In the spirit of balance I have already made what could be considered a rebuttal to this video previously and you can find it here th-cam.com/video/QK2N5hMlt-A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=R4_5r-AvwTmisRcJ I am also making another one too about this. Brilliant to see a nice discussion mostly in the comments as opposed to edition wars. Love to see it.
The simple answer is that you don't "build a character" in OSR. You roll one up and see how they develop in the game. Players just need to accept that the editions are different games - 5E and OSR are different the same way Final Fantasy is different from Ultima. They're all RPGs, but they have different designers with different goals and priorities.
No, they dont need to accept anything. Rolling character sucks, and nobody need to deal with that. We can hate osr and just dont Play IT, there are other, better games.
@@morionlomiete7735 Oh I beg you not to play OSR in any capacity. OSR is for people that read a lot, enjoy challenge and good times not frustaded boys that want superhero powers.
@@morionlomiete7735 yeah, you do have to accept that the editions are different games. That's just a fact about reality, like you have to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and water makes things wet.
@@morionlomiete7735 In the words of the Big Lebowski, 'That's like your opinion man' I play both BECMI and 5e, and most of my mates are new to game 5e players. They love their character building. Was chatting with one mate recently in a group zoom call, and he was stuck for an idea to build a new character, and I suggested that he just roll 4d6 drop the lowest straight down the line, and see what sort of character emerged. He had a blast for the rest of the day just doing this, looking at the stats, and seeing how they spoke to him, and then creating a character from that foundation. People in the BECMI game I DM, I got them to roll up 3 sets of stats and we looked at the options that each block of stats would be good for, and they loved playing with all the different possibilities. I'm not saying its better, as some people really like 'building' a character, fair play to them. Its one way, and very valid way to look at character creation. But the process of rolling and 'discovering' a character is just as fun, albeit different process.
Speaking as someone who started when the games OSR simulate were the current edition (I cut my teeth on the Cyclopedia and still have my original copy), the big issue was that a good experience with an OSR game is more highly dependent on the GM. Player creativity doesn't mean a lot when the person running the game doesn't know how to respond to what they come up with.
@@Shamefulroleplay Agreed. In newer games people seem to start equating their table top character to their MMO character. The sheer amount of abilities/skills/talents for each class gets more bloated every edition. It all starts to bleed together. In older table top games each class were very different. You felt unique and needed. Now it's about playing a Dwarven forged 4 winged pixie made of forged starlight who is also a half demon and uses a six shooter.
I used to think all the options made characters and games more fun. I learned that it often only slows things down or discourage thinking outside the box.
It certainly can do. I find myself getting frustrated when I play a new game and may state “I check the box for traps and prod it with a pole to set off any traps” and am still asked to make a roll for it. I think, but I’ve described what may set off the trap anyway, why am I rolling? However I also see people who just love to roll dice and become disappointed if they don’t get to.
Totally agree. It seems like you're giving the players what they want but it's just bloat that keeps compounding on itself until it's almost unplayable and cetainly a pain to run. Running 5e I always felt like it was tons of spinning plates I was struggling to keep in the air.
RPG is a creative game, but not everyone is creative. For people that are creative OSR is a good shot, but for the average joe... not much will come of it, so it's important that the average joe has options.
I think it's a little bit uncharitable to suggest that it's a lack of options and PC power that make people hesitant to try OSR. As a non-OSR adherent who has played BECMI and ACKS, I think it's less about options and character customization and PC power, and it's more about the fact that the intangible spirit of the game isn't made clear by the rules. It's a gameplay style that emerges for you after watching 80 hours of youtube videos about why this type of game is better than any other, and buying in. I think it's hard enough to convince people to spend the time learning PF2e when they're already familiar with 5e D&D without convincing them to buy into an entirely different mode of game based on the insistence that a different mentality emerges in these kinds of games. In my experience it's like, "Roll a saving throw" "10" "I'm afraid that's a failure, you die." "Okay, what do I do about that?" "Raise Dead is a 5th level spell, maybe someone in town will know where a spellcaster who can cast that spell lives but it'll be at least 1500 gold to cast it for you, but it'll be at least a session or two before you're alive again, so maybe you should play one of the hirelings until then." "Whatever, I guess I just roll a new character." "Isn't this so much more fun? People online told me this would be more fun and I believed them." "Sure, if you say so." It's still fun because it's still TTRPGing, so your typical D&D 5e group will probably still have some fun, but it requires a completely different buy in with a totally different source of fun and a completely different success state and a completely different way to get to that success state. And you have to take it on faith that it's something you will actually like until it clicks for you. For me it never clicked. I just rolled a d20 and said "I attack" on every turn and shrugged when my character died and got out a new sheet and watched number go up and down.
Different games run on different styles of engagement. Lumping all ttrpgs in together as one thing does not really work all that well as the appeals of different systems can be not only mechanical but in the entire premise of what is wanted and liked, and different people want different things at different times. And I suggest OSR is pretty specialized in what it appeals to, making it inherently niche.
I don't hate OSR style games (started playing in 1981 and have a current red box set campaign running), I hate the people who constantly bad mouth other systems acting like OSR is the only good system there is. Or take every opportunity to say "I'm never buying another book"..... ummmm yay?
Aye... I personally play in a load of 5e games, but my true love is BECMI, and am running a campaign for a few of my mates in that system. They are different but equally good games. There are things about 5e that annoy me. I find characters overpowered, I think there is too much magic and that it loses a bit of mystery, and there is too much of a focus of what's on your character sheet, rather than what your character does in a scenerio. But I have friends that adore the feeling of being a super hero even from low levels, and wouldn't enjoy the hero's journey like I do. They want to be Gandalf or Aragorn.... I prefer to start out as Merry or Pippin, and become epic over my play, rather than start out super powered and progress to become even moreso. They are different games, but equally valid, and can be equally as fun. I hate the hating on the other, from either side.
@@peadarruane6582While im not a fan of 5e and am towards more disliking it , i must day that its still a decent TTRPG perfect for one shots. I think there is no real bad TTRPG out there but rather very flawed ones or more towards simulations instead of being a game .
I played DnD basic in the 1980s. We never thought of being heros, but adventurers. The modules were very deadly, and in order to survive, we had to be very creative, something most modern rpg players aren't anymore. I am DMing DnD 3.5e, and my younger players often look on their character sheet in search for answers, and are often passively and silently waiting for me as a DM comming up with a solution. I believe every rpg player should try DnD BECMI for one module or so.
It's funny because I started at least that early, but other than some just completely wild middle school power fantasy games (working our way through Deities and Demigods killing them off and taking their stuff), we moved pretty quickly into heroic quests. We'd grown up on Tolkien and similar fantasy and wanted to play that kind of thing, not just killing random monsters to get loot in the local dungeon. More AD&D for me than basic, but I don't think that made a huge difference. Homebrewed adventures, so I guess you say the GMs might have been easier on the players than modules would have been?
@@jeffmacdonald9863the difference is that in DnD basic you are dead when you are at zero HP. During the first three levels, every combat is about survival, because you don't have the ten additional negativ HP, which you have in ADnD 1e. I am not saying that it is better, but I remember being very excited during every combat, because character death was very possible. In addition, we all were thinking tactical with every turn, trying to have our backs, because if we weren't than our characters died very quickly. No one played a dumb character doing stupid things in combat because 'his character would do it'. I miss this excitement.😅
OSR games are closer to survival horror game than standard High Fantasy. OSR characters are the equivalent of people volunteering to find and clear undetonated mines in old battlefields. Modern D&D is a fantasy superhero game. It often feels like you're piloting a stealth bomber bombarding targets in an open field. If you're used to playing a member of the Justice League, for example, why would you be happy being forced to play a rookie beat cop in Gotham City?
And 1st level characters only had one hit die. Which may very well roll a 1. Even a few levels in, a character's hit points were still within the range of the damage dice of one hit from some common weapons/attacks. Climb up a tree to escape an encounter you can't win? Better hope you make that Dex check to climb back down, or else you'll fall to your death. Essentially *any* encounter is likely to TPK the entire party if all they have is 3-5 low level characters. And a lot of the OSR-style adventures are full of deadly traps (or traps with permanent effects). So it relied quite heavily on hirelings and henchmen, or playing an organization pool of characters instead of just one. You don't take an adventuring party of 3-5 out into the wilderness, you need to take an entire expedition, with donkey carts full of supplies, and be ultra careful about everything. Prodding every square foot with 10 foot poles, tapping walls from a distance, having plenty of ropes, spikes, torches, etc. Heading back into town to ask about and research that weird thing you found *before* you go back and touch it. People trying to go into that world by playing in the modern way are going to have a frustrating time.
I could point at 5e sucking, someone pointed out a horde of kobolds were a threat. In 1e my 15th level fighter attacks kobolds 15 times! See how long that horde lasts now.
One thing you didnt bring up is the difference between OSR and modern rpg campaigns... In 5e. All published adventures is the DM telling a story with the players making decisions. And most homebrew adventures is the same. DM has an adventure in mind with a predetermined start and end and players has to go from encounter to encounter untill they reach the end. In OSR games its more often the players taking charge of the adventure and the DM reacting to the players decisions. Which for me is a more fun way to play a game.
I disagree here. At least with the last sentence. I enjoy a game that follows an inner logic and puts players into positions in which you just kind have to do shit because of consequences (the adventure being over ). I remember back in the days the utter chaos in trying to run campaigns. Mostly they were over after a few sessions because players decided to do some shit that really had nothing to do with anything resembling a campaign (a series of connected encounters and challenges). So often people would just drive the DM crazy. It really was a lot less fun than playing nowadays. Okay, we were stupid teens that had no idea of "story arcs", "character development" etc. We were basically playing random shoot-em-ups.
@@doomhippie6673There's no reason a player-driven game can't have long-term narratives, on-going conflicts, and set-ups that only get paid off after months of play. It just requires a different sort of prep from the DM and a higher degree of engagement from the rest of the group than what is usually expected, especially nowadays. It's certainly not going to go well with a group of players who can't be arsed to learn how their own PCs' abilities work.
@@PedanticTwit Both styles of game are bad when done badly. Published campaigns have to be somewhat railroady or players will go somewhere else instead of to the material in Vol 2. :) Smaller published adventures can be less so, but then they're smaller and don't give that long term campaign connected feel. Ideally home-brewed campaigns can be both coherent and give the players lots of choice in their actions. There may be a over all GM created goal, but plenty of freedom in how to reach it, or possibly just antagonists with plans that the PCs wind up in conflict with. This is all more a distinction between published campaigns and homebrewed sandboxy games I think, not really between OSR and 5e (or PF/whatever).
magic items are kind of the "feats" of OSR. They allow a DM to experiment. If you give someone an item that seems game breaking , it either runs out of charges or gets stolen.
@@Dragonette666 And as somebody who doesn't like that it really didn't feel right for me back then. I am one of those more "Tolkien-geeks" that believe in "this sword has been a part of our family for many generations. I will not use a different weapon...." And that basically runs afoul with any of the OSR ideas.
@@doomhippie6673 I'm more of a greek mythology nerd and don't care for tolkien. In Greek myths the gods often gave people magical weapons to accomplish heroic tasks.
@@doomhippie6673 Well ... in some OSRs its possible to aquire techniques and abilities that gives you the power that makes the family-heirloom sword much more power . But overall is this kind of idea rather to hang on one sword because of traditional values rather limiting and when the setting isnt fit for such limiting ideas , it ruins the fun for the whole table at some point. No matter if you are tolkien-esque or not. We cant have everything everywhere .
You're ignoring one of the biggest differences between BECMI and 5E: bounded accuracy. In BECMI a fighter has a to hit bonus of at best +2, while a 5E Fighter will probably have a +5 to hit. At the same time, the AC of the monsters stays relatively low. In general, 5E characters hit more frequently than a BECMI character. The same holds true for a skill check. A 1st level BECMI thief has a low (less than 10% on 1d100) for most of their thief skills, while a 5E Rogue will have a Slight of Hand modifier of +5 against a typical DC of 15-20. My point is that it's much less frustrating for beginning players in 5E than it would be in BECMI.
d6 thief skills alternative system is great (from LotFP or OSE Carcass Crawler #1). Thieves can pick their skill of chioce and begin at level one with a 5-in-6 chance in a skill. Or maybe two skills with a 3-in-6 chance.
In 5e they also vastly increase the HP, so monsters end up being a slog. The thief skills in basic could almost be considered minor magic. Climbing sheers surfaces being like spider climb. Not just stealth but to hide in mere shadows. Not just moving quietly but moving in silence.
@@simonfernandes6809 Sure, I agree. That's the downside of it. I would start with Shadowdark for players and GMs new to the OSR style. Then try B/X as they grow experienced with the approach, to pick their preference.
Plus what I really hated was that you needed a thief if you wanted to have any chance of sneaking etc.I know people will start wailing "Just roll lower than dex". But If that is all you wouldn't need the thieves' skills. And since those mechanics were there we never thought that other mechanics are possible/legitimate. If there were locked doors in your dungeon, only a thief (or the spell knock) was able to open it.... and the thief had a very low chance anyways. I really enjoy a game in which the characters are able to have a diverse range of skills open to them. I rather enjoy a game that has no class and level mechanic but a pure skill based mechanic. Such as Call of Cthulhu or Runequest.
I love OSR games, but can see why others may have a hard time getting used to them, especially coming from newer games. Their mechanics can be a bit strange to get used to.
I think part of the strength of OSR is the weirdness of the rules. Modern players are far too focused on learning and abusing the rules to the point that I've seen a lot of them look up monster stats, which I am against. Part of the point of weird rules is a lack of control over the outcome and accepting that the game is up to the dice instead of picking the right "build". So I find things like THAC0 or descending AC discourages bad meta gaming. I want my players fighting an Orc not AC 6 1HD 4HP one is just numbers the other is a monster in context with a world. When mechanics are too easy to immediately learn players focus on them instead of getting immersed, they also get obsessed with "winning" at a game that isn't about winning or losing because it's an infinite game.
I agree. There are games that largely address these issues, for example Shadowdark, Worlds without Number, Tales of Argosa. They have an OSR play feel, but include more PC customisation, a way to advance your "skills", and the rules are more streamlined.
In my experience, OSR leans heavily on meticulous description from both players and GM in such a way that can lead to miscommunication at best and arguing at worst. For instance, if you told the GM you wanted to check the corridor ahead for traps, he would say "it looks fine". So you walk forward, and boulders fall on everyone. "You didn't say you wanted to check the ceiling", the GM says. The ceiling thing was a classic example. You could be playing an experienced elf used to the woods - if you didn't describe the settling of camp in a certain way, the GM would make you pay. The same goes for a rogue trying to sneak around, etc. I totally get the positive aspect of fostering description and creativity, but the overall practice lead to petty outsmarting and having to be on your toes. It places the GM and players as competitors instead of collaborators. TBF, pettyness is not exclusive to OSR. My point is that it offers little to avoid it, and indeed leads to it more often than not. The game was made by nerds (and I mean no offense by this) who enjoyed mental competition between everyone at the table, and as a result the game relied heavily on the participants instead of the characters in such a way that lacked verisimilitude and excluded a wide variety creative people who weren't nerdy in the same way. I find that later RPGs brought much needed balance and broadening of play style. And last, but not least, let me be fair once more and say I must presume none of the current OSR players are petty to play with and, quite the opposite, must be very enjoyable. It would have to be so if campaigns and tables are thriving. If people are having fun, then it is correct. Keep on, and may you have great experiences in the realm of roleplaying.
I think these things are not significant. The state of the OSR community is more important. There are too much hate and arguing in this hobby. A lot of people make videos about how to osr, and trying to explain it by force. If you have question as newcommer old grognards come out from their lair and arguing about ideological topics. So with less force argument the community would be more succesful.
I have boiled it down to: 5e and other games like it have magic items built into their class with bonuses, features, etc. In fact, save for a macguffin you don't need magic items in 5e, it will very much break the game. In OSR style games, the aim is to go out into the world and find your magic items and become all you were meant to be. That is where the customization is......in the adventure rather than automatically on a level up.
Modern players are just used to being medieval superheroes that never lose. Old games have a large degree of FAFO and they simply can't adapt to having consequences.
In AD&D a Wizard has at base 4 Hit Points. A common Rat does 1 point of damage per round. A grown man being mauled into unconsciousness by a single common Rat in 4 rounds is an absurd proposition. The ability of a grown man to not die via the attack of a single common rat in what ammounts to 20 seconds or so does not make you superhuman. It does not even make you a sickly infant. Here is the rub. Whatever character the players can make, the DM can make as well. What this means is that Players are only overpowered if the DM allows them to be.
See this is a common misconception - From an OSR perspective if your Warrior wants to try to become an uber-wrestler or the Thief wants to use a little magic or whatever you have the option of making a ruling and work it out. This becomes more clear in a "run-time" situation; lets say your Thief wants to do a standing acrobatic leap over the opponent to land behind it and use the new position for more damage ... "ruling"! A lot goes into making a ruling; is your game a gritty simulation of reality + Monsters or is it aping your favourite show or novel or high fantasy in general? Will this just be away for the player to break the game to always get backstab in every situation? Do you love that or hate it? etc its not that OSR has no spec'ees its got anything you want just go with the players wishes and the agreed setting as the guidelines. You don't really have "house rules" in OSR you just have the "rulings" you make (or you have everything house rules ). Partly the focus is just not as much on the rules.
There's a reason WotC put out the 2024 Player's handbook first. Every table has one DM and three to five players or more. There's more players than DM's, and DND 5e caters to the players who want to keep enjoying D&D between sessions. OSR, AD&D, Shadowdark, Cairn, those games are more about the table. It kinda doesn't matter what your character's power level is, the DM is going to balance the game, so a plain AD&D combat can be just as fun. For me, as a player who likes to put effort into my game between sessions, I like the complexity of 5e.
Personally I see the difference is this in my example. As a game master I really don't want to do a lot of bookkeeping. I don't want to have to memorize six books full of rules. I don't feel like dealing with somebody's idea of having a Goliath wizard School of Architecture or whatever Homebrew new shiny object a player finds. Yes I have the right to say no. But I want everyone to know up front. I want to run a simple game. D&D 5e is not a simple game. It is designed for players to have a wide array of abilities and skills. It is meant for players to have variety at the cost of a DM's sanity. Players can have just as much fun playing simpler games like Shadowdark or EZd6 or BECMI or Castles and Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics. But instead people seem to insist on playing Half-Warforged, Half-Halfling, Multi-class Bard College of Vorpal Chords, Monk Way of the Nuclear Headbutt. Give a game master a break!
