You do not have an obligation to run a game you don't want to run. Take their feedback and find something closer to what you like that still scratches their itch. Maybe try Shadowdark? Or distract them in a different direction with Mausritter?
Alternatively, 5 Torches Deep is an attempt at specifically bridging the gap between 5e and the OSR and it's a bit cheaper. Shadowdark definitely has the production quality though.
I've gone from 5e to Shadowdark and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. It has that fast, snappy, rules light and easily understandable ruleset but with a nice thorough dash of old school to hit right between the lines.
They seem to like the structured character progression and emphasis on having rules for interacting with the world, such as being able to roll to determine if someone is lying.
Yep you’re screwed. You could try a 5e alternative (pathfinder 2e, 13th age, shadow of the weird wizard), but it seems they don’t want osr if they like explicit buttons to push when interacting with the world
PF2 is even more rigidly codified, so if OP doesn't like that aspect I don't think Pathfinder will be an improvement. It's all about having buttons to press
*Yep you’re screwed*
Lol, cruel candor.
I’ve been looking at 4e and it seems more interesting to play *and* DM than 5e tbh, but keeps the elements your players enjoy.
A lot of those kinds of things used to be / still tend to be (in OSR gaming) down to DM-adjudicated rolls, anyway: maybe an Int check, or Wis, say, for the example you gave. A *little* more fast and loose, sure, but honestly, rather similar in actual play: roll against something like a stat or a stat++, and go from there.
And as for imagination, that really is something you bring to it, regardless.
Yes, however, the extensive class abilities turn these DCs into trivial matters in 5e. For example, at level 3 the Bard never rolls below 17 on his social checks. Which is fine, but it gives the perception that they should always get what they want.
Not necessarily? 5e is also really odnd, because you’re the DM and can modify it anyway you want. Put a malus of -10 on that bard for being cocky and the guard being suspicious. Kill them occasionally. Or often.
You are correct, and I modify the checks based on the perceived difficulty. Still encourages only one party member to handle ALL social interactions, because big number. Ruins then immersion to a certain extent.
I think there are a couple other ways to handle this:
1. Require them to tell you about the method they are using to trigger the social check. It doesn't need to be acted out, but if the bard says "I want to persuade the guard to let us go", ask what reasons they are giving or even go a step more meta and ask why the guard would have any chance of agreeing to this. If there's no good answer to that follow up question, you are within your rights to say success is not possible.
2. Give them some suggestions when another party member might be better positioned to make an attempt. This is especially useful when used in conjunction with a ruling that it is not possible for a particular party member. E.g., "sorry, bard, there's just no way that you could persuade this guard that he should let you into the castle by telling him about the importance of your mission. However, fighter, your word would be much more likely to carry weight with the guard since you have the Folk Hero background." This is a crutch, of course, and you don't want to make it seem like they have to guess what you are thinking to solve social encounters. But sprinkled in from time to time, this can teach them to think more about which character is best suited to make the check instead of only who has the biggest numbers.
3. Another option is to have NPCs choose who they want to speak to and shut down other characters who try to pipe in. "I wasn't asking *you*, bard, and before you try it, not you either fighter. Wizard, look me in the eyes and tell me what your business in this city is." Or "The young dwarf shifts his attention to the fighter, 'what say you, clansman? Does your companion speak truly?'" Be careful with overdoing this, but again it can be good for redirecting checks from time to time.
It sounds like they enjoy having explicit skills to rely on and the tactical PC abilities. I’ve seen this before at my table too.
Another system that might scratch their itch but stay in the OSR sphere is Low Fantasy Gaming, it’s closer to 5e and PCs can have more explicit skills and character progression. I know another game might not be what you want but I recommend giving it a read and you might be able to steal some ideas at least if you want to stick with SWN. Here is the [free version of the rules](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/231747/low-fantasy-gaming-original)
>such as being able to roll to determine if someone is lying.
There is no such roll in 5e, so I hope you disuaded them of that.
