A few months into its release, 5E has a relationship with the various D&D tribes that I find surprising; particularly the relatively open and positive reaction the OSR community has had to it. There are several reasons for this, but now that I know the game better and have seen some of the offiicial support I find it difficult to guess where this will all lead.
My personal take on the issue is that 5E, seen as just a stand-alone rule set rather than a body of settings, expansions, adventures, etc., is a surprisingly good platform for OSR style play. Yes, it is more complex than 0E or B/X. The total number of character properties (skills and class abilities) is perhaps twice that in 1E and 2E; on the other hand, its resolution mechanics are simpler than either of these games. So, I interpret it as 1E-like in overall complexity and speed of play. Whether one prefers it to other editions is not terribly important; the essential point is that it is well designed and presents no obvious barriers to free flowing play. A casual gamer can sit down, create a character and navigate a session with just a few minute's introduction. So, when one considers its accessibility and visibility, it is a good choice of system if you are trying to recruit a new playing group for any form of D&D, including an OSR campaign.
Putting my time where my mouth is (?), I've spent about a month now creating an OSR-style campaign that could be played with any number of systems, but is specifically designed for 5E. And I like how it looks now that it has taken shape.
So why the discomfort? I think there are a couple of ways in which this seeming compatibility could unravel. First, I need to see more examples of what the HP recover mechanic really means for the feel of adventures. If players quickly figure out how to game this system to make death a rare and easily avoided event then the system, whatever its other merits, is ill suited to OSR campaigns. D&D without character death inevitably drifts to high-fantasy and 'story gaming' with hit points and armor class. Second, the game could easily bloat with feats and class powers and other goo-gahs if the developers are undisciplined. That would bring it out of the range of system complexities I think are compatible with OSR style gaming.
A broader reason why I worry how this will turn out is that the first indications about campaign and adventure materials sound and look really bad. The leads they are giving are that this will be supported with adventure-path style modules and 'canned' campaign world tie ins. OSR-style D&D actually has little to do with system rules (provided they are not hopelessly over complicated). It has to do with the goals and structure of the gaming session, the flow of play at the table, and the role of player and DM in creating the setting and directing the 'plot' (which should be recognizable only in retrospect!). If 5E evolves to be a mechanism for linear, scripted gaming and pre-packaged settings, people interested in OSR gaming will peel away from it and go back to whatever pre-3E system they prefer.
Thoughts?
My personal take on the issue is that 5E, seen as just a stand-alone rule set rather than a body of settings, expansions, adventures, etc., is a surprisingly good platform for OSR style play. Yes, it is more complex than 0E or B/X. The total number of character properties (skills and class abilities) is perhaps twice that in 1E and 2E; on the other hand, its resolution mechanics are simpler than either of these games. So, I interpret it as 1E-like in overall complexity and speed of play. Whether one prefers it to other editions is not terribly important; the essential point is that it is well designed and presents no obvious barriers to free flowing play. A casual gamer can sit down, create a character and navigate a session with just a few minute's introduction. So, when one considers its accessibility and visibility, it is a good choice of system if you are trying to recruit a new playing group for any form of D&D, including an OSR campaign.
Putting my time where my mouth is (?), I've spent about a month now creating an OSR-style campaign that could be played with any number of systems, but is specifically designed for 5E. And I like how it looks now that it has taken shape.
So why the discomfort? I think there are a couple of ways in which this seeming compatibility could unravel. First, I need to see more examples of what the HP recover mechanic really means for the feel of adventures. If players quickly figure out how to game this system to make death a rare and easily avoided event then the system, whatever its other merits, is ill suited to OSR campaigns. D&D without character death inevitably drifts to high-fantasy and 'story gaming' with hit points and armor class. Second, the game could easily bloat with feats and class powers and other goo-gahs if the developers are undisciplined. That would bring it out of the range of system complexities I think are compatible with OSR style gaming.
A broader reason why I worry how this will turn out is that the first indications about campaign and adventure materials sound and look really bad. The leads they are giving are that this will be supported with adventure-path style modules and 'canned' campaign world tie ins. OSR-style D&D actually has little to do with system rules (provided they are not hopelessly over complicated). It has to do with the goals and structure of the gaming session, the flow of play at the table, and the role of player and DM in creating the setting and directing the 'plot' (which should be recognizable only in retrospect!). If 5E evolves to be a mechanism for linear, scripted gaming and pre-packaged settings, people interested in OSR gaming will peel away from it and go back to whatever pre-3E system they prefer.
Thoughts?
Are 5E and the OSR friends, enemies or frenemies?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire