D&D5 and the OSR

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

The Butcher

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
4,645
Reaction score
12,112
Logged into DTRPG to pick up the Autarch stuff I missed (Secrets of the Nether City and Capital of the Borderlands) and wondered about picking up the D&D5 version of one of their adventures, more out of curiosity than anything.

And it got me thinking.

I’m a fan of both games and I could even see myself running all sorts of TSR and OSR modules with D&D5 (or Mythras, or Savage Worlds) but I default to ACKS because I enjoy playing with their extensive GM-facing campaign management tools (much like I enjoy playing with D&D5’s player-facing character optimization toy box).

But I have also seen quite a few OSR people migrate, in part or fully, to D&D5.

Hence a two-pronged question.

  • Has D&D5 supplanted one or more OSR rulesets at your game table?
  • Do you use TSR and OSR modules and other material with D&D5? And if so, how frequently?
 
I've never been an OSR guy, so the first question doesn't apply...

...but I've used older material like crazy in my 5e games. Monsters and magic items, especially, but also one full Labyrinth Lord module.
 
My group has played 5e a few times, and the other groups I know well are. None of them really picked up OSR. It wasn’t their thing, perhaps because of the GMs I know, I’m the oldest by half a decade and probably played the most of the original D&D era.

as for older stuff, I use the older stuff regularly, and if I were running 5e, I would do it as well. Indeed, I think the older modules have some different lines of challenge that are just not as present in the 5e material I have seen. A certain harder edge, maybe even meaner. Then again, tomb of Annihilation has an invisible teleporting t-rex, so maybe not quite. Other folks obviously think the older stuff is valid, as we have the yawning portal book.
 
Hence a two-pronged question.

  • Has D&D5 supplanted one or more OSR rulesets at your game table?
  • Do you use TSR and OSR modules and other material with D&D5? And if so, how frequently?
Interesting premise...:smile:

1. No, it never came up as an option (though I did give it a try). Then again, most of my oldest players consider anything D&D related to be little more than a joke... if you have the impression that D&D isn't my favourite system, and it's not, now turn that to dislike and open mockery, and then magnify by several orders of magnitude:wink:. BTW, I've tried starting a few OSR games with them. Their conclusion was "the changes are nice, but what they didn't change still sucks".
Yes, really. Well, except I made it more polite during the translation:devil:. Thus, I had to play with other people to even give D&D5 a try.
Of course, I'd have been much less happy if the situation was reversed, so I'm not exactly trying to persuade them in the virtues of the d20 ruleset...

2. Given that I'm not running D&D5 and it looks unlikely in the next several years, no. And even then...I seldom* use modules, period :tongue:.
I might consider reading some of them, if I had an idea which modules contain ideas I could adapt for different systems and settings. But since I don't, it's simply "no" :shade:.

The last time I remember was using our robertsconley robertsconley 's wolf-themed module...but it was a one-shot where we played a group of players who had gathered to play a module. So yes, our PCs had their own PCs who were playing an OSR game (which I assumed is close enough to heavily houseruled D&D) :tongue:!
 
Last edited:
I gave 5E a try but it didn't stick. I am not entirely sure why, because I like some of its concepts a lot (e.g., the way backgrounds work). Perhaps it is because the game, despite paring back from the baroque elaborations of 4E and 3E, still presents a ton of classes that are sort of defined by their kewl pwrzzzzz, which is something I really dislike in D&D. So, when I play D&D it is always an early edition (1E or B/E, naturally with a few house rules). In fact, I've had some experience going the other direction: taking a 5E module and playing it in an early edition.

But what I mostly do with D&D materials now is play them using The Fantasy Trip as the core system. So, edition wars don't mean a lot to me any more.
 
I think that the Zen of D&D 5 is that you're playing D&D, rather than some fantasy system that uses a D20. The rulebooks are fairly prescriptive and are published on the assumption that you're using it pretty much RAW. WOTC publishes D&D and a whole lot of collateral so that you can use the product in this way without too much fuss. This is essentially how D&D is designed to be used, right down to vendor supported forums and on-line periodicals covering rules clarifications.

