The danger is what I love most about old school D&D. You aren't a hero right out of the gate. Death is around every corner, and you have to earn being a hero.
You can absolutely get there, of course. Once you have a decent stock of HP, better saves, some choice magic items, and ready access to resurrections. In other words, as you start to approach name level. The difference is that in proper D&D, you earn every bit of your herodom or die trying.
I agree. In my experience, once BECMI PCs get to even second level, they tend to survive for the long term. It's nice to grow into being a force to be reckoned with, instead of starting out as one
There is always a difference when you see a player who plays a lot of old school DND start playing DND 5e, people always used to ask me why I never went anywhere without a ten foot poll, or always stocked up with healing potions, and I always had a pet or familiar scout corridors for me. They always joked I was paranoid or cowardly...if they played the older games they would realize why.
After learning more about how not to "run into the fray" and to be a little more tactical, I still liked playing thieves. So when we heard a bunch of Kobolds talking I came up with a plan. The group set up around a corner, fighters to one side, Bowman down the hall and the mage at the rear. My Thief snuck up to the room with the Kobalds and threw a dagger at their leader. Then he ran away screaming with kobalds chasing after him. And he ran to the back with the mage and waited as the kobalds rounded the corner. A hail of arrows hit the first wave. Then the fighters took down the wounded and retreated. The next volley of arrows took the few brave enough to keep coming. Then we called out to the leader to surrender. Telling him that we had more than enough men to take them out. They were pretty demoralized and threw down their weapons under condition that we not kill them. Well we were true to our word and let them live but they were a bit poorer now.
And that’s why I love old school play in a nutshell. The answer wasn’t on the character sheet. It was in player skill and interacting with the game world.
I remember a game I was running. The players came to a long room, and when the other side was finally illuminated by their torches they saw a small alter with a golden challice on it, and the statue to some strange deity sat behind it. Their instinct was not to run up and claim the treasure, no they said "I don't like anything about this..." Eventually they persuaded one of their (dumber) hirelings to go in and check it out for a pay increase. Poor bastard never got it, as soon as he touched the chalice the "statue" came to live, a thousand gibbering mouths and eyes engulfing him in moments. The party ran, they spiked the door, but they didn't stop! They ran all the way back to town! You don't get those moments in 5e D&D.
What a great videa drawing the distinctions between BECMI and 5th Ed. I was thinking about running BECMI for my table but now realized they're in for the heroic power fantasy rather than what BECMI has to offer.
I am fond of saying that the WOTC versions of the game are simply just superheroes and if I want to play a superhero there are games for that that do it so much better. I love the fact that older versions of the game are lethal and do not suffer fools. If I had to play or run a game for players who just want to charge in against anything because they're playing superheroes masquerading as fantasy characters id probably quit the hobby.
There is also the mechanic to just bust open a chest when in doubt. May destroy something in the chest but you break the trap. That can be quite a dilemma for a party with no thief.@@oz_jones
Brilliant story. I love BECMI because I believe it is heroic play. Your characters are more akin to a real person, and thus a warrior that grows in levels and pads their HP can take on two or three opponents etc and it's cinematic, even better if they get their hands on a magic sword. But fighting an ogre, troll, dragon etc will always be really dangerous.
Excellent video! I'm currently in a group running Keep on the Borderlands and other than the Dm and myself no one ever played original Red Box DnD. Most act just as you describe, roll initiative and charge. We have a large party of eight but how the game is run that doesn't help as much as you'd think. I was absent when we first entered the caves, family commitment, and they were almost all killed. The lack of teamwork, leadership and basic military unit tactics was terrifying. None of them were used to the level of carnage that a well run attack could cause. My DM gave me permission to slightly meta the game as my bard wasnt supposed to be a military man but we really needed it. Shield walls with spears and crossbows with magic layimg down color spray and sleep work really well in low level encounters.
Great video. Problem solving is something that lacks in 5e, & I feel like thats a bug. Thankfully, in my group we've got players that don't just hack & slash. They use their wits, talk & do research. Its a great group, even if we have hot takes every now and then.
It all boils down to D&D, like every other form of media, being a product of the times it's produced in. It began at a time when most movies were still having the protagonists either not win or get killed outright, as opposed to every good guy winning in increasingly unrealistic and cheesy ways. Back then actions had consequences. Evil didn't lay down just because someone resisted it. You needed to actually have a plan and sometimes even then you didn't succeed because life just isn't fair. This is the environment I and everyone over age 45 grew up in. Now, we're living in a time when everybody has been conditioned to believe they're the single most special and important person in the universe. Therefore, they should just get anything they want without any struggle. "Resistance" is something as simple and ludicrous as another person disagreeing with one's opinion, as opposed to someone actually trying to kill you like the old days. Anyone who "resists" can simply get cancelled, banned, or otherwise ended without effort. Not only do all these people consider themselves literally godlike, they genuinely believe that, since everything they do is perfect and good, their actions should never have any consequences. And so in modern D&D they simply don't. If characters who are just starting out can never die, there's really nowhere else to go from there when leveling up. The 20th century concept of starting from nothing and earning your success has been rendered obsolete, with people instantly being pronounced "influencers" without displaying any sort of talent for anything. (Don't even get me started with "One D&D" and the wokeness involved therein.)
This is spot on. I recently finished running The Black Wyrm of Brandensford where a party of level 3 characters was tasked with killing a dragon. Seemed insurmountable but they took the job and then spent THREE FOUR HOUR Sessions preparing for the fight (which was plan B, plan A was to try and talk to the dragon and come to an agreement to leave the people alone - which didnt work within the context of the adventure). Why did they take the seemingly suicidal job? Dragon hoard (aka greed). They went on a dungeon crawl to get a dragon slaying sword (an adventure unto itself), they used in game knowledge about a fable of a saint using bread buns to negotiate with a dragon and save a town (so they got a wheelbarrow full of bread buns), they followed rumors and retrieved a magical alcohol "which can even knock out a dragon!" or so the fey who sold it said. One PC died but they were victorious in the end as they drugged the dragon and got a first strike with a dragon slaying sword (which means its breath weapon was significantly reduced in damage). That's great play that comes from the games mechanics. In 5e they would have just charged in.
Great stuff! But if we're being honest, we played "old school" back when it was just "school" in great part because nothing else had been invented yet!😂⚔🙌
Ironically the games marketed to adults were all pretty much softer, as they were much more self-awarely marketed to people who'd already played their full of survival horror.
Oh, how right you are... Modern editions lack deadliness, resource management, crippling recovery downtime, limits to power creep and multiclassing (one can change class as easily as I can change underwear), rarity and woundrousness of magic items, hazardous misuse of said items (who remembers what could happen if someone drank too many potions in a too brief time period or miscasted a spell from a scroll?), really dangerous monsters with really dangerous abilities, and so on. Also, there was no point buy... What you rolled was what you got. And the game didn't give a shit about being fair. One player could get a powerhouse and the next one could roll a moronic cripple. And it was good to go anyway. No complaints allowed. Adventurer is really the best word to define a character back then. He took his chances since the first roll for ability scores and it was only uphill from there.
It's been 37 years since I first started D&D back in middle school with BECMI and I still remember my first character. Took me 3 hours to make during class trying to decide what little equipment I could afford and he lasted about 15 minutes into lunch when we started the adventure. He was a 1st level fighter, with 11 HP, chainmail armor, bow w/quiver of arrows, a backpack, some torches, and a couple rations. Party leaves town to find the dungeon, we're walking through a swamp, the weather turns bad, DM has a lightning bolt strike near us, everyone wearing metal armor has to make a saving throw. I failed. Took 12 points of damage. We just set out and were only a few hours from town, do they take me back to town to get raised? No. Instead, one of the guys who's fighter didn't have metal armor decides he wants to upgrade and takes my chainmail. The thief with his single quiver of arrows decides he can double his ammo taking my quiver of arrows, and they all split up the torches and rations among themselves. They just left my body in the fucking swamp and kept moving trying to find the dungeon. My first character never even had the chance to get into his first fight, let alone any chance of becoming a hero.
Bad DMing all around. Falling in combat is bad enough. Dying from stupidity goes without saying (or saving). But weaponizing the environment with no way of fighting back? On a 1ST LEVEL party?! I call bull. Have to hand it to you for not giving up on the game then and there. If this happened today, your story would be a candidate for the r/rpghorrorstories subreddit. As for your party rifling your corpse...that was part of the mindset of the day. You don't waste resources, full stop. That said, our group did everything in their power to retrieve the fallen for burial.
@@homebrewisthebestbrew5270 Yeah, well it was looooong before the rise of RU-vid D&D advice channels, plus we were all 7th grade 12-year-olds at the time.🤪
Very clear difference (and nice call out). In 3e, 4e and 5e you start as a hero and become a super hero. In OSR you start as a nobody and, maybe, one day you will be a hero. But most likely you will die in a ditch.
Been kicking in doors and loving it since 2nd ed. But yeah, I definitely rolled a few new characters because of stupidity. I think I learned to play more cautiously as i grew as a player more than as a character.
So, I admittedly play with a high anxiety, relatively inexperienced group. However, the fact that across two campaigns, none of their characters has died has not made them less cautious or scared.
Actually this response was pretty sensible. Where there is one Kobold there are dozens and hundreds of them. Charging will only get you caught in one trap after another.
Excellent video, sir. A spicy take for modern audiences, but one that has a place in the hobby. As the old saying goes, only fools argue over taste. I have played as PC and DM (and generally prefer) low risk games with high powered heroes. However, the art of balance in those games is the stakes. I had a party go from level 1 to 20+ in D&D 3.5 without a single character death across 5 years of gaming, but in the first month a key NPC died and that loss haunted the party for literal years. I played in a deadly Game of Thrones d20 game (throwback to almost 20 years ago) and my shiny new character died in the first session, in the first encounter, from a single arrow. I never returned to the game and the party disbanded after a few sessions. Just gotta know your audience, know your preferences, and know what you're doing. Again, love the channel and insights. ❤
Rather than unheroic I think the word that I would use is cautious. What vexes me about 5e is that caution is thrown out the window because of the mindset that as the player characters are the protagonists of the story, therefore they must feel powerful or valuable all the time. This often leads to confusing challenging the players with being an adversarial or even sadistic DM. At least for my part, I try to uphold both lore and sense of reality (actions have consequences) within the world. This idea that every character needs their time to shine no matter what, has generated unrealistic expectations. I get that self expression is the most popular facet of character creation within the zeitgeist, but people seem to get way too attached to their characters. Sometimes the most memorable moments happen when characters die or fail. Not everything has to be a power fantasy or go one’s way to be enjoyable (although if that works for your table more power to you).
I like how you think. By raising the stakes you raise the tension and that makes for better stories and role playing. If you can simply tank your way through every situation there is no risk, which lessons the taste of the reward.
Too be completely fair I have a dm who runs 5e extremely dangerously, hell the last campaign we did our group left the world instead of fighting the final boss cause every encounter we had with him or his minions left us all nearly dead or dead. But she's in the minority of dms and after playing becmi I can see the differences and while i do like 5e still, I want more people to play becmi cause it's just so fatal and fun
The first time I played becmi my magic user saved the party but died in the process, but also got the party so much exp and gold it was such a memorable event
I’ll admit, I do miss the MU terror of “it’s a cat, run” In 5e… just remove death saves and so dead at zero. Completely changes the game … 10hps becomes the “oh crap” moment., not the mythical third death save (doesn’t happen) Big monsters - aka dragoons, demons, spellcasters - become terrifying
Great story. I am going to be starting a 5E campaign soon with death at 0 HP, no death saves, no Spare the Dying, no Revivify. I hope it can bring some of that suspenseful feel back to this edition. While it has a lot of issues, it still has a lot going for it too.
Monster damage is pegged to the idea that being dropped and getting back up is no big problem: Players running out of HP is such a disruption of tone *because* running out of HP is an almost daily event.
"It's what they played in str3anger things after all!", so damn true. Can't say nothing against that argument :D DnD is not even my cup of tea. Still I am very interested on what other people think, play and love. So I see myself returning to your channel for almost every video.
I wanted to tell with this video about a term some friends locally came with, only for BECMI, and is "the 2nd level syndrome", I don't know if this was an impression that people had elsewhere. this was that as the characters rose to level 2, particularly the fighter and the dwarf but not only them, and excluding perhaps the thief or the magic user who still showed cautious, the first characters started to show, not reckless, but a little cocky, as they realized that they could no longer die from the first successful attack.
I think that’s fair. I’ve seen it myself. Going up in level enables the taking of more risk. However, it’s not that many hits you’d be safe from, and don’t forget spells. They’re a lot stronger in BECMI.
@@becmiberserker I'm just talking about their behavior, those having more hit points, that could be 16 or greater were being cocky, as if they didn't figure out that they can still find their demise by many causes, and you're right about spells (more than one of my characters died indirectly from a spell: one of them failed the saving throw against a Sleep spell, and as a consequence of that, they cut his neck).
BECMI was inspired by and was catering to readers of Lankhmar and Conan stories, 5e is inspired by and is catering to the audiance of superhero movies.... that's pretty much it, I think.
Let's talk about negotiation... AD&D 1E, party about 4th level. Going through an abandoned dwarven stronghold when they find a blue dragon in the feast hall that they HAVE to get past. Party weighs options and negotiates safe passage; it seems that the brewery (which PCs already cleared out) still has sealed casks, and the dragon has been dry a bit too long. Two huge casks rolled to the lair, and PCs proceed. THEN it hits them: "Crap. We have to back the way we came." 😵 Party takes care of business and returns to the back door of the lair. With no small trepidation, party listens at lair door; something is going on. Open to find a shitfaced dragon, head and tail weaving from side to side, singing love ballads to empty air. The blue doesn't even notice the party skirting the walls, not bothering to risk picking at the dragon's treasure as they pass. Discretion and all... As for your kobold story, there was one wrinkle that my group would have thought of right away: Does the kobold have a horn? We attack and miss, it ducks behind the wall and blows, and we're toast.
This comment is assuming I'm remembering correctly that in BECMI you gain exp from gold/treasure not kills or quests. I suspect ataching exp gain to killing stuff along with greater survivability at low levels dramatically increased the amount of players who default to combat to solve problems. It probably unintentionally increased murdo hobbo behavior as well. Working for a quest giver doesn't immediately grant exp, but killing them arguably does. Looking at your fat kobold example again, potentially dieing to a kobold for no guaranteed reward is foolish in the extreeme in BECMI. In 5E, the kobold grants guaranteed exp, or is at least potentially a stepping stone to the next advancement point in the story. Combine that with the near zero risk when fighting it, and you'd be stupid for _not_ charging it. Neither play style is inherently wrong. I just think it's important to consider the risk/reward structure a game's rules set out.
I like your channel. I have nostalgia for BECMI: I had all 5 boxes and played at all levels-although it was with a single player and dungeon master, so a lot of the balancing was never right. I love remembering the cool old books. Your Gazetteer series has been very interesting because those books I never actually had. I do get a little annoyed by some of your criticisms of the current edition. You can love BECMI without shitting on 5e. It’s fine if you don’t like the system, but certain things you say about it just aren’t accurate or fair. When you say things like “I wonder if,” you aren’t wondering at all. You’re just making a statement that you don’t want anyone to challenge. If a particular campaign or game or group of players are not coming up with creative ways to solve problems, that’s on them. Either they aren’t being presented with interesting challenges, or they aren’t using their heads. There’s absolutely nothing stopping a DM from overwhelming a party with powerful enemies or traps in any edition of the game. Death saves etc. do encourage more risk taking-that was their design purpose. As for a sense of danger and challenge, everyone seems to want to stick to CR like it’s a religion, while blithely ignoring the fact that characters are supposed to face 6-8 combat encounters a day. Most people complaining about a lack of danger are using one combat encounter per session. Additionally many DMs act like you HAVE to allow long or short rests any time, anywhere if the party decides to stop walking. This is comment is already way too long. I really do enjoy your content. Keep it up; I suppose I should go ahead and subscribe
@@DolFan316 JUST SO, and yet this is not only how WOTC and PF want their games to be by default, its hard to work around that to give a more classic feeling to the game. Ive moved onto Savage Worlds which is also player friendly but its not got this point of no return on threats. Damage dice explode, numbers are kept small, no health pools, every wound is a penalty to all your future rolls... Its base play is a death spiral. Yet the TTRPG community is already infected with the video game mindset. Modern players want ALL the power, none of the responsibility and turn this ROLEPLAYING GAME into a slog of combat. Despite them wanting to be heroic, theyre cowardly when it gets scary. Despite them wanting vast power they're upset when they have a threat. Its like nothing but a power fantasy. Ive had a player new to my group, first session ask me sorry "RECCOMEND" that I as the DM give him a SPECIFIC MAGICAL ITEM because itd fit his theme and build... not then ofc but just like he's just expecting it, asks for it... Another comment I came across was this player who was stating that his character should be heroic, and heroism to him is that his level 1 fighter be UTTERLY IMMUNE TO ALL DAMAGE FROM A SWARM OF KOBOLDS AND GOBLINS, THAT THEY CANT DEAL WITH HIM, THEY CANT HURT HIM AS HE MARCHES THROUGH THEM... thats his idea of heroism? some overpowered anime villain? Villain yes, because those things are usually saved fro introducing a VILLAIN... not the hero who risks their life to right wrongs.
That's the big problem with 4e and 5e: it's difficult to actually die for PCs; meanwhile, NPCs die at 0 HP. Two different rule sets between the Players and DMs. Not only that, instantaneous revival from death as early as Lv5 in 5e is such a huge show of how much WotC doesn't want players to think.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. You are really risking your life if you are being heroic, so it has more weight than if you could easily be brought back with a death save or a healing spell. A lawful fighter or cleric would very well be totally in character doing heroics in the defense if the weak.
5e is for playing heroes, old school is for survival games. The two don't cross territory. So when people talk about the best system, it's only best for the kind of game you want. I grew up on AD&D, and it gets tedious to me. You might as well go murder hobo and steal the few coins off the peasants and moving on.
