Great take on the situation. It just screams to me that there is a huge market for very rules light, Streaming optimized RP games that lean heavily into exactly what these players want to experience, and I am creating Super Atomic RPG for exactly that.
There's too much "Your DnD sucks, my DnD is real DnD." I think people who like superheroic, plot-driven games are happy with 5e and thats great, and those who went to the OSR-sphere wanted something different, which is totally fine. I'd consider myself in the middle, but mostly the latter. I agree with your take here, good stuff. ❤
I think it's neat that at first the thumbnail looks like TBE recoiling from the video in the background, but after more thoroughly looking at it you realize it's the infinitely more relatable issue of the sun peeking through a window to try to blind him.
it’s been fun going back as an adult and re-reading the rules (or even older editions I didn’t have access to) and realizing we were doing things wrong at 9 years old- but it is what it is. As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s D&D game is a constant work in progress; if you don’t understand some rules, play without them. Maybe one day it’ll finally “click” and you can implement them into your game- and that’s great! As a kid and a pre-teen, I don’t think I would have appreciated playing 100% RAW- because there was a lot of tedium and “book keeping” that isn’t necessarily “fun”. But as an adult, playing 100% RAW adds another layer of challenge that is welcome. As far as Ginny Di goes, I really don’t care at all about her content or her takes. I don’t care about 5E. I’m 40- I’m not her target demographic 😂
The problem isn't really that she didn't read the book, it's that she didn't read the book but still spent years speaking as an authority figure on running D&D. It's extremely frustrating when a lot of people try to "fix problems" in the game that don't actually exist purely because they don't know those solutions already exist. Also, I think that "not reading" shit like the random name generator or some of the variant rules is fine, so long as you've actually read the actual core rules. You don't need to know how Sanity or Honor scores or how Modern Firearms work because those aren't really a part of the actual game. But you absolutely need to know how grappling works, how social encounters work, and how death saves and stabilization work. Also, as a DM, you don't need to know what all of the classes can do. It's on your players to have all of their abilities written down so that when they perform them, they can simply read it to you and you can make a ruling. Like if your party has a cleric, a bard, and a wizard, then how to you expect to know three different spells lists, and what every spell does.
@@alexanderchippel her not reading but giving advice is a huge problem. But many do this. She just has a bigger platform which does arguably make it more egregious.
The problem is that everyone that starts playing D&D starts with the PHB and you can figure it out how to DM it. Then you buy the DMG and all the fluff is in the front and people (like me) stop reading after all the tables and items. But I should keep reading because all the way in the back is how to play as the DM, like they were hiding it or something. So yeah, if you need to read 1 3/4 books to get to the good part, it seems that the writers doesn't know what are they doing since the DM is the most important player in D&D.
When I first entered this side of the hobby (its only been a few years) I thought; 'You've been playing wrong for 40 years', was just an insult the Bros liked to throw around. But the more time you spend here, the more you come to realise how true it actually is. Thousands of forum posts on the big sites, and blogs, detailing solutions (homebrews and houserules) to questions that could have been answered by reading the rules and ACTUALLY playing the game they describe. It is the equivalent of the thousands of hours of 5e YT vids that also hold no real answers. Leaving the only person who may tell you how the game should be played as the designer. So you better hope they've included clear examples of play.
which is part of the reason 4e failed... nobody read the books and just went off group concensus. granted 4e has it's own issues and is a VERY different game then any other dnd but it wasn't even given a chance because these egg heads didn't even read
I've read a lot of role-playing games in my day. Most of them say (usually in the 1st chapter) this is your game, play it how want to. If the way some people want to play includes not reading all of the rules who am I to argue (even though I don't understand them).
@@RaisiaFan1919 I think that the language in those books got worse and worse and that's a fundamental problem that leads to people not reading them. These are games and we wouldn't do that with any other kind of game. But I digress. I don't put such language in my own games.
Another solid vid! I did a vid a bit back about the same issue, “I’ve never played 5e and neither have you”. It was about actually reading the dmg and discovering that lo and behold, it has rules to play how i want 5e to play. That taught me to not just read but comprehend the rules. Use sample characters, roll and play out examples in the books. IT helps a ton.
I read the core 3 books for 5e front to back at least once. It lets me have a general idea of where to find rules when a fellow player or the DM gets stuck on quickly making a ruling. Going back through it afterwards has let me build up my own CR spreadsheet so I can create my own monster encounters and have an idea of how they'd stand up against a party.
Man, someday I need to do a video with this guy; I have a feeling that eventually, only me and Victor will still agree with 90% of what he says. She said she read the stuff that was important to her game wich is what most of us do anyway
If you were somehow forced to fly a plane on a whim, would you rather take advice from the trained pilot on the radio or the guy standing next to you who has "watched a lot of flying videos and read some of the relevant manuals"? The point is she is giving unqualified advice on how to run the game if she hasn't finished reading the rules. Distinguishing "the important stuff" comes after you have done so, not before.
@@siegherz every one knows i cant read My good bird I’ve been talking shit about her longer than most of you has known who she was . Got a video essay on her dates back almost 8 years. I’ve been very outspoken time and time again about disagreeing with her, but on this one I don’t think she did anything wrong. In fact, I think she knew exactly what she was doing just like she always does and she’s getting the response. She knew she was gonna get look how many people are talking about her the one thing she knows how to do very well is market herself.
@@siegherz when is she given unqualified advice she’s been known to give incredibly bad advice but at no point of time did she say oh I am the end. I’ll be all I have more experience than any of you guys. I’ve been playing this game for decades. I wrote DND she’s an girl, who got mildly famous for cosplay and songs and teasing people with her boba and making mediocre D&D videos some of which were OK some of which were awful but she’s always proven that she knows exactly what she’s doing and how to market herself and the amount of people that are making videos about what she just said prove she knows what she’s doing because look at all the free press she’s getting
When it comes to reading the rules, a problem is the 5e dmg isn't very good. It has good parts but it is generally poorly structured. I doubt most dms have read the whole thing back to front, for sure more than 20%. Really the player's handbook is the only truly necessary book for that edition.
The answer is yes it is real D&D because everyone EVERYONE makes homebrew and home rules of the Original rules. Dave played differently from Gary and everyone else played different from them.
“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” - Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean. The only reason to read all the rules is so you can break them, change them or apply them in a much more fine and interesting way. If people want to play rules as written that's absolutely fine as long as they don't yell at others for playing in a different way.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arnison have both stated that they didn't play D&D as written and I've been playing since 1980 in MANY different groups and none of them used the exact same rules. So here's my advice "If you and your group are having fun then you're playing right."
This isn't to be mean to you, but I get this exact comment all the time. Personally, I'm not interested in how they played. I'm interested in what they wrote and what that game looks like.
@@williamatkins3465 Because if someone else is trying to apply the rules as well, perhaps there is nuance they get that I do not. It's not helpful to know how something works if I decide to throw it out because Gary did. My tastes are not Gary's or Dave's.
@@TheBasicExpert so our thoughts aren't to far apart. I tried Chainmail and OD&D in the 80's and to be honest there were things in both that I either didn't understand or didn't like so I didn't use. Now my interest in other peoples games is basically looking for something cool that I didn't think of that I can use in my game. My current 18 month long game/setting is a mashup of Shadowdark, BFRPG, B/X, BECMI, 3.5, 5e, and assorted made up ideas.
So my take from this is that you are saying “you aren’t playing or running the game you think you are UNLESS you are playing / running it Rules as Written… period”. The problem with that is that there are a lot of circumstances that can arise during game play that are not covered by any rule written in the DMG or PHB. By design or unintended omission, Gary suggested that DMs make rulings where rules do not exist. I understand that “Rulings not Rules” can be taken too far and Gary recognized that as well, which is why he cautioned against it in the DMG. Gary mentioned that there were certain “essential systems” that if altered or removed would lead to you no longer playing D&D but something else. The problem is, Gary did not declare what rules were essential in the DMG. Gary did mention some of those essentials in articles that followed in Dragon Magazine and elsewhere. The few I recall were: HP, Level Limits and Class Restrictions for Demi Humans, and the Alignment system (He did not believe players would play as heroes without it). There were also those systems that Gary wrote into AD&D 1E that he had regretted having done so. He literally said the unarmed / grappling system was not good. He specifically said don’t use the Monk class in the PHB but instead use the one in OA. You have to remember that these rules were written in physical books in a time when errata was not available except for in Dragon Magazine or other publications.
