As someone who's a pretty strong supporter of 4E and 3E to a lesser extent AND someone who really doesn't care for ANY version of TSR D&D, I'm coming to like 5E if I want a more "old-school" vibe. I'm not sure what that says about the system but if it can get myself and my friends to play along with people who like and enjoy OSR style games at the SAME table, then I think it's done it's job well.

Some might consider it an enemy because it doesn't throw back far enough to TSR era ways. And some might consider it's the BEST they'll get in this "new" age of gaming with modern ideas taken from MMOs and other Indy games and there's just enough old values in there to keep people hooked.

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)..

I don't think I agree with this.  5e allows you to play it with a basic version (no feats), which you can't really do with 3e, and you certainly can't make 4e work in OSR unless you radically change the fundamental mechanics of it.  I.e., you can play 5e in an OSR style without changing much, but you have to make sweeping changes to the core ruleset of 3e and 4e to make it work.  We have been playing 5e in the exact same style we do AD&D with, and last time I checked, AD&D is considered OSR.

There's really only two major things differently from AD&D to 5e:

1. Ascending AC and basic rolld20+mod mechanic
2. Saving throws and class skills (thief skills/non weapon prof) are all just essentially ability checks now, which is similar to ability checks we did in AD&D from a concept context.

It's the most palatable WotC D&D (or 3PP derivative) I've ever seen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;788606I don't think I agree with this.  5e allows you to play it with a basic version (no feats), which you can't really do with 3e, and you certainly can't make 4e work in OSR unless you radically change the fundamental mechanics of it.  I.e., you can play 5e in an OSR style without changing much, but you have to make sweeping changes to the core ruleset of 3e and 4e to make it work.  We have been playing 5e in the exact same style we do AD&D with, and last time I checked, AD&D is considered OSR.

There's really only two major things differently from AD&D to 5e:

1. Ascending AC and basic rolld20+mod mechanic
2. Saving throws and class skills (thief skills/non weapon prof) are all just essentially ability checks now, which is similar to ability checks we did in AD&D from a concept context.

I basically agree with this. The superficial look and tone of 5E is not completely in keeping with 'core' OSR games. But if you read it with an open mind it is surprisingly well put together, and the actual content is not significantly different from the content of 1E, BECMI, etc.

As for ascending AC, saving throw dice mechanics, etc. I consider all that stuff to be totally and completely beside the point. The way these things work in old versions of D&D are not essential to game play; they are just one of many ways in which the dice rolling mechanics could have been done, and the end results of pretty much all approaches that have been tried are closely similar.

The important thing is what you are supposed to do to fill time as a player and DM when you sit down. Are you waiting for or reading instructions and then more or less following what they say, or are you staring at a nearly blank canvas trying to think of your next move to turn it into a picture?

No, 5e isn't all that incredibly different from the OSR games... but it's different enough. Enough that I look at it and the tweaks I'd want to make to Basic alone that I think, "Why bother?" I've got OSR games I like already and see no advantage to running 5e.
It's only real use for me is if it creates this promised land of willing Players and GMs for a style of play somewhere closer to OSR than Pathfinder has been. Ideally running Basic... but I don't see that happening.

Friend, with benefits!😄

It's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.  

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

It's a bridge, an umbrella, the edition that all the warriors can stomach, maybe.

However, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788625It's still superheroic as written.

You can die pretty damn fast in it if you're not careful. Hell, high level characters have fewer spells than before.

QuoteIt's still includes anime influence.

Has anyone ever sufficiently explained what this means?

Or, for that matter, why taking inspiration from a medium just as diverse as the pulp novels and comic books TSRD&D took inspiration from has any bearing on anything?

QuoteIt's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.

Do I even need to tally how many pages AD&D devotes to spells, magic items, and monsters that do a unique thing?

QuoteIt's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

Great, what are they and why are they fundamentally incompatible?

QuoteHowever, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

*raises hand*

Quote from: CRKrueger;788625It's closer to OSR probably, then any WotC version of D&D but only in a horseshoes and hand-grenades sense.  

It's still superheroic as written.
It's still includes anime influence.
It's still Magic:The RPG in that it's powers-based exception rules design.
It's still based on core design elements of 3e and 4e, just not taken to idiotic extremes.

