This is not a debate about what isOSR if it's better etc. This is just me soliciting opinions from people who are far more familiar with 5e than me and my play group.
For those of you not familiar, OSR is a family of games that embrace an idealized version of much older styles of D&D, ie with an emphasis on deadly combat, gm fiat, and exploration/open world campaigns and adventures vs narrative campaigns and adventures. For example search checks are used less frequently, and sometimes not at all, in favor of the DM describing a room and players describing what and how they search a room and so forth.
I ran an OSR 'funnel' with a group of friends which is a very deadly one shot with minimally powered level 0 characters that most often eat the dust, to the point each player gets 3-4 of them to run through the dungeon since many will die. This group included a friend who is a pretty big 5e proponent and loves running 5e games. This friend is a *very* loose style DM that likes a light hearted bit of over the top style in her game with less emphasis on deep tactical rules and such. She ended up loving the concept of OSR but is still very interested in hanging on to the 5e ruleset and we've talked about adjustments and house rules to make the rules more 'OSR-like'.
Having not had much experience with the 5e rules I figured this would be a good place to ask about homebrews, alternate rule sets, and even adventures/modules to help a game of 5e feel more deadly and loose. Of course we could be barking up the wrong tree completely and 5e may not be what she's looking for at all. Still, I thought I'd ask.
Starting off, 5e can fit perfectly in OSR land. Just because the rules give ways and options for characters to use the stats to do things, like passive perceptions meaning you might automatically notice something or character backgrounds giving you an edge in certain social situations? You don't have to play that way. Custom backgrounds would negate a lot of the flavor bonuses you get from a standard background. I do think this is a session 0 conversation though in terms of what characters will be doing what and what makes sense. In 5e, it makes sense for everyone to take perception just because of how heavy the game makes the skill. If you are going to make it so that they need to describe how they perceive their surroundings? Maybe you aren't taking that skill and instead you're taking History.
The things I'd be on the lookout for is the social parts of kits, with a friendly reminder that even fighters had social kits back in the day. AD&D 2nd for instance, Samurais were scribes. In 5e, they get extra social/historical skill and an extra language. Most people would go FIGHTERS GOTTA FIGHT, but well, fighters aren't just fighters.
5e is a very mechanically light way of making characters and explaining how those characters work. The ability scores already exist, and while it might be tedious it'd be fine as a DM to say "depending on how you describe the situation, you might be proficient in your skill check or you might not me. You might get advantage or have disadvantage." That way you'd be playing very classic roles. The paladin is just good at social skills and gets their PB to them. The rogue is good at all sneaky stuff. Fighters and Barbarians are strong and get it in strong person things.
Long answer: Yes. The DM of one of the games I play in does this very thing and does it well. We do not use the Hit Dice presented in the 5e rules but instead reduced Hit Dice: rogues and wizards, for example, gain a single Hit Point on a level up beyond 1st. Martial characters get 2. Some might gain one more depending on race. No death saves, either. This makes combat lethal at all levels, as it should be, because as soon as someone can no longer be killed by a sword with a critical hit, that someone has become a superhero or a god. This happens much too soon in 5e. Neither do we use spell slots or spell lists: instead a player negotiates a single spell that is learned on a level up; spells are not as written and are dependent on how well the player rolls when casting; instead a caster rolls to see if a spell succeeds and then rolls for 'spell energy' to see if they are drained or not. It is a sandbox of the DM's creation, it is much more about rulings than rules, and no session passes when I'm not thinking to myself that my character might end up dead. I like it that way because if there is next to zero risk of that happening there is next to zero tension.
Starting off, 5e can fit perfectly in OSR land. Just because the rules give ways and options for characters to use the stats to do things, like passive perceptions meaning you might automatically notice something or character backgrounds giving you an edge in certain social situations? You don't have to play that way. Custom backgrounds would negate a lot of the flavor bonuses you get from a standard background. I do think this is a session 0 conversation though in terms of what characters will be doing what and what makes sense. In 5e, it makes sense for everyone to take perception just because of how heavy the game makes the skill. If you are going to make it so that they need to describe how they perceive their surroundings? Maybe you aren't taking that skill and instead you're taking History.
The things I'd be on the lookout for is the social parts of kits, with a friendly reminder that even fighters had social kits back in the day. AD&D 2nd for instance, Samurais were scribes. In 5e, they get extra social/historical skill and an extra language. Most people would go FIGHTERS GOTTA FIGHT, but well, fighters aren't just fighters.
5e is a very mechanically light way of making characters and explaining how those characters work. The ability scores already exist, and while it might be tedious it'd be fine as a DM to say "depending on how you describe the situation, you might be proficient in your skill check or you might not me. You might get advantage or have disadvantage." That way you'd be playing very classic roles. The paladin is just good at social skills and gets their PB to them. The rogue is good at all sneaky stuff. Fighters and Barbarians are strong and get it in strong person things.
It's pretty interesting because I also found 5e more DM Fiat leaning than PF2E. This seemed to actually cause more of a headache for the other DM I played 5e with (not my friend who played in my OSR game) as people assumed a lot of rules exist that don't. This means a halt as the DM and players have to look for it then finding out it doesn't exist so the DM has to make it up anyway. It's almost like 5e wants to do a tactical heavy strategic combat and mechanical skills but also wants a lot of gaps to be filled in by the DM to come up with on the fly. I really like some of your ideas and defintely will pass it along to my friend. Thanks!
Long answer: Yes. The DM of one of the games I play in does this very thing and does it well. We do not use the Hit Dice presented in the 5e rules but instead reduced Hit Dice: rogues and wizards, for example, gain a single Hit Point on a level up beyond 1st. Martial characters get 2. Some might gain one more depending on race. No death saves, either. This makes combat lethal at all levels, as it should be, because as soon as someone can no longer be killed by a sword with a critical hit, that someone has become a superhero or a god. This happens much too soon in 5e. Neither do we use spell slots or spell lists: instead a player negotiates a single spell that is learned on a level up; spells are not as written and are dependent on how well the player rolls when casting; instead a caster rolls to see if a spell succeeds and then rolls for 'spell energy' to see if they are drained or not. It is a sandbox of the DM's creation, it is much more about rulings than rules, and no session passes when I'm not thinking to myself that my character might end up dead. I like it that way because if there is next to zero risk of that happening there is next to zero tension.
The way DCC runs magic is so cool, and tbh closer to the system in Vance's actual books, that I may work with my friend on making a 5e compatible version. Your idea of reducing HPs drastically and nixing death saves were way up on the top of my list of suggestions. Your rule though is even more brutal than mine! I think we'll have to experiment a bit to see if it's TOO low especially considering 5e's desire to amp up the damage dramatically as the levels increase.
Long answer: Yes. The DM of one of the games I play in does this very thing and does it well. We do not use the Hit Dice presented in the 5e rules but instead reduced Hit Dice: rogues and wizards, for example, gain a single Hit Point on a level up beyond 1st. Martial characters get 2. Some might gain one more depending on race. No death saves, either. This makes combat lethal at all levels, as it should be, because as soon as someone can no longer be killed by a sword with a critical hit, that someone has become a superhero or a god. This happens much too soon in 5e. Neither do we use spell slots or spell lists: instead a player negotiates a single spell that is learned on a level up; spells are not as written and are dependent on how well the player rolls when casting; instead a caster rolls to see if a spell succeeds and then rolls for 'spell energy' to see if they are drained or not. It is a sandbox of the DM's creation, it is much more about rulings than rules, and no session passes when I'm not thinking to myself that my character might end up dead. I like it that way because if there is next to zero risk of that happening there is next to zero tension.
The way DCC runs magic is so cool, and tbh closer to the system in Vance's actual books, that I may work with my friend on making a 5e compatible version. Your idea of reducing HPs drastically and nixing death saves were way up on the top of my list of suggestions. Your rule though is even more brutal than mine! I think we'll have to experiment a bit to see if it's TOO low especially considering 5e's desire to amp up the damage dramatically as the levels increase.
DCC is great! Particularly as you said how it handles magic.
The way I run things myself isn't half as lethal as things are in that game I play in. I use the Hit Dice from earlier editions, with rogues and wizards getting a d4 each level, for example. But I've also ditched death saves as the concept seems a bit too much like giving characters extra lives for my liking. Feels a bit too much like the player is popping another dollar into the arcade machine just to stay alive. What I run is a mix of things taken from 5e, earlier editions, OSR zines, and other games that are basically D&D.
Funnily enough after a few months of playing 5E I've have been getting the feeling it is a bit "easy" and progression is very quick. Someone recommeded 5E Hardcore mode to me so I ordered it, I've not received it yet but flicking through the PDF it's looks interesting and there are a few videos out there on it.
Have a look at Five Torches Deep. It's designed as a mid-way point between 5e and OSR, to show 5e players what it's like without changing too much of what makes 5e great.
There is no reason you couldn’t have an OSR style game from a narrative perspective, such as an open world and whatnot. In fact, that’s how I run my games.
From a combat perspective though, much more challenging if not impossible without house rules. You see, what 5e does well is wargame style tactical combat with a fantasy skin. The game is predicated on the idea that both the players and monsters will have a handful of rounds to make some moves and use their abilities before combat resolves.
That’s not the case in an OSR. In an OSR combat is swift and bloody with little regard for balance or structure. I’m hesitant to call it “more deadly” because 5e can be as deadly as you want too if you bring more and more CR to a fight.
The way I like to think of it, OSR is player centric while 5e is character centric. In an OSR your character is little more than an average Joe that can either swing a sword decently or cast 1 or 2 spells; the way to be successful is by being a good PLAYER, navigating the dungeon smartly, getting the drop on monsters (who, although they can kill you much easier you can kill them much easier in turn) that sort of thing. It’s totally different from character centric 5e, where things like recognizing when to apply your skills and proficiencies, and piloting your character well in a war game sense during combat is the key to success.
There is no reason you couldn’t have an OSR style game from a narrative perspective, such as an open world and whatnot. In fact, that’s how I run my games.
From a combat perspective though, much more challenging if not impossible without house rules. You see, what 5e does well is wargame style tactical combat with a fantasy skin. The game is predicated on the idea that both the players and monsters will have a handful of rounds to make some moves and use their abilities before combat resolves.
That’s not the case in an OSR. In an OSR combat is swift and bloody with little regard for balance or structure. I’m hesitant to call it “more deadly” because 5e can be as deadly as you want too if you bring more and more CR to a fight.
The way I like to think of it, OSR is player centric while 5e is character centric. In an OSR your character is little more than an average Joe that can either swing a sword decently or cast 1 or 2 spells; the way to be successful is by being a good PLAYER, navigating the dungeon smartly, getting the drop on monsters (who, although they can kill you much easier you can kill them much easier in turn) that sort of thing. It’s totally different from character centric 5e, where things like recognizing when to apply your skills and proficiencies, and piloting your character well in a war game sense during combat is the key to success.
The RAW doesn't discourage you from running an open world so much as the 'pathos' of the game discourages it I suppose. The player vs character focus is a great comparison! I try to strike a balance in my short time in OSR giving people rolls buffed (or nerfed) based on what they describe their character saying or doing. Sometimes I don't even have a roll if the dialogue or actions described are really good (or more rarely) really bad.
This is not a debate about what is OSR if it's better etc. This is just me soliciting opinions from people who are far more familiar with 5e than me and my play group.
For those of you not familiar, OSR is a family of games that embrace an idealized version of much older styles of D&D, ie with an emphasis on deadly combat, gm fiat, and exploration/open world campaigns and adventures vs narrative campaigns and adventures. For example search checks are used less frequently, and sometimes not at all, in favor of the DM describing a room and players describing what and how they search a room and so forth.
I ran an OSR 'funnel' with a group of friends which is a very deadly one shot with minimally powered level 0 characters that most often eat the dust, to the point each player gets 3-4 of them to run through the dungeon since many will die. This group included a friend who is a pretty big 5e proponent and loves running 5e games. This friend is a *very* loose style DM that likes a light hearted bit of over the top style in her game with less emphasis on deep tactical rules and such. She ended up loving the concept of OSR but is still very interested in hanging on to the 5e ruleset and we've talked about adjustments and house rules to make the rules more 'OSR-like'.
Having not had much experience with the 5e rules I figured this would be a good place to ask about homebrews, alternate rule sets, and even adventures/modules to help a game of 5e feel more deadly and loose. Of course we could be barking up the wrong tree completely and 5e may not be what she's looking for at all. Still, I thought I'd ask.
So it can be done in 5e.
Starting off, 5e can fit perfectly in OSR land. Just because the rules give ways and options for characters to use the stats to do things, like passive perceptions meaning you might automatically notice something or character backgrounds giving you an edge in certain social situations? You don't have to play that way. Custom backgrounds would negate a lot of the flavor bonuses you get from a standard background. I do think this is a session 0 conversation though in terms of what characters will be doing what and what makes sense. In 5e, it makes sense for everyone to take perception just because of how heavy the game makes the skill. If you are going to make it so that they need to describe how they perceive their surroundings? Maybe you aren't taking that skill and instead you're taking History.
The things I'd be on the lookout for is the social parts of kits, with a friendly reminder that even fighters had social kits back in the day. AD&D 2nd for instance, Samurais were scribes. In 5e, they get extra social/historical skill and an extra language. Most people would go FIGHTERS GOTTA FIGHT, but well, fighters aren't just fighters.
5e is a very mechanically light way of making characters and explaining how those characters work. The ability scores already exist, and while it might be tedious it'd be fine as a DM to say "depending on how you describe the situation, you might be proficient in your skill check or you might not me. You might get advantage or have disadvantage." That way you'd be playing very classic roles. The paladin is just good at social skills and gets their PB to them. The rogue is good at all sneaky stuff. Fighters and Barbarians are strong and get it in strong person things.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes. The DM of one of the games I play in does this very thing and does it well. We do not use the Hit Dice presented in the 5e rules but instead reduced Hit Dice: rogues and wizards, for example, gain a single Hit Point on a level up beyond 1st. Martial characters get 2. Some might gain one more depending on race. No death saves, either. This makes combat lethal at all levels, as it should be, because as soon as someone can no longer be killed by a sword with a critical hit, that someone has become a superhero or a god. This happens much too soon in 5e. Neither do we use spell slots or spell lists: instead a player negotiates a single spell that is learned on a level up; spells are not as written and are dependent on how well the player rolls when casting; instead a caster rolls to see if a spell succeeds and then rolls for 'spell energy' to see if they are drained or not. It is a sandbox of the DM's creation, it is much more about rulings than rules, and no session passes when I'm not thinking to myself that my character might end up dead. I like it that way because if there is next to zero risk of that happening there is next to zero tension.
It's pretty interesting because I also found 5e more DM Fiat leaning than PF2E. This seemed to actually cause more of a headache for the other DM I played 5e with (not my friend who played in my OSR game) as people assumed a lot of rules exist that don't. This means a halt as the DM and players have to look for it then finding out it doesn't exist so the DM has to make it up anyway. It's almost like 5e wants to do a tactical heavy strategic combat and mechanical skills but also wants a lot of gaps to be filled in by the DM to come up with on the fly. I really like some of your ideas and defintely will pass it along to my friend. Thanks!
The way DCC runs magic is so cool, and tbh closer to the system in Vance's actual books, that I may work with my friend on making a 5e compatible version. Your idea of reducing HPs drastically and nixing death saves were way up on the top of my list of suggestions. Your rule though is even more brutal than mine! I think we'll have to experiment a bit to see if it's TOO low especially considering 5e's desire to amp up the damage dramatically as the levels increase.
DCC is great! Particularly as you said how it handles magic.
The way I run things myself isn't half as lethal as things are in that game I play in. I use the Hit Dice from earlier editions, with rogues and wizards getting a d4 each level, for example. But I've also ditched death saves as the concept seems a bit too much like giving characters extra lives for my liking. Feels a bit too much like the player is popping another dollar into the arcade machine just to stay alive. What I run is a mix of things taken from 5e, earlier editions, OSR zines, and other games that are basically D&D.
Funnily enough after a few months of playing 5E I've have been getting the feeling it is a bit "easy" and progression is very quick. Someone recommeded 5E Hardcore mode to me so I ordered it, I've not received it yet but flicking through the PDF it's looks interesting and there are a few videos out there on it.
I'd like to add:
Have a look at Five Torches Deep. It's designed as a mid-way point between 5e and OSR, to show 5e players what it's like without changing too much of what makes 5e great.
[REDACTED]
Both of these PDFs are pretty exciting and exactly up my friend's alley. I'll definitely pass them along!
There is no reason you couldn’t have an OSR style game from a narrative perspective, such as an open world and whatnot. In fact, that’s how I run my games.
From a combat perspective though, much more challenging if not impossible without house rules. You see, what 5e does well is wargame style tactical combat with a fantasy skin. The game is predicated on the idea that both the players and monsters will have a handful of rounds to make some moves and use their abilities before combat resolves.
That’s not the case in an OSR. In an OSR combat is swift and bloody with little regard for balance or structure. I’m hesitant to call it “more deadly” because 5e can be as deadly as you want too if you bring more and more CR to a fight.
The way I like to think of it, OSR is player centric while 5e is character centric. In an OSR your character is little more than an average Joe that can either swing a sword decently or cast 1 or 2 spells; the way to be successful is by being a good PLAYER, navigating the dungeon smartly, getting the drop on monsters (who, although they can kill you much easier you can kill them much easier in turn) that sort of thing. It’s totally different from character centric 5e, where things like recognizing when to apply your skills and proficiencies, and piloting your character well in a war game sense during combat is the key to success.
The RAW doesn't discourage you from running an open world so much as the 'pathos' of the game discourages it I suppose. The player vs character focus is a great comparison! I try to strike a balance in my short time in OSR giving people rolls buffed (or nerfed) based on what they describe their character saying or doing. Sometimes I don't even have a roll if the dialogue or actions described are really good (or more rarely) really bad.