I'm not actively running a games myself right now, but have at least two or three in the hopper at various stages. None of them am I referring to the them by their game system names, but rather the campaign setting I'm envisioning for them. Depending on the system, I may still be playing RAW, while another may be heavily house ruled. In the previous campaigns I have run, I did the same with their 'titles'. Truly, the average player doesn't care what its called, as long as their having a good time Good discussion, TBE!
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’m of the mindset that you should run a game RAW, at least in the beginning, so you can see the system in action, and understand how the rules actually work in play, because what might seem weird or wonky on paper, is actually integral to the game and removing or changing throws the entire experience out of whack (the resistance table from Runequest comes to mind).
I, too, have read every rulebook for games I like to play/run. I may not remember every detail, but I did read through. Somebody went through the effort to compile and test these rules as suggestions for play, so I might want to see what they are. I made my own video about playing with rules as written. From a friendly play standpoint, if you suggest to friends a game of D&D, they'll expect it to be run from the rules in the books. If I whip out a Sorry! board and some playing cards and say here's my D&D homebrew, I'm going to have a LOT of disappointed players. Given this, if I change anything, I need to be up front about it at the same time I'm telling them we're playing D&D. It's a consistent, stable framework players can understand. Unfortunately, we've reached a point with social media that I can be offended by everything and demand from everyone that you must acknowledge and accept my viewpoint, and in many cases, adapt to my way of thinking. Really, who cares how you play? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. This is definitely one of those "walk away" situations. Thanks for this.
There's a big fat 'G' in RPG. Sure the lines can get blurred a little bit when players attempt something that isn't strictly listed in the rules, but you will have much more sane rulings as a GM if you know the rules to the game you are playing. The whole cottage industry that's cropped up on youtube and social media around D&D GM advice that amounts to reinventing the wheel and calling it "homebrew" is telling on how many people don't actually read the rules for that 'G'. Ginny, and people like her, make their success clickbaiting lazy people and GMs trapped with theater kids that are desperate for advice on how to run a Critical Role campaign.
I think we need to figure out who the conversation is with before we can answer the question. If I'm talking to my grandma about myTraveler game I'm going to call it D&D. If I am talking to a Traveler player I am going to call it Mongoose.
When I want to play a game by the rules usually I need to be analytical. I have Chess for that. When I want creativity and imagination I play Basic Fantasy or OSRIC. Also liking Alone Against Fear. As Gygax said, if you're having fun your doing it right.
You're right about S&W, but that particular ruleset doesn't hide that it's 0e by way of 1978, including supplements and Strategic Review mechanics, unlike other clones.
Also This was a really good video, and I say that as someone who generally isn't a fan, though your latest "villain arc" is starting to change my mind.
You don’t need to read the DMG if you’ve ruined any RPG before. On the other hand, I did just get banned from a Facebook group for telling a guy that he didn’t use rules. He wasn’t playing a game or something to that effect.
Yeah I’d say the most basic thing should be having read the rulebook of whatever game you play. But then again I’m not gonna argue with folks who want to run a game however they want.
Very interesting topic. While I don't agree with you, I do understand your point of view. For me rules are also very important, understanding the rules is the starting point to play the game, as you said. I, however, think of DnD/D&D as an umbrella term, at least conceptually, so you can use Shadowdark or Old-School Essentials to crawl on Dungeons & confront Dragons (I don't tell my casual gaming friends we're gonna play WhiteBox: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, I tell them we're gonna play D&D). I also think homebrew/house rules are a big part of the hobby, and always have been. In my case, a pintch of homebrew is needed to enjoy the game, but in order to make a good working home rule, you should know and understand the original rule you are changing. Just my opinion.
I remember 3e DEVELOPERS writing in the trade cover supplements about the 5 (!!) different rules on sword breaking. (Fighters' Supplement? Maroon cover.) So this has been a problem for a very long time, but now has altered even core rules. I find going without encumbrance especially ironic given the 3e DMG discussion of Hill Giant "scrapyard" treasure. 2e or 3e?? Been a long damn time!
Tremendous video, and one that I hope reaches a wider audience. The purity spirals inside each community don’t benefit the larger hobby, and it looks ridiculous to people outside of it. Keep up the sane and most importantly, epistemologically modest perspective.
Guess Im out of the loop, don't know much about the D&D Christmas Carol girl except that was cool. I don't really have a favorite edition but I do have a favorite game system. Though there are aspects of editions that appeal to me more or less compared to others. Im not purest Im not overly concerned about running games RAW. If Ive never played a game before I will try to run it RAW in the first campaign. Just so I get to know the game. If Ive never played the game I don't know how the rules are gonna play out yet so why change it. Is using official variant rules running the game RAW? Idk & it doesn't really matter to me. Im not particularly concerned w/ what or how other people play RPGs. Somebody may have idea thar sparks my interest that I could incorporate @ my table & thats cool. Primarily I am concerned with my player's experience @ my table. Deep down aren't we all? Ive read the core books to evey numbered edition, BECMI & Rules Encyclopedia. Some multiple times some more recently than others. I played @ length 1e-3.5e & BECMI. I liked them all. Though I did have purchasing reservations about 2e, 2e Revised & 3.5 when the first came out but eventually I caved & Im glad I did.Edition wars are passe, some memes can be humorous but beyond its just a buncha folks yelling @ the sky. Not everyone is gonna like the samething & thats ok. Lately I've seen some bitching about rules but mostly I've seen complaints from every angle & all sides about campaign settings, alignment, inherit traits, & how the campaign world society is portrayed. Of course ya gotta use encumbrance, it seems absurd to ignore carrying capacity. Might as well ignore strength in that case. Cant ignore spell components either & divine beings don't grant divine casters access to every divine spell all the time for any old reason.
As someone who's switched to C&C, I get it. I didn't read ALL of BFRPG or Swords and Wizardry or White Box FMAG, because the FORMATTING lends itself to being more of a reference manual than a rulebook. AD&D style (OSRIC, C&C, For Gold & Glory, etc) are much more codifed, so reading is STRONGLY recommended before running it, especially if you wish to use the optional stuff in the CKG/DMG. Plus, just look at the C&C books. How can you look at them and NOT wanna read them?
@@TheBasicExpert I have the same prints. Honestly, if you want Gygaxian for the modern age, this is it. It's an excellent stand alone game. The artwork is absolutely gorgeous, as well. Best $150 I have ever spent.
So this video is the ship of Theseus question, if you change the parts of something at what point is it no longer the original thing you started with? The answer is if you change anything technically it is not the original object. So it's really a personal choice if you are a rules purist or if you believe in altering the game for whatever reason. I would argue against your notion that you need to play rules as written when it comes to playing an "old School" game (pre 3E) as it was intended. If you go to page B60 of BX it specifically talks about DMs coming up with solutions for things not covered in the rules, while that is not changing a pre-existing rule it is saying to add something which is still altering the game. On page 36 of The Underworld & Wilderness adventures the Afterword mentions adding and interpreting the rules yourself(or at least my PDF copy I don't have an original). In the Rules Cyclopedia page 266 it says you can specifically modify the rules. So the rules say to change the game therefore I am following the rules by changing them, so you are playing these games when you change them. However I do agree that there are some core concepts and rules that once changed do mean you are essentially playing a different game. l for example I personally don't consider a game OSR or Old School if you don't die at 0 HP and also if you don't roll your stats 3d6 in order, there are other things that I consider not OSR but it would be too long for this comment and those are two I think are very important. Another interesting philosophical question would be: Is the OSR a set of core rules or a set of ideals? I would say the latter mostly due to my previous point but also if that were the case only OD&D would be technically old school because BX and all other editions are modifications, do the modifications only count as legitimate if TSR made them? What about friends of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson who played in their games but never worked for TSR, do their modifications not count? So I agree with you that you should read the rules and understand them but changing the rules is part of the game, in fact it's in the rules!
I have opinions on subjects everyday, which I'm not an expert on :D I think you are shooting sparrows with cannonballs here m8. Otherwise, love your content
D&D seems to fall under the same problem that Nintendo does (or rather did back in the day). In that all game systems or video games were considered Nintendo, especially by people that didn't know the difference. I don't even remember how many times my mom told me to stop playing Nintendo when I was playing Playstation. What muddies the water is that the TTRPG sphere by it's very nature is malleable. It's just books and pencils and paper, and you can swap stuff out and make your own stuff. And there are a bazillion clones out there of every edition, which is another reason why so many things that aren't D&D are perceived as D&D. And, D&D is the big dog on the block so to speak, so the TTRPG hobby in general and D&D are often synonymous to those who are outside of the hobby, or surface deep within it. If it has the "Six Ability Points" and uses a D20 it's apparently D&D, like what Professor Dungeon Master (I think that's his name) says. I don't totally disagree, and understand that argument in spirit, but it's also not technically true. Personally it doesn't really bother me since my game of choice isn't D&D, but I understand how it could get annoying when so many think their way to play D&D is the best despite the fact they're not even playing D&D but rather some Frankenstein version. If one wants to tinker and hack and home-brew, fine, but it would probably benefit such people to actually know the system they're hacking up so much, and maybe recognize that some people won't consider it D&D.