🤣🤣🤣 I feel you. that is why a basically don't allow any other races than halflings, humans, dwarves and elves in my 5e games. Perhaps a tiefling, because somehow they appeal to me. But definetely no dragonborns and furries etc.
Simplicity is the bane and blessing of OSR games. I just love how simple and straightforward are Basic Fantasy and C&C. However, for some others, it might be a red flag. For me, skill based games such as SWADE or Mythras are there when I want complexity and OSR is there when I desire to be able to make a character under 30 seconds.
All good thoughts. The character options: I find the 5e character systems make an explicit promise for your character journey. These support/hedge the DM into a game that allows those promises to be realised. The lack of character options in OSR style, I believe, leaves more mystery and more on the play regarding how the character develops. Character death doesn't immediately destroy this whole promised story for the character (by the same token, it's more of a player game than a character game - by design - although tables can vary). Instead it is the greater randomness and what items and curses or boons the character picks up in the game that develops their power. It is what the DM put into the world, not what the design does. Different strengths and weaknesses, offering different experiences, creating different types of worlds, suiting different tables and players.
I think the OSR community itself turns off even people who like the idea of that style of gameplay. You want to check out the scene and it's a crapshoot if the video or review you check out is about the game or an excuse to talk about wokeness. Other than that comparing OSR games to D&D or Pathfinder is as useful as comparing Soulslikes to isometric crpgs. Even if they're both fantasy the gameplay isn't the same and I don't think a game like Elden Ring is competing with Baldur's Gate 3. They're serving different audiences or some people like both and what they choose to play is purely up to what they're in the mood for. Over the last year I played PF2E, WFRP, CoC, Alien, ShadowDark, and Sentinel Comics. There's no competition there. My group and I went for what we were in the mood for at the time and we weren't looking for the same experience from all of those games. No different from me playing Wrath of the Righteous, Hades, NHL, and Phasmophobia depending on who was around and what I was in the mood for.
I've found that if you just play 5e with a low level and low magic world, you get a lot closer to an OSR "feeling" without really changing anything mechanically.
Bonus points for name dropping C&C. There are pros and cons for both games, even from a design point. Single engine mechanics provides a framework while OSR subsystem create a bolt-on feature for new mechanics.
Brilliant video. I agree entirely. I think this is why Shadowdark is an easier step for 5E players to OSR style gameplay. It uses a lot of modern mechanics, but still keeps the simple character creation and low power levels. Everyone should play whatever makes them happy, 5E, OSR or anything in between but I've had great luck pulling 5E players in SD.
I like all types of roleplay games, even board games like Heroquest, Warhammer Quest and Talisman. I started with Basic D&D and all of the versions and settings offer different experiences. Having a great time with friends is the most important part of gaming.
I think you are spot on. I have played in some fashion or another since 1978. 3rd Edition IMO changed things for the better in so far as introducing real customization to character creation. 3.5/PF1 is still my favorite although AD&D 1st Ed is a close second.
I do like OSR games but I can say I don’t prefer them to more narrative fantasy systems, mainly because OSR games all seem to be obsessed with being meatgrinder games where players die regularly, which is just not a fantasy I prefer for my style of game. I like narrative-centered games like Dungeon World, Swords of the Serpentine, etc because they allow that heroic fantasy style of play without the super rules bloat. I view my games as more of a traditional fantasy novel than the dungeon-crawl slaughter house that is OSR games. My heroes are the main characters, they do dramatic things and die dramatic deaths. They don’t die from a random crit hit from a goblin unless it creates a really memorable moment in the story and makes sense for the heroes story to end there. It’s not that they don’t die at all, it’s that they aren’t as likely to die from random rolls or mooks getting lucky like in OSR. It’s not only the things above, but also just that OSR generally makes heroes regular dudes that grow to slightly better regular dudes over time. I like heroic fantasy, I like players to feel like Aragorn, Conan, Gandalf etc. Larger than life heroes. OSR just generally doesn’t support that and that is OK. That’s the exact opposite of what OSR is meant to be. Old School games were not heroic fantasy. I still think OSR games are cool, but I like my heroes to be Heroes with a capital H.
They're not heroes from level 1, but I do think higher level characters in OSR games are pretty heroic, even low-key superhuman as soon as level 5 in most systems. I'd agree that the very lowest levels of most OSR systems are generally a meatgrinder, some games like Dungeon Crawl Classics even explicitly systematize that concept. But the idea is that only a few of your characters will make it past those very lowest of levels... and the ones who do WILL be real heroes for making it through. Past that, the world is deadly but no longer a meatgrinder. The concept of "dying dramatically" is something that gets brought up a lot, but I think it's something of a misnomer. I think it's especially interesting that you bring up Lord of the Rings though, because Boromir straight up dies to a random encounter. Boromir had just made a huge mistake. He had fallen for the temptation of the ring, and in doing so he had chased away the ringbearer, the single most important individual in this entire expedition. He regrets it within the hour, and starts searching for Frodo, his redemption arc begun. And then... an orc champion shows up out of nowhere and kills him in an ambush. His character arc cut short, his death without meaning or purpose. Yet Boromir's death is certainly dramatic- It's dramatic because Boromir is a person Aragorn cares about, and a character we the reader/watcher are invested in. It's dramatic because death is inherently dramatic as long as you're invested in the character _as a character_ and not just a set of stats that do cool things. What is usually actually meant is a meaningful or heroic death. But even heroes in fiction aren't guaranteed those. They certainly go through much more than real people could probably get away with, but even then sometimes death happens with no real meaning behind it. Just a life cut short before it's time. Aragorn and Conan both live in worlds where death waits around every corner and they often only escape by the skin of their teeth, Conan especially and the entire genre of 50s to 70s swords and sorcery pulp fantasy is one of the great inspirations for old D&D. And characters beyond 5th level are very much Conan types.
@@elowin1691 correct me if I’m wrong, but does Boromir not A. Die to a group of orcs who are searching for the ring bearer, thus making it not a random encounter and B. Take a few arrows to the chest, kill some orcs, and then die dramatically in Aragorn’s arms? I would categorize that as a very heroic and dramatic death and definitely not comparable to the average OSR death where characters can be killed by random traps in a dungeon completely unceremoniously. Yeah, obviously dramatic deaths are only dramatic because they aren’t necessarily expected and they happen to characters we care about, but to try and say Boromir died randomly is not really true. He checks off all of the boxes of a heroic feeling death to me. Sure, he fucked up, but in the end he tried to do the right thing. Im not arguing that characters shouldn’t die. I’m not even arguing that characters shouldn’t die early in a campaign. What I am arguing is that characters in the types of games I personally like should A. Not be dying to random, boring aspects of the world like arrow traps or random wilderness encounters and B. Should be able to do more than say “I’m at 0 hp, I’m dead.” The game I am designing is relatively low powered, and might seem like an OSR game at first glance, but the mechanics allow for death to be A. More of a choice than most games and B. Be dramatic when it happens. Heroes take a final stand when they die, just like Boromir and Gandalf (I know he didn’t really die) and before they reach that point, they have opportunities to drop out of the fight and clear foreshadowing that if they keep fighting, they will die. My characters aren’t superheroes, they just have the precisely correct amount of plot armor that gives them more agency in when and if they die. It doesn’t guarantee they won’t die, but definitely puts it a little more in their control. Boromir could have taken that first arrow and fell to the ground and played dead, but he didn’t. He chose to go out fighting. That’s all I’m really arguing for in terms of heroism. I’m personally not a huge fan of D&D 5es level of heroes that are basically just fantasy super heroes. But I like a balance, and prefer games that start around a power level more akin to a mid-level OSR character like you said.
The super-powered characters of Pathfinder and Hasbro D&D. Perfect for those lacking creativity and cunning who want to sit on their pubis and have the world and story spoon fed to them. Where the players are the centers of their own little story. Pampered pups who have little if any challenge and no cunning at figuring a way around a problem without using their superpowers or munchkin-modified skill ranks. Not that it matters since most have plot armor that is a mile thick in those games because creating characters is not fast. Games turned into endless stat slogging instead of creativity and fun. Combats take untold hours. I used to run Pathfinder. Hard for characters to get anything done, let alone play a fun sandbox and get anywhere with even a weekly adventure -- if you can find players with the time. Way too much work (Yes work, not enough fun) for a GM. Then there is the Mat Mercer effect new players like and want --funny voices and a railroad, pretending they are special instead of working at it. Wanting entertainment provided instead of entertaining themselves and everyone, including the GM with their play. Nope, give me a West Marches sandbox point crawl to run. No map, no miniatures - theater of the mind and a guide list for each area with random encounters for travel or movement between points. I describe all. Encounters are what they are. You give the players hints about the dangerous places, monsters, and people to avoid at their level. They chose their paths, the good, bad, or the ugly. I let them pick their fights and their sides. If, when I provide a warning they listen fine -- like seeing a massive spore on a trail with a loose black dragon scale sticking up from it. If not they better have a good plan worked out. If they are stupid and want to fight everything, odds are they will not last long and either learn or leave -- A good filter for players who can't hack it. Roll characters, don't build them. Building characters is for the min/max weaklings who cannot be creative and find value in an average character. Find ways through creativity and a GM description to gain an edge, even a slim one, and make the game fun without super-stats and juiced-up abilities. A system a GM can flex to fit his game without hearing about rules from the rules lawyer pipsqueak. KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) rules. Completing an adventure in one session and getting some extra on each end of it. Players talking about the way they beat a troll through their cunning and not some super-power feat. Players exploring the world you made and not having to spend hours trying to balance encounters. Letting the worlds creation fall where it will and leaving it up to clever players and the dice to get through it. No way am I going back to Hasbro D&D or Pathfinder. My players, have found and enjoy their agency and speed, don't want that either. KISS is the best way to run or play a game.
Another critique I got from a former 5e player after the first OSE session is that the gameplay loop feels really slow. What I got from this is that he may not enjoy the shift of focus from detailed combat to detailed exploration (describe how you actually interact with the fiction). Or dungeon crawling in general. But it was just a session, so we'll see.
My 5e mates that I'm running a BECMI game for, and some 5e friends that I played a Shadowdark game with that was DMed by another friend, actually found the speed of combat refreshingly fast. Yes, far more simplified that the Action economy of 5e, but they liked how quickly the pace of combat went. As far as that mental shift of 'No you don't just walk into a room and do a perception check, Tell the DM what your character is doing' can be challenging, and isn't for everyone. For players that really like their roleplaying, it is easier, than for the 5e player that really enjoys their tactical thinking during combat. Like in my BECMI game, the villian of an encounter fled through a secret door in another room, while the players were dispatching his minions. When the got into the room, one of the newer 5e players, said 'Can't just roll a perception check, so can I use my torch to see if there are any strange draughts to find the secret door' I thought BRILLIANT... good idea, so instead of doing the D6 check for finding the door, I let them find it, because she put in the mental work to think through the problem. Instead of the party just asking each other, Who has the highest perception?
@@peadarruane6582 Agreed, I let them succeed too. For example they suspected there was a skeleton in a coffin, so a player said "can I just hit the coffin with an axe, trying to hit the skeleton inside?", I said: "sure, roll damage". Then he said that we would like to try to keep the coffin shut, so in that case I asked a STR check to see if he managed against the now moving skeleton. Then another character repeated the axe action and killed the skeleton.
@@peadarruane6582one thing I try to stress is that it's still tactical. It's just not tactics based on an itemized list. The upside (and downside) is that it means far more in-the-moment rulings for what happens. This tends to cause a more varied set of encounters because "I swing my sword" is near the bottom of the list of first action behaviors. Instead, the characters can analyze the encounter space and make decisions because interacting with the world isn't just strictly worse than using your level 8 class ability again.
@@ghandiwonThis is absolutely true. I had a party of mostly level ones take on a dozen 2HD gnolls. I thought there may be a TPK but based on very specific actions they took and super clever interactions with their environment, they overcame it. It all came from their heads, not options on their sheets. (Running a house ruled BX)
Great topic, I have thought of tackling a similar topic. The funny thing is that OSR strengths can also be its weakness when considered by those who like a crunchier game. I love the OSR though!
Old-school games' rules-light, freeform nature is both their strength and their weakness. With the right kind of players (including DM, because lest we forget the DM is a player, too), this promotes creative thinking to solve problems, as the rules provide only the most essential framework, and the characters can take any action they like. With the wrong kind of players, it's constraining, because the PCs are left struggling to come up with ideas that aren't made available by their character abilities and when they do start thinking outside the box the DM has no idea how to make a meaningful ruling. And honestly, most groups fall somewhere in between those extremes, or are made up of a mix of styles. Which is why early Dragon Magazine was filled with articles about how certain rules could work or "NPC" (wink, nudge) character classes. It was basically a community sharing, "Hey, here's how I homebrewed this thing which I think is common enough that it'll probably come up in your games, too, so maybe you can use that!" And of course publishers did the same thing with official rules, which is how we got things like _Unearthed Arcana_ and the like in 1E, the Player's Option series in 2E, and so on. And now, the pendulum seems to have swung entirely the other way, so rules bloat gets in the way and character creation is so complex that WotC reasonably believed they can extortionately monetize their app to make it workable.
You are into something. Options is so cool. I have good memories of my time wirh AD&D, but I couldnt got back to the type of ruleset. This extends to GM stuff, where I felt other games gave me more tools than I ever had in 2e.
Options can often be what makes players come back for more and more. They want to try other things out and can look at videos online etc. you don’t really get that sort of video for OSR. That’s as there aren’t many build options.
osr style games fit a lot of modules 5e fans love, like, for instance, curse of strahd, which isn't really that scary after level 5. I'm really excited to run a ravenloft one shot for halloween with OSE.
Always interesting to read the comments of folks who think OSR games can't do certain things like have dramatic events or survive past level 1. I definitely agree I like my OSR games with more character progression than B/X, but I'm also playing a TRPG as a TRPG, and not as a tactical skirmish wargame. Which is what I see 5e and 3.5e and Pathfinder as. I'll never understand why folks feel those 3 games have much more depth than the alternatives. I've played a lot of them and a lot of their "tactical depth" still simply boils down to move and use your most damaging or controlling action.
Which is basically what DnD has always been. Move, hit do damage. And very important: try to maximize the damage output. That's why I liked my +3 sword better than my +4 dagger back then.
In OSR games your character develops as you play them, not only through the cool magical weapons and trinkets you find along the way but, also by role play instead of roll play. Also OSR games are flexible enough that if the player and DM work together you can create your own options for characters. This of course is for more veteran players & DM’s. BECMI actually has a lot of options for the fighter type characters, set spear,multiple attacks (up to 4), smash, parry, disarm. Also for human fighters, at 9th level they can decide to become Paladins, Knights, or Avengers. Couple these with the weapon mastery, which allows players to increase their skills with weapons (fighters up to 15 weapons, all other characters up to 10) then sprinkle in the general skills, which is well over 60 skills and you have a very customized character. But you need to understand, the more options you layer in, the slower the game plays. This is why newer RPG’s such as 5E, plays so slowly, especially combat, there are trade offs for everything you do in RPG’s as well as in life
I find I can develop my character a lot more through role play in newer RPGs than in OSR. Certainly not less. Having characters die off regularly certainly leaves me less interested in investing in their personalities or in building relationships with NPCs or even other PCs.
My experience with playing 5th Edition is that character creation for a group takes a whole session's worth of time, and the suspiscion that the DM can just make certain skill check DCs impossible on purpose. I've gravitated toward OSR games and roll-under checks because it's easier to just start playing the game, and roll-under checks establish a concrete rule for how difficult different tasks are for a character. The numbers don't lie.
But the role under mechanic has one MAJOR problem (at least for me): you can never get better unless your abilities change. That means the lowly farm boy has just as much chance to understand the strange runes as the old farmer who has done that same thing at least 2000 times in his life (.... because for some reasons there are rune scripts found on his fields all the time... ). And that bothered me and bothers me to this day. Old games had no way of showing real experiences of the characters (outside of getting more hps and a spell or two you could learn).
@@doomhippie6673 And as for getting better over time, I've tried rolling down the stat line with a d20 to roll over a character's stats upon leveling up. If you wanted to be more logical about it, only roll for skills that were regularly used during the adventure.
There's also the "story" aspect to OSR vs DnD. In DnD when you make a character you are encouraged to give them a backstory, personality, goals etc. You don't play Joe Shmoe the fighter, you play Johnathan Shmoester, a squire of a famous knight, your mentor and hero, who betrayed his lord and escaped to join the evil necromances, while you rotted in prison for association and your first session is getting out (with other players) and then becoming a famed warrior in order to exact revenge on your mentor. In OSR that kind of story is pointless. Joe Shmoe will most likely die from a random dart trap, you will never get strong enough to fight evil necromancer armies and you will never see your mentor ever again. This kind of story is what drives people to play DnD and Pathfinder. This is what motivates them to show up at the game, talk to NPC's and act out their characters. A random series of bad rolls won't necesserily kill them, cause DM can easily turn a bandit TPK into a hostage situation and give them a chance to escape, turning a loss into another cool adventure. OSR in their design would just say "you ded, make a new guy" and be proud that this is how it's supposed to be. I love survival games, I really do. I played way more Neo Scavenger and Stranded than I should, and I rolled more characters in ADOM than I can count, most of them died horribly. But when playing TTRPG's, I want to feel like I can give something, play up my story and the system will accomodate that and give me a chance to explore it. OSR would be fine for a one-shot or two, but a full campaign that I will be telling my friends for decades to come? Nope.
Let me make a counter argument to this: For some old school rules games, like those that reflect Basic and Original D&D, 100% agree with you. But those are not the only old school rules games. Games based on AD&D 1e or reflect that have means for story growth. The character is more than just a pawn in a board game like in BECMI, where the PC literally fits on a 3x5 index card. AD&D has background secondary skills, non-weapon profiecancies, class based skills, racial skills & modifiers, etc. From these you can / should create a very lite background for the PC. Then as you game, you BACK-FILL your characters history-story as you develop the characters personality while playing the character. This is a significant difference between Basic and Advanced D&D, not just more detailed rules, but more detailed characters. Still "old school rules". 2nd Edition AD&D cleaned up the system a lot in terms of editing and layout. But not much else besides the way Classes are structured changed between 1e and 2e. Castles & Crusades is essentially the modern update to 1e/2e. BECMI and it's "children" are a very different play-style than AD&D and it's "children". The way AD&D/C&C differ from modern 3e-5.5e/pf1-2 is that in those games front-load the character background an personality before you even start actual play. While AD&D/C&C give you some data to work from, and then you back-fill your background and personality as you play the character in actual play. The back-fill method is WAY better in terms of imprinting that PC into your memory and creating joy playing it.
Personally, I dislike most OSR games due to how binary failure states tend to be. You’re either ok or you’re dead. And you get dead fast. What this means in practice is that you can’t play an idiot or anything even a step away from a highly competent individual. We want to emphasize player skill, after all. But my favorite fiction often involves people making bad decisions, getting into trouble because of said decisions, and then making further bad decision that lands them in even more trouble. OSR games just don’t have this sliding gradient of consequences. And I think most folks playing OSR games would hate to play with someone making decisions explicitly to see dramatic things unfold at the table. After all, that idiocy could get their PCs killed too. In the end, I’m not interested in solely playing as smart as possible. I want to do dramatic things and see our heroes overcome adversity. But OSR games do nothing for this end.
Interesting perspective. I've seen people make dumb choices in OSR games all the time. It's probably true that those decisions aren't being made deliberately as often as in modern iterations. But at least I've experienced plenty of sliding gradient of consequences (e.g. lost resources, incomplete or failed objectives, percentage of party and retainer death); and plenty of dramatic things unfolding at the table. I'm genuinely curious: what sliding gradient of consequences have you enjoyed in modern D&D? One perception of modern D&D (which is admittedly also my experience) is that it is often not even a binary, since no consequences are encouraged - and it'd feel terribly impolite to let a character die after the player put a few hours into writing a backstory.
@@wushubear1 Oh I'm not a fan of modern dnd either. But if I'm looking at the general 3.5-ish era, 4.5, pathfinder 1e and 2e general mess (which is lumping in a huge number of games), I'd generally point to overall PC durability, availability of spells and resources to problem solve, and combat as a non-failure state to help explain why it's ok for the PCs to make bad decisions and walk out ok. In some of those systems, extended skill challenges or similar structures also provide many different outcomes for events based on the party's performance, thus making it so a single player playing sub-optimally isn't going to jeopardize the gang's health and safety in an immediate manner. But I think the biggest contributing factor is just group expectations. There's less of a feeling during play that mistakes will severely affect the group. I also feel like just limiting the scope to modern dnd is a bit of a mistake here. In the broader TTRPG scene, many games do employ lots of non-binary resolution mechanics. For example, I think we can all agree that the vibe of playing Dungeon Worlds is very different from ODnD. None of this is me dunking on OSR. The whole scene is wonderfully creative and folks are obviously very much enjoying themselves with these games. I just wanted to explain my perspective on these games. Dislike of them need not come solely from a PC options-based place.
're your rolled stats, in White Box, I allow players to increase two of their stats by 1 point each at 4th and 8th level. That way, they can possibly gain plusses, or remove negatives, based on their experiences, learning and training to that point.
I don't think the issue is just the number of class abilities and feats characters get in 5e. From my perspective, the issue is that the fantasy genre has come a long way from the mid-70s to now, and you have a lot more fantasy archetypes in books, movies and games. In most OSR games, for example, you can't play Dwarf Cleric. The classic Dwarf Craftpriest archetype is gone. You can't be a Hammer of Moradin and wreak vengeance on the enemies of your god. The idea of race as a class is gone from modern fantasy (imagine playing World of Warcraft and only being able to choose between Rogue, Warrior, Orc and Goblin). We moved beyond that a long time ago. My players don't care about skills and feats and stuff like that, but they do want more archetypes to choose from, and while we do play OSR games, they tend to burn out on them pretty quickly, because most of these systems lack in terms of replayability over lenghty campaigns where PCs die a lot and are replaced with new ones. There are some good OSR games that seem to understand this problem (ACKS or C&C come to mind). ACKS has done race-as-class in the only good way I can think of, and C&C uses AD&D and D&D 3e as its foundation.
I played OSE this past weekend and one huge flaw I've noticed about BECMI games is that if the people you're playing with aren't fun to play with you REALLY feel it. There's no game to keep everyone distracted and focused on, and there's not a ton of spectacle in the kinds of powers people throw out. You're just there suffering with a bunch of old men with no social skills.
I think you bring up great points and hit the nail on the head, at least for why my personal group were also apprehensive towards OSR style games. Which is why when I finally convinced them to try something other than 5e I handed out some magic items which are normally extremely rare in modern games. Modern RPGs are balanced towards never receiving magic items which is why you need to increase the power level of player level ups. Whereas in osr games you tend to balance as you play by way of treasures. Additionally the lack of abilities and specific rules or powers is the main appeal of osr games. It's all about how it's presented. You don't need the "Knock Down" feat to knock someone down, you just say it and try it. The point of OSR games is to stop looking at your character sheet for what your character can do. So the options are actually rather limiting when you make that connection. Basically the lack of options and powers make it seem like your character can do fewer awesome and epic things where actually you can just try to do all of those awesome and epic things without leveling up or picking the right feature or specific class. (Other than a few weapon and armor restrictions I suppose.) I'm sure you already know this I'm just throwing in my own observations on why I prefer OSR games over pathfinder and 5e.
On the topic of "Knock Down" type attacks, Dungeon Crawl Classics uses a deed die, which lets warriors and dwarves roll a special die along with their attack to see if they can pull of cinematic type moves - disarming, tripping, back flips, whatever. It keeps action moving and the rules simple, which still maintaining tension from the die roll.
The problem I had back then was "how do I knock somebody over"? Sure, you could roll under strength and that means a Strength 15+ fighter has a good chance to knock anybody and everything over most of the time. But why should it be as easy to knock over a goblin as it is to knock over a giant? There was a general lack of "how do I as a GM rule this". Which is actually a common complaint about DnD5e these days. Mind you, I don't want to have a Pathfinder 2 rules system in which you have to have a special feat "consume food" to be able to do mundane things. But the way DnD Basic or even Ad&D worked wasn't really any better. It gave rise to many random on the spot decisions of the GM and as a player you had to roll with the punches. If your GM had a bad day you better not try anything fancy. That randomness and unspecificness of the rules drove me away from the old DnD into.... Rolemaster. (Taking about rules and numbers....). I think DnD5e is kind of a nice blend of two extremes. Still not perfect. I actually prefer game systems that are purely skill based and not classed an level based.
@@doomhippie6673Wow, total opposite experience here. I went from 3.5 Ed (not pathfinder) to briefly dabbling in 5th all the way to BX and similar rules light games. I flipped through the Rolemaster book about a year ago and it looked like the polar opposite of how I like to play TTRPGs. To each their own!
@@doomhippie6673 Shadowdark for example just haves standard DC (easy 9, normal 12, hard 15, heroic 17) and the DC depends on both the character and the action. A noble wizard and an scout elf thief get lost in the forest, guess wich one has a lower DC in related checks. Same two characters are dealing with guards and merchants, guess wich one has the easier DC now. Also is just the rules vs rulings arguments all over again.
Some great points here. I'd like to offer my opinion on the issue. To start, please know it's not about one game being better than the other. In fact, seeing it that way is part of the problem with attracting more players. That said, all of this videos points have been defined in business management as the expectation gap. This gap is formed when the expectations for an outcome are not aligned between the two parties. Whats missing in OSR is recognition and consideration for this 5e/OSR expectation gap. We all know how great OSR games are, but we struggle to communicate that experience to others. We fail to explain what makes an OSR game so great in it's own right that both shrinks the gap and entices people to play. We point to the differences, like to fast pace, and lethality, but that's just speaking from one person's perspective. It doesn't consider what that 5e player would like about OSR. This is one reason salesmen make so much money. Great video man!
Forbidden Lands. An OSR game that in my opinion, has the mechanical depth in travel, combat and character progression that would satisfy the more modern player. The Most underrated RPG
I bought it some years ago but haven't had the chance to play it yet. And unfortunately I don't know anybody who runs it. I would love to play it a few times before running it a s a GM myself.
I've very interested in playing this, and recently "Dave Thaumavore RPG" got a chance to lay out and has had me super excited about it. You can also see his break down of the GM and Players guides that are really good.
You've noted that OSR games don't offer the same degree of customization, and that's important, unless that isn't important to you, and thereby correctly conclude, the importance of customization is subjective. But then you state that "from an objective point of view", broad customization is important in order to popularize the genre. But that point of view is equally subjective. It's only important if it is important to you. Personally, on the surface I see the initial appeal to lots of choices. I recently began playing 5e after a 20+ year gap in gaming because IRL priorities, but gamed often in the 70's-90's. I can appreciate how the newer version seems to have simplified some of the mechanics, but it seems to have equally become bloated with custom options which keep me flipping through pages turn after turn just to see what I can and cannot do. Anyhow, thanks for the take, and I look forward to your rebuttal video.
@@Shamefulroleplay without question there are. I just question whether more customization is important in order to popularize the genre, objectively speaking.
@@brittonparnell2168 Objectively yes. Allowing for more varied and more fully realized character fantasies other than old man with beard is absolutely part of why the hobby is exploding in the new generation. If there were only 4 classes the game would not reach the heights it currently has.
A friend once described the online OSR community that endlessly attacks other RPGs as "Singularly Unpleasant". The amount of vitriol spewed by some trolls unfairly characterizes players who are often chill and sometimes just want a loose, straightforward, challenging, and lethal game.
I like some things about osr and dislike others. Emergence, creative problem solving and meaningful choices are cool, but there seem to be a trend of design in some products where randomness is over-emphasized, e.g. in hexcrawl and dungeon encounter tables especially when coupled with a lack of proper gm guidance on integrating meaning into the results, making the adventure feel like a challenge gauntlet instead of a meaningful endeavour. That and an over-emphasis on challenge and under-emphasis on fantasy and narrative. These I really dislike.
OSR style games are an imitation of original D&D principles--the 'Save vs Breath Weapon' for instance. They have no interest in modernization, they have no interest in D&D 2nd Ed style, where they believe TSR/Hasbro lost the plot. They may want Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits etc to be their own classes, and the sensation of the diverse strangeness of them stops right there. There are one or two who take it further, and use the principles of the 'Blue Book', but those are rare.
in my research osr games should not have a dex save, since the game has so many to insta kill mechanics from poison, petrify, death ray, ect, having a roll to not trip and die is excessive. for jumping gaps you have either have a running start, standing jump but you land prone, or you just cant jump the space. eveyone can climb walls if they have iron spikes and rope it just eats up time, while the thief can climb sheer walls without gear and place a rope for the party speeding up progress. another rule, the thief can roll a thievery check to spot traps which will be a gimme if one exist, but if they are uncertain they can still interact with the environment with descriptions actions to avoid and trigger traps in a safe manner.
As is often the case, it isn't so much the games or style of play that drives people away, it's the most vocal of their advocates. Heartfelt recommendations and enthusiasm are one thing, but the discussion quite often devolves into variations of "The Old Way Is The Only Way" and a weird sense that some of these people desperately hope they'll be able to summon the spirit of Sainted Gary in order to have him bless their table.
Our group has played a few Castles & Crusades game sessions. Most of the group loved the freedom and ease of playing the game. There weren't a ton of rules to slow things down, I could make rulings on the fly and they were resolved with a quick attribute check. My wife, however, felt that the characters weren't the Big Damn Heroes she was used to playing in other games, like Pathfinder or 13th Age, which is fair. But I think she also prefers a more traditional skill system, like the ones in more modern games. To her, I believe, things made more sense when you rolled a perception check or a survival check instead of using wisdom or intelligence for a situation. There's a mindset where the rules inform the style of play. Since she's used to games with skills, she looks for ways to use those skills. There's too much freedom for her, I believe, compared to new games that explicitly give players the tools. The tools are much more implied with OSR-style games, and I think that's another hurdle to get players past. Our next game, after our Pathfinder campaign, will likely be 13th Age, because it fills the gap of Big Damn Heroes but with a "skill" system where you use backgrounds. It's enough of a guideline for her, I think to get into the game.
I'd just like to point out that the video completely ignores that skills are present in the BECMI rule set in the very Rules Cyclopedia featured in the video, as are weapon Mastery rules that enable characters to perform special maneuver's and increase weapon damage when used in combat with the weapon one has studied with beyond the basic skill level needed to use said weapon. IE- it's not just hit and deal basic weapon damage at the higher levels of weapon Mastery. Both weapon and non weapon Skills can be improved by devoting slots to them. They therefore are not just static throughout a characters adventuring career in TSR versions of D&D.
You are correct! BECMI specifically does have the skills option in it. However most OSR doesn’t, and it’s not as detailed as what 5e / Pathfinder would offer.
Great video. Thank you. I like the OSR. Started with the RC in 1992. I like you channel very much. What is the difference between the coloured cover WB FMAG and the black and white cover WB FMAG? Thanks so much, V
The question is more why some people do like OSR-style games. People want different things out of activities. OSR games are quite specialized in the stylea of engagement and experiences they facilitate and deliver on, so their appeal is inherently narrowed to a more niche audience.
I appreciate you making a video trying to be critical of OSR as an OSR fans. Most OSR creators I don't think so that. They just disparage those who like modern RPGs like 5E. For my part, I started playing D&D hard core in 2E and had played around some basic before then. So,.as an old head I love modern RPGs and don't like OSR games that much. My main, issue with OSR games is that they are great at capturing the feel of Sword & Sorcery style worlds but the unbalanced nature of the game and the adversarial nature of the GM means that it does not allow the adventurers to be the larger than life heroes of the game like Sword & Sorcery fiction characters like Conan. Also, many of the rules present in OSR where things many old school gamers complained about or house ruled or ignored. So, I am not going to romanticize those things for nostalgia. I am speaking of things like the brutal rules of undead somehow (nonsensically) just draining levels with a touch and no save to stop it, etc. The random traps that were just instant death in a dungeon that had a trap every 10 feet....which makes no sense unless you are talking about a mad man who designed say a maze specifically just to trap/test adventurers. If you read old school pulp fantasy the characters often did not get hurt. Ex. In the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard (not the pastiches written by other authors like Lin Carter, etc.) Conan RARELY got injured. Yes there exists a FEW Robert E. Howard stories where Conan set off a trap or got hurt but you can count them on a single hand. Likewise to my recollection in the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber the twain themselves I don't recall getting hurt at all. People around them like their friends, hirelings, and lovers may have gotten hurt or killed but Fafhrd and The Mouser never really did. In the first birth Swords Against Deviltry they did an all out frontal assault on the Thieves Guild or Lankhmar and while their allies paid the penalty the Twain survived and fled Lankhmar. The over vulnerability of PCs in these game (starting with 3d6 for ability scores) means the PCs of OSR games can rarely mimic these heroics evens if if they survive. Unbalanced Dungeons/adventures are another issue. I have seen and watched game designers talking about old adventures where 1st level PCs faced things like packs of cockatrices or a Medusa and got killed/turned to stone. I don't see the joy in that. If my PC dies because I made a bad choice it had some unlucky rolls that is one thing. Dying due to a monster PCs of a certain level have no real chance to beat seems acenine. The role of the DM is to run the adversaries but that she has to be adversarial, and many OSR DMs in my experience have an adversarial attitude. That being said I do love the world building and creation of OSR world including the awesome worlds created during 1st and 2nd edition D&D. I just wish players could be the heroes of yore in those games vs getting beat down the entire time via undead level drains, permanent curses, overpowered monsters for PC level, instant death traps that are overly numerous and almost impossible to detect, etc. Yet this is varied hobby so to each their own.
All that! Very well said. "We will always remember (the shitty parts just as the good ones". Only - people seemed to have forgotten about the shitty parts.
I joined the hobby with 5e back in 2019; for the last two years I've run PF2E. I personally am DEFINITELY a crunchy-game fan. With that said, I have a bit of OSR, OG kind of TTRPG mentality in regards to a sort of pulp fantasy game structure and thinking outside of the box. I wish my players would look outside of their character sheets for solutions more often; I want these rules-heavy systems for inspiration on how to adjudicate situations, not to bind our game to them. I have never felt comfortable running rules-light games largely because I find that the people I have played with don't take advantage of the openness and it causes a lot of arguments with rules disagreements. I don't begrudge OSR and rules-light systems at all, they just haven't worked for and in the end haven't interested me personally. Love having the variety in this hobby though
OSR: "The stats you rolled determined you must play an elf flavored fighter that will probably die." PF2E: "Choose how your story will begin and enjoy the journey."
That's kinda what turns me off 'modern' (ie 5th ed). You get to choose the story not go on an adventure. With that much choice is it a game anymore or just fan fiction with more steps?
I grew up in the TSR era. We always just rolled our stats and could place them as we saw fit. If it was a shit set of rolls, we would try a second time. That way you could still choose your race/class you envisioned going into the campaign.
OSR always feels like a one shot to me. Roll character, dungeon crawl, maybe survive, game over. Other than a fantasy setting OSRs are just a different game to DnD and Pathfinder. I don't hate them. Just play them as one off games
This is my exact stance with 5th Ed. Play what to me feels like a superhero for one session then jump back into my more OSR ish style play (with stuff pulled in from some more modern games too).
Yep. OSR in the vain of BECMI are all like that. You roll up a pawn and hope to live. RPGs have two axis. Player character complexity (and thus player design choice) is the X axis, and Role Play to Simulation is the Y axis. Every RPG will fit on that grid somewhere.
5E is a takeaway set menu, and OSR is a smorgasbord. 5E you pick a subclass and that's your skills/powers, that's all you get. Don't even think about using magic items they don't exist. Don't know why they even bother putting them in the DMG. Give me OSR and freedom to choose any day.
So I agree with the point that lack of build options is likely a reason players struggle getting into the OSR style games. Especially when players have a first glance at the games. I think there's more reasons like not being comfortable rolling up stats in games and the fear of being say a fighter who's bad with strength. But I've managed to get a few players who were skeptical to try it out and they've changed their minds a lot on these styles of games once they actually try them. For our OSR style games we've mostly played Mörkborg and Cy_borg and I've found my group not having issues with the lack of build options as these games still give each class something cool they can do. Be it a powerful item to start with or some type of magic or ability. And magical items or special items is something I think players should be granted in order to empower their characters beyond what just levels can do, this goes for both OSR and modern games, but I think it''s easier to create these things for players in an OSR game where you do not have to consider how it interacts with quite as many other forms of empowerment to the player character. The good thing I can say is that with my friend group at least everyone has found that they enjoy these styles of games once they've actually given them a try. I find that they appreciate the faster moving combat and the more relaxed ruleset as I'm very upfront when I'm making an on the spot ruling.
Brilliant comment which adds to the conversation very well. Faster combat for me is definitely a bonus as you can spend ages in 5e especially at later levels.
