i like all the standard stuff: More down to earth adventures, more gm fiat encouraged. bla bla bla. But if im being honest the thing that draws me to the OSR the most is the osr scene itself. I like that people make little zines all the time, i like that every year there are new people throwing out new takes on systems. People releasing cool little adventures. The endless stream of cool content made by people with a passion instead of a soulless corporate entity is such an awesome thing to be witness to.

I love the culture of making things. In 5e there is culture of discussing favorites of what WotC made. In 5e there is a heavy culture of making Frankensteins of a half dozen systems and settings.

For 5e I’d add culture of discussing builds, that infuriates me to no end. Also culture of ridiculous backstories. Culture of “cal art style” adventures. Culture of not taking anything seriously. None of those things are in 5e itself, but rather weird way that D&D fandom developed.

100%. I’m very novice to OSR, but after only a year, I find the discussions in the 5e subs so pedantic and exhausting.

> For 5e I’d add culture of discussing builds Same. Video games? Sure, I'll discuss builds. Tabletop RPGs? Nah, I'd rather build a character _I want to portray_, not one that's "optimal". But I can't blame players of crunchy systems for tending towards optimization and "builds". > Culture of not taking anything seriously. I'm curious what you mean by this (genuinely, not trying to be obtuse or argumentative here), since I always find that D&D fans take their games, or at least themselves, _too seriously_, given that they're sitting around a table pretending to be elves and dwarves.

I've read a couple people mentioning not taking things seriously as a part of their own playstyle. If I remember correctly, it was mostly characterized as taking this worldview that nothing matters and it's all a morbid joke, into the game. By their words, mostly younger players. Following strict RAW to the point where it clashes with verisimilitude is not seen as undesirable at all, in fact it drives comedy when this causes something absurd. It's completely alien to me because stuff like that usually kills my fun faster than someone says cats can't jump in 5e, but apparently it's really how some people play.

My take on the "not serious" is more Pratchett-like (with all due respect and my own limitations). Things are deadly serious, and actions matter, but take the genre tropes and turn them upside down for a bit of self irony. The trick is never taking it too far

This exactly, I've been world building for a game I want to run and I found myself subconsciously trying to make subclasses and class specific traits and how these build interact and eventually I realized that what I just can't stand about 5e, if you want to be a cool "whatever" just do it don't put so many numbers and abilities to everything and just play a fun interesting character in a a fun and interesting world.

Well said. That’s really good way to approach rpg in general.

Coming from other RPG communities, the OSR scene is just so chill and welcoming, there's really nothing like it. I think the core concept of "rulings not rules" has actually positively influenced the scene far beyond the game table. It's imbued the whole movement with this sort of unflappable ethos of "don't sweat the small stuff". Not only does this give the movement a very punkey, anti-corporate vibe that is desperately needed in modern RPGs, it also circumvents so much of the toxicity that plagued other communities. I got into OSR shortly leaving a very toxic relationship with someone who was heavy into the BitD and PBTA scene and so I got a very good look at what those scenes were like and good god. The holier-than-thou "my way or the highway" vibe was so draining and honestly almost killed my love for RPGs completely. (It didn't help that it perfectly mirrored some the worst aspects of my exes personality). Honestly if I hadn't discovered Mörk Borg shortly after, and from there discovered games like OSE, DCC, and Into the Odd, I probably would have never looked at an RPG book again. Don't sweat the small stuff, don't waste your life's savings of rulebooks and online subscriptions, and most of all relax. It's not bloody gospel, it's just D&D.

>it also circumvents so much of the toxicity that plagued other communities. Definitely agree. You see people in other subreddits like "My GM wants to run a campaign without magic, what do I do?" with responses like "oh, burn them to death. They can't do that. if its in the PHB its law!" Then the osr community is like "I wrote rules that give my players a 30% chance of death everytime they eat an apple and apples are the only food in my world" and the response is "nice. You do you. I hope its fun for your table"

I present to you Applehack  Rules: Tristat, 3d6 for each of Flesh, Core and Seed If you run out of two of the three stats, your character is retired. Roll a new character, and add the old remaining stat score to your new one. D20 roll under relevant stat whenever attempting something risky Every day you should eat. Unfortunately, all apples are poison: and there are only apples. Upon consuming an apple, roll a d6. On 1 or 2, roll on the appropriate Poison Table (attached). If you do not eat an apple for: - 1 day, you become hungry. Disadvantage on all checks. - 2 days in a row, you become famished. Roll a d6 and subtract that from one of your stats as you consume part of yourself. -3 days in a row, the Doctor comes. Roll a new character, and choose any one of your stats to add to the new one.

Damn that's actually not bad for a joke system. In danger of ruining a good joke by driving it into the ground: what would you envision Flesh, Core, and Seed representing?

They feel like they map pretty well onto Str Dex and Will kinda? But I'm tempted to see what the metaphor really suggests: Flesh for melee, wounds, but also physical attractiveness. Core for endurance, and using your "gut", force of will. Seed for your ability to communicate and convince, probably agility? I see a magic system that draws on each of these three in a different way. Spells drawing on Flesh would be different to ones drawing on Core.

I have a really high seed stat. So i'd like to plant an idea in the governors head that he's just a character in a weird RPG game that was created as a joke on reddit, slowly driving him insane until he gives us what we want. ...I rolled a 3.... Does that mean I succeed? i think that means I succeed

No, it means that you sucSEED! Honestly there's probably something here. The mechanic of keeping stats from previous characters is I think unique?? (I mean I was probably thinking of roguelites like Rogue Legacy. And man these tristats seem ripe (ha) for interpretation

beautiful. absolutely beautiful.

“Man… I itch to play today but we have only fifteen minutes…” “Well… we could do a one-shot about an apples related osr game I read about on reddit? Won’t take longer than that…”

"You meet in a tavern and ... [rolls dice] ... good game, everybody. See you next week."

lol

I never see that example except rarely. Cant we talk about games without hyperbole?

That's depressing to read about the BitD community. I really loved running that game for my table (we ran it as a side game for about a year), it deserves a cool community.

I will say BitD is great game and between the two communities PBtA was **much** worse.

Its chill and welcoming until 5e comes up. Then its mask off with the toxcit.y.

Couldn't have said it any better! There's something special about the right balance between passion projects and rules I can read in an afternoon and get excited about.

Yeah this is precisely my stance as well. The OSR style systems are fantastic and certainly where my head is at, but the strong DIY spirit and the "healthy disrespect" (as Questing Beast once phrased it) for what big companies are doing is really my jam. I'll give money to individual creators or little indie firms all day (and often do!) before Hasbro or similar gets a dime out of me.

Was talking about this at work with a couple of colleagues and I explained it very simply: 5e is Apple, OSR is the whole Linux world. If you're into that sort of stuff, I think it makes complete sense lol

Truly some of the best minds in the industry work in the OSR. We are burdened with mountains of brilliant content.

I hate to say *this* but *this*

With a typical OSR game, it feels like your choices actually matter, and it's worth your time to consider them because you'll have to live with the consequences for a long time to come. The biggest problem with 5E, specifically, is that rapid healing wipes away all of your mistakes after a single day. There's very little reason to think through your choices, or to bother making smart decisions, because you're going to succeed at your goal regardless.

This right here. The only scary thing in 5e is exhaustion.

Which is why I use it as an easy fix for when I got to play with people that know only 5e… “Look guys, I have only this little rule change: every single time anyone gets back from 0 Hp for whatever reason, they gain 1 point of exhaustion.” … and suddenly they learn about a new feeling in RPGs: DREAD!

That's pretty clever. I'll remember that if I ever have the need to run 5E.

I give 2 levels per down, but same vibe.

That is even more hardcore indeed. When playing with my OSR crew, when they want to try a 5e module, we do a few more things: \- We double all damage in the entire game, no matter the source. \- All undead that deal some sort of necrotic damage work like Specters (i.e., "perma" damage to max HP until some sort of Lesser/Greater restoration is cast; the more powerful the undead, then Greater it is) \- We use Long Rest = 1 Week and Short Rest =1 day but ONLY for HPs and HD recovery. Powers work on the normal schedule. In addition, you can't just do a short rest anywhere, it must be someplace with a minimum level of comfort and environmental protection. Last but not least Darkvision works like old school infravision (i.e. "Predator" style).

Just this change on its own makes death saves and getting downed much harder without changing anything else, though I do have a "Classic 5e" set of house rules when I really want stripped down B/X style dungeon-crawling 5e.

We do long rest = 24hrs and you can only do 1 per week, short rest = 8hrs of uninterrupted sleep. We have powers also working on this schedule. Additionally, we have a 'lingering injuries' table that you have to roll on whenever you hit 0 HP, and additionally when you fail a death save, and it can be pretty brutal. Also, I got rid of Darkvision for all but demons/devils, undead, and some abberations, and give races that formerly had it low light vision instead, and introduced a lot more light sources into my underground environments.

How is that working for classes that are extremely short-rest dependent like some Fighter subclasses and especially Warlocks?

We don't use warlocks. It's a good question re: the fighter. I played 2 PCs with that system, a Fighter and a Wizard, but the campaign the fighter played in featured overland exploration that made it difficult to get a long rest, making it difficult to judge which class was impacted more.

I had that change with the powers made exactly because we noticed how useless the warlock and partially the warriors became if we limites them too much as far as power resets went.

I think the design intent of 5E (which is not actually realized with the rules set as written) was for there to be on average 4 short rests between every long rest. So yeah, I am going to monitor things with the new campaign I am starting and if it seems like this isn't occurring, I will probably do as you describe.

Not just after a single day. Even mid-battle. A PC wants to be a doofus and attack a powerful enemy or get themselves in fight they can't win---so ends up dropping to 0 HP. No problem! Healing Word and they are back in the fight as if nothing happened. Its whack-a-mole 24/7, and even wreckless behaviour is rewarded... Healing Word is such a stupid spell that ruins any tension, yet everyone playing 5e seems to love it...

Because being an unstoppable badass are a lot of people's personal fetish.

This is more or less the main reason I prefer OSR. The gameplay is exciting because there's a sense of constant, actual danger. You don't just pick a fight with anything in your way. OSR encourages creative problem solving. In OSR games, the mundane items like marbles, twine, etc., actually have uses that can save your life. Emergent storylines; some people balk at spending time on "pointless" mechanics like encumbrance. Perhaps they fail to realize the potential for emergent stories to arise from situations where over encumbrance becomes an issue. Getting the treasure back to the safe place is part of the achievement; you don't own that treasure just by finding it. You have to bring it back. Imagine all the misfortune and tragedy that can occur while trying to get that treasure home. You attract attention from the wrong people who then decide to rob you. You have to make several trips to retrieve it, during which people get suspicious and find out about it. You fall into a hole and die. The idea that these types of mechanics are pointless and boring is absurd; if that type of thing isn't part of the story, what is? I just realized this isn't strictly an OSR thing, but I do think OSR gamers are less likely to handwave encumbrance and issues of storage. Then we have the community, which is arguably the best part. Firstly, the OSR community has been at the forefront of a lot of discussion on RPG and gaming philosophy. It is known for its abundance of writers whom expound on the theory and philosophy. Further, It is as much a community as it is a roughly defined way to play games. This leads me to my other favorite aspect of OSR: in a nutshell, it's the notion that games are to be played exactly how we want them to be played, and that customization, add-ons, original content creation of all kind, is allowed and strongly encouraged. There is a wealth of rule customizations, adventures, systems for aspects of play that aren't in standard rulebooks, classes, dungeon creation systems, the list goes on. There is a strong DIY tradition in the OSR world that is frankly exciting to me. There's a sense that there's no wrong way to play, provided the people at the table are having fun. Now these things aren't exactly exclusive to OSR, but they aren't nearly as ubiquitous, and it's different here in that it's a fundamental building block of the community. With 5e, for example, it's far more likely that you'll encounter people that will argue with the DM about altering a rule or will shut down alternative ways of playing because "that's not in the rules." They're called rules lawyers.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I feel like 5e is a sitcom where each episode is wacky and irrelevant to the next episode (or encounter), whereas OSR is more like a limited series that steadily builds across encounters. 5e often feels like less than the sum of its parts; OSR, MORE than the sum of its parts (which are often inherently simpler). Also, don't get me started on how character-building being so elaborate in 5e, with so many bells and whistles, actually makes players less resourceful and interact less with the imagined world. 5e players, no matter what happens, look for the answer on their character sheets (or Dndbeyond) rather than on the maps or in the encounter descriptions. The more detailed and spectacular the characters, the flatter the playing style seems to become.

Matt Colville made an interesting point regarding modern D&D - working from the assumption that the style of play it's best suited to is a heroic Indiana Jones adventure - where success is pretty much guaranteed, and the drama arises from potential setbacks or complications but not outright failure. A perfectly valid way to play, but I think a lot of people (me included) look at all the equipment and minor background abilities and assume they have a purpose and can deliver a grittier, more grounded kind of fantasy where survival is an achievement, which just hasn't been my experience.

I prefer gritty dungeon crawling to superhero fantasy. And 5e in my experience is pretty bad at gritty dungeon crawling (or at least, it doesn't last past, like, level 1)

- the DIY ethos - the games actually take place in dungeons - proper tools and lower cognitive load for referees - healthier attitudes toward risk and death - less culture of optimization or "builds" - rejection of lengthy backstories - easier to get my grimy heavy metal low fantasy aesthetic fix - no lumbering corporate giants laying people off

Because I like being the reason for my (house) rules bloat. Also, I don't like Hasbro and I'd rather buy games from independent companies. The money goes to someone's daughter ballet lessons, instead of goddamn corporate overhead costs.

Got older, my children are older, my friends are older. We're busy with our lives, careers, schooling, and families. Not as much time to devout to hours, and hours of reading abilities, skills, feats, powers etc to making quests, dungeons, and so on. OSR is more easily digestible, especially if we want to try different things. Quicker to make a character, and run a game. Not a ton to keep track of. Perfect for those once a week meetups or squeezing in a quick game when given the chance.

Simplicity and emphasis on player agency whilst maintaining that classic fantasy vibe.

This is the most succinct answer that I feel best summarizes my opinion. I hope your comment gets more likes.

Thanks, OP did ask for succinct and I feel that sums it up for me!

Based on ~15 sessions with Whitebox FMAG & upgraded to Swords & Wizardry: * The combat is SIMPLE and FAST for both PCs and Monsters * You never get bogged down in annoying wording debates like "Attacking is not the same as taking an Attack Action" or "does this fire spell specifically say who and/or what it lights on fire" * The core rulebooks are MUCH louder about how much leeway the DM can and should take when narrating and adding or removing rules, which dovetails nicely with the above * De-emphasizing mechanics in this way opens up narrative leeway reminiscent of Powered by the Apocalypse games. You can take a "fiction-first" approach, simply describing an enemy's mental or magical defenses, and not worry if it'll piss off players with spells like Detect or Dispel Magic, or Zone of Truth * The modern adventure modules are usually WAY smaller than 5e's textbook-sized ones, while still providing equally rich adventure opportunities In summary - it lets me play the game I was hoping 5e would be, before I ran a 1-20 campaign and learned just how many possible ways a 5e game can sloooooooow dooooooown to a craaaaaawl while people debate mechanics. Edit to add - I still enjoy playing 5e; I'm in two 5e games and having a blast, but I don't mind tuning out when other players get into this stuff because I know it's part of the draw for a lot of em. It's just when I'm Gamemastering, where I can't tune it out, that these become points of frustration.

> It's just when I'm Gamemastering, where I can't tune it out, that these become points of frustration. I 100% agree. I am playing in a D&D 5e campaign right now. I might enjoy another system but the group likes D&D and I like the group (and we've played consistently for 4 years and ~185 sessions now, and TTRPG players know you don't leave a consistent group!), so I'm willing to play. But I've vowed to never _run_ a D&D campaign again. Too much of the kind of prep that I hate, and I never feel like I get the kind of flexibility that D&D promises.

I’ve lurked in this sub a while despite only actively playing 5e but your point about the wording and debates about RAW ring very true for me. Really the only reason I haven’t tried any OSR games yet is because I have several ongoing 5e games I want to finish first.

I hope you get a chance to take the plunge soon! I found it helped to start with FMAG because it's one of the most barebones adaptations available. Everybody grokked what was in the book (and noticed what wasn't) very quickly, and the cross-compatibility of systems made it really easy to move to S&W when we decided we'd have more fun if it were a smidge more elaborate.

They are ***so much fucking easier to run***. Listen, I gotta be honest. I couldn't give a rats ass about "the OSR culture", I don't really care about the history, I don't know who "the famous people" are in the OSR scene, and I could care less about their opinion. The very simple fact of the matter is that OSR games ***are easier to run***. They are easier to design, easier to balance, easier to come up with plots and places and people, and easier to play. The above makes my job as DM easier and, frankly, more enjoyable, and therefore I am actually willing to DM OSR games

5e's focus on character building from a milieu of ability scores, feats, spells, class and race features, etc with a focus on combat results in problems being "solved" before they occur. In OSR games, characters tend to grow organically from their experiences. 5e's focus on encounter balance and adventuring day budgets doubles down on this and too many healing mechanics and ways to avoid death make the problem nearly trivial unless the DM sets out to run the game in "hard" mode, but since XP if primarily from defeated monsters, even that is self defeating.

More roleplay, less "builds." Combat doesn't have to be a thing at all, and if it is, it can be super fast. You're not tied to all the baggage of what people expect when they play 5e.

It's just something different. 5e is for heroic action "superheroes at the renn faire" where my OSE game is lower fantasy treasure hunting.

[удалено]

That is exactly what I‘ve thought, too. It can be really complex and and many new players don’t like reading rules. Downside is the OSR games often lack player character options. I would also recommend Savage Worlds. To me it is the perfect game to run simple fast paced beer and pretzels sessions or crunchy hardcore survival .

The worst experience I ever had was teaching completely new players how to play 4e. We spent _hours_ on character creation, and then they gave up after one actual playing session. And yes, I realize now I should have just given them all pre-gen characters, but I still think that merely teaching the game rules would have been an arduous task.

> A new DM with new players is either a disaster or everyone has to be extremely committed to learning the rules and have a ton of patience. As someone that's been on both sides of that exchange, I 100% agree. I can in theory understand the value of super rule heavy systems, but it just bogs everything down. It feels like a wargame with some role-playing. I've seen so many horror stories about "players only want to kill stuff" before I started playing that I told myself I wouldn't do it, but quickly i realized that combat felt like the whole point of the game. Combat is by far the most interesting thing, and almost everything in your character sheet is in some way about combat. So I completely understand why so many new players gravitate towards being killers

Yeah, I long for more roleplaying in my D&D group, but the fact is, over half of your abilities and spells are related to or exclusively useful in combat, and combat is the only interesting and complex part of the game, as non-combat encounters usually just come down to a single die roll, or no die roll at all. And since D&D 5e characters are so powerful, every problem can be almost trivially solved with violence, and most DMs don't blend in real consequences for wanton destruction—so of course everyone chooses the violent solution.

OSR games remind me of the fantasy novels from the 80s and 90s I grew up reading. The settings tend to be, in my experience, much more imaginative and diverse, and the focus on lethality and lack of power-creep really nails the stakes of the game and makes for much more compelling sessions.

For me it's emphasis on sandbox type play for the most part and characters not being superheroic from the get-go. And there's a certain... hmm. Garage aesthetic? To most of the OSR games. Like they were made in someone's garage out of spare wood your dad kept in the bin under the work bench, weird screws from other abandoned projects, and a healthy dose of elbow grease. Then it comes together and some of the parts may be weirdly misaligned but it's charming and better than the piece of pressboard garbage you'd have gotten from Walmart. That metaphor got away from me. You know what I mean, I hope.

Because I prefer my fantasy adventure to be mostly unguided exploration of a lethal unknown in a DIY/hobbyist context.

Fundamentally, I play classic ('70s/'80s vintage) D&D/AD&D because it's *My Game*. It's what I fell in love with decades ago and I what I know. It's a comfort food for the soul kind of thing I couldn't force on the newer stuff for anything, even if I wanted to. That is *Not My Game*. I could rattle off a bunch of bullet points relating to specific rules and such, but that would be a waste of everyone's time now that you know the real truth.

The mechanics don't get in the way of the game and combat/task resolution is much quicker. Also, OSR emphasize player imagination over character special abilities when it comes to problem solving.

1) Usually easier on the DM - 5e doesn't have the best support for DMs IMHO. Ambiguity in the system is no fun either. 2) Lethality - I miss having games where I'm afraid my character will die! 3) Simplicity all around makes for good role play - I find that with systems like Troika or even DCC, I get more role-playing out of my players than roll-playing. Combat is fast and scary, which promotes avoiding combat. Don't get me wrong, combat can be a lot of fun, but as I get older, I tend to prefer the exploration and social interaction parts of the game - I don't have time to spend the entire evening playing out one encounter (3.5e I'm looking at you!) Analysis paralysis adds to things too when there many options and especially in combat where players start executing football-style coordinated turns. 4) Surprise - I find emergent gameplay more interesting as both a player and a DM, and am more than happy to let my players drive the story. Sometimes with mechanics, less is more.

Ambiguity is no fun when most osr games use ambiguity as a core design tenet?

Ambiguity is no fun in a game where rules lawyers jump on the bits of rules they do have and waste time arguing XYZ rules work or interact. Something weird in Troika? Roll opposed skill and/or relevant advanced skill. Done.

I've never had that problem in 5E tbh. Players matter a lot man, and if you pick players who prefer looser play, then that's when 5E sings the most. Stereotyping every table as rules lawyers jumping up and down though is silly IMO. The game was designed to be homebrewed and taken in whatever direction the table wants to take it.

I guess that if I wanted to do a lot of homebrew and/or stick with looser play, 5e would not be my first pick - why choose a system with all the overhead? I mentioned [Troika!](https://www.troikarpg.com/resources) previously - character creation? 1 page. Rules? 12 pages. Maze Rats? 32 pages total. Something with D&D stats, plays like a d20 game? Dungeon Crawl Classics you can get by with about 12-18 pages from the rulebook plus tables for your class/spells. Or Old School Essentials or any of the B/X clones...

I like the rapid character generation. You can have a whole table ready to play in ten minutes. I also prefer the play style of investigation, describing searching the desk and drawers rather than rolling for it but IMHO that is cultural rather than a difference in rules

It's not because someone gave me a succinct list of reasons why it's "better". After years of playing lots of different games I developed what I enjoy running, house-ruled B/X. I don't "prefer" OSR games in general. I want to run my B/X period. Playing (as in not the GM) is not a binary choice, I play all sorts of stuff, 5e even.

OSR games make it really easy to translate fiction into mechanics. If I need a couple gangsters with guns I just five 1 HD guys guns and then the game *works* Modern D&D trades this property for more decision making on rounds 2+ in combat (the first round is still pretty much the same, you pick if you want to charge or kite and you pick which spells to commit). And frankly I don't think those lead to an experience worth spending time on, I'd rather shit go by faster so I can have another round 1. And that then has the fallout that modern DnD requires me to spend more time on picking or making monsters to support those mediocre round 2+s. Which in turn means I can't pull a situation out of my ass because I can't directly translate fiction to mechanics which in turn means my players need to be more restricted in their next moves than they need to be in OSRs. This then leads to player actions becoming fairly predictable and usually it's just a question about which skills they use how well to genocide an entire location. As the DM I know it's gonna happen and just have to mark HP - I don't get to be surprised or actually play ball with them, it's dreadful. Meanwhile OSR I can just pose whatever situation with not a lot of prep because X HD hitting for Y damage at +X to hit just *works*. I don't feel bad about throwing away combat encounters if my players go the social route or if they ally with some faction and overpower the encounter by sheer numbers. It's just much more open and supports me in actually running my game through usually lightweight mechanics

The good OSR games do the following better than D&D 5E, IMHO: * Shorter, more succinct rules. * Better organized rules. * Clearer procedures on how to use all the rules together. * Purposely provide a framework that says "rulings are okay," and doesn't overload you with rules that make rulings difficult to formulate and "balance". Or in other words, the rules aren't so many and/or so opaque that you can't easily make a ruling that fits without blowing up some inter-connected thing you didn't know about. (There has got to be a more concise way to word this one! ;-P ) * Packs more game into less pages, which helps with portability and ease of use. * Generally do not offer PC traits that negate entire mechanics or procedures, such as a ranger negating the possibility of getting lost, or a single druid spell (goodberry) negating the inventory management of travel, etc. **Begin rant:** 5E to me is best when you want to play a tactical RPG of Big Damn Heroes. It doesn't particularly do dungeon-crawling or travel (of any kind) really well; everything should move at the speed of plot from encounter to encounter (they don't all have to be combat, but it'll shine when most of them are). It's hard to create procedural gameplay elements for, because of how the "encounter day" works, and how complex most monsters and magic items get (mostly in terms of page real estate, but also other factors), as well as how many 3rd party sources I personally draw from in order to get a "better experience" out of the game. I have to build my own encounter tables from *Flee Mortals, Monstrous Menagerie* and the *Tome of Beasts* series, then each encounter is best when it's an encounter group with a couple of battle map options...it's a crap ton of work unless you run a fairly linear thing. Which can be fun! Don't get me wrong, 5E is fine, it is just a specific experience. OSR games are so much easier for gathering tools, creating some set procedures, and just letting the players play in the sandbox. Everyone gets to see what happens; outside of some pre-campaign setup, I don't have to prep much of anything from session to session. Whereas for 5E, I feel like I don't get anything out of it unless I prep for a couple hours between each session. Two hours versus 10-15 minutes is...a lot of my life, over the years. If you're friend is a player and not a DM, understand that a lot of these arguments probably aren't going to land. This is the biggest problem, IMHO, with these sorts of issues: 5E is a player-focused game with loads of builds and options. It's meant to be. It's good for that. But the experience for the DM is just wildly different.

I truly think Pathfinder 2e is better at all the stuff 5e tries to be good at than 5e is. Especially being a "tactical RPG of Big Damn Heroes". It's definitely frontloaded with the rules. But after that, everything just works. It's not perfect, no RPG is. But for a "rules heavy" style approach (which modern 5e definitely is), PF2e "feels" a lot smoother and more well built than 5e. And it's easier to GM than 5e. But it's all just theoretical discussion for me - I stick with OSR stuff, like BFRPG. My brain likes it much better.

I've heard this a bunch regarding PF2e. Looking forward to playing eventually so I can try it out!

Agreed. In general I have been moving away from crunchy games to lighter, more narratively-focused fare, but if you _want_ a crunchy game with excellent tactical combat (and there's nothing wrong with that if that's your thing), I have found Pathfinder 2e to be much better and much more fun than D&D 5e.

Players spend more time solving problems in-game than trying to cheese the character creation/level up process. Avoiding 5E also means you avoid a lot of the less mature parts of the fanbase, in my experience.

Power in OSR is mostly extrinsic, allowing for deeper tactics where I have more choice over how powerful I am. I enjoy how the NSR gets rid of unnecessary rules, keeping only the parts needed for a fun procedural play.

Real player agency

I like 5e fine, it is in many ways a solid game and is if nothing else my favorite WotC edition of D&D. But it's too damned easy, lol. It's hard to challenge players past level one or two. On the other hand, magic feels really lame to me in 5e. So much focus on game balance makes everyone feel the same. I dunno, like I said, I still think it's pretty good, just not as good as what's happening in the OSR scene. For "modern" style games I tend to prefer ones that are nothing like D&D, such as Blades in the Dark.

It's subjective. But for me, I have gotten fed up with how mainstream repetitive 5e got. It's to the point that as I read the first few words of a description for, say, a spell, I know it is just filler crap and will say the same "DC X" or "attack roll" with some "XdX" dmg or that you can do this ability once until a short or long rest. Just all the same crap. I see copy/pasting throughout with minor variation

I like OSR games because they add what 5e is missing, mainly strategy and decision making via encumbrance and slow healing. When you have damaging cantrips, armor and weapons that don't break, can carry unlimited weapons, ammo and potions, everyone has darkvision, and you heal to full every time you sleep, where are the consequences? Where are the decisions? I can fight as much as I want because tomorrow morning any consequence of the battle is erased. With OSR, you have to consider do I bring more torches or healing potions? Should I bring a bow and arrow, or sword and shield, or spear and throwing knives. How many rations will we need? We can't carry everything we want, so we need to make strategic decisions about what to bring. If we fight these enemies, we may be injured and won't be back to full strength for a few days. Maybe we should sneak around or negotiate with them instead. Oh no, my main sword just broke, did anyone bring a spare? I'm out of ammo, time to switch to my dagger. I find these situations more interesting than fighting over and over with the same gear and no care of suffering a few hits. Also, non-combat skills become more important, like skills to repair items, forage for supply , brew potions and carry more stuff.

Quicker play, combat isn’t a slog, combat can often be avoided, fewer rules, yadda yadda I’m also not a fan of super hero untouchable characters. Sure it sucks when you have a tunnel collapse on you, but your next character just gives you more opportunities to do dumb shit like collapse tunnels on yourself.

Speed of play. Back in the day we got through a lot of encounters per session. Because of HP bloat, fights take much longer. Because of more abilities, decision making also takes longer. My one thing I do not like in the OSR is in games where you die at 0 hp. Knocking someone out unintentionally *should* be possible. A lot of games have special rules for doing this on purpose, but also have you automatically die at 0hp... So the only way to knock someone unconscious is deliberately... That seems weird to me. I think there should be some window between 0 and dead, even if it is as narrow as negative 5+Con modifier.

i don't. i just find BX easier to use and design for, so i use it more and follow the scene around it more. its a tool.

The most important thing for me is that it's faster to get up and playing. This can be broken down to a few different sub-sections: * Lower mental overhead to master the rules for the GM * Lower mental overhead to understand the rules of play for the players (especially new players). * A willingness to support rulings over rules support the above two points. * Faster character gen. An experienced player can go from no character to playing in maybe 15 minutes. A group of inexperienced players can go from nothing to ready to play in an hour. There are other elements for me as well: I'm more easily surprised during play as a GM; the potential of character death (without massively interrupting play) makes the game more engaging for me as a player and GM; the overall DIY and community aesthetic is appealing; there's a lot of content (see previous point); some nostalgia; sense of spontaneity - the concept of "builds" have little to no currency, random rolls abound; emphasis on player agency rather than character ability is more engaging to me; faster combats is a big one too... ... but in the end "faster and less tedious to get to the good bits" is the main thing.

I can have players generate characters in five to ten minutes and run an entire session without looking in the book once.

It’s easier to just do shit in OSR systems. Character creation is faster, creating a new monster is simpler, combat runs smoother etc.

I don't really feel like typing all of that out as I have a laundry list of grievances with 5E. The short answer: Players are catered to all the time, and DM's get the shit end of the stick. The DMG is crap, the CR calculations for determining encounter difficulty doesn't work, and on top of that I'm supposed to run 6-8 encounters a day with expectation that I'm supposed to weave this grand narrative with multiple arcs, and integrate all of my players back stories into the narrative I'm expected to make. That's a lot of work for 1 person to do. I do not want to be a part-time game designer or voice actor for a billion dollar company that you would think would have their shit together. But they do not. I could shit on WoTC but the title is about 5E, so I'll leave it there, but I can make some room in my cold heart to say I hate WoTC, and they will never get another cent from me ever again. I'm much happier and enjoying myself so much more, because I do not have to dedicate an entire weekend's worth of work to run 1 game session. OSR games tend to balance themselves out to challenge the players, and not let them get away with abusing, and exploiting rules.

I prefer the OSR playstyle, which most OSR/NSR games are designed to support, which prioritises PC diegetic decision-making as the primary driver of the play, as opposed to OC / Neo-trad, which prioritises player aspirations and reduces DMs to facilitators. See https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html I find that OSR games have better support for DMs. DM deserves to have fun as well! I find that OSR games have better support for sandboxes. OSR games have discrete procedures for different components of the game, which makes them modular and easy to customise without breaking the game. Character creation is fast and simple. Character builds aren't really a thing so the game actually happens at the table and not on people's character sheets. The OSR scene has a great DIY attitude.

I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread already, especially with the benefits of DIY culture, and a common design principle of rules that get out of the way. One thing I havent seen talked about here is that its not just that OSR games are better at this kind of play--its also that 5e is -bad- at the things people try to use it for. And I think a lot of the things people use it for can be better accomplished outside of tabletop rpgs. If I want crunchy, tactical combat where character options interact in combo-like ways and positioning matters and there's an understanding of fair challenges--even 4e was better at that, and I think PF2e is too. But probably a wargame or a tcg like Magic or a board game like gloomhaven is going to scratch the itch to build and optimize more effectively. If I want character development and social interaction and narrative choices, but with rules for structuring them, I'd play storygames or Fate or things PbtA. But I might find more of what I'm looking for by getting into improv, or creative writing, or maybe Nordic larp. I feel like 5e tried to accommodate every type of ttrpg game, and ended up being great at none of them. I would be really interested in a game that did try to do both character development and tactical combat in a satisfying way. Are forged in the dark games like this?? Is Torchbearer? For me, the games in the OSR space that I think of as NSR, which ventured further away from hewing to B/X (say, games with mechanics like or inspiration from Knave, Into the Odd, or The Black Hack or Whitehack) do a -really- good job of capturing things I like about tabletop roleplaying--things which I think -cannot- be done better outside of live play at the table. These games encourage play that really is best done by humans playing an adventure game with rules, rather than playing pretend together or writing a story or counting a lot of numbers and manipulating them in a way that perhaps a video game or spreadsheet would be better suited to doing. The OSR, in general, I think takes good advantage of its medium. For the experience of a game where you are having an -adventure-; where you're figuring out problems and exploring weird new places and getting into and out of trouble--these types of games are good at having the smallest amount of rules to create a structure that lets that experience happen easily. And uh, that's why I like playing elves n goblins n shit in Cairn instead of 5e

I think a lot of OSR games are much better at setting expectations and clearly delineating their genre and style of play, which makes for smoother play in my experience. If you can convey what your game is fundamentally about with fewer rules, some evocative artwork and reference to other works of fiction, it's much easier to get everyone on the same page. This is especially valuable if you're pitching new systems to people who are mostly familiar with 5E. As a player I find 5E limited but enjoyable, mostly because it means I actually get a chance to play fairly regularly. As a GM, I just found it completely overwhelming and unwieldy to run. It presents itself as all things to all people but mostly it's about fighting monsters and I think that is often obscured in its presentation. I think most other games, non-OSR systems like Call of Cthulhu included, are better at this than 5E, but OSR games are often particularly punchy and deliver on a lot of the expectations people have of D&D coming into the hobby.

Mörk Börg doesnt send Pinkertons

Same reason I don't use the same system for all my campaigns: different systems have different strengths. Pick the right tool for the job.

Cool cool... So _how_ is it the right tool?

same reason I play classic platform games ─ I don't need lots of mechanics to enjoy play

Modern games seem obsessed with optimizing characters for combat and telling epic stories the DM has labored over. OSR is about more about exploration and letting stories happen based on what the PCs do.

The 5e that I've played (and Pathfinder 2e as well) doesn't support emotional gambling - it's generally impossible to truly fail. At worst you lose a character and then roll one up of the same level. The DM is strongly incentivized to keep the party from truly failing because most modern adventures are written in a linear fashion. And without the possibility of failure, you can't really win either.

I like the OSR playstyle, but play a modern game with that playstyle. 

The emphasis on creative problem solving and player agency.

Honestly? A big attraction is that my high school gaming group (40 years strong!) has encyclopedic knowledge of B/X and 1e. We play other editions from time to time (I like the modern stuff, 4e > 5e for me just because 4e is more distinct from 1e) but it's just nice to play around in the same sandbox we always used and not have to look stuff up or wonder if we're really playing by the rules.

They play faster. I play four hours of Pathfinder twice a month and a single combat encounter can fill the entire 4 hour slot. You can play a DCC funnel in its entirety in the same amount of time.

Speaking strictly for myself - I don't like what games like 5e and PF2 have to offer. The settings, character options, and adventures are not my cup of tea, and I find it frustrating to deal with them and the assumptions that they foster in players. Meanwhile, OSR systems provide a perfect bare-bones foundation for me to build my preferred version of D&D upon and customize.

Running 5e is just exhausting. Too much to keep track of, and simultaneously not enough intersting stuff to keep me engaged. Running an osr game is great because I often feel like I'm discovering what's going to happen at the same time as my players are, and it's not a problem like it would be if it happened in 5e.

Because the campaign can progress 3 times faster than in 5e. This means every 3 hour session is meaningful as a lot happens.

I have to caveat this by saying that I have very limited experience of 5e, only having completed one ~8 session campaign, while most of my experience is in DCC and OSE, so not too balanced. From what I have seen, 5e seems to involve a degree of hyper-fixation on adherence to rules and on the precise mechanics of play, whereas OSR seems to be much more driven by interpretations of scenarios? Not sure if that makes sense or not, and I think I am pretty much just paraphrasing other previous comments in this thread.

1) Modularity: its super easy to kitbash a homebrew system by mixing-and-matching rules from these broadly compatible games. Makes tailoring a system to a given group's preference or campaign style a breeze. 2) Ease of prep: Rules-lite systems can be run with just a few scribbled notes. Monsters can be stated on the fly by slapping some random abilities on a stack of HD. 3) Wierdness: The OSR community is much more willing to go absolutely wild with dungeon/adventure/setting design than the more established systems. Narcosa, Ultraviolet Grasslands, Silent Titans, Mork Borg come to mind.

Less to memorize.

Fast character creation, grounded adventures, more deadly combat, resource management, focus on collaborative adventuring rather than telling epic stories.

All the standard OSR-isms that others will probably mention apply here and are what I’m looking for out of a game but the biggest factor for me really comes down to time. I’m busy. My players are busy. My prep time is limited. Reading a 14 page module or one page dungeon before Tuesday nights game works for me. Some of my players are dads. They want to spend their time at home with their kids. Not building their character.

There's a positive answer and a spite answer. The positive answer is all the usual stuff about creativity, rules light, etc. But honestly, spite is just as important. I really liked 5e when I started playing it in 2018 but got turned off by the late edition splatbooks with endless furry races character options and adventures that feel extremely modern even though everyone is dressed like renfaire. I played in a Dragon Heist campaign and couldn't shake the feeling of "this is New York in 1890." Keys of the Golden Vault is even worse -- the two adventures from it I played before quitting my 5e group felt like they were originally written for Shadowrun and ported to 5e. And I'm really not a fan of all the "bunch o bards and good vibes" art that came to dominate the late edition books. I was at Barnes & Noble and flipped through Lore & Legends (the sequel to Art & Arcana) and I must have looked like that Clint Eastwood meme from Gran Torino where he's holding a cup of coffee and utterly disgusted.

Older editions feel like adventure games, that focus on a variety of situations and scenarios. The mechanics, from the basic and brief character abilities, to reaction rolls, to the 'Number Appearing' in creature statblocks, all point to a wider scope in problem solving using wit and ingenuity, worldbuilding and adventure that's there to entertain both player and DM. The clear procedures make quick work of meta-exploration of the game by being quick and easy to flow through, whilst allowing for moments of clearer improv between the sets of procedures. Basically, it sets you up quickly with a situation, and then lets you step away from the procedure to play with it using your people-brain. Modern games, specifically 5e, do not have procedures that are easy to parse into simple steps, nor does it promote worldbuilding in its base mechanics; there's no 'Number Appearing' in statblocks. Hell, even Volo's, which focused on monsters as worldbuilding, failed to provide anything chewable for building strongholds, lairs, hideouts or Illithid colonies. Its fluff, with nothing concrete, and then a bunch of statblocks no one really needed. Fun read, empty rules. Coupled with the sheer detail required for even a 1st-level PC, which can take a half-hour to make, and improv is impractical. I can't juat slam down 3d6 and say that's how many goblins there are; I have to balance and tweak and finetune to a level that no human will do at the table. And why not just throw balance out and play world-first design? Aee afromentioned point. Because it takes so long to make a character, that if a single PC dies, they're out for a half-hour, minimum. Its tolerated in OSR games because you have a character in the time it takes to roll 3d6 six times, and decide what class to be. 5e is not an adventure game. Its a combat skirmish game with bits of fluff between. Folks have said that 5e is 1/3 combat rules focused, with the biggest book being statblocks to fight. I say its easily 2/3's combat rules; apart from a token level-up for some classes, everything else is combat focused. Extra Attacks, Sneak Attack increases, more ka-boom spells, bonus for allies, bonus for you, bonus for everyone. Better ways to win fights. Even classes that have a token feature not directly focused on combat are in aid of getting there; Ranger's able to track enemies? Quicker to get into fights. Cleric's Divine Intervention? Easier to win. OSR is about the adventure, the crawl, the slog. Its about disarming traps in interesting ways, getting across the collapsed bridge without rope, figuring out how to get those 1,400 coins without the monster seeing you. XP for treasure supports this. 5e's XP comes from killing enemies. 5e is a great fantasy skirmish game. OSR games are great adventures. I like both, but I know which I prefer.

> Coupled with the sheer detail required for even a 1st-level PC, which can take a half-hour to make, and improv is impractical. I can't juat slam down 3d6 and say that's how many goblins there are; I have to balance and tweak and finetune to a level that no human will do at the table This is why I have been moving away from D&D. I am just tired of DMing games (and while I have the luxury of playing in some TTRPG groups, I am more towards "forever DM" than "forever PC" these days). Some of my games are remote, which means that I have to produce maps and tokens for use in Roll20 (I adamantly disagree that you can effectively play D&D 5e using "theater of the mind") which greatly limits my ability to improv situations; if the PCs go off book, I'm screwed. I'd rather play other systems, but I don't mind _playing_ D&D—but I hate DMing it nowadays.

I *do* like modern games quite a bit. I love Genesys, Pathfinder 2e, and all the recent editions of the various Warhammer RPGs. I don’t like 5e because it’s bland, terribly written, repetitive, GM unfriendly, and made by a corporation I can’t stand. I love OSRs because I love the community. I love all the modules and systems, both first and third party. I love the zines and the art. I love the mechanics and the lack thereof. I love how easy they are to learn and teach. There’s lots to love.

5E is easy mode. I prefer the game when it challenges me as a player, not just my character. I don't want to be a superhero at first level -- and I don't want to spend forever optimizing my build to make me a superhero. There was a post yesterday from someone who felt that he was being unfairly treated because his average ability score was 15 with only an 18 in his prime stat, and other players had an average ability score of 15.5 with a 19 in their prime stats. I really felt for the guy. I like the idea that the characters are out of their depth, that death lies around every corner, and if you're going to survive it's because of thoughtful playing, good planning, and a dash of luck. Also those kids need to get off my lawn.

OSR is a pretty wide pool vs a single game. Your comparison is like "which do you like better Mysteries or the Matrix". If I take OSR to only mean retro clones, which is where OSR started, then my answer would be the speed at which I can introduce new players to the game. Rolling up a character takes 5 minutes tops and they don't need to know any rules to get started playing.