😂 The only DnD I’ve read, cover to cover, are the 0e family of games. Currently reading yours. I have read others but they don’t claim to be DnD in some way.
I feel like with 5e in particular most people learn the rules second-hand. I've played and GM'd just fine. (Im no longer much of a 5e guy.) I feel in OSR games, most of the rule books are more digestable. I actually do feel a solid chunk of people who have ran 5e haven't read the DMG. BUT I don't think that's the case with most OSR games. Not necessarily because of the players but because I feel WoTC is bad at creating usable content.
Edition wars are silly. I had a few years break from 1996 until 3e and thought I had to convert settings and old 1e and 2e content to play it and it was stupid. Just play the game edition it was made in. It’s just different means to calculate and solve problems and outcomes. How these folks like Ginny D can NOT read and understand the rules of the game they play is just ludicrous. Is she really playing D&D? Great question and great video.
This was so on the nose and yet missed some valid criticisms. What I hate most is picking up an "OSR" game that got high reviews only to find a ton of bad grammar, duplicated words and a lack of consistency. Why does this happen? Because the creator used the rules of another game that carries an open license and they literally copy/pasted whole chunks. They don't even take the time to read what they're using! You'll see the DM referred to as the GM, games master, referee, etc. in various places throughout the rules.
@@roop366 I love when randos on the internet think they know my mind and intentions better than me. Generally this is a cope when one disagrees but has nothing convincing as a retort.
I really don't understand what you're talking about with Fighting Capability. In OD&D, it's not 3 hit dice, its 4 hit dice you become a full Hero. You are described as Man+1 at HD1, 2 Men + 1 at HD2, 3 Men or Hero - 1 at HD3, and Hero at HD4. This exactly syncs with Chainmail where a Hero is described as equal to 4 figures. Then there are special rules for Fantastic Combat as opposed to combat with normal men. OD&D thus allows even the HD3 fighter to jump into CHAINMAIL Fantastic Combat as a Hero - 1. But this is perhaps irrelevant, because the "Alternative Combat System" has always been the D&D combat system. The compatibility with Chainmail is interesting, and perhaps even useful for a special session here and there, but it is quite explicitly not D&D. S&W or FMAG (or AD&D for that matter) are not changing anything when they say that a Fighter's hit dice are equal to the number of men he fights as. This is exactly the same information that was conveyed in OD&D. Indeed... OD&D itself uses precisely this same language on Page 5 of the Monster book, outside the tables. It's also not at all clear to me what "Strategic Review" article you are referencing. I am not aware of any such article, nor why it would constitute a nerf? I am reticent to presume you are very confused. I am not a regular viewer and have heard of you only in passing. Perhaps I am confused somehow. Still, I am extremely negatively predisposed to someone named The Basic Expert. People who change rules they do not understand certainly are grotesque, but if I am correct then you are in a glass house of your own. Slavishly defending rules you also do not play and do not understand. This would seem equally embarrassing.
@@justinthatiusedtoknow anything less than 4 HD is normal combat under the the rules in 0e. Look at the entry for ghouls or how potion of heroism work. It's not explicit but heavily implied.
@@TheBasicExpert Alright. I think I understand where you are coming from, but I believe you are incorrectly trying to mix Chainmail and OD&D. I believe you are better off looking at the two games as having some compatibility, but I do not believe they are expected to be mixed in the way you are describing. I hold a very dim view of this compatibility in general.
As someone who played D&D when I was much younger (middle school, early 80's) and was essentially reintroduced to it a few years back through my 11 year old son, I got the urge to go back and seek out the old books that my friends and I used to use - essentially a Frankenstein comprised of 1e and B/X. This naturally led to my recent interest in Chainmail and 0e. I've learned a lot about the mechanics of Chainmail from Jon Mollison's channel, but I'm very far from being anywhere near comfortable in my knowledge of that system. I'm here to learn. This particular thread is interesting to me, because, when I got copies of the 0e books, one of the recommended rulesets (I'm assumed to play the game) was Chainmail. This is where my initial interest in Chainmail started. Even back with my first experiences with D&D back in 83-84, we would hear things about Chainmail from older players, and it was always shrouded in mystery :something old dudes did which was very technical. Recently, I've started to see, what I thought, were connections between the Chainmail rules, 0e, and even 1e, but from what I'm reading here, it appears that I'm wrong in seeing those connections. If Chainmail has nothing to do with real D&D, then why is it mentioned at all in the 1st little brown book? What am I missing? I noticed, while watching "Secrets of Blackmoor", that, in the scenes where they show the guys sitting around the table playing, that there is nary a d20 in sight. If there was, I missed it, which I guess wouldn't be surprising. at looked to me like everyone was using d6s almost exclusively. What game were those guys playing? Please forgive the length of this comment, and thank you guys for any help you can give!
As a quick addendum, I'd like to say that I also bought the "Outdoor Survival" game (also recommended in "Men and Magic" ), and it's a great game in its own right!
I find it funny that ppl that have only played 5th feel like they have a right to throw their hat in the ring with the edition wars. I started playing at 3.5 and I still feel like I don’t have the right.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, correct me please if I'm wrong. But I heard that Dave and Gary had some wacky rules that never really made it to any book. They would also not follow a ton of the rules in the books. I'm just curious to see if this is right. Anyway good vid :)
I don't know why but people hear you say, "I like to play by the rules in the book and experiment with what kind of game that produces" and people respond with "Well Gary and Dave didn't play that way." I'm not being mean to you, so don't take it personally here, it's just, I hear this all the time. And it's a non-sequiter. How the creators played is not what I'm interested. I'm interested in what they wrote and what kind of game that is and what it produces. I understand that experiments were made before the game released and their preferences changed after. Many others have played that way but not as many have been interested in playing the game the way the book specifies. So that's what I'm interested.
@@TheBasicExpert nah no worries. No offence taken. I see what you mean. I very much agree that if you're going to change anything you should have a good understanding of the game first. Ultimately I do agree with your view.
Playing OSR is by name a generic home brew concept of old D&D editions. Now actual 0e D&D, AD&D 2e, 3e 4e 5e, etc.. are all playing that particular game edition system. So yes, you can say you are playing OSR without playing the rules of a particular D&D edition "rule as written," but you can't say you're playing 0e D&D, etc.. properly
The rules are the common language of the game that allows people who have never sat together to have a discourse. I am teaching my daughter and her friends 5e RAW so that when they go to another table they will be able to participate with a shared lexicon.
I got three points I’d like to make 1. When I got into DMing, granted it was before Critical Role, it was like an obvious train of thought. “I want to be a DM so maybe I should read the DM guide.” It shocks me to hear people don’t read the rule books. 2. The OSR guys are the worse. I’ve seen moe butchering and kit bashing and making up just random crap to toss into their games all while saying “I am the rules.” From them to even care what they have to say on the subject. They seem to think as long as it comes from an older pre woke system, their words not mine, it’s okay for them to do it. 🙄 3. I don’t really think it’s all that deep. This system was made, and I’m talking Gary and Dave here, by two dudes who had no idea what they were doing and were just making up stuff to make the game fun for their table. That’s the spirit of the game. While yes I don’t wanted to be invited to a pf2e game and show up and they’re playing D&D 4e, and I make an effort to learn the system rules so written before I change anything. If someone wants to take 5e and homebrew the crap of it so they and their table enjoy it, and they still call it 5e. I don’t care, and I don’t think it’s that big of a deal that they do it.
@@neonGliiitch I disagree with point three having devoted lots of time to reading, playing, and trying to understand 0e. They really knew why they were doing design wise. If there is any fault it's in transmission and presentation and with that I give them a break. No one had made an RPG rulebook before.