So, weirdly enough, this reminded me of videos of people playing troll levels in Mario Maker. To illustrate, KarlSagan42 makes and plays troll levels in Mario Maker 2. You can find videos on RU-vid if you're curious. When he playes levels, they tend to be humourous and lighthearted while mildly challenging. He laughs at his mistakes, has a good time, and gets excited when he beats the level, but it's casual excitement, "yay, that was fun, let's see what level is next." When he makes levels however, they are designed to be grueling torturous slogs to overcome that demand intense execution, puzzle solving, and frequently dumb luck. However, when you watch players beat his levels, they don't just say, "that was fun" and move on. No, they chear, they dance, they collapse in relief, they shout defiance and victory at the level and curse its creator, one guy literally tore his own shirt off. They are exstatic and jubilant to have overcome such a difficult task. Some players however never finish the levels because they don't enjoy that sort of challenge. This is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the difference between 5E and BECMI combat rules. 5E is the casual troll levels. They're fun and anyone can enjoy them, but the system on it's own generates little tension. The stakes are low without DM intervention, but so are the emotional pay offs. The enjoyment tends to come from the doing rather than the outcome. BECMI is the intense troll level. It requires more of the player to achieve success. The cost of failure is also much higher leading to a great deal of stress in the moment. The stakes are always high because the system defaults to that without DM interference which in turn makes the dopamine hit for success correspondingly high by default. (Please not, higher is NOT better by default. That comes down to preference.) The enjoyment comes after the challenge, sometimes after multiple tries, rather than during. Final thought, 5E makes me think it was designed to make me _feel_ powerful. Hearing about BECI, it seems to be designed to require me think and _be_ smart, or at least clever. That tracks considering its roots are a tactical war game.
The fighter ran away, the party tripped over themselves to follow, everyone laughed as they retreated from one fat Kobold ... who then turned around and killed the child it was holding hostage. The party finds a corridor with water, each refuses to go in, they all collectively run away from the adventure, very smart... as the cult sacrifices another innocent woman to their dark god summoning the apocalypse. Our party finds a dark alley, well anything could be down there, the party wisely quickly runs away... the goblin horde than proceeds to burn down the village, massacring one hundred twenty three men, women, and children. Our party finds itself trapped in a temple of a blood sucking god, they look at the corridor knowing death awaits so they wisely run away... to the far side of the room they are trapped in, cowering in the corner as the poison gas overwhelms them. Our party remains at home, never setting foot outside, it's dangerous out there you know... a dragon smashes through the roof killing everyone instantly. Everyone clapped for the DM, what a fun game! Look at those idiot losers avoiding instant death in their hand holding baby game. Not like us, this is a _real_ TTRPG! 🙄 hyperbole aside. Nevermind that level one play is always dangerous, nevermind you can make any edition of any game as hard as you like, never mind one mindset is not simply better than another, nevermind that any game can be as easy as you want it to be... it's just flat out strange to champion cowardice over heroics as more "realistic" and thus better. Your own example could have had the fighter run away, and three other people decimate the fat Kobold because they had three turns to fight back- and instant death should be just as possible for the monsters. By your example, the _kobold_ should have run because there were FOUR of them, your Kobold used 5TH edition logic and attacked a larger group head on... and won. It was literally the hero of your story. Why does the Kobold get to be heroic and NOT face realistic consequences? Why then would a dragon not also run away if it saw a adventure party? It would obviously abandon it's hoard and flee, It was clearly out numbered. It's only fair. *Or does different game logic apply.* The dark lord doesn't instantly surrender because a man with a sword of light shows up, even if the light sword IS dangerous. Game worlds, game logic. Fair or unfair is relative. Realistic games are not better or worse, objectively than non realistic games- and one way of having fun is not objectively better than another. Anyone who pretends othwise does a disservice to their argument... you do not champion your favorite game by a subjective criteria of playstyle and fun as objectively superior. Instead you border on elitist egocentrics. Can you not simply raise the game up by exploring what about it you love... without putting down another?
Hello. Thank you for your comment. I believe you have constructed a strawman argument by bringing in a number of scenarios that didn't happen, on the assumption of what might occur if they did. The facts as stated were that the party were moving up a dark tunnel. A large kobold emerged from around a corner to reduce the strongest party member's hit points to almost zero. This Fighter did not make the same assumption as you did: that the kobold was on his own. There was no way of telling what was around the corner backing this kobold up. Based on this fact, and that he was near death, he fled, along with the rest of the party. What appears presumed by your response was that they did not return. They did, when they were better prepared and able to better deal with what was in front of them. They used the intelligence gathered from a failed operation to their advantage and the kobolds are no more. If my players faced the examples you gave, they may have made different decisions, based on their circumstances and, of course, their characters' personalities - not all characters want to save villages from goblins. Some characters are noble, some are despicable, a bit like every day people. Who'd have thought?? At no point have I advocated cowardice as a better game. What I did was advocate for running away to fight another day. They learned, they left (alive), and they brought the pain. You may interpret my view as putting 5th edition down and that's fine. I was merely raising the point that it has effected how players resort more to rolling initiative than thinking of constructive and imaginative ways to deal with enemies/obstacles. In all your hyperbole, you've missed the opportunity to describe what the party do when they run away. I would hope that players in these situations would regroup, plan their approach with their new found knowledge, and do something clever. I certainly wouldn't expect them to charge a horde of goblins, but hey, my 5th edition party survived assaulting the entire contents of Rivergard Keep, so what do I know? Maybe charging that horde of goblins is just easier. It certainly requires less thought. Look, I appreciate the different point of view, I really do, but context is everything and I believe you reached a number conclusions in your post based on the outcome of one encounter. In short, when a character has to fear for its life, the decisions they make are not taken likely. It's as simple as that.
It is no strawman to draw hyperbolic comparative scenarios that establish moments when "heroics" are "better", or at the very least preferable, to "cowardice" for adventurers- that is to say... no, somtimes it _is_ better to be "Heroic". 🙄 beside hyperbole can be fun. You seem to injerject your own strawman by laying several presumptions on me. How am I to know or presume anything about "after" when we are only discussing the facts given? The fighter returned with better info and the Kobolds are no more? Huzzah. But irrelevant by your own omission to the details. One could simply presume they did not return and my imaginary hostage paid the price. Your projected presumption and the results, along with my own hyperbole presumption of results, does nothing for or to the point of making heroics vs cowardice a _subjective_ outcome framed by a _objective_ claim. In other words, a better or worse outcome means nothing when the mess we're untangling is at the very start of a value judgement. Your next "not advocated cowardice as a better game." Followed directly by " running away to fight another day. They learned, they left (alive), and they brought the pain." Also does nothing for the easy counter "I did not advocate heroics for a better game" followed by "some times you _can't_ run away to fight another day" because that too is "realistic" or as you _seemed to hint_ counter to a "5E mindset" which you _seemed to imply_ was _in your opinion, to your liking._ I do "interpret (your) view as putting 5th edition down" directly because you made a value judgement "raising the point that it has effected how players resort more to rolling initiative than thinking of constructive and imaginative ways to deal with enemies/obstacles." Because, I restate, *Any game can be made to play like this* be it 1E, 5E, Starfinder, Gurps, or Last Unicorn Star Trek tea party (pass the crumpets, Caitian). The main crux being a subjective value judgement on an objective frame that had no grounding. You like "players thinking of constructive and imaginative ways to deal with enemies/obstacles" as opposed to, "players resort more to rolling initiative" which is again, purely subjective, as -I restate, completely possible in any kind of game- now... I fully give you the benifit of what you MEANT being: THIS version of game X cultivates the playstyle you enjoy, while THAT version of game X cultuvates a different one which you enjoy less. *Perfectly acceptable.* but please let us not fool ourselves in claiming subjective is objective, WHICH I AM NOT SAYING YOU DID CLAIM mind you, but, you - as I said - tread too close to doing just that in your comparison. Recall, "border line elitist egocentrics" emphasis "borderline" ... which you again display here "Maybe charging that horde of goblins is just easier. It certainly requires less thought." One man's less thought is another mans' confidence. And If I simply flip it, using only the example you provided, "Maybe running away from that horde of goblins is just easier. It certainly requires less thought." Now it becomes clear heroics vs cowardice can have the same value judgement of "less thought" ergo less wise, ergo "decisions taken lightly" ergo ergo ergo NOT better playstyle you prefer, but in the opposite vein better playstyle OTHER GUY prefers and so on. In short, we can leave edition out of it if you just want to say *"I prefer this playstyle, and because this game cultivates that, I like it"* as opposed to *"I prefer this edition of game because in other edition of game it cultivates a playstyle I do not prefer"* do you see? I merely want you to posit from a more positive angle rather than a negative angle because it too often fuels a false edition war of us vs them, old school vs new school. We are schoolmates all. You are an intelligent creator and I would rather watch you talk about what you love and why without dodging unnecessary barbs or shade at other editions. We both know our preferences are subjective, we don't need to mistake the objective, and our value judgements can be equal without being contentious. Are we all not, gamers? I merely impose a hand before what I view as the brink you tread upon. You do not need to go down that path my friend, your passion "for somthing" alone is enough to convey your enjoyment. Cheers
@@becmiberserker "Brave Sir Robin ran away." "(No!)" "Bravely ran away away." "(I didn't!)" "When danger reared it's ugly head," "He bravely turned his tail and fled." "(I never!)" "Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about" "And gallantly he chickened out." "(You're lying!)" "Swiftly taking to his feet," "He beat a very brave retreat." "Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!" 😋
Have to say, even though I gave my players max HP at 1st level and instituted a buffer of -CON before they'd be dead-dead, my players were VERY aware of their crunchy status at first level. Even now at 3rd level they are still rather leery about their HP pool, possibly because they have realized how quickly a group of enemies all rolling well can make that HP pool vanish like a drop of water in a desert. Of course, we also have a 'Bleeding' rule, so that if the PC is at negative HP, they continue taking 1 hp or damage until stabilized. And once they hit -CON, they die. I like the players being aware that their characters can die, but I do want to tell stories with these characters, rather than have a revolving door of new characters. So while getting beaten into pulp every other encounter is fine and dandy, dying since you reached 0 HP would have meant that we would have had new characters many times over already.
