To me it comes down to a few key approaches in mentality and mechanics:
- Grounded vs. Fanciful
- Player action vs. Character action
- Creativity vs. More Skills
Grounded vs. Fanciful
The overall tone of 5e is probably one of my biggest ongoing problems with it. The closest comparison I can make is comparing Diablo II to Diablo III (action RPG computer games for those who don't know). Diablo II was released in 2000, and had the perfect blend of great art, action, and tonality that kept me hooked for years - playing at night with friends online through middle and early high-school. Diablo III by comparison, was released in 2013, and vast visual upgrades and gameplay changes did the game no favors. The new art style felt like a downgrade, and it changed the tone drastically. Diablo went from feeling like a fantasy-horror RPG splatterfest to a childrens' book version of the same thing.
 |
| Screenshot from Diablo II (2000) |
 |
| Screenshot from Diablo III (2012) |
Player Initiative vs. Character Initiative / Creativity vs. Many Skills
The other key differentiator for me, and probably the most important, is the difference in how the player/character dichotomy is handled between the OSR systems and 5e.
5e seems to be much more centered around the idea of inhabiting your character's stat sheet, scrolling through a long list of skills and proficiencies, and deciding what to do in a given situation. Success in 5e is highly dependent on choosing the "right skill" for a given situation, rolling well on your dice, and moving forward. Roleplaying is important, but only insofar as "thinking like your character". This is highly limiting, as characters without the right skill makeup for an encounter, or high enough stats that give the player license to say "well my PC would think of this solution because she's smart", are totally left behind.
OSR games take the opposite approach: how situations are handled is determined by what the player can think of, not the character. Skills and abilities are still important, but they often don't determine the success of the party on a dungeon delve or adventure. Success is frequently determined by decisions players make, how they work together as a team, or roleplay effectively. This means finding creative and novel workarounds, planning ahead, and generally engaging more critically with the game or setting. Success means more than properly decoding your skills and their applied bonuses for maximum effect.
Bang vs. Whimper
Combined, the above leads to one major difference - the reason why I DM so much more OSR play now rather than 5e play. OSR play is punchy, in-your-face, and impactful. 5e play is abstracted and after a Warlock's 8-millionth eldritch blast, boring. Every situation overcome, enemy slain, or kingdom toppled in an OSR game means something. You get the rush of knowing that you earned it. When your magic-user casts that crazy spell and wipes out the gang of bloodthirsty mercenaries about to pounce, the whole party goes insane. OSR games, and by extension OSR DMing, has a visceral and evocative feeling that 5e just can't match. I've found that it takes special players to help overcome this feeling of rote-ness.
OSR characters accomplish the mundane with a bang, 5e characters accomplish the fantastic with a whimper.
5e has some innovations i would import back to OSR like point buy and static hit point progression purely because it makes no sense for a seasoned warrior to only have a a maximum HP total of a single hit point. but it happens
ReplyDeleteHmm...I'd say I partially agree. Due to the fact that I personally prefer player agency to operating solely on character stats, I think it's easier in OSR games to have lopsided characters. In 5e, your stats determine so much more about how you play that point-buy makes sense to help "even out" groups, and to ensure nobody has useless stats. As for HP, I usually let players start with max HP at first level to avoid that scenario. That being said, at first level one hit can kill you regardless so I suppose it doesn't much matter. That's what a solid group of retainers are for.
Delete@Umbrie Shadowsong, My experience is that random hps (and random stats rather than point buys) are what makes characters unique in a game that has no "skills", "feats", etc.
ReplyDeleteAll the Elves in my Greyhame game have rolled 1 hp for first level, and as Elves take twice as long to level up, that's twice as miserable--and it means the Elves play the game differently from the fighters and clerics, by bunching up in the middle of the party with missile weapons while the others go ahead (and behind) with melee.
Alternatively, imagine two fighters level 1--one has max 8 hp and is confident he can survive in melee for a round or two alone, and buys armor and weapons accordingly; the other has 1 hp, and so spends his money on dogs and hirelings, and directs others to do the fighting for him.
For myself, I like the differentiation created by such randomness. But, of course, it's a matter of taste--there's not "right" way to play, just what each individual prefers.
I love that natural differentiation in play that randomness like that creates.
DeleteI have to disagree. First, I love the OSR, B/X in particular, and 5E. Skills are optional, Feats are optional. In my games, I adopted rolling 3d6 for Ability Scores and it's just as gritty as any OSR game. I think 5E is wonderful "Rosetta Stone" for DnD and I applaud that the designer intended that.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want Max HP at 1st level, don't hand it out. 5E is as explicit at empowering the DM as any OSR edition.