AD&D is Better than 5E
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.พ. 2023
- Let the edition wars begin!
Or...
We COULD just agree that I'm just expressing a personal preference, and that there's nothing wrong with that. I'll let y'all decide that in the comments.
Free Download:
This is an overland map in Darlene style that I tossed together in Photoshop for use with the classic D&D module "B1 In Search of the Unknown" including the nearby village outside of Calbut called Holstrom which serves as a watchtower for the Duchy of Tehn in the World of Greyhawk setting.
drive.google.com/file/d/1_qlE...
Looking to join a for real old-school D&D Campaign? Look me up on StartPlaying.games:
startplaying.games/gm/grumpyo...
> _"Well, Watson, we both failed our investigation checks. Looks like we're never going to solve this murder."_
> _"Quite right, Holmes. Nothing to do now, but go back to Scotland Yard, eat some donuts, and shoot some cocaine."_
> _"Capital idea! That gives me inspiration. Then I can come back and roll again!"_
DM: "Um... OK, now roll constitution checks, I guess..."
I've actually played games like that.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 - Yep. I'm trying to educate my current DM about rulings. It's going slow.
Saying, "Because that's what the rules say," is just a DM's version of, "That's what my character would do."
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 - *Actual 5E rule...*
Player 1: Now that the giant's knocked down, I shoot him with my crossbow.
DM: Alright, but you have disadvantage.
Player 1: Why?
DM: Because he's prone.
Player 1: But he was knocked down... and now he's immobile... _and_ I'm 20 feet above him... _and_ he's lying down, so he's a bigger target... _AND_ even on his back, he'd _still_ be taller than I am!
DM: Sorry, bro, that's what the rules say.
@@fleetcenturion LMAO! I doubt there's much hope for your DM. My experience is that a bad DM is a bad DM. It's unlikely that his rulings will be much more reasonable than his interpretation of the rules.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 - He's not really a bad DM. He just calls for way too many rolls. The last example, believe it or not, comes from three different DMs!
This is exactly what I needed tonight while designing dungeons for my AD&D campaign
I live to serve my fellow builders.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 You caught me designing guerrilla bandit encounters in enchanted woodland hills for my players. The party has just turned second level and they've all bought war steeds out of their first major treasure haul, and my bandits are mounted on mules. It'll be fun to see if I can't lure them into really difficult terrain that mules can navigate far better than horses. As this rolls, I'm crafting tree blinds out of bamboo skewers for miniatures as this plays in the background. We use PDM's dungeon pizza idea for miniatures in our games, and that works out really well for us. Everything is theater of the mind until we get to a major combat. Unlike many, I have a monthly game that actually meets around a table top and not virtually, so I feel especially blessed in that regard.
So much to say here, now that it's ended. Your poison solution sounds really elegant from a rules stand point. I think it's an area where DMs can get really creative, both with lethal poisons and non-lethal varieties. Great video.
Best and cheers!
"THAC0 is just subtraction"
From a newer OSR player/GM, THANK YOU! I have been told that THAC0 is too confusing, and even had a player refuse to play if it was used. My reaction is pretty much the same as yours.
Both methods accomplish the same thing, just in different ways. I get that it might feel cumbersome to some, but to me THAC0 just adds to the older games' personality. Despite using the exact same resolution method, it quite literally hits different.
What's funny to me is that they'll unironically call thac0 unintelligible as if the math in 5e is any easier. Sure, the core mechanic is simple, but you end up having to add modifiers from like a half dozen different sources at high levels.
@@joshjames582 Exactly! I've realized that's my biggest problem with how 5e plays. I'll take a lower Target Number and one small modifier or a basic roll-under mechanic over having to add my stat modifier, figuring out if I add my proficiency bonus, and arguing with the DM over whether or not I can justify rolling with advantage, just to see if I do the thing.
It's a simple system that has too many moving parts, in my opinion.
I'm with you Grognard. AD&D was its absolute peak. At that time the game was still being marketed to (and aimed at) college-aged players and their professors who loved it. The companies push to try and sell it to middle and high school aged kids, but its real audience is slightly older than that (and getting older every year). These companies need to stop marketing only to children, or at least make a Master's version aimed more specifically at adult players. AD&D was aimed exactly at the right target. If you found it in highschool or middle-school it was because you were damn smart and ahead of your age. It hit the mark, and every version since has simply been trying to recapture that lighting to put it back in a bottle (and failing at it, no matter how well it sells). OSRIC is all you need for the AD&D rules. That 1st/early 2nd-ed rules platform can take you anywhere you want to go. Literally.
AD&D was a MUCH smarter game than 5E. There's no doubt about it. It was designed by, and for, adult wargamers and that legacy has been completely abandoned by WotC.
I'm so glad to hear you put a name to "domain level play". It's something that seems very innate to me that I never thought of as weird, yet alot of DMs I play with seem confused or even frustrated when a king gives us an open ended reward and lets us tell him what we want within reason and I say I want a claim of land, or I start asking about hirelings.
Man this video is awesome... Has made me realize all that D&D was missing and I was not able to exactly pinpoint...
This is the kind of reply that inspires me to keep making content. Thank you.
Hey hey... another FG user here. Absolutely great. AD&D is the way to go IMO... love Castles and Crusades too.
Agree 100%
So far I have been very pleased with my choices. :)
You have totally changed the way that I see this game, and I don't ever want to go back. I had no idea that DnD could even be like this, I've only ever played 5e. I am subscribing, because I want to know how to run games like you described. Please make more videos on how I can run my games better! I will watch them all!
Wow. You've made my day. Thanks, Jacob.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 you are very welcome!
36:00 marks some real grumpy old grognard energy! I'm glad I listened.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them. Like when Wizards of the Coast tells you they are a bunch of greedy corporate bloodsuckers...
This is an amazing talk you gave!
I would love to learn more about domain level play and how to run and cultivate it at my table.
Also, please do not give up on philosophizing about the game on your channel.
I like hearing from the wisdom of those more experienced than myself.
With a lack of representation of grumpy old grognars in the community, we need someone to speak for the old school and push back against the NüDnD crowd.
You need to read the 1E DMs guide. It includes all the deets to get started. Hirelings. Expenses. Basic castle construction costs. Guidlines for downtime.
There is also one 2E splash book that doesn't suck. It's called the Castle Guide. Might wanna try and track down a copy!
Mass battles are covered in the Basic D&D Companion book (in the War Forge chapter), the AD&D Battle System rules, and in Chain Mail. All three are pretty much interchangeable. Just use the one that suits your style.
I'll try to do a more detailed vid about domain level play in the future.
I was lucky enough to have AD&D be my first exposure to D&D instead of 5E thanks to old 1e books in my dad's attic. I've been running a lot with those old books and it's a blast! I love the sheer creative freedom you get as both a player and a DM in this edition. No annoying stat checks and the world is basically a sandbox for players to do whatever they want, if they survive that is. I also enjoy that the power level is much more grounded in this edition, you're encouraged to solve problems in ways other than "I cast fireball" and monsters feel actually threatening.
I started DnD in 3rd ed era. Never wanted to play 4th or 5th and 3rd Ed and Pathfinder 1e was becoming boring. Then I found Basic Fantasy and it changed everything. I love to DM now and I am brutal. My players love it. I just ordered OSRIC and have 1st ed Adnd. Can't wait to get some players together and make an adventure.
You've just taken your first steps into a larger world.
I'm a 5e newbie and was introduced to DnD 3ish years ago. The hours long combats, lack of downtime, and lack of timekeeping left me wanting more - so I began researching OSE and Dolmenwood, and wow! What great products! What immersion!
When reading through the 5e rules now, I realize the writers have left a lot of the "old school" rules in, like getting lost, wilderness travel, 6-mile spaces (hexcrawls), and downtime rules, but the system is completely incongruent with these things. And as a result, new players see these things as fluff or worthless (ex: PHB Ranger - it could be actually interesting to use if old-school hexcrawls were a thing)
I realize listening to you that if someone were to make a OSR system like castles and crusades, Hyperborea, or even Lamentations of the Flame Princess and bother to sit down and make OSR equivalents of all races and classes /archtypes in 5e (maybe even add a handful)
That system could absolutely dominate with the right attention.
I can definitely understand why we don't do that but at the same time I know a lot of what keeps a bunch of people stuck to 5e is the options (even the terribly balanced ones)
It's not about what they can do, its the label they get to put on.
I'm not sure that would be the hit you think it would, but go for it. If you don't do it, someone else will.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Your likely right 😅 just wishful thinking on my part because that's the main complaint I hear from people looking into switching over.
@@iantaran2843 I'm pretty sure what you're dealing with there is just a childish way of saying that they don't want to try anything new. I offer some pretty time-tested strategies for overcoming that kind of reluctance in this video:
th-cam.com/video/3hzZH9BR7H8/w-d-xo.html
I personally think one of the major problems with 5e is all the over abundance of races. I like the older systems where you are basically a human in a world of mystery and fantasy.
5E is the bastard child of poor anime and World of Warcraft. AD&D is true D&D!
At least anime can have an edge. 5E is just plain bland.
I can honestly say I've never played WoW but in the interests of full disclosure; I played Runequest and Ultima Online for altogether too many years.
When we play AD&D it is merger of 1st 2nd and some stuff from BECMI. I was impressed to hear you mention Rolemaster and it's lethality. For negative hits we normally use the till -10 results in death unless you are a cavalier who can go down to negative Con.
I loved 2nd edition due to finally giving certain monsters a chance. 2nd edition dragons were to be feared, unlike 1st edition dragons 🐉. I wish I could find a table that played 2nd edition now. Found your channel and love it so far, memories.
I got my ass kicked by 1E dragons on more than a few occasions.
I liked the improvements in 2nd ed for some monsters, but the art was kind of rough, and I liked the art(artists) in 1st Ed (DMG,PH, MMs, fiend folio) Kobolds could be made to be feared in the hands of certain DMs tho :)
I agree 100%, and I'm only beginning to learn ADnD. There are some things that are mystery to me, but reading through OSRIC as well has helped a lot.
Either way, whether I'm playing 5th edition, OSR or ADND its gonna be heavily homebrew'd anyway. Playing a game purely vanilla has always relatively boring to me.
Ever since I started with MERPs back in the day, my friends and I changed stuff up and fit what we needed.
My dream though is to play an in person ADnD campaign alongside grognards, Im hoping I can make it out to some ttrpg cons in the future.
GaryCon. You seek GARYCON...
garycon.com/
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 I've been looking into it! It looks great, exactly what I'm after.
I can't go this year sadly, but I'm going to try to make it for 2024.
Loved MERP!!!
I’m about halfway through the video so far, and I have to say it has been phenomenal. It does a great job of pointing out philosophical differences that we see in gaming today. And while I enjoy some of the newer design processes, including some that you do not, we are definitely seeing a big change with how RPG‘s are done nowadays.
I'm really glad you like it. Cantankerous old man is a tough schtick to sell. ;)
I personally like how 3.x handles death - -10 is dead, and if you're below 0, you lose 1hp every 6 seconds with a 10% chance of stabilising on your own each round. If a hit takes you to -1, you'll probably die if left untreated; if it takes you to -8, it's all but guaranteed. If you take 50hp or more in a single blow, save or die.
Edit: Not to mention, the Unearthed Arcana can make one hit kills more likely - one option that first showed up in d20 Modern is to have it so that if you take more than your con score in damage from a single hit, you save or drop to -1 (unless it would take you lower, naturally).
Loved this video.
I have a new found appreciation for OSR, as someone who has only been playing D&D for 7 years, and DMing only 5E for just as long.
Really liked your points about spell slots, and death and dying.
I like death. I think the players should be able to die, and not be brought back, lest they make a deal with a demon, some nefarious god or celestial. They should feel afraid of the monsters and dying, as it makes them think twice about their actions instead of being like, "well I can just leap off this mountain and the Cleric can just bring me back up." Or, "I can run around and do whatever I want and no one can stop me because I'm a god killing superhero." That's just incredibly lame.
Though the OSR is a little too brutal. AD&D and Mork Borg death is too much for my liking. I think you should at least be able to save a PC, but with a heavy risk or reward factor.
Spellslots are great, and I see myself using that mechanic forever. I don't love magical mishap tables, or mana points for reasons you said.
From where I sit, the threat of death is the only thing that makes D&D a "game." Without stakes, it's not really a game. It's more a ritualized form of play; the type of play that small children call "make-believe" but without the aerobic benefits.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 I started TTRPGs with 3.0, AD&D 1e is my favorite edition, though in recent years I've played more Old School Essentials & C&C because I don't have a great schedule for anything but one-shots and it's easier to find people looking to play OSE or C&C. I 100% agree that the threat of death is necessary in the game, and that combat shouldn't be treated as sport, but as, well, *combat,* a life-or-death situation.
That having been said, when I'm running a long-term game, it doesn't necessarily need to be a _common_ threat of death; it's up to how smart the players are at avoiding dangerous situations and what the goals of their characters are. If I have a table of players where all the characters are complete cowards, or they're not necessarily cowards, but there's a threat that they know they have no chance against but they can't just run away from it(say there's a massive orc raiding party moving throughout the land, hundreds of them, and fleeing will just delay the inevitable), it may turn into the characters rounding up as many militia men as possible, not to be commanders of units on the battlefield, but as strategists to organize these units and stave off the orcs without ever even picking up a weapon. They won't get any experience or loot, but they're a lot more likely to survive.
When the characters are out adventuring, it's usually going to be quite dangerous, the exception being a place that's already fully scouted and cleared out. How often the characters decide they need to go out adventuring in my long-term games - it's not exactly a glorious profession that most people will do without a very good reason - is up to the players, and how they want their characters to act and react to different situations.
Extremely well worded video, your words resonate with me on an immersive level. I started playing D&D back in 1974 and have watched the changing trends over the years (yawn) but what tickles me the most (makes me chuckle) is... most the `new` ideas you see launched in officuial editions... WE were implementing into our games long long long ago (way before the same ideas cropped up in official books), such as advcantage/disadvantage, heck we were doing that back in the 80`s with our group, and just about every `new` rule you see nowadays.. agan, we have already been using them for half our lives lol. I suppose it truly shows that sadly most gamers only play BY the rules as written and implement what is placed befote them, rather than use the game as a toolbox to work outside the rules to create, make, and inject their own originality into the game.
Holey Moley! It is like you are living in my head! AD&D 1E is also my first love and my current mistress. Agree with you 95%, and what I don't agree with is minor and almost the same. Thanks for taking and making the stand. Since I came out of war-gaming, maths don't bother me none. I was thanked years ago by a young player that said all the math he was required to do at our table helped him in school. Imagine that! If you really have trouble with maths and tables, there is always the "battle wheel" from Dragon Magazine. Still use that today.
I have one of those battle wheels, too. It was amazing how much room it cleared off my DM screen. I was able to add a ton of new, useful information to it.
drive.google.com/file/d/1HPOlLxEzq0sV558nSux8-mpICptUJUPy/view?usp=sharing
Listening to your rant while I stock up on the free OSR PDFs before they're gone.
Cheers from Brazil. You're an inspiration to this 29-year-old Dungeon "referee" Master.
I run my own 15-pages long ruleset, a strong simplification of the OSR "feeling", but pretty much Blue Holmes with my own quirks, like roll under and descending AC Target 20 subsystem.
In case you're interested, my magic subsystem consists of _forms_ (nouns) and _techniques_ (verbs) the magic-user combines in order to make their magical formulae. They attempt a roll under + difficulty (which equals simply the amount of nouns and verbs used). Since the whole system (ruleset) is suited for the world/campaign, magic-users have "charges", which they recharge by long rests, and they lose a charge every time they _fail_ a spell. In the beginning of the game, because their stats are lower (they begin at level zero), they are going to fail very often; but as they level up, their chances increase (I did all the maths before setting the rules, so I know the growth in chance). The nouns and verbs come from a _finite_ list, so players do not get their hopes too high of making reality-bending spells (as stated, the system is campaign-specific, and magic, in the world Itzalaaq, is unpredictable, and Lovecraftian). The effects of the spell, be fore combat or exploration, are determined by dice per class level (which also grow as the magic-user levels up).
Just thought I could share the system with you and everyone else reading, so there may be another option for everyone to test out there.
OSR roleplaying even extends beyond social skills. Ability scores used to come with specifics on tasks one could perform.
*5e roll-playing today...*
Player 1: I try to break down the door to my cell (18 strength)... [01] FAIL
Player 2: I try and do the same to my identical cell door (5 strength)... [natural 20] SUCCESS!
I've been playing D&D since AD&D 2nd edition came out and have played (and DM'd) all the major release versions of all D&D editions since then. I'm behind every single word you have said in this video and it's really sad to see the newer generation of players and content creators (especially the ones started D&D with 5e) missing out that an actual TTRPG can be.
I don't see myself qualified to complain about the "good old days" but you literally expressed my own thoughts about everything wrong with D&D right now. All I can say is thank you!
"It's Castles and Crusades"
Based. I pretty much just import AD&D content into Castles and Crusades game system so players don't have to whinge about THAC0 and descending AC and the like. It maintains the old school feel while benefitting from the *technical* innovations the hobby developed with time.
This has changed my perception of Ad&d from a curiosity to something i might actually want to play.
Spot on with so many points. When domain level play was brought up, I regret that I only had one like to give, I would have left 1000 good sir.
For me it’s easier to came up with a rule on the spot than to memorise all the mechanics from 5e. Simplicity is the key. If I say to someone that he needs to read a 100 pages book, watch 3h of videos on youtube then having a season 0 just to make a character no friends of my would like to play with me. In a gane like Into The Odd you can explain the rules and roll a character in 30m and start playing and then it’s all about DMing.
For me, I feel it's the opposite.
As for healing, I slipped on some wet stairs and I've been out of action for 11 months and still going.
Ouch. Sorry dawg. Critical hits suck.
I disagree. I haven't watched ALL of the video yet, but I hold true that AD&D is FACTUALLY better than 5E.
AD&D1 had old-school wargamers playtesting it. 5E looks like it was designed by a committee of normies told "make 3E, but more B/X-y". Much like 3E, in-house playtesters appeared to have played it to 8-10th level maximum. Everything gets stupid from there on, just like 3E, which also had this problem. Also there's the excessive homogeny that blands up everything.... Eh, I'm not going to get into it or I'll be here all day.
Have a like, and keep doing what you're doing.
OK. I admit it. I laughed. I get it. And truth be told I really don't get Theater Kid D&D, either. At my table anyone suggesting that a player should "consent" to dying would be at severe and immediate risk of being invited to leave, and on refusal being lowered to the driveway by his tighty whities..
But hey... I don't have a problem with other people role playing any way they want. I have my own kinks so I'm sure as shit not going to dis someone else for theirs.
Great video, great new intro! AD&D is my favourite game as well. BTW on the second screen, paragraph 2, your have "that" twice. Yes, I know you did it just to laugh at people like me. Keep those videos coming, GOG!
Thanks for the tip. I really didn't think anyone would actually bother to read that bit!
Great video. Which would you say were an easier system from a DM standpoint?
AD&D. By a LONG shot.
What a great video to start the day with! Who wants to DM 5e when the game design/community demands that he be the players' gimp?
Ain't that the truth. Maybe there'd be more people willing to invest the time into doing the hard work of being 5E DMs if they stopped gang bitching them.
I started with adnd/2e and now play/run 5e. My DM style in 5e is pretty close to what it was back then. So, I see your arguments, but I'm not bothered as much by the changes or all the flavor text. But I do appreciate your thoughts and ideas. I had come up with my own version to retain deadly consequences as well. So I agree that it helps to bake that into the system. Interestingly, as dm I resist rolling for anything behind screen, or rolling them myself. It's just a different style I guess.
I want a tour of the bookshelves
Shelfie porn!
th-cam.com/channels/NoDe8hnpZYTjJ7I-XNnW4A.htmlcommunity?lb=Ugkxz2EpOxpPBbajyIwBw9mV_ZsK6VeY6AGg
Great vídeo. cheers from Brazil
I don't subscribe to many people, but I am totally doing a marathon on your content...Awesome stuff..Keep it going if its enjoyable for you. DMed from 86 to 96 1st ed and a few years with 2nd ... When I realized what happened to TSR early 2000, and being a MtG player 95-96 and how WoTc would obsolete cards that could be used in tournaments it wasn't surprising what I saw when someone showed me '3rd edition' I said that isn't D&D thats a new game they want everyone to buy their new $tuff, rinse and repeat... and they did.... Through their greed and hubris and the great content still being generated for OGR and nice supplements such as BarrowMaze, Into the Wyrd and Wild etc... I would wish Ha$bro management a 'teachable' moment in which the community and landscape can benefit, a balancing of the scales....
I just picked up castles and crusades for our group so far so good
You won't be disappointed. C&C is what 3E should have been.
Thanks Grump,
I enjoyed this video.
I do have my differences with some of your thoughts , but not fundamental philosophy.
Low Hit Points ( all Human wielded Weapon values are from 1 Hit Point to 1d6+2 ( max ) , Low Magic ( contrary to what 5e players think , this makes your Magic Users MORE special ) , High Lethality , unbalanced encounters , to name a few.
I use a Poison Effects table I made up for which death is only one possible result of poisoning.
The way I handle healing is that a PC can recover 1/6 of their HP total on a full night of comfortable rest. If their CON is 14- , use FRD ( fractions rounded down ) , if CON is 15+
use FRU ( fractions rounded up ) .
Magic or certain heritage or conditions affecting a PC through results of previous play
( exhaustion , hunger , thirst ) , may move the healing rate up to 1/4 Total Hit Points per night , or down to 1/8 HP per night.
Keep them coming.
It’s interesting, I love AD&D 1e in theory, but it is frustrating. Our list of dead characters is huge. The game feels like is constantly starting over at 1st level. As a player, there must be something that we are doing wrong but I fear if this keeps up people will just quit.
Does anyone have some survival tips for by the book AD&D?
It’s ultimately up to the game master to set the difficulty. I’m running a campaign with new D&D players and getting them acclimated to the core tenants of the game while not killing their characters. It’s gotten close a couple of times just to illustrate the challenge. After a few sessions they got the hang of it. In regards to pragmatic tips as a player, I would try to avoid combat in a lot of situations-role play out of it. I’d also rely on party members to have good healing abilities, or other spells that can get you out of trouble-having potions and other stuff like that can help too. If you’re frustrated going back to first level-ask the gm to start at higher level. I’ve played/run games where PCs do not start at level 1. Lastly, imho it’s up to the game master to create a game that can allow you to live long enough. I would just talk to them! Some players really like the tpk challenge, but, if you and other players don’t, work with your gm. Hope this helps!
5e and other modern rulesets like it typically encourage everyone being allowed to play a min-maxed murder-hobo deathblender for every combat encounter. If that's how your DM is running their 1e game, they need to gear it back by a lot. 1e combat is supposed to carry the real risk of death from the start but not every encounter has to be solved with combat. If it needs softened up, suggest to your DM that maybe they could relegate the risk of permanent death to serious story beats and anything less could be consider unconsciousness or near death with a finite time for them to be saved. Or whatever would work for your group. Everyone has their own house rules for a reason, going by the book verbatim doesn't work for everyone.
Free yourself from the shackles of Rules as Written! Power to the people playing! 😂
See if you can avoid taking as many encounters head-on. New rulesets inculcate a combat-first mentality that simply doesn't work in older games. That's why gold as XP was there, after all.
If it's still way too deadly, the DM probably needs to either dial down the threat level or leave more room for players to get the same results through RP or other indirect means. You shouldn't be getting rail-roaded into encounters where 25% of the party is bound to die.
Players die. That's just a part of OSR. But if you're getting constant, repeating TPKs you probably have a DM problem.
I listened to this while working on my new fantasy campaign. Which is being run using Hero System. Btu I agree - 1e is better than 5e. I enjoyed playing 5e but hated running it as a GM.
ok. 2 sec into this video , and i am going to comment. i 100% agree with the title of this video. i am going to watch and take notes, at the end of the video, ill add to this comment if needed... if.
I like your poison multiplier rule.
Thanks. Players seem to like it, too. It can be surprisingly dramatic when nobody has a cure poison handy.
Thank you for this. I'm getting back into DnD after 30 years away, and 1e is part of my DNA. Was wondering if I should splurge on the 5e books but after doing some research, I'm going to stick with 1e or OSRIC.
Good choice, imo.
I don’t even need to watch this video to agree! That being said, I’m going to watch it anyway!
Thanks, Grognard!
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 another thing I have observed, 5th Edition is very much a specific Forgotten Realms RPG. 1st Edition was intended to be used for people to make their own setting. A DM’s binder was very much his “box set”.
I loved this video. I have a set of players who simply do not like low power systems. They wanted me to run 4th edition. Now I personally like 4th edition specifically as a high-power heroic system, but I wasn't really feeling that kind of game. So I used the Deathbringer hack and basically had to mutilate 5e and restructure it as though it were my own personal Frankenstein's monster. The resulting product was something that I'm pretty happy with running, but God, I wish the players were just happy playing low-power systems.
The painful truth is that most players want the power fantasy, not a challenge. That's why 5E is a low challenge, high power system. WotC is doing exactly what corporations always do to an IP. They dumbed it down and glitzed it up to appeal to the largest possible audience. That's why they are turning 6E into a shitty mobile app.
This is why everything in geek culture that goes mainstream turns to shit. Geeks are smart. Smart people are a TINY consumer market. Corporations don't like tiny consumer markets.
Yeah, I think I generally agree.
I'm a newer player compared to you (, I started playing 3.5 at like 8). Many people say that D&D 5e has everyone being gods. But I somewhat disagree. Because characters are very powerful, but only in specific contexts. It leads to people not acting in specific scenarios, because they don't have a high persuasion score. Because every decision has been deferred to your states. It's why charisma is so powerful in 5e if your DM rolls for everything.
People say that older editions of D&D are broken mechanically, and that's a bit true. But 5th edition is also broken. It's so easy to make a character that's very broken, IF you know all the rules. Which leads to experienced players having their characters out class everyone else. So experienced players always become DMs, which leads to a DM who knows so much about the game than the players. And because balance is so abstract in 5e, the DM always needs to low ball the strength of enemies because the DM is a better at the game. So combat will be uninteresting for the DM and too complex for the player.
All D&D games are somewhat broken. In older versions it's more obvious, but in 5e only people that know a lot will experience it.
Instant death does exist in 5e, but only low level characters will experience it. I do dislike 5e's death system, but it's really hard to change about the game because the power level is baked into the game. Once you're past 5th level it's really hard to die, incredibly so. And it takes away from the drama of combat.
Something I really like that 5e does is the part of character creation that has ideals, bonds, and flaws. It's really good for new player. The older system of good, neutral, evil, ect. is not very helpful for defining how your character acts.
A lot of 5e advancers feel like they're not in a world. It's your characters and their stories. But in older addition it's about the world, and how your characters react to it. It's why I don't like inns in D&D. Inns and hotels, historically, only existed in large cites. If you are traveling, you needing to convince the local noble or commoner to stay with them, or you sleep in the streets. And the reason inns exist in modern D&D 5e is because, the world is meant to accommodate the characters, rather than the players existing and being effected by the world. Players should become familiar this whatever city, but so many players go from place to place. And everything blurs together.
You pointed it about and it's something I never noticed because of how baked in it is the 5e. That spells are so focused being either combat or social. You pointed out that Hold Person only targets people, why. Why can't it target objects. And I've gotten so used to seeing spells as either for combat or social situations that I never thought to question the function of the spell system. Why isn't the spell just Hold, that's much more fun.
While I do like having a character I create with some story line I want to playout. I do wish the character stories were more relaxed, with more players having half a sheet description characters. It makes D&D about playing out your character rather than playing with your friends. And I hate that, it leads to people paying for a DM. Which is crazy, that would be like paying strangers to play Monopoly.
I always thought of old school players as bein stuck up old people, who refuse to change. But over the last 3 years I've realized I have more in common with the old grognards. I do like modern D&D DMing philosophy, where player's characters have more story to them. But I don't like how D&D 5e makes it seem like that is the core of the game. This video has given me points to reflect on, from the experience of someone much older than me. Thank you very much.
I find the problem with THAC0 is not that is it complex or hard to learn. It is that the books explain what THAC0 is and how it works very, very poorly. When I was learning 2e it took a grizzled old veteran to explain it to me. The book does not make it an easy process.
Yeah. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to argue that the older rule sets, particularly AD&D, were particularly well written or organized.
2nd edition is my favorite rpg of all time and i have to stress, i dont even like medieval fantasy as much as modern settings or sci-fi. The numbers, im talking stats, imo are actually beautiful. Like a mathematical work of art.
Agreed!!!! Im a becmi guy myself.
Fighters can be Super Heroes
Just at 8th level if one is still using level titles (which I think are a neat) 😊
Level titles are awesome.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 I incorporated "level titles" into my story. I think you'll enjoy how I did it : )
So many games you store them on top of the microwave.
It's a small attic.
OD&D, Basic and AD&D are my first games too, it really is not that hard to grasp or understand. Yes there are some things in 5e I like too, but honestly I tweak 5e always towards AD&D or OD&D and add other ideas to it… so right now we are starting an OSE game (hubbies house rules). Quirky is okay with us. I totally agree with issues concerning injuries, and healing… I’ve been tweaking my house rules in both editions as a result. I don’t use 5e’s healing rules… I want my players thinking and concerned their pc could die and know injuries have consequences.
I agree with so much you have said on all the subjects
Thanks, Laura. It sounds like you have an awesome game going!
I feel like despite what you say about AD&D, and even the creators own intentions, that even in AD&D a player chatacter isn't always just *some guy*. In a low fantasy game especially a magic user or a cleric by the very nature of being magic users, is already an order of magnitude more unique and special than the average person. Paladins especially, *as a paladin* you are by definition a knight of some kind of order from the start, you're not just some guy who picked up a sword. This idea only really seems to hold up with thieves and fighters.
Agree to disagree on the roleplay vrs. rollplay thing. You *can* do both. I agree that powercreep is an issue thoguh. (New character creation options don't have to be more powerfull, they could just add new flavor options, but sadly power-creep sells more books.)
...
edit: I get that a setting or GM may want to restrict character creation options for ballance/worldbuilding/verisimillitude, but I don't think the system should do it.
...
I'm split on the time thing.
On the one hand, yes 5EPCs level up verry fast.
On the other hand, I like to skip over road travels because it's boring, so I may as well have fast-travel in my games.
...
You definently have a point about econnomy, and how PCs spend all their money on personal adventuring equipment and supplys, and allmost nothing else.
Domain level play sounds cool.
...
edit: I've noticed that most of the background in 5E actually include ways to avoid paying rent.
Yup.
May I ask how you mean you have used spell slots in your AD&D games? Have you allowed casters to not need to memorise spells, but instead prepare a select number per day and then more spontaneously use their number of spells to cast them.
22:37 I agree with you about 0 hit points. I think -10 is too easy, but that's how we always played, but now I use -5 is death, and at 0, you're in a semi-conscious state, but can only crawl at best. At -1 to -4 you're in and out of consciousness, and could die, whether or not someone binds your wounds, though having your wounds bound obviously greatly increases the chance that you won't die, but you can also survive, even if no one binds your wounds. At -4 you're basically at Death's Door. Unfortunately, I worked out all these rules long after our group broke up. Hoping to one day play again. Just need to form a party of adventurers to go adventuring : )
Loathe opportunity attacks & Cantrips.
Opportunity attacks... Meh.
Cantrips were OK as implemented in 1E UE, although I reserve the right to veto them. The 5E implementation was awful, as were many of the cantrips themselves.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 That I can recall, none of the cantrips in 1E Unearthed Arcana inflicted damage, caused status effects, or provided any useful bonuses to skill rolls, attack rolls, or AC and were purely utilitarian, great for creative an imaginative players to try making use of. When 2E came out, I home brewed some 1E spells into 2E including the UA cantrips, basically the effects that can be done with the 1st-level Cantrip spell in 2E was kind of defined by the 1E cantrip descriptions from Unearthed Arcana.
Personally prefer the early 80's Basic/Expert sets but us old school fans gotta stick together, right? Those have more in common with 1e than not. Same core system and same campaign style.
There are 2 other c's that I want to recommend to you, that I think you'll enjoy, but why they won't let me say that word, I don't know (had to abbreviate it, for reasons unknown). Apparently I can't say who "they" are either, which is so annoying. Take a look at 'The Old Warlock' and 'The Dungeon Minister'. I think you'll really enjoy both of them. ttyl hopefully.
This wholes mess of 'editions' is a relic of the TSR era and pre-dates WOTC and IMHO led to TSR's decline and ultimate failure (plus internal corporate chicanery) with lots of phycial books just not being sold and filling warehouses - the constant need to update books endlessly to stay 'current' when new readers, players and DMs have barely absorbed the base rules. I'm an 80s BECMI kid who never really took to the AD&D game - much to my now middle-aged adult regret. Reading through 2e AD&D now I can see why it was popular though.
Love this level of detail in this explanatory video - if anything the current WOTC mess has meant established ruleset from decades past, are being looked at again and the hobby gets refreshed as a result. I see 5th edition as failed attempt to improve on 3.0/3.5 to manage the flop that 4th became.
Anyway - I love hearing from the experience and views of grognard creators. :) Excellent video. Also, agreed about Castles and Crusade. At least they took the time to innovate with it.
There were a LOT of reasons TSR failed. It really was a perfect storm of bad management decisions. But yes... It started with Brian Blume and Lorraine Williams at TSR. D&D was a mess before WotC ever got their hands on the franchise. I just don't see that they made it any better. I'll concede that they tried.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 I still think your video is worth viewing - if anything this mess has reminded people out there that there are games and rulesets out other than D&D as a 'branded IP' etc.
Somone did calcilations on the D&D5E econmomy, and actually one *copper* was equivilent to $1 for the average pesent. Why then do PCs deal in gold peices? Basicly because the equipment they use is millitaty-grade.
...
That being said, domain level play does sound cool, and your right that it's a shame bad that 5E dosn't support it beyond some vegue and generic rules in the DMG.
All weapons are "military grade." In fact, historically, "military grade" weapons were shit next to their civilian counterparts. Superior "Military Grade" weapons are an entirely modern concept. Even as recently as the Korean war US civilians had access to much better weapons than the standard issue M1 Garand (not to mention, the M1 itself).
There really wasn't that much thought put into it. I doubt very much that Gygax and Arneson were thinking of military grade riding horses and chickens when they were developing their price lists. They used gp because it sounds cool.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Your probly right that they didn't put much thoguht into it. Expecially considering that playtest ban.
...
However I did not know that millitaty weapons would have been worse than civilian weapons in the middle ages, and I'm currious to know why.
...
See, I actually personally know somone who does modern millitary grade testing, so while I'm not personally an expert, I know one I could easilly ask.
Because shitty weapons are cheaper and when you're arming 10,000 men, shaving a few coins off of each unit adds up to a big ass stack of cash. Fine weapons and armor were reserved for those who could afford to buy their own. The common foot soldiers were issued what was cheap and available. When the henry repeater was introduced, soldiers bought thousands of them because they were so much better than the shitty old Springfields they were issued.
I still maintain that the issue with lack of DM's may partly be the rule complexity but I also feel, and speaking as a DM since the 80's, I would never ever DM a public game with these woke overly offended woketards. Half the stuff I do in my campaigns would get me in trouble with the morality police. Horror, real consequences, and R rated stuff. I love Ravenloft setting and gothic horror. I het into my players heards and really mess with them. Psychological horror. My friends love it. Kids would piss their pants then run to the internet to cancel me. Let them go without DMs.
I don't sweat it. Those types of players wouldn't WANT to sit at my table. My game isn't baby proofed.
I run public games. Neverwinter Nights, mostly. Just put up a nice list of trigger warnings. The 5E kiddies will avoid your game like the plague.
You can copy mine, if you like...
This Game Includes:
Ableism, Abuse, Alcoholism, Alcohol Use, Animal abuse, Animal Cruelty, Animal Death, Blood, Body Horror, Character Death, Child Abandonment, Child Death, Classism, Concentration Camps, Controlling Parents, Curing of Disabilities, Deadnaming Character, Death, Drowning, Drugs (addiction, use, withdrawal), Eating Disorders, Execution, Extreme Violence, Fire, Forced Outing of Character, Genocide, Gore, Guns, Hangings, Homophobia, Hostages, Human Trafficking, Illness, Insects, Kidnapping, Language/Cursing, Lifechanging Injury, Medical Issues, Memory Erasing, Microaggressions, Mind alteration, Mind Control, Miscarriages/Abortion, Misgendering, Misogyny, Murder, Mutilation, Nightmares about Traumatic Events, Pandemic, Panic Attacks, Paralyzation, Police Brutality, Prejudice, PTSD, Racial Profiling, Racism, Real World Religion, Scars, Seizures, Self-Harm, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Content, Sexual Predator, Slavery, Snakes, Spiders, Suffocation, Suicide, Suicide Ideation, Talk of Superior Race, Terrorism, Torture, Transphobia, Trauma, Violence, Warfare, Witch Prosecution, Xenophobia
Pretty much everything on one of their dumbass "consent forms."
As somone who is a noob DMing a 5E game, I think I would actually prefer more rules *heavy* system. I'm there to run the game, not design it.
Finally I talk with my group and we moving from 5e to a old school system. First I'm thinking in OSE. After read a lot stuff (this means a overview of D&D and BX, OSRIC, Cyclopedia, AD&D 2e) decide to go to AD&D. Of course I will make some homebrew rules, but I think was a better choice without never played. Now, excuse me, let me ask something that I can't find: how PC grow their score abilities? Is this mechanics even exists? When you grow in level, what you gain? XP and hit dice only? Of course spell slots if caster, and some class features. BUT why the table shows atribute 19 on STR if now ones can achieve that by any means...
Magic or DM fiat.
@@mooseymoose by magic you said? Can you explain better DM fiat? Or you mean feat? Thanks
@@ekashotersen DM fiat is just a way of saying DM’s choice. They can decide that you have done enough to raise a score by a point if it is reasonable.
@@mooseymoose just perfect. But this rule exist? Thank you very much.
@@ekashotersen The thing about OSR/AD&D is that it doesn’t have a lot of rules for everything. It’s the job of the DM to make rulings, not just go “by the book”.
I find 5e very mechanical. Like when you make non optimal character choices you can see clearly how they are hurting you like playing a dwarf thief. You automatically are essentially down compared to +2 dex races and then with all the finesse weapons maybe having a little extra strength is pointless
I think that one of the reasons you prefer AD&D is because there is less "crunch" in the rules than more modern games. I agree that I prefer my TTRPGs to have more "roleplaying with an e" like you describe (the player actually making the effort to persuade and not just relying on dice alone). There is a lot to be said about AD&D (I actually cut my teeth on 2nd edition in 92), but I have to agree that there has been a lot more added to D&D since TSR lost its rights to WOTC to "gamify" the experience by assigning attributes and stats to every action that requires a roll, almost to the point where it's just a game of rolling dice, rather than telling a coherent story....
I absolutely prefer a rules light system. Classic Traveller is one of my favorite games ever published. This goes double for social skills. I do not believe things like persuasion and diplomacy should be decided by a die roll.
I realize this kinda gimps high CHA characters like bards, but if you don't want to role-play (with an E), why the heck are you playing a bard in the first place?
I'm not so sure about the social skills part. In my opinion it at least helps players who aren't as charismatic as the character they're meant to play. If I'm playing a 16 charisma bard but idk I'm a 7 charisma loser, it feels weird to say that my character wouldn't be able to put things more eloquently than I, in the same way my real strength doesn't affect my fighters ability to push heavy stuff. I understand your actual ability to persuade being a factor but j think being able to fall back on "my chatacter understands this more than me" isn't an issue.
What's your take on the Hickman revolution?
The books were fun. The Krynn setting was awesome. The modules were crap. In an attempt to support the published canon in the books, the modules were railroads. I hate railroads.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561
I agree railroads are bad, and that moduels tend to be railroady by nesessity; expecially when it's trying to fit into an exsisting lore timeline. (the "stroyteller DMs should just write a book instead" problem.)
...
That being said, Sandboxes arn't the gold standard some people may make them out to be either.
...
Still, I like the idea of having an overarching theame and a bbeg for a campain, but it can unfortunatly also lead to game design where pcs basicly have plot-armor.
In clasic D&D the rules are quirkey. In moden D&D, the players are quirky, lol.
Rrrrreeeeee!
Squeeeee!
Tbh, I think 5e's main problem is that it refuses to pick a lane. It wants to tell you that Goku and Superman would crawl through a dungeon, wants the benefits of a non-Vancian magic system without commitment required to make it work, Aaron wants to bring advantage and disadvantage to the Church of the Almighty +1.
Wholeheartedly agree about the player character philosophy, I can't stand anyone that is so up their own ass huffing their own farts about the supposedly elaborate character they created and droning on and on about their oh so intricately written backstory. I refer to those people as "intellectual sphincters." As you said, your character is not anyone special, you're just some normal person. Your backstory will be what we're doing right now if you survive long enough to tell the tale. If you really feel the need to tell us anything your origin, sum it up in one or two sentences.
I REALLY discourage players from composing elaborate backstories. First; I hate fanfiction. I just don't want to read it. Second; after I read it I'm probably going to say no. It's hard to write a multi-page doesn't create lore or give the character a claim to a few XP. These are hard "no" points for me. Finally; a lot of characters don't make it to second level. It's kinda dumb to waste that much love on a character with a life expectancy of only a few hours.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561I try to write simple backstorys that can be tweiked or have room for interpritation that the GM can use as a tool to create plothooks, if they feel like it.
"Stifling my creativity"......I almost choked on my coffee laughing so hard when you brought that up. I can't count the number of times I have heard that, or variations of it---and not just in regards to RPG's. If I ever had a trigger phrase, that one has got to be it!
Mine is "you need my consent." We're NOT dating, here.
Go play at the kiddie table.
AD&D is simple, I agree, but character customization is not there.
D&D 3e has a lot of character customization, but it is complex.
For me D&D5e hits the sweet spot between simplicity and customization. That is why 5e is my default d20 system.
Cheers!
It's funny to me that you see 5E's "character customization" as a feature, when in reality it's the worst bug in the system. It's why characters become so OP so quickly. It's why the CR rating is so broken. It's why it's such a royal PITA for DM's to create NPC and enemy character parties.
But worst of all, it's why most 5E players can't roleplay their way out of a wet paper bag. When you present 5E players with a problem, they don't apply critical thought to it and try to come up with a creative solution. Most of them stick their noses in their character sheet and try to find a skill or feat to try to roll their way out of it. There is nothing sadder than seeing an entire table of experienced players pouring over their character sheets instead of actually trying to THINK of a solution to a problem.
I'll take a role-player over a roll-player any day.
5E players use the phrase "character customization" as if it's synonymous with "player creativity," and that's utter nonsense. If anything, all those feats and skills stifle player creativity by stuffing the players into little boxes and discouraging them from thinking outside them.
Using your imagination to define your character is a much more creative exercise than boiling everybody down to a detailed, predefined stat block.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Everything you mention about player creativity, roleplaying and imagination has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the people at the table.
Regarding game systems, I guess everyone has their own personal preferences and that is fine.
Cheers!
@@B42UC4 5E has, what? 50 races? HUNDREDS of classes and subclasses? A THOUSAND skills and feats?
The idea that 5E is "simpler" than 3.5 is ludicrous.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 It is simple since you don't need to hunt for teh optimal decisions. Everything you choose will work. With 3.5e you have to go for the optimal build or be left behind...
2e Combat and Tactics had criticals which influence abilities.
That's only partially true. 2E has three different critical systems, all of which are optional. DMs are welcome to take or leave them as they see fit. I usually choose to leave them.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 All of my old stuff ended up getting taken to my brothers place as we both moved out at about the same time but he was closer. I did remember that I have this old tsr computer thing that had all the 2e rulebooks as rtf so I found that and loaded it on my pc.
That's kind of a given.
It's a given among most people who have played both, but that's not many people these days.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Hmm, I do not know. Almost all the "newblodds" I know now play some version of BX or BECMI (that, if anything, are even deadlier than Advanced). I prefer AD&D myself. Barely anyone in my area (East Lancashire, UK) plays 5th edition anymore. And that started long before the open license debacle. Like years before.
@@sebastienblaue5188 I'm glad to hear it. Here in the States, most 5E players are still CR theater kids who have never played anything else.
Ways to spot an AD&D player. 1. they will be over 50, 2. bearded if not female, 3 likely overweight. (I don't have a beard :) ). I don't hate 5th, I just don't feel like buying books that offer nothing other than a means to spend my cash. Nothing of real worth has happened for 'the game' since 1st AD&D. Not including settings.
I hate 5e, and it's the only thing I've been DMing for the past 6 years. It doesn't feel like a game to me, just an excuse to roll dice and say cool things happen. The numbers are pretty much meaningless in 5th edition. The only time I've had fun with the system is when I've fudged and faked my way through it, actually giving the players something to think about rather than mindlessly attacking. I don''t even plan out adventures anymore; there's no reason to. My players cannot tell the difference between me running an intricately planned 5e campaign vs an improvised one.
The default state of being for a D&D character is success. It takes considerable effort for a character to fail in 5e. I've done tests with my players, taking them through campaigns with the rules as written, and they hate it. The entire system basically railroads players into success no matter what choices they make, even stupid ones. Anytime I start homebrewing the game, making things more challenging and meaningful, the players immediately think it's cool. What's sad is that most of my homebrew for 5e is heavily inspired by cool things from actual games such as Pathfinder and Torchbearer, yet they are locked in the mindset of 5e being the one system to rule them all.
After my current campaign is done (been going on for over a year now), I'm just done with 5e. It's so bland and narrow. In terms of balancing, 5e has none. Challenge rating is useless, magic items aren't even considered by the progression system, and half of the players' choices for growing their characters are useless, and the other half is necessary. I always struggle to challenge my players by following the rules, making them useless. If the rules are useless, then why the hell should I be paying for them?!
Yup. I agree. I ran 5E for 2 years. I really wanted to like it. WotC said all the right things about honoring the D&D tradition and respecting original gamers when they released it.
At first it was OK but, of course, the rules started breaking down as soon as the players started leveling up.
I didn't realize how broken the game was until the party took on the green dragon in Phandelver and it became clear how completely broken the death system was.
"numbers meaningless" hahaha, wow, nice troll
I enjoyed this, but I the audio was too low for me.
Yeah... Sorry. I'm not a real youtuber. I don't make any money or anything. Can't afford fancy production equipment or a proper studio space. I'm just a grumpy old grognard with a reasonably nice smartphone who knows a few editing basics.
Ok
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 You're a better youtuber than me.
I've never even read a 4th or 5th Edition book & I have no plans on doing so. I thought 3rd Edition or 3.5 was practically a perfect system. It was alot to learn & I've since forgotten all of it. As a DM I had to memorize the Skills chapter for a smooth game. AD&D was simple, good & easy. More focused on roleplaying. Took me forever to understand a Diplomacy skill. It's useless
Take a look at C&C. It shares a lot of basic mechanics with 3E, but replaces the skill system with something called the Siege Engine that replaces most skills with attribute checks.
I know you're all thac0 and percentile purists, but I'm so used to d20 as a modern convenience. If I were to run an old school game I'd just just convert thac0 to a base attack bonus and use 5 percent thief points as skill points and so on. When you're a DM it's your prerogative to run the game how you want but by the same token you have no obligation as a player to sit at my table. If having modern conveniences gets new players to my old school table, then I'll simplify the maths.
I was playing D&D WAY before THAC0 was a thing, dawg. And just FYI, THAC0 is a d20 mechanic.
I really don't understand why people who are afraid of math try to play RPGs. RPGs ARE math. The math literally defines the game.
Probability exists outside your limited 5% linear incremental mathematics. You use different dice because different dice do different things. You use different kinds of probability because not all probability is linear. In fact, when it comes to determining the probability of most natural events, a bell curve is almost always a better choice.
And even if you do want your random determination to be linear, not everything is going to divide neatly into 20. This might come as a shock to you, but we use percentile dice when we DM 5E.
But hey... if you want to limit your world to linear divisibles of 20, you do you.
Sounds boring as hell to me.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 I have been a stats tutor. You and I are comfortable with the non-linear world. But younger people these days have not been as lucky as us in getting a decent education where they have teachers who aren't afraid of maths themselves. Teaching the rules is hard enough as a DM, being the teacher who's confronting the baggage of 'math is hard' is something I am not always in the mood to deal with.
@@alankeegan5870 I have never had any trouble teaching OSR to young people, but hey... Maybe I'm just a better teacher.
I adore descending AC. The idea that you actually progress into negative numbers after a point just feels cool and oddly kinda badass to me. Almost like you've crossed a kind of threshold and are now so powerful that you're breaking the regular number scale or something. Awesome. It may not be a rational preference, but it's mine and that's all I need. It's like preferring esoteric-yet-evocative saving throw categories like death and poison or the term "thief" over "rogue" in that sense.
I think it's possible to start out with good intentions (to be "modern" or "streamlined," for instance) and ultimately end up designing an RPG too much from the head as opposed to the heart. Say what you will about AD&D 1E, but that's certainty one issue it didn't suffer overmuch from! Hence why I stick with it over WotC's stuff or even Castle & Crusades, although the latter definitely hits closer to the mark for me.
It's funny. IMHO old-school D&D's quirkiness is part of the charm. I LOVE being able to use all kinds of different dice to do different things. That's part of the fun.
5e has too many segments and things to do ONLY at a certain time in combat. In AD&D, you say what you're going to do, then roll, then that's it. It's so much simpler and easier and leaves ALL options on the table where you don't have that in 5e.
The rules are also just plain broken once you hit the upper end of medium level. But I have a fundamental problem with 5E on the conceptual level. The older versions of D&D were, basically, wargames. The new version has abandoned the game's sandbox/wargaming roots in favor of a more linear "narrative storytelling" style. I prefer the more traditional wargaming feel of BX, 1E, 2E.
I prefer Palladium Fantasy over 1E AD&D when i found it a few months after i started with 1E AD&D, 42 years ago!
A big problem with AD&D was that an experienced man would have to ask "Do i have to roll high or low on this?" ! Thac0 is actually fairly simple to do, and helps kids learn math!
D&D and AD&D challenged the player, but 3E and beyond challenged the character!
I love AD&D, but i have played all the stuff worth playing for the 28 years of paying it!
The skills were added in the 2 Survival Guides and Oriental Adventures in 1E!
5E doesn't even have a real setting, just small areas of settings!
I've read it. Good, solid rule system. Never gave Palladium fantasy any actual table time but I did play a short and incredibly fun TMNT campaign in college.
AD&D is better than 5e goes without saying. 5e is to easy, we ran the game in AD&D as a military operation. It was hard! Descending armor class, tables, and thac0 is for advanced humans that can do math. I mostly played with Electronics people, math is a joke to us. The problem is the monsters, Orcs killed my horse, do I chase them? I move 6" and they move 9", the casters move 12" but do they want to chase them without the fighters while Orcs pepper them with arrows? AD&D was way more fun.
Agree. And a great point I completely overlooked. The nerfing of movement rates and encumbrance rules has REALLY hurt the game.
5th is easier than 3rd and 4th only
I disagree. 5th has more than a hundred subclasses. I've lost count of the number of available races. It has, like, a THOUSAND different feats. 5E is not only the crunchiest most complicated version of D&D ever made, it's one of the crunchiest, most complicated RPGs on the market.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Yeah, I don t allow other source materials other than player handbook, no feats or multiclass, it makes everything easier for the DM
I ran the game the same way, and the rules still collapsed at eighth level. Maybe... Limit the game to SRD only and you might be on to something.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Let me ask you a piece of advice - Do you use the monsters to be lethal or do you make the encounter easier for the players? exemple a monster has good ranged attacks, do I attack the caster, most obvious for the lower armor class ? or the fighter, what would be easier for everyone to survive. The player wizard always complains about being persecutede by the DM, I get embarassed when using the monsters. How to choose the player I will attack and at the same time give the players the perception of fairness
Encounters should have a mix of difficulties. A few easy ones. A few "run away" deadly ones, with a range of difficulties in between.
I agree about death mecs, 5e is laughable
In just the expanded core rules for 5E there are 42 races, 62 backgrounds, and 106 subclasses. Before you even introduce multiclassing and ability score priorities there are 276k different character types.
5E is *not* simple. Not even a little bit. It's not even a top 5 version of D&D when it comes to simplicity.
I couldn't agree more. This myth that 5E is "simple" just because it has moved the bulk of its player mechanics over to a "d20 roll high" standard is an utterly vapid contention.
35:10 "Philosphy I'm talking about. . . "What matters is the quality of the overall gaming experience for the group at the table including the Dungeon Master! " I agree with that standalone statement, but I'm not sure if its an edition thing rather than a generation gap thing. I'm amused by your dramatic reaction to the phenomena of an obnoxious sanctimonious twit punk who thinks his vicarious character is special and wants to hijack the whole group with his unique vision and goes on childishly entitled for everyone to cater to his ass. Yeah that's immature and obnoxious, but It's ironic to me because as little 11 year old 12 year old kids it was kind of a bizarre badge of honor to pencil whip up our vicarious level creeped up superheroes statted way above average. Words can't describe the DM not much older who would encourage that belligerancy and be like "bring it" "I'll respond to the challenge and kick your characters' asses with worse foes and traps and adversaries. This twisted contradicting pereception of philosphy of game (between a hardass DM that's all "my way or the highway You're the guest, at my table not yourse I'm the host etc. ." and a DM that loved to agitate chaos and meltdowns and be like "bring it bitch!" is fun to wrestle with in my mind. That is a 1 of a kind uniquely rare breed of talent DM who loves agitating juvenile mischievious impious Players and egos running rampant with all sorts of level creep tricks and powers. Such a DM could be very spontaneous and on the fly,. That was an endless source of amusement for me reminiscing my youth. It was rare experience that I haven't been able to re-create in my adult years. Watching Tim Kask give all these stoic responses to contradicting comments and rants was fun for awhile too, but sometimes I felt bad for hurting his feelings. Anyways thank you for your channel and for your videos.
Tim kinda has to play the room. The modern gaming community is ruthless. One wrong move and the weirdos on Twitter will get you cancelled, and for a guy like Tim, who relies on making appearances at events like GenCon, this ties his hands. Pretty much everybody who wants to capitalize on celebrity has this same problem. It's a damn shame, really, because it drives a popular culture where we really can't trust... well... anybody.
Wanna grow the channel? Do actual plays of ad&d. That's right buster, time to put your electrum where your magic mouth is! Let's see some actual example of game play, real ad&d. Hit us your most basic bedt adventures so even a THAC-NO can understand! This ain't your _grand kids_ D&D!
Maybe start with a one shot that involves character creation and a dungeon run? Try to use a fighting man, magic user, elf, dwarf, thief, and cleric. Druids, bards, half orcs and half elves can wait. Try to show a bog (or should I say, grog) standard game of D&D from back in the day.
At the very least it'd be there for posterity... trying ti find an 1E AD&D game set in og Greyhawk here on youtube is next to impossible, I know, I've looked. Cheers!
I never understood the appeal of live plays. I'd rather work on my own campaign than watch other people have fun. But DM a live play? Hell, yes. I'd be up for that.
Right now, I'm still figuring out how to add an end screen to my videos. I've gotten pretty good at editing, though. But recording a game with multiple participants sounds like it would take some serious skills.
It's a good suggestion. I'll take it under consideration.
58:54 -59:02
No, no, I'm with the theater kids on this once. After all, you can "not" be Hellboy in _any_ game. And for all today's snowflakery, there is value in discerning when to say no versus when to find a way to say yes.
Sorry, even as far back as 3rd edition I saw "feats" as at worst overpowered nonsense that made it impossible to balance campaigns for diverse parties, and at best the beginning of video game nonsense working its way in. I hated it from the get.
AFAIC D&D stopped being D&D under Loraine Williams with her stupid "complete guides," but with 3E it stopped pretending. It became a completely different game with a D&D logo slapped on it.
5e went woke, so screw them.
But is it better than pathfinder?
Yes. Pathfinder, which really is just a clone of 3.5, shares almost all of the same weaknesses and flaws as 5E, albeit to a lesser degree.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 this is actually the first time someone gave me a straight answer.
all of the OSR guys I encountered hated 5th ed with a passion said they prefered old DnD, but played pathfinder way more.
I think you'll find most of those players started with 3.5, which I don't really consider an "OSR" game.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 3.5 is really an improvement, fixes the glaring flaws and clunkiness of outdated systems.
with the jump to pathfinder;character options are pretty much close to perfection.
if there's an old system that's versatile and encourages improvisation; its gonna be gurps.
I couldn't disagree more. The core addition of social skills. The unnecessary addition of feats and skills. The neglect of resource management and domain level play. The complete lack of a mass combat system.
No. 3.5 was a huge step toward the worthless superhero power fantasy that evolved into 5E. Awful tabletop game. AWFUL.
NWN was cool, but 3.5 was a worthless ttrpg system, afaic. I'd certainly play Pathfinder before 5E... But that's a pretty low bar.
The writing in 5th edition is semi-illiterate. There's no beauty, no passion, no humor, no commitment to quality. The writers are talentless, and the whole product is sanitized to the point of total blandness. WotC could never produce something like Domains of Dread, and its executives would never allow its writers to produce something like that even if they could.
Same goes for the art direction, it's so homogenized and sanitized. Whomever it is that is responsible for it... Clyde Caldwell or Larry Elmore they ain't.
The low quality of writing in most gaming products today is really appalling, and WOTC is as bad as it gets.
Dungeons & Dragons is the McDonald's of TTRPGs.
Soggy, flavorless, and devoid of nutritional value.
But hey... A lot of people really love McDonald's, so...
*shrug*
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 Absolutely agree. Maybe people will start branching out more, but there's an issue here that really transcends what WOTC might be doing or how bad the product actually is. Namely, network effects, which are the same reason that objectively superior social media sites have trouble taking off. The reason so many people are on Twitter is just that there are so many people on Twitter, which makes the repeated attempts to supplant it so farcical.
I was thinking the other day how cool it was that all these people are starting to explore different game systems, whether they be OSR clones or completely alien systems like Cypher, The One Ring, or what have you. And it's true, this whole fiasco is opening some people's eyes. But the brute fact is that because of D&D's relative familiarity and recognizability, it is going to be almost impossible to dethrone--I know from hard experience that if you're moving to a new area or in need of a new play group or even just looking to expand your horizons, it can be extremely hard to convince anybody to do anything other than just play D&D.
I doubt there's a real near-term solution to this. I'm part of the problem too, after all. Personally, I never intend to play Pathfinder as long as I live, so anybody looking to defeat the beast that way can't count on me to help. Then there's the fact that D&D is so much better supported on digital clients, which contributes to the convenience factor.
Some problems have a way of feeding on themselves, and this is one of them.
@@grumpyoldgrognard9561 You know, I don't even care if AD&D's game mechanics are good (I personally don't care for them, but that's beside the point). The sheer beauty and flavor of 1e and 2e draw me into the game and make it totally immersive. It's crucial for a TTRPG to have excellent flavor text where it's needed and good names for things, and 1e and 2e have that in spades. It's astonishing most TTRPG players aren't perceptive enough to realize this when exposed to both 5e and AD&D material. Distinguishing incredibly flavorful writing from incredibly shitty writing isn't hard, or at least shouldn't be. It's alright, though; we grognards will continue playing AD&D regardless of what most gamers think of it.
I've now watched ALL of the video. Good points.
So, for a semi-hot take, 5E has trouble with DMs because DMs don't DM in 5E. They are merely module facilitators. There is a core ingrained idea in the culture that DMs are whipping boys, that rulings are all uniformly bad, that their opinions don't matter as much as the other players, etc. That the rules are sacrosanct and written by God and handed down from the heavens to WotC. In short, it's a hostile environment for DMs to actually do any of the stuff that's fun when it comes to DMing. I'm sure there are pockets of people who've actually read the DMG and wear the viking hat and disallow all PC options outside of the Core and Sword Coast Adventurer Guide, but the defining majority that make up the culture has informed my perspective.
On social mechanics: I famously dislike these and even go so far as not being a fan of mental and social stats in general because these things are entirely in the player's responsibility. So, a player plays a PC with 17 int or 6 int. What that doesn't do is change the intelligence of the player. If the player could be codified as a 7 int player or a 14 int player, he isn't going to magically see more or less options because he rolled some dice that one time that said his character was smarter or dumber than he is. I tell players not to limit themselves to the numbers because the tests will do that for you. That's what all the numbers are for. And I don't call for a test if I don't think it's warranted. If a player thinks of a good lie, there's no roll to discern it. The NPC buys it. Same goes for my lies. I tend to limit Game stuff to anything that we can't demonstrate at the table. The rest is the Roleplay part. This means that physical actions like jumping chasms or slaying orcs stay on the mat, while interactions, plans, decisions, etc are sorted by the players themselves. I hate have to explain this but: That is the fun of the game. Possibly even the point of the game. And I don't call for a fucking Int check to see if it worked, because that is the fun of the game TO ME. Though sometimes I do pretend to roll dice, and because of the capricious and esoteric nature of old school games then low can be good and high can be good. Or bad. I never fudge though. Fudging's for squares. When I lay down a risk and roll my $30 unbiased Gamescience plastic, you better believe we're sticking to the results.
You are absolutely right about the way DM's are treated, these days. Between streamers pandering to audiences, and professional DMs pandering to players, DMs are held in contempt by a lot of modern players.
Treating the hardest working player at the table as the house bitch is hardly an attitude that's going to entice a lot of players into becoming DMs.
I used to allow players with mediocre intellects, but high INT characters, to make attribute rolls from time to time; but as I got to know more people I realized there are a lot of different kinds of intelligence. You can be book-smart without being a critical thinking puzzle solver or a Machiavellian puppet master. The INT stat in D&D ONLY covers your book-smarts/magical aptitude. Other INT based feats are up to the player. If the player is an idiot, that's fine. The character is an idiot savant with an aptitude in magic.
I treat CHA in a very similar manner.
"Module facilitators", most of us make our own campaigns :/ why are old-whatever-traditionalists always such reductive jerks
@@override367 cool story bro.
EDIT: Reading is fundamental, btw.