The great part of the old school games is characters really had a lot more options. Not everything was tied to a specific mechanic. This really gives you a lot more freedom.
This is exactly right, you don't look at your sheet to see "what you can do" you just tell the dm what you want to do and how you plan to try it. BAM instant legend status.
That kind of freedom is nice, but it comes at the cost of requiring the DM to spend time and thought to decide how implement your decision on the fly. Some things are intuitive, while others create arguments and inconsistencies. How much damage does dropping a chandelier on a monster do? How hard is it to fire two arrows at two targets simultaneously? How much time or gold should it cost your character to learn skills and spells unrelated to their class? You will always need to make rulings, and set rules are just rulings made in advance to save headache.
Once you put the ruler away, and the magic system turns the session from more-mechanical to more story-based, then you're moving from traditional wargaming to fantasy role-playing. That's how it was. Then, over the decades, people became as obsessed with game mechanics as an ASL playing trying to move a platoon across a road in front of a machine-gun nest. Now, there's a return to the story-generating style of play, where the players actually interact in a non-video-game manner. I like that.
I think the rise of console and computer games like Baulder's Gate, Diablo, WOW, Neverwinter Nights, ect helped change the mindset to more tactical and less storytelling and RP. The emphesis became more on dealing damage.
I don't share that sentiment: Osr fans often praise meatgrinder style gameplay, which runs contrary to making a deep character - if your character will likely be there for only a few sessions, why bother seeing them as more than a set of stats till they manage to level up past more common "rocks fall. Everyone dies" I read that Gygax made characters start at level 3 to combat that. Plus, i also read that many game masters fudged stuff like random encounters to keep the absolute unfair stuff away. Although, you could also somewhat combat that with henchmen. Newer ttrpgs usually make sure that surviving isn't too hard, as long-lived characters incentivize getting invested in them and deepening your roleplay of them. As for combat: it's more of a preference. In 5e, dms often allow rule of cool stuff, but the system also has more crunch to add extra options. Osr's combat isn't terrible, considering that pretty much any dnd edition other than 4e went the route of "casters have a ton of cool moves, while martials have a small or very small selection of tools they can use" That being said, people like it when you can play a martial and have a bunch of special moves. It's why many people like battle master fighter subclass. It's why people often applaud 4e's design of martial classes and why people who hate playing martials in dnd, like playing martials in pathfinder 2e. Some extra crunchiness. More mechanical options. After all, it seems like even in the old days people sometimes didn't use hirelings and often played in a more heroic tone. DnD overall can be classified as a fightgame - usually, combat is the main attraction, even if your can sometimes avoid it and such through smart role play. There are more narrative focused games like Blades in the Dark or FATE for those who like more roleplay. Overall, i think it's wrong to call modern editions wargames. They are still roleplaying games. Nowadays, there are ttrpgs both more and less mechanics focused than dnd (pathfinder 2e vs FATE for example) Also, some ttrpgs decide to go assymetrical - say, Blades in the Dark. In such ttrpgs, game master (almost) never rolls. This discourages antagonistic game masters and frees up game master's attention. Overall, i think it might be a better system for a dnd-style ttrpg, so i wonder if that whole "game master rolls for opposite side" is actually a wargame origin bleeding into dnd and into other ttrpgs. Like, i guess that such stuff works best when i try to imagine a ttrpg which is somewhat mixed with a wargame. That being said, the "game master rolls" approach is more fun to play, while "game master almost never rolls. A monster attacks? Player rolls to defend against monster's set accuracy" kinda hammers in "game master is a narrator" All in all, i might try doing OSR, but i imagine that i will definitely bonk those random tables out of their madness (those are good for sandbox style, provided you put some brakes on them sometimes) and i would use the "everyone starts with 5000 EXP" rule if i run a game of it. Of course, martial gameplay in osr is kinda like 5e's base martial gameplay - bit boring for my tastes, but not terrible. I imagine that such combat might be nice if you have a more wargame style of system in which a player character can easily end up being the head of a mercenary group. War games like Age of Fantasy are very simple, but they are fun due to the whole tactical thing... I do say that chiptune dungeon synth inspired by osr is very cool to listen to (Kobold albums and such) So eh, i might try to run osr, but i imagine i would still make it somewhat heroic. After all, people even in the past often played dnd for that "be a group of heroes slaying the evil dragon" type of a story. Out of all osr systems, my eyes are drawn to Basic Fantasy rpg. Idk what edition it emulates. Seems like a mix of a few editions, but maybe it goes along the lines of some i don't know details of. 20 levels, yet only a max of 6th level spellslots. Separate ancestry and class As for osr vibe systems, Cairn (very rules like dnd like thing) or Primal Quest (rules light fantasy stone age thing) are nice. There's also Runequest in which you supposedly play as a hero, potentially becoming more like Hercules?
@@Alex-cq1zr - "Osr fans often praise meatgrinder style gameplay, which runs contrary to making a deep character - if your character will likely be there for only a few sessions, why bother seeing them as more than a set of stats till they manage to level up past more common "rocks fall. Everyone dies" I read that Gygax made characters start at level 3 to combat that. Plus, i also read that many game masters fudged stuff like random encounters to keep the absolute unfair stuff away." Of course DM's would 'fudge' random encounters or dice rolls, the game is supposed to be about fun and its not much fun having your characters die on a regular basis doesn't lead to much of that fun stuff. You (or at least I) were always most worried about your character when they were first or second level and only had a handful of hit points, going up a level really means something at low level. Even kitting out your characters at the start, making sure you had enough of the gear you thought you would need, it was team building, when you're several levels higher and have magic that does all this its almost a different game. As long as everyone is enjoying themselves then it doesn't matter if rules get bent or the DM has their own take on things.
And don't forget that the DM is free to award the XP for defeating the Owlbear even if they don't kill it. Heck, if the PC's solution is creative enough, some bonus XP might be in order.
I loved having henchmen and hirelings. We played AD&D for decades. Didn’t even convert to 2e because we just adapted some of it to our game. Fast forward a decade and now we were coaxed into 5e. I am working towards converting us back. It will take time. But I am absolutely am returning to that style I have always loved.
People forget the focus is roleplaying. I give extra XP to players who have good ideas and plans. Our last session was almost all conversation, because the leader of the group rode them up to the wizard's keep and then decided he needed more information. Had some great roleplaying opportunities as teenagers tried to elicit info from guards without raising suspicion. They certainly didn't get all the info available but enough to proceed. They loved it.
@@Joethelawyer I always encouraged players to roleplay with extra XP. Same with cunning plans etc. I had to allow a bit of 'group think' to allow the clever character come out with the plan the clever player came up with some times but it sort of worked. It also allows you to give less treasure at lower levels but still let the characters go up in level, keeping them hungry for that big haul of loot. Thanks for doing the vid mate, I'll have a look at your other stuff, I'm a long time lapsed player/DM who's looking to get back into it.
I love the passion with which you presented this video. I love the fact that it is just a dude talking to other dudes about role playing games, and doesn't sound scripted or overproduced.
I agree. Running a solo game is a great way to introduce new players to the game. I started a home brew campaign about three years ago using this method and it’s still going strong. None of the six players had any prior rpg experience. Four players were actually couples irl so I ran them together. Each solo session ended with the characters arriving in the same town and tavern, setting up the first full session.
Just DM'd a group through S2 White Plume Mountain. Randomly rolled some PCs and started at the dungeon door. At one point the PCs must Save Vs Charm. One PC makes the save and one doesn't. The one that saves, asks if his PC can grab the one that failed the save. Now in 5e I'd be thinking about Grapple Checks and DC's. But I asked the PCs STR and asked his to roll a D20. In my head I said - if he rolls a 1 or a 2 the Charmed PC is gonna drag him into the water. 3 to 8 and he can't stop the charmed PC. If he rolls a 20 however, I'll say he slapped the failed PC around the head and give them another save against the Charm. The roll was a 12 and the PC was saved from jumping into the water and drowning. 2d10 drowning damage as the Charm includes you thinking you can breathe underwater. That's serious damage in AD&D 1e. Anyways, the difference in mind-set for me as a DM, moving from 5e to 1e is this - It's a game where your rulings as a DM are the key; not your grasp of the rules. Rulings, not rules. Much fun was had. So much so that the lads want another dungeon throwdown. Maybe S3?
Just turned 52, NEVER played 5e D&D but have been watching lots of 5e play videos and boy what totally different mindset. The end goals are totally different. I feel sorry for DMs in 5e trying to satisfy today's players. Lots of people EXPECTING full bore entertainment.