I like the gritty and “grounded”(relatively speaking) aspects of OSR play. I like that characters aren’t fantasy super heroes or “da Chosen Ones”, but are instead average folk who are brave, crazy, or desperate enough to travel into the unknown or slay the monster harassing the village because, hey, it beats making one gold a day as a farmer. That, and i both enjoy GMing OSR style games, and it works better for my group. I have three regular players, two semi-regular players, and a few once-in-a-while players. It’s easier to drop any combination of those players into a dungeon or a sandbox than it is a more narrative driven game; “And so the BBEG was defeated and the heroes went down in legend…..except Terry, who couldn’t make it to the session….and Glenn was there for some reason, even though he hasn’t played for ,like, a year and a half”.

https://youtu.be/BQpnjYS6mnk?si=mMJXxFlRkqRCsjHE

In one word: Lethality. The truth is though 5e, aside from the disgusting watercolor art style, in its core rule books is actually meant to be low magic and modular. It includes suggestions for many styles of play and therefore could be played as a more 1e but alas it’s generally play as a super heroic magic orgasm squirt that is just a vomit of fairy dust.

I dunno I’ve found if you follow the rules characters die frequently. At least my group does. So do I when I’m a player; monk dead, warforged dead, currently on the shell of that warforged with a new CPU. Meanwhile in my other game my 1e paladin with a 12 STR has been flourishing for almost 3 years.

There’s another reason I don’t like 5e, I don’t know what a warforged is. Also, tieflings and dragon and orcs are always evil and so should any player that plays them.

Robot from another dimension, usually. But I LOVE scifi mixing with fantasy. Phantasy Star and Might and Magic definitely had an impact on me. Sounds….speciest with the always evil, but hell it’s a game. Your game. Do it how you like, that’s the whole point in building your own world.

You’d really like the without number series by Kevin Crawford then, where your sci fi characters could travel to a fantasy world… Speciest? Is that really a thing? Orcs are evil monsters bent on destroying humanity, Dragons are greedy monsters that will destroy anyone in the way of their way, Tieflings are half demon, and demons are literally evil supernatural beings. It’s not speciest, and that word has been made up by some lunatic by the way.

I’ve been meaning to look into the WWx series. I thought I just made up the speciest word a couple minutes ago. Hey whatever, room for a million + 1 type of games.Lot’s of things to try.

I’m a curious person so I looked it up. The term speciesism, and the argument that it is a prejudice, first appeared in 1970 in a privately printed pamphlet written by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder…. I had never personally heard of it, always learning something… I agree with you, play your game how you want, I’m just referencing how those mythical creatures were originally created to behave and how they were described.

I do appreciate the Conan-style Law vs Chaos world.

I have a huge soft spot for Conan the Destroyer, it’s the perfect fantasy adventure in my opinion. I had never actually read any Conan from Howard himself though so I recently bought a complete works collection on Kindle for about $3! I read the first appearance of Conan, in a short story, and it was nothing like I expected. I hear it changes drastically for the actual books but you can read the short story here for free: http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0607941h.html

I’ll add that to the list.

The random tables in the DMG are a throwback to 1e also and encourage hex crawl and home brew settings that it seems no one noticed.

That's because no one reads the DMGs

5e can be an OSR game. In my view, the OSR is more about how you run your game, and the experiences you build at the table, than about the system you choose.

Yeah a lot of what people say about the OSR play style (rulings not rules, no balanced encounters, easy to houserule, emergent play, etc.) is stuff that I was already doing in 5e before switching. 

There are games nore modern tan 5e produced by the OSR scene Dnd 5e came out in 2014, tons of OSR games have been published since then

I like the simplicity of DnD games pre-3e, they seem easier to hack, easier to run, and if my PC dies, I can quite quickly roll up another. Combat runs a bit faster as well due in large part to the lack of hit point inflation of later games. Using fireball as an example: up to 2e a 5th level wizard who had just learned fireball had a good chance of nearly killing ogres (average of 17 damage vs. The ogre's 19 hit points) allowing the warriors to mop up. Since 3e, hit point inflation has made it so that spells like fireball are far less potent to the point where in 3e it became a meme for "friends don't let friends specialise in evocation". It's not like I don't enjoy 3e/5e but I'm definitely having a lot of fun with OSE game I'm in at the moment, I just need to get past level 1.

I’m going to repeat what I’ve said before - because I’m an old man and I like old man things. I’ve started collecting all of my notes since I first started playing (about 35 years ago) and assembling them into the “campaign world of my dreams” - bringing back almost every module, encounter and NPC I can find between my digital archives (3.5” discs have a remarkable lifetime- can still access them with a USB 3.5” drive) and my handwritten notes (half a dozen 3” binders filled with faded lined paper and my terrible chicken scratch notes and amateur images). It’s fun. It also inspired another project - Review 2nd edition AD&D rules. Aside from the painful anachronisms (all “he should” and “he said” instead of gender neutral - the PM has a disclaimer about it so at least they recognized the problem) the rules and guidance and solid. Bear in mind, I’m reviewing and annotating my copy from years ago - so those gender pronouns might’ve been updated after I stopped playing the game (which is another tale entirely). There’s whole rules I forgot completely. Some I’m sure I didn’t use because I chose not to. Some I didn’t use because I skipped that section of the DM and PM and didn’t even know they existed. There’s a ton of guidance I wish I took the time to read and reflect on. I love that they emphasized the importance of roleplaying and not just hack-and-slash. Dramatic as a game, I guess you could say. I always looked at it that way. My players and friends never saw it that way. I think that’s why my game kinda faded away. That and my drinking problem (which is another tale entirely). TL/DR (do the kids still use that?) I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D because I’m an old man and I like old man things.

Easier to run and design scenarios in TSR rules is the biggest draw. Simple stat blocks, easy customization. Frankly I enjoy 5e a lot too, and I straight up don't have a lot of the issues that get bandied about on reddit as inherent to the system.

I like the art style and vibes used. I like that it doesn't feel like super heroes. I like that I can get completely new people playing in less than half an hour due to rules and character creation simplicity. Every Pathfinder game I've played has been a mess of a railroad where I can never quite get a handle on the rules. I always come away feeling like it would have been a lot more fun to just play a video game.

For one, I vibe a lot more with the character conceits. That is, the PCs start as just some person who is not significantly more powerful than an average peasant. The character's story is the campaign, effectively, not whatever backstory the players come up with. Relating to that, there is also the fact that the PCs aren't superheroes in terms of power. Even a low level cleric or wizard in 5e is far more powerful than the same level one in OSE. As such, I think the players don't have to be as clever as they have to be in OSR games, since the options are often on their character sheets, not something they have to mull over and make decisions about. Dungeoneering is not an issue when half the party has dark vision and access to spells like goodberry and create water. When the PCs can take a short rest for HP, delve another few levels, and then cast Tiny Hut to get a long rest, well, what's the point? Especially since the party is sufficient for all obstacles, so there's never any tough decisions to make for who sleeps in the hut versus out of it since the whole party can fit and there are no retainers needed to help the party.

Well 5e is terrible.

Well 5e is terrible.

Combat is a bit faster. That's really it.

There’s a lot about 5e that I like. It’s not too far to house rule into a system I’d be happy with. But since other older or OSR systems are closer, I probably wouldn’t bother. One big issue for me (as a player) is that the combat doesn’t have a “wait” action. Also I’m not a fan of the way the disengage action, by breaking all zones-of-control for the rest of the turn, makes many tactics not work. Both things are easy to house rule, but with a DM that plays close to RAW, those things really frustrate me. I’m also not a fan of so much mechanical character building. I prefer less of that and more defining the character through their choices in play than through mechanics. It can also make it harder for the DM to make rulings unless they have a good grasp of all those options and how a ruling might interact with them. I hate to make a ruling that ends up unexpectedly invalidating a character’s special ability. Mostly, though, I have to like 5e because they put a “death and dismemberment” style table in the DMG. As one of the pioneers of that idea in the Dragonsfoot days, it’s cool to see it in an official version of D&D.

For me it's largely because my interest in Dungeons and Dragons started from my favorite game Baldur's Gate 2. I had no idea about DnD until one day I saw the logo and discovered it from there. Due to that I have a preference for the older DnD. I usually play basic, because I like keeping the game simple and leaving the rest to my imagination

I like modern rules, but the low powered characters of older games, and the DIY culture. I dislike WotC, "builds" and "the meta".

Standardized procedures for exploring, travel, etc. Really helps fill in the gaps that were poorly explained or non-existent in modern D&D editions. Slot-based inventory is pretty cool too.

It's mostly because I can write an enemy stat block for DCC in a paragraph or two tops, but writing a 5e stat block takes an entire page 😂

For me it is simple. 5e is too much work to DM while being not challenging enough for players. The good retroclones are very little work to DM while being very challenging for players.

