how far the evolution goes, thus Role Playing Games still uses the term “Campaign” which is War Game terminology! Something worth looking at is how computer games have evolved over time, as there are similarities, as well as differences. There are plenty of Computer War Games, as the computer is an excellent help keeping track of the rules/game mechanics. Computer games have made their attempt at following the Table Top branch leading to Role Playing Games; however the CRPG is defined as “Having Role Playing Game like character sheets and/or mechanics, but with no actual role play included”. I find this definition interesting in that some people got together to find common ground on what CRPG should cover, and at the same time solve the problem that computers still can not role play. There are many working on to get role playing into computer games, but it is still only a dream among computer game developers. I understand the computerised frustration, because it is possible to add role play into any table top games, and many do. So no surprise to see people role play while playing Monopoly, or whatever else they play. - This is both a blessing and a curse for role playing, as you can make good role play in any system, but it is really difficult to say that a game is not a role playing game: Despite we do not think Monopoly as a role playing game, it still can be the source for excellent role play. How do we determine if it is role play people are doing? - Or if they do something else, while claiming they role play (despite the reality)? We can only use indirect signs of absence of role play. Here, what you call, “Myths” are classic signs of absence of role play: (1) Dice game. (2) KIA -> War Game term for (K)illed (I)n (A)ction. (3) No character personality. They are not really “myths”, but more “legendary signs”. Three signs of the original group of War Games that evolved into becoming Role Playing Games. I unify them in what I call “Yahtzee Chess”, which is somewhat similar to what Table Top Tactical War Gamers still play today (But respect to them, due to they do not claim they play role playing games.) Yahtzee Chess is usually played at the Yahtzee Chess-board (Some use the more war gamy term: “Battle Map”). There are two sides (not called Black and White, but) called Team PC and Team NPC. At the board Yahtzee Chess pieces are moved (Again some call them “Fighters” or “Characters”.) in turn order, following each Chess piece’s rule of movement, and at the end of each move a battle is carried out: Here the Yahtzee Chess Dice (Some call them “Role Playing Dice”, to increase the confusion) are rolled to determine the outcome of the fight. If one Yahtzee Chess piece defeats another, then the defeated piece is removed from the Yahtzee Chess-board. From computer game perspective, them most CRPG are variants of Yahtzee Chess. Another interesting perspective is to look at the real Table Top Tactical War Gamers’ view at Yahtzee Chess: It is a poor version of a Tactical War Game, due to Yahtzee Chess' lack any morale mechanic, if a Yahtzee Chess piece get “wounded” it never feel any pain and it never suffer any loss of abilities. Morale is an important component in real Tactical War Games, as demoralising the opponent’s troops and rally own demoralised troops are crucial.
Lots of good points there. As I’ve been looking at the original chain mail rules to use with my original dungeons and dragons game I have noticed how morale works in that war game and yes I think it’s a huge part of making the game seem “real” and more in the vein of role-play.
Character death is something that happens no matter the system. However when I DM 5e, I feel generally I had to "do it myself" because my creature needs to choose volontarily to hit characters on the ground, etc. In old school systems, it happens because players have skipped a trap, or decided to fight something they shouldn't, etc. I feel death is much more into the players hands in OSR. In my current OD&D campaign that's been running for more than 2 years (about 50 sessions), I only have 5-6 character's death (notwithstanding retainers, mercenaries, etc.): my players still fear the system and always comment on the fact its "deadly". You don't have to kill everyone to create that feeling of dread and danger. On another subject, funnel is one of the reason why I don't like DCC (to be fair I don't like the system in general and the "gonzo" vibe it has): I don't play (or DM to see my players play) to fail. I always feel that DCC encourages failure with those humongeous fumble tables, spell failure, character failure (funnels), etc.
You make a good point there, it almost seems adversarial to attack a player character when they are knocked unconscious, especially if there are other player characters actively fighting.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: character death in OSR games is tragic because you played that character for 5 hours. Character death in 5e is tragic because you spent 5 hours making the character and writing their backstory.
I get a little exhausted with some of the newer seeming expectations about backstory, since it feels like theres an expectation that youve written a book before play, then you jump in allready a hero. I find myself gravitating toward the older stuff more because youre ¡Not! expected to be a hero. Youre a person, go adventure. One of the DCC things i love is that idea that your first few level are your backstory. It really appeal to my love of discovery vs planning. The whole time backstory was the subject infound myself thinking avout The Princess Bride. Inigo has a pretty involved backstory. I can imagine that character writeup. Fezzick? Not so much. Okay, muscle for hire type, lived in Greenland, met Inigo when they were hired. Does Vizini even have a backstory? I dont recall one. He's still a great character, though. I guess its very dependeng on the player how much it matters. I feel like 5E has a lot kore pressure to be Iningo than Vizini, though, and thats less my thing. (This is probably in itself a myth about new school gaming, so...)
if you trying to run an old school game of dnd (or something with very similar rules) and are concerned about it being to deadly for your players': use an optional "death's door" mechanic. negative hit points or death saves. start at level 2. the jump in power from level 1 to 2 is huge. in my experience most player deaths happen before then. an alternative is give max hp at level 1.
Good points, and I am tired of the macho "old school is for the hardest of the core who love to die" myth. One thing that I think is the biggest myth of all is that there is one very specific old-school playstyle with OSR gamers being a homogenous group all into it for the same reason. There is definitely a different mindset and general old-school style that has variations. There can be meat grinders, but it's not typical -- but also they exist. It seems some like old-school because they see it as more hardcore with fast deadly combat and death around every turn. Others like the simpler rules and faster play because it's conducive to a casual beer-and-pretzels, fly by the seat of your pants play. Others like the rules-light system because it allows more interpretation, customization, and creativity, or generally more open and more player-skill focused. Some like lots of puzzles and/or traps. Some like war-game-esque strategy and tactics, some prefer lots of roleplaying, some want to be Otto von Hackenslash (aka, the murder hobo). As much as I hate people chalking up any interest in older anything to pure nostalgia some are attracted to the nostalgia. Etc., etc., etc. To me that it's all just deadly death, death, death, because we just want to be macho and hardcore is the manifestation of this, and I see many who like to revel in that image. When it comes to wandering monsters I always took them to be just that, wandering, or at least something close enough that it would seem so the players and characters. Usually, I'd go for a custom table for a specific dungeon (and level) or adventuring area. Is there a goblin lair? Well, do the goblins all just stay in the lair at all times waiting for the party to show up to fight? Perhaps they come and go to raid or hunt, and move between parts of the lair, or maybe to patrol -- perhaps one needs to go to the bathroom and didn't want to do it in the goblin king's throne room? Then there are monsters like gelatinous cubes that always wander and don't make sense tied to a room (and some like green slime that should never be wandering because they don't move). To me, it's realism, or verisimilitude, or whatever you want to call it, that they aren't all just waiting around in one place to conveniently be encountered. Or course, I know now there were other reasons, like forcing players to consider time instead of just methodically doing every kind of check to everything, but the realism aspect still applies in my mind as well. Oh, and on the subject of dungeons, I started with Frank Mentzer's Castle Mistamere as my model for what a dungeon should be like, with later influence from 80's modules and the In Search of Adventure compilation (that left out key parts, like have the Caves of Chaos with no actual keep on the borderlands). I have little knowledge of dungeon or adventure design that is newer than that -- though hearing advice to pre-plan a whole story, starting from the first adventure and ending with defeating a "BBEG" and then being done and starting over with new characters for a new campaign was a disturbing culture shock made worse by the instance that was the one true way. Quite simply, at first, when I encountered these ideas I didn't even know I was "old-school" because I didn't know there was a new school -- I had no idea the game had changed so much in my absence.
Great points. When I picked up 5e after not playing since high school, I ran games the way we did “back in the day” then I discovered the “adventure path” philosophy of “new school” and that made me realize I was old school
The most fun I can have as a DM is when I don’t know what’s going to happen next. That’s not to say going in unprepared is the best strategy, but rather that over preparation, and scripted interactions kill the energy, and can become self-indulgent. I would rather be engaging in emergent scenarios and conversations, than be pulling my hair out trying to keep my friends on course, or worse shutting down their attempts to engage because what they want to do hasn’t been accounted for.
With regards to some of those, especially the third point, I'm not so sure that that's as "old school" as all that, if old is an objective term. Ravenloft and the Hickman Revolution happened in the mid-80s, and they didn't come out of nowhere; that's how most newer non-wargamers had played the game, that's how the newer hires at TSR ran the game and played it, and D&D had been "pulling" towards more coherent stories with characters that the players were more invested in for some time. I mean, sure; the 70s are older than the 80s, but the OSR starts talking about "back in the day" there seems to sometimes be an implicit "there was one way that we played before 'new' school came along" but I don't know how you can say that "new school" is roughly 40 years old and still call it new school. The style of play that you are associating-admittedly, implicitly-with new school and 5e certainly was pretty common way back in the 1e and BECMI or even older era too. Some people-myself and many that I gamed with included-have played D&D since the earliest 80s if not the 70s and yet still never embraced what the OSR calls old school style of play. Many artifacts of the OSR are, in fact, new artifacts that maybe hold up certain elements as core to old school play but weren't necessary seen as core to play back when the so-called old school play was just current school play. I guess my point is that the OSR style of play certainly has old roots, and certainly is more how the original designers, like Gygax and others would have probably played the game, but the "new school" is really nearly as old and has roots in the exact same games that the OSR claims to be emulating in their playstyle. There's no doubt that the two playstyles are certainly very different, but I don't know that old vs new is really an accurate way to describe them, as I believe the tension between the two playstyles is nearly as old as the game itself. Certainly, in terms of official D&D products, one playstyle has "won" and been ascendant in products that are supported since at least the ouster of Gary Gygax from TSR, so the OSR reviving the other playstyle for those who prefer it has been a good move. Of course, it's also not two poles on a line, nor is it a binary question. My own preferred playstyle is sympathetic to some goals of both OSR and "new" playstyle, and yet keenly disinterested in others of both as well. But I guess that kind of supports your hypothesis here; some of the myths about the OSR really are just myths; playstyles are not opposing binary poles, they're more like big spreading clusters on a plot, and there's probably more in common than there is different between what most Joe Blow gamer on the street actually hopes to get out of the game, regardless of which edition or what game he's playing.
Random monsters: ideally there is a perfectly good reason for them to be there, the random part is when are where they show up, because that's how real life works.
I see a lot of people saying older versions are deadly, and how the newer edition bend over in the name of balance, but reading the BECMI books, they also advocate for balance and to not pit the PCs against monster they can't defeat, like not using monster that can't be hit by nonmagial weapons against low level characters.
I can only speak for my experience, but completely losing a character was very uncommon, it happened, but very uncommon in our games in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. Die, yes, all the time. Lose a character, almost never. Raise dead and resurrection were normally able to be purchased or just flat our part of the party arsenal. So many spells such as Wish to get people back. So you used it as a way to take income and create new experiences. The rules do state you lose some con for each death, but we eventually dumped that rule. I have sat down in modern games with my kids and their friend’s using pathfinder and 5e, and I really don't see a major difference except for the mechanics of the game. (what characters can do, what you can be, etc). Playstyle... I don't see all these major differences. Not saying they don't exist, but perhaps our games were more like modern games in the old days. The rules were a guide, not a absolute and we all agreed to change them to make the game suite our needs.
Daniel, i've just recently discovered your TTRPG videos. they are wonderful. i've been watching your photography videos for years (also a photographer). my one question for you: please tell me that somewhere in the 300 videos on Bandit's keep i can find Marisa Roper playing D&D.
Thanks 🙏🏻 while she does sometimes play in my games, they were not recorded (back when we could play in person) - but perhaps I should invite her to an online game.
