A few months into its release, 5E has a relationship with the various D&D tribes that I find surprising; particularly the relatively open and positive reaction the OSR community has had to it. There are several reasons for this, but now that I know the game better and have seen some of the offiicial support I find it difficult to guess where this will all lead.

My personal take on the issue is that 5E, seen as just a stand-alone rule set rather than a body of settings, expansions, adventures, etc., is a surprisingly good platform for OSR style play. Yes, it is more complex than 0E or B/X. The total number of character properties (skills and class abilities) is perhaps twice that in 1E and 2E; on the other hand, its resolution mechanics are simpler than either of these games. So, I interpret it as 1E-like in overall complexity and speed of play. Whether one prefers it to other editions is not terribly important; the essential point is that it is well designed and presents no obvious barriers to free flowing play. A casual gamer can sit down, create a character and navigate a session with just a few minute's introduction. So, when one considers its accessibility and visibility, it is a good choice of system if you are trying to recruit a new playing group for any form of D&D, including an OSR campaign.

Putting my time where my mouth is (?), I've spent about a month now creating an OSR-style campaign that could be played with any number of systems, but is specifically designed for 5E. And I like how it looks now that it has taken shape.

So why the discomfort? I think there are a couple of ways in which this seeming compatibility could unravel. First, I need to see more examples of what the HP recover mechanic really means for the feel of adventures. If players quickly figure out how to game this system to make death a rare and easily avoided event then the system, whatever its other merits, is ill suited to OSR campaigns. D&D without character death inevitably drifts to high-fantasy and 'story gaming' with hit points and armor class. Second, the game could easily bloat with feats and class powers and other goo-gahs if the developers are undisciplined. That would bring it out of the range of system complexities I think are compatible with OSR style gaming.

A broader reason why I worry how this will turn out is that the first indications about campaign and adventure materials sound and look really bad. The leads they are giving are that this will be supported with adventure-path style modules and 'canned' campaign world tie ins. OSR-style D&D actually has little to do with system rules (provided they are not hopelessly over complicated). It has to do with the goals and structure of the gaming session, the flow of play at the table, and the role of player and DM in creating the setting and directing the 'plot' (which should be recognizable only in retrospect!). If 5E evolves to be a mechanism for linear, scripted gaming and pre-packaged settings, people interested in OSR gaming will peel away from it and go back to whatever pre-3E system they prefer.

Thoughts?

5e can be declared a retroclone, then it's good to go. It depends on far people want to take it, but I don't see the OSR people as "moral" crusaders, like some other groups seem to be, or were. As far as hp recovery, system bloat, and bad adventures; you have already cured the third, right? Then just cut away the other two if it hurts the game.

I think the big tent approach is more or less working. While I don't think many existing games will necessarily switch rule-sets, It seems a lot of people are planning that their next game will be 5e.

The published adventures do look pretty underwhelming, but to be honest I thought that of every other edition, so it is not really a surprise. Although that said, the Starter Set looks o.k. for what it is.

What will be interesting is how much third party OSR brands start creating material with 5e in mind.

In the grim darkness of 3rd millenium, there is only flame war

In the ancient halls of Karak - l - Genev, the Grudgesculptors of clan Osirik gather around the new, fresh, Grudge Stone. On top of that solemn, black rock, the Greybeards of their order ponder whether or not the first letters shall be etched into this new Grudge Stone, to be fed to the mighty Stone Throwers, used upon the fields of the endless battles, as their kin has done since the dawn of time.

Jokes aside, this is kind of a question of concessions. If you approach 5e with mindsets of early editions, 3e or 4e, you will find something for yourself, but you do need to concede some of your expectations. It's definitely a much lighter, easier to handle game than 3e and 4e, but it is also nowhere nearly material for brutal playstyle that is nowadays more attributed to Warhammer than DnD, of the claimed "grognard" playstyle.

(holds up Blood & Treasure)
(holds up Castles & Crusades)
(holds up D&D 5e Basic Rules)

While they have their differences they one of inches. In my opinion the D&D 5e Basic Rules would definitely be considered an OSR ruleset but with a larger does of modern mechanics than the norm. Exactly the reaction I seen to C&C and B&T.

The PHB 5e would be considered too modern due to all the options. But the fact that the Basic Rules exist by themselves with complete compatibility with the PHB means the OSR is far more tolerant than usual with 5e.

It also helps that 5e have some nice innovations that makes it easier to play than some older editions particularly the advantage/disadvantage mechanics in lieu of a sea of bonuses.

However remember folks the core of the OSR, the point of it , is to play the original editions not something like them or similar to them, warts and all. That will remain unchanged.

Right now my prediction of the long term effect of 5e are:

1) It will become a second favorite edition for many. Used when participating in the wider D&D hobby like at game-stores and convention.

2) Some OSR publishers will either duel stat or mingle 5e books alongside their older edition offerings. Due to the fact you can play 5e just like an older edition.