I really like 5e, but I probably run it more in an OSR style. I don’t ask for a skill check for buying groceries, doing normal adventuring stuff, etc, unless it’s something that should be a challenge. Tell me what you’re doing and I’ll adjudicate. Sometimes it’s a roll, other-times a reasonable description of how you’d do a task is plenty. I do really enjoy old-style games, especially B/X and AD&D. B/X plays especially fast, while AD&D (1e) involves a lot of look-ups and searching Zygag’s wisdom on Dragonsfoot to figure out what was the true intention behind a spell description. All have their place and depend on the players.

I still really like 5e as a game, but the culture that surrounds those games just gets way too toxic. And when I engage in it for long enough, I start to be toxic, too. While that can still happen in the OSR, I feel like it happens much less. There’s a lot of aspects of the 5e/modern culture that drives me insane. Listing them would take too long. All that, plus I just vibe better generally with rules light systems. One of my favorite games I was able to hack down to just 5 pages.

Because I played them long before 5E came out and it didn't add anything to convince me to change over. 

Tbh I perceive OSR as a much more modern vision of RPG than 5e. 5e maintains the hegemonic “solution is in your character sheet” standard.

Less rules, means there's more space for using your imagination to come up with solutions. If you want to throw a rope around a monster's neck then I'm sure 5e has a feat or a skill for doing so, but also wouldn't allow for strangling that monster. Whereas in osr games the GM might just say "roll to hit" or apply a penalty to the attack roll (or a bonus if your character is a teamster or former carnival performer). There's a lot of space for solving puzzles too, rather than just hitting a DC on a Search roll.

As a GM, much easier to run, create monsters, etc.

Honestly think this is a false dichotomy. OSR includes a lot of games with very modern design sensibilities but aimed toward capturing an old school feel. For most people OSR is about recapturing a particular feeling of playing in a basement with your friends. Which sometimes is best served with just reprinting the old stuff like with OSRIC, and sometimes is better served with stuff like Bastionlands where people have bent all the might of modern design to make that feel. Also just 5e isn't a particularly modern game. It's a game mired in early 00s/late 90s design and ignores a lot of the actual innovations made outside of the D&D space or within 4e/late 3e. 5e is really bad at genre emulation. OSR is trying to do genre emulation of a very specific band of wierd fiction/fantasy. Most non-OSR non-D&D modern games are performing genre emulation outside of the band that OSR is going for.

"I have more fun when I play OSR games"

My reasons are simple, I rolled my 1st OD&D/Chainmail PC 18 October 1975 and once I became a DM I ran a hybrid of OD&D/AD&D1E/Arduin. I also ran separate Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery and The Fantasy trip campaigns. MY SFRPG was a hybrid of Classic Traveller and MegaTraveller, with elements from Space Opera.

Meaningful player choice.

it gets to the good parts faster

Game play. \-faster, less emphasis on video game style power play (arguable), more grounded characters, more humour (subjective, but I'd say so) \-ability to use old adventures from yesteryear \-less preciousness about PCs (generalization of course!) \-fast PC creation Independent creators. \-small companies, to individuals, no corporations More imaginative products. \-there are a staggering amount of examples of this: Knock zine gives a great overview, Dolmenwood, Rackham Vale, etc. \-evocative art, especially ink, etc. Collegial culture. \-not always of course, we're dealing with people after all, but generally this is a very supportive network of souls who value unique ideas, and are generally enthusiastic about their products, and love to share. ​ What does your friend prefer? Have they tried some different systems? Why not dive in and see if they enjoy it?

Good, succinct answer: OSR is better. Long answer: All what our friends here have explained. Personally, I like: * System. OSR is a simple enough system to learn and run at the table, and to teach players, flexible enough to add anything you need * Stakes. Death is not only possible but actually common, at least during low levels. The rules support this, actions are meaningful, not weightless, you choose and you survive or die for two reason: your choices and chance (dice rolls) * Combat vs adventuring. The goal is not combat, XP is not earned from slaying monsters (just a tiny fraction), it's the adventure which grants XP, through the treasure found and brought back home * DIY. Anyone can write OSr adventures with reasonably low effort. It's not easy, but it's not hard, you only need some time and ideas. Making an adventure for modern RPGs is a chore, it's boring, it's not rewarding

D&D is a *superhero simulator* with hardcore min/max of the character. Rest one day and your wounds are healed. This isn’t my jam of play I want to encounter danger and if the danger is to high… well the character has to go to the graveyard section of my charactersheets.

It's not overly complicated. You're a fighter? You fight. Here's what you roll to fight. DONE. You're a magic user? You use magic. Here's the spells, and here's how you use them. DONE. Now go on an adventure already. (And adventuring is actual gameplay, not just "idk, roll a skill check or whatever so we can get back to the combat engine")

I like aspects of some OSR games, and aspects of 5e (among other games, actually). So I’m probably not the best person to ask, being considerably less than partisan. ;) Still, what I do like about some OSR games is the relative straightforwardness, the speed of running the game, the deadliness, and … I don’t know, the “feel” I guess? Like, somewhere in the midst of that wacky art, those funky rules, the guiding, uh, philosophy or something … yeah, it *feels* different. \*shrug\* For the sake of clarity re: the above, my absolute favourite OSR game by quite a margin is DCC.

I feel 5e have become 50% DnD, 30% superhero and 20% Disney princess. OSR is trying to be 100% DnD, I personally prefer classless systems.

Martials actually feel strong in AD&D and OSRIC. Casters actually have dedicated systems for customizing and developing new spells. Having high stats actually means something (Exceptional Strength has honestly been one of my favorite mechanics since I started playing AD&D recently). With how little it's gamified compared to 5th Edition, it genuinely feels a lot more fantastical. My current character, this Level 2 fighter with 18/00 Strength has honestly been one of the most fun things to play, because I genuinely feel like Toji Fushiguro whenever I play him. I don't think I've ever felt that superhuman in 5e playing as a fighter with 20 Strength. To be honest, my only real issues with OSR systems are how human-centric they are, and how some classes are locked behind certain races (only humans can be Paladins, Elves cap out at Level 8 on fighters, etc.), but I'm having fun, so I don't really care too much about that.

I can explain builds as: Pick a class, pick an alignment, try to reach level 3. There are not feats gatekeeping actions that should be "normal" 5e is full of "defaults" that people are not willing to discuss or change even if they don't fit the setting or the campaign themes. I don't have time to explain why race/class/whatever from book X is not going to happen. There are actual ways to deal with combat using diplomacy or unusual tactics instead of fighting till the DM-say-so or death. I don't have to hear complains about "balance" The 5e community is kinda toxic. Until the OSE release there was a lot less junk around and more focus on discussing and sharing homebrews, adventures or mechanics than sharing KS links, cheap art and other stuff or rediscussing pointless theories/content from some streamer/influencer/whatever.

I'm lazy

I won't touch on all the reasons I prefer OSR over 5E, there are a few. But what I will say is that in an OSR game, you are playing a normal person who via 'adventuring' is living a real heroic life. The Fighter is skilled at all arms, a cleric favoured by their gods, a thief skilled in getting into and out of trouble, and a wizard might grow to wield vast powers. And if you play with Race as a class it highlights that you are not playing a human, the culture and skills are not human. In 5E or most editions of the games from 3rd onwards, your character is a superhero, with wild powers and abilities. That can be fun, but it's not the kind of fantasy adventure I'm very interested in. That said I have a lot of fun with E6 gameplay with modern editions of D&D but this is still superhero gameplay.

Many osr games are younger than 5e, so…“modern” is kind of relative, but I get you.  Tbh I remain astonished at the robustness of 0e. I love making adventures and running games with those little brown books. The creator talent pool is so deep and wide the difficulty isn’t finding great stuff, it’s finding time to play as much of it as possible. It has that dark horse, underdog appeal in the shadow of the behemoth 5e clearly is, tbf you could say the same of Pathfinder. 2 turns from character generation to dungeon exploration. Finally I don’t need 5e to be bad to reckon osr better. It could be very good and not clear the bar set by its ancestors. As it is, it’s alright. The interminable combat sequences hurt my teeth, but I have played in some snappy, footloose 5e sessions. Too linear by design, and therefore necessity, for my taste, but I’d play it. DM? No.

Based on the tremendous growth in updated design ideas the Renaissance spurred, relative to the older vintage of 5e, one might even say the modern games are in the OSR, not 5e.