When it comes to investiture in a character's background I think there is a bit of an overstatement or perhaps even fallacy being thrown about. So mush so that the old vs new school arguments on this subject may be moot I the first place. Most people are just that, people. Normal, everyday people. They have lives, jobs, partners and perhaps even children. Writing a long indepth background for their new character simply isn't in the cards for most people to begin with. Especially so with new players. You can't expect someone with no background in literature or writing to word-craft a banger character. Furthermore it takes real dedication to play such a character. For all the flak I see them getting, the cast of Critical Roles are such players. I'd drop dead with excitement if I had half as good player as Liam O'Brian. But again, most players are not up to that level of dedication. Dedication takes time and interaction. So having a system that gives just a basic outline, isn't all that bad of a thing. If you want to return to a character later and expand their background later, you can. It's not really as big of a deal as people make it out to be. As for "deadlyness", a crafty and mathematically inclined DM/GM can make 5E or any system grueling enough. Again, not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
The BX mound of adventurer corpses is a *feature*. It provides worldbuilding perspective. Treasures exist in these fantasy worlds, and yet the average person chooses subsistence and grinding labor, living only for holidays and family until death. There is conflict, exploitation, injustice... but relatively little industry or scientific progress. Even with literal magic around to help. Why? Because the proven, likely result of anything else-- uprising, adventuring, intellectualism, the study of magic-- is a brutal, violent death; and so people stay in their lanes. No one has enough power to do anything else, even though they are desperate for change. It is precisely this vacuum that creates the PC heroes. But it makes perfect sense that, for every successful party of adventurers, there would be three more that tried and failed. People whose bravery outpaced their skill and their luck. So when Bob 1 dies and you find him with the top half of his body crushed into the wall by a stone block, you're RPing out the ever-present deterrent to adventure that keeps ordinary people "in their place."
Hey man. Keep it up. I am glad I stumbled upon your channel. Your videos feel as if its just hanging out with other nerds. Good job. Slight word of advice. Light up your background a touch so that you don't blend in as well. It will make your quality that much crisper. I have no experience... but that's my opinion.
@@BanditsKeep Check out Adorama's TH-cam. There are these great videos on lighting. If you're lucky, they use this girl Marisa as a model, and this nerdy gen X guy who talks the theory and how to. :)
@@BanditsKeep I am simply saying... wear a shirt that keeps for shoulders from blending into the background. Although I do enjoy my wisdom coming from a shadowy floating head. Honestly though... the picture quality was a big reason I clicked the first episode. In my, humble and ultimately correct, opinion I think that picture and sound quality play a huge role in my commitment to the channel. You can have great content and terrible video quality and the entire time I will watch an be wishing it was a podcast. This is good. I will grind through the library soon.
Today's game also lacks the slow progression of characters. There is little feeling of accomplishment when a character actually makes 3rd level like there was in the old game. Instead you quickly level past the low level play.
You also have to take into account the age of the gamers. When you're really young, you can spend a lot more time playing, and a slow progression is fine. But when you become an adult, you have families, jobs, etc, and a lot less time. We developed an xp system for faster leveling to cater to adult, working gamers.
I feel like you touched on this, but for me, the thing about 5e or Pathfinder backstories only exist to explain why a character has certain skills or stats, and often times it doesn't really do anything to help the story. If players have a backstory I'm totally for it, I just think it should be something that the GM can use for the story.
For sure - ideally in a campaign. I think in one shots a simple backstory can help your Role-play and sometimes that story never even comes out at the table.
I agree, with the caveat (may you take this as something that goes without saying) that it can't make them particularly special or offer a distinct advantage (like fame or powerful connections) -- basically any nobody someone wants to be.
The funny thing about backstories in 5e is that you pretty much roll them up, right? So what's the point? Where is the creativity? They all start to run together to me.
Backgrounds aren't backstories though. Rather, think of them as archetypes that serve as a launch pad for your own backstory. Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly, Marvel's Captain America, Hob Gadling from Sandman, the Saint of Killers from Preacher -- these are all soldier archetypes, each with very different backgrounds.
Once again, reading your comment makes me think that you’ve never actually played the game. You are much more likely to roll a random backstory in an OSR game than you are in fifth edition D&D
First off I might see you at GaryCon. The big differences of Old vs. New... New School feel they are protected by 'Plot Armor'... not realizing that death might be part of the plot. They also think they are the Heroic powers in the game, a mistake of EGO. Old School you are wanting to explore, better yourself or help others. The plot needs to be discovered, not told to you. The threat of death makes players THINK more and do more thinking about how to proceed. Most of the DEATH if the fear the GM places in the players, the terror they build up. BUT in reality, if you are doing the game as it should be, its not that deadly, its the illusion that it is. On RANDOM monsters, think about it. They don't just sit in a room bored waiting for players to show up.... Sometimes a monster is hunting, or needs to find the rest room, or are on patrol.... The Random monsters are just like real like. People on the street are random for example..... Realism. If you have a back story, its worked out from the Game Master.... I do not like players doing it, and will not allow players to do without consulting the Game Master, and the game master will have the WHOLE story... Keep it short. Again, back stories are things of EGO. Not part of the game play....
Back in the day there wasn't an REberron or the sword coast, every GM had their own setting, world and lore. The modules were lore neutral so anyone could use them in their own world. one of the things I don't like about 5e is that it's almost all semi-setting specific, and if that's not your world a lot of the material doesn't fit well. seems to be putting a little bit of a straight jacket on GM's these days.
Incorporating multiple backgrounds is easy. Most times ypu can just let the players bring that to the situation. Players love to flaunt every bit of character information that they can. If a player has "Muffin Chef" as a background, they will be itching to bring that into game and use it to their advantage.
The weird thing is, most groups that try to run these long adventure paths usually end up quitting after 2-3 sessions so why bother with all that backstory that doesn't influence anything.
Hi Daniel! I disagree with the newer games NOT including "Random Monster Tables" especially for a given type of Biome. I think if you travel on the road from one place to another, and you have to stop on the roadside surrounded by a dense wood, would there NOT be wildlife or "creatures" in those woods? -- So why don't they include tables for these things. Personally, I think encountering something in the wild while you are away from the safety of a city or other civilized area, makes the world you are playing in feel more alive (populated).
I think the reason these things are not used in some games/campaigns is that the focus of the game is on the “big scenes” and not the little things that happen on the way. Also mechanically, with healing and refresh of spells being faster, there is little to no drain on resources from these encounters so they just become less interesting- that’s my thoughts anyway
I don't find editions make much of a difference (baring 4th). Biggest "old school" difference for me seems to be players, time, and where they are in their lives. As a kid, we could play Basic or 1e for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week over the summer. It didn't matter is something was deadly, because you had lots of time to simply start another campaign. We did have longer campaigns maybe running 200+ hours maybe 1st to 8th or so before someone died. Today, adults to not have that time, nor do kids -- they have games, other activities, and often their gaming group is not entirely fellow kids with unlimited time. I had an old Greyhawk campaign I ran as a kid in the mid-80s, and ran it as 3.5e in 2003, and as 5e in 2018. Played the same. Still a setting-based campaign, same bad guys, same general feel to them. The only differences is that as a kid we ran it solid for several weeks. As an adult... it ran over 4 hour sessions, once a week, or shy of a year. It only felt deadlier in the 80s because it was proceeded and followed by a half dozen campaigns were players did die off if a few days.
@@BanditsKeep Yes. In several ways. 1. Even if the number of deaths per hour played was the same... you simply played so much more as kids that you could easily remember dying 2-3 times a week. Yet, each 'campaign' might have run 60-80 hours which might be the same as 6 months of today's 4 hour per week which a typical adult campaign takes. 2. You tend to remember deaths more. We did have lots of 1e campaigns which did run characters to 10th or higher. We did run through ToEE, Slavers, Against the Giants, and QotDW. I must have killed a half dozen parties off on these... yet... only almost get through them all once. Reality... that single run would easily be 5 years of gaming at 3.5e/5e weekly rates... it was just compressed into a couple of weeks of near solid play as kids. 3. As adults, you aren't typically playing a lot of one shots, short modules, or things which were insanely deadly. We typically don't try these as adults, simply because we don't get together that much. 4. As adults, we are more afraid to kill groups/restart campaigns because there is so much cost to it. As kids, if you died... you make up new characters and started a new campaign the same night. Today... if a campaign ends, it can be a month to organize another. No one really wants to make characters at the table, come up with backstories on the fly, etc. 5. As adults, we are more 'serious' about campaigns. We to have more complex plots, topics, backstories, can get into politics, etc. The DM spends far more time on these.
@@BW022 I see. We have very different play experiences, thanks for sharing. I wish i could have played for 60 hours a week as a kid lol, we could only play inside if the weather was bad etc. As an adult I play one shots (deadly or otherwise) constantly, (and run 3 weekly campaigns). I play more than I ever did as a kid. I guess it comes down to expectations and this is where I do believe editions matter. "No one really wants to make characters at the table, come up with backstories on the fly, etc. " in a game where a character can be created in 2-3 minutes this is less of an issue, in fact, 3 days ago I was playing in a DCC, a PC died and the player rolled another and brought them in to finish the session. My OSR players all come to the table with backup characters either ready or in mind. I don't think the games are as deadly as people make them out to be (as noted in the video) but I still believe that has more to do with play style than how old/young the players are.
@@BanditsKeep We just had less things to do as kids then. No video games, far less TV, etc. and sports were typically a few hours a week. It was before summer jobs for me. I'm not sure it is editions themselves. Maybe 3.5e and 5e present themselves as more heroic and epic, but mechanically it is trivial to kill players off also. I'd say it is more the DMs, modules, and the like. Again, same campaign from 1985, 2005, and 2018 and it played as deadly (or not) as it was originally intended. At 2nd-level I tossed a score of gnolls and wolves at a party and it was equally terrifying in 1e, 3.5e, and 5e. Each thought they were going to die until the NPC druid showed up. All the encounters generally went as planned and the rules did not have any big effect on it or how the players played it. I'd say the "less deadly" feeling is more that a lot of later generations of DMs never played older editions to understand how unbalanced encounters and rules can be used to good effect. Different modules, campaign settings, etc. could probably get this across far better than the rules themselves.
Hey Dan, have you checked out any of the New School Indie RPGs that embrace the agenda and principles of Old Skool Play? I'm thinking primarily of Torchbearer and Freebooters on the Frontier. They are both excellent games and I'm torn whenever I have the option to Run B/X or the new school stuff. In regards to playing to see what happens, I can't imagine any other way and Random tables are fuel for your improvisation.
I remember picking up torchbearer a while back but never got around to trying it. Same for Freebooters - but I have run warriors of the red planet from the same company and really enjoyed it.
Check for a group in your area. If you have a gaming store near you, they might have a board where people post about their groups or others wanting to join a group. Ask the gaming store owner as well, they might know of a gaming group.
I played 1st-2nd Edition AD&D for 6 years in Junior High and High School, DMing games for my neighborhood friends. I think in 6 years I killed 1 player's character.
That’s awesome! Most people kill off a few PCs early while everyone is getting the hang of the game, but after that character deaths can certainly be rare in old school
If I were an Orc, (or a cave-dwelling humanoid) and I saw a strange and hapless group of armed humans in a cave, I would definitely wonder why they are in my ***ing house? Especially knowing that they usually live on the surface.