3) It will make the larger hobby even more receptive to OSR rulesets. It won't make any one wildly popular but provide a steady trickle of people when they look for alternatives.

Right now the next hoops that Wizards has to jump through is whether they can produce decent adventures and supplements.

Phandelver from the boxed set can be easily run with any OSR ruleset. Just replace the stats with the system of choice. Even the text doesn't get in the way as the stat block are all in the back and every you need stats for is highlighted in bold. Phandelver is viewed favorably by many OSR folks i Know of.

Tyranny of Dragon also has bold text and stats in the back. But it's adventure structured more like Paizo, 3e, 4e, adventures so hasn't generated as much interest. But it doesn't commit any egregious sins either so it just being ignored as far as I can see.

Finally much hinges on whether Wizards has a sane third party publishing policy. Also their reaction to unauthorized compatible products will be important to whether their reputation continues to be rehabilitated. So far the only shutdowns have been for obvious violations like the guy with the spell database.

As for myself. I will support 5e with adventures and settings (similar to Blackmarsh). An additional hope is that the 3rd party license includes the stuff in the Monster Manual.  Some great adventure hooks in there waiting to be exploited. Far more than I think Wizards plans to publish for.

First World Problem:

Worrying about the relationship status between an rpg and some vague gamer political group. :rolleyes:

For me, 5e is a friend because:
* it's a game I'll play
* it keeps the guys in the group who are interested in the "next best thing" happy.

There's a bunch of other similar games we play already which some of us prefer to 5e, like: Blood & Treasure, B/X, AD&D 1e... 5e won't be replacing any of these games for me. But due to the guys looking for the newness, I'm happy 5e is around now so I don't have to keep saying "no, I won't play Pathfinder!"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788531First World Problem:

Worrying about the relationship status between an rpg and some vague gamer political group. :rolleyes:

When you are zeroing in on your 4000th post you've pretty much lost your rights to worldly perspective on the meaninglessness of all the discussions here.

As a somewhat hostile nonmember of the OSR (look, you guys play however you like, but quit telling me that the stuff I like objectively ruined or betrayed D&D! ), my reaction is "too early to say, and probably too dependent on what qualifies something as 'OSR' beyond the general core of TSR-era D&D".

  I wouldn't worry too much about the adventure or campaign support for informing how the game is played; if 4E is an indication, it can impact how much the game is played, but the game will naturally find its own level regardless of how bad the adventures are. More seriously, several of the issues with 3E/3.5 arose from the rules encouraging a style of play that the designers didn't initially anticipate, and it appears that the industry success stories (primarily Paizo) did so by adapting the adventures to better suit the engine that powers them.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788545When you are zeroing in on your 4000th post you've pretty much lost your rights to worldly perspective on the meaninglessness of all the discussions here.

:rotfl:

TOUCHE!

[ I still reserve the right to mock you for use of the term : frenemy]

I consider it a friend, as a guy who stuck with AD&D all these years instead of 3e and later 4e.  Admittedly I haven't played a whole lot of 3e and 4e so I don't know for certain if the big tent approach works for them.  I think it could with 3e (with the level of customization of PCs), with the exception of numbers bloat.  Some 3e fans really like that, and that's just not something 5e does.

I disagree with the OP about level of complexity, since AD&D also had non weapon proficiencies and class abilities.  IMO, having played a TON of AD&D and quite a bit of 5e, 5e is less complex than AD&D, and slightly more complex than B/X.

Re: OSR style adventures, I've played several in 5e with ease, and most importantly, the exact same playstyle I do in AD&D.  I've also created my megadungeon campaign which is to be used with 5e, but looks like it just came off the shelves in 1985 in regards to how it appears with other AD&D products.

I recently read through some of the old Grognardia bog and his perspective on the definition of OSR is useful, I think, and provides some insight into this question of 5E's relationship to that community (though he stopped posting 2 years ago, as far as I can tell!).

The key traits he talks about include problem solving as a primary activity at the table; a focus on winning/getting/finding things that enrich the character; pulp fantasy tropes; a high probability of death or other significant failure (so that completing an adventure is a hard goal rather than an assumption); freedom of player's to navigate and influence the game world; a sort of collaborative back and forth between players and DM to create the setting; a focus on adventure locations and 'staffing' rather than plots.

Nothing on this list has anything to do with differences in core mechanics between editions. With the possible exception that you can't do any of them if you are spending all your time figuring out what feats to use during your 3 hour combat.

They have more to do with how you define a setting, how you define an adventure, and just what 'jobs' the players and DM have. You could argue that these issues are the essence of what defines table top roleplaying as distinct from monopoly, stratego, chess, etc. But game books have trouble giving really clear instructions on these points; they are subjects where game authors tend to waffle or be vague, or provide loose, wandering guidance and examples. But your choices about these subjects really dictate the game you are playing. This is why someone with a ca. 1976 perspective on table top roleplaying games looks at the market ca. 2014 and sees things that call themselves D&D (or D&D like), but aren't. They have hit points and orcs and displacer beasts and clerics and so forth. But the setting isn't recognizable as a D&D setting. And the players aren't really playing. And the DM isn't really DM'ing. They are doing something they enjoy, and they demand the right to call it D&D (fine, call it what you want). But they are playing a different game.

You can use edition changes as time markers to measure this drift in the hobby over time, but the details of the rules of the editions themselves don't have much to do with it. The drift is more related to cultural shifts that arise from the feedbacks between computer games, CCG's, changes in taste in fantasy fiction and movies. All of which encourage a drift toward a game (let's say, D&D*) where DM and players are in some sense consumers of an entertainment 'unit' that has been put before them, and where adventures have an externally defined purpose that you should expect to reach (or, I would say, watch as your goal is served up to you). The dynamic is more like observing a movie or reading a book or navigating the hurdles of a computer game, where you are trying your hardest to take on the perspective of someone inside a story, but the story itself has already been written and ultimately you can only watch it unfold.

There is a lot of momentum to this drift and many factors at play. That's why I wonder whether 5E, as a big-company commercial product, can avoid getting pulled in this direction. If it does, the OSR crowd will gradually pull back away from it, as they did from late 3E, 4E and Pathfinder.

Quote from: languagegeek;788538For me, 5e is a friend because:
* it’s a game I’ll play
* it keeps the guys in the group who are interested in the “next best thing” happy.

That's tentatively where I'm at. 5e isn't my first, second or third choice... BUT it's a less repellant (than 3.5/4e/PF) choice that will let me Play (I've little interest in running it).
The fact that it's 'The New Hotness' is the only thing that even got it mentioned at our Pathfinder table... but I don't think it will see play till the guys see 3.5/PF levels of options they can tinker with. By that point it may not make any difference.
Meanwhile I haven't found anybody running a 5e Basic game.  

Quote from: Larsdangly;788571Nothing on this list has anything to do with differences in core mechanics between editions. With the possible exception that you can't do any of them if you are spending all your time figuring out what feats to use during your 3 hour combat.

Yeah, slow combats and convoluted PC creation/planning mess with that OSR style of play. Our PF GM generally has an OSR sandbox approach... but is wholly dependent on Hero Lab to run the game.

Here's the thing I just never get -

Any reason someone can give about how you can shove the square peg of 5e into the round hole of OSR was also true for both 3e (an edition I strongly disliked) as well as 4e (an edition I thought was interesting but limited in what I would use it for).

Any reason someone can give about how 3e and 4e were lousy for OSR-style games (which was the whole reason for the OSR to begin with) is also applicable to 5e.

I've read the PHB for 5e. I've played a session of 5e. It's not bad, but its certainly not OSR. 5e still feels like anime fantasy to me, not traditional D&D fantasy.

It may be toned down a bit from 4e, and have rules have been streamlined to avoid the drudgery of 3e, but the PCs in 5e still feel and play like PCs from 3e or 4e - loaded up with special skills, special powers, nearly everyone has magic, and there are no disadvantages or opportunities for instant death anywhere.

Quote from: jgants;788593Here's the thing I just never get -

Any reason someone can give about how you can shove the square peg of 5e into the round hole of OSR was also true for both 3e (an edition I strongly disliked) as well as 4e (an edition I thought was interesting but limited in what I would use it for).

Any reason someone can give about how 3e and 4e were lousy for OSR-style games (which was the whole reason for the OSR to begin with) is also applicable to 5e.

I've read the PHB for 5e. I've played a session of 5e. It's not bad, but its certainly not OSR. 5e still feels like anime fantasy to me, not traditional D&D fantasy.

It may be toned down a bit from 4e, and have rules have been streamlined to avoid the drudgery of 3e, but the PCs in 5e still feel and play like PCs from 3e or 4e - loaded up with special skills, special powers, nearly everyone has magic, and there are no disadvantages or opportunities for instant death anywhere.

I'm pretty much with you.

I like 5e well enough, but my taste was never restricted to OSR. I played 3e and 4e and didn't love them, but didn't "hate" them either, just filed them under "very different games sharing name and brand" somewhere inside my brain.

I feel 5e was an ouverture towards a rules-lighter D&D (which is not the same as "rules-light" since I feel both 3e and 4e were horribly bloated systems).

I also feel the OSR houses a considerable contingent of people who came for the rules-lightness but stayed for the playstyle. I certainly include myself here.

Some of these people will be very, very happy with 5e to the point of supplanting their TSR/OSR poisons of choice. I'm not one of them but I don't think they make up a particularly sizable fraction of the already niche OSR.

This is all vague speculation and BS but this is more or less how I see OSR/5e relations.