153

I recommend this video to look more into OSR philosophy regarding the rules: https://www.youtube.com/live/bCxZ3TivVUM?si=aZ-y2U_AVjn9a6Ua

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BellyPurpledGerbil@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Calling 5e and pf2e bloated with unnecessary rules, meanwhile Pathfinder and 3.5e are quite literally full of a couple decade's worth of volumes and modules, in comparison to OSR?

I don't know if you're a boomer, a troll, or both

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 39 points 1 year ago

5e has both too many rules and not enough rules.

It has very specific rules in some places. Item interactions, many spell specifics, grapple, holding your breath, etc.

It has very lackluster rules in other places. Social conflict, item and spell crafting, metagame stuff like making your own class or species.

I think a lot of people playing DND would be happier playing a different system. Just not the same system for everyone.

[-] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago

Exactly. It's sort of an uncomfortable middle ground, but also just kind of messy.

And I'm tired, as someone who DMed it a bunch, hearing people act like broken or missing rules aren't a problem, or somehow even a good thing, because the DM can just make something up. Yeah, not shit. I can do that in literally any game I run. It's just unpleasant to do in 5e, yet I have to do it all the damn time to keep the game running smoothly. I'd rather have a game that either supports me as a GM, or is easier to improvise.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago

I think it was a different thread where I posted about how a guy in my dnd group straight face told us something like "the beauty of DND is we can just try out different rules. If we want to do a chase scene we can try it one way, and if it doesn't work or we don't like it we can try something else".

I'm just like that's not a unique property of DND. That's just how playing make believe works. And I'd rather have a game that runs okay out of the box rather than keep playtesting as a DM, or deal with unchecked dm whims as a player.

[-] Lianodel@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

That sounds familiar! Partly because I recall reading that, but also because it's a frustratingly common scenario.

D&D is, for a ton of people, synonymous with tabletop RPGs. Often that means people think the things they like about playing tabletop RPGs are unique to D&D, even they aren't.

What gets me are people who complain about Pathfinder 2e having more rules. You're just as free to ignore them, and no one has to read much less memorize all the rules. Besides, is anyone under the illusion that players are learning all the rules to 5e?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 28 points 1 year ago

If you got to look up rules and nobody cares or wants to, skip it. Its my advice. Use rules only if its necessary and soemwhat contributing to a fun experience.

This is universal.

[-] AcidOctopus@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

This. Our entire campaign is home-brewed using the 5e ruleset, but the application of those rules is selective when it needs to be.

For the most part, we're following them, but if there's a rule that results in a level of attention to detail that we simply don't care to implement, or would have less fun trying to religiously adhere too, we just scrap it in favour of something a bit more light-touch and call it a house rule.

Rules provide a great framework to base your game on, but the ultimate aim is to create an enjoyable experience and have fun, so bend them and break them when and where you need to for the benefit of all involved.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Dice@ttrpg.network 26 points 1 year ago

5e isn't just needlessly complex, it is an unreferencable mess that has very poor general rules with lots of exceptions and poor standardization. The rules for traveling are so misplaced that most players don't know they exist, not that it's possible to find them when needed. And when there are general rules, they tend to be unfun. Stuff like crafting has no depth in 5e, it's just time + gold = item. It might "work", but it's just bookkeeping there is no hidden fun.

For fantasy, I prefer Hackmaster 5e, because it keeps the complexity and detail without dumping special case rules onto players. It's not perfect, but it's way more engaging and characters feel way more interesting. WFRP 4e is also nice, but not as deep (it does suffer from rules being scattered everywhere). I'll likely end up playing OSE ot some point.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago

5e is pretty light though, and in most cases too light so the DM has no idea what to do and has to resort to "Rulings".

PF2e on the otherhand is crunchy AF and its awesome like that. It doesn´t have extra rules for everything, its all based on the same framework, which is pretty awesome.

[-] TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

You see, OSR fans would argue both 5e and Pathfinder have broken core rules engine because if it was well designed, you could apply it to all situations and wouldn't need separate rules for every minutia. By these standards 5e is crunch heavy with unnecessary things like "how to hold your breath"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[-] Pyro@pawb.social 19 points 1 year ago

Depends on the game the group likes. More narrative driven game it can conflict and have issues

However, there is something nice about knowing a balanced way to do x or y across the board and at different tables.

A good gm should be able to make a note of something or make a quick call especially in pf2e case were generic difficulty dc per level is given

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

However, there is something nice about knowing a balanced way to do x or y across the board and at different tables.

I don't agree with this argument. Balancing is the job of the GM. Unless the GM acts as a glorified screenreader who only reads a pre-made adventure to the players with no influence what happens. But if the GM decides what monsters you run into, the GM has more influence over the balancing than the game framework. So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing?

I mean, pen&paper RPGs aren't a players vs GM game, but instead the GM plays together with the players to create an interesting experience where everyone has fun. No need for the framework to do balancing, because a good GM will do that.

[-] PoTayToes@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago

So why not lean into it fully and make the GM responsible for the whole balancing?

Because having things balanced properly in regard to the myriad options that are possible in people imaginations is hard, especially related to combat. Improper balacing leads to people having a bad time, while having an established, fair ruleset lets the DM and the players focus on other things.

No need for the framework to do balancing, because a good GM will do that.

But at this point why even have rules? A "good GM" can just entirely improvise a system.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hukumka@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

While GM decides what monsters to throw into players, they still need to know what they could use without it being either underwhelming or overwhelming. You dismiss this simply by saying: "just be a good DM".

  • New DM's will want guidelines to start from.
  • If combat is important having written rules help to use consistent ruling on same situation in different instances.
  • Story focused DM might reduce amount of effort needed to plan combat, since there is no need to build it from scratch.

Disadvantage of having to look up rules then you don't remember them could be mitigated by just saying: Look guys, I don't remember ruling now, so not to break the flow, I will rule it this way, and look it up later.

So while for most players rule heavy systems are less accessible, they are actually more accessible for many DMs, and since mastering have much higher barrier of entry, such systems at least should not be dismissed outright.

[-] Horst_Voller@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Balancing is the job of the GM.

And some systems make that job easier for the GM than other systems. Winning all the time without challenge is boring. Getting TPKd every other session does not feel good. A good GM should hit somewhere in-between. So you either have a system that helps you do that or you really need to have a lot of experience.

[-] Incogni@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, the GM balances - they decide what type and how hard the encounters will be. But after that decision is made, it's the job of the system to provide the GM with tools to build that encounter and help me balance things: How much skeletons provide the difficulty I want? Is a lich too much? Red dragon or white dragon?

In 5e, you don't have the proper tools imo - the challenge rating is next to useless. In PF2, you have something akin to point buy for encounters - and if it says the encounter will be "moderate threat" - then you can trust that in 99% of the cases.

But at the end of the day, as a GM, if I want to provide my players with a hard, but fair fight, I don't want to have to guess what will work and what won't. Yes, with a lot of experience I will have an idea of that, but why would I pay for a system that just offloads the hard part of their game design to me? Good encounter-building tools don't get in the way of your creativity.

[-] Dice@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

5e has also undermined experience by constantly introducing powercreep. So even after years of running, 5e is frustrating to run.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

5e has too many rules? If anything it seems to be lacking rules. D&D in general has too many options, but 5e often has nothing if you want rules to handle specific non-combat situations,

When systems go even lighter, it stops even feeling like we are playing a Game, and it starts feeling like annotated improv, which is very much not what I want to play. It never feels right to me as a player to be making sweeping declarations without knowledge of what the GM and the other players are planning.

[-] TheGreatDarkness@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e. Because that's a good example of too many rules, in OSR you would use something already existing.

And you do you, but really the OSR tend to teach players to find ways to avoid rolling altogether by stacking deck in their favor before attempting something.

[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Frankly I could point it right back at you as the example of a good thing to have. If you need to dive underwater without equipment or cross smoke during a fire, it's useful to have a reference of how long you can keep at it, how many rounds does that take, how much distance you can cross, what happens once you can't keep at it anymore. We are talking about adventurers, it's surprising that this is somehow thought of as an irrelevant edge case.

Are we expecting that the player should always have spells or some magic scuba for this?

I really don't get what's with OSR and not wanting to roll. I'm playing an RPG, I'm up for rolling. Though in this case, the rule does not even require rolling until you are already drowning.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago

For the few times your players want to swim a lot underwater OR if you use monsters designed to drown them long term

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jagermo@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

Meh, don't play it, then. Why turn everything into a competiton?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonsieurHedge@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

5e is already too simple, playing anything simpler makes me want to vomit.

Plus, OSR games are generally made by the most absolute vicious racists and general bigots imaginable. Genuinely awful in every way possible.

[-] L26@ttrpg.network 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can you link me some sources on the racism/bigotry? Genuinely curious, didn’t realize this was the case.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bouh@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I disagree for 5e about that. In fact many 5e players complain about the lack of specific rules (but IMO they merely want to play pf2e without admitting it).

To me, the problem of 5e is the community first, and lack of specialty second. 5e does a bot of everything. So when you're looking for osr, you will miss many osr feature and many things are too specific or bloated. If you're looking for rule heavy ruleset, it'll be way too light and dm dependent.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

they merely want to play pf2e without admitting it

In my case, I wanted to play pf2e without knowing it. I've been running a DnD curse of Strahd campaign, and I've been getting more and and more irritated at long rests, challenge ratings being meaningless, and martial vs spellcaster balance. Pf2e solves all those issues, and I didn't even realize till I sat down to do prep for a campaign.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rheios@ttrpg.network 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone's noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player's capabilities in place of the character's. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster's "power" or a character's actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the "pack it up" approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)

The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you're trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren't a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don't think we'll agree.

*The "Dorkness Rising" problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Sirsersur@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

If we simplify 5e any more it’s gonna turn into Snakes & Ladders. And clearly OSR already exists, so there’s no need to change other systems.

[-] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

5e is actually on the high end of medium crunch. That's not a bad thing though. The game mostly works and it is fun, but it does have its rough spots. I agree with you about not needing to change it though

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

I hereby grant everyone permission to make up whatever rules they want for their rule sets.

Having rules for more situations is a feature, not a bug. You can always choose not to look up the rule and make something up, but if you ever want something that a designer spent some time on instead of making it up on the fly, you have the option

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] tissek@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago

Me and OSR are a complete mismatch in execution. But we work in theory and design. Where we clash is where the meme is. Simple basic rules that are to be used in pretty much every situation. Where the GM is empowered to make those rulings. Where the GM is King.

I have tried running them and constantly kept asking myself "according to the rules what am I supposed to do?" as I want to run systems as they want to be ran. What is a failure? How does the outcome space look like? And when I get to play I feel I get to relinquish so much control to the GM that I feel almost powerless. The GMs rulings and fiat rules. Sure these are my experiences and I can love OSRs and their designs while not wanting to acctually play them.

[-] darq@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I don't find 5e bloated exactly. But I do think it has a few too many systems in place, sometimes with overlapping use-cases.

Like attacks, skill checks, saves... They're all basically the same thing, an opposed check, but they have slightly different rules. Sometimes the player is rolling against a target, but sometimes the target is rolling to save against? It's a little strange, and adds a bit of extra complexity where I don't really think it's necessary.

A lot of it is just legacy systems that are kept because it wouldn't be D&D without them.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 7 points 1 year ago

It's true; 5E and most versions of D&D are just too heavy and get in the way of actually having fun.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I don't know who needs to hear this, but you can try games Powered by the Apocalypse!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ssgtmccrae@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago

I'm really looking forward to 'Project: Black Flag' aka 'Tales of the Valiant' aka 'CORE Ruleset', which a like-like to 5e (compatible in regard to power-scaling and adventures) that's in development right now. My community plans to switch to it as soon as it's out as they are cleaning up a lot of rules and pushing for a world-agnostic system that feels a lot better from both a player and a DM.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
153 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

10331 readers
272 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS