Quote from: Exploderwizard;856673Of course those rules apply only when such creatures are fighting rank & file mooks only. Any first level character in OD&D besides a fighting man is just a mook because they are also 1 HD or less.

 If a hero or any fighting man for that matter, were fighting alongside his men, the ogre wouldn't get those attacks.

You, sir, are intelligent and perceptive.

That's why originally a "Veteran" got 1+1 HD; the rules for "1 HD or less" creatures don't apply to them.

Makes hobgoblins and berserkers a lot tougher, doesn't it!!

Quote from: NathanIW;856079One thing I've noticed about lots of AD&D/OSRIC GMs is that they have largely abandoned the idea of rules as binding law that AD&D was originally marketed with as a means of unifying the player base and cutting Arneson out of royalties.

I listen to a ton of actual play podcasts and noticed most GMs very quickly adopt an off the top of their head approach rather than going with the described method in the rules.  Many times you can't immediately tell whether they are playing OD&D, B/X or AD&D.

Agree.

I may have mentioned in this thread, or in another one recently. I started D&D with the White Box, and I remember when the AD&D books were released. As I switched from OD&D to AD&D--which a bumpy process, since the three books weren't published simultaneously--I had no allegiance at all the AD&D RAW. Eventually I became pretty disenchanted with (A)D&D in general, but I basically treated the hardbacks as a bunch of ideas & resources to be edited and merged with the way I was already playing OD&D, and then changed as necessary going forward.

Some of this was more or less formalized in the sense of explicitly articulated changes (more often transmitted verbally than actually written), other elements were definitely improvised off the cuff, as we already did with OD&D.

In the last decade or so I did run into one person who seemed to stick closer to the rules back in the day (judging from how he analyzed certain tactical elements), and another "young fogie" who was making an effort to follow the rules precisely. The second approach I think could be interesting as an academic exercise. I mean, there's been a lot of discussion & exegesis on the net now that helps explain how the rules might fit together to make things more functional or interesting. (Some examples that I didn't fully appreciate as a kid: XP for gold, weapon speed factors, material components for spells.) I still think there's a lot of stuff that was either nonfunctional or poorly engineered (training rules, weapon v. armor modifiers--much better in Greyhawk than AD&D--unarmed combat as originally presented).

In short there's value in taking a closer look at the rules if you've always been in the habit of playing impressionistically, but I would be surprised if the majority of AD&D groups didn't streamline & hack the game extensively.

You know, I think OS games were not THAT concerned with balanced, although there ARE some obvious efforts to balance things out, and in some ways OS games are more balanced than 3e.

But if you see the OSR, it is pretty much incompatible with balance, at least in the "all must have similar effects on DPR" sense, because there is no way a B/X fighter is "balanced" against a BECMI, AD&D or LoTFP fighter in that way.

Since most of the OSR seem to think you can play with any OS module, the idea of pre-planned "balanced encounters" doesn't work.

So, players must basically DISCOVER their own might against whichever danger they face.. and there is no guarantee they will get a fair chance of winning the fight.

 It is one of the things I like about OS play.

How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856723How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?

Depends on how you see OS...

For example, going only by the first post:


1) Rulings, not Rules. You don't need many rules, the GM can come up with something.

In 5e: More or less. 5e is simpler than 3e or 4e IMO, but still quite complex compared to B/X or OD&D.

2) Player Skill, not Character Skill. You don't roll find or disarm traps, you describe it.

In 5e: Again, more or less... Character skill is important. OTOH, because of the d20 and bounded accuracy, there is always a chance for failure if you roll.

3) Hero, not Superhero. Characters become power but not too powerful (whatever this means).

In 5e: Characters get very powerful at their specialties, but not different than average people in other areas.

4) No such thing as "game balance". Challenges aren't tailor-suited to the characters - if they go wandering to Forest of Death or whatever, they are risking their necks.

In 5e: Not really. At least int theory, you have some rules to make encounters balanced.

Some things I find important:

5) Starting characters aren't special. They don't have elaborate backgrounds or many special abilities.

In 5e: Not really. A 1st level character is quite complex. I think this wasn't a good idea, TBH.

6) Resource management is important. You shouldn't be handwaving money, encumbrance, torches etc.