THIS! "I do want to tell stories with these characters, rather than have a revolving door of new characters." This is exactly why I prefer the "modern style". I want a character that gets their arse handed several times and loses mostly everything BUT their bare life due to their character flaws to *grow out of them*. Which is impossible if they end up dead-dead the first moment you play into the mentioned flaws ("Play to lose" is a concept typical for LARPing, picking the option that makes the story good over the correct one.). "My barbarian's recklessness made him robbed and beaten several times, thrown into the ditch and with just bare luck, the party members found him before anyone else. That dwarf he got into drinking contest with still has his family heirloom battle axe. And after inciting the skirmish with the bandit group without assessing the clearly unfavorable situation prior, nobody wants to work with him, because all the other caravan guards died and the merchant, having lost everything but underpants, made sure the word got out. So now, he's working hard to keep his recklessness more controlled while slowly recovering everything he lost." is a better story for me than "My barbarian's recklessness got him killed in the second encounter. My next character can't afford to be this reckless." One lets you play the character. The other makes you work as a player to make a character who's correctly mentally equipped for the situation, because character flaws are seen as player flaws and the reason to kill the character off as a teachable moment for the player.
And while I see the appeal, I also see this style of play would NOT be for me for pretty much the same reason: I want to play with something like character growth. Not numerical, personal. And to have that, your character has to be flawed and make mistakes. Which is at odds with this level of deadliness, where your first mistake is highly probable to also be your last. Basically, from what you tell, there are two kinds of adventurers: Overly cautious to the level of paranoia and dead. And while I agree that is a rather realistic outcome and while I want the risk of death (or other horrible consequences for your actions) to be there, I wouldn't enjoy creating the character (as in, their personality, not just a bunch of numbers) with the outcome of "The door looked completely ordinary and you had no way to find out anything. The moment you touched it, it zapped you. You're dead. Create a new one, your group might use your death as a useful info though." And once you get into the more severe character flaws (severe for the dungeon survival), like optimism (for dungeon survival, that IS a character flaw) or recklessness they could "grow out of", they just wouldn't. Their player would, but the character would just end up dead after the first corridor turn.
Thanks for the comment. Believe me, old school is a lot more nuanced than cautious or dead. That said, death is a lot easier to meet than in later editions, no doubt. However, what I tried to convey in the video is the impact this has on decision making. You can still take chances, fail, and come away alive. It’s a big part of the game. It’s just that there are greater risks for failure. As for character development, BECMI in particular facilitates this hugely through its dominion, war machine, weapon mastery, and immortals rules. High levels are very achievable with good play and then the world is your oyster. All of this is my humble, incredibly biased opinion. 🙂 Thanks again for watching the video. It’s always good to get differing views.
@@becmiberserker Just that I recocnized the map, as I have been the Dungeon Master for this scenario twice, each time with a different group of players.
The beauty of RPGs is that they can cater to all kinds. If people find running from kobolds fun, I say have at it. I also don't get the nature of why you care if a character dies under these systems. You're likely average stats with 3 hps. So what if you die. You next character will be the same and won't likely survive to level, or it will many many sessions to level what with running away and spending time healing. Why even have rules for higher level or tougher creatures. I get it that some DMS want to keep players in line or what not. I never felt i was competing with the players and trying to kill them,.
Hello. Thanks for watching. The main rules in the BECMI Dungeon Master’s Rulebook is: Be Fair. So, I absolutely agree with you that a DM should not be adversarial. As for dying, it’s actually not as common as succeeding, and I’ve DM’d many campaigns up into the level 20-somethings. They got there by not being a hero before they were better equipped to be one.
@@becmiberserker Then I imagine you are fudging dice as those rules produce death if you take the rolls as they come. I'm speaking from experience as I got the Basic set in 1983 and played a lot since. The beauty of RPGs is they can be fun for all types. I just never found D&D to be a game I felt should have that amount of fear. I leave that to other games. I always treated D&D as heroic fiction with my players as the heroes. I didn't see the sense of having rules for high levels and never getting there because people kept dying or never earned XP and too much downtime spent healing and rolling for wandering monsters. That's not what my group and I wanted to play. I understand others want different styles but that's all they are is different. Setting one up as more "intelligent" and for the discerning player is what I don't like. As my later comment shows, I felt the end of the video strayed into that territory.
@@rustybollocks3827I never demean one’s intelligence, so if that was your takeaway then it wasn’t intended. I might, however, suggest that one type of system reduces the need for abstract thinking, especially when rolling for initiative is just easier and likely to be almost risk free. Anyway, I like hearing differing opinions so I appreciate your view. It’s never good to always hear one perspective, so thank you. That all said, I never fudge rolls.
@@becmiberserker I wouid watch the end of your video if you didn't think that was demeaning I simply have to disagree. I guess we can't all be such abstract thinkers and some of the hoi polloi getting into rpgs means they had to be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, not like in the good old days. Some people don't have the time and inclination to spend limited gaming sessions recovering wounds. I guess that's what happens when something niche becomes mainstream. I appreciate other views as well, but I don't like condescension, but I can do it as well,
It was whole different ball game back in the older editions...MAges at level one would get ONE spell...and woe be to them if they got caught without it in a time of need. In 5e they get unlimited amounts of cantrips on top of spells...kind of lackluster in my opinion.
How long did it take your daughter's friends to get past the Dubious Pool? try placing a bucket in an empty chamber and watch the madness unfold. Thanks for the Video great as always.
heroes DIE but remain REMEMBERED ... have that thought always in mind when playing rpgs ... p.d. a game that steals death from its protagonist is CONDESCENDING, not HEROIC
Being unkillable is lame! I play in a 5e game and it's a really good dungeon, but the rules just take any real excitement away. I'm the only one who runs other games iny group.
Wierd that Andrzej Sapkowski is not on that list. If you think about Geralt of Rivia his profession is based on cleric. He use a weapon, like any fighter does and knows some magic. Andrzej Sapkowski even madfe his own rpg called Oko Yrrhedesa (Eye of Yrrhedes). His rules were released with minor update from editors (experience and some other extensions) with two adventures in one book. System is very rules light (7 stats) fast and easy to play. Perfect for rookies, one shots, or people who love free form systems.
You can call it whatever you want but this system falls apart the second the players decide to stand still and spam checks till the heat death of the universe This is where 5e sweeps old school One check wont cost you your character (i know shocking) and making an encounter lethal is just as easy but feels like they REALY fucked up rather than " you walked 2 steps too many Sorry the arrow killed you" Im not saying you cant enjoy this type of gameplay but to call it boring is a severe understatment
I really love OSR designs, but I love my 5e character as well. She was the very height of heroic reckless abandon, even for a 5e character and she always put it on the line when it came to do what was right, regardless of whether it looked like she was going to die. She was my answer to everyone who asked the peasants begging for help for more gold. And soon as I stopped worrying about her longevity, the better I felt as a person playing her. Soon as I stopped placing the value of "my" life above the people around me. So, I don't really agree with your assesment of unheroic behaviour. If you only do the right thing when there was no risk... I don't want to live in that world and I don't want to create that world for others to live in.
Interesting comment, especially the bit about not worrying about your character's longevity. Serious question and I'm genuinely curious: how much of that not worrying do you think was due to how easy it is to stay alive compared to OSR games? Like I said, genuinely curious and not looking to diminish your opinion.
Many people don't get this, and RPG is only power-fantasy for them. At least, after watching this video, I know I'm not entirely mad for lusting after something else.
If the moral of this story is 'don't be a hero in BECMI', then I'll give it a pass. I'd rather play a game system where I can feel heroic rather than get mired in metric tons of tedium.
Basically just 10 minutes of nostalgia. 5e is fine. A single kobold wiping a group of supposed adventurers isn't exciting; it's stupid, unrealistic and just goes to show how awful AD&D really was.
The kobold didn't wipe out the party. It injured the fighter, who realized how close he was to dying and decided to flee. In turn, the rest of the group also decided to flee. Had the party fought, the kobold would have lost that encounter. One of the party members might have died, however. As for realism, both games have magic and elves. Neither is 'realistic'. Now, if you prefer the almost superheroic power level of 5e, that's fine, have fun and enjoy. As for me, I started with 3.5, have played more 5e than any other edition, and my group is switching to BECMI. So, no, it isn't just a matter of nostalgia. It's a matter of what aspect of the game appeals to the players.
I feel the same. I started with the red box D&D as a kid, and I have fond memories of that time. However, nowadays I much prefer 5e style gameplay, and the one time I tried to rehash my memories by playing an OSR game it felt just...miserly. I never even finished the dungeon we were delving, because I ended up dropping out of the group before the halfway point. It was just such a mirthless slog to get through that I thought my time is better spent doing anything else.
Actually you're assuming he's alone. I listen to that and imagine an elf allowing the others to flee takes a shot and fells the lone kobold. The DM being nasty declares they let out a loud scream that echoes through the tunnel. The elf subsequently losing one arrow for now, but more worried they have made things worse! God I miss this!