Yeah. I like 5E. But me and my bros about your age still play OSE. And it’s not because we disliked 5E as much as it was that everyone gets an 18. And everyone makes it too high levels providing the DM wants it. We wanted to play a game where if you broke 10th level it was like wow. If you rolled a 16 you were pleased
Thanks for sharing your perspective Joe! As a DM who discovered DND in its 5th edition and have recently been exploring OSR games, I really enjoyed listening to your perspective. Keep up the good work and happy turkey day!
Pay rolling an army is expensive. A squad of hirelings plus a henchmen for a sergeant. If you manage a few squads, then have one henchmen as a lieutenant. This gives a way for your DM to communicate the condition of soldiers. If your heading into a dungeon a squad can be placed near the entrance. Another can stand guard in a key location inside to give early warning. Its easier to drag out large heavy objects. When you exit the dungeon. Your paying them for a peaceful night's rest in the wilderness.
I use reaction rolls for social encounters sometimes. Basically, 12+ is yes and more, 9-11 is you get what you want, 6-8 is a negotiate, 3-5 is no, 2- is no and potentially hostile. Works really well when I want to roll. Otherwise, the RP is sufficient.
I generally just roll a d20 and high is good and low is bad and in between is shades of good or bad. And I make something up based on that. Gut call really
well said here. the way i see old school dnd was like this: 1. the world is open: you literally were encouraged to go and do what you wanted across a massive hexgrid, created by the DM, full of towns, cities, dungeons, and months of open wilderness. its all about exploration and discovery. 2. the world is ancient, weird, and breathtaking: its all about the sights. the players should always be stumbling across something that is dangerous, mysterios, beautiful, etc.. not everything needs explanation. 3. the adventures are loot focused: you dont really have the intricate skill trees that exist in modern RPGs, so alot of your "power ups" come from loot, mainly in the form of enchanted items, weapons, and armor. 4. you get to become a ruler: each class has built in mechanics for building a permanent base of operations that will attract soldiers and workers to help protect and maintain it, once they reach a certain level. while you are out adventuring, your base will have expenses, but will more than likely generate a little income and bonus items as profit, and will serve as a place to hold more treasure after you get through clearing a big dungeon.
Excellent summary of the key differences between modern and OSR-style play. Some perspective on the characters lot in life is usually helpful. Nasty, brutish and short. Unless, if they strive...they might just one day overcome all odds, rise above the challenges that have beset them, and become the hero they were always meant to be. Maybe. Another great vid.
This was excellent! Loved the example of ripping off the owlbear’s lair than fighting it. In fact, the old Monster Manual you flashed actually gives a clue about how you can avoid a fight with it - by tricking it into falling off a cliff in its brute, mindless rage! And, your advice should prove useful given all that has happened recently! 😅
I just found your video. Pretty good. Best way to pull those in from their medieval fantasy super heroes game (That is what I call the so-called 5th edition. Makes no sense for every class to gain super powers), is to change the THAC0 system to the 3rd edition combat system. It is basically analogus to do so. That is a way to draw them in. Max out the story telling and get people to role play rather than roll play.
Great video, love the old-school art. OSR art isn't quite the same. And I agree, how we played as kids wasn't the ideal, it's just romanticized in your memory because you were a kid and it was exciting and new.
Extremely helpful. This might make a good session zero to prep the table for what to expect. Even then, I know some 5e players that won't play old school because their character might die . . . I love that you point out the versatility of thieves. I've run adventures where everyone in the party was a thief and both the players and I absolutely loved it. Gotta be VERY careful around combat and if magic is needed, you might need to spend those hard-earned GP for a scroll or the help of a mage, which makes for some cool social roleplaying.
Also I think thieves are really underestimated if people only focus on their work n combat abilities or in the dungeon. They have a way of life that lends itself to lots of roleplaying opportunities that they can create themselves if they like
Great video, great art work. I currently play basic/OSE. I will never personally run 5e or D&D One. I am staying with Old school/home brew. Hirelings and henchmen, morale, ROLE PLAY (a must), XP for gold, hex maps, graph paper, and lots of exploration.
Sometimes I'll plant a magic item that more or less grants a class and level to a PC that I talked out of multiclassing. Most of the time it'll scratch that itch and provide some of what the party lacks.
@@Joethelawyer well if the player say gains 3 or 4 levels, the limited abilities granted by an item are going to be lacking. So I'll generally let slip a rumor about a "kindred" or "companion" item ("Oh, so you weren't aware that the helm of frost was made from the same Ivory as the rime cloak? Well it was so and it is at the home of the sea drake...) that basically has the effect of granting some intermediate powers associated with their "stub class". I think of the hammer of thunderbolts needing other items to make it work as a "composite item". So you get to add some story, world stuff and progression into the mix. You can also offer up a mentor or tutor type who might teach some sort of "esoteric mastery" in using this macguffin (or "power focus" as it'd be called in Champions) so that a psalter that allows a fighter to do limited cleric stuff like a couple healing spells, might learn to turn undead. Generally speaking, after so much of this you wanna find a multiplier for xps and the stub class needs this to progress. Overall I used to judge by the metrics of how the player spoke to others new to, or outside the game about their character. "Well I wanted a multiclass but the DM said to hold off and my guy has a set of vambrace that allows him to blah blah blah.. it's great because when we went to..." Idk, it's no silver bullet but I've seen it work out.
Thanks for the video. I recently switched my group from pathfinder 2e to playing Dragonslayer by Greg Gillespie. We are playing B10 A Nights Dark Terror and it has been awsome ! Roll 20's and keep on swinging.
Advice to thieves, in second Ed my first character was a half elf fighter mage thief, everyone said I would never level up. But as a thief you get 1xp per 2 gp in value you steal. If I saw anything not nailed down I made sure to steal it. I would steal loot from chests while the group was fighting, I robbed a coach full of chests of raw silver ingots comming into town from a nearby silver mine. I stole scrolls and potions from every mage in town. About 6 months into the game I was higher level than all the single clan characters.
9:20 Doesn't really work that way in my experience in first and second. The way the XP tables are set you can be a double or triple class demi human and assuming you get the same XP as the single class characters each adventure you should rarely be more than one or two levels behind everyone else. Because of the way the XP needed for each subsequent level increases. You'll only be a little behind everyone else and get a lot more options for what you can do in any situation in exchange for that. Back in the day I found it a good choice for anyone who wanted a mage but didn't want to get through a dozen new characters before they got past first level because they died every time a 0'level monster sneezed on them 🙂 the real cost was the hard limit on the maximum levels.
@@Joethelawyer I finally did last week! It was very exciting. Two Level 1 players entered the lair of a Level 3 Bugbear. One player lost half their health in a single hit to the head, but they found a creative way to kill the beast. This is the beginning of my merciless arc!
For someone like me, who entered rpgs by running Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, D&D XP system was always weird. In WFRP adventures you have specified for what part of adventure characters can earn some experience. For example a character that found plan of kindnaping a merchant gets 10XP - lucky roll for searching that allows the party to prevent the kidnapping. If they will prevent it, all of them (or only those who took part in it) get 30XP. For getting at the place before it happened they can get additional 10XP (which means they will get 10 XP even if merchant will become a hostage). For tracking kindappers additional 30XP. If they attack kidnappers at day and recapture merchant 50XP in case of fight. 70XP if done by stealth. If they'll recapture him at night 100XP + 20XP for stealth without killing. This way you don't have to fight, nor get any gold. It's purely wisdom, luck and objective based system.
My first encounter in OSR was the GM luring into traps like signs that explode when you read it. when we complained, he said we just wanted things to be easy. he's unemployed and collects disability.
@@Joethelawyer I believe you, but these dent-heads do get around despite being immobile. now I just have more fun reading about the settings and looking at the hexmaps.
The car anagram is kinda funny, if only because my grandfather taught me to drive and he was a nascar dirt track driver back in the 60's and 70's all along the east coast. And he had me learn to drive on an automatic ( all we had ) but he still had my left foot on the brake. But it was mostly gas, gas, and mire gas but this time try and slide it.
Your description on how to play is spot on. Couple things I would vary from is your friends concept that a backstory is part of immersion. I say no. It’s the motivation but it is not the immersion. I told my players you gotta keep your backstory to less than a paragraph if you’re doing one. Because you are basically a dirt farmer who just doesn’t want to be a dirt farmer anymore. I once had a player try to tell me that their character is a long lost ancestor to a fairy god and that they had all these magical items. I told him no and I kicked him out of the game after I realize they were just basically powermongering. The other thing I would say is with hirelings I never let the players play them but I do let the players give them directions. I’m the type who would make the hireling questionable or the player has to figure out how to gain a lot of trust about. Emphasis on encumbrance Helps this.