You can either use the RAW or start hacking. Hacked about D&D is fine and there is a long tradition of it - using a house-ruled version is a perfectly valid approach. One can also do much the same with any of the OSR systems so there's nothing new under the sun there. Given its D20-ness, as M Moonglum says, it also tends to be relatively straightforward to convert D&D content to other D20-ish systems, of which there are quite a wide range available.

From that perspective I don't have a lot of time for D&D hate. It's not F.A.T.A.L. and 5e has fixed most of the issues of earlier editions to the extent that it doesn't really have any serious flaws as long as you're cool with its underlying conceits. I wouldn't have picked 5e as my first choice for running a fantasy campaign, but I'm having fun playing in a 5e game. The party are all pretty good value and we've been going for about two years now.

These days I'm a lot less of a system Nazi than I used to be. The people make the group, and with the right group of people the game itself doesn't matter so much. I've had fun playing everything from Runequest to FATE to Traveller to Call of Cthulhu to Tunnels and Trolls.
 
But I have also seen quite a few OSR people migrate, in part or fully, to D&D5.
That doesn't surprise me due to D&D 5e design that makes it power curve similar to that of OD&D + Greyhawk. Something that I experienced directly having refereed both in campaigns back to back.

What D&D 5e does is inflate the numbers so more ways of dealing damage can be added. The side effect of this you can make a set of class options that just advances in a straight forward manner and that would equally well with a class that has a lot of fiddly options. So the Basic Rules for 5e wind up echoing the straight forward nature of classic D&D.

However it is not all a free lunch as outlined below.


Has D&D5 supplanted one or more OSR rulesets at your game table?

No, in the end D&D 5e has 20 levels to fill. Just enough extra work that classic D&D still retains its appeal. For the players even stuff like the Fighter Champion has enough fiddly bits that for some classic D&D is still more appealing.

I will say it is rare to find somebody who hates D&D 5e. It still seems like it at least everybody's 2nd favorite RPGs if it is not their first.

Do you use TSR and OSR modules and other material with D&D5? And if so, how frequently?

Yes it works seamlessly as long as you sub in the stats for your chosen edition.

Case in point the Majestic Wilderlands 5e Campaign as documented here. It used much of the material I made while running MW using Swords & Wizardry.
 
For the players even stuff like the Fighter Champion has enough fiddly bits that for some classic D&D is still more appealing.

My friends and I have been playing 5e for the past couple of years. We have been getting into the fiddly bits more and more. I don't think 5e works for us given our time restraints, though it's on the table for the foreseeable future.
 
I think that the Zen of D&D 5 is that you're playing D&D, rather than some fantasy system that uses a D20. The rulebooks are fairly prescriptive and are published on the assumption that you're using it pretty much RAW. WOTC publishes D&D and a whole lot of collateral so that you can use the product in this way without too much fuss. This is essentially how D&D is designed to be used, right down to vendor supported forums and on-line periodicals covering rules clarifications.
I'm not really sure how this is materially different to any other RPG line, though; Paizo, frex, do the same thing, although to a smaller degree. I'm sure every mid-tier publisher would love to be that succesful.

WotC just happen to be big enough, and have enough institutional knowledge and goodwill from Magic's organised scene, to pull everything off.
 
I think if 4e had been 5e, the OSR probably wouldn't have happened.
The inciting event for OSR was that Castles & Crusade didn't turn out to be a AD&D clone. Basically over a period of time a debate grew among the fans of Troll Lord Games over the development of Castle & Crusades. It grew bitter and one group split off to create OSRIC.

Meanwhile Chris Gonnerman started his own thing that turned into Basic Fantasy. Together two demonstrated how one can leverage the d20 SRD to create a set of rules close to one of the classic edition. Matt Finch used his experience with OSRIC to make Swords & Wizardry, Dan Proctor made Labyrinth Lord and so on.

My opinion is that sans 4th edition OSR would still have grown into its own niche however it would not have grown as fast.

Hoard and Hordes has a fairly complete time up until 2012.

Basic Timeline
Jan 2006 Basic Fantasy
June 2006 OSRIC Preview
Jan 2007 OSRIC
Aug 2007 Labyrinth Lord
June 2008 Swords & Wizardry (draft)
June 2008 Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition
200+ OSR related products had been released.

Oct 2008 Swords & Wizardry
Nov 2008 OSRIC 2nd Edition
Jan 2009 Swords & Wizardry White Box
July 2009 Ruins & Ronin
August 2009 Pathfinder
350+ OSR related products had been released

August 2009 Labyrinth Lord Revised
 
I think if 4e had been 5e, the OSR probably wouldn't have happened.
4e sure helped, but really all WOTC D&D was enough of a departure that there were fans looking for ways to keep the TSR era alive. I could never get into 3e, 4e was just completely alien, and while 5e seemed like a slight gesture of goodwill to the already established OSR scene, it doesn't come close to feeling like TSR era. Played a few times and have no interest in it now.
 
I mean the hobby always had a percentage that were interested in earlier editions and "retro" games, but when I think of the OSR as a "movement" as opposed to a brand name, I think it was the massive group of disenfrsacnhised fans looking for an alternative to "official" D&D when it wasn't D&D that both led to the success of Pathfinder and the OSR becoming "a Thing" rather than just another small group of people.

I still though believe that Mazes & Minotaurs * Encounter Critical did far more to kickstart the OSR than C&C or OSRIC, which more showed a method than actually engendering the interest in old school play. At least that was my perception of that time.
 
So why didn’t anybody do anything between 2000, when the OGL was released, and 2006? Was everyone in love with 3e still?
 
So why didn’t anybody do anything between 2000, when the OGL was released, and 2006? Was everyone in love with 3e still?

I think 3e was, despite the changes, still close enough to TSR D&D to not turn away the majority of the fanbase, and alot of people who preferred TSR D&D still had all their 2e stuff (which was also dirt cheap on the secondhand market in those days) so there was no real need to searxch for a "new old version"
 
So why didn’t anybody do anything between 2000, when the OGL was released, and 2006? Was everyone in love with 3e still?
Fear of IP lawsuits and a d20 boom. During the 3.5e era each of the 3PP focused on forging a distinct brand image. A couple of them prized old school gaming like Necromancer Games, and Troll Lord Games. Troll Lords took the next step to make a set of rules compatible with AD&D although the system was different.
 
Castles and Crusades was published in 2004, so they were probably working on it by 2002-3. It doesn't get a ton of love any more (perhaps because the OSR playing field is so full and so diverse now), but there was a time when it was very visible. I played a lot of it and maintain a lot of admiration for the system. I'm not sure about first publication dates of other things, but you could argue it was the trailblazer of the OSR.
 
So why didn’t anybody do anything between 2000, when the OGL was released, and 2006? Was everyone in love with 3e still?
It took a year or two for people to really appreciate all of the differences between 3E and older editions, and that playing 3E in "old school style" a la Necromancer Games still wasn't the same as actually playing the older editions. By about the middle of 2002 there were already rumblings at places like Dragonsfoot and Rob Kuntz's now-defunct forum-site about the feasibility of using the OGL to make a more 1E-like system. Troll Lord Games was the first publisher to pick up on that and Castles & Crusades was announced and began public playtesting around early 2003. The early playtest drafts were very 1E-like, but as development progressed they became less so (at least in part because TLG apparently received legal advice warning them away from straying too far from the safe harbor of the d20 SRD) and by the time C&C was released in mid-late 2004 a lot of the people who were hoping it would be a de facto revival of 1E were disappointed in the results. It took about another year after that for Matt Finch to come up with his rationale for how to do a "1E clone" in a way that would be more like what the disgruntled 1E fans wanted/expected C&C to be while avoiding the legal pitfalls that apparently scared TLG off, and then several more months of writing and development before OSRIC was ready for release in mid 2006.