I think someone homebrewing the crap out of a system and calling it that system still makes it really easy to talk past one another Ita like speaking American English and then trying to understand a drunk Irish person. Haha
@@TheBasicExpert Then we can agree to disagree on that. The spirit of the game has always been, have fun. Both Dave and Gary talked with people and wrote articles about the subject. We don't need to guess at it, when we've heard it from the horses mouth. I also don't disagree with you on this, but I also don't care enough about it. I find with these conversations, and mostly among the OSR guys, there seems to be a zealous fervent about this. It reminds me of Christians theologist sitting around arguing about how their theology is right and everyone else's theology is wrong. When they're missing the entire point of the bible, and that's Jesus. Weird analogy I know, but that's how it feels to me. People who are more focused on having a pissing contest over how what they think D&D should be is more correct than everyone else's, instead of just having fun and enjoying the game, and not caring how people outside of their table think or play it. But that's just my opinion and my mother always told me opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink. 🤣
@@TheBasicExpert Oh of course. I play RAW and I enjoy the game. I just think there's a lot of energy spent worrying about how others need to have a deep understanding of the system before they do things, or that by doing things they're ruining the spirit of the game. If everyone agrees to the changes, and they're all having fun, then they're doing just fine. Basically, I think this topic is mostly a nothing burger :) But to each their own. Some people enjoy the depth and philosophical analysis of things and that's cool. I just don't get the desire to make other people agree that they need to have the same approach or they're doing it wrong. In the end, it's a bunch of adults sitting around a table pretending to be dwarves and elves. I don't think that objectively it's that deep, I think it's people subjectively trying to make it that deep.
get your context correct - while the 5e DMG has been out for 10 years, Ginny has not been a DM for 10 years there is no reason for reading the DMG when you are not a DM. AND when she did start DMing, she did not read the 5e DMG COVER TO COVER until now. and when your "GUIDE" book is a disorganized, self contradictory mess, with a terrible index, expecting people to plow through it COVER TO COVER to find the important parts ... well its not a very good GUIDE and something that people SHOULDNT be wasting their time on when you can get ACTUALLY GOOD guidance from third parties!
@@TheBasicExpert In any manner it doesnt change the facts that 1) the 2014 DMG is steaming piece of shite, 2) any of the actually useful content in the 2014 DMG is BETTER presented by third party DM support. Not having read the 2014 DMG is a VALID position particularly in terms of ROI - even after having NOW read the DMG cover to cover, she found TEN PARAGRAPHS of material worth talking about out of the 300 + pages! FUCKING WASTE OF PAPER INK AND TIME.
Well, you cited logic which is anathema to many of this new wave of "feelings" gamers, so there is your fault. She's cute and bubbly so she gets a pass on most stuff she says. Remember the target audience she has and you have.
As a 4E fan, I'm more than sick of the edition wars at this point. As someone who DID read both DMG's for 4E, and like 90% of it's books are on my shelf, sooooo many of the "issues" people bring up in their rants are so provably wrong it's not even funny, because they've never even played the game, forget reading its rules. And if you just don't like 4E, that's perfectly fine. Go play a different game, I own like 10 different RPG systems as well for that reason, 4E is mostly an idea pool for 5E now because no one wants to play 4E or even give it a shot. But I'm so fed up with people going out of their way to be an asshole when all I do is mention I play the game, or, God forbid, show a picture of my RPG shelf that has a 4E section above the 5E section, and whenever they do, 99% of the things they say are just regurgitating old trope slams (Oh, it's WoW on the table, boring!) or just self admitals they never read the rules of the game in the first place, so even if they DID play it, they played so badly that I'm not shocked they had a bad time.
@@TheBasicExpert I started there too, so I respect that. I'm trying to finish my book collection for it, but sadly, the last books I need go for like $70+ per book on the aftermarket.
I don't even like 4th at all, but you're totally right. The profound ignorance behind a lot of the criticism is staggering. Mind you, I read most of the books (partially for old review pages), and I ran quite a few gaming events. That requires you to gain proper understanding to properly represent the game. I think the problem goes beyond just 4e, d&d, or even gaming at a point.
100%. I didn't start with 4e, but it was the first Edition of actual D&D (as opposed to the multitude of other TTRPGs I played before 4e) that I enjoyed enough to buy more than just the PHB for. It's a game experience that's wholly unique and gets way more invalid criticism than nearly any ither TTRPG I've followed. You don't have to like 4e, but don't spread outright falsehoods about it.
Are you really going to pretend that you need to read the 2014 DMG cover to cover in order to understand the rules for 5e Dungeons and Dragons? The bulk of the text in that book is NOT rules of the game. EDIT: I’m onboard with your thesis that you can’t flame one edition in favor of another unless you actually know what is in them. It’s just that there is a difference between “reading the DMG cover to cover-every word of their tedious cosmology and feudal governments treatises.” And “reading the DMG.” Ginny’s poll was asking about the former.
@@TheBasicExpert oh knock it off. “Read the rules” is not even slightly controversial. “Read every sentence of a 300+ page book that barely contains any rules” is quite different than that. Your reluctance to acknowledge that is not helping your credibility.
@@TheBasicExpertthis is so silly. You have to know this. You can’t read the entire 5e DMG and come away thinking “wow, every page of this is necessary to play a game of D&D. If I hadn’t read their descriptions of feudal governments, or the cosmologies and pantheons they literally told me I don’t have to use, I would not know what 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons really is.”
@@Newnodrogbob you are silly. How often do we see drooling room temp morons come up with some homebrew fix for something in the book? Read the book. Cover to cover. Else, why the hell did you buy the book? To sit on your shelf? That's whats actually dumb and silly.
Not reading the rules and then giving advice on how to make the game better is absolutely crazy lmao. I'm not a rules lawyer myself, but I got started in 3.5 and hard to learn the rules the hard way against a DM that never read the dmg and it was mind numbingly painful. Also, I have nothing against the woman personally, but I think that D&D isn't really the game for her nor is it the game for CR fans. They'd do better with Candela Obscura, where they can make up the rules for the sake of the story as they see fit.
Check out my substack and links to other places here: thebasicexpert.substack.com/
Great take on the situation. It just screams to me that there is a huge market for very rules light, Streaming optimized RP games that lean heavily into exactly what these players want to experience, and I am creating Super Atomic RPG for exactly that.
There's too much "Your DnD sucks, my DnD is real DnD." I think people who like superheroic, plot-driven games are happy with 5e and thats great, and those who went to the OSR-sphere wanted something different, which is totally fine. I'd consider myself in the middle, but mostly the latter.
I agree with your take here, good stuff. ❤
Everyone else's DnD sucks. Braunstein is real DnD. That's the truth. And you'll figure it out if you ever play in a proper Braunstein campaign.
Most people engaged in Edition Wars aren't fighting for their preferred system, they're fighting against someone else's preferred system.
I think it's neat that at first the thumbnail looks like TBE recoiling from the video in the background, but after more thoroughly looking at it you realize it's the infinitely more relatable issue of the sun peeking through a window to try to blind him.
I need new curtains! The blinds are not enough!
I'm gonna call BS on her poll saying that nearly 80% of her audience read the entire book.
No only 20 percent read the book. You have it backwards. Or maybe I mispoke in the video?
Ah yeah, you said 21 percent had not read it (I assumed you were implying the poll stated 79 percent had ready it). Those numbers make way more sense
it’s been fun going back as an adult and re-reading the rules (or even older editions I didn’t have access to) and realizing we were doing things wrong at 9 years old- but it is what it is.
As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s D&D game is a constant work in progress; if you don’t understand some rules, play without them. Maybe one day it’ll finally “click” and you can implement them into your game- and that’s great!
As a kid and a pre-teen, I don’t think I would have appreciated playing 100% RAW- because there was a lot of tedium and “book keeping” that isn’t necessarily “fun”.
But as an adult, playing 100% RAW adds another layer of challenge that is welcome.
As far as Ginny Di goes, I really don’t care at all about her content or her takes. I don’t care about 5E. I’m 40- I’m not her target demographic 😂
The problem isn't really that she didn't read the book, it's that she didn't read the book but still spent years speaking as an authority figure on running D&D. It's extremely frustrating when a lot of people try to "fix problems" in the game that don't actually exist purely because they don't know those solutions already exist. Also, I think that "not reading" shit like the random name generator or some of the variant rules is fine, so long as you've actually read the actual core rules. You don't need to know how Sanity or Honor scores or how Modern Firearms work because those aren't really a part of the actual game. But you absolutely need to know how grappling works, how social encounters work, and how death saves and stabilization work.
Also, as a DM, you don't need to know what all of the classes can do. It's on your players to have all of their abilities written down so that when they perform them, they can simply read it to you and you can make a ruling. Like if your party has a cleric, a bard, and a wizard, then how to you expect to know three different spells lists, and what every spell does.
@@alexanderchippel her not reading but giving advice is a huge problem. But many do this. She just has a bigger platform which does arguably make it more egregious.
@@alexanderchippel most said phrase at my table, “I do not have encyclopedic knowledge of the game. I have no idea what your spells do.”
The problem is that everyone that starts playing D&D starts with the PHB and you can figure it out how to DM it.
Then you buy the DMG and all the fluff is in the front and people (like me) stop reading after all the tables and items.
But I should keep reading because all the way in the back is how to play as the DM, like they were hiding it or something.
So yeah, if you need to read 1 3/4 books to get to the good part, it seems that the writers doesn't know what are they doing since the DM is the most important player in D&D.
“Everyone is wrong”, my kinda guy, a rare person with my take. Subbed
Good points. Facts are really the foundation of a rules discussion. (or in the matter, any discussion)
"We still matter. Please buy our books." -hasbro
TBE: "She wears shirts that my father-in-law would wear."
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
This got me good, too
When I first entered this side of the hobby (its only been a few years) I thought; 'You've been playing wrong for 40 years', was just an insult the Bros liked to throw around.
But the more time you spend here, the more you come to realise how true it actually is.
Thousands of forum posts on the big sites, and blogs, detailing solutions (homebrews and houserules) to questions that could have been answered by reading the rules and ACTUALLY playing the game they describe. It is the equivalent of the thousands of hours of 5e YT vids that also hold no real answers.
Leaving the only person who may tell you how the game should be played as the designer.
So you better hope they've included clear examples of play.
which is part of the reason 4e failed... nobody read the books and just went off group concensus.
granted 4e has it's own issues and is a VERY different game then any other dnd but it wasn't even given a chance because these egg heads didn't even read
I've read a lot of role-playing games in my day. Most of them say (usually in the 1st chapter) this is your game, play it how want to. If the way some people want to play includes not reading all of the rules who am I to argue (even though I don't understand them).
@@RaisiaFan1919 I think that the language in those books got worse and worse and that's a fundamental problem that leads to people not reading them. These are games and we wouldn't do that with any other kind of game.
But I digress. I don't put such language in my own games.
Another solid vid! I did a vid a bit back about the same issue, “I’ve never played 5e and neither have you”. It was about actually reading the dmg and discovering that lo and behold, it has rules to play how i want 5e to play.
That taught me to not just read but comprehend the rules. Use sample characters, roll and play out examples in the books. IT helps a ton.
Whoa whoa whoa, nobody said that READING would be involved... I thought this was supposed to be FUN
I read the core 3 books for 5e front to back at least once. It lets me have a general idea of where to find rules when a fellow player or the DM gets stuck on quickly making a ruling. Going back through it afterwards has let me build up my own CR spreadsheet so I can create my own monster encounters and have an idea of how they'd stand up against a party.
Man, someday I need to do a video with this guy; I have a feeling that eventually, only me and Victor will still agree with 90% of what he says.
She said she read the stuff that was important to her game wich is what most of us do anyway
If you were somehow forced to fly a plane on a whim, would you rather take advice from the trained pilot on the radio or the guy standing next to you who has "watched a lot of flying videos and read some of the relevant manuals"? The point is she is giving unqualified advice on how to run the game if she hasn't finished reading the rules. Distinguishing "the important stuff" comes after you have done so, not before.
@@siegherz id always choose the guy with 1000000 hours of Microsoft flight simulator
@@TheOGGMsAdventures I see you have reading comprehension issues at even the paragraph level.
@@siegherz every one knows i cant read
My good bird
I’ve been talking shit about her longer than most of you has known who she was . Got a video essay on her dates back almost 8 years. I’ve been very outspoken time and time again about disagreeing with her, but on this one I don’t think she did anything wrong. In fact, I think she knew exactly what she was doing just like she always does and she’s getting the response. She knew she was gonna get look how many people are talking about her the one thing she knows how to do very well is market herself.
@@siegherz when is she given unqualified advice she’s been known to give incredibly bad advice but at no point of time did she say oh I am the end. I’ll be all I have more experience than any of you guys. I’ve been playing this game for decades. I wrote DND she’s an girl, who got mildly famous for cosplay and songs and teasing people with her boba and making mediocre D&D videos some of which were OK some of which were awful but she’s always proven that she knows exactly what she’s doing and how to market herself and the amount of people that are making videos about what she just said prove she knows what she’s doing because look at all the free press she’s getting
When it comes to reading the rules, a problem is the 5e dmg isn't very good. It has good parts but it is generally poorly structured. I doubt most dms have read the whole thing back to front, for sure more than 20%. Really the player's handbook is the only truly necessary book for that edition.
I appreciate your take on this! The rules are important and you should know them forwards and backwards before you start tinkering them!
reading the rules explains the rules! 🧠
The answer is yes it is real D&D because everyone EVERYONE makes homebrew and home rules of the Original rules. Dave played differently from Gary and everyone else played different from them.
I generally don't home brew when I run D&D. I play it as is these days.
no true-d&dman fallacy
Eloquent and truthful. Excellent video as always TBE
“The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
- Barbossa, Pirates of the Caribbean.
The only reason to read all the rules is so you can break them, change them or apply them in a much more fine and interesting way. If people want to play rules as written that's absolutely fine as long as they don't yell at others for playing in a different way.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arnison have both stated that they didn't play D&D as written and I've been playing since 1980 in MANY different groups and none of them used the exact same rules. So here's my advice "If you and your group are having fun then you're playing right."
This isn't to be mean to you, but I get this exact comment all the time. Personally, I'm not interested in how they played. I'm interested in what they wrote and what that game looks like.
@@TheBasicExpert (civil conversation) So if you're not interested in how the creators played then why are you interested in how anyone plays?
@@williamatkins3465 Because if someone else is trying to apply the rules as well, perhaps there is nuance they get that I do not. It's not helpful to know how something works if I decide to throw it out because Gary did. My tastes are not Gary's or Dave's.
@@TheBasicExpert so our thoughts aren't to far apart. I tried Chainmail and OD&D in the 80's and to be honest there were things in both that I either didn't understand or didn't like so I didn't use. Now my interest in other peoples games is basically looking for something cool that I didn't think of that I can use in my game. My current 18 month long game/setting is a mashup of Shadowdark, BFRPG, B/X, BECMI, 3.5, 5e, and assorted made up ideas.
So my take from this is that you are saying “you aren’t playing or running the game you think you are UNLESS you are playing / running it Rules as Written… period”.
The problem with that is that there are a lot of circumstances that can arise during game play that are not covered by any rule written in the DMG or PHB. By design or unintended omission, Gary suggested that DMs make rulings where rules do not exist.
I understand that “Rulings not Rules” can be taken too far and Gary recognized that as well, which is why he cautioned against it in the DMG. Gary mentioned that there were certain “essential systems” that if altered or removed would lead to you no longer playing D&D but something else. The problem is, Gary did not declare what rules were essential in the DMG.
Gary did mention some of those essentials in articles that followed in Dragon Magazine and elsewhere. The few I recall were: HP, Level Limits and Class Restrictions for Demi Humans, and the Alignment system (He did not believe players would play as heroes without it).
There were also those systems that Gary wrote into AD&D 1E that he had regretted having done so. He literally said the unarmed / grappling system was not good. He specifically said don’t use the Monk class in the PHB but instead use the one in OA.
You have to remember that these rules were written in physical books in a time when errata was not available except for in Dragon Magazine or other publications.
I'm not actively running a games myself right now, but have at least two or three in the hopper at various stages. None of them am I referring to the them by their game system names, but rather the campaign setting I'm envisioning for them. Depending on the system, I may still be playing RAW, while another may be heavily house ruled. In the previous campaigns I have run, I did the same with their 'titles'. Truly, the average player doesn't care what its called, as long as their having a good time
Good discussion, TBE!
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’m of the mindset that you should run a game RAW, at least in the beginning, so you can see the system in action, and understand how the rules actually work in play, because what might seem weird or wonky on paper, is actually integral to the game and removing or changing throws the entire experience out of whack (the resistance table from Runequest comes to mind).
I, too, have read every rulebook for games I like to play/run. I may not remember every detail, but I did read through. Somebody went through the effort to compile and test these rules as suggestions for play, so I might want to see what they are. I made my own video about playing with rules as written. From a friendly play standpoint, if you suggest to friends a game of D&D, they'll expect it to be run from the rules in the books. If I whip out a Sorry! board and some playing cards and say here's my D&D homebrew, I'm going to have a LOT of disappointed players. Given this, if I change anything, I need to be up front about it at the same time I'm telling them we're playing D&D. It's a consistent, stable framework players can understand. Unfortunately, we've reached a point with social media that I can be offended by everything and demand from everyone that you must acknowledge and accept my viewpoint, and in many cases, adapt to my way of thinking. Really, who cares how you play? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. This is definitely one of those "walk away" situations. Thanks for this.
There's a big fat 'G' in RPG. Sure the lines can get blurred a little bit when players attempt something that isn't strictly listed in the rules, but you will have much more sane rulings as a GM if you know the rules to the game you are playing. The whole cottage industry that's cropped up on youtube and social media around D&D GM advice that amounts to reinventing the wheel and calling it "homebrew" is telling on how many people don't actually read the rules for that 'G'. Ginny, and people like her, make their success clickbaiting lazy people and GMs trapped with theater kids that are desperate for advice on how to run a Critical Role campaign.
I cannot imagine trying to run any edition of any game without having read the whole rulebook(s)... (o_o)
I think we need to figure out who the conversation is with before we can answer the question. If I'm talking to my grandma about myTraveler game I'm going to call it D&D. If I am talking to a Traveler player I am going to call it Mongoose.
When I want to play a game by the rules usually I need to be analytical. I have Chess for that. When I want creativity and imagination I play Basic Fantasy or OSRIC. Also liking Alone Against Fear. As Gygax said, if you're having fun your doing it right.
@@araworn2141 you set up a false dichotomy.
@@TheBasicExpert Actually, all I did was state my preferences.
@@araworn2141 I understand. But it's based on a false dichotomy. You can play RAW and not be restricted in imagination.
@@TheBasicExpert I don't know what you mean by RAW
@@araworn2141 it's short for Rules As Written.
You're right about S&W, but that particular ruleset doesn't hide that it's 0e by way of 1978, including supplements and Strategic Review mechanics, unlike other clones.
@@Agell sure it was a bad example. Whitebox FMAG for sure has strategic review interpretations on the multi attack.
@@TheBasicExpert True, though i think FMAG is a S&W Core spinoff game, so that's likely why.
Also This was a really good video, and I say that as someone who generally isn't a fan, though your latest "villain arc" is starting to change my mind.
You don’t need to read the DMG if you’ve ruined any RPG before. On the other hand, I did just get banned from a Facebook group for telling a guy that he didn’t use rules. He wasn’t playing a game or something to that effect.
Yeah I’d say the most basic thing should be having read the rulebook of whatever game you play.
But then again I’m not gonna argue with folks who want to run a game however they want.
I read the Mausritter Gm section in 15 minutes and that’s all I’ve ever needed.
Here to defend our queen
😂
Pawn or Bishop?
The queens we use would not excite you.
One Night in Bangkok~
Protecc the qween
Small correction: 20% of her audience that were DMs HAD read the DMG the rest had never read it through.
Very interesting topic.
While I don't agree with you, I do understand your point of view.
For me rules are also very important, understanding the rules is the starting point to play the game, as you said.
I, however, think of DnD/D&D as an umbrella term, at least conceptually, so you can use Shadowdark or Old-School Essentials to crawl on Dungeons & confront Dragons (I don't tell my casual gaming friends we're gonna play WhiteBox: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, I tell them we're gonna play D&D).
I also think homebrew/house rules are a big part of the hobby, and always have been.
In my case, a pintch of homebrew is needed to enjoy the game, but in order to make a good working home rule, you should know and understand the original rule you are changing.
Just my opinion.
I remember 3e DEVELOPERS writing in the trade cover supplements about the 5 (!!) different rules on sword breaking. (Fighters' Supplement? Maroon cover.) So this has been a problem for a very long time, but now has altered even core rules. I find going without encumbrance especially ironic given the 3e DMG discussion of Hill Giant "scrapyard" treasure.
2e or 3e?? Been a long damn time!
I'll go even more controversial: If you are playing by TSR era rules but not playing in person, is it really Old School?
I mean, playing in person is just superior.
Tremendous video, and one that I hope reaches a wider audience. The purity spirals inside each community don’t benefit the larger hobby, and it looks ridiculous to people outside of it. Keep up the sane and most importantly, epistemologically modest perspective.
Guess Im out of the loop, don't know much about the D&D Christmas Carol girl except that was cool. I don't really have a favorite edition but I do have a favorite game system. Though there are aspects of editions that appeal to me more or less compared to others. Im not purest Im not overly concerned about running games RAW. If Ive never played a game before I will try to run it RAW in the first campaign. Just so I get to know the game. If Ive never played the game I don't know how the rules are gonna play out yet so why change it. Is using official variant rules running the game RAW? Idk & it doesn't really matter to me. Im not particularly concerned w/ what or how other people play RPGs. Somebody may have idea thar sparks my interest that I could incorporate @ my table & thats cool. Primarily I am concerned with my player's experience @ my table. Deep down aren't we all? Ive read the core books to evey numbered edition, BECMI & Rules Encyclopedia. Some multiple times some more recently than others. I played @ length 1e-3.5e & BECMI. I liked them all. Though I did have purchasing reservations about 2e, 2e Revised & 3.5 when the first came out but eventually I caved & Im glad I did.Edition wars are passe, some memes can be humorous but beyond its just a buncha folks yelling @ the sky. Not everyone is gonna like the samething & thats ok. Lately I've seen some bitching about rules but mostly I've seen complaints from every angle & all sides about campaign settings, alignment, inherit traits, & how the campaign world society is portrayed. Of course ya gotta use encumbrance, it seems absurd to ignore carrying capacity. Might as well ignore strength in that case. Cant ignore spell components either & divine beings don't grant divine casters access to every divine spell all the time for any old reason.
TBE said Palladium Fantasy!!! Woot!!
As someone who's switched to C&C, I get it. I didn't read ALL of BFRPG or Swords and Wizardry or White Box FMAG, because the FORMATTING lends itself to being more of a reference manual than a rulebook. AD&D style (OSRIC, C&C, For Gold & Glory, etc) are much more codifed, so reading is STRONGLY recommended before running it, especially if you wish to use the optional stuff in the CKG/DMG.
Plus, just look at the C&C books. How can you look at them and NOT wanna read them?
@@kentuckyrex yeah. Great game and good looking books. I have the covers that are a homage to the 1e covers.
@@TheBasicExpert I have the same prints. Honestly, if you want Gygaxian for the modern age, this is it. It's an excellent stand alone game. The artwork is absolutely gorgeous, as well. Best $150 I have ever spent.
So this video is the ship of Theseus question, if you change the parts of something at what point is it no longer the original thing you started with? The answer is if you change anything technically it is not the original object. So it's really a personal choice if you are a rules purist or if you believe in altering the game for whatever reason.
I would argue against your notion that you need to play rules as written when it comes to playing an "old School" game (pre 3E) as it was intended. If you go to page B60 of BX it specifically talks about DMs coming up with solutions for things not covered in the rules, while that is not changing a pre-existing rule it is saying to add something which is still altering the game. On page 36 of The Underworld & Wilderness adventures the Afterword mentions adding and interpreting the rules yourself(or at least my PDF copy I don't have an original). In the Rules Cyclopedia page 266 it says you can specifically modify the rules. So the rules say to change the game therefore I am following the rules by changing them, so you are playing these games when you change them. However I do agree that there are some core concepts and rules that once changed do mean you are essentially playing a different game. l for example I personally don't consider a game OSR or Old School if you don't die at 0 HP and also if you don't roll your stats 3d6 in order, there are other things that I consider not OSR but it would be too long for this comment and those are two I think are very important.
Another interesting philosophical question would be: Is the OSR a set of core rules or a set of ideals? I would say the latter mostly due to my previous point but also if that were the case only OD&D would be technically old school because BX and all other editions are modifications, do the modifications only count as legitimate if TSR made them? What about friends of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson who played in their games but never worked for TSR, do their modifications not count?
So I agree with you that you should read the rules and understand them but changing the rules is part of the game, in fact it's in the rules!
I have opinions on subjects everyday, which I'm not an expert on :D I think you are shooting sparrows with cannonballs here m8. Otherwise, love your content
@@The_Magic_8-baller sparrows sometimes deserve it.
D&D seems to fall under the same problem that Nintendo does (or rather did back in the day). In that all game systems or video games were considered Nintendo, especially by people that didn't know the difference. I don't even remember how many times my mom told me to stop playing Nintendo when I was playing Playstation.