10:14 Weirdly enough, the 2e Bard is my favorite interpretation of what that class is trying to be (as in a Jack-of-all-trades, someone that can support other character roles at what they do or fill in for them in a pinch.) and no edition prior or after captured that feel for me. Keep in mind I'm basically a baby (at 30 YO) compared to most folks in the OSR scene so my practical experience with the TSR-era games are minimal at best. I'm mostly just curious as to what puts you off from them? Is it the mechanics or flavor? Sorry if you've answered this elsewhere. I just recently found the channel.
No problem man. Thanks for taking the time to comment! It’s more the flavor that annoys me. And how much the whole Harper’s crap from the forgotten realms infected the class with dumbness
Gonna disagree on old school multi classing. I live it. It is the most balanced version i have seen. The level dips that people take now are awful. It either sinks the character or makes them superpowered. Splitting the xp with the way progression worked put you a level ir two down but gave you more abilities. And with everyone leveling at different times and you could play with newer characters or more experienced ones, you were just thankful for every power your allies had, not jealous if someone happened to be a higher level.
You're so right about the one level dip. Its not wrong to do but it doesn't feel right either! I would rather allow dual classing vs. multiclassing in 5e. Above all it has to be backed up by narrative you can just get a new level in a brand new class and abracadabra your character just has it. Nah...where did you learn it, did you receive training, did it come from an item, was it an awoken memory from another life etc etc.
I'd argue AD&D does sort of have social encounter rules because of reaction rolls. Though thats not like... "I roll to seduce" or "I want to intimidate this guy" but specifically for when you want something from them. Like if I want to encourage a guy to come do something for me, DM might roll reaction based on the conditions, and thats your one social encounter rule. There definitely isn't light "can I roll to see if he's lying" nope, do you think he's lying based on what you know? And modern games have this philosophy of "just becuase I don't know doesn't mean my character doesn't." and sure. But you could also argue that in some styles of game, if you don't know it as the player your character doesn't, because if your character did know, your DM would tell you.
Honestly I can't think of a mechanic more antithetical to fun than the whole "roll to check for lies" thing. I have no idea why so many games have this. It just ruins any mystery in the game and makes it so players don't have to think or pay attention to figure out mysteries.
I started playing in 1980. I loved AD&D. When Pathfinder 2e came out I bought it and having been running it ever since (heavily homebrewed). I really miss the gritty, anyone can die at anytime, feel of AD&D. I do however like certain aspects of P2e. I'd like to see a version of P2e where HP are low, AC is reasonable, there are only the 4 base character classes but lots of Archetypes. P2e does Archetypes/Multiclassing differently from D&D. You want to be a Paladin you are a Fighter with a Cleric Archetype, that sort of thing. I hate super heros with 150 hp and a 35 AC that has +17 to hit. Combat takes all session and only gets exciting towards the end when someone is about to drop. If they do drop they get so many saving throws that its rare that anyone actually dies. BS. Combat should average 3 rounds regardless of level, someone dies (PC, NPC or monster), let's move on.
Actually multi-classing hurts at the mid/low levels, 3-7 as you are far behind. At 10/10 the rest of the party is 11th or 12th only! Look at the exp charts. I like fighter/mages if you plan to quit at 10th, if you are going to 20 I highly recommend human single or dual class characters. I played mostly 1st and 2nd edition AD&D and never played 3+ editions.
It's not old school if your player is "thinking of making up a thief." Old school games you don't select a class until you find out what you rolled for attributes.
Here's how I do it. Play B/X. Don't play 2e. Roll 3d6, down the line. Do not allocate points, do not use point buy, do not "Roll 4 drop the lowest". Play with Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Magic User. Do not use "Alignment", for all characters are "Lawful". Use Descending AC, use the classic Saves, if someone's HP reaches 0 they are dead without exception. Keep track of in-game time to the T. Roll before every encounter to determine enemy disposition. Always roll morale as the encounter goes on. Keep exact count of inventory and encumbrance. Only offer experience for gold recovered when the party arrives back at town. Do not offer experience for Role Play, do not offer experience for Milestones, do not even offer it for killing foes. Do not have a "Session 0", do not accept character "Backstories". The only backstory a character has is what they did in previous sessions. Only play in person, never online, and everyone leaves their phone by the door. If anyone, at any time mentions Baldur's Gate III or Critical Role they are shown the door. All of this will ensure that a modern player will experience a game completely unlike anything 5e has to offer. If they like it, they're invited back. If they didn't, don't compromise on the type of game you run.
I've signed up to run an Oldschool D&D campaign at my local library. I've made it clear in my advertisement that its not a modern game, but a lot of the people that signed up are younger folks whose only concept of the game is 5e and "Critical Role". I feel like I have a challenge ahead of me.
Old school is the game osr started it all and the new stuff can't beat it. These new games non D&D just can't beat osr D&D their so complicated that most people just talk lore and talk it well and then just read the books and almost never play. Play osr D&D it goes quick and is fun it goes at a steady pace the game goes forward and less tabulating please have a good day and game on.
I miss the flavour of Ravenloft and Planescape in particular, Ravenloft because, hell I love Hammer horror films, and Planescape because it really emphasized both the wonder and feeling of being able to accomplish what the heroes wanted to do in any number of ways, combat only being about 10-20% of those options. I like 3rd (probably because I run it about as close to 2e style as possible tbh) but planescape and spelljammer are settings toolboxes that the latter editions don't really have the discipline to use effectively I mean... 5e spelljammer... All I'm saying is in the timeline where Harambe is still alive, the book they put out would never have been published, the only way I could look at it charitably would be if I had never seen the OG spelljammer... And What they did to Ravenloft.... I shall not speak of😅
I never played Planescape. I thought it was an expansion of manual of the planes. Saved up money and bought it. Looked at it once and was so mad I got ripped off. I never looked at it again.
@@Joethelawyer I had the benefit of not knowing about planescape until it was a discontinued product line, so I was able to read all the fluff in one go, I'm looking back through the core box for planescape and I can see where yr coming from lol. To be fair this is also the setting a lot of players compared unfavorably to having a multi-directional argument about philosophy over dice rolls so it's def one of those milage may vary game concepts.
When DnD looked like World of Warcraft with skill trees, et cetera, I stopped playing. It's a monster on its own to find an AD&D game. And yeah, I'm old, too.. My first game was played with the crappiest dice ever, light blue, and lasted about 6 sessions,
I still have those dice! We had to color them all in with a crayon. :)) Get into the OSR universe man, I'm sure you'll be able to find some fellow old bastards to play with. :)
9:40 I've always said that multi-classing is the only way to go for a demi-human. Sure you might be a bit behind in levels at the start, but you've got level caps that the humans don't have to deal with. It's a bitter pill to swallow at the slow start, but if your character survives how are you gonna be feeling about it when suddenly your progression halts half way through the campaign? None too happy, at least not in my experience.
One question...the xp for monster in second edition is significantlly higher than 1st edition...you use the xp value by the second edition book?? I love second edition and I'm doing just like you...xp for gold! But the rest I'm trying to keep as in the book
In my opinion, 2nd Edition should have allowed dual-classing for demihumans, after they reached max level in thier original class, so they didn't fall behind in a campaign. Multiclassing should have been more like 5e, adding the levels together, averaging both HP and THAC0... _but_ get rid of the specialty classes. A paladin is a fighter/cleric; a ranger is a fighter/thief; a "warlock" is a mage/cleric, who follows the cult of sorts. A barbarian could be a fighter/thief, who swaps the backstab ability for heavier weapons. Or, make up whatever names you like for other combos, rather than always inventing new classes, like they tried in 1e. Minor, largely unofficial changes are all you need. Likewise, a druid is just a nature priest, a bard is any class that can sing or play an instrment (strictly non-magical), and a monk... shouldn't exist in a Western setting! Seriously, screw Dave Arneson for trying to play Kane from _Kung-Fu_ in Greyhawk!
5e is the first edition that got multiclassing right. But I do like how 2e does it where demihimans are the only ones who can. I don’t allow dual classing for humans though
@@Joethelawyer - And I don't think you should. Like I said, with demihuman level limits (if that's to be enforced at all), dual-classing is the obvious option in a long campaign. For humans, it makes no sense to deliberately halt all advancement in one class, then start a completely new one, with no going back, ever. I think when TSR designed 2nd Edition, they just wanted different systems for humans and non-humans, without considering how practical it would be.
@@Joethelawyer - In a way, there was a plan. That plan just called for playing in a different way than most did. An AD&D fighter/mage/thief would be extremely useful, running low-level adventures, where everyone had their own "stable" of characters, brought out for particular modules, but useless in a long campaign, where the same characters had to complete an epic quest, and the multi-classed would fall behind quickly. It was made for Greyhawk, not DragonLance. In most cases, the "DM shortage" was real, and groups were kept small, due to D&D being a niche hobby, and fear of the "that guy" factor. Particular groups of friends usually settled on a single DM for a long series of adventures. Multiple tables full of D&D players, meeting at their LGS just didn't materialize, and is a rare thing even today.
What is "minmax," exactly? I know minimax strategy from game theory where one minimizes one's maximum loss. Is it supposed to be an analog? What is one minimizing and maximizing? Game theory has the corresponding maximin strategy to maximizes one's minimum gain. You can see how these are in opposition: The first is defensive and lowers the chances of big gains, the second is offensive increases the chances of a big loss. Are there "maxmin" players? Does the former build characters who are least likely to get killed while the latter play go big or go home? I genuinely have no clue, and Google isn't returning satisfying results. Thanks in advanced.
Min maxing is basically where you approach making dnd characters with nothing else in mind other than how powerful they can be. All about stats, weapons, gear picked for power.
@@Joethelawyer Okay, so it's like how designing a main battle tank or jet fighter is an optimization for expected strategies, but not a strategy _per se._ Thanks, man, I really appreciate you taking the time. Warm regards and best wishes!
Running a 1.5E campaign with a bunch of guys who only have experience with WoW online. Every half hour they marvel at something that happens in the game, because they relate it to something from WoW. They are now convinced Warcraft lifted 90% from AD&D. I am, however, sick of them referring to their characters as toons...
Jesus. Sit them down and educate them college lecture style on the origins of Dnd and the origins of wow. Give them a test afterwards. No xp for their “toons” if they don’t pass the test
Forget the rules Its a game and you can fail, be prepared for it. Use your imagination, come at the game like you would a real issue your trying to think around. Dont think skills and numbers I'll do that
That gold = xp always annoyed me back in the days. Still does. Because that basically means greed is okay, greed is the prime mover, to hell with a story. Even back then as a kid I liked those adventures that made me believe I was doing the right thing a lot better than the Conan style "get rich and party hard" approach. I like that one too, but for a long campaign it just wasn't enough for me. Consequently I personally have no interest in playing OSR with the exception of some nostalgic feelings. And - granted - those can be very strong.
I think most old school campaigns start out with greed then they earn a place in their corner if the world and they have to take on more and different duties. Hard to murder hobo your way through a campaign that gets to higher levels
I didn't like the logic of gold = XP either so when I first ran campaigns I binned it as the cash was reward enough in itself. The flip side was that it could take the characters ages to go up a level unless you were throwing loads of weak monsters at them, even with dishing out XP for other things like good role playing or using their abilities well. I ended up going back to dishing out XP for gold accumulated but it doesn't have to be one for one. From memory (haven't played or DM'd in decades although hoping to change that) I settled on 5 GP = 1 XP. That also meant when characters started going up levels and wanting to do expensive things like build castles you could throw cash about without handing them an extra level.
Completely opposite opinion here. Love gold as XP because it disincentivizes being a murder hobo. And I give XP for things other than gold acquisition though in a fairly limited capacity to balance it out.
@@Syndicate_01 Fair enough mate, I follow your logic. Both myself and the guys I played with were fairly young at the time and enjoyed the combat side of the game. As I said, I ended up giving some XP for GP to boost level advancement, just not 1 for 1. I'm hoping to start playing and DM'ing again after a break of many years and I'll play it by ear, at the moment there's only myself and one of the guys from 30 years ago so we'll maybe not be quite so murderous as we were and more XP for GP will be required.
@Joethelawyer also just to show the audience I'm not being mean or hyperbolic: What I mean is before the thief, anyone could try to hide, sneak, pick pockets, open locks, find and disable traps, with just an ability check called for by the GM (dex for most, maybe intelligence for traps, etc.). The thief was introduced with special mechanics for all those things but was worse than every existing class, so now he's the guy that's bad but you gotta bring him or you can't do those things. It's existence alone robbed everyone else of options and role play opportunities and forced the necessity to dual or multiclass to get a specific flavor that used to be open to everyone. There's no purpose for a thief to exist over a fighter with a good dexterity (dashing rogue), an arcane trickster (mage with good dex), or clerics of mask (priest with good dex).
"This guy, he's about my age. He's about fifty." *shows image of ancient skeleton* The timing was hilarious!
haha happy coincidence :)
The great part of the old school games is characters really had a lot more options. Not everything was tied to a specific mechanic. This really gives you a lot more freedom.
Agreed! It’s all about thinking outside of the box man
Yes!
This is exactly right, you don't look at your sheet to see "what you can do" you just tell the dm what you want to do and how you plan to try it. BAM instant legend status.
That kind of freedom is nice, but it comes at the cost of requiring the DM to spend time and thought to decide how implement your decision on the fly. Some things are intuitive, while others create arguments and inconsistencies. How much damage does dropping a chandelier on a monster do? How hard is it to fire two arrows at two targets simultaneously? How much time or gold should it cost your character to learn skills and spells unrelated to their class? You will always need to make rulings, and set rules are just rulings made in advance to save headache.
"Rulings not rules"
It goes SO far to make the experience more emersive and enjoyable
Once you put the ruler away, and the magic system turns the session from more-mechanical to more story-based, then you're moving from traditional wargaming to fantasy role-playing. That's how it was. Then, over the decades, people became as obsessed with game mechanics as an ASL playing trying to move a platoon across a road in front of a machine-gun nest.
Now, there's a return to the story-generating style of play, where the players actually interact in a non-video-game manner.
I like that.
Well said man
I think the rise of console and computer games like Baulder's Gate, Diablo, WOW, Neverwinter Nights, ect helped change the mindset to more tactical and less storytelling and RP. The emphesis became more on dealing damage.
Sadly…
I don't share that sentiment:
Osr fans often praise meatgrinder style gameplay, which runs contrary to making a deep character - if your character will likely be there for only a few sessions, why bother seeing them as more than a set of stats till they manage to level up past more common "rocks fall. Everyone dies"
I read that Gygax made characters start at level 3 to combat that.
Plus, i also read that many game masters fudged stuff like random encounters to keep the absolute unfair stuff away.
Although, you could also somewhat combat that with henchmen.
Newer ttrpgs usually make sure that surviving isn't too hard, as long-lived characters incentivize getting invested in them and deepening your roleplay of them.
As for combat: it's more of a preference. In 5e, dms often allow rule of cool stuff, but the system also has more crunch to add extra options.
Osr's combat isn't terrible, considering that pretty much any dnd edition other than 4e went the route of "casters have a ton of cool moves, while martials have a small or very small selection of tools they can use"
That being said, people like it when you can play a martial and have a bunch of special moves. It's why many people like battle master fighter subclass.
It's why people often applaud 4e's design of martial classes and why people who hate playing martials in dnd, like playing martials in pathfinder 2e.
Some extra crunchiness. More mechanical options.
After all, it seems like even in the old days people sometimes didn't use hirelings and often played in a more heroic tone.
DnD overall can be classified as a fightgame - usually, combat is the main attraction, even if your can sometimes avoid it and such through smart role play.
There are more narrative focused games like Blades in the Dark or FATE for those who like more roleplay.
Overall, i think it's wrong to call modern editions wargames. They are still roleplaying games.
Nowadays, there are ttrpgs both more and less mechanics focused than dnd (pathfinder 2e vs FATE for example)
Also, some ttrpgs decide to go assymetrical - say, Blades in the Dark. In such ttrpgs, game master (almost) never rolls. This discourages antagonistic game masters and frees up game master's attention.
Overall, i think it might be a better system for a dnd-style ttrpg, so i wonder if that whole "game master rolls for opposite side" is actually a wargame origin bleeding into dnd and into other ttrpgs.
Like, i guess that such stuff works best when i try to imagine a ttrpg which is somewhat mixed with a wargame.
That being said, the "game master rolls" approach is more fun to play, while "game master almost never rolls. A monster attacks? Player rolls to defend against monster's set accuracy" kinda hammers in "game master is a narrator"
All in all, i might try doing OSR, but i imagine that i will definitely bonk those random tables out of their madness (those are good for sandbox style, provided you put some brakes on them sometimes) and i would use the "everyone starts with 5000 EXP" rule if i run a game of it.
Of course, martial gameplay in osr is kinda like 5e's base martial gameplay - bit boring for my tastes, but not terrible.
I imagine that such combat might be nice if you have a more wargame style of system in which a player character can easily end up being the head of a mercenary group.
War games like Age of Fantasy are very simple, but they are fun due to the whole tactical thing...