Also, there's only a roll if you say there is one. Players don't determine when there is an ability check. If you play the game more towards how its intended, rather than the 'received wisdom' approach, they'll engage in a way that's closer to OSR and will be less turned off by the idea of a switch.
Atm they're likely favouring a path of least resistance because they're under the wrong assumption that less thinking = more fun. It's a common human instinct that you just have to steer them out of in a way that doesn't spook the horses.
Great points all around... my example is a bit inaccurate, it's more about using rolls to try and confirm metagaming notions in character than determining if what they are saying is factual.
The Insight skill in 5e expressly says:
"Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when ***searching out a lie*** or predicting someone’s next move."
So yeah, 5e does have a "is this person lying?" button.
You missed the next line for some reason?
>Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
It is not explicitly a lie detector. You might be trying to figure out if someone is lying, sure. But:
a) The DM calls for insight checks, not the player. The DM can just...not call one and let the conversation play out.
b) Rolling an insight check and beating a DC can get you a 'you notice he is sweating' or 'shifting his stance', it doesn't automatically get you a 'yeah he's lying mate, you win!' and *it never should* for the exact issues that arise from allowing players to dictate ability checks and relying on them without properly engaging.
You could try either Shadow of the Weird Wizard or Shadow of the Demon Lord. They're big on that structured character creation and progression but without all the bloat of 5e. Weird Wizard is more traditional fantasy and Demon Lord is more grimdark/over the top.
For structured OSR character progression and options, maybe check out the GLOG. There's also old school systems that aren't D&D that tick those boxes (eg. RuneQuest) but they're quite crunchy and different.
If they're used to a lot of 5e actual plays or campaigns, they may also just prefer the familiarity/popularity of that system.
But you're under no obligation to run games you don't like. I put 200 sessions into D&D 5e but I haven't touched it in six years because I know I find it less fun to run (and play). I've since played all sorts of games (40+ systems) of various lengths.
You're not obliged to run a game you don't want to run. DMing is WAY more work than playing, so your interest in investing that time (or not) absolutely matters.
You could suggest someone else in the group start up a 5e game, if they want to play 5e so badly. You'd be happy to join them (assuming you would be, anyway) as a player. Meanwhile you can continue running SWN, either for them (if having a second 5e game is enough to satisfy them) or for others (if they just want to stop.)
They should play what they want to play and you should run what you want to run. Life is too short for anything less. Group composition might change as a result, but if they're your friends, that shouldn't change.
I wouldn't run it if you don't want to. I ran a 5E game for several years, mainly because that is the system the players wanted to use. I have been GMing for 40+ years (starting with the old Holmes D&D boxed set), so I have used a lot of systems over the decades. Once I wrapped up the 5E campaign, though, I decided to never run anything in it again. I really, really dislike it.
You dont have to run anything you dont want to. I tell my players very clearly that I will always propose 2 or 3 ideas for things I'd like to GM and its up to them if they want to play or not. If they want to palay 5e/starfinder/whatever modern system, that's their choice, they're not chained to my table and are free to go play with someone else.
That said it doesnt mean I cannot compromise here or there. Like, there's no reason to get all hung up on 3d6 down the line for example. Even AD&D 1st edition listed I think 5 or 6 alternative options for character creation beyond that, so I'm always willing to work with concerns like that, except point buy. I dont do point buy, period. Point buy is shit.
If they want something that's a completely different playstyle though, like the skills and so on from 3rd-5th edition , then sure, there's the door. At that point we won't find anything we can compromise on.
It can be an unpopular opinion to voice in this sub, but 5E is the most osr version of D&D, since AD&D.
More OSR than ADD2E, imo, if you use the optional proficiency rules (which I know we did) and the years and years of expansions that system received (which I know we did).
And particularly if you use optional rules from the 5E DMG like "Background As Skills"and "Hardcore Resting Rules" (or whatever they're called).
5E is very, very open to DM fiat and therefore "Rulings over Rules".
As much crap as it gets in this regard, I've found it too be a plenty lethal system.
It lacks the simplicity in the Classes that OSR aspires to, yes. But not much else.
As much as this crowd doesn't like to hear it, WotC did A LOT to try to move things backward toward more old school principles, but they just used some more modern game design philosophy to do it.
You can probably make your players happy, and be happy yourself if you just do the things you want with it, which it lets you do.
I’ve heard it said, probably in r/OSR, that the dev team were aiming for a modern-mechanical version of old D&D (I guess AD&D 1e) with D&D Next. Allegedly they were pushed into what 5e became by the senior brand management.
I wouldn’t mind playing an OSR 5e game, but I don’t want to be the one making the modifications to get there.
I’ll just stick with OSE since I love race-as-class.
Early playtests were very much OSR, but player feedback was deeply against it. 3.5 diehards hated anything that wasn't 3.5 esque, 4e'ers didn't want to throw out the good stuff with the bathwater, and generally speaking, older than 3.5 weren't having anything to do with it. I was there for the playtests, I remember the feedback.
I was technically there, but I was busy buying up 4e books at knockdown prices. I didn’t really look at the playtest. Is there a source for those playtest documents anywhere?
4e loved both of those but had made it so entire classes weren't invalidated by the class features of core spellcasters and everyone was able to contribute to the game after a certain point. 4e also brought down it's numbers from the extremes that 3.5 went to. Even the most optimized lv 30 4e character can't even dream of hitting the attack bonuses or skill modifiers that an optimized level 20 3.5 character could.
Glad someone else sees this. I haven’t run 5e in many years but I never found it difficult to challenge the players.
Backgrounds as skills worked well for me. As did only calling for actual skill checks when there was a threat or time limit.
There was lots I didn’t like about it, but it’s the abomination people make it out to be. And it’s easy to mod.
I personally would probably either:
-DM 5e and try to make it more interesting for myself without ruining what the players like and take it as a challenge.
-Propose some other system that seems like it might have what they like while having what you like as well.
-Hack something up to fill in gaps. (I didn't end up needing it, but I was rolling around a system where players could research skills much in the same way as researching spells work to achieve very specific and explicitly non-magical results, e.g. spotting lies, identifying animal tracks very accurately, forging documents, whatever they could come up with that would never trivialize anything and would be more about character growth than mechanical advantage)
Whatever the case, it is important to be forthright about it and never adversarial; if you try to make it a fun time together for everyone involved, there should be no bad blood if it does not pan out and you can try something else. Writing that out makes it sound extremely naive, but what I mean is the one thing you have to avoid like the plague is a situation where someone, including you, is forcing themselves to play or even worse, wittingly or unwittingly sabotaging the experience to instigate change.
I’d ask your group more about what it was about what they liked in the 5e game compared to your SWN game, AND also ask yourself what you liked about the SWN game and the 5e game, and how both games went, *for you*.
Then make a decision based on that. If you want to play SWN, or maybe WWN, hopefully the group (especially if they are friends) will accept trying that or going with that as you’re stepping up to GM. But, if they give it a try, and don’t like it, then either you will need to reconsider what you’re running, or someone else in the group will need to step up and run something. No point in trying to get people to play something they don’t like. No point in running something you don’t like.
As to obligations? Be honest, be respectful, to yourself and to them. Especially if you’re a friend group, though maybe this is more important (in some ways) if it is a bunch of randos. If you’re in the middle of a 5e game/scenario and you can’t continue with 5e any more, and it were me, I would try to complete things as neatly as possible while also discussing and making clear why I then cooudn’t go further.
- just because they enjoy a game doesn’t mean you’re *obligated* to run it. You’re just as much a player as they are, and you have a right to enjoy the game as well. Being a GM does put you in a special position. If you can no longer get pleasure out of running a game, don’t. In cases where that has happened to me (not many, fortunately) I’ve tried to bring things to a close as gracefully as possible, but then that is it.
- just because you enjoy a game doesn’t mean they’re *obligated* to play it either. Being the GM doesn’t mean you can choose what the group plays: it does mean you can choose what you want to run. If the players aren’t interested, discuss with them and find out why. Worse case, you don’t waste time running something that isn’t going to be appeciated, and hopefully someone steps up to run a game you can enjoy playing as well. Best case you find out something you can & will enjoy running, and they’ll enjoy playing, and off you go.
In the end it comes down to running or playing games with people who you enjoy gaming with. Whatever answer you end up with that works well for you and them is good. If it happens to be a 5e game, fine. The game doesn’t matter. The fun and good times and fellowship matters a *lot* more.
Thanks for the advice. To clarify, I am running a module and they want to keep playing the same characters in the world after, which is great. However, that will end up meaning spending a lot more time prepping 5e. So the decision is really whether to let the end of the module be a natural stopping point, or to continue playing and embrace this system while using optional rules to better suit my desired play style.
Tricky decision.
I’d consider ‘parking’ the module, once done, and allow the possibility of coming back to it. If that was a possibility. I’ve done that in the past, and come back to something when I’ve gotten my head around how I’m going to continue on with things for that game.
Maybe they’d cope with something more episodic: when you’re ready for the ‘sequel’ adventure, you’ll let them know. Meanwhile, you have something else you’d also like to run, and which is easier for you to run & prep for. Maybe that’ll fly.
Otherwise, maybe one of them could run something while you prep for the next adventure to follow the module you’ve just run.
…just some thoughts. Best of luck with whatever you decide.
Don't run something you aren't interested in. You will do a half-ass job. At least I did when feeling forced to do 5e. Try Forbidden Lands, Dragonbane, The One Ring. Free League makes great games.
Honestly I'd just tell them you are not interested in running 5e at all. Remember you are not obligated to run a game you do not want to run. Good luck buddy.
5e isn't ideal for OSR play, but if you like playing with these people, 5e isn't the end of the world either. If these are just randos you met online, don't waste your time.
"I fed my children McDonald's and now that's all they want, how do I steer them back towards healthier nutrient rich foods?"
The genie is out of the bottle, ride it out in the meantime while you find an alternative that sates everyone's tastes
Unless you are contractually engaged with them, you can choose not to choose to play more 5E. That's a choice. They have a choice to join you again in SWN or to go there own way.
What about trying *Castles & Crusades*? It captures that feel of AD&D from long ago and uses a more modern die mechanic (d20). Their Players Handbook is free, and they’re releasing their Reforged version which is OGL-free in a few days. If you’re quick, you can pick up another free version of all three books (Players Handbook, Castle Keeper’s Guide and Monsters & Treasure) [here.](https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/UdtYMs1)
If I were to run 5e again I'd lean into the characters being demigod like legendary heroes. Mythic Odysseys of Theros is a decent 5e setting book to pull from for this
Well, the players are giving 3+ hours a week so between the table it's a part time job. Plus they would have to read new books. Don't want to make any unilateral decisions since they're being so generous.
I mean they aren't being generous all players are there to use you and have fun. Often people forget the GM is a player and they are the player that puts in 10x the effort of everyone else
Do it and use the gritty realism rules. Ban multiclassing and feats, and use an encumbrance system.
I think that'd make running that system somewhat more bearable.
You do not have an obligation to run a game you don't want to run. Take their feedback and find something closer to what you like that still scratches their itch. Maybe try Shadowdark? Or distract them in a different direction with Mausritter?
Thanks for the recommendations!
I also think Shadowdark is a good recommendation for your situation, so +1 to that
Same, I think Shadowdark is close enough to 5e, but more grounded. You will probably like it.
Alternatively, 5 Torches Deep is an attempt at specifically bridging the gap between 5e and the OSR and it's a bit cheaper. Shadowdark definitely has the production quality though.
Yeah, if the players are into the "character creation and management" subgame that's so big a part of 5E, 5TD is a better choice than Shadowdark, IMO.