It's a bridge, an umbrella, the edition that all the warriors can stomach, maybe.

However, in being the second game for everyone, I don't really see it replacing an OSR game, 3e or 4e in anyone's lineup unless they were fed up with the old game and were looking for a replacement anyway.

Totally agree. I want to run it because it's new and looks easy. That's pretty much it. If I wanted to start a really in-depth campaign with lots of time and energy I'll just continue to play 4E with my buddies as I feel that tends towards our RPG needs. Maybe 3E if there's an adventure that I really wanna run (like Return to Castle Ravenloft with d20 Modern mixed in) or my friend's idea to run d20 Modern with Call of Cthulhu and the mountains of madness.

I think for beginners and those who don't want a WHOLE lot of options thrown at them at once (something 4E is definitely known for) then 5E is a good option at that point. Once you get the basics AND the notion that you can try anything, THEN you can give them codified powers and see them go nuts. At least, that's been my experience with the playtest so far.

I think neo-clone is more appropriate to 5e than retro-clone.

I think the accusation of exception based design is spot on.

I have to hack 5E to get it to work, but I have to hack everything.

It is as close to what I want as AD&D, LOTFP or Castles & Crusades, maybe closer since I don't have to change the mechanics, just add and subtract content (don't like this feat, do want this spell, etc).

Since I worked on it, I guess that's not so surprising.

In play, the hack I did seamlessly replaced what I was doing already. So, yeah, 5e rocks.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788610I basically agree with this. The superficial look and tone of 5E is not completely in keeping with 'core' OSR games. But if you read it with an open mind it is surprisingly well put together, and the actual content is not significantly different from the content of 1E, BECMI, etc.

I definitely agree here.

I'm in a kind of weird position when it comes to the OSR because although I've written a couple of retro-clones that other people have referred to as being part of the OSR, I don't consider myself part of that movement.

To use Armchair Gamer's excellent categorisation, most of the OSR prefers to play Knaves & Kobolds (and can often get quite One-True-Way about it) whereas my favoured play style is Galactic Dragons and Godwars.

Consequently, although I prefer the older TSR editions to the WotC ones (until recently my favourite edition was BECMI), I don't feel that the OSR represents me and my taste in games.

Having said that, I'm currently loving 5e. I'm DMing two campaigns currently - one using a series of BECMI adventures in Mystara and the other using a series of AD&D adventures in Greyhawk - and I'm finding that although the presentation is very "new school", the feel of the game is close to classic BECMI.

In fact at the moment, 5e has overtaken even my own Dark Dungeons as my favourite edition!

Off topic slightly here but wtf is anime influence in this context? kinda seems like a pisspoor excuse for "not the d&d i wanna see" considering most anime style fantasy these days is based on mmorpg's or light novels more than d&d and thus anime influence is a pointless gripe to make(though im guessing most the people using the term haven't actually seen any anime since slayers or lodoss war so its no surprise).

I would love to see some of the rules tweaks folks feel they need to make before its playable though so maybe we should start a thread about that(unless there is one in which case i should go find it and stop asking silly crap here).

Quote from: Zak S;788652I have to hack 5E to get it to work, but I have to hack everything.

It is as close to what I want as AD&D, LOTFP or Castles & Crusades, maybe closer since I don't have to change the mechanics, just add and subtract content (don't like this feat, do want this spell, etc).

The ability to turn things on or off, to switch in and out is what appealed to me about 5e from the get go.

I have always liked skill systems, so turn on, I hated multiclassing, turn off. I am cool with feats but could easily turn them off. I like that saving rolls and skills are all blurred.

I like society linked to powers so customised spell lists and linking feats to social organisations: tick. I like a bit more fear of death in games so I'll keep an eye on the hit point recovery thing.

But I can see how a GM can simply go down the character sheet and untick, untick, untick, untick and you get a very lean game like OSR, and a very deadly one if you untick the hit points all come back.

Of course you need to be careful since you'll see a lot more TPKs, but hey, isn't that what some of us are happy to have to give the game some edge?

In fact, I am surprised that someone hasn't done a 'very lean 5e character sheet', it would probably fit on a 5x3" card.

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

jgants nails it.

D&D5e is anime.