“If it’s not part of the story then why is it there?” I suppose it’s all about how you look at the concept and how it is implemented. Let’s consider an example we can all relate to. We shall keep it mundane. A simple trip to the grocery store. Nothing epic, just there and back for needed food. That’s the story. With no random encounters or wandering monsters it is pretty boring. You leave home, drive to the store, buy food and then drive home. All pretty lame and certainly not worth even bothering to mention. Let’s apply random encounters and wandering monsters. One the way there, while waiting at a red light, you are rear ended by someone texting and driving. or You get a flat tire along the way and have to change to the spare. or Get T-boned at the left turn on the way into the parking lot. or While shopping, some Karen takes what was the last bag of cool ranch Doritos right out of your cart because she felt entitled to them. or When you finish shopping and go out to the parking lot you find your cars back window broken and your laptop has been stolen. or On the drive home you are pulled over for speeding, or some other infraction. It goes on and on for as long as you have imagination to fuel it. None of it was part of the story (a simple trip to the grocery store) until it became part of the story. That’s the whole point. At least, that’s how I see it. Thanks Daniel, great stuff as always. BECMI Forever! Long Live King Elmore!!
The level 0 funnel is the best part of DCC, if you skip it then you’ve missed the point of the game. That’s where dcc shines. The level 0 funnel IS the backstory. It’s genius and super fun.
Nah, Mighty Deeds, spell casting, making magic items, spell duels - all those things make DCC different - a funnel uses almost none of those unique systems and is just a basic no frills meat grinder. But hey, if you love them, more power to you.
@@BanditsKeeplots of games have similar aspects to what you mentioned but dcc stands alone when it comes to making 4 PCs at once all on one page. The real fun of the system is sending 16-20 nobodies into a dungeon and by the sessions end, only 4-5 emerge victorious as heroes. A level 1 adventure or two is cool to follow it up with (to experience the stuff you mentioned) but beyond that, there are other fantasy games I feel are much better suited for an ongoing campaign (The Fantasy Trip, Zweihander, Exalted)
I am most definitely an OSR guy ... but in this response I am going to try not to sound like an OSR a-hole guy. Okay, first, the lethality of the older games. I actually think that newer school players have a point here but not the way they usually make it. At 1st level there is in my experience a huge difference in the likelihood of PC death IF one does not use the common house rule of maximum HPs at 1st level, which essentially is the way it is done in new school games. I never minded so much my Moldvay 1 HP thief or magic-user because they roll 1d4 for HPs. But when playing a fighter and rolling that d8 for HPs and getting a “1” and not having a CON modifier ... @#$%! Survivability of the old school PCs was so influenced by the roll of one die during character generation. So I will admit that in this way, the old school playing approach (by the book) at 1st level is deadlier I think. This essentially disappears at 2nd level usually, but at 1st level it is not that uncommon to have 1 or 2 HPs regardless of class. “What!? The monster has a pointy stick?! Run away!” And psychologically it is hard to get past having that 1 HP paper tiger fighter. Wandering monsters are IMHO key and add, not detract from, the story as long as the tables are generated given the ecology of that level of the dungeon. Not having them is the same issue I have with 5 room dungeons ... when you have a known set up for the players (these are the 5 rooms, or there are no random events) it just for me saps a significant amount of the unknown and excitement out of the game. And I actually think it is much more realistic. Those 6 orcs do not just sit in their one room as it is keyed in the dungeon. They are not in a COVID quarantine situation. They are going to wander around their “house” if for no other reason than sheer boredom. But the tables do need to make sense given the environment. No carrion crawlers showing up with zombies. Ugh. Back story. This is always a testy one. I think there is some merit to old school playing style not having the same types of back stories for PCs as newer playing styles. But I do not think it is because PC story is not important in old school style games. I think it is a worldview difference. When I play 5E, I find myself drawn to trying to play out the background and make choices during play to push that background aspect of my PC, almost like I am trying to validate the background. When I play Moldvay, I find myself creating the PCs background from what happens during the game itself. This feels really different to me when I am playing and I am not trying to say that one is better, I am just trying to say that the game feels very different in how I approach playing it. It is similar to something else I have always felt that is a difference and that is the answer to the following question: Are the “prompts” for playing the game written on the character sheet, or do the prompts for playing generated from the interactions between the players and the players and the DM? Which one chooses produces a very different gaming experience, IMO. Of course we need some mechanics written down, but do they guide my decisions and play as a player, or does what is happening in the moment in my interactions with other players and the DM more influential in what I decide to do. Usually this is couched under the umbrella of “min-maxing” or something like that, but to me it is bigger than that. If my choices for my character are influenced more by what is written on the character sheet, this is going to produce a very different gaming experience and I need to know that going into the game. Daniel, I think you also make some great points about expectations in terms of old school gaming style is more about exploration ... and that includes the character background to me. Such as, hmmm, my character is participating in this adventure, what is in my imagination about the character and also what has happened during the part of the game that got him to decide to participate in this adventure? That is an exploration, unveiling approach to the game, which is more consistent with the way we played in the 70s and 80s I think. The answer to these questions about the character are more influenced by what happened in the game itself rather than the preset background of the character before the game even begins. Finally, a big difference to me, and you also said this, is this idea that all rooms are designed to be cleared and all monsters are there to be defeated. This is so not the way we used to approach the game back in the day as you indicated. If you are a part of a 1st or 2nd level party and you come upon a cavern with a dragon in it ... you are not supposed to fight it! Just ask Bilbo! You need to find some other way to deal with it ... sneak past it, trick it, bargain with it, flatter it, whatever, but please, please, please, do not roll for initiative! Part of the fun of the game was figuring out how best to deal with the encounter. When I play 5E it is very different. It is more like the encounter is there to be defeated through combat or skill use, so I look down on my character sheet to figure out which mechanic gives me the greatest chance of defeating the encounter, because I assume from square one that this encounter is there for me to defeat and overcome. I also agree, that if players know what to expect, in other words if they are not used to old school style games, just educate them and most of them will “get it” and have fun ... as long as they don’t roll a “1” on their HP roll at 1st level ... @#$%!
Lots a great points here. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a thorough comment. Clearly we are on the same page (or at least in the same chapter) on these things.
Not sure I’m following you, Which choices are limited? Are you saying games with more class options/features have more choices? Not in my experience is all I can say to that.
@@damien8713 WHen a player says that to me, I ask them what they want to play and almost always can make that happen - add a skill, make the class cost more XP, done. If they just want a large list of classes, options, that's another story
Made my DC 1 perception check and it turns out that 5e sucks. So I took a long rest and checked again. It still sucked. But hey, I don't care if new school people want to play or not. People in my main group don't even know what the different editions are; they just play our house-ruled D&D. As for lethality, it is pretty lethal in the OSR games. Our current Labyrinth Lord/S&W mashup has a party of 8 that is made up of the survivors of two parties of 6, but 3 of them joined later or were rescued in adventures. So only 5 of the original 12 are still alive at 7th-8th level, but it's cool that rescued individuals have become part of the party and I've worked all their stories into the grand narrative. We have a pretty tough critical system that keeps players on their toes, but they love it. It's far more dangerous than the crit system they use in DCC. They are currently in Rappan Athuk. And great point about not trying to clear the whole dungeon. These players are all about objectives, not destroying everything they encounter.
I’ve never understood this need or desire to ‘push’ or encourage nuschool players to old school games. If they are interested, they’ll come and try our way, if not…oh well.🤷♂️
I think it is good to encourage people to play various games because it generally makes them appreciate what it is about gaming they enjoy and find the system(s) that include those elements.
Isn’t every part of the ttrpg scene very heterogene? Every table is different and you can play every kind of game the one way or the other. I know people I play with who don’t like it if their characters die. Other players of mine don’t mind at all. I get along with everybody.
@@BanditsKeep It seems to me that characters are just playing parts in the DM's story. Rolling the dice is like choosing which page in the story they jump too. I started running games as a kid in 1978 and have played, off and on, ever since (always AD&D rules). It was always, present them with a world and they decided where to go and what to do. Essentially, making their own story.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
Being random is not a limit to the narrative, it is its fuel
Yes! I agree
Amen.
The random prompts are like when an improv troupe says to the audience “we need a boring occupation, and a place”
Just found your channel…. Back story: found the Hobbit in my grade 7 library. Complained to a newfound friend (classmate) that the book was too short. Told me of the trilogy. Year is 1976. I’m blown away. He pulls out 3 books Din A5 Dungeons & Dragons and we just go to town. By grade 9 AD&D (the 3 Books come out):- game changer. Everything you said about the old school is spot on. We did not care about backstory. A wandering monster was right there when you started bickering in the group. Or trying to remove bags of heavy loot.
Constantly hurt or dead: either find a cleric or “what do you know, a fighter chained to the wall in the next room who just happens to be the dead players cousin”. Spent most time running from things and sneaking past rooms with noises. Had to constantly stop the magic user (level 1) for running in front of the group shouting!” I got this” for us a magic user was someone who was weak on hit points but big on confidence. A year later I became a Dungeon Master…. Thanks for the memories
Awesome story, thanks for sharing!
Our character backstories in our old B/X games were always simple. Our characters usually named what city, town, or village they were from, what their profession is or was and possibly their parents professions. The biggest aspect of our characters backstory was just why they decided to go adventuring. It was usually something like wanting to see the world, inspired by stories of retired adventurers, or just seeing adventuring as a way to get rich quick. Great content as usual. I enjoy your channel and your discussions about the old school games.
I like that, the inciting event in a sense that made them become adventurers. I think I’ll use that thank you!
Yes, we did this exact thing as well. It was more about motivation for why this PC is essentially showing up as a PC in the game rather than details of a PC’s past more generally.
For us, depending on how people felt when building the character. I had characters in the 70s with deep backstories. Some, I had none at all. Just depended on how creative I felt at the time I rolled up the character. I found my players over the years have done the same thing. There is no single way it was done. About to start a new session after being away for the last 4 years or so. Eager to see what the players decide to do.
Always preferred the lethality of old school versus "everyone rolls up a superhero" of recent editions.
Super heroes need super villains!
Our characters that made high level had great stats in the old days too.@@BanditsKeep
I think for me the random aspect of old school games is more like improv. It’s like watching Whose Line Is It Anyway vs Seinfeld. No one knows how the story will end or what it will be about. And like you said, random tables aren’t some random outside speed bump. They are the story.
In new school play, the DM (and the players likely) know how the story will end. In old school the journey is the story.
Right, the randomness certainly helps built the tension.
This is a great topic and touches on one very close to my heart. I've seen an alarming trend unfold over the last 10-12 years in so-called OSR forums online. That trend being condensing millions of classic TSR D&D play sessions that have taken place all around the world over decades into a single cliched "old school playstyle." You know the one: Gritty, deadly, "gonzo," free of overarching plot structure, laser-focused on deep dungeon exploration and treasure hoarding, etc. Well, there never was such a uniformity of experience from table to table. Never. That's lazy historical revisionism, pure and simple.
D&D games in the '80s, and '90s (and probably the '70s, I didn't play then) had their talky, story-focused campaigns with 8-page character backstories. They had their 4E/5E style endless superhero brawls, too. Plus everything in-between! Some campaigns rarely included proper dungeon crawls or random encounters. Some never got around to killing off PCs, even the reckless ones. Some emphasized ham acting and doing corny voices. Oh, and despite the odd edge case like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, the push for "realistic fantasy" (whatever that is) was much more prominent in published FRPG material back in the day than the wacky gonzo style. It was thus more common for DMs to channel their inner novelists and focus on verisimilitude and thoughtful worldbuilding over cramming in as much genre-bending cartoonishness as possible. Yet some would seemingly have you believe everyone played Arduin Grimoire and the like!
Pardon the rant. It's just that the D&D scene has been so diverse across its history that it's really a shame to see it reduced to shallow caricature in this way.
You make some very good points - in a similar vein I remember talking to a friend about the game “ Boot Hill” , and he said oh yeah that’s the game where every session you shoot each other and die. And I thought ... no we had ranches and built up silver mines and told all kinds of other western stories and while we of course had gun fights it was much less of the game than one might think just looking at the rules.
@@BanditsKeep Boot Hill always looked cool, even if my Gen X self just missed the boat on heroic Westerns in general. ;)
@@willmistretta My mom loves westerns so we watch them all the time as a kid
@Will - I played campaigns thru the 80s and 90s and we had low magic swords and sorcery style games and high magic superheroic “gonzo” campaigns with the same group of players. We emulated characters we found in movies, books, tv shows (Conan, Raistlin, Drizzt, Dar, Aragorn, Gimli, etc…). It was a great time and I think you’re right that there’s a recentish trend to think the OSR was back story light and super deadly. We loved our characters and wrote backstories for them but also developed them over time. Whether we played them for a night or a full campaign, it was still something we were deeply engaged with.
@@danielrowan4716 I think the media you consumed before and while playing D&D plays a huge part in the way you play the game. It's fuel for the fire, so each edition seems to fit the expectations and requirements of playing out those stories. If you read Conan, Lord of the Rings, Fahferd & Grey Mouser and comics from the 60s while playing historical wargames you probably emulated them in your game. You watched a lot of anime, played videogames and have a long history of D&D to build on? 5e is probably your style.
As a player I've come to see the value in emergent play. Rather than coming to the table with a notional character concept I sit down and try to write story of the results of 3d6 in order. Some live. Most die, but it really makes reaching 5th level an achievement.
The emergent style also lends itself to opening up classes I would not normally try (any tye of caster) and in doing so learning more about the game.
Those are a very good points, choosing a character based on stats versus a preconceived idea will have you playing class as you didn’t necessarily think of and you may find you really like them.
I can say that I have tried epic story lines and grand world building, and intricate character back stories. Looking back with my friends over the last 30+ years of weekly game sessions, no one remembers those story lines or worlds or even most of their own character back stories.
They remember the emergent stories that came out of play at the table, in very much the same way stories come out of real-life adventures, such as college, military service, or a two-week hike through the Rocky Mountains. Things happen, people do and say things, and memories get made.
The most memorable moments in our game history happened while playing in completely random fashion. There was no story. I jury-rigged a procedurally generated dungeon, and stocked it literally as we played with tables of traps, monsters, and treasure. And that made more memories than ten years of never-finished epic campaigns and elaborate character development.
Also, that game we played wasn't even D&D. It was Rolemaster (Gasp!). The RPG so many vilify for it's many charts and tables. You know what? Those random charts and tables made that campaign great. Every round of every combat was an uncertain endeavor. As you said, the random events help make the story happen.
It's real.
@@sequoyahwright That's awesome
Agreed. I am a fan of rolling stats in order rather than arranging them. That way, the randomness of the dice presents the situation to the player that he or she has to make the most of.
True story. Although I grew up on classic d&d. ... And lost my first character in under 30 minutes at the age of like, I don't know, eight or nine. The crazy thing is I've got more characters killed in 5e than any other edition of the game. In my opinion 5e tends to make you careless and less creative at problem solving. Characters are so much more powerful that you can rush straight into combat, and nine times out of ten you're going to get through it.
Ah yes, false confidence can be a killer when the dice do not go your way
A kindred D&D spirit!!! I've been playing since '77 and that was refreshing.
Awesome! Thanks
My characters story grew with them, the adventures they completed, items they found, the wounds they received and the enemies they had shaped them. Your right it’s a different mindset, did l care for the PC at low level not so much but from fifth or six level yes l did, because of the investment in time you had in them and the points l mentioned before enable you to settle into the PC role and personality that had developed during the game.
Cool
Randomness works in D&D where a wide variety of threats and creatures are running around a naturalistic world. Generally there are a variety of things players can do. I let what they do move the story along.
Once you get beyond the first couple levels characters tend to survive because people are careful with their characters because of their early more dangerous experience. People really like their character, because they have survived early danger.
Our Back story was hugely limited. We rolled randomly for a profession the PC was exposed to in their preadventuring life. The Humans are starting this from age 17-24. The story for these characters is mostly the adventuring they are doing. Normally I start with the PC's knowing each other and the story is what they do going forward.
I always cared about my character. People with the profession often had valuable things to add.
Cool
Being a good DM is a lost art......back before computers is where you find the best adventures
Indeed
As a D&D player (& computer game player), I much prefer that we, the adventurers create the story by our choices, rather than some module writer or DM deciding for us. I prefer more “sandbox”, more options, less railroading. That’s part of the escapism for me, plus I find the game more immersive this way, where we aren’t constantly reminded that some plot railroad is happening.
If I want someone else to tell the story, I’ll watch a TV show or movie or read a book.
I agree
That why I absolutely HATED Tracy Hickman's modules like the Oasis series, Ravenloft, or Dragonlance Modules.
"Get the whip and Cattleprods! We need to herd some adventurers into doung what we want them to do!"
Its a shame because plotwise the Oasis Series, and Ravenloft have/had potential. Don't get me started on the Dragonlance Modules. I read the books, I don't want to play the books.
@@phildicks4721 The box sets for RAVENLOFT and DRAGON LANCE allowed for open world. Ravenloft had the most openwold for a dm
Tying all the backstories together was one of the most intimidating things about learning to DM.
I can see that, sometimes it’s best to have the players sit and discuss the backstories and weave a pre-campaign tale with you.
Having an Adventurer's Guild is a big help. A hub where PC's come together from all backgrounds, with varying back stories. They don't have to be tied together.
Wandering monsters had a purpose. They were to prevent the PCs from checking every single stone block for a trap or listening to every door. It was the means by which the DM prompted the players to pick up the pace.
Yes, the game was more deadly. If your character failed a poison save, he died. There wasn't much non magical healing, so managing your resources was a big part of the game. You avoided some encounters with undead because every time you got hit, you lost a level. There were no short or long rests, so you had to spend 1 day in bed to heal 1 hp if magical healing wasn't available to you. This meant that you often had multiple characters going at a time. When one was healing, you ran the other.
The other big difference is that each class had its own niche and you needed 1 of each to be a successful party. If you didn't have a thief or a dwarf, your lead character was going to take a beating because his chance of finding a trap was 1 in 10. Same for secret doors. You needed that elf to find it before the wandering monsters found you. You needed a cleric because there was little natural healing. You needed a martial class because your thief and magic user were liabilities in combat.
Another big difference is surprise rounds. You had to carry torches back in the day because most of your party was going to be human or the hirelings were human. Carrying a torch meant that about one in every six encounters, the party got surprised. A group of six archers with a rate of fire of 2 and 2 surprise rounds could pump 24 arrows into the party before the party could act. Bad day to be at the front of the party. It was just as bad to be in the rear. A thief or assassin who got surprise got the chance to backstab the trailing member of the party sometimes multiple times.
Very little of what you’re saying cannot happen in a modern game. Also, we never played with the “correct“ party mix and were able to play no problem. I can’t remember ever having somebody in the group play a cleric for instance
@@BanditsKeep There are things that are not in 5e that were in 1e and thus cannot happen. You can't lose levels from the undead because life drain doesn't work that way in 5e. You don't roll for surprise rounds as part of the combat sequence in 5e. Poison from a spider or a lowly centipede in no longer deadly in 5e. Unless you have scrolls or potions on you, you can't heal without a cleric or paladin (barely) in 1e. There was no mechanism for healing during rests. Unless your cleric had the Find Trap spell, you had a 1 in 10 chance of finding and disarming a trap unless you had a dwarf in the party (who could only find the trap in stonework, not disarm it) in 1e. It doesn't sound like you've ever played 1e or OSRIC or Swords & Sorcery. What "modern" system has these mechanics?
True, there is no level drain in 5e, but some undead drain STR or CON and if reduced to 0 you die. There are not surprise "rounds" in 5e, but there is surprise. Most poisons are not save or die, but they do damage when a save is failed so you still can die. In ALL versions of D&D you heal by resting - it's just faster in 5e. The mechanics for finding traps are based on your perception and investigation.. while "easier" it's still something you have to do. Not sure where you are getting the 1 in 10 from, but in OD&D (the 3 main books) there is no rule for finding traps (number wise) - you have to Role-Play that you are looking to find traps - and it states dwarves find them (could be read as automatically?), in BX and most other (OSR and clone) games I've played it's 1 in 6. Clearly I have played all of this system and more. When you play the OSR type games, you play differently. If you play them with the knowledge that the things you list can kill you and you are a smart player, you will not be more likely to die than someone who charges into battle in 5e (the presumed way to play that system).
@@BanditsKeep
Well, with the undead, if you don't die in 5e, you get your stats back after a rest. In 1e, you don't get those levels back. If you don't die from a poison in 5e (by loss of HP), you get your HP back on a rest. That's a lot different than instant death. Anyone can use perception and investigation to find a trap in 5e. In 1e and other OSR, you've got little or no shot to find that trap (a moving dwarf would have a 1 in 6 chance to find a trap involving stonework in Swords & Wizardry) without a specialist.
So based on your reply, playing some OSR games (I haven't played them all) and earlier editions of D&D are more deadly than the current edition. It's not a myth. The games are less forgiving and there's less room for error. It's a reality that has to be managed through player skill , spell selection, and party composition. There's nothing wrong with it being more or less deadly, it just is what it is and there's no reason to blow smoke about it.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. As long as everyone is having fun at the table there is no right or wrong answer here.
I don’t know if it counts as a “myth” but some folks seem put off by the lack of character skill mechanics. They don’t seem to grasp that narrative can actually be born OUT OF the lack of skills. It keeps ppl from looking down a list of skills for a solution and instead incentivizes engaging the story to solve problems.
What’s interesting here to me is that in games that are strictly skill-based you don’t seem to have that issue as much as games that are “hybrid“ with class/race and then some skills tacked on. Of course I’m only going off my experience and I could be completely off base.
@@BanditsKeep Agreed. Now that you mention it, in WEG d6 StarWars we never seemed to have this issue. It’s definitely related to having a class-based system somehow.. although I have no idea why.
Answers and solutions on a character sheet... Absolutely hate that in modern play.
Excellent, excellent video. I’m very glad I stumbled upon your channel, and I look forward to more of your insights!
This video really felt like having a chat with a close friend, which is great.
Thank You!
You're very humble knowledgeable and to the point kind of guy I enjoy gaming with you bro keep up the good work with this You make my drives way more easy going to work rock on
Thank You! 😊
I really appreciate your approach in this video. Subbed.You don't come across as a grumpy old gamer who is out of touch with newer gamers. As a big OSR fan who even uses it in the high school club run, I can admit sometimes the community doesn't do a good job at connecting to different styles. The community is wonderful, creative, highly artistic,and fiercely independent and those are all things I love and I want my students and new players to love. But there also has to be an acknowledgement that we as an osr Community can do better in terms of introducing the style of play and products to gamers use two different systems. It's nice to see a video where you're talkin about the differences between the systems but not spending the whole video bashing 5e. I just felt like it was a real conversation and the calm,explanatory nature of it is the best way to approach these things.
Thank You! I feel like many gamers would enjoy all types of systems if they approach them with a bit of understanding.
i always loved campaign play much more than just going down in random dungeons and sure deadly dungeons tend to end the role-play of that character when the party has to drag their head back to town to give a burial but when it worked then you had a reason to go down that dungeon and risk your life and then it pays off so much more
True
I believe that the random/wandering monster mechanism is there to create incentive for the players to not waste a lot of time. The longer they are in a dangerous location the more chance there is of being attacked by something. It's a risk the players take.
For sure
Hi, there, Daniel! Great video, as always. I think the greatest discrepancy between the two school of play is in how heroic the characters feel at 1st level. I've only played 5e, but I read DCC and older editions of the game. I believe I can replicate that old school feel while using the more modern mechanics. It seems that a hybrid approach works best for my table.
Awesome - I would say you are correct, while I believe style of play is influenced by the system, the table and DM ultimately decide how they want to play.
Addiction to content (graphics, ideas, already available, pre-packed and shiny...dopamine, that is) has been, and still is, the nemesis of the original diy spirit of the game, to me it's plain simple. It's aggressive, well made, market against the individual's own ingenuity when professional performance is mistaken as quality of experience in an instance of the game that precedes actual play in the mind of people. As much as "old school" isn't beneficial at all and the community should get rid of that instantly in favor of "classic". Good point, Daniel, I loved this one!
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Marco - I was just thinking about this too. I love that there’s some awesomely artistic content being produced out there. I beg borrow and buy what I can but think that like old school sci-fi shows of the 60s and 70s (think original Star Trek) the production value wasn’t the draw, it was engaging storylines and great character development. I tend to go that way with my campaign and group. Yeah the bright shiny stuff is terrific but it’s not completely necessary. I’ve made incredibly immersive dungeons, cities, wilderness maps with only MS Paint that’s super basic. We laugh about it but at the end of the day the players and even myself fill in the blanks with our own imaginations.
Your videos are really helpful for my group's Basic Fantasy rpg sessions. Old School games are preferred because of the random elements.
Glad you like them!
Glad about the growth spurt, your content is always thought provoking and inspiring, it is easily up there with my favourites anyway!
Wandering monsters can set the tone of a region, they also set a kind of time pressure as well as resource management. In a dark dungeon where the Dwarves delved too deep and awakened an ancient shadow, orcs, trolls and collapsing structures build the sense of needing to stay quiet, hidden and also on the move rather than taking rests all the time, that way rests become more appreciated too and more considered. Crossing wilderness regions is the same and also they dont always have to be negative outcomes and can share information, willingly or unwillingly.
The thief background example you gave is all you need to start, as the setting and the movers and shakers in it start to reveal themselves in tangible ways, that background then has all the chances of developing into something 'real' for the player, much more so that a very premeditated one might.
Great vid
Thanks
I've swapped out backstories and the like and have players give me one word for each category of Appearance, Background, Calling, Passion, Profession, and Weakness. These can be used to auto-resolve actions when appropriate, and players can use them to justify getting a mechanical advantage on rolls. And they serve as dead simple handles for me to grab on to as a GM.
These categories do some of the work of skills and the like and the abundance of proficiency checks, but without all of the formalized rulings. It works pretty well, and I think it helps players used to more modern systems get into the old school systems.
I'm still messing around with the balance on this (and it varies depending on the system). What I'm liking right now is having each usage of the mechanical advantage cost 1hp and netting a d6 on the roll.
That sounds very cool! Always fun to hear how people tinker with systems
I think you nailed it. Backstories can definitely be to over done by players, KIS can offer more creativity down the road in the story created through play
Right, enough for flavor but not too much to lock you in.
@@BanditsKeep Exactly
I think old-school players certainly care about the characters they create. My players put heart and soul into their characters at any rate. I agree regarding old-school play not being so deadly if the PCs are clever. Reaction rolls are an important mechanic too. The randomness of old-school play is not something I have considered. I do feel it’s important to tie things together though (wandering monster encounters, etc.) - but sometimes it’s good not knowing why something just occurred.
For sure
I actually used some of my surviving BECMI D&D and 1e characters, as Parents/Older Relatives for 2e or 3.5e characters, or used them as High Level NPCs to act as patrons for new players adventuring groups.(Many of My BECMI characters were able to reach 20+level or the Demihuman equivlent).
@@phildicks4721 : Perfect. A living, breathing world!
Hey man, thanks for the content.
Thanks for watching!
"random monster encounter" could be taken as meaning the selection of which monster is entirely random (which is lazy), or it could be referring to the process for determining when/how/if the encounter happens (instead of tracking patrol paths, time of day, activity patterns, etc).
Sure, one play style is to simply flip open the monster manual to a random page and call for initiative. That's a choice.
It's notable though that pretty much every published module or adventure, if they had "random encounters", had a curated list of narratively appropriate creatures. Doing a heist against a country manor? There will be guard dogs roaming the grounds .. a random encounter.
I wouldn’t use the word lazy, but I agree in closed spaces it generally makes sense to a have a curated list
Great channel sir, glad to have found it recently!
Oh and I have to recommend the Winter's Daughter campaign on this channel. Such a fun watch!
Thank you! We had a great time in Dolmenwood, I appreciate you sharing.
Having so much information about the world at Character creation is a major drawback of 5e to me. I feel like the exploration of Old School games, you learned about the world as you played. I guess after 40 years people have a lot of metadata about the Forgotten Realms that we just didn’t have in the 80s and that’s fine. But I prefer learning about a home brewed world that I don’t know the mechanics of way more.
I agree
@Daniel -with my group we’ve done the lengthy backstory thing and had a great time with it but generally tend to build PCs with lighter background. In our latest campaign we started at 5-8th level for I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City where I handed out pregenerated PCs with backstories that were three points and then let the group fill in (emergent play) as we went. What was going to be a 4-5 session run has become a full on campaign because the blanks getting filled in helped the players uncover new and exciting avenues for their characters to pursue. So, I am a fan of providing a hook then letting the group tell the story from there. We haven’t enjoyed DnD this much in decades
Awesome
I think the main differences between old and new is that the newer games have mechanics that suggest your character is not a normal member of your race or class. You're elite, special, rare, or lucky. Therefore you are seen as a protagonist and the DM is encouraged to make the game into a story. If you died you died but the DM was discourage from adding the anticlimactic in purposely. In the old school this was more optional. You could be nobodies or protagonists. And some DMs revelled in the random and plot killing elements to cull nobodies.
I would say that crappy DMs that just Revel in killing player characters still exist no matter the system.
I’ve found player facing rolls to largely remove the adversarial problem [if it ever existed] with players. It’s so much easier to prove you are on “their” side when you are just as invested in their Defense rolls/Dmg rolls as they are. You get to cheer right along with them when they successfully Defend themselves. It doesn’t remove the “sting” per se when bad rolls put a PC down, but it sure removes the stigma from the GM.
D&D new or old, I care about all my characters, even the ones my brother kills in the first 20 minutes of play.
I feel like I would care about those the most - and seek revenge on my brother - kidding of course 😊
I think a blend of the two styles works best. 40 years ago the concept of a long narrative game was less common and those of us who learned to play the game from the first books and modules engaged in a lot of mimicry because of that. However, I do remember my games eventually developing into somewhat fantasy stories where there were long term consequences and recurring characters. So a game that adheres strictly to the dungeon crawl style is not very appealing to me now, but one that uses the grittiness and simplicity of old school but still has elements of story is most appealing to me.
For sure
Using the Conan movie's as examples is brilliant.
Thank You!
Taking those three initial concerns at face value.
1) Too random. Only if you choose to play it that way. Having all those random tables simply offers the lazy DM the opportunity to knock together a Random Dungeon in ten minutes, if the group suddenly decide that "We'll play tonight!" I know this from experience... The rest of the time there ain't nuthin' stopping you from planning it out just like with 5E or any other modern game.
2) Too deadly. Well, yeah... and this ties into point 3. Those original rules didn't focus on world building and back story, so for the main part the game was all about having fun running round a dungeon playing a weirdo with a wand or a nut job with and axe. But eventually people playing those games started to evolve the nature and understanding of what a RPG character could be. All my D&D games still have NO Resurrection magic in them, once you are dead... you are gone. And I still run mainly 2E. And characters still manage to survive. But they are far more careful and try to avoid doing brainlessly dumb stuff that might get them killed.
3) No backstories and stuff. Again... back in the early 80's this WAS true. But all the people who raise this criticism fail to understand that it was because the folks back then began to evolve the game that that shit became PART of the game. It didn't just appear because millennials are smarter so they needed a smarter game. There is nothing to stop a group of people who have only ever played BX to craft carefully thought through characters with elaborate back stories
The fact is... WE INVENTED THAT SHIT!!!!
One of the biggest issues I've encountered shifting people into a "Backward Compatibility" mind set doesn't seem to cover those concerns half as much as, "So, how do I bolt together a meta-monster split class, hybrid Paladin Warlock, who is Dragonborn... you know... for the stats... who twin wields with specialisation, and perma-Advantage, and has both a God and a Demonic patron, so I can cast 15 types of magic, while Tanking, and fur... I need FUR! Preferably Fire resistant so which background path do I need... err... help?"
Cos it appears, that "Fuck that shit..." doesn't seem to help them out.
It’s interesting you say that, I started a group in 5e a while back (running a 1e module) and we decided we wanted to run 1e, not wanting to convert everything I asked people if they’d be ok switching - that had all played only 5e. The Tiefling Paladin became human born with a curse and choosing the path of good. The dwarven cleric became a fighter that was highly religious. The halfling rogue ... well, every edition had that lol. What I’m saying is that instead of “f that” maybe exploring WHY they want to play that character might be a better way to get them on board. Just my experience YMMV. Thanks for the well thought out breakdown.
@@BanditsKeep The way I run these days is, "Tell me about the character" and we find the class, race and stuff from that. I don't use alignment, so the "Paladin" is not really a thing, we use the template for "Holy Warriors" who can essentially be from any religion as long as it supports militant behaviour. (Dropping alignment was one of the best things I ever did. We use a system based on the condition of one's soul or spirit, so there are "Free" "Dedicated and "Bound" Free is exactly what it suggests, the basic human condition... Dedicated means a character has dedicated their soul to ene God or another, and "Bound" which is where someone or something else owns your soul, and can control you.)
If someone describes their ideal character in terms of damage output, or tries to min max, I don't tend to let them get too far before saying that I'm not interested in their statistics, I want to know about the character of the character. In most games players don't even roll stats... we come to an agreement over what gives them the best chance to play the character they want, without being too Uber.
Watching this again a year or more from the last time. Great stuff. I think we didn't have a whole lot of backstory in the BECMI times because we were kids and new to the game. Cyberpunk had background generator but I don't think it added that much either. Personally I think I started occasionally creating multi-page backstories in the 3ed days when I was in my twenties. But that varied a great deal. It was mostly due to coming off age combined with my deep investment in Forgotten Realms where we often played. To this day it really depends on the inspiration and how I happen to relate to my character and how much backstory affects play varies a great deal as well.
In OSE games I like to use grievous wounds table or recently just a 1d10 roll where 10 is instant death etc instead of dieing right away at 0.
5e books have sort of done both. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is an example of stringing a series of classic modules that all have a common thread. (Then two random unconnected modules but that’s another topic)
Cool, I haven’t run that, though I did run the original modules it is based on.
Hi Daniel! Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it. I know it's a couple months old, but I wanted to suggest another "myth": the lack of choice. Since there is almost nothing on the PC sheet (no special powers, no feats, basically no skills, etc.), there must be very little the character can do!
I’ve definitely heard that one many times
The randomness that I don't like about early editions is the stuff like 'you touch this staff and your hand falls off' or 'this chair has hundreds of gemstone buttons on it, you have to push them to find out what they do, and some of them instantly kill you.'
I would imagine you would get a save in both cases. A good adventure would also allow for a way around this.
The OSR style vs the new style of play can be summed up as a simple "versus" statement
Exploration and exposition vs grand narrative.
The narrative in OSR gaming is implied where the narrative in modern gaming is overt.
Think of TSR modules.
B2- a keep on the frontier in a perpetual state of crisis. You can play all the way through B2 without ever knowing about the cult in the caves or the sketchy stuff happening in the keep.
N1- a village under psychological assault from a serpent lady. It is possible to play through the entire module without connecting the dots between the crazed villagers and the Naga. In fact, the party could skip the town entirely, get ambushed by troglodytes on the way to town, track them via a hexcrawl and defeat the Naga.
Modern games are all about the set-piece interactions that drive the story forward. It's a lot like community theater mixed with football in a lot of ways, especially with combat.
Rules as written it is actually impossible to do an exploration/crawl with 3e+ because the necessary procedures are absent and the de-facto mode of play is narrative. By the book, player characters could explore an entire dungeon with no torches or food in about 10 minutes in game time due to the way movement and cantrips work in the modern game.
I really wish wizards would publish a "dungeons and dungeons and dragons" to go alongside their narrative game because clearly there is a market for those of us who prefer the game as it was compared to what it is now.
I’m not sure it’s impossible to do a dungeon crawl - one of the first adventures I wrote for 5e was a classic dungeon crawl - I do agree the time issue is a “problem” but I just adjudicated searches etc based on the situation. That’s being said, I do think the rules skew towards narrative driven story arcs.
Wandering monsters were justified thusly: A CAREFULLY curated list of random encounters can create realism and a bit of mystery in a dungeon. More importatly, there can be an "ecology" to the dungeon. Gygax and his buddies were fond of this idea. It wasn't just L0L RAnDoM monsters tossed at players willy-nilly. Monsters like carrion crawlers, gelatinous cubes, otyughs and other "janitorial" monsters serve the function of cleaning up a dungeon. They roam around looking for and easy meal, not just haphazardly seeking tough groups to fight. But if they come up against a weak party, well then, shit's going down.
When players start wasting time in a room or getting distracted by things outside the game, the DM can bring them back by throwing a random encounter at them. Combat requires players to pay attention to what's going on and demands interaction so that's what it's there for.
But a random encounter might also be a humaniod/goblinoid patrol. They are on a patrol route to make sure nobody interferes with their plans further on. It might be an Illithid travelling from a destination to another within the complex. Like you said, it need not turn into a fight. The players could ambush the monster OR, get this, FOLLOW the monster to where they are going and thus learn about a secret door or room.
OD&D offers a lot of what the kids call "emergent game play" that they love in sandbox video games.
Right, wandering monsters and encounter tables aren't "Random", they are based in the reality of the area. They ARE the setting.
It is the result of how role playing games came into existence.
To use evolution terminology; then Role Playing Games is a branch of War Games.
It started out as a war game getting a little role play added to it, and over the recent years, modern role playing games continue along that branch, getting more and more role play in it, while at the same time reducing the amount of war game elements.
I like the comparison to evolution, as in evolution there are aspects that stay, no matter how far the evolution goes, thus Role Playing Games still uses the term “Campaign” which is War Game terminology!
Something worth looking at is how computer games have evolved over time, as there are similarities, as well as differences. There are plenty of Computer War Games, as the computer is an excellent help keeping track of the rules/game mechanics. Computer games have made their attempt at following the Table Top branch leading to Role Playing Games; however the CRPG is defined as “Having Role Playing Game like character sheets and/or mechanics, but with no actual role play included”. I find this definition interesting in that some people got together to find common ground on what CRPG should cover, and at the same time solve the problem that computers still can not role play. There are many working on to get role playing into computer games, but it is still only a dream among computer game developers.
I understand the computerised frustration, because it is possible to add role play into any table top games, and many do. So no surprise to see people role play while playing Monopoly, or whatever else they play. - This is both a blessing and a curse for role playing, as you can make good role play in any system, but it is really difficult to say that a game is not a role playing game: Despite we do not think Monopoly as a role playing game, it still can be the source for excellent role play.
How do we determine if it is role play people are doing? - Or if they do something else, while claiming they role play (despite the reality)?
We can only use indirect signs of absence of role play.
Here, what you call, “Myths” are classic signs of absence of role play:
(1) Dice game.
(2) KIA -> War Game term for (K)illed (I)n (A)ction.
(3) No character personality.
They are not really “myths”, but more “legendary signs”.
Three signs of the original group of War Games that evolved into becoming Role Playing Games.
I unify them in what I call “Yahtzee Chess”, which is somewhat similar to what Table Top Tactical War Gamers still play today (But respect to them, due to they do not claim they play role playing games.)
Yahtzee Chess is usually played at the Yahtzee Chess-board (Some use the more war gamy term: “Battle Map”).
There are two sides (not called Black and White, but) called Team PC and Team NPC.
At the board Yahtzee Chess pieces are moved (Again some call them “Fighters” or “Characters”.) in turn order, following each Chess piece’s rule of movement, and at the end of each move a battle is carried out: Here the Yahtzee Chess Dice (Some call them “Role Playing Dice”, to increase the confusion) are rolled to determine the outcome of the fight. If one Yahtzee Chess piece defeats another, then the defeated piece is removed from the Yahtzee Chess-board.
From computer game perspective, them most CRPG are variants of Yahtzee Chess.
Another interesting perspective is to look at the real Table Top Tactical War Gamers’ view at Yahtzee Chess: It is a poor version of a Tactical War Game, due to Yahtzee Chess' lack any morale mechanic, if a Yahtzee Chess piece get “wounded” it never feel any pain and it never suffer any loss of abilities. Morale is an important component in real Tactical War Games, as demoralising the opponent’s troops and rally own demoralised troops are crucial.
Lots of good points there. As I’ve been looking at the original chain mail rules to use with my original dungeons and dragons game I have noticed how morale works in that war game and yes I think it’s a huge part of making the game seem “real” and more in the vein of role-play.
Character death is something that happens no matter the system. However when I DM 5e, I feel generally I had to "do it myself" because my creature needs to choose volontarily to hit characters on the ground, etc. In old school systems, it happens because players have skipped a trap, or decided to fight something they shouldn't, etc. I feel death is much more into the players hands in OSR. In my current OD&D campaign that's been running for more than 2 years (about 50 sessions), I only have 5-6 character's death (notwithstanding retainers, mercenaries, etc.): my players still fear the system and always comment on the fact its "deadly". You don't have to kill everyone to create that feeling of dread and danger. On another subject, funnel is one of the reason why I don't like DCC (to be fair I don't like the system in general and the "gonzo" vibe it has): I don't play (or DM to see my players play) to fail. I always feel that DCC encourages failure with those humongeous fumble tables, spell failure, character failure (funnels), etc.
You make a good point there, it almost seems adversarial to attack a player character when they are knocked unconscious, especially if there are other player characters actively fighting.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: character death in OSR games is tragic because you played that character for 5 hours. Character death in 5e is tragic because you spent 5 hours making the character and writing their backstory.
🤔 what about a 5e character you played for 5 hours? 😉
@@BanditsKeep By that time, most 5e characters are nearly immortal.
Ha ha, not sure if you are being sarcastic or just have no idea about 5e mechanics.
@@BanditsKeep Sarcastic, sorry forgot the /s
No worries, I just would not be surprised if based on some of the videos I’ve watched online if people actually believed that LOL
I get a little exhausted with some of the newer seeming expectations about backstory, since it feels like theres an expectation that youve written a book before play, then you jump in allready a hero. I find myself gravitating toward the older stuff more because youre ¡Not! expected to be a hero. Youre a person, go adventure.
One of the DCC things i love is that idea that your first few level are your backstory. It really appeal to my love of discovery vs planning.
The whole time backstory was the subject infound myself thinking avout The Princess Bride. Inigo has a pretty involved backstory. I can imagine that character writeup. Fezzick? Not so much. Okay, muscle for hire type, lived in Greenland, met Inigo when they were hired. Does Vizini even have a backstory? I dont recall one. He's still a great character, though. I guess its very dependeng on the player how much it matters. I feel like 5E has a lot kore pressure to be Iningo than Vizini, though, and thats less my thing. (This is probably in itself a myth about new school gaming, so...)
if you trying to run an old school game of dnd (or something with very similar rules) and are concerned about it being to deadly for your players':
use an optional "death's door" mechanic. negative hit points or death saves.
start at level 2. the jump in power from level 1 to 2 is huge. in my experience most player deaths happen before then. an alternative is give max hp at level 1.
True, getting to level 2 typically means a character will stick around for a bit, but getting there can be challenging
Good points, and I am tired of the macho "old school is for the hardest of the core who love to die" myth. One thing that I think is the biggest myth of all is that there is one very specific old-school playstyle with OSR gamers being a homogenous group all into it for the same reason. There is definitely a different mindset and general old-school style that has variations. There can be meat grinders, but it's not typical -- but also they exist. It seems some like old-school because they see it as more hardcore with fast deadly combat and death around every turn. Others like the simpler rules and faster play because it's conducive to a casual beer-and-pretzels, fly by the seat of your pants play. Others like the rules-light system because it allows more interpretation, customization, and creativity, or generally more open and more player-skill focused. Some like lots of puzzles and/or traps. Some like war-game-esque strategy and tactics, some prefer lots of roleplaying, some want to be Otto von Hackenslash (aka, the murder hobo). As much as I hate people chalking up any interest in older anything to pure nostalgia some are attracted to the nostalgia. Etc., etc., etc. To me that it's all just deadly death, death, death, because we just want to be macho and hardcore is the manifestation of this, and I see many who like to revel in that image.
When it comes to wandering monsters I always took them to be just that, wandering, or at least something close enough that it would seem so the players and characters. Usually, I'd go for a custom table for a specific dungeon (and level) or adventuring area. Is there a goblin lair? Well, do the goblins all just stay in the lair at all times waiting for the party to show up to fight? Perhaps they come and go to raid or hunt, and move between parts of the lair, or maybe to patrol -- perhaps one needs to go to the bathroom and didn't want to do it in the goblin king's throne room? Then there are monsters like gelatinous cubes that always wander and don't make sense tied to a room (and some like green slime that should never be wandering because they don't move). To me, it's realism, or verisimilitude, or whatever you want to call it, that they aren't all just waiting around in one place to conveniently be encountered. Or course, I know now there were other reasons, like forcing players to consider time instead of just methodically doing every kind of check to everything, but the realism aspect still applies in my mind as well.
Oh, and on the subject of dungeons, I started with Frank Mentzer's Castle Mistamere as my model for what a dungeon should be like, with later influence from 80's modules and the In Search of Adventure compilation (that left out key parts, like have the Caves of Chaos with no actual keep on the borderlands). I have little knowledge of dungeon or adventure design that is newer than that -- though hearing advice to pre-plan a whole story, starting from the first adventure and ending with defeating a "BBEG" and then being done and starting over with new characters for a new campaign was a disturbing culture shock made worse by the instance that was the one true way. Quite simply, at first, when I encountered these ideas I didn't even know I was "old-school" because I didn't know there was a new school -- I had no idea the game had changed so much in my absence.
Great points. When I picked up 5e after not playing since high school, I ran games the way we did “back in the day” then I discovered the “adventure path” philosophy of “new school” and that made me realize I was old school
The most fun I can have as a DM is when I don’t know what’s going to happen next. That’s not to say going in unprepared is the best strategy, but rather that over preparation, and scripted interactions kill the energy, and can become self-indulgent. I would rather be engaging in emergent scenarios and conversations, than be pulling my hair out trying to keep my friends on course, or worse shutting down their attempts to engage because what they want to do hasn’t been accounted for.
For sure
New subscriber!
Welcome!
With regards to some of those, especially the third point, I'm not so sure that that's as "old school" as all that, if old is an objective term. Ravenloft and the Hickman Revolution happened in the mid-80s, and they didn't come out of nowhere; that's how most newer non-wargamers had played the game, that's how the newer hires at TSR ran the game and played it, and D&D had been "pulling" towards more coherent stories with characters that the players were more invested in for some time. I mean, sure; the 70s are older than the 80s, but the OSR starts talking about "back in the day" there seems to sometimes be an implicit "there was one way that we played before 'new' school came along" but I don't know how you can say that "new school" is roughly 40 years old and still call it new school. The style of play that you are associating-admittedly, implicitly-with new school and 5e certainly was pretty common way back in the 1e and BECMI or even older era too. Some people-myself and many that I gamed with included-have played D&D since the earliest 80s if not the 70s and yet still never embraced what the OSR calls old school style of play. Many artifacts of the OSR are, in fact, new artifacts that maybe hold up certain elements as core to old school play but weren't necessary seen as core to play back when the so-called old school play was just current school play.
