I recommend this video to look more into OSR philosophy regarding the rules: https://www.youtube.com/live/bCxZ3TivVUM?si=aZ-y2U_AVjn9a6Ua
5e has both too many rules and not enough rules.
It has very specific rules in some places. Item interactions, many spell specifics, grapple, holding your breath, etc.
It has very lackluster rules in other places. Social conflict, item and spell crafting, metagame stuff like making your own class or species.
I think a lot of people playing DND would be happier playing a different system. Just not the same system for everyone.
Exactly. It's sort of an uncomfortable middle ground, but also just kind of messy.
And I'm tired, as someone who DMed it a bunch, hearing people act like broken or missing rules aren't a problem, or somehow even a good thing, because the DM can just make something up. Yeah, not shit. I can do that in literally any game I run. It's just unpleasant to do in 5e, yet I have to do it all the damn time to keep the game running smoothly. I'd rather have a game that either supports me as a GM, or is easier to improvise.
I think it was a different thread where I posted about how a guy in my dnd group straight face told us something like "the beauty of DND is we can just try out different rules. If we want to do a chase scene we can try it one way, and if it doesn't work or we don't like it we can try something else".
I'm just like that's not a unique property of DND. That's just how playing make believe works. And I'd rather have a game that runs okay out of the box rather than keep playtesting as a DM, or deal with unchecked dm whims as a player.
That sounds familiar! Partly because I recall reading that, but also because it's a frustratingly common scenario.
D&D is, for a ton of people, synonymous with tabletop RPGs. Often that means people think the things they like about playing tabletop RPGs are unique to D&D, even they aren't.
What gets me are people who complain about Pathfinder 2e having more rules. You're just as free to ignore them, and no one has to read much less memorize all the rules. Besides, is anyone under the illusion that players are learning all the rules to 5e?
It also suffers from not using consistent language and keywords in the rulings.
The more recent rewrites are better but there would be way fewer discussions on "what exactly does this mean" if there were consistent keywords for things.
...also I am currently writing a pile of homebrew to try and run a spelljammer game because those books they released inspired me to run a Treasure Planet campaign but didn't give me nearly enough material.
If you got to look up rules and nobody cares or wants to, skip it. Its my advice. Use rules only if its necessary and soemwhat contributing to a fun experience.
This is universal.
This. Our entire campaign is home-brewed using the 5e ruleset, but the application of those rules is selective when it needs to be.
For the most part, we're following them, but if there's a rule that results in a level of attention to detail that we simply don't care to implement, or would have less fun trying to religiously adhere too, we just scrap it in favour of something a bit more light-touch and call it a house rule.
Rules provide a great framework to base your game on, but the ultimate aim is to create an enjoyable experience and have fun, so bend them and break them when and where you need to for the benefit of all involved.
One risk with this is when you have a new player join your group. They might expect raw and be surprised by a whole kettle of home brew.
I for one would be annoyed if I joined a group and found they were ignoring the rest rules. They may be having fun but I would have made different decisions if I'd known what they were actually playing.
Every change should be treated the same : you tell about them at character creation and you tell them during the game while allowing for their set of rules on the present session if you cannot think of them in advance. Homebrew, legal rules, anything should be the same. It's not during a game that you tell the multiclass druid cleric that the steroid goodberries dont work in your game, as he's trying to heal someone after a fight. This actually happened to me. Don't fucking nerf the core of a character's mechanics midgame.
This makes sense.
In my imagination there is a large set of players who "homebrew" stuff because they don't know or understand the rules, and a very large subset of those players are also disorganized. A sizable subset also just don't know what the fuck they're doing.
So they'll be like "oh we let the wizard attack and cast a spell on the same turn. Is that not the normal way?"
But for people who homebrew with intention and thought, yeah, what you said.
Yeah that's fair. For the most part we're sticking to 5e, and the consensus is always to check the rules first when we're unsure about something and to try and implement it as intended, so we're not losing any of what I'd consider to be core rules, like the way movement, actions and bonus actions work during combat, or spell slots and class-specific rules etc.
It's more of our approach to more niche elements, such as the food and water needs relevant to each creature's size as specified in the DM's Handbook - no one has the inclination to track our food supply and consumption to the pound per character, so we instead stock up on provisions to last X number of days, and track our usage by the day. It's just a bit quicker and easier to manage that way, and we can still implement the same effects in the event we run out of food.
5e isn't just needlessly complex, it is an unreferencable mess that has very poor general rules with lots of exceptions and poor standardization. The rules for traveling are so misplaced that most players don't know they exist, not that it's possible to find them when needed. And when there are general rules, they tend to be unfun. Stuff like crafting has no depth in 5e, it's just time + gold = item. It might "work", but it's just bookkeeping there is no hidden fun.
For fantasy, I prefer Hackmaster 5e, because it keeps the complexity and detail without dumping special case rules onto players. It's not perfect, but it's way more engaging and characters feel way more interesting. WFRP 4e is also nice, but not as deep (it does suffer from rules being scattered everywhere). I'll likely end up playing OSE ot some point.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but you can try games Powered by the Apocalypse!
Played in few one-shots, wish I could get into a longer game but I'm busy between running 5e, playing Vampire and trying to get second campaign in fate or BitD going.
I dunno. Every time I try to make a fighter. I have problems with the rules. Like, I wanna suplex an orc. What do I even roll?
I don't think that's in the rules. Like, at all. The unarmed fighting style allows you to deal damage to a creature grappled by you, the grappler feat allows you to pin a creature you grappled (which is just fucking useless since both of you become restrained), and you can make a shove attack to push a creature prone. But there's nothing in the basic rules about an unarmed attack that deals damage and knocks the target prone.
The alternatives for flavoring are:
- Battle Master fighter, trip attack. Technically it must be a weapon attack, but if you have the unarmed fighting style, a natural weapon, or are a monk multiclass, I'd be inclined to allow it.
- Open Hand monk, Open Hand technique. This is probably the best alternative that is 100% RAW.
Of course a more permissive DM (like me) could allow you to make a fairly hard athletics check once you have grappled the orc and have two free hands, then resolve it as a 2d6+STR bludgeoning damage attack.
That's actually really clean ways to handle it. I am impressed. Any chance you would have ideas about more basic wrestling moves? Choke hold? Arm bar?
I'm not a wrestler or a wrestling fan, so no clue for most of them. Bars and holds... well, I think the automatic damage to the grappled creature that is dealt with the unarmed fighting style is meant to symbolize damage dealt by various holds and bars, so that would apply here.
Airway chokes are extremely impractical in D&D; every creature can hold their breath for a number of minutes equal to their CON modifier with a minimum of 1, and that means 10 rounds. I wouldn't bother trying to simulate that, just deal the 1d4 damage and move on.
Blood choke... well, that's a different matter entirely. I would most definitely require the grappler feat and the unarmed fighting style for this. Say, you forgo the automatic damage to the grappled target and instead force the target to make a CON save, DC = 8 + your PB + your STR mod. If the target fails, it gains a level of temporary exhaustion (that lasts while you're choking it), if it fails by more than 5 then it gains 2 levels, and if it hits 6 levels it falls unconscious.
That is probbaly the way to do. It doesn't feel right to me. I think. Like, I can find you a video of a six year old choking a processional fighter unconscious in 6-12 seconds. The only strength involved would be getting into that position you know. The air choke thing kinda fits with what we observe in realmlife better than what I woudl ahve thought though. For stuff like arm bars or joint hold manuvers it is almost trivially easy to break someone's arm with a well placed move. Pro fighters often get injured in training when they are trying not to you know. Which would interfere with somatic components at least. The numbers you talked about make sense in terms of a low-level fighter and a peasant with 1d4 hp. But realistically an arch magus would be just as vulnerable to being triangle chocked by a farm boy as the other farmers he us used to wrestling with at festivals.
The problem with this is combat balance. I wouldn't want to give players an ability that can take out an archmage in 2 turns, no save, without any resources used.
It is unbalanced, but it is realistic. It is like those old tired discussions about a little kid with a gun vs a high-level warrior.
It's a game, not a simulator. I mean, how would I handle fireballs then? Would I roll for lung damage due to the targets breathing in hot air (enforcing realistic consequences), or would I just disallow the spell because magic is not realistic? Or if the enemy gets shot by an arrow, would I roll for organ damage?