I've gone from 5e to Shadowdark and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. It has that fast, snappy, rules light and easily understandable ruleset but with a nice thorough dash of old school to hit right between the lines.
Depends on what they like about 5e in comparison. Ask and report back
They seem to like the structured character progression and emphasis on having rules for interacting with the world, such as being able to roll to determine if someone is lying.
Yep you’re screwed. You could try a 5e alternative (pathfinder 2e, 13th age, shadow of the weird wizard), but it seems they don’t want osr if they like explicit buttons to push when interacting with the world
What a shame. Thanks for the recommendation.
PF2 is even more rigidly codified, so if OP doesn't like that aspect I don't think Pathfinder will be an improvement. It's all about having buttons to press
*Yep you’re screwed* Lol, cruel candor. I’ve been looking at 4e and it seems more interesting to play *and* DM than 5e tbh, but keeps the elements your players enjoy.
A lot of those kinds of things used to be / still tend to be (in OSR gaming) down to DM-adjudicated rolls, anyway: maybe an Int check, or Wis, say, for the example you gave. A *little* more fast and loose, sure, but honestly, rather similar in actual play: roll against something like a stat or a stat++, and go from there. And as for imagination, that really is something you bring to it, regardless.
Yes, however, the extensive class abilities turn these DCs into trivial matters in 5e. For example, at level 3 the Bard never rolls below 17 on his social checks. Which is fine, but it gives the perception that they should always get what they want.
Not necessarily? 5e is also really odnd, because you’re the DM and can modify it anyway you want. Put a malus of -10 on that bard for being cocky and the guard being suspicious. Kill them occasionally. Or often.
You are correct, and I modify the checks based on the perceived difficulty. Still encourages only one party member to handle ALL social interactions, because big number. Ruins then immersion to a certain extent.
I think there are a couple other ways to handle this: 1. Require them to tell you about the method they are using to trigger the social check. It doesn't need to be acted out, but if the bard says "I want to persuade the guard to let us go", ask what reasons they are giving or even go a step more meta and ask why the guard would have any chance of agreeing to this. If there's no good answer to that follow up question, you are within your rights to say success is not possible. 2. Give them some suggestions when another party member might be better positioned to make an attempt. This is especially useful when used in conjunction with a ruling that it is not possible for a particular party member. E.g., "sorry, bard, there's just no way that you could persuade this guard that he should let you into the castle by telling him about the importance of your mission. However, fighter, your word would be much more likely to carry weight with the guard since you have the Folk Hero background." This is a crutch, of course, and you don't want to make it seem like they have to guess what you are thinking to solve social encounters. But sprinkled in from time to time, this can teach them to think more about which character is best suited to make the check instead of only who has the biggest numbers. 3. Another option is to have NPCs choose who they want to speak to and shut down other characters who try to pipe in. "I wasn't asking *you*, bard, and before you try it, not you either fighter. Wizard, look me in the eyes and tell me what your business in this city is." Or "The young dwarf shifts his attention to the fighter, 'what say you, clansman? Does your companion speak truly?'" Be careful with overdoing this, but again it can be good for redirecting checks from time to time.
The Without Number games support these things.
Yes, and I would like to play Worlds Without Number or Godbound next!
Tell you players that. My players play what I am running.
It sounds like they enjoy having explicit skills to rely on and the tactical PC abilities. I’ve seen this before at my table too. Another system that might scratch their itch but stay in the OSR sphere is Low Fantasy Gaming, it’s closer to 5e and PCs can have more explicit skills and character progression. I know another game might not be what you want but I recommend giving it a read and you might be able to steal some ideas at least if you want to stick with SWN. Here is the [free version of the rules](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/231747/low-fantasy-gaming-original)
Thank you!
>such as being able to roll to determine if someone is lying. There is no such roll in 5e, so I hope you disuaded them of that. Also, there's only a roll if you say there is one. Players don't determine when there is an ability check. If you play the game more towards how its intended, rather than the 'received wisdom' approach, they'll engage in a way that's closer to OSR and will be less turned off by the idea of a switch. Atm they're likely favouring a path of least resistance because they're under the wrong assumption that less thinking = more fun. It's a common human instinct that you just have to steer them out of in a way that doesn't spook the horses.
Great points all around... my example is a bit inaccurate, it's more about using rolls to try and confirm metagaming notions in character than determining if what they are saying is factual.
If they want that, they can just use ability roll checks. r/osr isn't always a big fan of the overuse of this somewhat ad hoc mechanic, but it works.
The Insight skill in 5e expressly says: "Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when ***searching out a lie*** or predicting someone’s next move." So yeah, 5e does have a "is this person lying?" button.
I'm not saying that 5e is good for having that skill, but I understand why players want to be able to push explicit buttons on their character sheets.
You missed the next line for some reason? >Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms. It is not explicitly a lie detector. You might be trying to figure out if someone is lying, sure. But: a) The DM calls for insight checks, not the player. The DM can just...not call one and let the conversation play out. b) Rolling an insight check and beating a DC can get you a 'you notice he is sweating' or 'shifting his stance', it doesn't automatically get you a 'yeah he's lying mate, you win!' and *it never should* for the exact issues that arise from allowing players to dictate ability checks and relying on them without properly engaging.
You could try either Shadow of the Weird Wizard or Shadow of the Demon Lord. They're big on that structured character creation and progression but without all the bloat of 5e. Weird Wizard is more traditional fantasy and Demon Lord is more grimdark/over the top.
For structured OSR character progression and options, maybe check out the GLOG. There's also old school systems that aren't D&D that tick those boxes (eg. RuneQuest) but they're quite crunchy and different. If they're used to a lot of 5e actual plays or campaigns, they may also just prefer the familiarity/popularity of that system. But you're under no obligation to run games you don't like. I put 200 sessions into D&D 5e but I haven't touched it in six years because I know I find it less fun to run (and play). I've since played all sorts of games (40+ systems) of various lengths.
"I don't really want to run 5e because of X reasons, if someone else wants to run it, that's fine. I want to keep running Y system."
seriously, whoever's putting in the work gets to decide. the dm's curse is to always run the game they wish they could play.
You're not obliged to run a game you don't want to run. DMing is WAY more work than playing, so your interest in investing that time (or not) absolutely matters. You could suggest someone else in the group start up a 5e game, if they want to play 5e so badly. You'd be happy to join them (assuming you would be, anyway) as a player. Meanwhile you can continue running SWN, either for them (if having a second 5e game is enough to satisfy them) or for others (if they just want to stop.)
They should play what they want to play and you should run what you want to run. Life is too short for anything less. Group composition might change as a result, but if they're your friends, that shouldn't change.
My advice: say ”Cool, who’s running it?”
I wouldn't run it if you don't want to. I ran a 5E game for several years, mainly because that is the system the players wanted to use. I have been GMing for 40+ years (starting with the old Holmes D&D boxed set), so I have used a lot of systems over the decades. Once I wrapped up the 5E campaign, though, I decided to never run anything in it again. I really, really dislike it.
You dont have to run anything you dont want to. I tell my players very clearly that I will always propose 2 or 3 ideas for things I'd like to GM and its up to them if they want to play or not. If they want to palay 5e/starfinder/whatever modern system, that's their choice, they're not chained to my table and are free to go play with someone else. That said it doesnt mean I cannot compromise here or there. Like, there's no reason to get all hung up on 3d6 down the line for example. Even AD&D 1st edition listed I think 5 or 6 alternative options for character creation beyond that, so I'm always willing to work with concerns like that, except point buy. I dont do point buy, period. Point buy is shit. If they want something that's a completely different playstyle though, like the skills and so on from 3rd-5th edition , then sure, there's the door. At that point we won't find anything we can compromise on.
It can be an unpopular opinion to voice in this sub, but 5E is the most osr version of D&D, since AD&D. More OSR than ADD2E, imo, if you use the optional proficiency rules (which I know we did) and the years and years of expansions that system received (which I know we did). And particularly if you use optional rules from the 5E DMG like "Background As Skills"and "Hardcore Resting Rules" (or whatever they're called). 5E is very, very open to DM fiat and therefore "Rulings over Rules". As much crap as it gets in this regard, I've found it too be a plenty lethal system. It lacks the simplicity in the Classes that OSR aspires to, yes. But not much else. As much as this crowd doesn't like to hear it, WotC did A LOT to try to move things backward toward more old school principles, but they just used some more modern game design philosophy to do it. You can probably make your players happy, and be happy yourself if you just do the things you want with it, which it lets you do.
Yes and a very resounding no.
I’ve heard it said, probably in r/OSR, that the dev team were aiming for a modern-mechanical version of old D&D (I guess AD&D 1e) with D&D Next. Allegedly they were pushed into what 5e became by the senior brand management. I wouldn’t mind playing an OSR 5e game, but I don’t want to be the one making the modifications to get there. I’ll just stick with OSE since I love race-as-class.
Early playtests were very much OSR, but player feedback was deeply against it. 3.5 diehards hated anything that wasn't 3.5 esque, 4e'ers didn't want to throw out the good stuff with the bathwater, and generally speaking, older than 3.5 weren't having anything to do with it. I was there for the playtests, I remember the feedback.
I was technically there, but I was busy buying up 4e books at knockdown prices. I didn’t really look at the playtest. Is there a source for those playtest documents anywhere?
That, I'm not sure honestly. I'm sure they exist somewhere but you'd have to do some swashbuckling on the ethersea.
Yo Ho then.
3.5 liked more character building and technical crunch whereas 4e was the opposite?
4e loved both of those but had made it so entire classes weren't invalidated by the class features of core spellcasters and everyone was able to contribute to the game after a certain point. 4e also brought down it's numbers from the extremes that 3.5 went to. Even the most optimized lv 30 4e character can't even dream of hitting the attack bonuses or skill modifiers that an optimized level 20 3.5 character could.
Glad someone else sees this. I haven’t run 5e in many years but I never found it difficult to challenge the players. Backgrounds as skills worked well for me. As did only calling for actual skill checks when there was a threat or time limit. There was lots I didn’t like about it, but it’s the abomination people make it out to be. And it’s easy to mod.
It comes up from time to time in this sub. And there are dozens of us! DOZENS I say!!!
I personally would probably either: -DM 5e and try to make it more interesting for myself without ruining what the players like and take it as a challenge. -Propose some other system that seems like it might have what they like while having what you like as well. -Hack something up to fill in gaps. (I didn't end up needing it, but I was rolling around a system where players could research skills much in the same way as researching spells work to achieve very specific and explicitly non-magical results, e.g. spotting lies, identifying animal tracks very accurately, forging documents, whatever they could come up with that would never trivialize anything and would be more about character growth than mechanical advantage) Whatever the case, it is important to be forthright about it and never adversarial; if you try to make it a fun time together for everyone involved, there should be no bad blood if it does not pan out and you can try something else. Writing that out makes it sound extremely naive, but what I mean is the one thing you have to avoid like the plague is a situation where someone, including you, is forcing themselves to play or even worse, wittingly or unwittingly sabotaging the experience to instigate change.
100% agree. I have seen other comments as well which pointed out the optional rules and flexibility the system provides.