In 5e: Not really focused on IC resource management, more focused on OOC resources (spells, actions, etc).

7) There is no "story" being created on purpose. The focus is survival and profit, not catharsis. There is no start-beggining-end, there are things that happen, and that's it. You can tell your exploits after the fact, but you aren't thinking of "what would make for a good ending" when you're fighting the ogre.

In 5e: yes, you can play this way - same as any version of D&D.

IMO, all things considered, 5e RAW is quite different from what I see as OS, but is simple enough to be easily hacked into an OS frame.

EDIT: also, if you consider this very relevant post:

Quote from: RandallS;846503I pretty much agree with the points in the first post. Four additional very important "old school" points for me are:

A) Combat is fast and fairly abstract. While combat happens a lot in most old school games, it is not time-consuming nor is it intended to be the most interesting part of the session. Minis/pieces and battlemats can be used if the GM wants but they are never required.

B) System mastery is not required. Players do not need to know the rules to play (and play well). They can simply describe what their character is doing in plain language (not gamespeak) and the GM will tell them the results of their action or what they need to roll.

C) The rules are merely guidelines for the GM. The rules are not intended or designed to protect players from a "bad" GM. Players can and should, of course, not play with a GM they consider bad.

D) The system mechanics are not purposely designed to be interesting for players to manipulate but to get out of the way so the stuff going on in the campaign is the center of attention. It's not about what mechanical features a character gets as the campaign progresses but about what the character does in the campaign.

...you see that simple rules might be quite important for OS play.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856723How well do you guys think 5E handles "old school" play?

Pretty good, but it's missing some systems like monster morale checks & morale, or the old D&D approaches to evasion, getting lost & such.  My own 5e campaign is a pretty old school sandboxy thing and pretty well all the published material I use is either original old school (Caverns of Thracia, Wilderlands) or OSR (Dyson's Delve, O5R Liberation of the Demon Slayer). I've had an easy time filling in the gaps; eg I already use B/X style Morale rules in all my games anyway.

The 5e PCs IMC aren't fragile/disposable, but then old-D&D PCs really aren't either after 1st level. It's really 3e where high level Fighter types routinely drop like flies. The spell/magic rules in 5e really limit casters, in ways that are different from old school D&D but the effect is similar, warriors & wizards need to work together, no 3e/PF god-casters and their non-caster mook/grog buddies.
 
Power progression is different from any prior version of D&D; enemy numbers matter hugely, and a squad of soldiers is a bigger threat than a manticore - I really like this but it feels a bit more like non-D&D RPGs than any version of D&D. It definitely gives that "heroic not superheroic" feel - which I guess resembles low level D&D, but 7th level old school D&D PCs can generally wade through hordes of foes more easily than my 5e group can.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;856728IMO, all things considered, 5e RAW is quite different from what I see as OS, but is simple enough to be easily hacked into an OS frame.

Here's my suggestions on hacking 5e - nothing radical but it gives my game a decidedly non-3e feel:
_______

They did do a good job IMO in making 5e D&D 'driftable' to play like a lot of other editions. The default setting is sort of "2.5e", but I was shocked looking at the 5e forum on EN World to see them treating it like 3e, with lots of talk of 'builds', 'optimisation' et al - nothing like the way I use it. That said, here are some of the things I do to go for a more 1e or Classic (pre-Non Weapon Proficiencies & Skills) type feel:

1. Skills - already vestigial in 5e, I don't really use them, I just add Profiency to whatever ability checks a character should be proficient in by reason of his Class.

2. Multiclassing - this is the bit of 5e that seems most 3e-like. Fortunately it's listed as an optional rule. Disallowed.

3. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.

4. Feats - for my Dragonsfoot game I didn't allow them at chargen. I'm a bit torn on this one, but a lot of 5e feats resemble stuff like the Mentzer Classic D&D 'Fighter Smash' attack - stuff that I think is ok at higher level. Again Feats are labelled as Optional and for some groups it may be safer to disallow them if you don't want a whiff of 3e style minmaxing.

5. Death Saves and "heal from zero" - a 4e-ism which is ok-ish in that game, terrible (IMO) in 5e. I don't use them, instead I use negative hit points and when a PC goes deep into negative they'll have trouble getting back up again.

Quote from: S'mon;8567823. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.

Not very old school. Always give a monster an even break. Low level monsters should have weak saves but powerful ones should have good saves. The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.

I started a sand-box/hexcrawl style game using Basic 5e (meaning, the basic rules) and so far it's had a significantly "old-school" feeling to it. No feats. No Multiclassing. Basic classes (though I am allowing different sub-classes based on their role-play) and Basic Races (Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling). At first I got a lot of the "Well what can I do?!" questions but as I talk to them about doing anything! I believe it's starting to sink in. I told them they don't need X, Y, or Z feat to accomplish something unique, cool, or fun and so long as they describe what they want to do I'll assign a DC or scenario that does a decent job of getting that point across in the game-world.

They've only had 1 combat encounter and they're still pretty new to the idea of what a Hexcrawl is (such as, adventuring is dangerous and don't go into unknown areas where scary monsters might lurk) but they're getting the hang of it. Already they were warned that the Orc tribe to the north of the settlement is a significant threat to the town and they have yet to go there to kill them (it would be a slaughter on the Orcs part as there's over 100+ Orc Warriors and their kin hanging around that area).

It's been a different experience than when we do Pathfinder or 4E but still retains enough of those versions to keep their interest.

@ Eric Diaz: Money, encumbrance and torches are not OOC concerns! They are just the sort of thing one deals with IN character.

Possibly there's a missing period after "not really" in that item.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;856787The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.

Oh, sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, yes.  That plus "Boo hoo I missed."  Okay, granted, if a turn of combat takes 15 minutes, that sucks.  The answer is use a faster combat system.

If one bad die roll "ruins your character,*" I don't want to play with you anyway, and you might need some serious therapy.


*Yes, I've seen this claim made, more than once.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;856787Not very old school. Always give a monster an even break. Low level monsters should have weak saves but powerful ones should have good saves. The hurt little feelings of players whose spells fail against tough monsters shouldn't be a consideration.

Maybe it's just my group, but even when the Warlock casts one of his two spells and the monster fails its save, he still generally does less damage than the barbarian does on a typical attack round. 5e spells generally don't KO the monster on a failed save.

Quote from: S'mon;856781Pretty good, but it's missing some systems like monster morale checks & morale, or the old D&D approaches to evasion, getting lost & such.  My own 5e campaign is a pretty old school sandboxy thing and pretty well all the published material I use is either original old school (Caverns of Thracia, Wilderlands) or OSR (Dyson's Delve, O5R Liberation of the Demon Slayer). I've had an easy time filling in the gaps; eg I already use B/X style Morale rules in all my games anyway.

The 5e PCs IMC aren't fragile/disposable, but then old-D&D PCs really aren't either after 1st level. It's really 3e where high level Fighter types routinely drop like flies. The spell/magic rules in 5e really limit casters, in ways that are different from old school D&D but the effect is similar, warriors & wizards need to work together, no 3e/PF god-casters and their non-caster mook/grog buddies.
 
Power progression is different from any prior version of D&D; enemy numbers matter hugely, and a squad of soldiers is a bigger threat than a manticore - I really like this but it feels a bit more like non-D&D RPGs than any version of D&D. It definitely gives that "heroic not superheroic" feel - which I guess resembles low level D&D, but 7th level old school D&D PCs can generally wade through hordes of foes more easily than my 5e group can.

The 5E DMG actually has morale check rules, along with rules to make it easier to sweep through waves of mooks. Something like the damage spilling over from one guy to another once they die. They're just simple add ons though, not an entire system.

Why are spellcasters weaker in 5E? Every time I show Pathfinder players the spellcasters they have an aneurism about how 5E isn't balanced and how they made cantrips and spellcasting even more OP and high damage.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;856888Why are spellcasters weaker in 5E? Every time I show Pathfinder players the spellcasters they have an aneurism about how 5E isn't balanced and how they made cantrips and spellcasting even more OP and high damage.

Maybe they don't see the fact that spells don't naturally get better with caster level? Or that the DCs are all the same and they easily top out? Or they hadn't realized you get zero bonus spells for a high stat mod? Or The save/suck or die isn't nearly as debilitating or deadly as it was in 3e/Pathfinder?

I mean damage has never been a Wizards thing in D&D 3e/Pathfidner and it's only slightly better now in 5e.