So, basically, it took about 2 years for people to sour on 3E enough, and get comfortable enough with the OGL, to come up with the idea of using it to "clone" AD&D. Then it took another 2 years for the first such attempt (C&C) to be developed and released. Then when that didn't satisfy the itch, it took another 2 years for the next attempt (OSRIC) to be developed and released, and then another year after that for "the OSRIC method" to be copied and applied by a third party (Labyrinth Lord). And after that, the floodgates opened. It may all seem obvious and easy in retrospect, but at the time these were totally untested waters. OSRIC was VERY controversial when it was released, and Stuart Marshall (who took on the project from Matt midway through its development cycle) took a very big risk by releasing it. If he hadn't done so and proved the concept (by not getting sued into oblivion by Hasbro) it's very unlikely anyone else would have.

Everybody who considers themselves fans of the OSR and plays or writes for any sort of retro-clone-based system owes Matt Finch (for the ideas) and Stuart Marshall (for the execution) a huge debt of gratitude.
 
The release of D&D v3.5 in July 2003 was a significant turning point. ~2 years of play had exposed a lot of issues with D&D 3.0 where the mechanics of the game didn't line up with the assumptions about play-style. A lot of old-edition fans played 3.0 pretty much the same way they'd played the older versions and never encountered those issues, so when 3.5 came out and addressed those issues by and large not by modifying the mechanics to match the assumed playstyle but by modifying the assumed playstyle to match the mechanics (so things like optimized character builds and tactical combat exploits became more of a central component) old-school fans who'd been sort of reluctantly tolerating 3.0 by "drifting" it backwards felt they'd been left even further behind and that it made more sense to actually go back to their preferred system than try to modify the current version to feel like it, which was becoming harder to do.

Along with this, a lot of d20 publishers also felt burned by 3.5 because it rendered all of their 3.0 products obsolete, leaving them with a lot of unsellable stock (at least in the eyes of the buying public). This caused a lot of them to reassess their relationship with WotC and realize that it made more sense for their bottom line not to be so beholden by the whims of a third party who could (and did) drop the floor out from under them. This is why a lot of the d20 publishers who'd been content releasing modules and sourcebooks for D&D in 2000-2002 started, in 2003 and after, moving towards their own "house" d20-based systems (not just C&C bit also Arcana Evolved, Blue Rose, etc.).

So between these two, Troll Lord Games' decision to develop their own "house" d20 system both to insulate themselves from WotC's whims and to capture the disgruntled old-schooler segment, was a smart move and set the stage for Paizo doing pretty much exactly the same thing following the release of 4E.
 
That’s a good point about 3.5.

I remember seeing a lot of dust building up on books in the stores I visited after that came out.
 
A lot of people (especially people who worked for or with the established "old school" d20 publishers - Troll Lord Games, Necromancer Games, and KenzerCo) declared that OSRIC was an illegal ripoff that violated the OGL and was going to get sued out of existence by Hasbro. They stated that opinion forcefully and publicly (and as if it were a fact, not an opinion) and further claimed that anyone who released OSRIC-based products would also be opening themselves to legal liability and that anyone with any sense should steer as clear of it as possible. This went so far as, for instance, banning any mention of OSRIC on the Troll Lord Games forums, ostensibly to shield them from legal liability.

They actually did have a point, if Matt Finch hadn't done his homework and didn't know what he was doing, but he did. Matt is a lawyer by training (though AFAIK he doesn't practice anymore), and did a lot of research, and was very careful to draft OSRIC in such a way to minimize any potential legal risk because he knew that he was doing something that others had attempted and ultimately shied away from. And, I hope I'm not speaking out of turn 14 years after the fact, but Matt and Stuart did receive an inquiry from WotC's legal brand licensing department pretty soon after the release (because "a third party" had reported it to them as being in violation of the OGL), but once Matt and Stuart calmly and professionally explained to them the legal rationale under which OSRC was created and how that was consistent with the terms of the OGL, they didn't pursue the matter any further.

Matt was, frankly, just a better lawyer than the lawyers who ran Necromancer and KenzerCo. If they'd also done their homework and looked at it as carefully as he did they'd also have seen that it wasn't what they claimed it was, but instead of doing that they chose to spread FUD and allowed (encouraged?) their employees, friends, and fans to do the same. And yes, fear of losing market share to OSRIC was almost certainly a big driver of that. They'd both built their market on saying "this is as close to old-school D&D as you're going to get," so to have a bunch of unknown amateurs show up and say otherwise was understandably an uncomfortable spot to be put in.

EDIT: corrected which department at WotC reached out to Matt and Stuart about OSRIC
 
Last edited:
It's been a while - wasn't Matt Finch also based in Britain, which would have made lawsuits harder?

I recall the earlier retroclones being more careful to not duplicate tables and stuff that weren't OGL and which didn't follow a mathematical formula, so XP amounts and things like that were slightly different than the originals. Some more recent ones seem to exactly duplicate things not OGL - technically, they could probably be sued. But I doubt that WOTC really has the stomach for it. Retroclones are a tiny market relative to 5e and a lawsuit wouldn't encourage OSR players to buy WOTC products. It would be a can of worms for everyone.
 
It's been a while - wasn't Matt Finch also based in Britain, which would have made lawsuits harder?
Matt isn't but Stuart Marshall is. That's one of the reasons why Stuart is credited as the sole copyright owner, even though most of the writing was Matt's, and is more evidence of the sort of 8-dimensional-chess thinking that went into its creation. Knowing how much thought they put into it and how careful they were about every step and every eventuality, it's a little irksome to see (as you noted) so many other publishers be so less careful while successfully riding on OSRIC's precedent. I mean, I'm glad that they're able to do it, but it does feel like it minimizes the really incredible amount of care and planning and guts that Matt and Stuart poured into OSRIC.
 
It does make my shake my head and laugh when I see people who don't know what they don't know pop off about how OSRIC doesn't have monks or psionics, unlike later games coping originals nearly verbatim, and this is clearly an incomprehensible oversight, or error. Without ever stopping to consider why that particular omission could occur when the rest is meticulously executed.

Confidently-stated conclusions sway other people who don't know what they don't know, but for anyone who has a greater understanding it just marks the naysayer as "not as smart as they think they are".
 
That's like the third rule of RPG forums - never listen to posted opinions about copyright

(I'm not sure what the second rule is yet)
 
Well, back to the original T The Butcher question.

No, 5e is still too WotC for me. Characters are built decks, with cards/powers on different cooldowns.
Did they tone it WAY back from 3e/4e? Hell yes.
Do they give you dials and options to tone it way back even further? Yes, pretty well, actually.
However, all the classes and races are designed with mathematical balance really divorced from setting context.
Could I get a D&D I want out of 5e? Yes I could, definitely. It’s just a question of effort and time.

At this point, however, my preferences have moved past Class and Level design merged with skill system.

If I did want to play D&D, I’d do it with AD&D1, ACKS, AS&SH, B/X, DCC or an equivalent. Something that would be far easier to hammer into shape.
 
5e is what got me interested again in RPGs although my preferred edition was the Rule Cyclopedia. I've ran 5e and would definitely port older and OSR stuff into 5e but I'm likely to pitch Old School Essentials with Ascending AC or Beyond the Wall to the next group I GM D&D for. If they prefer 5e though I will go with that and use OSR and classic adventures and setting material, probably mashed with Greyhawk.
 
1. It replaced the Entry Game for new players for me. Big reason: searchable .pdfs with table of contents breaks and clean, intimidation-free chargen class chart. Format and ease helps a lot. That said making an OSR chargen is dirt easy in comparison -- but 'ye olde layouts' bewilder the youngins' and n00bs.

2. Ran some Basic RPG, Dragonsfoot, and similar adventures with adjusted 5e. Gold Spent for XP works pretty well here. Threat level is less and still plays like The Avengers! than dungeon crawl, but baby steps with team weaboo fightan magix.
 
My favorite intro game for new players has always been (and remains) The Fantasy Trip. Character creation in a couple of minutes; a character sheet the size of a post-it note; different modes of game play extending from a 15 minute gladiatorial duel to a fleshed out campaign; tactile game materials (maps, chits, etc.); equally applicable to pretty much any character types or settings; one short core book; fun.
 
While I conducted a small campaign using the playtest materials, I have stayed away from 5E because I don't want to have to tell players, "No, you can't play a half-Genasi Warlock/Bard/Barbarian/Paladin (Blackguard)." I am impressed by this rules set, in general, and **might** actually run it using the free version (with the big 4 race/classes). But my #1 consideration these days is getting on with the game. I want quick chargen, and ease of running on the fly. I'd have to deal with tons of splats, and players wanting to play a wider variety of R/C's than I'd want to allow. I'd rather not waste time fighting these battles (all the while being called arbitrarily [and rightly, I suppose] old-fashioned). It's too bad for me, I guess, because finding anything other than 5E in my area has been nigh impossible.
 
Along with this, a lot of d20 publishers also felt burned by 3.5 because it rendered all of their 3.0 products obsolete, leaving them with a lot of unsellable stock (at least in the eyes of the buying public). This caused a lot of them to reassess their relationship with WotC and realize that it made more sense for their bottom line not to be so beholden by the whims of a third party who could (and did) drop the floor out from under them.

I'll note that a large part of this was the fact that WotC actually went out of its way to assure 3rd party producers that 3.5 would be completely backwards compatible with 3.0 products and there was nothing to worry about. But as soon as 3.5 dropped, they launched a marketing campaign declaring their own 3.0 supplements obsolete and replacing them with brand new, full-color hardcovers. (Which had, of course, been their primary reason for doing the 3.5 upgrade in the first place.)

If 3rd party producers had been properly informed, they could have wound down their 3.0 product development and then geared back up when 3.5 was released. Instead, because WotC lied to them, they all continued investing time and money into developing and printing 3.0 products that were suddenly worthless.

And the problem wasn't limited to just the 3rd party publishers: Game stores had also continued investing in inventory, only to see it all become worthless and basically unsellable at any price. Not only was this an incredible hardship for the game stores (and not the first nor the last time WotC would screw over independent game stores by lying to them), but it meant most of them had zero interest in continuing to stock 3rd party books.

People talk about the implosion of the d20 bubble as if it were inevitable. And maybe it was. But, in actual practice, WotC put a gun to its head and pulled the trigger.
 
I'll note that a large part of this was the fact that WotC actually went out of its way to assure 3rd party producers that 3.5 would be completely backwards compatible with 3.0 products and there was nothing to worry about. But as soon as 3.5 dropped, they launched a marketing campaign declaring their own 3.0 supplements obsolete and replacing them with brand new, full-color hardcovers. (Which had, of course, been their primary reason for doing the 3.5 upgrade in the first place.)

If 3rd party producers had been properly informed, they could have wound down their 3.0 product development and then geared back up when 3.5 was released. Instead, because WotC lied to them, they all continued investing time and money into developing and printing 3.0 products that were suddenly worthless.

And the problem wasn't limited to just the 3rd party publishers: Game stores had also continued investing in inventory, only to see it all become worthless and basically unsellable at any price. Not only was this an incredible hardship for the game stores (and not the first nor the last time WotC would screw over independent game stores by lying to them), but it meant most of them had zero interest in continuing to stock 3rd party books.

People talk about the implosion of the d20 bubble as if it were inevitable. And maybe it was. But, in actual practice, WotC put a gun to its head and pulled the trigger.


3.5 was also just a much worse game (at least in my opinion). There were little tweaks that cranked up the system mastery issues and, at least in my experience, led to slower, more tedious, game play. When I first got the books it looked like the same game, and I just ran it that way. But within a week we realized we needed to learn the ins and outs of 3.5 because the little differences mattered a lot.
 
I am impressed by this rules set, in general, and **might** actually run it using the free version (with the big 4 race/classes).

For folks who are interested I made this reference resource. It designed to allow players to quickly generate 5e character during a convention game. It covers the four traditional classes and levels 1 to 6.

D&D 5e Convention Classes
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top