I agree. In the case of Shadowdark the other thing it fixes is Shadowdark has a extra-tight action economy. The action economy of 5e is the underlying cause of bloat and agonizing slowness of combat in 5e. More hit points and more actions mean waaaay more time per character per round. Shadowdark is severe in "you can move and take one action" design, because it's primary ethos is speed. People often ask what is the difference between B/X or another retroclone and Shadowdark, and I would usually suggest if you are happy with LOTFP or Basic Fantasy or whatever SD will not give you something you didn't have before, but I will say, SD is faster in my experience than classical games and retroclones. The design is such that anything that slows the game down has been abstracted, minimalized, streamlined or cut out entirely. Add to that characters which can be flavorful and interesting with professions and class features, but scramble it so that you never "build" a character, and you have the game that fixes 5e's problems.
@@mythicmountainsrpg That's a great point, man! I hadn't really considered the action economy yet. My SD vids are meant to be short and focused on one thing. Thanks for watching!
I kinda liked Pathfinder art, a guilty pleasure and I recognize the comicbookyness with characters having a Liefield amount of belts and pouches. I like the random advancement of shadowdark and L&D, not into the "character build"
@@mykediemart to each his own. 😀 I like the realism of Caldwell and Elmore. It really elevated the immersive experience like the adventures could be real (or something). Thanks for watching!
Generally, this was a thing in old school play, back in the day. The original dmg had alternative stat generation and you got equally as complicated characters the more splat matterial you got. Heck, min maxing is an old school rule from the dmg of taking 2 points from one score to raise another by one point. They also had a lot of alternative methods to generate stats; the 4d6 drop the lowest was in the dmg as a high power character option if you had power gamers. Switching two stats was in several versions of the bx rules because it sucks to want to play a magic user with an int 3 if all you want to do is play a wizard. They did not call them feats, but mutations in the Savage Coast, bloodlines in the Blood Stone setting, and racial options were very complicated and involved really out there options. Ie, BECMI's Top Balista let you play a sphynix starting out and Night Howlers let you play were creatures, again level 1. Immunity to all non-silvered, nonmagical weapons at first level, and this was mid 80's, so BECMI had another 10 years of products. This is not a new "issue." Randomizing level advancement had been done before, but it runs into the issue of leaving the broken build up to fate instead of min-maxing. The odds of rolling snake eyes are 1 in 36, but you can roll that fairly every advancement, because the odds are not cumulative. You can get it every time you roll to advance; I say this as a player of a 5th level magic user with 5 hp. Odds are random; taking the choice away from the player does a lot of things, but it does not prevent min maxing.
I'll admit the title is click baity as I know random level advancement has been done before and I know power creep is a thing that exists in all games. However, this video is about the current state of the hobby. There has been a stark choice between between the OSR and 5e type games. My point here is that games like Shadowdark and Lion and Dragon seem to have thread the needle to find a middle ground that I think works. Dare I say, it works in a way that can actually assist a GM to world build, which is a lot better than some arbitrary system that does nothing but give an extra die to roll during character generation (4d6 drop the lowest). As far as your second point about min/maxing: I guess? What you are saying is that there is a 1-in-36 chance someone is going to have a badass character. Okay that's better odds than 100% of the time, which is my point. I still get to see what kind of character I have, but my character will still progress in its role.
@@lordmatteus I see the osr as bigger than just d&d clones, personally. Games like Against the Dark Master and a few war hammer clones let you make and build up strong characters; just nor nessicarily long lived ones. I would also consider games like gurps or traveller, which were in print along side ad&d to be in this sphere. But I get your point with osr trends. I will point out that just considering d&d clones, games like God bound and most BECMI clones still have high level character options and play. God bound is the imortal set, and you start off as a literal God, so most extreme, but in most other they have high level play because they expect you to use it. It is less popular only because most campaigns do not last that long so most dms only run low level games. My point is that is a 1 in 36 per level up; you play these games so you get how you can have a night where you do not roll below a 17 due to chance. Random is not weaker, is my point. Random is random. That is not inherently a balanced system just because it is random as you can get very odd powerful results because the weak characters tend to die and the strong ones remain. Same thing with more work.
I have so many rulesets already that I've never tried yet so I'm holding off getting Shadowdark, but everyone seems to keep speaking highly of it. Any system that takes the focus away from the MMO mindset of "gotta meta my build for max efficiency" and towards roleplaying interesting characters is a big plus in my book. Also, don't allow multi-class unless there has been consistent in-game reasons to do so. "What do you mean you want a level in Rogue? You're a level 14 Paladin whose been running around in full plate bonking things on the head with a 6 foot greatsword!"
@@Pantherrrr what many people seem to forget is that feats and multi classing are purely optional. I stopped allowing them near the end of my 5e days. SD is a good introduction to old school play if you are used to rulesets with crunchier, build heavy systems. If you're used to old school play, you might not get much out of the game other than an option available to you on your bookshelf when working on a new campaign. Thanks for watching!
Min/Maxing started with cavaliers and Unearthed Arcana, which pr-dates the kit books (I found). Also the 1e DMG had much more generous ways of rolling character classes that the players loved.
@@casimirliber239 I don't doubt that, but the focus on character builds really takes off during 3.0. during the early era character advancement is relatively stagnant. Thanks for watching!
@@lordmatteus I played 1e/2e from 1978 to 1996. i recall becoming a little tired of how there always had to be a spellcaster/healer/front line person and thief - and this limited on what classes to play. I wonder if the kits were an early way of making classes (particularly fighters) more interesting.
@@jasonjacobson1157 that's actually a really good assessment. I don't know Castles & Crusades as well as I would like, but I will take your word for it. Thanks for watching!
@@lordmatteus I ran mere 2 C&C sessions (a two-shot, yeah, not intended for longer) and later dropped it for some multiple traits it has (Though it's not clear to me whether most are small deffects or not). The equipment is a bit of a mess (too much and not very rationalized), classes have mostly no customization during level-up (there are many classes available, but still...), the races mechanics seem lackluster, blablabla. But it is undoubtedly D&D and the learning cost is low so it's worth analising it. The thing is ACKS seems visibly overall superior and cost-effective compared to many OSRs, though with extra learning cost compared to C&C, DarkityDark or L&D system-wise (of these, L&D stands-out for being decidedly distinct setting-wise, anti-generic fantasy).
5:35 Disagree. I started playing D&D in 1981, & 3d6 character rolling was _never_ popular. Since abilities were the only way PCs could get bonuses for the first couple levels, players _begged_ to get a couple high scores & arrange them however they wanted.
@@Tysto i don't disagree. I'm speaking to the current state of the hobby. Many of the "OSR-types" I game with like 3d6 down the line (as do I). Thanks for watching!
Facts! A lot of people in the OSR are trying to recreate a play style that was never really a thing. I've noticed many OSrs are "Magic Rare" but in Pre-WoTC D$D magic items were an important part of your Character Build. That's why a bunch of special abilities weren't needed. The Character Flavor was customized through magic equipment. WoTC took the flavor and importance from the equipment and put it into the classes to they could have more influence on how each game was approached. The OSR community does the same thing. But that's not truly, "Old School".
These kinds of advancement customization charts go back to at least the first Arduin Grimoire (1977), or even Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) from a certain perspective. So it’s definitely an old school approach. John Stater has a similar Boons & Benefactions list in his first issue of NOD magazine from 2010. Zak S gave similar tables in Frostbitten & Mutilated from 2018. Those are all worth checking out too and easy to port into any game.
Yup! I made that same argument before in another forum about another topic that I will not get into here as the topic stirred controversy when SD first came out. I own Frost bitten & Mutiliated. I also have A Red & Pleasant Land which also uses a random advancement table. I seem to recall a blog post by Jeff Rients that expounds on this as well. I like this approach and I think it is the direction people ought to go. It offers a nice balance. I am not familiar with Arduin Grimoire or the Empire of the Petal Throne. I've been meaning to check that stuff out as it has been popping up on my feed a lot lately. Thanks for watching!
The people at WoTC have never had ANY taste in visual art. Look at 3.5 forward. You could throw a dart into a mandatory 2nd grader art competition and get better art. It boggles the mind how bad their art choices are.
The only reason I would have purchased the 2024 book would have been for the art. Luckily, I found one of the pirate pdfs making the rounds on the net, because it would have been a waste of money. The art was sub-par at best, and our group did major eye-rolling at the content.
SD has fewer results _and_ awards on a curve, focusing the probability towards the middle of the chart. LnD has more results, but with linear probability, a PC is likely to see _more_ diversity in rewards through advancement than SD. High complexity of systems places higher demands on all players, and naturally excludes potential players by capability, interest level, and availability. LnD is niche, for niche players. SD is less complex and is suitable for a wider player base without being overly simple.
Just stumbled on to your channel. Hope you're doing even better today. Very intrigued about Shadowdark and have been doing a little research! Thank you for the content and information.
On a 3d6 and with the old modifies distribution, you have about a 90% chance to roll a -1, 0, or +1, and about a 10% chance to roll anything else. You roll to create a mostly average person. I don't think people want to do that these days.
@@Joshuazx I agree. For those into old school play, the challenge is the draw. However, players like their points and their bonuses, today now more than ever.
@@lordmatteus I liked them back then as well. I mean there was a reason why we rolled 6 stat lines and took the best scores of each line. Because fighters with strength 12 were not fun to play even then.
Im sorta wondering if I want to go with percentile numbers ala the chavilier back in unearthed arcana for OSR stats. Ie Str 12 (45), Int 14 (56) etc and on levelling they get a d10 (or whatever) to increase stats fractionally each level
@@primafacie5029 I thought the cavalier was cool as a concept but it felt broken to me. We really never used Unearthed Arcana because we moved on to 2e rather quickly. So I really never saw how it played.
I don't allow point buy. Also if you want to multi class, it has to make sense, can't just be "because I feel like it." No we work it into the game and it takes time. Your making a character not a statblock.
Really liked the ambient music track that you used on this video - is there any chance you'd list the track's name and artist in your video description?
I have been designing pen and paper RPG's for over 28 years and I can tell you all the randomization during character creation is not a better design choice. It doesn't solve any of the problems that are mentioned and creates a bunch of new ones. You don't solve the min/max problem by randomizing there scores, its a math problem, its solved with math not by removing their ability to make choices about their own character. The freedom is the whole point of the game. The main reason I say its not a good design choice is the fact that it starts some players off worse than others, can randomly give a player a nearly max/max character and either forces the player to play something they didn't want to or becomes entirely meaningless if you instead let them make a different character. It also encourages cheating during character creation and prevents the creating of characters without needing the DM/GM present.
1: People have a lot of fun planning builds, and most of them are not the annoying Munchkins. Most players multi-class in response to Story events, or to fulfill a fantasy. 2: Dice tables for random progression is not really "Exploration" of a system, it is a slot machine that dictates how you play. If you have been fighting on foot in tunnels, why would a character suddenly get mounted combat stuff? That isn't coming from play, that is coming from a gamble. 3: I Started with AD&D, we had powergamers back then too, and not just with archetypes from those splat books. TSR/WoTC. Lot of problems with Weighted Dice for stat rolls. 4: Many people i know will not give the OSR style games a try, not just because of the lack of options and freedom, but because the community, and it sounds like you as well, are often denigrating and snobbish to the 'new school' players. Try showing the good experiences of your preferred system without sounding like a Dice-Hippster calling everyone else Basic. 5: This entire video is a false Dichotomy, and your understanding of the 'new school' mindset is warped and shallow, because you seem to think character customization is only for "Breaking the game." It isn't it is an opportunity to build in flaws that can lead to fun scenes. The socially awkward Barbarian trying to convince the king of a situation can be hilarious, as is the weak wizard trying to help with farm work. Customization has led to self expression, fun and a lot of more potential than " I hit thing with sword, that is what fighter do."
"I have Sinned" by Gioele Fazzeri. I got it off of Pixabay. It's one of a few free-to-use pieces of music. The mix has been a bit loud in the past few videos. I might need to look into a more robust sound mixer.
not sure how this is better. my time is valuable and limited. I already struggle to make time in my adult life with adult responsibilities just to play a game for a few hours each week with my friends. I dont see the appeal not being able to play a swords master when I want one in a game of make believe just because I rolled otherwise when I levelled up. playing with mature people who do not resort to munchkinism seems like the better solution to me.
@@lordmatteus first, mastering a single weapon is just a limitation imposed on martials and a staple of bad design. while casters access to more spells and widen their repertoire as they gain levels, martials become stuck to a single weapon (or type of weapon), effectively being punished for wielding anything else. but that is a different matter altogether. second of all-so if you’re not interested in a second weapon mastery, and instead you want to get better at what you’re working with, you may still get stuck with one because of some very unlikely dice roll? no thanks i’ll pass.
@@cameronmeyer8192 I am the DM. I already empower my players to enact the fantasy they fathom. If someone’s gonna just pick their features, what is the point you’re making? God.
I agree. In the case of Shadowdark the other thing it fixes is Shadowdark has a extra-tight action economy. The action economy of 5e is the underlying cause of bloat and agonizing slowness of combat in 5e. More hit points and more actions mean waaaay more time per character per round. Shadowdark is severe in "you can move and take one action" design, because it's primary ethos is speed. People often ask what is the difference between B/X or another retroclone and Shadowdark, and I would usually suggest if you are happy with LOTFP or Basic Fantasy or whatever SD will not give you something you didn't have before, but I will say, SD is faster in my experience than classical games and retroclones. The design is such that anything that slows the game down has been abstracted, minimalized, streamlined or cut out entirely. Add to that characters which can be flavorful and interesting with professions and class features, but scramble it so that you never "build" a character, and you have the game that fixes 5e's problems.
@@mythicmountainsrpg That's a great point, man! I hadn't really considered the action economy yet. My SD vids are meant to be short and focused on one thing. Thanks for watching!
I kinda liked Pathfinder art, a guilty pleasure and I recognize the comicbookyness with characters having a Liefield amount of belts and pouches.
I like the random advancement of shadowdark and L&D, not into the "character build"
@@mykediemart to each his own. 😀 I like the realism of Caldwell and Elmore. It really elevated the immersive experience like the adventures could be real (or something). Thanks for watching!
Generally, this was a thing in old school play, back in the day. The original dmg had alternative stat generation and you got equally as complicated characters the more splat matterial you got. Heck, min maxing is an old school rule from the dmg of taking 2 points from one score to raise another by one point. They also had a lot of alternative methods to generate stats; the 4d6 drop the lowest was in the dmg as a high power character option if you had power gamers. Switching two stats was in several versions of the bx rules because it sucks to want to play a magic user with an int 3 if all you want to do is play a wizard.
They did not call them feats, but mutations in the Savage Coast, bloodlines in the Blood Stone setting, and racial options were very complicated and involved really out there options. Ie, BECMI's Top Balista let you play a sphynix starting out and Night Howlers let you play were creatures, again level 1. Immunity to all non-silvered, nonmagical weapons at first level, and this was mid 80's, so BECMI had another 10 years of products. This is not a new "issue."
Randomizing level advancement had been done before, but it runs into the issue of leaving the broken build up to fate instead of min-maxing. The odds of rolling snake eyes are 1 in 36, but you can roll that fairly every advancement, because the odds are not cumulative. You can get it every time you roll to advance; I say this as a player of a 5th level magic user with 5 hp. Odds are random; taking the choice away from the player does a lot of things, but it does not prevent min maxing.
I'll admit the title is click baity as I know random level advancement has been done before and I know power creep is a thing that exists in all games. However, this video is about the current state of the hobby. There has been a stark choice between between the OSR and 5e type games. My point here is that games like Shadowdark and Lion and Dragon seem to have thread the needle to find a middle ground that I think works. Dare I say, it works in a way that can actually assist a GM to world build, which is a lot better than some arbitrary system that does nothing but give an extra die to roll during character generation (4d6 drop the lowest).
As far as your second point about min/maxing: I guess? What you are saying is that there is a 1-in-36 chance someone is going to have a badass character. Okay that's better odds than 100% of the time, which is my point. I still get to see what kind of character I have, but my character will still progress in its role.
@@lordmatteus I see the osr as bigger than just d&d clones, personally. Games like Against the Dark Master and a few war hammer clones let you make and build up strong characters; just nor nessicarily long lived ones. I would also consider games like gurps or traveller, which were in print along side ad&d to be in this sphere. But I get your point with osr trends.
I will point out that just considering d&d clones, games like God bound and most BECMI clones still have high level character options and play. God bound is the imortal set, and you start off as a literal God, so most extreme, but in most other they have high level play because they expect you to use it. It is less popular only because most campaigns do not last that long so most dms only run low level games.
My point is that is a 1 in 36 per level up; you play these games so you get how you can have a night where you do not roll below a 17 due to chance. Random is not weaker, is my point. Random is random. That is not inherently a balanced system just because it is random as you can get very odd powerful results because the weak characters tend to die and the strong ones remain. Same thing with more work.
I have so many rulesets already that I've never tried yet so I'm holding off getting Shadowdark, but everyone seems to keep speaking highly of it. Any system that takes the focus away from the MMO mindset of "gotta meta my build for max efficiency" and towards roleplaying interesting characters is a big plus in my book.
Also, don't allow multi-class unless there has been consistent in-game reasons to do so. "What do you mean you want a level in Rogue? You're a level 14 Paladin whose been running around in full plate bonking things on the head with a 6 foot greatsword!"
@@Pantherrrr what many people seem to forget is that feats and multi classing are purely optional. I stopped allowing them near the end of my 5e days.
SD is a good introduction to old school play if you are used to rulesets with crunchier, build heavy systems. If you're used to old school play, you might not get much out of the game other than an option available to you on your bookshelf when working on a new campaign. Thanks for watching!
Min/Maxing started with cavaliers and Unearthed Arcana, which pr-dates the kit books (I found). Also the 1e DMG had much more generous ways of rolling character classes that the players loved.
@@casimirliber239 I don't doubt that, but the focus on character builds really takes off during 3.0. during the early era character advancement is relatively stagnant. Thanks for watching!
@@lordmatteus I played 1e/2e from 1978 to 1996. i recall becoming a little tired of how there always had to be a spellcaster/healer/front line person and thief - and this limited on what classes to play. I wonder if the kits were an early way of making classes (particularly fighters) more interesting.
@@casimirliber239 absolutely. I liked them because they weren't over powered (usually) and offered flavor to your campaign world.
@@lordmatteus agreed. kits were small and circumscribed but even this little tweak was enough to diversify a character nicely
It seems to me that ShadowDark is to 5e as Castles & Crusades is to 3e. Both take a fake version of D&D & try to make it more like D&D.
@@jasonjacobson1157 that's actually a really good assessment. I don't know Castles & Crusades as well as I would like, but I will take your word for it. Thanks for watching!
@@lordmatteus I ran mere 2 C&C sessions (a two-shot, yeah, not intended for longer) and later dropped it for some multiple traits it has (Though it's not clear to me whether most are small deffects or not). The equipment is a bit of a mess (too much and not very rationalized), classes have mostly no customization during level-up (there are many classes available, but still...), the races mechanics seem lackluster, blablabla. But it is undoubtedly D&D and the learning cost is low so it's worth analising it.
The thing is ACKS seems visibly overall superior and cost-effective compared to many OSRs, though with extra learning cost compared to C&C, DarkityDark or L&D system-wise (of these, L&D stands-out for being decidedly distinct setting-wise, anti-generic fantasy).
5:35 Disagree. I started playing D&D in 1981, & 3d6 character rolling was _never_ popular. Since abilities were the only way PCs could get bonuses for the first couple levels, players _begged_ to get a couple high scores & arrange them however they wanted.
@@Tysto i don't disagree. I'm speaking to the current state of the hobby. Many of the "OSR-types" I game with like 3d6 down the line (as do I). Thanks for watching!
Facts! A lot of people in the OSR are trying to recreate a play style that was never really a thing. I've noticed many OSrs are "Magic Rare" but in Pre-WoTC D$D magic items were an important part of your Character Build. That's why a bunch of special abilities weren't needed. The Character Flavor was customized through magic equipment. WoTC took the flavor and importance from the equipment and put it into the classes to they could have more influence on how each game was approached. The OSR community does the same thing. But that's not truly, "Old School".
Any Method besides 3d6 DTL is just a socially acceptable form of cheating. If your stats are low, learn to play better.
These kinds of advancement customization charts go back to at least the first Arduin Grimoire (1977), or even Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) from a certain perspective. So it’s definitely an old school approach. John Stater has a similar Boons & Benefactions list in his first issue of NOD magazine from 2010. Zak S gave similar tables in Frostbitten & Mutilated from 2018. Those are all worth checking out too and easy to port into any game.
Yup! I made that same argument before in another forum about another topic that I will not get into here as the topic stirred controversy when SD first came out.
I own Frost bitten & Mutiliated. I also have A Red & Pleasant Land which also uses a random advancement table. I seem to recall a blog post by Jeff Rients that expounds on this as well. I like this approach and I think it is the direction people ought to go. It offers a nice balance.
I am not familiar with Arduin Grimoire or the Empire of the Petal Throne. I've been meaning to check that stuff out as it has been popping up on my feed a lot lately. Thanks for watching!
The people at WoTC have never had ANY taste in visual art. Look at 3.5 forward. You could throw a dart into a mandatory 2nd grader art competition and get better art. It boggles the mind how bad their art choices are.
The only reason I would have purchased the 2024 book would have been for the art. Luckily, I found one of the pirate pdfs making the rounds on the net, because it would have been a waste of money. The art was sub-par at best, and our group did major eye-rolling at the content.
SD has fewer results _and_ awards on a curve, focusing the probability towards the middle of the chart. LnD has more results, but with linear probability, a PC is likely to see _more_ diversity in rewards through advancement than SD.
High complexity of systems places higher demands on all players, and naturally excludes potential players by capability, interest level, and availability.
LnD is niche, for niche players.
SD is less complex and is suitable for a wider player base without being overly simple.
@@macoppy6571 That's a fair assessment. Thanks for watching!
Just stumbled on to your channel. Hope you're doing even better today. Very intrigued about Shadowdark and have been doing a little research! Thank you for the content and information.
@@ernestolopezdevictoria8512 i will be making more SD content (among other systems). Thanks for watching!
Great shout out, i love Lion & Dragon its a really good RPG and setting to run in!
@@underfire987 i have a bunch of stuff for it. I really like what I've read. I haven't had a chance to play it though.
Good show.
Lots of good ideas in here.
I will post on my Twitter.
Thanks, Griff
@@griffithmorgan4966 hey Griff! Thanks for watching!
On a 3d6 and with the old modifies distribution, you have about a 90% chance to roll a -1, 0, or +1, and about a 10% chance to roll anything else. You roll to create a mostly average person. I don't think people want to do that these days.
@@Joshuazx I agree. For those into old school play, the challenge is the draw. However, players like their points and their bonuses, today now more than ever.
@@lordmatteus I liked them back then as well. I mean there was a reason why we rolled 6 stat lines and took the best scores of each line. Because fighters with strength 12 were not fun to play even then.
Dragon Age had random progression, it was borrowed whole cloth from what I can tell.
Interesting topic!
Take care of yourself!
Im sorta wondering if I want to go with percentile numbers ala the chavilier back in unearthed arcana for OSR stats. Ie Str 12 (45), Int 14 (56) etc and on levelling they get a d10 (or whatever) to increase stats fractionally each level
@@primafacie5029 I thought the cavalier was cool as a concept but it felt broken to me. We really never used Unearthed Arcana because we moved on to 2e rather quickly. So I really never saw how it played.
I don't allow point buy. Also if you want to multi class, it has to make sense, can't just be "because I feel like it." No we work it into the game and it takes time. Your making a character not a statblock.
Really liked the ambient music track that you used on this video - is there any chance you'd list the track's name and artist in your video description?
@@MatthewKruse-ri8ep thanks! It's called "I have Sinned" by Gioele Fazzeri. I got it off of Pixabay. It's one of a few free-to-use pieces of music.
I have been designing pen and paper RPG's for over 28 years and I can tell you all the randomization during character creation is not a better design choice. It doesn't solve any of the problems that are mentioned and creates a bunch of new ones. You don't solve the min/max problem by randomizing there scores, its a math problem, its solved with math not by removing their ability to make choices about their own character. The freedom is the whole point of the game. The main reason I say its not a good design choice is the fact that it starts some players off worse than others, can randomly give a player a nearly max/max character and either forces the player to play something they didn't want to or becomes entirely meaningless if you instead let them make a different character. It also encourages cheating during character creation and prevents the creating of characters without needing the DM/GM present.
This is such an easy fix .. .. explain it in terms of Skyrim vs Dark Souls vs Darkest Dungeon. People aren't afraid of difficulty
1: People have a lot of fun planning builds, and most of them are not the annoying Munchkins. Most players multi-class in response to Story events, or to fulfill a fantasy.
2: Dice tables for random progression is not really "Exploration" of a system, it is a slot machine that dictates how you play. If you have been fighting on foot in tunnels, why would a character suddenly get mounted combat stuff? That isn't coming from play, that is coming from a gamble.
3: I Started with AD&D, we had powergamers back then too, and not just with archetypes from those splat books. TSR/WoTC. Lot of problems with Weighted Dice for stat rolls.
4: Many people i know will not give the OSR style games a try, not just because of the lack of options and freedom, but because the community, and it sounds like you as well, are often denigrating and snobbish to the 'new school' players. Try showing the good experiences of your preferred system without sounding like a Dice-Hippster calling everyone else Basic.
5: This entire video is a false Dichotomy, and your understanding of the 'new school' mindset is warped and shallow, because you seem to think character customization is only for "Breaking the game." It isn't it is an opportunity to build in flaws that can lead to fun scenes. The socially awkward Barbarian trying to convince the king of a situation can be hilarious, as is the weak wizard trying to help with farm work. Customization has led to self expression, fun and a lot of more potential than " I hit thing with sword, that is what fighter do."
Thanks for watching! If you like that video, you might like this!
giantslayergames.com/product/the-deck-of-many-triggers-2/
Awesome!
@@kalleendo7577 Thank you!
What is the background track?
"I have Sinned" by Gioele Fazzeri. I got it off of Pixabay. It's one of a few free-to-use pieces of music.
The mix has been a bit loud in the past few videos. I might need to look into a more robust sound mixer.
@@lordmatteus Thank you for your reply. The mixing in this good was spot on for my taste.
@@pacceli2009 Thank you very much. I have discovered over the past few years I do not have a good ear for this! lol. Thank you for watching!
not sure how this is better.
my time is valuable and limited. I already struggle to make time in my adult life with adult responsibilities just to play a game for a few hours each week with my friends.
I dont see the appeal not being able to play a swords master when I want one in a game of make believe just because I rolled otherwise when I levelled up.
playing with mature people who do not resort to munchkinism seems like the better solution to me.
@@aurvay in SD you pick a weapon to master. The 5% relates to mastery over a second weapon.
@@lordmatteus first, mastering a single weapon is just a limitation imposed on martials and a staple of bad design. while casters access to more spells and widen their repertoire as they gain levels, martials become stuck to a single weapon (or type of weapon), effectively being punished for wielding anything else. but that is a different matter altogether.
second of all-so if you’re not interested in a second weapon mastery, and instead you want to get better at what you’re working with, you may still get stuck with one because of some very unlikely dice roll?
no thanks i’ll pass.
@@aurvay Just ask your DM if you can do the things that you listed above? Ask to choose instead of rolling a dice etc.
@@cameronmeyer8192 I am the DM. I already empower my players to enact the fantasy they fathom. If someone’s gonna just pick their features, what is the point you’re making? God.
@@aurvay God help those players.