@@Shamefulroleplay For sure. I mean I've had experiences in 5e where it can take a lot of time even at lower levels but every game probably faces that to some extent with indecisive players in all fairness 😅. Didn't mention this game in my previous comment but our happy medium for a game that I primarily run with my friend group at the moment has been freeleague's Dragonbane. Or: Drakar Och Demoner as it's called here in Sweden. But this game has in my opinion a lot of the best of both worlds. Swift character creation through primarily rolls. It's not a level based game but a skill based game which means progression for characters does not have these large jumps in power. But you still maintain something akin to 5e's feats with the games heroic abilities which gives players customization and more concrete build paths on paper. But what this game in particular does for me in regards to fast combat is great. For one it's a single action game. You attack OR dodge with your turn. And it's initiative is redrawn each turn of combat. Which means you might go last one turn but first the next turn. Take that in combination with relatively low HP values (low 10's on average for players and needing a heroic ability to increase it further) with creatures that hit for a serious chunk of damage 2D8 Isn't uncommon. You get these very high octane turns and combat is solved usually solved within a handful of rounds. It creates a very chaotic and scary environment which means you often have players figuring out a good approach before getting into a fight and in some cases how to solve issues with monsters without fighting at all.
I have the QuickStart rule book for it in my cupboard. I must get it out and have a look. Will definitely do a one shot or a few sessions at least to test it out. Thanks for the reminder to me!
What are those frightening background noises in your videos? I listened to this one on an earphone, lying on the sofa with my eyes closed, and I had to keep myself from jumping up every time I heard a noise like that. Scary, ha ha. 😅
You are spot on. OSR style of play RAW doesn't allow you to build a PC you envision. The classes are bland and unimaginative. Sure, if you have a cool GM they MIGHT let your PC do some cool move, but it's not hard coded into the build. The misconception many OSR loyalists have about 5e/PF players is "they want to be super heroes!!", no, most I know are fine with fewer HP, more danger, etc., they just want to have options to build a cool PC that they want to play for a fun campaign. They are fine with their PC dying if it means something. I WISH there was an OSR game that offered more options for PCs. I have had to use Index Card RPG and rules and options from other games to build the low power but still heroic game my table loves.
@@Shamefulroleplay I would pay good money for it! Reapers new game Dungeon Dwellers seems like it might be what I'm looking for. I'm patiently waiting on the Kickstarter.
I've been rolling bones since the early 80s I think... It is just as hard for a 1st level character to hit an orc, as it is for 10 th level character to hit a demon, a first level scout to pick a 1st level lock as a 10th level scout Current games are overly complex and fiddly, I'm thinking ICE or C&S from the days of yore, specialisation and focus are fun but it is too easy to specialise yourself into uselessness and the DM needing to build a campaign for your peculiarities
For me, the magic items in OSR style games are the key. The magic items are much heftier than what we get in 5th edition (which are not very significant mechanically). The particular magic items a character has are the way they are differentiated from other characters. The power curve doesn’t come from the PC’s abilities as much in OSR, but rather it comes from the cool stuff they have. The thing is, you can’t plan that out. It often is a reflection of where the characters have been and what they have done.
I started with BECMI by trying to introduce young players to that style was very difficult because they hated the constraints on character I think the thing I feel is until 5th edition dnd was still a product of wargamers built arouund combat mechainics and optimising battle field strategy without any real mechainical benefits to story telling which is what my players have loved about it I remember introducing a new player to second edition and she rolled up a rogue and started weaving the story of a runaway bride and as a DM today I could just say great take the noble background you get proficiency in persuasion and extra gold and we're of fand running but I can't remember if heraldry was a class proficiency for rogue in second but I think I house ruled so background knowledge for her
This may be a bizarre stance on my part, as to why I basically ONLY like OSR games at this point, but here it goes. Personally I don't even care for most TTRPGs or even most board games, I find nearly all of them mind numbingly boring and cant even get through learning the rules without falling asleep, but I really love rules lite OSR style games (not RAW though, I love tailored house rules tightly curated for a specific playstyle as agreed upon by a table). I've been experimenting with different TTRPG systems for decades, hell I've played with RPG groups on multiple continents, and honestly have liked maybe one out of 5 or so that I've looked at. In the OSR/nu-OSR spaces, that number increases to 3 out of 5. I assume this is because I'm not looking to sit down and spend hours learning something, I want to get playing fairly fast, and I want to be able to have the rules of the game sit down and shut up. I want the solutions to problems to come from my own brain, not from pushing buttons on my character sheet (because I'm not reading a 5 page long class description or two paragraph long spell descriptions). Yes, I'm unreasonably picky and very neurodivergent (and medicated for it lmao), but honestly, I have a TON of different hobbies, so I just don't have the time or inclination to bother with forms of gaming that aren't exactly what I like. And that's okay! People who like more rules intensive stuff aren't wrong for having their own preferences or anything, it's just what type of gaming experience they want.
Awesome video. I like OSR because you are not invincible and if u live it's an accomplished feat. Who needs 5th edition bards dancing around with jazzy hands that they learned from the juilliard school of Bard dance
Yep. 5e isn't that rules heavy as they tries to design it around at table player experience. Pathfinder 2e is rules heavy, but not as rules heavy as Hero System or HackMaster. Table taste for where the fulcrum point should be between rules heavy (player design choices) and rules lite (less payer options) is going to vary. That is why we settled on a good fulcrum of Castles & Crusades.
How do you find it to run as a DM? I have it but haven’t run a campaign. Do the players like it better than OSR style games like Swords and Wizardry for example or just standard AD&D?
Castles & Crusades is the Goldie Locks RPG. Not too little options and survivability, and not too much survivability and options. Not too many rules to dwarf GM agency, and not too few rules to tax GM agency. Its just right.
Is because you wanna feel like you're always getting something every so often? D&D 3.5e and by extension Pathfinder are best for fine tuning a character's build with super crunchy rules.
options and player agency are, quite apparently, very important to players, D&D added it in 3e and has increased it every step of the way. OSR harkens back to the days of lack of options, when you could only dream of making the character on paper anywhere close to what was in your head. and, as much as i hate to say this, with the lack of rule structure you are subject to the DMs whims. if the DM is having a bad day, then so are the PCs, you have no real fallback, there is no rule to point to and say "this right here is how it works". honestly, the psychological state of someone who would rather run an OSR is a bit suspect (now you can all lie to me about never having played with a DM who is a control freak). i've never been able to understand the take of "less options = better", and there isn't a real argument about balance, the VAST majority of "balance issues" are the fault of the DM and not being able to scale what they preplanned to the reality of the party, or being unable to adjust on the fly if you are using an adventure module, but seriously.... stop using adventure modules. they have only ever been good for learning a game, after that do the damned work and write the story yourself. i've never really found TTRPGs to follow the "less is more" rule, less has always seemed to just be less.
Will until you get into the Moore is too much period if the dishes having a big identity crisis wit classes. Dropping spellcasting On three fourths of classeems to delete magic. More can be too much and in that case what's even the difference between the classes.
Main reasons in no order: 1. Poor formatting and even more rule vagueness than modern games like 5E 2. Lethality for lethality's sake. If your character is merely a throwaway sheet you do not care about, you're not playing an RPG, you're playing a wargame. 3. Lack of options and growth. We want characters to grow and learn new stuff, not just "suck a tiny bit less".
1. That is solved by modern OSR-clones. For example, OSE has one of the best layouts out there. Although it's not really for unexperienced OSR referees, because assumes knowledge of the style of play. 2. Lethality is a thing, but I think it's overestimated. If the party plays smart, they might actually never die (or die VERY rarely). Also, the lethality bar can be adjusted as per group preference. 3. The options you get as you advance in OSR game doesn't come from your class advancement, but from your loot. You get A LOT of bizarre magic items which gives you options and can solve situation by themselves. They are really powerful, not worthless trash otherwise "they can break character balance". For example, one artifact I saw recently in a playthrough was an item that gives Mass Charm Monsters 1/day. That is insane, because in B/X charm is basically Dominate in 5e, and it lasts for weeks if not months (depends on INT of the charmed creature). It actually feels like you earned those options, because you get them by stealing smartly from the monsters' lair.
I get what you are saying, but disagree with your characterisation of OSR. I know at least in BECMI, and in the Mystara setting, exploration of the world is a huge element to, whereas 5e is famously weak on that pillar, acknowledged by 5e affeciendos themselves. But yeah, different games, different styles, but equally valid. The way I categorise it is..... In BECMI and other OSR games, Think Pippin... In 5e Think Aragorn.
I think you're only looking at "1st wave" or "clone" books in the OSR. Since around 2008 there has been 2nd wave & 3rd wave games that have become far more creative with the rules. Like Baptism of Fire, DCC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the Wretchedverse games, Lion & Dragon, etc To say nothing of the games that cover other genres, like Stars Without Number, Star Adventurer, Operation: White Box, The Invisible College, etc.
Most big modern TTRPG's lack inter-party-dependency. It's generally not that big of a deal when the cleric can't make the session, or the magic user is out one evening when playing some of the big modern RPG's. The need to customize your character to the fullest extent usually means someone else in the party has a level of cleric, or wizard, etc. Very much like modern video games. Players don't deviate from with the script and improvise like a good actor, but instead rely on what's written on their character sheet. No one really knows what the other party members are capable of in many big modern TTRPG's. They generally just hope that everyone has a little bit of everything, instead of relying on another player character. Character customization has killed the imagination and creativity of many modern gamers. With OSR RPG's, you have to think outside the sheet, and imagine what your character would do, and then describe it. You don't really need a good imagination at all to play many big modern TTRPG's, everything is written down for you in one of the books, or on your character sheet. Just like the monitor for your modern video game, it shows you what to imagine.
Started playing in the late 80s/early 90s with BECMI and 2E, and I personally vastly prefer WotC D&D (any of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and I'll include Pathfinder 1e here - never played Pathfinder 2e so I can't judge) over TSR D&D. I have tried playing 2e and BECMI a couple of times and couldn't get into it, and yes, the lack of character options was a major part of that (especially since I prefer martials to casters). (I'm also not a big fan of "dungeon crawl" modules, which a lot of OSR tends to be) Part of it was that I went to university in the late 90s, which was pretty much D&D's nadir of popularity... and my university's roleplaying club played many different RPGs, but D&D was not among them until 3E got released in 2000. Even now, I consider D&D just one RPG among many, not the be-all and end-all that a lot of people nowadays do, and there was a time a couple of years ago when I was seriously burned out on D&D - I didn't want to play anything D&D related, be that 5e, OSR, Pathfinder or whatever. I really wanted to play a genre other than fantasy, and if it had to be fantasy, it needed to be at least as different as Runequest or Modiphius' Conan RPG, Unfortunately, 5e was all anyone in my area seemed to be running (unless it was Call of Cthulhu, and I'm not into horror). EDIT: Also, I have seen comments like "OSR is for killer GMs who worship Gary Gygax and try emulate Tomb of Horrors in every game they run", which... while it's definitely an exaggeration, some OSR GMs do seem to enjoy killing PCs.
@The_RealWilliam Hacking the rules of a game means making house rules. You take the base game's rules and change things around or add things to give the game's mechanical framework your own "flavor". OSR games have few hardlined rules on purpose to encourage the GM to make their table's game unique to them by adding or changing certain mechanics as needed. You want Advantage/Disadvantage? Put it in. You don't like the abstract saving throw target numbers? Make it a roll-under check on an applicable stat or something like that. The game bends to your will, not the other way around.
@@AtariTom2X00 Okay so that's your personal definition, because I have never heard this before except in video games. Not to sound pedant, but I am against any kind of "hacking" just to hack. If you (not you personally) don't like the rules then create your own game instead of freeloading.
@@The_RealWilliam Creating your own game system wholesale is easier said than done. Using an established framework and reworking it to suit your style is easier than coming up with a whole new system. Also, by your definition, wouldn't that mean that people using homebrewed monsters for something like 5e, for instance, should just go make a new game and stop using a game that already has everything it needs in the book? 5e is just a basic d20 framework with a bunch of extra rules belted onto it. Modular DCs, stat-based saving throws, proficiency bonuses, a huge skill list that all boils down to a stat check, feats, cantrips, all of these things. And how many of them are strictly necessary to run a basic game piggybacking off of brand recognition established by the popularity that these older rules systems founded?
When hear about “builds” I flinch. It has such a video game feel, but to be fair that’s where today’s player is coming from. To me, in the newer games, your stats and abilities define your character. In OSR how you role play the character does.
It would be cool if you consider the other side too in a new video. I.e. why players coming from newer systems like osr such it having way faster character creation, faster combat, ect.
I have made a new one about why OSR is actually great for role play I’ve finished audio on. I will also make another one afterwards on your suggestion too thank you.
I prefer the TSR "vibe" over WotC . Sure, there is less character customization, but there is far more tension (you're on the edge of your seat) and it requires coming up with solutions. Making it through the adventure is more rewarding. That said, I prefer WotC's more consistent d20 rules over TSR's sub-systems (for this I roll a d6, but thieves roll a d100, etc.).
If the order of showing the manuals and the differences between them were reversed, you could make a video on why OSR players don't like playing modern games on the same scenario. They would probably be just as accurate. It's hard to discuss something so complex through the prism of such a tiny fragment of what both styles of play actually are. And that they are very far apart, well, that's obvious.
I think ‘hate’ is the wrong word but I do sometimes think that a lot of these games are overly praised for doing something that isn’t all that original or innovative. I do like some games for their relative simplicity compared to the contemporary edition of D&D, and the general lower levels of power creep, but honestly if I wanted an alternative to D&D, I’d prefer to try out something like WFRP or Pendragon for example, rather than something that is basically the same as D&D in all its broader strokes.
Ive recently gotten back into D&D (sort of) I haven't had my 1E books in decades and buying them now seems cost prohibitive. Also I now play solo. So after LOTS of videos I started with White Box as the price was right 😃. I literally had to buy everything including dice again. That along with Table Fables sandbox style and I was hooked. Now I've gone to Basic Fantasy hard copies and some supplements for the cost of one original or new D&D book. Plus I watched videos on 5E... Looked like too many rules and not enough danger/risk for the Characters. Add to that I like story immersion. The one Rule of Gygax I stick too, is as long as I m having fun the rules are somewhat secondary. Thanks for the video. One more thing. Im not into 5E and all the character options like half dragon. Who mated with the dragon ? Add to that I dont want to be a rules lawyer in the books every 30 seconds.
I like OSR RPGs (among others), but in my opinion - being based on the "rulings over rules" motto - they tend to be less interesting from a mechanical perspective, meaning that there are fewer mechanically weighty decisions to make, leading to a less involved and more simplistic interactions between the player and the mechanical layer of the game. This kind of design is done on purpose, because the fun is supposed to originate from the players coming up with creative solutions to fictional problems rather than from mastering the rules in order to use them to their full extent to overcome the opposition in a formalized and mechanical way, like with more mechanically oriented RPG systems. Both paradigms are interesting and can lead to fun gameplay. That is, the same person can enjoy both type of experiences, but usually not at the same time. What I tend not to like so much are hybrid systems that do not know what they want to be or accomplish and try to appeal to both sides at the same time, leading to intermittent fun and a washed experience. That's why, for example, I find both OSR games/0e D&D and 4th Edition D&D much more interesting than the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Edtions. 0e and 4th editions are very different games, each specialized in its own niche. They are so focused that they both manage to deliver a great, if very different, experience and when you sit down to play one of those two games you know very well what you are getting into and what kind of fun you are going to get from the game.
@@Shamefulroleplay do you happen to know any games with some good survival style rules. Like players are put on a deserted island with nothing and need to figure out how to survive? I'm not opposed to implementing a different game's rules into my game. I just got done adapting the rules for the old Dave Arneson game Don't Give Up The Ship into my 5e game. But I just haven't found anything that quite hits the spot as far as survival goes.
In the spirit of balance I have already made what could be considered a rebuttal to this video previously and you can find it here th-cam.com/video/QK2N5hMlt-A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=R4_5r-AvwTmisRcJ
I am also making another one too about this.
Brilliant to see a nice discussion mostly in the comments as opposed to edition wars. Love to see it.
The simple answer is that you don't "build a character" in OSR. You roll one up and see how they develop in the game. Players just need to accept that the editions are different games - 5E and OSR are different the same way Final Fantasy is different from Ultima. They're all RPGs, but they have different designers with different goals and priorities.
No, they dont need to accept anything. Rolling character sucks, and nobody need to deal with that. We can hate osr and just dont Play IT, there are other, better games.
@@morionlomiete7735 Oh I beg you not to play OSR in any capacity. OSR is for people that read a lot, enjoy challenge and good times not frustaded boys that want superhero powers.
@@morionlomiete7735 yeah, you do have to accept that the editions are different games. That's just a fact about reality, like you have to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and water makes things wet.
@@morionlomiete7735 Brainrot comment lmao
@@morionlomiete7735 In the words of the Big Lebowski, 'That's like your opinion man'
I play both BECMI and 5e, and most of my mates are new to game 5e players. They love their character building. Was chatting with one mate recently in a group zoom call, and he was stuck for an idea to build a new character, and I suggested that he just roll 4d6 drop the lowest straight down the line, and see what sort of character emerged. He had a blast for the rest of the day just doing this, looking at the stats, and seeing how they spoke to him, and then creating a character from that foundation.
People in the BECMI game I DM, I got them to roll up 3 sets of stats and we looked at the options that each block of stats would be good for, and they loved playing with all the different possibilities.
I'm not saying its better, as some people really like 'building' a character, fair play to them. Its one way, and very valid way to look at character creation. But the process of rolling and 'discovering' a character is just as fun, albeit different process.
When I run games I tell the players their most powerful feature isn't on their character sheet.
GOLD im takin that
Speaking as someone who started when the games OSR simulate were the current edition (I cut my teeth on the Cyclopedia and still have my original copy), the big issue was that a good experience with an OSR game is more highly dependent on the GM. Player creativity doesn't mean a lot when the person running the game doesn't know how to respond to what they come up with.
OSR characters go from ZERO to HERO .
5E and Pathfinder go from HERO to SUPERHERO.
Different style of play entirely.
Exactly. A hard one for 5e players going to OSR to wrap their heads around.
@@Shamefulroleplay Agreed. In newer games people seem to start equating their table top character to their MMO character.
The sheer amount of abilities/skills/talents for each class gets more bloated every edition. It all starts to bleed together. In older table top games each class were very different. You felt unique and needed. Now it's about playing a Dwarven forged 4 winged pixie made of forged starlight who is also a half demon and uses a six shooter.
Only Fighters at 4th and 8th level.
this makes me think of something swapping systems later on like AD&D 1e to 3e
@@99Kresnikdeep cut all the way from the Chainmail days
I used to think all the options made characters and games more fun. I learned that it often only slows things down or discourage thinking outside the box.
It certainly can do. I find myself getting frustrated when I play a new game and may state “I check the box for traps and prod it with a pole to set off any traps” and am still asked to make a roll for it. I think, but I’ve described what may set off the trap anyway, why am I rolling?
However I also see people who just love to roll dice and become disappointed if they don’t get to.
Yes! I came to the same conclusion but it did take me awhile.
That has been my experience as well.
Totally agree. It seems like you're giving the players what they want but it's just bloat that keeps compounding on itself until it's almost unplayable and cetainly a pain to run. Running 5e I always felt like it was tons of spinning plates I was struggling to keep in the air.
RPG is a creative game, but not everyone is creative. For people that are creative OSR is a good shot, but for the average joe... not much will come of it, so it's important that the average joe has options.
I think it's a little bit uncharitable to suggest that it's a lack of options and PC power that make people hesitant to try OSR. As a non-OSR adherent who has played BECMI and ACKS, I think it's less about options and character customization and PC power, and it's more about the fact that the intangible spirit of the game isn't made clear by the rules. It's a gameplay style that emerges for you after watching 80 hours of youtube videos about why this type of game is better than any other, and buying in. I think it's hard enough to convince people to spend the time learning PF2e when they're already familiar with 5e D&D without convincing them to buy into an entirely different mode of game based on the insistence that a different mentality emerges in these kinds of games. In my experience it's like, "Roll a saving throw" "10" "I'm afraid that's a failure, you die." "Okay, what do I do about that?" "Raise Dead is a 5th level spell, maybe someone in town will know where a spellcaster who can cast that spell lives but it'll be at least 1500 gold to cast it for you, but it'll be at least a session or two before you're alive again, so maybe you should play one of the hirelings until then." "Whatever, I guess I just roll a new character." "Isn't this so much more fun? People online told me this would be more fun and I believed them." "Sure, if you say so."
It's still fun because it's still TTRPGing, so your typical D&D 5e group will probably still have some fun, but it requires a completely different buy in with a totally different source of fun and a completely different success state and a completely different way to get to that success state. And you have to take it on faith that it's something you will actually like until it clicks for you. For me it never clicked. I just rolled a d20 and said "I attack" on every turn and shrugged when my character died and got out a new sheet and watched number go up and down.
Different games run on different styles of engagement. Lumping all ttrpgs in together as one thing does not really work all that well as the appeals of different systems can be not only mechanical but in the entire premise of what is wanted and liked, and different people want different things at different times. And I suggest OSR is pretty specialized in what it appeals to, making it inherently niche.
I don't hate OSR style games (started playing in 1981 and have a current red box set campaign running), I hate the people who constantly bad mouth other systems acting like OSR is the only good system there is. Or take every opportunity to say "I'm never buying another book"..... ummmm yay?
Aye... I personally play in a load of 5e games, but my true love is BECMI, and am running a campaign for a few of my mates in that system. They are different but equally good games. There are things about 5e that annoy me. I find characters overpowered, I think there is too much magic and that it loses a bit of mystery, and there is too much of a focus of what's on your character sheet, rather than what your character does in a scenerio.
But I have friends that adore the feeling of being a super hero even from low levels, and wouldn't enjoy the hero's journey like I do. They want to be Gandalf or Aragorn.... I prefer to start out as Merry or Pippin, and become epic over my play, rather than start out super powered and progress to become even moreso.
They are different games, but equally valid, and can be equally as fun. I hate the hating on the other, from either side.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. THAT is really what bothers me too.
@@peadarruane6582While im not a fan of 5e and am towards more disliking it , i must day that its still a decent TTRPG perfect for one shots.
I think there is no real bad TTRPG out there but rather very flawed ones or more towards simulations instead of being a game .
OSR isnt a system?
@@ElDaumo Its a grouping of various different systems that share certain elements and a particular style of play.
I played DnD basic in the 1980s. We never thought of being heros, but adventurers. The modules were very deadly, and in order to survive, we had to be very creative, something most modern rpg players aren't anymore. I am DMing DnD 3.5e, and my younger players often look on their character sheet in search for answers, and are often passively and silently waiting for me as a DM comming up with a solution. I believe every rpg player should try DnD BECMI for one module or so.
It's funny because I started at least that early, but other than some just completely wild middle school power fantasy games (working our way through Deities and Demigods killing them off and taking their stuff), we moved pretty quickly into heroic quests. We'd grown up on Tolkien and similar fantasy and wanted to play that kind of thing, not just killing random monsters to get loot in the local dungeon.
More AD&D for me than basic, but I don't think that made a huge difference. Homebrewed adventures, so I guess you say the GMs might have been easier on the players than modules would have been?
@@jeffmacdonald9863the difference is that in DnD basic you are dead when you are at zero HP. During the first three levels, every combat is about survival, because you don't have the ten additional negativ HP, which you have in ADnD 1e. I am not saying that it is better, but I remember being very excited during every combat, because character death was very possible. In addition, we all were thinking tactical with every turn, trying to have our backs, because if we weren't than our characters died very quickly. No one played a dumb character doing stupid things in combat because 'his character would do it'. I miss this excitement.😅
OSR games are closer to survival horror game than standard High Fantasy. OSR characters are the equivalent of people volunteering to find and clear undetonated mines in old battlefields. Modern D&D is a fantasy superhero game. It often feels like you're piloting a stealth bomber bombarding targets in an open field. If you're used to playing a member of the Justice League, for example, why would you be happy being forced to play a rookie beat cop in Gotham City?
true and there's a alot of inventory management in OSR. Back in the day we almost had to bring along a guy just to carry 10 foot poles.
And 1st level characters only had one hit die. Which may very well roll a 1.
Even a few levels in, a character's hit points were still within the range of the damage dice of one hit from some common weapons/attacks. Climb up a tree to escape an encounter you can't win? Better hope you make that Dex check to climb back down, or else you'll fall to your death. Essentially *any* encounter is likely to TPK the entire party if all they have is 3-5 low level characters. And a lot of the OSR-style adventures are full of deadly traps (or traps with permanent effects).
So it relied quite heavily on hirelings and henchmen, or playing an organization pool of characters instead of just one. You don't take an adventuring party of 3-5 out into the wilderness, you need to take an entire expedition, with donkey carts full of supplies, and be ultra careful about everything. Prodding every square foot with 10 foot poles, tapping walls from a distance, having plenty of ropes, spikes, torches, etc. Heading back into town to ask about and research that weird thing you found *before* you go back and touch it.
People trying to go into that world by playing in the modern way are going to have a frustrating time.
@@rascta Every DM I played ad&d 1e or 2e always started 1st level characters with maximum hit points.
I could point at 5e sucking, someone pointed out a horde of kobolds were a threat. In 1e my 15th level fighter attacks kobolds 15 times! See how long that horde lasts now.
Now I want to play a ropkie beat cop in Gotham, or a private eye.
I just want to say I am happy to see I am not the only person with multiple copies of Whitebox FMAG
Yes I have all 3 now lol
Got three -- love that game.
All 3, plus the hardcover
One thing you didnt bring up is the difference between OSR and modern rpg campaigns... In 5e. All published adventures is the DM telling a story with the players making decisions. And most homebrew adventures is the same. DM has an adventure in mind with a predetermined start and end and players has to go from encounter to encounter untill they reach the end. In OSR games its more often the players taking charge of the adventure and the DM reacting to the players decisions. Which for me is a more fun way to play a game.
I disagree here. At least with the last sentence. I enjoy a game that follows an inner logic and puts players into positions in which you just kind have to do shit because of consequences (the adventure being over ). I remember back in the days the utter chaos in trying to run campaigns. Mostly they were over after a few sessions because players decided to do some shit that really had nothing to do with anything resembling a campaign (a series of connected encounters and challenges). So often people would just drive the DM crazy. It really was a lot less fun than playing nowadays.
Okay, we were stupid teens that had no idea of "story arcs", "character development" etc. We were basically playing random shoot-em-ups.
@@doomhippie6673There's no reason a player-driven game can't have long-term narratives, on-going conflicts, and set-ups that only get paid off after months of play. It just requires a different sort of prep from the DM and a higher degree of engagement from the rest of the group than what is usually expected, especially nowadays. It's certainly not going to go well with a group of players who can't be arsed to learn how their own PCs' abilities work.
@@PedanticTwit Both styles of game are bad when done badly. Published campaigns have to be somewhat railroady or players will go somewhere else instead of to the material in Vol 2. :) Smaller published adventures can be less so, but then they're smaller and don't give that long term campaign connected feel.
Ideally home-brewed campaigns can be both coherent and give the players lots of choice in their actions. There may be a over all GM created goal, but plenty of freedom in how to reach it, or possibly just antagonists with plans that the PCs wind up in conflict with.
This is all more a distinction between published campaigns and homebrewed sandboxy games I think, not really between OSR and 5e (or PF/whatever).
Magic items are a source of differentiation and advancement in OSR games. Much more so than later editions.
magic items are kind of the "feats" of OSR. They allow a DM to experiment. If you give someone an item that seems game breaking , it either runs out of charges or gets stolen.
@@Dragonette666 And as somebody who doesn't like that it really didn't feel right for me back then. I am one of those more "Tolkien-geeks" that believe in "this sword has been a part of our family for many generations. I will not use a different weapon...." And that basically runs afoul with any of the OSR ideas.
@doomhippie I can definitely empathize. I'd be tempted to offer players a way to improve their family heirlooms instead.
@@doomhippie6673 I'm more of a greek mythology nerd and don't care for tolkien. In Greek myths the gods often gave people magical weapons to accomplish heroic tasks.
@@doomhippie6673
Well ... in some OSRs its possible to aquire techniques and abilities that gives you the power that makes the family-heirloom sword much more power .
But overall is this kind of idea rather to hang on one sword because of traditional values rather limiting and when the setting isnt fit for such limiting ideas , it ruins the fun for the whole table at some point.
No matter if you are tolkien-esque or not.
We cant have everything everywhere .
You're ignoring one of the biggest differences between BECMI and 5E: bounded accuracy. In BECMI a fighter has a to hit bonus of at best +2, while a 5E Fighter will probably have a +5 to hit. At the same time, the AC of the monsters stays relatively low. In general, 5E characters hit more frequently than a BECMI character. The same holds true for a skill check. A 1st level BECMI thief has a low (less than 10% on 1d100) for most of their thief skills, while a 5E Rogue will have a Slight of Hand modifier of +5 against a typical DC of 15-20.
My point is that it's much less frustrating for beginning players in 5E than it would be in BECMI.
d6 thief skills alternative system is great (from LotFP or OSE Carcass Crawler #1). Thieves can pick their skill of chioce and begin at level one with a 5-in-6 chance in a skill. Or maybe two skills with a 3-in-6 chance.
In 5e they also vastly increase the HP, so monsters end up being a slog.
The thief skills in basic could almost be considered minor magic. Climbing sheers surfaces being like spider climb. Not just stealth but to hide in mere shadows. Not just moving quietly but moving in silence.
@@TimikatorBut... the knowledge of where to find these alternative rules options won't be clear to a lot of people picking up an OSR game.
@@simonfernandes6809 Sure, I agree. That's the downside of it.
I would start with Shadowdark for players and GMs new to the OSR style. Then try B/X as they grow experienced with the approach, to pick their preference.
Plus what I really hated was that you needed a thief if you wanted to have any chance of sneaking etc.I know people will start wailing "Just roll lower than dex". But If that is all you wouldn't need the thieves' skills. And since those mechanics were there we never thought that other mechanics are possible/legitimate. If there were locked doors in your dungeon, only a thief (or the spell knock) was able to open it.... and the thief had a very low chance anyways. I really enjoy a game in which the characters are able to have a diverse range of skills open to them. I rather enjoy a game that has no class and level mechanic but a pure skill based mechanic. Such as Call of Cthulhu or Runequest.
I love OSR games, but can see why others may have a hard time getting used to them, especially coming from newer games. Their mechanics can be a bit strange to get used to.
They certainly can be a head scratcher to people coming from newer systems.
I think part of the strength of OSR is the weirdness of the rules. Modern players are far too focused on learning and abusing the rules to the point that I've seen a lot of them look up monster stats, which I am against. Part of the point of weird rules is a lack of control over the outcome and accepting that the game is up to the dice instead of picking the right "build". So I find things like THAC0 or descending AC discourages bad meta gaming. I want my players fighting an Orc not AC 6 1HD 4HP one is just numbers the other is a monster in context with a world. When mechanics are too easy to immediately learn players focus on them instead of getting immersed, they also get obsessed with "winning" at a game that isn't about winning or losing because it's an infinite game.
@@BX-advocateyes this is a thing certainly in 5e and videos are made about exploiting the rules to totally mess with the game mechanics.
I agree. There are games that largely address these issues, for example Shadowdark, Worlds without Number, Tales of Argosa. They have an OSR play feel, but include more PC customisation, a way to advance your "skills", and the rules are more streamlined.
Absolutely agree! And the faction rules from WWN are just brilliant and honestly could be used in any game, even stuff like Cyberpunk.
@@Syndicate_01plus he also did stars without number and cities without number. what an incredible guy.
Did you miss the skills section in the BECMI
In my experience, OSR leans heavily on meticulous description from both players and GM in such a way that can lead to miscommunication at best and arguing at worst. For instance, if you told the GM you wanted to check the corridor ahead for traps, he would say "it looks fine". So you walk forward, and boulders fall on everyone. "You didn't say you wanted to check the ceiling", the GM says. The ceiling thing was a classic example.
You could be playing an experienced elf used to the woods - if you didn't describe the settling of camp in a certain way, the GM would make you pay. The same goes for a rogue trying to sneak around, etc. I totally get the positive aspect of fostering description and creativity, but the overall practice lead to petty outsmarting and having to be on your toes. It places the GM and players as competitors instead of collaborators.
TBF, pettyness is not exclusive to OSR. My point is that it offers little to avoid it, and indeed leads to it more often than not. The game was made by nerds (and I mean no offense by this) who enjoyed mental competition between everyone at the table, and as a result the game relied heavily on the participants instead of the characters in such a way that lacked verisimilitude and excluded a wide variety creative people who weren't nerdy in the same way. I find that later RPGs brought much needed balance and broadening of play style.
And last, but not least, let me be fair once more and say I must presume none of the current OSR players are petty to play with and, quite the opposite, must be very enjoyable. It would have to be so if campaigns and tables are thriving. If people are having fun, then it is correct. Keep on, and may you have great experiences in the realm of roleplaying.
I think these things are not significant. The state of the OSR community is more important. There are too much hate and arguing in this hobby. A lot of people make videos about how to osr, and trying to explain it by force. If you have question as newcommer old grognards come out from their lair and arguing about ideological topics. So with less force argument the community would be more succesful.
I have boiled it down to: 5e and other games like it have magic items built into their class with bonuses, features, etc. In fact, save for a macguffin you don't need magic items in 5e, it will very much break the game. In OSR style games, the aim is to go out into the world and find your magic items and become all you were meant to be. That is where the customization is......in the adventure rather than automatically on a level up.
Modern players are just used to being medieval superheroes that never lose. Old games have a large degree of FAFO and they simply can't adapt to having consequences.
In AD&D a Wizard has at base 4 Hit Points.
A common Rat does 1 point of damage per round.
A grown man being mauled into unconsciousness by a single common Rat in 4 rounds is an absurd proposition.
The ability of a grown man to not die via the attack of a single common rat in what ammounts to 20 seconds or so does not make you superhuman.
It does not even make you a sickly infant.
Here is the rub.
Whatever character the players can make, the DM can make as well.
What this means is that Players are only overpowered if the DM allows them to be.
See this is a common misconception - From an OSR perspective if your Warrior wants to try to become an uber-wrestler or the Thief wants to use a little magic or whatever you have the option of making a ruling and work it out. This becomes more clear in a "run-time" situation; lets say your Thief wants to do a standing acrobatic leap over the opponent to land behind it and use the new position for more damage ... "ruling"! A lot goes into making a ruling; is your game a gritty simulation of reality + Monsters or is it aping your favourite show or novel or high fantasy in general? Will this just be away for the player to break the game to always get backstab in every situation? Do you love that or hate it? etc its not that OSR has no spec'ees its got anything you want just go with the players wishes and the agreed setting as the guidelines. You don't really have "house rules" in OSR you just have the "rulings" you make (or you have everything house rules ). Partly the focus is just not as much on the rules.
There's a reason WotC put out the 2024 Player's handbook first. Every table has one DM and three to five players or more. There's more players than DM's, and DND 5e caters to the players who want to keep enjoying D&D between sessions. OSR, AD&D, Shadowdark, Cairn, those games are more about the table. It kinda doesn't matter what your character's power level is, the DM is going to balance the game, so a plain AD&D combat can be just as fun. For me, as a player who likes to put effort into my game between sessions, I like the complexity of 5e.
Personally I see the difference is this in my example. As a game master I really don't want to do a lot of bookkeeping. I don't want to have to memorize six books full of rules. I don't feel like dealing with somebody's idea of having a Goliath wizard School of Architecture or whatever Homebrew new shiny object a player finds. Yes I have the right to say no. But I want everyone to know up front. I want to run a simple game. D&D 5e is not a simple game. It is designed for players to have a wide array of abilities and skills. It is meant for players to have variety at the cost of a DM's sanity. Players can have just as much fun playing simpler games like Shadowdark or EZd6 or BECMI or Castles and Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics. But instead people seem to insist on playing Half-Warforged, Half-Halfling, Multi-class Bard College of Vorpal Chords, Monk Way of the Nuclear Headbutt. Give a game master a break!
🤣🤣🤣 I feel you. that is why a basically don't allow any other races than halflings, humans, dwarves and elves in my 5e games. Perhaps a tiefling, because somehow they appeal to me. But definetely no dragonborns and furries etc.
@@doomhippie6673 Most people aren't good role players when playing a human, let alone lizard and cat people.
Simplicity is the bane and blessing of OSR games. I just love how simple and straightforward are Basic Fantasy and C&C. However, for some others, it might be a red flag. For me, skill based games such as SWADE or Mythras are there when I want complexity and OSR is there when I desire to be able to make a character under 30 seconds.
All good thoughts. The character options: I find the 5e character systems make an explicit promise for your character journey. These support/hedge the DM into a game that allows those promises to be realised.
The lack of character options in OSR style, I believe, leaves more mystery and more on the play regarding how the character develops. Character death doesn't immediately destroy this whole promised story for the character (by the same token, it's more of a player game than a character game - by design - although tables can vary). Instead it is the greater randomness and what items and curses or boons the character picks up in the game that develops their power. It is what the DM put into the world, not what the design does.
Different strengths and weaknesses, offering different experiences, creating different types of worlds, suiting different tables and players.
This is a very good point and I appreciate your views!
I think the OSR community itself turns off even people who like the idea of that style of gameplay. You want to check out the scene and it's a crapshoot if the video or review you check out is about the game or an excuse to talk about wokeness.
Other than that comparing OSR games to D&D or Pathfinder is as useful as comparing Soulslikes to isometric crpgs. Even if they're both fantasy the gameplay isn't the same and I don't think a game like Elden Ring is competing with Baldur's Gate 3. They're serving different audiences or some people like both and what they choose to play is purely up to what they're in the mood for. Over the last year I played PF2E, WFRP, CoC, Alien, ShadowDark, and Sentinel Comics. There's no competition there. My group and I went for what we were in the mood for at the time and we weren't looking for the same experience from all of those games.
No different from me playing Wrath of the Righteous, Hades, NHL, and Phasmophobia depending on who was around and what I was in the mood for.
I've found that if you just play 5e with a low level and low magic world, you get a lot closer to an OSR "feeling" without really changing anything mechanically.
Play 5e with an addition called 4 Torches deep and you’ll hit it. That or shadowdark.
@@Shamefulroleplay it's 5 Torches Deep
Bonus points for name dropping C&C. There are pros and cons for both games, even from a design point. Single engine mechanics provides a framework while OSR subsystem create a bolt-on feature for new mechanics.
Love a bit of C&C.
C&C in my opinion, is one of the best RPGs in the market. I stopped playing DnD at 3.5.
Brilliant video. I agree entirely. I think this is why Shadowdark is an easier step for 5E players to OSR style gameplay. It uses a lot of modern mechanics, but still keeps the simple character creation and low power levels. Everyone should play whatever makes them happy, 5E, OSR or anything in between but I've had great luck pulling 5E players in SD.
I like all types of roleplay games, even board games like Heroquest, Warhammer Quest and Talisman. I started with Basic D&D and all of the versions and settings offer different experiences. Having a great time with friends is the most important part of gaming.
I think you are spot on. I have played in some fashion or another since 1978. 3rd Edition IMO changed things for the better in so far as introducing real customization to character creation. 3.5/PF1 is still my favorite although AD&D 1st Ed is a close second.
Thank you for the comment. I do like newer DnD for customisation, but agree AD&D has something about it also.
I do like OSR games but I can say I don’t prefer them to more narrative fantasy systems, mainly because OSR games all seem to be obsessed with being meatgrinder games where players die regularly, which is just not a fantasy I prefer for my style of game. I like narrative-centered games like Dungeon World, Swords of the Serpentine, etc because they allow that heroic fantasy style of play without the super rules bloat. I view my games as more of a traditional fantasy novel than the dungeon-crawl slaughter house that is OSR games.
My heroes are the main characters, they do dramatic things and die dramatic deaths. They don’t die from a random crit hit from a goblin unless it creates a really memorable moment in the story and makes sense for the heroes story to end there. It’s not that they don’t die at all, it’s that they aren’t as likely to die from random rolls or mooks getting lucky like in OSR.
It’s not only the things above, but also just that OSR generally makes heroes regular dudes that grow to slightly better regular dudes over time. I like heroic fantasy, I like players to feel like Aragorn, Conan, Gandalf etc. Larger than life heroes. OSR just generally doesn’t support that and that is OK. That’s the exact opposite of what OSR is meant to be. Old School games were not heroic fantasy. I still think OSR games are cool, but I like my heroes to be Heroes with a capital H.
They're not heroes from level 1, but I do think higher level characters in OSR games are pretty heroic, even low-key superhuman as soon as level 5 in most systems.
I'd agree that the very lowest levels of most OSR systems are generally a meatgrinder, some games like Dungeon Crawl Classics even explicitly systematize that concept. But the idea is that only a few of your characters will make it past those very lowest of levels... and the ones who do WILL be real heroes for making it through. Past that, the world is deadly but no longer a meatgrinder.
The concept of "dying dramatically" is something that gets brought up a lot, but I think it's something of a misnomer.
I think it's especially interesting that you bring up Lord of the Rings though, because Boromir straight up dies to a random encounter.
Boromir had just made a huge mistake. He had fallen for the temptation of the ring, and in doing so he had chased away the ringbearer, the single most important individual in this entire expedition. He regrets it within the hour, and starts searching for Frodo, his redemption arc begun. And then... an orc champion shows up out of nowhere and kills him in an ambush. His character arc cut short, his death without meaning or purpose.
Yet Boromir's death is certainly dramatic- It's dramatic because Boromir is a person Aragorn cares about, and a character we the reader/watcher are invested in. It's dramatic because death is inherently dramatic as long as you're invested in the character _as a character_ and not just a set of stats that do cool things.
What is usually actually meant is a meaningful or heroic death. But even heroes in fiction aren't guaranteed those. They certainly go through much more than real people could probably get away with, but even then sometimes death happens with no real meaning behind it. Just a life cut short before it's time.
Aragorn and Conan both live in worlds where death waits around every corner and they often only escape by the skin of their teeth, Conan especially and the entire genre of 50s to 70s swords and sorcery pulp fantasy is one of the great inspirations for old D&D. And characters beyond 5th level are very much Conan types.
@@elowin1691 correct me if I’m wrong, but does Boromir not A. Die to a group of orcs who are searching for the ring bearer, thus making it not a random encounter and B. Take a few arrows to the chest, kill some orcs, and then die dramatically in Aragorn’s arms? I would categorize that as a very heroic and dramatic death and definitely not comparable to the average OSR death where characters can be killed by random traps in a dungeon completely unceremoniously.
Yeah, obviously dramatic deaths are only dramatic because they aren’t necessarily expected and they happen to characters we care about, but to try and say Boromir died randomly is not really true. He checks off all of the boxes of a heroic feeling death to me. Sure, he fucked up, but in the end he tried to do the right thing.
Im not arguing that characters shouldn’t die. I’m not even arguing that characters shouldn’t die early in a campaign. What I am arguing is that characters in the types of games I personally like should A. Not be dying to random, boring aspects of the world like arrow traps or random wilderness encounters and B. Should be able to do more than say “I’m at 0 hp, I’m dead.”
The game I am designing is relatively low powered, and might seem like an OSR game at first glance, but the mechanics allow for death to be A. More of a choice than most games and B. Be dramatic when it happens. Heroes take a final stand when they die, just like Boromir and Gandalf (I know he didn’t really die) and before they reach that point, they have opportunities to drop out of the fight and clear foreshadowing that if they keep fighting, they will die. My characters aren’t superheroes, they just have the precisely correct amount of plot armor that gives them more agency in when and if they die. It doesn’t guarantee they won’t die, but definitely puts it a little more in their control. Boromir could have taken that first arrow and fell to the ground and played dead, but he didn’t. He chose to go out fighting. That’s all I’m really arguing for in terms of heroism. I’m personally not a huge fan of D&D 5es level of heroes that are basically just fantasy super heroes. But I like a balance, and prefer games that start around a power level more akin to a mid-level OSR character like you said.
The super-powered characters of Pathfinder and Hasbro D&D. Perfect for those lacking creativity and cunning who want to sit on their pubis and have the world and story spoon fed to them. Where the players are the centers of their own little story. Pampered pups who have little if any challenge and no cunning at figuring a way around a problem without using their superpowers or munchkin-modified skill ranks. Not that it matters since most have plot armor that is a mile thick in those games because creating characters is not fast.
Games turned into endless stat slogging instead of creativity and fun. Combats take untold hours.
I used to run Pathfinder. Hard for characters to get anything done, let alone play a fun sandbox and get anywhere with even a weekly adventure -- if you can find players with the time. Way too much work (Yes work, not enough fun) for a GM. Then there is the Mat Mercer effect new players like and want --funny voices and a railroad, pretending they are special instead of working at it. Wanting entertainment provided instead of entertaining themselves and everyone, including the GM with their play.
Nope, give me a West Marches sandbox point crawl to run. No map, no miniatures - theater of the mind and a guide list for each area with random encounters for travel or movement between points. I describe all. Encounters are what they are. You give the players hints about the dangerous places, monsters, and people to avoid at their level. They chose their paths, the good, bad, or the ugly. I let them pick their fights and their sides. If, when I provide a warning they listen fine -- like seeing a massive spore on a trail with a loose black dragon scale sticking up from it. If not they better have a good plan worked out. If they are stupid and want to fight everything, odds are they will not last long and either learn or leave -- A good filter for players who can't hack it.
Roll characters, don't build them. Building characters is for the min/max weaklings who cannot be creative and find value in an average character. Find ways through creativity and a GM description to gain an edge, even a slim one, and make the game fun without super-stats and juiced-up abilities.
A system a GM can flex to fit his game without hearing about rules from the rules lawyer pipsqueak. KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) rules. Completing an adventure in one session and getting some extra on each end of it. Players talking about the way they beat a troll through their cunning and not some super-power feat. Players exploring the world you made and not having to spend hours trying to balance encounters. Letting the worlds creation fall where it will and leaving it up to clever players and the dice to get through it.
No way am I going back to Hasbro D&D or Pathfinder. My players, have found and enjoy their agency and speed, don't want that either. KISS is the best way to run or play a game.
This comment is exactly the type of attitude towards OSR that repels new players.
Another critique I got from a former 5e player after the first OSE session is that the gameplay loop feels really slow.
What I got from this is that he may not enjoy the shift of focus from detailed combat to detailed exploration (describe how you actually interact with the fiction). Or dungeon crawling in general. But it was just a session, so we'll see.
I hope they grow to enjoy the change in game play
My 5e mates that I'm running a BECMI game for, and some 5e friends that I played a Shadowdark game with that was DMed by another friend, actually found the speed of combat refreshingly fast. Yes, far more simplified that the Action economy of 5e, but they liked how quickly the pace of combat went.
As far as that mental shift of 'No you don't just walk into a room and do a perception check, Tell the DM what your character is doing' can be challenging, and isn't for everyone. For players that really like their roleplaying, it is easier, than for the 5e player that really enjoys their tactical thinking during combat.
Like in my BECMI game, the villian of an encounter fled through a secret door in another room, while the players were dispatching his minions. When the got into the room, one of the newer 5e players, said 'Can't just roll a perception check, so can I use my torch to see if there are any strange draughts to find the secret door' I thought BRILLIANT... good idea, so instead of doing the D6 check for finding the door, I let them find it, because she put in the mental work to think through the problem. Instead of the party just asking each other, Who has the highest perception?
@@peadarruane6582 Agreed, I let them succeed too.
For example they suspected there was a skeleton in a coffin, so a player said "can I just hit the coffin with an axe, trying to hit the skeleton inside?", I said: "sure, roll damage". Then he said that we would like to try to keep the coffin shut, so in that case I asked a STR check to see if he managed against the now moving skeleton. Then another character repeated the axe action and killed the skeleton.
@@peadarruane6582one thing I try to stress is that it's still tactical. It's just not tactics based on an itemized list. The upside (and downside) is that it means far more in-the-moment rulings for what happens. This tends to cause a more varied set of encounters because "I swing my sword" is near the bottom of the list of first action behaviors. Instead, the characters can analyze the encounter space and make decisions because interacting with the world isn't just strictly worse than using your level 8 class ability again.
@@ghandiwonThis is absolutely true. I had a party of mostly level ones take on a dozen 2HD gnolls. I thought there may be a TPK but based on very specific actions they took and super clever interactions with their environment, they overcame it.
It all came from their heads, not options on their sheets.
(Running a house ruled BX)
Great topic, I have thought of tackling a similar topic. The funny thing is that OSR strengths can also be its weakness when considered by those who like a crunchier game. I love the OSR though!
Old-school games' rules-light, freeform nature is both their strength and their weakness. With the right kind of players (including DM, because lest we forget the DM is a player, too), this promotes creative thinking to solve problems, as the rules provide only the most essential framework, and the characters can take any action they like. With the wrong kind of players, it's constraining, because the PCs are left struggling to come up with ideas that aren't made available by their character abilities and when they do start thinking outside the box the DM has no idea how to make a meaningful ruling. And honestly, most groups fall somewhere in between those extremes, or are made up of a mix of styles. Which is why early Dragon Magazine was filled with articles about how certain rules could work or "NPC" (wink, nudge) character classes. It was basically a community sharing, "Hey, here's how I homebrewed this thing which I think is common enough that it'll probably come up in your games, too, so maybe you can use that!" And of course publishers did the same thing with official rules, which is how we got things like _Unearthed Arcana_ and the like in 1E, the Player's Option series in 2E, and so on. And now, the pendulum seems to have swung entirely the other way, so rules bloat gets in the way and character creation is so complex that WotC reasonably believed they can extortionately monetize their app to make it workable.
You are into something. Options is so cool. I have good memories of my time wirh AD&D, but I couldnt got back to the type of ruleset. This extends to GM stuff, where I felt other games gave me more tools than I ever had in 2e.
Options can often be what makes players come back for more and more. They want to try other things out and can look at videos online etc. you don’t really get that sort of video for OSR. That’s as there aren’t many build options.
osr style games fit a lot of modules 5e fans love, like, for instance, curse of strahd, which isn't really that scary after level 5. I'm really excited to run a ravenloft one shot for halloween with OSE.
Always interesting to read the comments of folks who think OSR games can't do certain things like have dramatic events or survive past level 1. I definitely agree I like my OSR games with more character progression than B/X, but I'm also playing a TRPG as a TRPG, and not as a tactical skirmish wargame. Which is what I see 5e and 3.5e and Pathfinder as.
I'll never understand why folks feel those 3 games have much more depth than the alternatives. I've played a lot of them and a lot of their "tactical depth" still simply boils down to move and use your most damaging or controlling action.
Which is basically what DnD has always been. Move, hit do damage. And very important: try to maximize the damage output. That's why I liked my +3 sword better than my +4 dagger back then.
In OSR games your character develops as you play them, not only through the cool magical weapons and trinkets you find along the way but, also by role play instead of roll play. Also OSR games are flexible enough that if the player and DM work together you can create your own options for characters. This of course is for more veteran players & DM’s. BECMI actually has a lot of options for the fighter type characters, set spear,multiple attacks (up to 4), smash, parry, disarm. Also for human fighters, at 9th level they can decide to become Paladins, Knights, or Avengers. Couple these with the weapon mastery, which allows players to increase their skills with weapons (fighters up to 15 weapons, all other characters up to 10) then sprinkle in the general skills, which is well over 60 skills and you have a very customized character. But you need to understand, the more options you layer in, the slower the game plays. This is why newer RPG’s such as 5E, plays so slowly, especially combat, there are trade offs for everything you do in RPG’s as well as in life
I find I can develop my character a lot more through role play in newer RPGs than in OSR. Certainly not less. Having characters die off regularly certainly leaves me less interested in investing in their personalities or in building relationships with NPCs or even other PCs.
I consider this to be a feature rather than a bug, the modern DnD community is a lot of the problem with DnD, and theyre unlikely to invade OSR
My experience with playing 5th Edition is that character creation for a group takes a whole session's worth of time, and the suspiscion that the DM can just make certain skill check DCs impossible on purpose. I've gravitated toward OSR games and roll-under checks because it's easier to just start playing the game, and roll-under checks establish a concrete rule for how difficult different tasks are for a character. The numbers don't lie.
But the role under mechanic has one MAJOR problem (at least for me): you can never get better unless your abilities change. That means the lowly farm boy has just as much chance to understand the strange runes as the old farmer who has done that same thing at least 2000 times in his life (.... because for some reasons there are rune scripts found on his fields all the time... ). And that bothered me and bothers me to this day. Old games had no way of showing real experiences of the characters (outside of getting more hps and a spell or two you could learn).
@@doomhippie6673 And as for getting better over time, I've tried rolling down the stat line with a d20 to roll over a character's stats upon leveling up. If you wanted to be more logical about it, only roll for skills that were regularly used during the adventure.
There's also the "story" aspect to OSR vs DnD. In DnD when you make a character you are encouraged to give them a backstory, personality, goals etc. You don't play Joe Shmoe the fighter, you play Johnathan Shmoester, a squire of a famous knight, your mentor and hero, who betrayed his lord and escaped to join the evil necromances, while you rotted in prison for association and your first session is getting out (with other players) and then becoming a famed warrior in order to exact revenge on your mentor.
In OSR that kind of story is pointless. Joe Shmoe will most likely die from a random dart trap, you will never get strong enough to fight evil necromancer armies and you will never see your mentor ever again.
This kind of story is what drives people to play DnD and Pathfinder. This is what motivates them to show up at the game, talk to NPC's and act out their characters. A random series of bad rolls won't necesserily kill them, cause DM can easily turn a bandit TPK into a hostage situation and give them a chance to escape, turning a loss into another cool adventure.
OSR in their design would just say "you ded, make a new guy" and be proud that this is how it's supposed to be.
I love survival games, I really do. I played way more Neo Scavenger and Stranded than I should, and I rolled more characters in ADOM than I can count, most of them died horribly. But when playing TTRPG's, I want to feel like I can give something, play up my story and the system will accomodate that and give me a chance to explore it. OSR would be fine for a one-shot or two, but a full campaign that I will be telling my friends for decades to come? Nope.
Let me make a counter argument to this: For some old school rules games, like those that reflect Basic and Original D&D, 100% agree with you. But those are not the only old school rules games. Games based on AD&D 1e or reflect that have means for story growth. The character is more than just a pawn in a board game like in BECMI, where the PC literally fits on a 3x5 index card. AD&D has background secondary skills, non-weapon profiecancies, class based skills, racial skills & modifiers, etc. From these you can / should create a very lite background for the PC. Then as you game, you BACK-FILL your characters history-story as you develop the characters personality while playing the character. This is a significant difference between Basic and Advanced D&D, not just more detailed rules, but more detailed characters. Still "old school rules". 2nd Edition AD&D cleaned up the system a lot in terms of editing and layout. But not much else besides the way Classes are structured changed between 1e and 2e. Castles & Crusades is essentially the modern update to 1e/2e. BECMI and it's "children" are a very different play-style than AD&D and it's "children". The way AD&D/C&C differ from modern 3e-5.5e/pf1-2 is that in those games front-load the character background an personality before you even start actual play. While AD&D/C&C give you some data to work from, and then you back-fill your background and personality as you play the character in actual play. The back-fill method is WAY better in terms of imprinting that PC into your memory and creating joy playing it.
Personally, I dislike most OSR games due to how binary failure states tend to be. You’re either ok or you’re dead. And you get dead fast. What this means in practice is that you can’t play an idiot or anything even a step away from a highly competent individual. We want to emphasize player skill, after all. But my favorite fiction often involves people making bad decisions, getting into trouble because of said decisions, and then making further bad decision that lands them in even more trouble. OSR games just don’t have this sliding gradient of consequences. And I think most folks playing OSR games would hate to play with someone making decisions explicitly to see dramatic things unfold at the table. After all, that idiocy could get their PCs killed too. In the end, I’m not interested in solely playing as smart as possible. I want to do dramatic things and see our heroes overcome adversity. But OSR games do nothing for this end.
Drama kids should stay away for sure
Interesting perspective. I've seen people make dumb choices in OSR games all the time. It's probably true that those decisions aren't being made deliberately as often as in modern iterations. But at least I've experienced plenty of sliding gradient of consequences (e.g. lost resources, incomplete or failed objectives, percentage of party and retainer death); and plenty of dramatic things unfolding at the table.
I'm genuinely curious: what sliding gradient of consequences have you enjoyed in modern D&D? One perception of modern D&D (which is admittedly also my experience) is that it is often not even a binary, since no consequences are encouraged - and it'd feel terribly impolite to let a character die after the player put a few hours into writing a backstory.
@@wushubear1 Oh I'm not a fan of modern dnd either. But if I'm looking at the general 3.5-ish era, 4.5, pathfinder 1e and 2e general mess (which is lumping in a huge number of games), I'd generally point to overall PC durability, availability of spells and resources to problem solve, and combat as a non-failure state to help explain why it's ok for the PCs to make bad decisions and walk out ok. In some of those systems, extended skill challenges or similar structures also provide many different outcomes for events based on the party's performance, thus making it so a single player playing sub-optimally isn't going to jeopardize the gang's health and safety in an immediate manner. But I think the biggest contributing factor is just group expectations. There's less of a feeling during play that mistakes will severely affect the group.
I also feel like just limiting the scope to modern dnd is a bit of a mistake here. In the broader TTRPG scene, many games do employ lots of non-binary resolution mechanics. For example, I think we can all agree that the vibe of playing Dungeon Worlds is very different from ODnD.
None of this is me dunking on OSR. The whole scene is wonderfully creative and folks are obviously very much enjoying themselves with these games. I just wanted to explain my perspective on these games. Dislike of them need not come solely from a PC options-based place.
I recommend you just find an improv acting group
@@jacobmarkley6943 lmao, I recommend you don’t gatekeep people’s fun.
BECMI had a skills system introduced in the Gazetteer series and included in that very copy of your Rules Cycolpedia reprint on page 81.
and weapon mastery rules.
...if you had the money to buy those. Plus they were really hard to get over here in Germany.
@@doomhippie6673 .pdfs exist if you can't get the print on demand stuff from Drivethrurpg.
It does, but the options are very basic compared to newer games. But it’s a start for new players.
're your rolled stats, in White Box, I allow players to increase two of their stats by 1 point each at 4th and 8th level. That way, they can possibly gain plusses, or remove negatives, based on their experiences, learning and training to that point.
I don't think the issue is just the number of class abilities and feats characters get in 5e. From my perspective, the issue is that the fantasy genre has come a long way from the mid-70s to now, and you have a lot more fantasy archetypes in books, movies and games. In most OSR games, for example, you can't play Dwarf Cleric. The classic Dwarf Craftpriest archetype is gone. You can't be a Hammer of Moradin and wreak vengeance on the enemies of your god. The idea of race as a class is gone from modern fantasy (imagine playing World of Warcraft and only being able to choose between Rogue, Warrior, Orc and Goblin). We moved beyond that a long time ago. My players don't care about skills and feats and stuff like that, but they do want more archetypes to choose from, and while we do play OSR games, they tend to burn out on them pretty quickly, because most of these systems lack in terms of replayability over lenghty campaigns where PCs die a lot and are replaced with new ones.
There are some good OSR games that seem to understand this problem (ACKS or C&C come to mind). ACKS has done race-as-class in the only good way I can think of, and C&C uses AD&D and D&D 3e as its foundation.
I played OSE this past weekend and one huge flaw I've noticed about BECMI games is that if the people you're playing with aren't fun to play with you REALLY feel it. There's no game to keep everyone distracted and focused on, and there's not a ton of spectacle in the kinds of powers people throw out. You're just there suffering with a bunch of old men with no social skills.
I think you bring up great points and hit the nail on the head, at least for why my personal group were also apprehensive towards OSR style games. Which is why when I finally convinced them to try something other than 5e I handed out some magic items which are normally extremely rare in modern games.
Modern RPGs are balanced towards never receiving magic items which is why you need to increase the power level of player level ups. Whereas in osr games you tend to balance as you play by way of treasures.
Additionally the lack of abilities and specific rules or powers is the main appeal of osr games. It's all about how it's presented.
You don't need the "Knock Down" feat to knock someone down, you just say it and try it. The point of OSR games is to stop looking at your character sheet for what your character can do. So the options are actually rather limiting when you make that connection.
Basically the lack of options and powers make it seem like your character can do fewer awesome and epic things where actually you can just try to do all of those awesome and epic things without leveling up or picking the right feature or specific class. (Other than a few weapon and armor restrictions I suppose.)
I'm sure you already know this I'm just throwing in my own observations on why I prefer OSR games over pathfinder and 5e.
On the topic of "Knock Down" type attacks, Dungeon Crawl Classics uses a deed die, which lets warriors and dwarves roll a special die along with their attack to see if they can pull of cinematic type moves - disarming, tripping, back flips, whatever. It keeps action moving and the rules simple, which still maintaining tension from the die roll.
The lack of specific written options, I find actually liberating, as it opens up options based on the player's imagination.
The problem I had back then was "how do I knock somebody over"? Sure, you could roll under strength and that means a Strength 15+ fighter has a good chance to knock anybody and everything over most of the time. But why should it be as easy to knock over a goblin as it is to knock over a giant? There was a general lack of "how do I as a GM rule this". Which is actually a common complaint about DnD5e these days.
Mind you, I don't want to have a Pathfinder 2 rules system in which you have to have a special feat "consume food" to be able to do mundane things. But the way DnD Basic or even Ad&D worked wasn't really any better. It gave rise to many random on the spot decisions of the GM and as a player you had to roll with the punches. If your GM had a bad day you better not try anything fancy.
That randomness and unspecificness of the rules drove me away from the old DnD into.... Rolemaster. (Taking about rules and numbers....). I think DnD5e is kind of a nice blend of two extremes. Still not perfect. I actually prefer game systems that are purely skill based and not classed an level based.
@@doomhippie6673Wow, total opposite experience here. I went from 3.5 Ed (not pathfinder) to briefly dabbling in 5th all the way to BX and similar rules light games.
I flipped through the Rolemaster book about a year ago and it looked like the polar opposite of how I like to play TTRPGs.
To each their own!
@@doomhippie6673
Shadowdark for example just haves standard DC (easy 9, normal 12, hard 15, heroic 17) and the DC depends on both the character and the action.
A noble wizard and an scout elf thief get lost in the forest, guess wich one has a lower DC in related checks.
Same two characters are dealing with guards and merchants, guess wich one has the easier DC now.
Also is just the rules vs rulings arguments all over again.
Some great points here. I'd like to offer my opinion on the issue.
To start, please know it's not about one game being better than the other. In fact, seeing it that way is part of the problem with attracting more players.
That said, all of this videos points have been defined in business management as the expectation gap. This gap is formed when the expectations for an outcome are not aligned between the two parties.
Whats missing in OSR is recognition and consideration for this 5e/OSR expectation gap. We all know how great OSR games are, but we struggle to communicate that experience to others. We fail to explain what makes an OSR game so great in it's own right that both shrinks the gap and entices people to play.
We point to the differences, like to fast pace, and lethality, but that's just speaking from one person's perspective. It doesn't consider what that 5e player would like about OSR.
This is one reason salesmen make so much money. Great video man!
Forbidden Lands. An OSR game that in my opinion, has the mechanical depth in travel, combat and character progression that would satisfy the more modern player. The Most underrated RPG
I bought it some years ago but haven't had the chance to play it yet. And unfortunately I don't know anybody who runs it. I would love to play it a few times before running it a s a GM myself.
I’m going to look this up.
I've very interested in playing this, and recently "Dave Thaumavore RPG" got a chance to lay out and has had me super excited about it. You can also see his break down of the GM and Players guides that are really good.
You've noted that OSR games don't offer the same degree of customization, and that's important, unless that isn't important to you, and thereby correctly conclude, the importance of customization is subjective. But then you state that "from an objective point of view", broad customization is important in order to popularize the genre. But that point of view is equally subjective. It's only important if it is important to you. Personally, on the surface I see the initial appeal to lots of choices. I recently began playing 5e after a 20+ year gap in gaming because IRL priorities, but gamed often in the 70's-90's. I can appreciate how the newer version seems to have simplified some of the mechanics, but it seems to have equally become bloated with custom options which keep me flipping through pages turn after turn just to see what I can and cannot do. Anyhow, thanks for the take, and I look forward to your rebuttal video.
I believe I tried to point out what matters to you is important subjectively, but objectively there are more options for a build in 5e.
@@Shamefulroleplay without question there are. I just question whether more customization is important in order to popularize the genre, objectively speaking.
@@brittonparnell2168 Objectively yes. Allowing for more varied and more fully realized character fantasies other than old man with beard is absolutely part of why the hobby is exploding in the new generation. If there were only 4 classes the game would not reach the heights it currently has.
It broadens the appeal to more and more people
My main issue with OSR is its players, more often than not xD
A friend once described the online OSR community that endlessly attacks other RPGs as "Singularly Unpleasant".
The amount of vitriol spewed by some trolls unfairly characterizes players who are often chill and sometimes just want a loose, straightforward, challenging, and lethal game.
I like some things about osr and dislike others. Emergence, creative problem solving and meaningful choices are cool, but there seem to be a trend of design in some products where randomness is over-emphasized, e.g. in hexcrawl and dungeon encounter tables especially when coupled with a lack of proper gm guidance on integrating meaning into the results, making the adventure feel like a challenge gauntlet instead of a meaningful endeavour. That and an over-emphasis on challenge and under-emphasis on fantasy and narrative. These I really dislike.
OSR style games are an imitation of original D&D principles--the 'Save vs Breath Weapon' for instance. They have no interest in modernization, they have no interest in D&D 2nd Ed style, where they believe TSR/Hasbro lost the plot. They may want Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits etc to be their own classes, and the sensation of the diverse strangeness of them stops right there. There are one or two who take it further, and use the principles of the 'Blue Book', but those are rare.
in my research osr games should not have a dex save, since the game has so many to insta kill mechanics from poison, petrify, death ray, ect, having a roll to not trip and die is excessive. for jumping gaps you have either have a running start, standing jump but you land prone, or you just cant jump the space. eveyone can climb walls if they have iron spikes and rope it just eats up time, while the thief can climb sheer walls without gear and place a rope for the party speeding up progress.
another rule, the thief can roll a thievery check to spot traps which will be a gimme if one exist, but if they are uncertain they can still interact with the environment with descriptions actions to avoid and trigger traps in a safe manner.
As is often the case, it isn't so much the games or style of play that drives people away, it's the most vocal of their advocates.
Heartfelt recommendations and enthusiasm are one thing, but the discussion quite often devolves into variations of "The Old Way Is The Only Way" and a weird sense that some of these people desperately hope they'll be able to summon the spirit of Sainted Gary in order to have him bless their table.
Our group has played a few Castles & Crusades game sessions. Most of the group loved the freedom and ease of playing the game. There weren't a ton of rules to slow things down, I could make rulings on the fly and they were resolved with a quick attribute check.
My wife, however, felt that the characters weren't the Big Damn Heroes she was used to playing in other games, like Pathfinder or 13th Age, which is fair. But I think she also prefers a more traditional skill system, like the ones in more modern games. To her, I believe, things made more sense when you rolled a perception check or a survival check instead of using wisdom or intelligence for a situation.
There's a mindset where the rules inform the style of play. Since she's used to games with skills, she looks for ways to use those skills. There's too much freedom for her, I believe, compared to new games that explicitly give players the tools. The tools are much more implied with OSR-style games, and I think that's another hurdle to get players past.
Our next game, after our Pathfinder campaign, will likely be 13th Age, because it fills the gap of Big Damn Heroes but with a "skill" system where you use backgrounds. It's enough of a guideline for her, I think to get into the game.
I'd just like to point out that the video completely ignores that skills are present in the BECMI rule set in the very Rules Cyclopedia featured in the video, as are weapon Mastery rules that enable characters to perform special maneuver's and increase weapon damage when used in combat with the weapon one has studied with beyond the basic skill level needed to use said weapon. IE- it's not just hit and deal basic weapon damage at the higher levels of weapon Mastery. Both weapon and non weapon Skills can be improved by devoting slots to them. They therefore are not just static throughout a characters adventuring career in TSR versions of D&D.
You are correct! BECMI specifically does have the skills option in it. However most OSR doesn’t, and it’s not as detailed as what 5e / Pathfinder would offer.
Great video. Thank you.
I like the OSR. Started with the RC in 1992.
I like you channel very much.
What is the difference between the coloured cover WB FMAG and the black and white cover WB FMAG?
Thanks so much,
V
Just the cover art, the book contents are identical.. There are actually 3 different covers available.
The question is more why some people do like OSR-style games. People want different things out of activities. OSR games are quite specialized in the stylea of engagement and experiences they facilitate and deliver on, so their appeal is inherently narrowed to a more niche audience.
I appreciate you making a video trying to be critical of OSR as an OSR fans. Most OSR creators I don't think so that. They just disparage those who like modern RPGs like 5E. For my part, I started playing D&D hard core in 2E and had played around some basic before then. So,.as an old head I love modern RPGs and don't like OSR games that much.
My main, issue with OSR games is that they are great at capturing the feel of Sword & Sorcery style worlds but the unbalanced nature of the game and the adversarial nature of the GM means that it does not allow the adventurers to be the larger than life heroes of the game like Sword & Sorcery fiction characters like Conan. Also, many of the rules present in OSR where things many old school gamers complained about or house ruled or ignored. So, I am not going to romanticize those things for nostalgia. I am speaking of things like the brutal rules of undead somehow (nonsensically) just draining levels with a touch and no save to stop it, etc. The random traps that were just instant death in a dungeon that had a trap every 10 feet....which makes no sense unless you are talking about a mad man who designed say a maze specifically just to trap/test adventurers.
If you read old school pulp fantasy the characters often did not get hurt. Ex. In the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard (not the pastiches written by other authors like Lin Carter, etc.) Conan RARELY got injured. Yes there exists a FEW Robert E. Howard stories where Conan set off a trap or got hurt but you can count them on a single hand. Likewise to my recollection in the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber the twain themselves I don't recall getting hurt at all. People around them like their friends, hirelings, and lovers may have gotten hurt or killed but Fafhrd and The Mouser never really did. In the first birth Swords Against Deviltry they did an all out frontal assault on the Thieves Guild or Lankhmar and while their allies paid the penalty the Twain survived and fled Lankhmar. The over vulnerability of PCs in these game (starting with 3d6 for ability scores) means the PCs of OSR games can rarely mimic these heroics evens if if they survive.
Unbalanced Dungeons/adventures are another issue. I have seen and watched game designers talking about old adventures where 1st level PCs faced things like packs of cockatrices or a Medusa and got killed/turned to stone. I don't see the joy in that. If my PC dies because I made a bad choice it had some unlucky rolls that is one thing. Dying due to a monster PCs of a certain level have no real chance to beat seems acenine. The role of the DM is to run the adversaries but that she has to be adversarial, and many OSR DMs in my experience have an adversarial attitude. That being said I do love the world building and creation of OSR world including the awesome worlds created during 1st and 2nd edition D&D. I just wish players could be the heroes of yore in those games vs getting beat down the entire time via undead level drains, permanent curses, overpowered monsters for PC level, instant death traps that are overly numerous and almost impossible to detect, etc. Yet this is varied hobby so to each their own.
All that! Very well said. "We will always remember (the shitty parts just as the good ones". Only - people seemed to have forgotten about the shitty parts.
I joined the hobby with 5e back in 2019; for the last two years I've run PF2E. I personally am DEFINITELY a crunchy-game fan. With that said, I have a bit of OSR, OG kind of TTRPG mentality in regards to a sort of pulp fantasy game structure and thinking outside of the box.
I wish my players would look outside of their character sheets for solutions more often; I want these rules-heavy systems for inspiration on how to adjudicate situations, not to bind our game to them. I have never felt comfortable running rules-light games largely because I find that the people I have played with don't take advantage of the openness and it causes a lot of arguments with rules disagreements.
I don't begrudge OSR and rules-light systems at all, they just haven't worked for and in the end haven't interested me personally. Love having the variety in this hobby though
Keen insights - I enjoyed your analysis.
Thank you very much. Appreciate you.
OSR: "The stats you rolled determined you must play an elf flavored fighter that will probably die."
PF2E: "Choose how your story will begin and enjoy the journey."
Yes. That. I'M so glad we have developed away from DND basic (though I really did love it back in the early 80s).
That's kinda what turns me off 'modern' (ie 5th ed). You get to choose the story not go on an adventure. With that much choice is it a game anymore or just fan fiction with more steps?
I grew up in the TSR era. We always just rolled our stats and could place them as we saw fit. If it was a shit set of rolls, we would try a second time. That way you could still choose your race/class you envisioned going into the campaign.
why not both i let my osr players make minor edits to stats that way they have a bit more choice
just homebrew a lil bit
OSR always feels like a one shot to me. Roll character, dungeon crawl, maybe survive, game over. Other than a fantasy setting OSRs are just a different game to DnD and Pathfinder. I don't hate them. Just play them as one off games
This is my exact stance with 5th Ed. Play what to me feels like a superhero for one session then jump back into my more OSR ish style play (with stuff pulled in from some more modern games too).
Yep. OSR in the vain of BECMI are all like that. You roll up a pawn and hope to live. RPGs have two axis. Player character complexity (and thus player design choice) is the X axis, and Role Play to Simulation is the Y axis. Every RPG will fit on that grid somewhere.
5E is a takeaway set menu, and OSR is a smorgasbord. 5E you pick a subclass and that's your skills/powers, that's all you get. Don't even think about using magic items they don't exist. Don't know why they even bother putting them in the DMG. Give me OSR and freedom to choose any day.
So I agree with the point that lack of build options is likely a reason players struggle getting into the OSR style games. Especially when players have a first glance at the games. I think there's more reasons like not being comfortable rolling up stats in games and the fear of being say a fighter who's bad with strength.