And of course you have to account for the fun of all players. Would it be fun for the wrestler player to take out any humanoid in two turns? Probably. Possibly. Would it also be fun for the archer and the swordsman who still have to play by the normal game rules instead of the power fantasy of a "hurr durr wrestling is da ultimate martial art" player, and have to actually use their attacks to overcome the enemies' AC and whittle down their HP? Doubtful. What's the point of having them around if the wrestler can just choke everything because that's the part of combat that the DM suddenly starts simulating realistically?
Either enemies can survive a dozen arrows, being roasted alive in their armor for a minute, being stabbed with a rapier a lot, etc... and they can last long enough versus a wrestler that just choking them doesn't become the dominant strategy, or they can be choked out in a realistic timeframe but they can also be instakilled by an arrow or a sword.
If you only take one element of the game and turn it "realistically" OP while the rest remain fantasy, you're liable to fuck up the whole game for everybody else. Now there could be a merit in playing "dark and gritty, all damage is super lethal" games but then that's not really D&D anymore, something like Mörk Borg might be better for it.
I think there's a rules oversight on the choking side of things; while a creature can hold it's breath for a minimum of 30 seconds (if it has a negative con modifier, which hardly ever comes up), the next paragraph of that rule says: "When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 round)." (emphasis mine) So I'd say that there's a difference between holding your breath, and being actively strangled- the latter I'd probably rule as a second opposed athletics check during a grapple instead of dealing damage, which puts the creature down after Con Mod consecutive successes.
Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone's noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player's capabilities in place of the character's. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster's "power" or a character's actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the "pack it up" approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)
The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you're trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren't a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don't think we'll agree.
*The "Dorkness Rising" problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.
To be honest, I found 5e is so massively oversimplified it's boring. Maybe I didn't play enough to comb through books of niche rules or something.
I'm really looking forward to 'Project: Black Flag' aka 'Tales of the Valiant' aka 'CORE Ruleset', which a like-like to 5e (compatible in regard to power-scaling and adventures) that's in development right now. My community plans to switch to it as soon as it's out as they are cleaning up a lot of rules and pushing for a world-agnostic system that feels a lot better from both a player and a DM.
Hello! So I’m not trying to stir the pot or anything.
Have you looked at Shadowdark?
https://www.enworld.org/threads/plenty-of-time-to-die-a-shadowdark-review.697134/
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/413713
It was very highly anticipated, had a very successful Kickstarter, and he’s been very well reviewed.
The author has written several well reviewed fifth edition adventures.
Shorthand way to describe it I’ve seen is, modern rules, old school style.
I’m throwing this out there, because it has been described as an old-school variant of fifth edition.
It is so old school that you have to do three d6 down the line.
Also, there is a very interesting real Times Torch mechanic.
A lot of Osr games, put attention on things like scarcity and time this phone put a lot of attention on light.
I haven’t read it so I don’t know for sure but to me that sounds like possibly inspired by dark dungeons. Although I know that wasn’t the first game to have a very prominent darkness mechanic either.
Just wanted to throw this out here I never want anybody to change game systems. I just thought it might be interesting for people who hadn’t heard of it.
This is why I play Shadowdark. It’s amazing. All the best bits of 5e design, none of the cruft. Ruleslite is the way to go.
I'd say it's more of a 5e & PF problem, PF2e is much better about general rules that apply to most cases, with player abilities adding additional things on top.
But yeah, generally if you want to play 5e OSR is a better choice.
Me and OSR are a complete mismatch in execution. But we work in theory and design. Where we clash is where the meme is. Simple basic rules that are to be used in pretty much every situation. Where the GM is empowered to make those rulings. Where the GM is King.
I have tried running them and constantly kept asking myself "according to the rules what am I supposed to do?" as I want to run systems as they want to be ran. What is a failure? How does the outcome space look like? And when I get to play I feel I get to relinquish so much control to the GM that I feel almost powerless. The GMs rulings and fiat rules. Sure these are my experiences and I can love OSRs and their designs while not wanting to acctually play them.
Absolutely. When I read the way a round is handled in 5e my first impression was: How many movie and book heroes signature move do they want to cover with this jungle of rules? "Oh, I've seen X in movie Y doing Z! That was awesome, and I want my character doing that move in D&D, too!"