What muddies the water is that the TTRPG sphere by it's very nature is malleable. It's just books and pencils and paper, and you can swap stuff out and make your own stuff. And there are a bazillion clones out there of every edition, which is another reason why so many things that aren't D&D are perceived as D&D. And, D&D is the big dog on the block so to speak, so the TTRPG hobby in general and D&D are often synonymous to those who are outside of the hobby, or surface deep within it. If it has the "Six Ability Points" and uses a D20 it's apparently D&D, like what Professor Dungeon Master (I think that's his name) says. I don't totally disagree, and understand that argument in spirit, but it's also not technically true.
Personally it doesn't really bother me since my game of choice isn't D&D, but I understand how it could get annoying when so many think their way to play D&D is the best despite the fact they're not even playing D&D but rather some Frankenstein version. If one wants to tinker and hack and home-brew, fine, but it would probably benefit such people to actually know the system they're hacking up so much, and maybe recognize that some people won't consider it D&D.
Makes sense
😂 The only DnD I’ve read, cover to cover, are the 0e family of games. Currently reading yours. I have read others but they don’t claim to be DnD in some way.
Me? I play what the GM is running and trying and be a good player as well as encourage everyone to also do so.
The only rules I've read in entirety of games I've played/ran have been DCC and Vampire the Masquerade.
I feel like with 5e in particular most people learn the rules second-hand. I've played and GM'd just fine. (Im no longer much of a 5e guy.) I feel in OSR games, most of the rule books are more digestable. I actually do feel a solid chunk of people who have ran 5e haven't read the DMG. BUT I don't think that's the case with most OSR games. Not necessarily because of the players but because I feel WoTC is bad at creating usable content.
Edition wars are silly. I had a few years break from 1996 until 3e and thought I had to convert settings and old 1e and 2e content to play it and it was stupid. Just play the game edition it was made in. It’s just different means to calculate and solve problems and outcomes. How these folks like Ginny D can NOT read and understand the rules of the game they play is just ludicrous. Is she really playing D&D? Great question and great video.
This was so on the nose and yet missed some valid criticisms. What I hate most is picking up an "OSR" game that got high reviews only to find a ton of bad grammar, duplicated words and a lack of consistency. Why does this happen? Because the creator used the rules of another game that carries an open license and they literally copy/pasted whole chunks. They don't even take the time to read what they're using! You'll see the DM referred to as the GM, games master, referee, etc. in various places throughout the rules.
She didn't read the 5e DMG? In 5e, cover is defined in the PHB, but only the DMG explains how you determine cover and the logic of how cover works.
Dud you are taking this way too seriously! It's a game. Play it how you will as long as you all have fun.
@@roop366 I love when randos on the internet think they know my mind and intentions better than me. Generally this is a cope when one disagrees but has nothing convincing as a retort.
I really don't understand what you're talking about with Fighting Capability.
In OD&D, it's not 3 hit dice, its 4 hit dice you become a full Hero. You are described as Man+1 at HD1, 2 Men + 1 at HD2, 3 Men or Hero - 1 at HD3, and Hero at HD4.
This exactly syncs with Chainmail where a Hero is described as equal to 4 figures. Then there are special rules for Fantastic Combat as opposed to combat with normal men. OD&D thus allows even the HD3 fighter to jump into CHAINMAIL Fantastic Combat as a Hero - 1. But this is perhaps irrelevant, because the "Alternative Combat System" has always been the D&D combat system. The compatibility with Chainmail is interesting, and perhaps even useful for a special session here and there, but it is quite explicitly not D&D.
S&W or FMAG (or AD&D for that matter) are not changing anything when they say that a Fighter's hit dice are equal to the number of men he fights as. This is exactly the same information that was conveyed in OD&D. Indeed... OD&D itself uses precisely this same language on Page 5 of the Monster book, outside the tables.
It's also not at all clear to me what "Strategic Review" article you are referencing. I am not aware of any such article, nor why it would constitute a nerf?
I am reticent to presume you are very confused. I am not a regular viewer and have heard of you only in passing. Perhaps I am confused somehow. Still, I am extremely negatively predisposed to someone named The Basic Expert. People who change rules they do not understand certainly are grotesque, but if I am correct then you are in a glass house of your own. Slavishly defending rules you also do not play and do not understand. This would seem equally embarrassing.
@@justinthatiusedtoknow anything less than 4 HD is normal combat under the the rules in 0e. Look at the entry for ghouls or how potion of heroism work. It's not explicit but heavily implied.
This is in relation to use the Alternative Combat System.
@@TheBasicExpert Alright. I think I understand where you are coming from, but I believe you are incorrectly trying to mix Chainmail and OD&D. I believe you are better off looking at the two games as having some compatibility, but I do not believe they are expected to be mixed in the way you are describing. I hold a very dim view of this compatibility in general.
As someone who played D&D when I was much younger (middle school, early 80's) and was essentially reintroduced to it a few years back through my 11 year old son, I got the urge to go back and seek out the old books that my friends and I used to use - essentially a Frankenstein comprised of 1e and B/X. This naturally led to my recent interest in Chainmail and 0e. I've learned a lot about the mechanics of Chainmail from Jon Mollison's channel, but I'm very far from being anywhere near comfortable in my knowledge of that system. I'm here to learn. This particular thread is interesting to me, because, when I got copies of the 0e books, one of the recommended rulesets (I'm assumed to play the game) was Chainmail. This is where my initial interest in Chainmail started. Even back with my first experiences with D&D back in 83-84, we would hear things about Chainmail from older players, and it was always shrouded in mystery :something old dudes did which was very technical. Recently, I've started to see, what I thought, were connections between the Chainmail rules, 0e, and even 1e, but from what I'm reading here, it appears that I'm wrong in seeing those connections. If Chainmail has nothing to do with real D&D, then why is it mentioned at all in the 1st little brown book? What am I missing? I noticed, while watching "Secrets of Blackmoor", that, in the scenes where they show the guys sitting around the table playing, that there is nary a d20 in sight. If there was, I missed it, which I guess wouldn't be surprising. at looked to me like everyone was using d6s almost exclusively. What game were those guys playing? Please forgive the length of this comment, and thank you guys for any help you can give!
As a quick addendum, I'd like to say that I also bought the "Outdoor Survival" game (also recommended in "Men and Magic" ), and it's a great game in its own right!
I find it funny that ppl that have only played 5th feel like they have a right to throw their hat in the ring with the edition wars. I started playing at 3.5 and I still feel like I don’t have the right.
Hey, man. How can I contact you privately? I need some update concerning your last KS. Cheers!
My email should be in my about me section on my channel.
@@TheBasicExpert E-mail sent.
What I don't understand are the people who don't read rules for any system. That's like a whole hobby in itself
@@suburbansurvival8239 yeah it's bad.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, correct me please if I'm wrong. But I heard that Dave and Gary had some wacky rules that never really made it to any book.
They would also not follow a ton of the rules in the books. I'm just curious to see if this is right. Anyway good vid :)
I don't know why but people hear you say, "I like to play by the rules in the book and experiment with what kind of game that produces" and people respond with "Well Gary and Dave didn't play that way."
I'm not being mean to you, so don't take it personally here, it's just, I hear this all the time. And it's a non-sequiter. How the creators played is not what I'm interested. I'm interested in what they wrote and what kind of game that is and what it produces. I understand that experiments were made before the game released and their preferences changed after. Many others have played that way but not as many have been interested in playing the game the way the book specifies. So that's what I'm interested.
@@TheBasicExpert nah no worries. No offence taken. I see what you mean. I very much agree that if you're going to change anything you should have a good understanding of the game first.
Ultimately I do agree with your view.
Playing OSR is by name a generic home brew concept of old D&D editions. Now actual 0e D&D, AD&D 2e, 3e 4e 5e, etc.. are all playing that particular game edition system. So yes, you can say you are playing OSR without playing the rules of a particular D&D edition "rule as written," but you can't say you're playing 0e D&D, etc.. properly
The rules are the common language of the game that allows people who have never sat together to have a discourse. I am teaching my daughter and her friends 5e RAW so that when they go to another table they will be able to participate with a shared lexicon.
I got three points I’d like to make
1. When I got into DMing, granted it was before Critical Role, it was like an obvious train of thought. “I want to be a DM so maybe I should read the DM guide.” It shocks me to hear people don’t read the rule books.
2. The OSR guys are the worse. I’ve seen moe butchering and kit bashing and making up just random crap to toss into their games all while saying “I am the rules.” From them to even care what they have to say on the subject. They seem to think as long as it comes from an older pre woke system, their words not mine, it’s okay for them to do it. 🙄
3. I don’t really think it’s all that deep. This system was made, and I’m talking Gary and Dave here, by two dudes who had no idea what they were doing and were just making up stuff to make the game fun for their table. That’s the spirit of the game. While yes I don’t wanted to be invited to a pf2e game and show up and they’re playing D&D 4e, and I make an effort to learn the system rules so written before I change anything. If someone wants to take 5e and homebrew the crap of it so they and their table enjoy it, and they still call it 5e. I don’t care, and I don’t think it’s that big of a deal that they do it.
@@neonGliiitch I disagree with point three having devoted lots of time to reading, playing, and trying to understand 0e.
They really knew why they were doing design wise. If there is any fault it's in transmission and presentation and with that I give them a break. No one had made an RPG rulebook before.
I think someone homebrewing the crap out of a system and calling it that system still makes it really easy to talk past one another
Ita like speaking American English and then trying to understand a drunk Irish person. Haha
@@TheBasicExpert Then we can agree to disagree on that. The spirit of the game has always been, have fun. Both Dave and Gary talked with people and wrote articles about the subject. We don't need to guess at it, when we've heard it from the horses mouth.
I also don't disagree with you on this, but I also don't care enough about it.
I find with these conversations, and mostly among the OSR guys, there seems to be a zealous fervent about this.
It reminds me of Christians theologist sitting around arguing about how their theology is right and everyone else's theology is wrong. When they're missing the entire point of the bible, and that's Jesus.
Weird analogy I know, but that's how it feels to me. People who are more focused on having a pissing contest over how what they think D&D should be is more correct than everyone else's, instead of just having fun and enjoying the game, and not caring how people outside of their table think or play it.
But that's just my opinion and my mother always told me opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink. 🤣
@@neonGliiitch I think you can have fun playing RAW. I know I do and so do my players.
@@TheBasicExpert Oh of course. I play RAW and I enjoy the game. I just think there's a lot of energy spent worrying about how others need to have a deep understanding of the system before they do things, or that by doing things they're ruining the spirit of the game.
If everyone agrees to the changes, and they're all having fun, then they're doing just fine.
Basically, I think this topic is mostly a nothing burger :) But to each their own. Some people enjoy the depth and philosophical analysis of things and that's cool. I just don't get the desire to make other people agree that they need to have the same approach or they're doing it wrong. In the end, it's a bunch of adults sitting around a table pretending to be dwarves and elves. I don't think that objectively it's that deep, I think it's people subjectively trying to make it that deep.
Let’s not forget, it’s a game.
Games have rules. Breaking the rules is cheating.
get your context correct - while the 5e DMG has been out for 10 years, Ginny has not been a DM for 10 years there is no reason for reading the DMG when you are not a DM. AND when she did start DMing, she did not read the 5e DMG COVER TO COVER until now. and when your "GUIDE" book is a disorganized, self contradictory mess, with a terrible index, expecting people to plow through it COVER TO COVER to find the important parts ... well its not a very good GUIDE and something that people SHOULDNT be wasting their time on when you can get ACTUALLY GOOD guidance from third parties!
@@twutter4565 her video title says "Ten Years" in it. I know what the context is. I know she wasn't always a player.
@@TheBasicExpert In any manner it doesnt change the facts that 1) the 2014 DMG is steaming piece of shite, 2) any of the actually useful content in the 2014 DMG is BETTER presented by third party DM support. Not having read the 2014 DMG is a VALID position particularly in terms of ROI - even after having NOW read the DMG cover to cover, she found TEN PARAGRAPHS of material worth talking about out of the 300 + pages! FUCKING WASTE OF PAPER INK AND TIME.
@@twutter4565 this all sounds like a cope.
I know your are from the best State because you are wearing a hate I've bought at the feed store 1000 times. Under Armor rocks.
Everyone knows it's not real D&D unless you are using Chainmail and Outdoor Survival! 😜
If there's no place for your players to sell captured enemies at, you're not playing 0e
Well, you cited logic which is anathema to many of this new wave of "feelings" gamers, so there is your fault. She's cute and bubbly so she gets a pass on most stuff she says. Remember the target audience she has and you have.
Also, I couldn't find the link for the recommended video...
I'm not sure about the video, but your point about logic is right. I'll try to be more emotional next time. Haha.
@@TheBasicExpert At 8:03 you mentioned a video that talks about levels or something. I wanted to go back and check it.
As a 4E fan, I'm more than sick of the edition wars at this point. As someone who DID read both DMG's for 4E, and like 90% of it's books are on my shelf, sooooo many of the "issues" people bring up in their rants are so provably wrong it's not even funny, because they've never even played the game, forget reading its rules. And if you just don't like 4E, that's perfectly fine. Go play a different game, I own like 10 different RPG systems as well for that reason, 4E is mostly an idea pool for 5E now because no one wants to play 4E or even give it a shot. But I'm so fed up with people going out of their way to be an asshole when all I do is mention I play the game, or, God forbid, show a picture of my RPG shelf that has a 4E section above the 5E section, and whenever they do, 99% of the things they say are just regurgitating old trope slams (Oh, it's WoW on the table, boring!) or just self admitals they never read the rules of the game in the first place, so even if they DID play it, they played so badly that I'm not shocked they had a bad time.
Yeah I started in 4e. I got rid of those books but I kind of wish I still had them now. I'd like to look back through them.
@@TheBasicExpert I started there too, so I respect that. I'm trying to finish my book collection for it, but sadly, the last books I need go for like $70+ per book on the aftermarket.
I don't even like 4th at all, but you're totally right. The profound ignorance behind a lot of the criticism is staggering. Mind you, I read most of the books (partially for old review pages), and I ran quite a few gaming events. That requires you to gain proper understanding to properly represent the game. I think the problem goes beyond just 4e, d&d, or even gaming at a point.
100%. I didn't start with 4e, but it was the first Edition of actual D&D (as opposed to the multitude of other TTRPGs I played before 4e) that I enjoyed enough to buy more than just the PHB for. It's a game experience that's wholly unique and gets way more invalid criticism than nearly any ither TTRPG I've followed. You don't have to like 4e, but don't spread outright falsehoods about it.
@@TheBasicExpert cough anna's archive cough
Shirt-haters get blocked.
Are you really going to pretend that you need to read the 2014 DMG cover to cover in order to understand the rules for 5e Dungeons and Dragons? The bulk of the text in that book is NOT rules of the game.
EDIT: I’m onboard with your thesis that you can’t flame one edition in favor of another unless you actually know what is in them. It’s just that there is a difference between “reading the DMG cover to cover-every word of their tedious cosmology and feudal governments treatises.” And “reading the DMG.” Ginny’s poll was asking about the former.
I'm not pretending. Yes, read the rules before you play a game. This shouldn't be a controversial take in my opinion.
@@TheBasicExpert oh knock it off. “Read the rules” is not even slightly controversial. “Read every sentence of a 300+ page book that barely contains any rules” is quite different than that. Your reluctance to acknowledge that is not helping your credibility.
@@Newnodrogbob you knock it off. You are in my comments. Read the rules. Stop crying.
@@TheBasicExpertthis is so silly. You have to know this. You can’t read the entire 5e DMG and come away thinking “wow, every page of this is necessary to play a game of D&D. If I hadn’t read their descriptions of feudal governments, or the cosmologies and pantheons they literally told me I don’t have to use, I would not know what 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons really is.”
@@Newnodrogbob you are silly. How often do we see drooling room temp morons come up with some homebrew fix for something in the book?
Read the book. Cover to cover. Else, why the hell did you buy the book? To sit on your shelf? That's whats actually dumb and silly.
Personally, I have some dyslexia so reading is a lot of work. I prefer audio/video content but that's not really available for most RPG products.
Fundamentalist 😁
Wait, players are allowed to read the DMG?!
Ginny is a leftist. Hard pass on her.
Ok. That's irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make though on this wider issue.
@@testtest648 💀
Not reading the rules and then giving advice on how to make the game better is absolutely crazy lmao. I'm not a rules lawyer myself, but I got started in 3.5 and hard to learn the rules the hard way against a DM that never read the dmg and it was mind numbingly painful.
Also, I have nothing against the woman personally, but I think that D&D isn't really the game for her nor is it the game for CR fans. They'd do better with Candela Obscura, where they can make up the rules for the sake of the story as they see fit.