I do say that chiptune dungeon synth inspired by osr is very cool to listen to (Kobold albums and such)
So eh, i might try to run osr, but i imagine i would still make it somewhat heroic. After all, people even in the past often played dnd for that "be a group of heroes slaying the evil dragon" type of a story.
Out of all osr systems, my eyes are drawn to Basic Fantasy rpg. Idk what edition it emulates. Seems like a mix of a few editions, but maybe it goes along the lines of some i don't know details of. 20 levels, yet only a max of 6th level spellslots. Separate ancestry and class
As for osr vibe systems, Cairn (very rules like dnd like thing) or Primal Quest (rules light fantasy stone age thing) are nice.
There's also Runequest in which you supposedly play as a hero, potentially becoming more like Hercules?
@@Alex-cq1zr - "Osr fans often praise meatgrinder style gameplay, which runs contrary to making a deep character - if your character will likely be there for only a few sessions, why bother seeing them as more than a set of stats till they manage to level up past more common "rocks fall. Everyone dies"
I read that Gygax made characters start at level 3 to combat that.
Plus, i also read that many game masters fudged stuff like random encounters to keep the absolute unfair stuff away."
Of course DM's would 'fudge' random encounters or dice rolls, the game is supposed to be about fun and its not much fun having your characters die on a regular basis doesn't lead to much of that fun stuff. You (or at least I) were always most worried about your character when they were first or second level and only had a handful of hit points, going up a level really means something at low level. Even kitting out your characters at the start, making sure you had enough of the gear you thought you would need, it was team building, when you're several levels higher and have magic that does all this its almost a different game.
As long as everyone is enjoying themselves then it doesn't matter if rules get bent or the DM has their own take on things.
And don't forget that the DM is free to award the XP for defeating the Owlbear even if they don't kill it. Heck, if the PC's solution is creative enough, some bonus XP might be in order.
Agreed! Very good point.
Also, interacting with the lore. In general, reward the style of play you want to see
That’s the key
I loved having henchmen and hirelings. We played AD&D for decades. Didn’t even convert to 2e because we just adapted some of it to our game. Fast forward a decade and now we were coaxed into 5e. I am working towards converting us back. It will take time. But I am absolutely am returning to that style I have always loved.
Go for it! I have some 5e houserules on my webpage. I tried make 5e more old school with them. Analogmancave.com
People forget the focus is roleplaying. I give extra XP to players who have good ideas and plans. Our last session was almost all conversation, because the leader of the group rode them up to the wizard's keep and then decided he needed more information. Had some great roleplaying opportunities as teenagers tried to elicit info from guards without raising suspicion. They certainly didn't get all the info available but enough to proceed. They loved it.
That’s awesome man yeah I like to give xp for great roleplayers as well
@@Joethelawyer I always encouraged players to roleplay with extra XP. Same with cunning plans etc. I had to allow a bit of 'group think' to allow the clever character come out with the plan the clever player came up with some times but it sort of worked. It also allows you to give less treasure at lower levels but still let the characters go up in level, keeping them hungry for that big haul of loot. Thanks for doing the vid mate, I'll have a look at your other stuff, I'm a long time lapsed player/DM who's looking to get back into it.
I love the passion with which you presented this video. I love the fact that it is just a dude talking to other dudes about role playing games, and doesn't sound scripted or overproduced.
Thanks Matt! I don’t script anything. Sometimes I take notes to make sure I don’t miss anything. But other than that it’s off the cuff. 😎
You brought back a shit ton of memories with the pictures! I was trying to remember what book when they scrolled by! Great vid.
Thanks man! I grabbed like 80 or so. I’m gonna look for more. :))
I agree. Running a solo game is a great way to introduce new players to the game. I started a home brew campaign about three years ago using this method and it’s still going strong. None of the six players had any prior rpg experience. Four players were actually couples irl so I ran them together. Each solo session ended with the characters arriving in the same town and tavern, setting up the first full session.
I can’t do it any other way again.
I love this art. It's from a different Time. Love it.
Thanks man! It’s very evocative
Just DM'd a group through S2 White Plume Mountain. Randomly rolled some PCs and started at the dungeon door. At one point the PCs must Save Vs Charm. One PC makes the save and one doesn't. The one that saves, asks if his PC can grab the one that failed the save. Now in 5e I'd be thinking about Grapple Checks and DC's. But I asked the PCs STR and asked his to roll a D20. In my head I said - if he rolls a 1 or a 2 the Charmed PC is gonna drag him into the water. 3 to 8 and he can't stop the charmed PC. If he rolls a 20 however, I'll say he slapped the failed PC around the head and give them another save against the Charm. The roll was a 12 and the PC was saved from jumping into the water and drowning. 2d10 drowning damage as the Charm includes you thinking you can breathe underwater. That's serious damage in AD&D 1e. Anyways, the difference in mind-set for me as a DM, moving from 5e to 1e is this - It's a game where your rulings as a DM are the key; not your grasp of the rules. Rulings, not rules. Much fun was had. So much so that the lads want another dungeon throwdown. Maybe S3?
That’s awesome! Yup. You get it. All about the rulings. 😎
Just turned 52, NEVER played 5e D&D but have been watching lots of 5e play videos and boy what totally different mindset. The end goals are totally different. I feel sorry for DMs in 5e trying to satisfy today's players. Lots of people EXPECTING full bore entertainment.
yup. Like we're their curt jester. Reminds me of that bob seger song turn the page lol
Same opinion here, and they wonder why noboy wants to be DM...
Yeah. I like 5E. But me and my bros about your age still play OSE. And it’s not because we disliked 5E as much as it was that everyone gets an 18. And everyone makes it too high levels providing the DM wants it. We wanted to play a game where if you broke 10th level it was like wow. If you rolled a 16 you were pleased
Thanks for sharing your perspective Joe! As a DM who discovered DND in its 5th edition and have recently been exploring OSR games, I really enjoyed listening to your perspective. Keep up the good work and happy turkey day!
Thanks man! Happy turkey day!
Pay rolling an army is expensive. A squad of hirelings plus a henchmen for a sergeant. If you manage a few squads, then have one henchmen as a lieutenant. This gives a way for your DM to communicate the condition of soldiers.
If your heading into a dungeon a squad can be placed near the entrance. Another can stand guard in a key location inside to give early warning. Its easier to drag out large heavy objects. When you exit the dungeon. Your paying them for a peaceful night's rest in the wilderness.
Good ideas all! Reminds me of charlie sheen's comment on hookers. you're not paying for the sex. You're paying for them to leave after the sex lol!
I use reaction rolls for social encounters sometimes. Basically, 12+ is yes and more, 9-11 is you get what you want, 6-8 is a negotiate, 3-5 is no, 2- is no and potentially hostile. Works really well when I want to roll. Otherwise, the RP is sufficient.
Yup! Every once in a while you just need a little random craziness inspired by the dice 😂
@@Joethelawyer I think the RPG Pundit uses that adaption for a 2d6 reaction table in social encounters
I generally just roll a d20 and high is good and low is bad and in between is shades of good or bad. And I make something up based on that. Gut call really
well said here. the way i see old school dnd was like this:
1. the world is open: you literally were encouraged to go and do what you wanted across a massive hexgrid, created by the DM, full of towns, cities, dungeons, and months of open wilderness. its all about exploration and discovery.
2. the world is ancient, weird, and breathtaking: its all about the sights. the players should always be stumbling across something that is dangerous, mysterios, beautiful, etc.. not everything needs explanation.
3. the adventures are loot focused: you dont really have the intricate skill trees that exist in modern RPGs, so alot of your "power ups" come from loot, mainly in the form of enchanted items, weapons, and armor.
4. you get to become a ruler: each class has built in mechanics for building a permanent base of operations that will attract soldiers and workers to help protect and maintain it, once they reach a certain level. while you are out adventuring, your base will have expenses, but will more than likely generate a little income and bonus items as profit, and will serve as a place to hold more treasure after you get through clearing a big dungeon.
Excellent summary of the key differences between modern and OSR-style play. Some perspective on the characters lot in life is usually helpful. Nasty, brutish and short. Unless, if they strive...they might just one day overcome all odds, rise above the challenges that have beset them, and become the hero they were always meant to be. Maybe. Another great vid.
Thanks man! I appreciate it. These osr how to vids seem to be well liked. I think I’ll do more of them
This was excellent! Loved the example of ripping off the owlbear’s lair than fighting it. In fact, the old Monster Manual you flashed actually gives a clue about how you can avoid a fight with it - by tricking it into falling off a cliff in its brute, mindless rage! And, your advice should prove useful given all that has happened recently! 😅
Thank you! I’m glad these videos are helping people in their actual games 😁
I just found your video. Pretty good. Best way to pull those in from their medieval fantasy super heroes game (That is what I call the so-called 5th edition. Makes no sense for every class to gain super powers), is to change the THAC0 system to the 3rd edition combat system. It is basically analogus to do so.
That is a way to draw them in. Max out the story telling and get people to role play rather than roll play.
Thanks man! medieval super heroes game is a good way to describe it. I'm gonna steal that. :)
@@Joethelawyer I put it out there for everyone to use. Use it all over the place.
I especially love the black and white elmore stuff.
Thanks! Makes for a great slideshow screen saver too. :)
Entertaining and educational- just what the (gaming) world needs more of.
Cheers!
Thanks! I’m gonna try and do more like this. People seem to like them. 👍
Great video, love the old-school art. OSR art isn't quite the same. And I agree, how we played as kids wasn't the ideal, it's just romanticized in your memory because you were a kid and it was exciting and new.
Yup. the simpler times helps with the nostalgia
Extremely helpful. This might make a good session zero to prep the table for what to expect. Even then, I know some 5e players that won't play old school because their character might die . . .
I love that you point out the versatility of thieves. I've run adventures where everyone in the party was a thief and both the players and I absolutely loved it. Gotta be VERY careful around combat and if magic is needed, you might need to spend those hard-earned GP for a scroll or the help of a mage, which makes for some cool social roleplaying.
Lol. Yeah that’s true.
Also I think thieves are really underestimated if people only focus on their work n combat abilities or in the dungeon. They have a way of life that lends itself to lots of roleplaying opportunities that they can create themselves if they like
@@Joethelawyer 100% agree
Great video, great art work. I currently play basic/OSE. I will never personally run 5e or D&D One. I am staying with Old school/home brew.
Hirelings and henchmen, morale, ROLE PLAY (a must), XP for gold, hex maps, graph paper, and lots of exploration.
Nice! Thanks man. My next video is gonna be in hirelings, henchmen,’and followers 😎
@@Joethelawyer can't wait to see that video. You were right to put the "emoji shades" on!
Lol!
I like the solo start for each player; cool idea.
That's Tim Shorts of Gothridge Manor's idea :)
Sometimes I'll plant a magic item that more or less grants a class and level to a PC that I talked out of multiclassing. Most of the time it'll scratch that itch and provide some of what the party lacks.
that's an interesting take on it. How does it work out long term?
@@Joethelawyer well if the player say gains 3 or 4 levels, the limited abilities granted by an item are going to be lacking. So I'll generally let slip a rumor about a "kindred" or "companion" item ("Oh, so you weren't aware that the helm of frost was made from the same Ivory as the rime cloak? Well it was so and it is at the home of the sea drake...) that basically has the effect of granting some intermediate powers associated with their "stub class". I think of the hammer of thunderbolts needing other items to make it work as a "composite item". So you get to add some story, world stuff and progression into the mix. You can also offer up a mentor or tutor type who might teach some sort of "esoteric mastery" in using this macguffin (or "power focus" as it'd be called in Champions) so that a psalter that allows a fighter to do limited cleric stuff like a couple healing spells, might learn to turn undead. Generally speaking, after so much of this you wanna find a multiplier for xps and the stub class needs this to progress. Overall I used to judge by the metrics of how the player spoke to others new to, or outside the game about their character. "Well I wanted a multiclass but the DM said to hold off and my guy has a set of vambrace that allows him to blah blah blah.. it's great because when we went to..."
Idk, it's no silver bullet but I've seen it work out.
DM: Thieves are vital: Thief: Yeah I'm not using any of any skills in which a fail will hurt because my percentages are all ass until 10th level.
See the houserules! Plus, that’s a wimpy player who does that
@@Joethelawyer LOL says the guy who avoided every ounce of danger in my city adventure.
I was a fighter. No thief skills yet. 😂
Thanks for the video. I recently switched my group from pathfinder 2e to playing Dragonslayer by Greg Gillespie. We are playing B10 A Nights Dark Terror and it has been awsome ! Roll 20's and keep on swinging.
Thanks! Please subscribe for more if you haven’t already!
I can't get over the topless dancer getting stalked by a dire wolf.
Haha
I have understood the basic concept of OSR style gameplay, but this was a good breakdown thanks
Thanks! Happy it helped you out man
What I liked about old school was that death was around every corner. It was very rewarding to make it to just 5th level.
Exactly! No risk, no fear, no reward.
A wonderful video that summarizes Old school games. As someone new (and running DCC) this primer is super helpful! Thank you!
thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
Advice to thieves, in second Ed my first character was a half elf fighter mage thief, everyone said I would never level up. But as a thief you get 1xp per 2 gp in value you steal. If I saw anything not nailed down I made sure to steal it. I would steal loot from chests while the group was fighting, I robbed a coach full of chests of raw silver ingots comming into town from a nearby silver mine. I stole scrolls and potions from every mage in town. About 6 months into the game I was higher level than all the single clan characters.
Haha. I love it!
9:20 Doesn't really work that way in my experience in first and second.
The way the XP tables are set you can be a double or triple class demi human and assuming you get the same XP as the single class characters each adventure you should rarely be more than one or two levels behind everyone else.
Because of the way the XP needed for each subsequent level increases.
You'll only be a little behind everyone else and get a lot more options for what you can do in any situation in exchange for that.
Back in the day I found it a good choice for anyone who wanted a mage but didn't want to get through a dozen new characters before they got past first level because they died every time a 0'level monster sneezed on them 🙂 the real cost was the hard limit on the maximum levels.
I don’t allow bards in my game either. If a player wants to play one, I tell them to roll up a thief and buy a lute.
lol! Best comeback ever. 😂
I am a DM who is new to OSR style games. I need to learn to be more unforgiving because I am too soft with monster difficulty. 😅
Be merciless! But give some level
Of fair warning sometimes.
@@Joethelawyer I finally did last week! It was very exciting.
Two Level 1 players entered the lair of a Level 3 Bugbear. One player lost half their health in a single hit to the head, but they found a creative way to kill the beast.
This is the beginning of my merciless arc!
For someone like me, who entered rpgs by running Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, D&D XP system was always weird. In WFRP adventures you have specified for what part of adventure characters can earn some experience. For example a character that found plan of kindnaping a merchant gets 10XP - lucky roll for searching that allows the party to prevent the kidnapping. If they will prevent it, all of them (or only those who took part in it) get 30XP. For getting at the place before it happened they can get additional 10XP (which means they will get 10 XP even if merchant will become a hostage). For tracking kindappers additional 30XP. If they attack kidnappers at day and recapture merchant 50XP in case of fight. 70XP if done by stealth. If they'll recapture him at night 100XP + 20XP for stealth without killing. This way you don't have to fight, nor get any gold. It's purely wisdom, luck and objective based system.
My first encounter in OSR was the GM luring into traps like signs that explode when you read it.
when we complained, he said we just wanted things to be easy.
he's unemployed and collects disability.
Lmao!
That’s a duck head dm. Like how we played as kids in 1984. We aren’t all like that. I promise
@@Joethelawyer I believe you, but these dent-heads do get around despite being immobile.
now I just have more fun reading about the settings and looking at the hexmaps.
Old glyph of warding tricks. Traps were such a staple of of OSR dungeons.
Another great chat with Joe. The feel for
how you just sharing ideas makes PERFECT sense to me. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving
Thanks so much Greg! I’m still digesting. Hah. I hope you’d went great too!
Love it made me chuckle. Some great truisms. From the UK looking forward to Fridays game in world Cup. All the best
Always Leave ‘em laughing! 😂
The car anagram is kinda funny, if only because my grandfather taught me to drive and he was a nascar dirt track driver back in the 60's and 70's all along the east coast.
And he had me learn to drive on an automatic ( all we had ) but he still had my left foot on the brake.
But it was mostly gas, gas, and mire gas but this time try and slide it.
Lmao! Old school driving Coach. Love it!
MurderHaboo!! The Warrior needs an Owlbear cloak..
Haha. I’ve gone down that road before. :))
Love channels like this that aren’t constantly optimising for monetisation. Sub from me.
Thanks man! Yeah I want to monetize but I figure I’ll just be myself and see what happens
Great video, so glad I discovered you through the tavern news network substack
Thank you! I’m happy it’s spreading the word. 😁.
Love the way you talk about the game
Thanks man! Appreciate you listening and taking the time to comment. 😎
Your description on how to play is spot on. Couple things I would vary from is your friends concept that a backstory is part of immersion. I say no. It’s the motivation but it is not the immersion. I told my players you gotta keep your backstory to less than a paragraph if you’re doing one. Because you are basically a dirt farmer who just doesn’t want to be a dirt farmer anymore. I once had a player try to tell me that their character is a long lost ancestor to a fairy god and that they had all these magical items. I told him no and I kicked him out of the game after I realize they were just basically powermongering. The other thing I would say is with hirelings I never let the players play them but I do let the players give them directions. I’m the type who would make the hireling questionable or the player has to figure out how to gain a lot of trust about. Emphasis on encumbrance Helps this.
I'm with you on just giving them direction
10:14
Weirdly enough, the 2e Bard is my favorite interpretation of what that class is trying to be (as in a Jack-of-all-trades, someone that can support other character roles at what they do or fill in for them in a pinch.) and no edition prior or after captured that feel for me. Keep in mind I'm basically a baby (at 30 YO) compared to most folks in the OSR scene so my practical experience with the TSR-era games are minimal at best.
I'm mostly just curious as to what puts you off from them? Is it the mechanics or flavor?
Sorry if you've answered this elsewhere. I just recently found the channel.
No problem man. Thanks for taking the time to comment! It’s more the flavor that annoys me. And how much the whole Harper’s crap from the forgotten realms infected the class with dumbness
Reaction rolls are the social rules and should be used when there is a question of outcome imo.
i use them for some stuff but only when appropriate
Gonna disagree on old school multi classing. I live it. It is the most balanced version i have seen. The level dips that people take now are awful. It either sinks the character or makes them superpowered.
Splitting the xp with the way progression worked put you a level ir two down but gave you more abilities. And with everyone leveling at different times and you could play with newer characters or more experienced ones, you were just thankful for every power your allies had, not jealous if someone happened to be a higher level.
You're so right about the one level dip. Its not wrong to do but it doesn't feel right either! I would rather allow dual classing vs. multiclassing in 5e. Above all it has to be backed up by narrative you can just get a new level in a brand new class and abracadabra your character just has it. Nah...where did you learn it, did you receive training, did it come from an item, was it an awoken memory from another life etc etc.
it bugged my ocd :)
I'd argue AD&D does sort of have social encounter rules because of reaction rolls. Though thats not like... "I roll to seduce" or "I want to intimidate this guy" but specifically for when you want something from them. Like if I want to encourage a guy to come do something for me, DM might roll reaction based on the conditions, and thats your one social encounter rule.
There definitely isn't light "can I roll to see if he's lying" nope, do you think he's lying based on what you know? And modern games have this philosophy of "just becuase I don't know doesn't mean my character doesn't." and sure. But you could also argue that in some styles of game, if you don't know it as the player your character doesn't, because if your character did know, your DM would tell you.
Good point Kaylaa!
Honestly I can't think of a mechanic more antithetical to fun than the whole "roll to check for lies" thing. I have no idea why so many games have this. It just ruins any mystery in the game and makes it so players don't have to think or pay attention to figure out mysteries.
This is such good advice, keep up the good work!
Thank you!
What a terrific video, Joe!
Thanks man! I’ll
Master rule: XP for gold.
@@darthtc23 yup! It really helps shape the kind of game you want to run
I started playing in 1980. I loved AD&D. When Pathfinder 2e came out I bought it and having been running it ever since (heavily homebrewed). I really miss the gritty, anyone can die at anytime, feel of AD&D. I do however like certain aspects of P2e.
I'd like to see a version of P2e where HP are low, AC is reasonable, there are only the 4 base character classes but lots of Archetypes. P2e does Archetypes/Multiclassing differently from D&D. You want to be a Paladin you are a Fighter with a Cleric Archetype, that sort of thing. I hate super heros with 150 hp and a 35 AC that has +17 to hit. Combat takes all session and only gets exciting towards the end when someone is about to drop. If they do drop they get so many saving throws that its rare that anyone actually dies. BS. Combat should average 3 rounds regardless of level, someone dies (PC, NPC or monster), let's move on.
Yeah I hate the 3.0/3.5/pf power curve. So boring. And unnecessary
Actually multi-classing hurts at the mid/low levels, 3-7 as you are far behind. At 10/10 the rest of the party is 11th or 12th only! Look at the exp charts. I like fighter/mages if you plan to quit at 10th, if you are going to 20 I highly recommend human single or dual class characters. I played mostly 1st and 2nd edition AD&D and never played 3+ editions.
ThTs interesting. I never realized that. Thanks man!
Came for the Help and stayed for the art!
LOL thanks!
It's not old school if your player is "thinking of making up a thief." Old school games you don't select a class until you find out what you rolled for attributes.
one guy i play with will roll with any scores regardless of how low. Doesn't matter if his thief has 8 dex. :)
Here's how I do it.
Play B/X. Don't play 2e. Roll 3d6, down the line. Do not allocate points, do not use point buy, do not "Roll 4 drop the lowest". Play with Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Magic User. Do not use "Alignment", for all characters are "Lawful". Use Descending AC, use the classic Saves, if someone's HP reaches 0 they are dead without exception. Keep track of in-game time to the T. Roll before every encounter to determine enemy disposition. Always roll morale as the encounter goes on. Keep exact count of inventory and encumbrance. Only offer experience for gold recovered when the party arrives back at town. Do not offer experience for Role Play, do not offer experience for Milestones, do not even offer it for killing foes. Do not have a "Session 0", do not accept character "Backstories". The only backstory a character has is what they did in previous sessions. Only play in person, never online, and everyone leaves their phone by the door. If anyone, at any time mentions Baldur's Gate III or Critical Role they are shown the door.
All of this will ensure that a modern player will experience a game completely unlike anything 5e has to offer. If they like it, they're invited back. If they didn't, don't compromise on the type of game you run.
Yeah I never compromise on who I play with. Too much time and effort invested to play with people you don’t like to play with
I really appreciated this!
Glad you got something out of it!
I've signed up to run an Oldschool D&D campaign at my local library. I've made it clear in my advertisement that its not a modern game, but a lot of the people that signed up are younger folks whose only concept of the game is 5e and "Critical Role". I feel like I have a challenge ahead of me.
Just take your time until you find the perfect group. Then don’t let them get away. 😎
Old school is the game osr started it all and the new stuff can't beat it. These new games non D&D just can't beat osr D&D their so complicated that most people just talk lore and talk it well and then just read the books and almost never play. Play osr D&D it goes quick and is fun it goes at a steady pace the game goes forward and less tabulating please have a good day and game on.
Agreed Dean! Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment!
@@Joethelawyer Thank you also and have a good evening.
I miss the flavour of Ravenloft and Planescape in particular, Ravenloft because, hell I love Hammer horror films, and Planescape because it really emphasized both the wonder and feeling of being able to accomplish what the heroes wanted to do in any number of ways, combat only being about 10-20% of those options. I like 3rd (probably because I run it about as close to 2e style as possible tbh) but planescape and spelljammer are settings toolboxes that the latter editions don't really have the discipline to use effectively I mean... 5e spelljammer... All I'm saying is in the timeline where Harambe is still alive, the book they put out would never have been published, the only way I could look at it charitably would be if I had never seen the OG spelljammer... And What they did to Ravenloft.... I shall not speak of😅
I never played Planescape. I thought it was an expansion of manual of the planes. Saved up money and bought it. Looked at it once and was so mad I got ripped off. I never looked at it again.
@@Joethelawyer the 5e planescape?
No the original one
@@Joethelawyer I had the benefit of not knowing about planescape until it was a discontinued product line, so I was able to read all the fluff in one go, I'm looking back through the core box for planescape and I can see where yr coming from lol. To be fair this is also the setting a lot of players compared unfavorably to having a multi-directional argument about philosophy over dice rolls so it's def one of those milage may vary game concepts.
Nothing about but excited me. Maybe if I didn’t have preconceived ideas of what it should be I would have liked it
2nd edition bard is great… I don’t agree with your opinion multi-classing. Those characters can fill 2 different roles in a small group.
whatever floats your boat. it's your game :)
When DnD looked like World of Warcraft with skill trees, et cetera, I stopped playing. It's a monster on its own to find an AD&D game. And yeah, I'm old, too.. My first game was played with the crappiest dice ever, light blue, and lasted about 6 sessions,
I still have those dice! We had to color them all in with a crayon. :)) Get into the OSR universe man, I'm sure you'll be able to find some fellow old bastards to play with. :)
Step 1) kick them in the shins
Step 2) laugh at them
Step 3) make fun of 5e and then for liking it
haha
"I hate bards and i forbid them." The sqishiest class??? I played 2e for fifteen years. Bards, even at the higher levels, are weak as hell.
they just never made sense to me within the setting i wanted to run
Thanks for the video.
You’re welcome Clarence! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Where did you get all your old lineart pictures from? Is there an archive you can download? Or did you just scan all that by yourself?
I just googled D&D B&W art and saved the images to a folder.
9:40 I've always said that multi-classing is the only way to go for a demi-human. Sure you might be a bit behind in levels at the start, but you've got level caps that the humans don't have to deal with. It's a bitter pill to swallow at the slow start, but if your character survives how are you gonna be feeling about it when suddenly your progression halts half way through the campaign? None too happy, at least not in my experience.
I removed level caps and just gave demihimans an xp penalty.
@@Joethelawyer Well fair enough that makes single-classed demihuman characters feel a lot less redundant one the party gets out of early levels!
Exactly. Plus I never understood the mechanic of you not being able
To use your old class skills
@@Joethelawyer Isn't that dual classing, which humans use, not the demihuman multi classing?
Oh sorry man. I misread the original post
One question...the xp for monster in second edition is significantlly higher than 1st edition...you use the xp value by the second edition book?? I love second edition and I'm doing just like you...xp for gold! But the rest I'm trying to keep as in the book
Yup! By the book for xp
"I hate bards I forbid em" Not sure why I hate them but I do. Doesnt matter what setting or game
sooo agree!
Nice video
Thanks for watching! More to come over the next couple weeks as I’m off from work. :)
Howdy Joethelawyer!
Howdy!
In my opinion, 2nd Edition should have allowed dual-classing for demihumans, after they reached max level in thier original class, so they didn't fall behind in a campaign.
Multiclassing should have been more like 5e, adding the levels together, averaging both HP and THAC0... _but_ get rid of the specialty classes. A paladin is a fighter/cleric; a ranger is a fighter/thief; a "warlock" is a mage/cleric, who follows the cult of sorts. A barbarian could be a fighter/thief, who swaps the backstab ability for heavier weapons. Or, make up whatever names you like for other combos, rather than always inventing new classes, like they tried in 1e. Minor, largely unofficial changes are all you need.
Likewise, a druid is just a nature priest, a bard is any class that can sing or play an instrment (strictly non-magical), and a monk... shouldn't exist in a Western setting! Seriously, screw Dave Arneson for trying to play Kane from _Kung-Fu_ in Greyhawk!
5e is the first edition that got multiclassing right. But I do like how 2e does it where demihimans are the only ones who can. I don’t allow dual classing for humans though
@@Joethelawyer - And I don't think you should. Like I said, with demihuman level limits (if that's to be enforced at all), dual-classing is the obvious option in a long campaign. For humans, it makes no sense to deliberately halt all advancement in one class, then start a completely new one, with no going back, ever.
I think when TSR designed 2nd Edition, they just wanted different systems for humans and non-humans, without considering how practical it would be.
I don’t think they had a plan lol
@@Joethelawyer - In a way, there was a plan. That plan just called for playing in a different way than most did.
An AD&D fighter/mage/thief would be extremely useful, running low-level adventures, where everyone had their own "stable" of characters, brought out for particular modules, but useless in a long campaign, where the same characters had to complete an epic quest, and the multi-classed would fall behind quickly.
It was made for Greyhawk, not DragonLance.
In most cases, the "DM shortage" was real, and groups were kept small, due to D&D being a niche hobby, and fear of the "that guy" factor. Particular groups of friends usually settled on a single DM for a long series of adventures. Multiple tables full of D&D players, meeting at their LGS just didn't materialize, and is a rare thing even today.
Yeah everyone at game stores plays dumb card games.
Hey, how does gold as XP work if a player is spending money? Are they spending XP to buy items?
Doesn't matter if they spend it. Just if they get it and bring it back to town safely. They can spend it or hoard it, and it wont affect XP.
@@Joethelawyer thank! I've been addicted to OSR videos recently as I see more and more things I dislike or just doesn't work in 5e
No prob. Feel free to reach out to me any time.
MultiMulti xXx MUUUUUUUUUTIIIIIIIII CLASSING nowadays. Because class-system is much more fun! (When you can have em)
Never been a fan except in limited circumstances
What is "minmax," exactly? I know minimax strategy from game theory where one minimizes one's maximum loss. Is it supposed to be an analog? What is one minimizing and maximizing? Game theory has the corresponding maximin strategy to maximizes one's minimum gain. You can see how these are in opposition: The first is defensive and lowers the chances of big gains, the second is offensive increases the chances of a big loss. Are there "maxmin" players? Does the former build characters who are least likely to get killed while the latter play go big or go home?
I genuinely have no clue, and Google isn't returning satisfying results. Thanks in advanced.
Min maxing is basically where you approach making dnd characters with nothing else in mind other than how powerful they can be. All about stats, weapons, gear picked for power.
@@Joethelawyer Okay, so it's like how designing a main battle tank or jet fighter is an optimization for expected strategies, but not a strategy _per se._ Thanks, man, I really appreciate you taking the time. Warm regards and best wishes!
@@frenstcht Its about maximing the strengths of a character, while minimizing their potential weaknesses.
Ultima Online. Good times. Good times.
It was a fun game. :)
Hello! In ad&d 2nd edition if you're a bard, can you cast spells in chainmail? Thanks!
I’m not sure man. I outlawed bards in my game. I really can’t stand them. They never made sense as a class to me.
Oh ma Gawd! A kindred spirit! Just found your channel a couple days ago and feel the same on bards.
Haha. Bard haters of the world unite!!!
The only thing I hate about Bards……is learning how to learn new spells.
I just can’t stand them at all.
Running a 1.5E campaign with a bunch of guys who only have experience with WoW online. Every half hour they marvel at something that happens in the game, because they relate it to something from WoW. They are now convinced Warcraft lifted 90% from AD&D. I am, however, sick of them referring to their characters as toons...
Jesus. Sit them down and educate them college lecture style on the origins of Dnd and the origins of wow. Give them a test afterwards. No xp for their “toons” if they don’t pass the test
A few moons on the Wheel of Pain should do the trick
The tree of woe comes to mind as well…
Forget the rules
Its a game and you can fail, be prepared for it.
Use your imagination, come at the game like you would a real issue your trying to think around.
Dont think skills and numbers
I'll do that
Hoe did it work out?
Rulings over rules. There is no school like old school!
Correct !
That gold = xp always annoyed me back in the days. Still does. Because that basically means greed is okay, greed is the prime mover, to hell with a story. Even back then as a kid I liked those adventures that made me believe I was doing the right thing a lot better than the Conan style "get rich and party hard" approach. I like that one too, but for a long campaign it just wasn't enough for me. Consequently I personally have no interest in playing OSR with the exception of some nostalgic feelings. And - granted - those can be very strong.
I think most old school campaigns start out with greed then they earn a place in their corner if the world and they have to take on more and different duties. Hard to murder hobo your way through a campaign that gets to higher levels
I didn't like the logic of gold = XP either so when I first ran campaigns I binned it as the cash was reward enough in itself. The flip side was that it could take the characters ages to go up a level unless you were throwing loads of weak monsters at them, even with dishing out XP for other things like good role playing or using their abilities well. I ended up going back to dishing out XP for gold accumulated but it doesn't have to be one for one. From memory (haven't played or DM'd in decades although hoping to change that) I settled on 5 GP = 1 XP. That also meant when characters started going up levels and wanting to do expensive things like build castles you could throw cash about without handing them an extra level.
Completely opposite opinion here. Love gold as XP because it disincentivizes being a murder hobo.
And I give XP for things other than gold acquisition though in a fairly limited capacity to balance it out.
@@Syndicate_01 Fair enough mate, I follow your logic. Both myself and the guys I played with were fairly young at the time and enjoyed the combat side of the game. As I said, I ended up giving some XP for GP to boost level advancement, just not 1 for 1. I'm hoping to start playing and DM'ing again after a break of many years and I'll play it by ear, at the moment there's only myself and one of the guys from 30 years ago so we'll maybe not be quite so murderous as we were and more XP for GP will be required.
Thieves are reason for thieves not to exist. They were a cancer on oldschool rpgs that persists to this day. lol
Haha
@Joethelawyer also just to show the audience I'm not being mean or hyperbolic:
What I mean is before the thief, anyone could try to hide, sneak, pick pockets, open locks, find and disable traps, with just an ability check called for by the GM (dex for most, maybe intelligence for traps, etc.).
The thief was introduced with special mechanics for all those things but was worse than every existing class, so now he's the guy that's bad but you gotta bring him or you can't do those things.
It's existence alone robbed everyone else of options and role play opportunities and forced the necessity to dual or multiclass to get a specific flavor that used to be open to everyone.
There's no purpose for a thief to exist over a fighter with a good dexterity (dashing rogue), an arcane trickster (mage with good dex), or clerics of mask (priest with good dex).