Quote from: CRKrueger;788785BTW, for whoever, I understand that...
"5e is not OSR"
...might be turned into...
"5e is a shit-stained piece of crap game not worthy of play and anyone who does deserves death."
...but that's your problem not mine.

I hope you don't mean that I took what you said to mean that. No lots of people have things they want changed in Next, at least from the official "default" standpoint. I've been on the other side (with 4E) and I look at criticisms with as much merit as I can. In this case, you've presented yourself well, if a bit short on the reasoning.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I don't have a problem with powers-based exception design, I like the Battlemaster for example with all his melee powers...but I admit it's not very OSR.

With the exclusion of the Battle master (a sub-path intended to bridge the gap to 3E and 4E players), is there anything else that jumps out at you as exception based? Something that I felt they did a great job with was Two-Weapon Fighting. In v3.5 it was practically abysmal to use it if you didn't have the prerequisite feats and in 4E, well you can nearly forget about it if you didn't have a power that allowed two-attacks in the same turn (however one could illustrate this via multi-attack powers and the rules didn't negate the use of Two-Weapons, just didn't delve into the intricacies of how most people view it).

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I don't have a problem with a Monk in a magical fantasy world having elemental powers, but I admit the influence comes from Anime. (My beef with the Monk is that I think that the 5 Taoist elements would have been a cooler variant and no matter what the influence "Pay 2 Chi and cast Burning Hands" is boring as fuck no matter what the power is called, it's painfully uninspired.)

An interesting viewpoint. But I'll agree that it does seem to me very anime-based.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785I freely admit that quick rests and "singing for hit point" mechanics make perfect sense given the overly abstract nature of hit points - but it isn't very OSR.

True, yet I have a feeling this will be addressed in the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788785Classifying something isn't making a value judgment.  I'm not someone who exactly hides my opinions about gaming, there's no need to throw your inferred baggage into my arguments.  Ask me what I hate about 5e, I'll tell you, no need to make yourself look like a jackass through a poor Karnak impersonation.

If the above doesn't apply to you, don't take false offense, if it does, well go fuck yourself.

Thanks for your insight. I find that the more I see someone else's perspective about a topic the more easier it is to have a discussion about it.

I think Next so far is that gap that can bridge two distinctly different playstyles. I, for one, don't like older versions and if someone invited me to play pre-WotC D&D I'd respectfully decline. However if the same group wanted to play 5E with houserules and caveats (like alignment requirements, different XP charts, racial restrictions, no feats, etc.) I'd be more willing to play along with that group because I feel the overall mechanics are still there and can keep me engaged.

Quote from: Batman;788862An interesting viewpoint. But I'll agree that it does seem to me very anime-based.

That's interesting.

I've never watched any anime - unless "Spirited Away" counts - and the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the elemental monk was "that's Streetfighter/Mortal Kombat", and when describing the classes to my players (none of whom watch amine either) I described the class as a martial artist who can do things like Shoryukin and Haduoken moves (and I've no idea whether I've spelled either of those right).

The point I'm making is that I really have no idea whether elements of 5e are inspired by anime or not - and it doesn't matter.

After all, the "traditional" D&D cleric class was inspired by Van Helsing. The "traditional" magic-user class was inspired by the books of Jack Vance and many of their spells were inspired by a terrible Vincent Price film. The "traditional" monk class was inspired by the disco song "Kung Fu Fighting".

All of the above have been adapted from their source material to better fit a pseudo-medieval and slightly Tolkeinesque setting.

So who cares where the inspiration for particular game elements comes from, or whether people even know what that inspiration was. All that matters is whether or not the game elements are any good.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836And to another group, anything besides blistering contempt for games published after 1993 means you fail to demonstrate proper orthodoxy and should be beheaded.

1993? This proves you are unbeliever! 1983 is cutoff date for true games of the people!

OSR Taliban will hunt you down. Death to false prophets.

Quote from: EOTB;788804As for the OSR frenemy angle, things kind of morphed over the years from playing the actual games, to playing a certain style with the actual game played as of lesser importance.  So I think it is inevitable that 5E becomes the game of choice (or at least frequent use) for lots of people who fall into the second group.

While not entirely germane to the topic at large, I feel I need to pick at this. You seem to postulate that the "OSR", whatever it is, was FIRST about playing the actual old games via strict retroclones, and then LATER evolved into games which are not clones but rather properly new products with old-school sensibilities.

Lots of self-professed OSR fans seem to perpetuate that notion, but it just ain't true. The first strict retroclone was OSRIC, and it was preceded by both Encounter Critical and Mazes & Minotaurs, both of which fall firmly in the "not a clone, but with old-school sensibilities" category, and any definition of "the OSR" that excludes them would be an asinine one. The strict retroclone idea did not start the OSR, it was just one of two completely parallel motions.

Funny thing is, the Pundit has just wrote a blog post about this the other day.

Castles and Crusades was published in 2004, or two years before OSRIC, and has to be counted as part of this family of publications (whether you consider it a clone or inspired-by)

Quote from: Spinachcat;7888385e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

5e is what is it is. Like 3e and 4e, if you like a particular edition, enjoy it for what it actually does for you without some bullshit pretending that your edition is somehow inclusive of the playstyles of the others.

But hey, 5e is the new shiny and it will make waves for a year. When its obvious the lack of marketing hasn't expanded the hobby and instead its just another edition cannibalizing the dwindling fanbase, the knives will come out and blame the edition...instead of blaming the lack of marketing.

screeching?  Where have I been screeching in this thread?  I don't even think marleycat has even posted.  You're gonna have to do much better than that.  Your haterade is showing so hard it's almost laughable.  Heck, I never even claimed 5e = OSR.  I said you can play it that way.  Which you can because myself and many others play 5e exactly like we played the game back in 1981.  Oh, I suppose we weren't playing the "one true OSR way" in the early 80s ...rolleyes

Quote from: Spinachcat;7888385e =/= OSR and all the screeching and whining by Sacrosanct and Marleycat isn't going to change the basic issue that 5e is built on core assumptions antithetical to OSR games (ie, healing, death, spell resources, etc).

The core assumptions of 5e include that many of what would otherwise be core assumptions should be adjustable options. If some of the suggested adjustments correspond to the assumptions of the OSR re: those things, then it is OSR.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;788879screeching?  Where have I been screeching in this thread?  I don't even think marleycat has even posted.  You're gonna have to do much better than that.  Your haterade is showing so hard it's almost laughable.  Heck, I never even claimed 5e = OSR.  I said you can play it that way.  Which you can because myself and many others play 5e exactly like we played the game back in 1981.  Oh, I suppose we weren't playing the "one true OSR way" in the early 80s ...rolleyes

I suspect a lot of the dissonance can be laid on people meaning different things when they say "playstyle".  The playstyle examples Spinich lists do not even hit my radar as things affecting my own playstyle.  While at they same time, such things are obviously crucial as to affecting Spinich's playstyle.

I haven't played 5E yet but reading the PHB it honestly looks like it has a little bit of everything in it. Parts of the game remind me of 2E and older editions, parts resemble 3E and 4E. I think they were doing what they said and trying to get everyone, so that means it isn't going to be purely old or new school. I could definitely play 5E. But there are a couple of bits I don't care for.

Quote from: Haffrung;788836Serious question: How big of portion of WotC's market are people who don't have homes? And how wise of a business decision is it to rely on such people for your revenue?

Serious answers.

Don't know. Don't care.

But if the first question is what WotC is basing their business decisions on, they are already screwing up. Because WotC should not care if their customers have homes, they should care whether or not their customers have money and the desire to buy their products.

Quote from: Old One Eye;788887I suspect a lot of the dissonance can be laid on people meaning different things when they say "playstyle".  The playstyle examples Spinich lists do not even hit my radar as things affecting my own playstyle.  While at they same time, such things are obviously crucial as to affecting Spinich's playstyle.

That's another really good point I hadn't thought of!

Quote from: LibraryLass;788893That's another really good point I hadn't thought of!

Despite the ubiquity of "playstyle" references, I have yet to see the community have a comprehensive discussion as to what it really means.

A real old school is the one in which the dungeonmaster sets the rules for the campaign. Don't like the standard hp recovery rules? Replace them with what works for you. Don't want a given ability or character type in your game? Don't allow it.

You're the master of the rules, not a slave to splatbook publishers.

The "OSR" initially was a renaissance in publication of scenarios and other materials for use with the out of print TSR editions of D&D.

With apologies to the Grognardia guy, I think that's the heart of the matter. Trying to turn it into some kind of global ideology contributes little except fulminating tiresome "enemies" blather.

How useful are 5e materials to someone using the old rules, or old-rules/retroclone materials to someone running 5e? That, I think, is the question in relation to the OSR.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788816"If you don't like it, change it." can be applied to Toon to turn it into Phoenix Command or vice versa.  It can smooth out the Anal Circumference Tables of F.A.T.A.L (so to speak).  If allowed as a valid answer to any criticism about a mechanic or a game, then any criticism or commentary of any game becomes meaningless.

"If you don't like it, change it." Is absolutely vital GMing advice, especially when coupled with advice as to how.  In regards to theory and playstyles, it's just useless obfuscation as any game can fit any playstyle if you're willing to hack it, it's just a question of how much.

How much is indeed the question. Moreover, the "old school" in question is a TSR-D&D school; adaptation to/from T&T, C&S, RQ, RM, Legendary Lives, or whatever else, is not the test.

Some things are in my experience non-issues. We could use D&D scenarios with Arduin rules (or vice versa, although the published Arduin dungeons were pretty lackluster) regardless of whether the latter included the hit point rules from Runes of Doom.

However, I'm coming from a very old-fashioned, pre-AD&D concept of what the game is. Nowadays, a lot of people - perhaps a majority even of self-described "old school" players - regard D&D as a set of actual fixed rules, like Contract Bridge or something. "Official" defaults are a big deal to them even when to me they can be ignored easily.