I guess my point is that the OSR style of play certainly has old roots, and certainly is more how the original designers, like Gygax and others would have probably played the game, but the "new school" is really nearly as old and has roots in the exact same games that the OSR claims to be emulating in their playstyle. There's no doubt that the two playstyles are certainly very different, but I don't know that old vs new is really an accurate way to describe them, as I believe the tension between the two playstyles is nearly as old as the game itself. Certainly, in terms of official D&D products, one playstyle has "won" and been ascendant in products that are supported since at least the ouster of Gary Gygax from TSR, so the OSR reviving the other playstyle for those who prefer it has been a good move.
Of course, it's also not two poles on a line, nor is it a binary question. My own preferred playstyle is sympathetic to some goals of both OSR and "new" playstyle, and yet keenly disinterested in others of both as well. But I guess that kind of supports your hypothesis here; some of the myths about the OSR really are just myths; playstyles are not opposing binary poles, they're more like big spreading clusters on a plot, and there's probably more in common than there is different between what most Joe Blow gamer on the street actually hopes to get out of the game, regardless of which edition or what game he's playing.
Indeed
Great video!
Thank You!
Great stuff, man
Thank You!
Random monsters: ideally there is a perfectly good reason for them to be there, the random part is when are where they show up, because that's how real life works.
Indeed
I see a lot of people saying older versions are deadly, and how the newer edition bend over in the name of balance, but reading the BECMI books, they also advocate for balance and to not pit the PCs against monster they can't defeat, like not using monster that can't be hit by nonmagial weapons against low level characters.
For sure, balance is even mentioned in the Original version of D&D from 1974.
I can only speak for my experience, but completely losing a character was very uncommon, it happened, but very uncommon in our games in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. Die, yes, all the time. Lose a character, almost never. Raise dead and resurrection were normally able to be purchased or just flat our part of the party arsenal. So many spells such as Wish to get people back. So you used it as a way to take income and create new experiences. The rules do state you lose some con for each death, but we eventually dumped that rule. I have sat down in modern games with my kids and their friend’s using pathfinder and 5e, and I really don't see a major difference except for the mechanics of the game. (what characters can do, what you can be, etc). Playstyle... I don't see all these major differences. Not saying they don't exist, but perhaps our games were more like modern games in the old days. The rules were a guide, not a absolute and we all agreed to change them to make the game suite our needs.
For sure
Daniel, i've just recently discovered your TTRPG videos. they are wonderful. i've been watching your photography videos for years (also a photographer). my one question for you: please tell me that somewhere in the 300 videos on Bandit's keep i can find Marisa Roper playing D&D.
Thanks 🙏🏻 while she does sometimes play in my games, they were not recorded (back when we could play in person) - but perhaps I should invite her to an online game.
When it comes to investiture in a character's background I think there is a bit of an overstatement or perhaps even fallacy being thrown about. So mush so that the old vs new school arguments on this subject may be moot I the first place.
Most people are just that, people. Normal, everyday people. They have lives, jobs, partners and perhaps even children. Writing a long indepth background for their new character simply isn't in the cards for most people to begin with. Especially so with new players. You can't expect someone with no background in literature or writing to word-craft a banger character.
Furthermore it takes real dedication to play such a character. For all the flak I see them getting, the cast of Critical Roles are such players. I'd drop dead with excitement if I had half as good player as Liam O'Brian. But again, most players are not up to that level of dedication. Dedication takes time and interaction.
So having a system that gives just a basic outline, isn't all that bad of a thing. If you want to return to a character later and expand their background later, you can. It's not really as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
As for "deadlyness", a crafty and mathematically inclined DM/GM can make 5E or any system grueling enough. Again, not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
Indeed
The BX mound of adventurer corpses is a *feature*. It provides worldbuilding perspective. Treasures exist in these fantasy worlds, and yet the average person chooses subsistence and grinding labor, living only for holidays and family until death. There is conflict, exploitation, injustice... but relatively little industry or scientific progress. Even with literal magic around to help. Why? Because the proven, likely result of anything else-- uprising, adventuring, intellectualism, the study of magic-- is a brutal, violent death; and so people stay in their lanes. No one has enough power to do anything else, even though they are desperate for change. It is precisely this vacuum that creates the PC heroes. But it makes perfect sense that, for every successful party of adventurers, there would be three more that tried and failed. People whose bravery outpaced their skill and their luck. So when Bob 1 dies and you find him with the top half of his body crushed into the wall by a stone block, you're RPing out the ever-present deterrent to adventure that keeps ordinary people "in their place."
Indeed
Hey man. Keep it up. I am glad I stumbled upon your channel. Your videos feel as if its just hanging out with other nerds. Good job. Slight word of advice. Light up your background a touch so that you don't blend in as well. It will make your quality that much crisper. I have no experience... but that's my opinion.
You don’t like the grim dark look? 😜 seriously though, thanks for your kind words and advice
@@BanditsKeep Check out Adorama's TH-cam. There are these great videos on lighting. If you're lucky, they use this girl Marisa as a model, and this nerdy gen X guy who talks the theory and how to. :)
@@Marshcreekmini 😊
@@BanditsKeep don't change it. I really like the lighting.. Your videos stand out from everyone else's
@@BanditsKeep I am simply saying... wear a shirt that keeps for shoulders from blending into the background. Although I do enjoy my wisdom coming from a shadowy floating head. Honestly though... the picture quality was a big reason I clicked the first episode. In my, humble and ultimately correct, opinion I think that picture and sound quality play a huge role in my commitment to the channel. You can have great content and terrible video quality and the entire time I will watch an be wishing it was a podcast. This is good. I will grind through the library soon.
Today's game also lacks the slow progression of characters. There is little feeling of accomplishment when a character actually makes 3rd level like there was in the old game. Instead you quickly level past the low level play.
Many people start at level 3 once they are more experienced with the system
You also have to take into account the age of the gamers. When you're really young, you can spend a lot more time playing, and a slow progression is fine. But when you become an adult, you have families, jobs, etc, and a lot less time. We developed an xp system for faster leveling to cater to adult, working gamers.
I feel like you touched on this, but for me, the thing about 5e or Pathfinder backstories only exist to explain why a character has certain skills or stats, and often times it doesn't really do anything to help the story. If players have a backstory I'm totally for it, I just think it should be something that the GM can use for the story.
For sure - ideally in a campaign. I think in one shots a simple backstory can help your Role-play and sometimes that story never even comes out at the table.
I agree, with the caveat (may you take this as something that goes without saying) that it can't make them particularly special or offer a distinct advantage (like fame or powerful connections) -- basically any nobody someone wants to be.
The funny thing about backstories in 5e is that you pretty much roll them up, right? So what's the point? Where is the creativity? They all start to run together to me.
Backgrounds aren't backstories though. Rather, think of them as archetypes that serve as a launch pad for your own backstory. Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly, Marvel's Captain America, Hob Gadling from Sandman, the Saint of Killers from Preacher -- these are all soldier archetypes, each with very different backgrounds.
Once again, reading your comment makes me think that you’ve never actually played the game. You are much more likely to roll a random backstory in an OSR game than you are in fifth edition D&D
Well said
First off I might see you at GaryCon.
The big differences of Old vs. New...
New School feel they are protected by 'Plot Armor'... not realizing that death might be part of the plot. They also think they are the Heroic powers in the game, a mistake of EGO.
Old School you are wanting to explore, better yourself or help others. The plot needs to be discovered, not told to you.
The threat of death makes players THINK more and do more thinking about how to proceed. Most of the DEATH if the fear the GM places in the players, the terror they build up. BUT in reality, if you are doing the game as it should be, its not that deadly, its the illusion that it is.
On RANDOM monsters, think about it. They don't just sit in a room bored waiting for players to show up....
Sometimes a monster is hunting, or needs to find the rest room, or are on patrol.... The Random monsters are just like real like. People on the street are random for example..... Realism.
If you have a back story, its worked out from the Game Master.... I do not like players doing it, and will not allow players to do without consulting the Game Master, and the game master will have the WHOLE story... Keep it short. Again, back stories are things of EGO. Not part of the game play....
Weird, we had back stories in 1981, I guess I was ahead of my time.
Back in the day there wasn't an REberron or the sword coast, every GM had their own setting, world and lore. The modules were lore neutral so anyone could use them in their own world. one of the things I don't like about 5e is that it's almost all semi-setting specific, and if that's not your world a lot of the material doesn't fit well. seems to be putting a little bit of a straight jacket on GM's these days.
I tend to run in my own world for sure.
@@BanditsKeep and that's what makes it hard to integrate that 5E stuff.
Incorporating multiple backgrounds is easy. Most times ypu can just let the players bring that to the situation. Players love to flaunt every bit of character information that they can. If a player has "Muffin Chef" as a background, they will be itching to bring that into game and use it to their advantage.
This is true.
The weird thing is, most groups that try to run these long adventure paths usually end up quitting after 2-3 sessions so why bother with all that backstory that doesn't influence anything.
That’s interesting, where do you get the “most” part of that?
Hi Daniel!
I disagree with the newer games NOT including "Random Monster Tables" especially for a given type of Biome. I think if you travel on the road from one place to another, and you have to stop on the roadside surrounded by a dense wood, would there NOT be wildlife or "creatures" in those woods? -- So why don't they include tables for these things. Personally, I think encountering something in the wild while you are away from the safety of a city or other civilized area, makes the world you are playing in feel more alive (populated).
I think the reason these things are not used in some games/campaigns is that the focus of the game is on the “big scenes” and not the little things that happen on the way. Also mechanically, with healing and refresh of spells being faster, there is little to no drain on resources from these encounters so they just become less interesting- that’s my thoughts anyway
I don't find editions make much of a difference (baring 4th). Biggest "old school" difference for me seems to be players, time, and where they are in their lives. As a kid, we could play Basic or 1e for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week over the summer. It didn't matter is something was deadly, because you had lots of time to simply start another campaign. We did have longer campaigns maybe running 200+ hours maybe 1st to 8th or so before someone died. Today, adults to not have that time, nor do kids -- they have games, other activities, and often their gaming group is not entirely fellow kids with unlimited time.
I had an old Greyhawk campaign I ran as a kid in the mid-80s, and ran it as 3.5e in 2003, and as 5e in 2018. Played the same. Still a setting-based campaign, same bad guys, same general feel to them. The only differences is that as a kid we ran it solid for several weeks. As an adult... it ran over 4 hour sessions, once a week, or shy of a year. It only felt deadlier in the 80s because it was proceeded and followed by a half dozen campaigns were players did die off if a few days.
Less time means you have fewer PC deaths?
@@BanditsKeep Yes. In several ways.
1. Even if the number of deaths per hour played was the same... you simply played so much more as kids that you could easily remember dying 2-3 times a week. Yet, each 'campaign' might have run 60-80 hours which might be the same as 6 months of today's 4 hour per week which a typical adult campaign takes.
2. You tend to remember deaths more. We did have lots of 1e campaigns which did run characters to 10th or higher. We did run through ToEE, Slavers, Against the Giants, and QotDW. I must have killed a half dozen parties off on these... yet... only almost get through them all once. Reality... that single run would easily be 5 years of gaming at 3.5e/5e weekly rates... it was just compressed into a couple of weeks of near solid play as kids.
3. As adults, you aren't typically playing a lot of one shots, short modules, or things which were insanely deadly. We typically don't try these as adults, simply because we don't get together that much.
4. As adults, we are more afraid to kill groups/restart campaigns because there is so much cost to it. As kids, if you died... you make up new characters and started a new campaign the same night. Today... if a campaign ends, it can be a month to organize another. No one really wants to make characters at the table, come up with backstories on the fly, etc.
5. As adults, we are more 'serious' about campaigns. We to have more complex plots, topics, backstories, can get into politics, etc. The DM spends far more time on these.
@@BW022 I see. We have very different play experiences, thanks for sharing. I wish i could have played for 60 hours a week as a kid lol, we could only play inside if the weather was bad etc. As an adult I play one shots (deadly or otherwise) constantly, (and run 3 weekly campaigns). I play more than I ever did as a kid. I guess it comes down to expectations and this is where I do believe editions matter. "No one really wants to make characters at the table, come up with backstories on the fly, etc. " in a game where a character can be created in 2-3 minutes this is less of an issue, in fact, 3 days ago I was playing in a DCC, a PC died and the player rolled another and brought them in to finish the session. My OSR players all come to the table with backup characters either ready or in mind. I don't think the games are as deadly as people make them out to be (as noted in the video) but I still believe that has more to do with play style than how old/young the players are.
@@BanditsKeep We just had less things to do as kids then. No video games, far less TV, etc. and sports were typically a few hours a week. It was before summer jobs for me. I'm not sure it is editions themselves. Maybe 3.5e and 5e present themselves as more heroic and epic, but mechanically it is trivial to kill players off also. I'd say it is more the DMs, modules, and the like. Again, same campaign from 1985, 2005, and 2018 and it played as deadly (or not) as it was originally intended. At 2nd-level I tossed a score of gnolls and wolves at a party and it was equally terrifying in 1e, 3.5e, and 5e. Each thought they were going to die until the NPC druid showed up. All the encounters generally went as planned and the rules did not have any big effect on it or how the players played it. I'd say the "less deadly" feeling is more that a lot of later generations of DMs never played older editions to understand how unbalanced encounters and rules can be used to good effect. Different modules, campaign settings, etc. could probably get this across far better than the rules themselves.
Hey Dan, have you checked out any of the New School Indie RPGs that embrace the agenda and principles of Old Skool Play? I'm thinking primarily of Torchbearer and Freebooters on the Frontier. They are both excellent games and I'm torn whenever I have the option to Run B/X or the new school stuff. In regards to playing to see what happens, I can't imagine any other way and Random tables are fuel for your improvisation.
I remember picking up torchbearer a while back but never got around to trying it. Same for Freebooters - but I have run warriors of the red planet from the same company and really enjoyed it.
I miss D & D 😥
Why not play online or solo?
@@BanditsKeep Solo? I didn't know that was an option. I'll check it out. Thanks!
Check for a group in your area. If you have a gaming store near you, they might have a board where people post about their groups or others wanting to join a group. Ask the gaming store owner as well, they might know of a gaming group.
Yeah, it should make sense.
🙌🏻
I played 1st-2nd Edition AD&D for 6 years in Junior High and High School, DMing games for my neighborhood friends. I think in 6 years I killed 1 player's character.
That’s awesome! Most people kill off a few PCs early while everyone is getting the hang of the game, but after that character deaths can certainly be rare in old school
If I were an Orc, (or a cave-dwelling humanoid) and I saw a strange and hapless group of armed humans in a cave, I would definitely wonder why they are in my ***ing house? Especially knowing that they usually live on the surface.
For sure 😂
This channel is great its going to end up exploding.
Thank You! I appreciate the kind words
“If it’s not part of the story then why is it there?”
I suppose it’s all about how you look at the concept and how it is implemented. Let’s consider an example we can all relate to. We shall keep it mundane. A simple trip to the grocery store. Nothing epic, just there and back for needed food. That’s the story.
With no random encounters or wandering monsters it is pretty boring. You leave home, drive to the store, buy food and then drive home. All pretty lame and certainly not worth even bothering to mention.
Let’s apply random encounters and wandering monsters.
One the way there, while waiting at a red light, you are rear ended by someone texting and driving.
or
You get a flat tire along the way and have to change to the spare.
or
Get T-boned at the left turn on the way into the parking lot.
or
While shopping, some Karen takes what was the last bag of cool ranch Doritos right out of your cart because she felt entitled to them.
or
When you finish shopping and go out to the parking lot you find your cars back window broken and your laptop has been stolen.
or
On the drive home you are pulled over for speeding, or some other infraction.
It goes on and on for as long as you have imagination to fuel it. None of it was part of the story (a simple trip to the grocery store) until it became part of the story. That’s the whole point. At least, that’s how I see it.
Thanks Daniel, great stuff as always.
BECMI Forever!
Long Live King Elmore!!
Indeed!
The level 0 funnel is the best part of DCC, if you skip it then you’ve missed the point of the game. That’s where dcc shines. The level 0 funnel IS the backstory. It’s genius and super fun.
Nah, Mighty Deeds, spell casting, making magic items, spell duels - all those things make DCC different - a funnel uses almost none of those unique systems and is just a basic no frills meat grinder. But hey, if you love them, more power to you.
@@BanditsKeeplots of games have similar aspects to what you mentioned but dcc stands alone when it comes to making 4 PCs at once all on one page. The real fun of the system is sending 16-20 nobodies into a dungeon and by the sessions end, only 4-5 emerge victorious as heroes. A level 1 adventure or two is cool to follow it up with (to experience the stuff you mentioned) but beyond that, there are other fantasy games I feel are much better suited for an ongoing campaign (The Fantasy Trip, Zweihander, Exalted)
@@mattm4557 Cool, enjoy the funnels.
I am most definitely an OSR guy ... but in this response I am going to try not to sound like an OSR a-hole guy.
Okay, first, the lethality of the older games. I actually think that newer school players have a point here but not the way they usually make it. At 1st level there is in my experience a huge difference in the likelihood of PC death IF one does not use the common house rule of maximum HPs at 1st level, which essentially is the way it is done in new school games. I never minded so much my Moldvay 1 HP thief or magic-user because they roll 1d4 for HPs. But when playing a fighter and rolling that d8 for HPs and getting a “1” and not having a CON modifier ... @#$%! Survivability of the old school PCs was so influenced by the roll of one die during character generation. So I will admit that in this way, the old school playing approach (by the book) at 1st level is deadlier I think. This essentially disappears at 2nd level usually, but at 1st level it is not that uncommon to have 1 or 2 HPs regardless of class. “What!? The monster has a pointy stick?! Run away!” And psychologically it is hard to get past having that 1 HP paper tiger fighter.
Wandering monsters are IMHO key and add, not detract from, the story as long as the tables are generated given the ecology of that level of the dungeon. Not having them is the same issue I have with 5 room dungeons ... when you have a known set up for the players (these are the 5 rooms, or there are no random events) it just for me saps a significant amount of the unknown and excitement out of the game. And I actually think it is much more realistic. Those 6 orcs do not just sit in their one room as it is keyed in the dungeon. They are not in a COVID quarantine situation. They are going to wander around their “house” if for no other reason than sheer boredom. But the tables do need to make sense given the environment. No carrion crawlers showing up with zombies.
Ugh. Back story. This is always a testy one. I think there is some merit to old school playing style not having the same types of back stories for PCs as newer playing styles. But I do not think it is because PC story is not important in old school style games. I think it is a worldview difference. When I play 5E, I find myself drawn to trying to play out the background and make choices during play to push that background aspect of my PC, almost like I am trying to validate the background. When I play Moldvay, I find myself creating the PCs background from what happens during the game itself. This feels really different to me when I am playing and I am not trying to say that one is better, I am just trying to say that the game feels very different in how I approach playing it.
It is similar to something else I have always felt that is a difference and that is the answer to the following question: Are the “prompts” for playing the game written on the character sheet, or do the prompts for playing generated from the interactions between the players and the players and the DM? Which one chooses produces a very different gaming experience, IMO. Of course we need some mechanics written down, but do they guide my decisions and play as a player, or does what is happening in the moment in my interactions with other players and the DM more influential in what I decide to do. Usually this is couched under the umbrella of “min-maxing” or something like that, but to me it is bigger than that. If my choices for my character are influenced more by what is written on the character sheet, this is going to produce a very different gaming experience and I need to know that going into the game.
Daniel, I think you also make some great points about expectations in terms of old school gaming style is more about exploration ... and that includes the character background to me. Such as, hmmm, my character is participating in this adventure, what is in my imagination about the character and also what has happened during the part of the game that got him to decide to participate in this adventure? That is an exploration, unveiling approach to the game, which is more consistent with the way we played in the 70s and 80s I think. The answer to these questions about the character are more influenced by what happened in the game itself rather than the preset background of the character before the game even begins.
Finally, a big difference to me, and you also said this, is this idea that all rooms are designed to be cleared and all monsters are there to be defeated. This is so not the way we used to approach the game back in the day as you indicated. If you are a part of a 1st or 2nd level party and you come upon a cavern with a dragon in it ... you are not supposed to fight it! Just ask Bilbo! You need to find some other way to deal with it ... sneak past it, trick it, bargain with it, flatter it, whatever, but please, please, please, do not roll for initiative! Part of the fun of the game was figuring out how best to deal with the encounter. When I play 5E it is very different. It is more like the encounter is there to be defeated through combat or skill use, so I look down on my character sheet to figure out which mechanic gives me the greatest chance of defeating the encounter, because I assume from square one that this encounter is there for me to defeat and overcome.
I also agree, that if players know what to expect, in other words if they are not used to old school style games, just educate them and most of them will “get it” and have fun ... as long as they don’t roll a “1” on their HP roll at 1st level ... @#$%!
Lots a great points here. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a thorough comment. Clearly we are on the same page (or at least in the same chapter) on these things.
Another is : « you don’t have any options to customize the character or specifics powers so it limits my choices »
Not sure I’m following you, Which choices are limited? Are you saying games with more class options/features have more choices? Not in my experience is all I can say to that.
@@BanditsKeep I am agree with you ! It's just another argument I heard from some of my players who are against B/X.
@@damien8713 WHen a player says that to me, I ask them what they want to play and almost always can make that happen - add a skill, make the class cost more XP, done. If they just want a large list of classes, options, that's another story
@@BanditsKeep Thanks Daniel !
Made my DC 1 perception check and it turns out that 5e sucks. So I took a long rest and checked again. It still sucked. But hey, I don't care if new school people want to play or not. People in my main group don't even know what the different editions are; they just play our house-ruled D&D.
As for lethality, it is pretty lethal in the OSR games. Our current Labyrinth Lord/S&W mashup has a party of 8 that is made up of the survivors of two parties of 6, but 3 of them joined later or were rescued in adventures. So only 5 of the original 12 are still alive at 7th-8th level, but it's cool that rescued individuals have become part of the party and I've worked all their stories into the grand narrative. We have a pretty tough critical system that keeps players on their toes, but they love it. It's far more dangerous than the crit system they use in DCC. They are currently in Rappan Athuk. And great point about not trying to clear the whole dungeon. These players are all about objectives, not destroying everything they encounter.
🤦🏻♂️ - while you might be a super cool dude that doesn’t care, many people would love to get their friends into these older systems 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve never understood this need or desire to ‘push’ or encourage nuschool players to old school games. If they are interested, they’ll come and try our way, if not…oh well.🤷♂️
I think it is good to encourage people to play various games because it generally makes them appreciate what it is about gaming they enjoy and find the system(s) that include those elements.
@@BanditsKeep I can agree with that statement.
Isn’t every part of the ttrpg scene very heterogene? Every table is different and you can play every kind of game the one way or the other. I know people I play with who don’t like it if their characters die. Other players of mine don’t mind at all. I get along with everybody.
For sure!
New D&D is like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Unimaginative players need to be guilded, good players create their own story.
Curious what you base this on?
@@BanditsKeep It seems to me that characters are just playing parts in the DM's story. Rolling the dice is like choosing which page in the story they jump too. I started running games as a kid in 1978 and have played, off and on, ever since (always AD&D rules). It was always, present them with a world and they decided where to go and what to do. Essentially, making their own story.
Ah yes, while I don’t think it needs to be that extreme, the “story path” campaigns do tend to push a game in that direction.