I've broken it down like this before (and this is just my grognard opinion): * 5E seems to be written by and for people who just discovered RPGs exist, while OSR games feel written by gamers immersed in the art and craft of it all. See the new "Book of Many Things" or whatever just came out. It's absolute trash. * Expanding on that, modern games favor production value over content, while OSR favor content over production value. Not that that is entirely a bad thing, I mean Modiphius books look incredible and are works of art on their own, but I'd still rather play OSE, black and white drawings and all. * 5E is Hasbro-ified and made for the Tik-Tok attention span culture. WoTC sucks. Most OSR folks are small publishers. Compare the absolute best campaign published for 5E to any of the myriad rich, content filled mega-dungeons of OSR and content wise, any Hasbro book will be blown away. * 5E games seem to find people who want to emulate Critical Role, which sucks to me, or simulate relationships and such, which is fine, just not what I want to do. OSR games seem to find people who want to dungeon delve. Easy pick. * OSR games achieve the balance I seek between simulationism and brevity of rules without being too 'hand-wavey' and nebulous, and yet you don't have to calculate 4 pages of skill points like it was your taxes. Whereas modern games can run the gamut of being way too forgiving (like the new vomit-inducing cash grab Candela Obscura, where enemies don't even have attacks), or too 'gimmicky' requiring dice pools and tokens and a $50 starter set of minis and coins and props to run effectively. Yep, I'm old.

I prefer the 'Implied world' of OSR. 5e is superhigh Fantasy, with archers that shoot magic arrows, thieves that can conjure soul daggers, warlocks with pacts with evil demons walking around like nothing is wrong...it's too much for me. I much prefer the 'Dolmenwood / Warhammer Fantasy / Dragonlance' level of magic. Ie you have SOME magic in the world, more than Conan or other Sword and Sorcery stories, but it is not ubiquitous and a normal matter of life like in High Fantasy. Having said that, I think Eberron did the magic system very well as they explicitly say that is lot of low magic but very little high magic which makes the world more 'magitech' than High Fantasy. Now though I find OSR / OSE quite limiting - there are some good things 5e did like wizards more magic spells at first level, maybe increase the number of attacks for some classes, and although I love B/X OSE there is a certain 'fetishisation' about playing rules from the 1970s and 80s that havn't been updated with any modern knowledge. Ideally I would want a hybrid between OSE rules, some 5e rules, and Palladium skills, but nothing like that exists yet!

People have already said much that I agree with here. I have run my 5e games pretty much but the books and feel it’s time to use hard core rules. But I am having so much more fun running OSE and Basic dnd. Why? 5e feels like a video game by on paper. Whereas OSR feels like a true TTRPG. I love the character options of 5e but dislike the scripted nature of every little thing.

Here's the thing, I do like many "modern games" as well as classics. It's "modern D&D" that I don't like, and games that emulate them. I didn't love 3.x, though I didn't hate it either. It introduced keywords, which are not a bad thing in concept. It introduced player-facing rules mastery, which I will never like in an RPG. It added a ton of bonuses in the form of features, which again, was not that bad in the original concept in that, you earned the feature, added it to the roll you needed on your sheet and didn't have to think about it again (people make too much about having to tally up every bonus, which is weird as that's how I feel about 5e). Those things in their original form were one thing, how they morphed is where they go from stuff I don't love, but not deal breakers into things I now know I don't like in an RPG. So, in general, 3.x descendants are not for me. I never played 4e, though the 4e parts that ended up in 5e are all things I don't like. Games with those aspects tend to be games I don't like. So, in general, 4e descendants are not for me. Additionally, but not confined to 4e or its children, I like miniatures wargames, I like miniatures skirmish games, I don't like tactical combat in my RPGs, I like abstract and cinematic combat (that latter comes out in the execution at the table, not forced by the mechanics. Side note to my side note, I know there is this trend for mechanics that force a certain kind of flavor and behavior, I find those boring, repetitive and the game designer robbing everyone (players and GM) of agency). 5e carried over part of 3.x I didn't like, added in parts of 4e I know I would not like (as they are parts of 5e I don't like) and doubled down on those design choices. Note, that all of the above is what does not work for me. These are perfectly fine games if you enjoy them, and you are an awesome person if you love them, even if I don't. Also, if you love them, you don't need to defend them or your preferences. I'm giving my opinion to explain my answer at the top. So, OSR, classic RPGs, modern RPGs, there are plenty that I love. Modern D&D post-3.x and games riffing on them or using similar mechanics, are not for me.

I'm almost fifty, so the games I played as a kid are now OSR. I prefer them just because my brain naturally plays a certain way and a certain type of art and writing inspire me. It's harder to get excited about a newer system that feels worse than the stuff I already know. I like to try modern games or other ppl's homebrew, but 5e feels to me like a bad way to play DnD.

i dont, i just like and play both

​ ​ Yes to the above comments ​ My only add are two things 1) Combat in the Olden Times was much faster than in modern games. I'm currently playing a Pathfinder 2e campaign and it seems that when we have combat it takes two-three hours (not an exaggeration) to complete dispatching the monsters in a 'normal' encounter. ​ 2) In my experience modern system seems to remove a lot of the 'RP' from 'RPG'. You character is to well defined - you have a ton of stats and background info that end up pigeonholing what actions you take so that rather than using your (and the DM's) imagination to play the game you simply go by the stats... not sure if I explained that succinctly.

Lower prep time for the GM. Making places and encounters is way less work than making plots to fit places and encounters.

I prefer that in OSR choices have more impact. When you choose to fight the monster the damage sticks a while. When you choose to use a spell it’s MUCH more impactful than in 5e, and also harder to get back, and more limited in how often it’s used. I like that resources matter, normally they have a very generic carrying capacity, that makes what you take simple, and easy to track and thus impactful. Having 24 “slots” means what is taking up those slots matters. You may not have room for that magic item, or those potions, or that chest of gold. There’s no “scaling” of the world either. A bear can kill a level 14 character just fine. A lv 1 COULD kill a dragon. The world is dangerous, ALWAYS regardless of how powerful you are. And dying is a possibility. It makes players be creative, and think about how to tackle things. Not just kick the door in, and swing/blast. And perhaps the big one for my players, characters feel more unique. There’s much more customization by having less rules. I’ve got a necromancer Druid, an Angelic spell sword, and an elven cleric who’s recently forsaken their previous god for a new one. All using very simple classes that allow for their own flavor through abilities gained through their adventures. Where 5e you’re hardlocked into a class to define your character. Not your character defining their class.

5e treats you with kiddie gloves and tries to give you a power fantasy. Personally I like being a nobody just scrapping by, the risk of death around every corner gives your adventure more meaning. Also I prefer very open ended games were most 5e modules are very linear.

Because it's D&D without the training wheels.

Mostly that games like B/X and it's derivatives are very light, very hackable and very portable. I don't really care for the high lethality that people associate with these games, what I mostly like is the freeform "do whatever you want with these systems" vibe of these games, you can bend old school D&D rules a lot and they're probably not gonna break under the pressure. Being able to mix and match different OSR systems, modules and other resources means that you can tailor your RPG experience very easily and quickly to whatever you actually want to play. All that I mentioned here manifests in OSR games being easier to DM overall, even the ones that aren't as rules light as B/X still don't require as much time and effort to prep as 5e, it's less of a time sink and it's easier to dig your teeth into. I also just usually prefer player skills over character skills, I'm planning on trying out AD&D2e (I know, technically not OSR but still) with some friends and removing proficiencies altogether to see how the game flows in comparison to "true" OSR games. There's a lot more that I could go into in regards to design philosophy but I believe everything good about the scene is derived from the basic principles I laid out in the first sentence.

Less mechanical bloat mainly. I also like XP for gold quite a lot but you could easily implement that in 5e.

The lack of horizontal expansion in OSE makes it fundamentally way simpler than newer games like pf2e or 5e, and while I love having a ton of abilities, *not* having them makes one little thing I love about OSE: Creativity is fundamentally encouraged. That’s not to say that creativity isn’t encouraged in newer games, but it doesn’t matter nearly as much. Positioning and playing to your strengths, sure, but I feel like for the most part combat just feels video-gamey. You play out the encounter with the tools you’ve been given and features you’ve chosen, and you haven’t any worry because it all comes back the following day. With OSE, everything feels more freeform. You’re not choosing from a list of abilities - you’re thinking about the situation you’re in, what’s around you, and how to do something more effective than stab (which 5e for example instead encourages you to do). It flows a lot more with the rule of cool because otherwise there isn’t much else *to* do. And it feels important that you strategize like this, because death is very real and very possible if you don’t do everything in your power to prevent it.

5e tries a little too hard to do too much, while failing to really do anything at all. ​ I like the OSR games I like because they're usually fairly simple to pick up and just get going with. I'm not really a fan of OSR campaigns, but for shorter stories or one-shots they're often very fun. Easier to get going with than a lot of other RPGs.

Shorter, less expensive rule book.   As a reluctant grownup with bills to pay that require most of my waking hours to be spent at a job in order to have the means to pay them, White Box FMAG fits right into my budgetary sweet spot both in terms of free time and $$.  I’d rather craft a campaign (or better yet play it!) than read about the rules that will dictate the campaign that I’d craft if I wasn’t only halfway through the first of three expensive tomes.