But I've managed to get a few players who were skeptical to try it out and they've changed their minds a lot on these styles of games once they actually try them. For our OSR style games we've mostly played Mörkborg and Cy_borg and I've found my group not having issues with the lack of build options as these games still give each class something cool they can do. Be it a powerful item to start with or some type of magic or ability. And magical items or special items is something I think players should be granted in order to empower their characters beyond what just levels can do, this goes for both OSR and modern games, but I think it''s easier to create these things for players in an OSR game where you do not have to consider how it interacts with quite as many other forms of empowerment to the player character.
The good thing I can say is that with my friend group at least everyone has found that they enjoy these styles of games once they've actually given them a try. I find that they appreciate the faster moving combat and the more relaxed ruleset as I'm very upfront when I'm making an on the spot ruling.
Brilliant comment which adds to the conversation very well. Faster combat for me is definitely a bonus as you can spend ages in 5e especially at later levels.
@@Shamefulroleplay For sure. I mean I've had experiences in 5e where it can take a lot of time even at lower levels but every game probably faces that to some extent with indecisive players in all fairness 😅.
Didn't mention this game in my previous comment but our happy medium for a game that I primarily run with my friend group at the moment has been freeleague's Dragonbane. Or: Drakar Och Demoner as it's called here in Sweden. But this game has in my opinion a lot of the best of both worlds. Swift character creation through primarily rolls. It's not a level based game but a skill based game which means progression for characters does not have these large jumps in power. But you still maintain something akin to 5e's feats with the games heroic abilities which gives players customization and more concrete build paths on paper.
But what this game in particular does for me in regards to fast combat is great. For one it's a single action game. You attack OR dodge with your turn. And it's initiative is redrawn each turn of combat. Which means you might go last one turn but first the next turn. Take that in combination with relatively low HP values (low 10's on average for players and needing a heroic ability to increase it further) with creatures that hit for a serious chunk of damage 2D8 Isn't uncommon. You get these very high octane turns and combat is solved usually solved within a handful of rounds. It creates a very chaotic and scary environment which means you often have players figuring out a good approach before getting into a fight and in some cases how to solve issues with monsters without fighting at all.
I have the QuickStart rule book for it in my cupboard. I must get it out and have a look. Will definitely do a one shot or a few sessions at least to test it out. Thanks for the reminder to me!
0:07 my brother in christ that background sound scared the shit out of me. I thought it was someone on my door lmaooo
What are those frightening background noises in your videos? I listened to this one on an earphone, lying on the sofa with my eyes closed, and I had to keep myself from jumping up every time I heard a noise like that. Scary, ha ha. 😅
Was it my son’s diabetic alarm? It makes a noise on my phone when his blood sugar gets low or high?
@@Shamefulroleplay No, that was okay. Maybe you moved something near the mic.
You are spot on. OSR style of play RAW doesn't allow you to build a PC you envision. The classes are bland and unimaginative. Sure, if you have a cool GM they MIGHT let your PC do some cool move, but it's not hard coded into the build. The misconception many OSR loyalists have about 5e/PF players is "they want to be super heroes!!", no, most I know are fine with fewer HP, more danger, etc., they just want to have options to build a cool PC that they want to play for a fun campaign. They are fine with their PC dying if it means something. I WISH there was an OSR game that offered more options for PCs. I have had to use Index Card RPG and rules and options from other games to build the low power but still heroic game my table loves.
This! Glad you concur. A OSR game but with build options…..now that sounds like a job for shameful RPG
@@Shamefulroleplay I would pay good money for it! Reapers new game Dungeon Dwellers seems like it might be what I'm looking for. I'm patiently waiting on the Kickstarter.
I've been rolling bones since the early 80s
I think...
It is just as hard for a 1st level character to hit an orc, as it is for 10 th level character to hit a demon, a first level scout to pick a 1st level lock as a 10th level scout
Current games are overly complex and fiddly, I'm thinking ICE or C&S from the days of yore, specialisation and focus are fun but it is too easy to specialise yourself into uselessness and the DM needing to build a campaign for your peculiarities
For me, the magic items in OSR style games are the key. The magic items are much heftier than what we get in 5th edition (which are not very significant mechanically). The particular magic items a character has are the way they are differentiated from other characters. The power curve doesn’t come from the PC’s abilities as much in OSR, but rather it comes from the cool stuff they have. The thing is, you can’t plan that out. It often is a reflection of where the characters have been and what they have done.
Magic items are such a big deal in OSR aren’t they?!
I started with BECMI by trying to introduce young players to that style was very difficult because they hated the constraints on character I think the thing I feel is until 5th edition dnd was still a product of wargamers built arouund combat mechainics and optimising battle field strategy without any real mechainical benefits to story telling which is what my players have loved about it I remember introducing a new player to second edition and she rolled up a rogue and started weaving the story of a runaway bride and as a DM today I could just say great take the noble background you get proficiency in persuasion and extra gold and we're of fand running but I can't remember if heraldry was a class proficiency for rogue in second but I think I house ruled so background knowledge for her
This may be a bizarre stance on my part, as to why I basically ONLY like OSR games at this point, but here it goes.
Personally I don't even care for most TTRPGs or even most board games, I find nearly all of them mind numbingly boring and cant even get through learning the rules without falling asleep, but I really love rules lite OSR style games (not RAW though, I love tailored house rules tightly curated for a specific playstyle as agreed upon by a table).
I've been experimenting with different TTRPG systems for decades, hell I've played with RPG groups on multiple continents, and honestly have liked maybe one out of 5 or so that I've looked at.
In the OSR/nu-OSR spaces, that number increases to 3 out of 5.
I assume this is because I'm not looking to sit down and spend hours learning something, I want to get playing fairly fast, and I want to be able to have the rules of the game sit down and shut up. I want the solutions to problems to come from my own brain, not from pushing buttons on my character sheet (because I'm not reading a 5 page long class description or two paragraph long spell descriptions).
Yes, I'm unreasonably picky and very neurodivergent (and medicated for it lmao), but honestly, I have a TON of different hobbies, so I just don't have the time or inclination to bother with forms of gaming that aren't exactly what I like.
And that's okay!
People who like more rules intensive stuff aren't wrong for having their own preferences or anything, it's just what type of gaming experience they want.
Maybe you'd be interested in some ultra-light rulesets or one-page rules. I personally really enjoy running FURPG for generic games.
@@coronal2207 Like Goblin With a Fat Ass? Yeah I've seen some of those, def want to look into more of them.
@@Syndicate_01 Looks about right!
Awesome video. I like OSR because you are not invincible and if u live it's an accomplished feat. Who needs 5th edition bards dancing around with jazzy hands that they learned from the juilliard school of Bard dance
Yep. 5e isn't that rules heavy as they tries to design it around at table player experience. Pathfinder 2e is rules heavy, but not as rules heavy as Hero System or HackMaster. Table taste for where the fulcrum point should be between rules heavy (player design choices) and rules lite (less payer options) is going to vary. That is why we settled on a good fulcrum of Castles & Crusades.
How do you find it to run as a DM? I have it but haven’t run a campaign. Do the players like it better than OSR style games like Swords and Wizardry for example or just standard AD&D?
Castles & Crusades is the Goldie Locks RPG. Not too little options and survivability, and not too much survivability and options. Not too many rules to dwarf GM agency, and not too few rules to tax GM agency. Its just right.
Is because you wanna feel like you're always getting something every so often? D&D 3.5e and by extension Pathfinder are best for fine tuning a character's build with super crunchy rules.
Old school RPGs encourage playing your character.
New RPGs require players to play their character sheet.
3.5e solves all the problems your talking about.
Yes, and that’s what 5e is derived from.
In my case, I had a bad experience with every single time of the 5 times I've tried to join or get into OSR
options and player agency are, quite apparently, very important to players, D&D added it in 3e and has increased it every step of the way. OSR harkens back to the days of lack of options, when you could only dream of making the character on paper anywhere close to what was in your head. and, as much as i hate to say this, with the lack of rule structure you are subject to the DMs whims. if the DM is having a bad day, then so are the PCs, you have no real fallback, there is no rule to point to and say "this right here is how it works". honestly, the psychological state of someone who would rather run an OSR is a bit suspect (now you can all lie to me about never having played with a DM who is a control freak). i've never been able to understand the take of "less options = better", and there isn't a real argument about balance, the VAST majority of "balance issues" are the fault of the DM and not being able to scale what they preplanned to the reality of the party, or being unable to adjust on the fly if you are using an adventure module, but seriously.... stop using adventure modules. they have only ever been good for learning a game, after that do the damned work and write the story yourself. i've never really found TTRPGs to follow the "less is more" rule, less has always seemed to just be less.
Will until you get into the Moore is too much period if the dishes having a big identity crisis wit classes. Dropping spellcasting On three fourths of classeems to delete magic. More can be too much and in that case what's even the difference between the classes.
Main reasons in no order:
1. Poor formatting and even more rule vagueness than modern games like 5E
2. Lethality for lethality's sake. If your character is merely a throwaway sheet you do not care about, you're not playing an RPG, you're playing a wargame.
3. Lack of options and growth. We want characters to grow and learn new stuff, not just "suck a tiny bit less".
1. That is solved by modern OSR-clones. For example, OSE has one of the best layouts out there. Although it's not really for unexperienced OSR referees, because assumes knowledge of the style of play.
2. Lethality is a thing, but I think it's overestimated. If the party plays smart, they might actually never die (or die VERY rarely). Also, the lethality bar can be adjusted as per group preference.
3. The options you get as you advance in OSR game doesn't come from your class advancement, but from your loot. You get A LOT of bizarre magic items which gives you options and can solve situation by themselves. They are really powerful, not worthless trash otherwise "they can break character balance".
For example, one artifact I saw recently in a playthrough was an item that gives Mass Charm Monsters 1/day. That is insane, because in B/X charm is basically Dominate in 5e, and it lasts for weeks if not months (depends on INT of the charmed creature).
It actually feels like you earned those options, because you get them by stealing smartly from the monsters' lair.
OSR is Dungeon Horror Survival and 5e is Superhero Fantasy. Neither is good or bad. They're just different.
I get what you are saying, but disagree with your characterisation of OSR. I know at least in BECMI, and in the Mystara setting, exploration of the world is a huge element to, whereas 5e is famously weak on that pillar, acknowledged by 5e affeciendos themselves.
But yeah, different games, different styles, but equally valid.
The way I categorise it is..... In BECMI and other OSR games, Think Pippin... In 5e Think Aragorn.
I think you're only looking at "1st wave" or "clone" books in the OSR. Since around 2008 there has been 2nd wave & 3rd wave games that have become far more creative with the rules. Like Baptism of Fire, DCC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the Wretchedverse games, Lion & Dragon, etc
To say nothing of the games that cover other genres, like Stars Without Number, Star Adventurer, Operation: White Box, The Invisible College, etc.
A good point and these are good games also. I should make a video on these too. Thanks for the comment!
Most big modern TTRPG's lack inter-party-dependency.
It's generally not that big of a deal when the cleric can't make the session, or the magic user is out one evening when playing some of the big modern RPG's.
The need to customize your character to the fullest extent usually means someone else in the party has a level of cleric, or wizard, etc.
Very much like modern video games.
Players don't deviate from with the script and improvise like a good actor, but instead rely on what's written on their character sheet.
No one really knows what the other party members are capable of in many big modern TTRPG's.
They generally just hope that everyone has a little bit of everything, instead of relying on another player character.
Character customization has killed the imagination and creativity of many modern gamers.
With OSR RPG's, you have to think outside the sheet, and imagine what your character would do, and then describe it.
You don't really need a good imagination at all to play many big modern TTRPG's, everything is written down for you in one of the books, or on your character sheet.
Just like the monitor for your modern video game, it shows you what to imagine.
Started playing in the late 80s/early 90s with BECMI and 2E, and I personally vastly prefer WotC D&D (any of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and I'll include Pathfinder 1e here - never played Pathfinder 2e so I can't judge) over TSR D&D. I have tried playing 2e and BECMI a couple of times and couldn't get into it, and yes, the lack of character options was a major part of that (especially since I prefer martials to casters).
(I'm also not a big fan of "dungeon crawl" modules, which a lot of OSR tends to be)
Part of it was that I went to university in the late 90s, which was pretty much D&D's nadir of popularity... and my university's roleplaying club played many different RPGs, but D&D was not among them until 3E got released in 2000. Even now, I consider D&D just one RPG among many, not the be-all and end-all that a lot of people nowadays do, and there was a time a couple of years ago when I was seriously burned out on D&D - I didn't want to play anything D&D related, be that 5e, OSR, Pathfinder or whatever. I really wanted to play a genre other than fantasy, and if it had to be fantasy, it needed to be at least as different as Runequest or Modiphius' Conan RPG, Unfortunately, 5e was all anyone in my area seemed to be running (unless it was Call of Cthulhu, and I'm not into horror).
EDIT: Also, I have seen comments like "OSR is for killer GMs who worship Gary Gygax and try emulate Tomb of Horrors in every game they run", which... while it's definitely an exaggeration, some OSR GMs do seem to enjoy killing PCs.
Yep it is a lack of character
It's easy to hack in any option you want into OSR games.
My philosophy is to learn the rules as written then season to taste
I don't understand what you mean by "hack" in this instance?
That's cool if you're the GM. Not so cool if you're a player and you want to know what options there are.
@The_RealWilliam Hacking the rules of a game means making house rules. You take the base game's rules and change things around or add things to give the game's mechanical framework your own "flavor".
OSR games have few hardlined rules on purpose to encourage the GM to make their table's game unique to them by adding or changing certain mechanics as needed. You want Advantage/Disadvantage? Put it in. You don't like the abstract saving throw target numbers? Make it a roll-under check on an applicable stat or something like that. The game bends to your will, not the other way around.
@@AtariTom2X00 Okay so that's your personal definition, because I have never heard this before except in video games. Not to sound pedant, but I am against any kind of "hacking" just to hack. If you (not you personally) don't like the rules then create your own game instead of freeloading.
@@The_RealWilliam Creating your own game system wholesale is easier said than done. Using an established framework and reworking it to suit your style is easier than coming up with a whole new system.
Also, by your definition, wouldn't that mean that people using homebrewed monsters for something like 5e, for instance, should just go make a new game and stop using a game that already has everything it needs in the book?
5e is just a basic d20 framework with a bunch of extra rules belted onto it. Modular DCs, stat-based saving throws, proficiency bonuses, a huge skill list that all boils down to a stat check, feats, cantrips, all of these things. And how many of them are strictly necessary to run a basic game piggybacking off of brand recognition established by the popularity that these older rules systems founded?
When hear about “builds” I flinch. It has such a video game feel, but to be fair that’s where today’s player is coming from.
To me, in the newer games, your stats and abilities define your character. In OSR how you role play the character does.
It would be cool if you consider the other side too in a new video. I.e. why players coming from newer systems like osr such it having way faster character creation, faster combat, ect.
I have made a new one about why OSR is actually great for role play I’ve finished audio on. I will also make another one afterwards on your suggestion too thank you.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
Well that’s very kind of you
A very interesting and in my opinion balanced video. I agree.
Well damn I may cry
I prefer the TSR "vibe" over WotC . Sure, there is less character customization, but there is far more tension (you're on the edge of your seat) and it requires coming up with solutions. Making it through the adventure is more rewarding. That said, I prefer WotC's more consistent d20 rules over TSR's sub-systems (for this I roll a d6, but thieves roll a d100, etc.).
Exactly this! Exactly. 👍 Shadow dark tries to address this I feel.
If the order of showing the manuals and the differences between them were reversed, you could make a video on why OSR players don't like playing modern games on the same scenario. They would probably be just as accurate. It's hard to discuss something so complex through the prism of such a tiny fragment of what both styles of play actually are. And that they are very far apart, well, that's obvious.
I think ‘hate’ is the wrong word but I do sometimes think that a lot of these games are overly praised for doing something that isn’t all that original or innovative. I do like some games for their relative simplicity compared to the contemporary edition of D&D, and the general lower levels of power creep, but honestly if I wanted an alternative to D&D, I’d prefer to try out something like WFRP or Pendragon for example, rather than something that is basically the same as D&D in all its broader strokes.
Ive recently gotten back into D&D (sort of) I haven't had my 1E books in decades and buying them now seems cost prohibitive. Also I now play solo. So after LOTS of videos I started with White Box as the price was right 😃. I literally had to buy everything including dice again. That along with Table Fables sandbox style and I was hooked. Now I've gone to Basic Fantasy hard copies and some supplements for the cost of one original or new D&D book. Plus I watched videos on 5E... Looked like too many rules and not enough danger/risk for the Characters. Add to that I like story immersion. The one Rule of Gygax I stick too, is as long as I m having fun the rules are somewhat secondary. Thanks for the video. One more thing. Im not into 5E and all the character options like half dragon. Who mated with the dragon ? Add to that I dont want to be a rules lawyer in the books every 30 seconds.
I bought the 3 core 1e AD&D rulebooks for $65 last year. Drive-Thru RPG sells the PoD of them for much less than newer systems.
I like OSR RPGs (among others), but in my opinion - being based on the "rulings over rules" motto - they tend to be less interesting from a mechanical perspective, meaning that there are fewer mechanically weighty decisions to make, leading to a less involved and more simplistic interactions between the player and the mechanical layer of the game.
This kind of design is done on purpose, because the fun is supposed to originate from the players coming up with creative solutions to fictional problems rather than from mastering the rules in order to use them to their full extent to overcome the opposition in a formalized and mechanical way, like with more mechanically oriented RPG systems.
Both paradigms are interesting and can lead to fun gameplay. That is, the same person can enjoy both type of experiences, but usually not at the same time.
What I tend not to like so much are hybrid systems that do not know what they want to be or accomplish and try to appeal to both sides at the same time, leading to intermittent fun and a washed experience.
That's why, for example, I find both OSR games/0e D&D and 4th Edition D&D much more interesting than the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Edtions. 0e and 4th editions are very different games, each specialized in its own niche. They are so focused that they both manage to deliver a great, if very different, experience and when you sit down to play one of those two games you know very well what you are getting into and what kind of fun you are going to get from the game.
I like OSR games. I also really like 5e style of mechanics. I really love trying to make 5e style games have an OSR feel.
Have you tried 4 Torches deep if you like 5e with an OSR feel? It’s basically a 5e supplement as opposed to a new game?
@@Shamefulroleplay I have not tried it but I had completely forgotten about that. I'm going to have to look that up.
@@Shamefulroleplay do you happen to know any games with some good survival style rules.
Like players are put on a deserted island with nothing and need to figure out how to survive?
I'm not opposed to implementing a different game's rules into my game. I just got done adapting the rules for the old Dave Arneson game Don't Give Up The Ship into my 5e game. But I just haven't found anything that quite hits the spot as far as survival goes.