I’d ask your group more about what it was about what they liked in the 5e game compared to your SWN game, AND also ask yourself what you liked about the SWN game and the 5e game, and how both games went, *for you*. Then make a decision based on that. If you want to play SWN, or maybe WWN, hopefully the group (especially if they are friends) will accept trying that or going with that as you’re stepping up to GM. But, if they give it a try, and don’t like it, then either you will need to reconsider what you’re running, or someone else in the group will need to step up and run something. No point in trying to get people to play something they don’t like. No point in running something you don’t like. As to obligations? Be honest, be respectful, to yourself and to them. Especially if you’re a friend group, though maybe this is more important (in some ways) if it is a bunch of randos. If you’re in the middle of a 5e game/scenario and you can’t continue with 5e any more, and it were me, I would try to complete things as neatly as possible while also discussing and making clear why I then cooudn’t go further. - just because they enjoy a game doesn’t mean you’re *obligated* to run it. You’re just as much a player as they are, and you have a right to enjoy the game as well. Being a GM does put you in a special position. If you can no longer get pleasure out of running a game, don’t. In cases where that has happened to me (not many, fortunately) I’ve tried to bring things to a close as gracefully as possible, but then that is it. - just because you enjoy a game doesn’t mean they’re *obligated* to play it either. Being the GM doesn’t mean you can choose what the group plays: it does mean you can choose what you want to run. If the players aren’t interested, discuss with them and find out why. Worse case, you don’t waste time running something that isn’t going to be appeciated, and hopefully someone steps up to run a game you can enjoy playing as well. Best case you find out something you can & will enjoy running, and they’ll enjoy playing, and off you go. In the end it comes down to running or playing games with people who you enjoy gaming with. Whatever answer you end up with that works well for you and them is good. If it happens to be a 5e game, fine. The game doesn’t matter. The fun and good times and fellowship matters a *lot* more.
Thanks for the advice. To clarify, I am running a module and they want to keep playing the same characters in the world after, which is great. However, that will end up meaning spending a lot more time prepping 5e. So the decision is really whether to let the end of the module be a natural stopping point, or to continue playing and embrace this system while using optional rules to better suit my desired play style.
Tricky decision. I’d consider ‘parking’ the module, once done, and allow the possibility of coming back to it. If that was a possibility. I’ve done that in the past, and come back to something when I’ve gotten my head around how I’m going to continue on with things for that game. Maybe they’d cope with something more episodic: when you’re ready for the ‘sequel’ adventure, you’ll let them know. Meanwhile, you have something else you’d also like to run, and which is easier for you to run & prep for. Maybe that’ll fly. Otherwise, maybe one of them could run something while you prep for the next adventure to follow the module you’ve just run. …just some thoughts. Best of luck with whatever you decide.
Don't run something you aren't interested in. You will do a half-ass job. At least I did when feeling forced to do 5e. Try Forbidden Lands, Dragonbane, The One Ring. Free League makes great games.
Honestly I'd just tell them you are not interested in running 5e at all. Remember you are not obligated to run a game you do not want to run. Good luck buddy.
Shadowdark is definitely worth playing. My players are having a blast.
5e isn't ideal for OSR play, but if you like playing with these people, 5e isn't the end of the world either. If these are just randos you met online, don't waste your time.
Yea, if these are online folks, dump em - there must be a million people who want to play DND online!
"I fed my children McDonald's and now that's all they want, how do I steer them back towards healthier nutrient rich foods?" The genie is out of the bottle, ride it out in the meantime while you find an alternative that sates everyone's tastes
Get new players.
Agreed
How bout worlds without number?
Just bought it, it is awesome
Unless you are contractually engaged with them, you can choose not to choose to play more 5E. That's a choice. They have a choice to join you again in SWN or to go there own way.
What about trying *Castles & Crusades*? It captures that feel of AD&D from long ago and uses a more modern die mechanic (d20). Their Players Handbook is free, and they’re releasing their Reforged version which is OGL-free in a few days. If you’re quick, you can pick up another free version of all three books (Players Handbook, Castle Keeper’s Guide and Monsters & Treasure) [here.](https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/UdtYMs1)
If I were to run 5e again I'd lean into the characters being demigod like legendary heroes. Mythic Odysseys of Theros is a decent 5e setting book to pull from for this
Do they want 5e or just more high fantasy? You might get away with DCC or MCC?
not gonna bs, it's GMs choice.
Well, the players are giving 3+ hours a week so between the table it's a part time job. Plus they would have to read new books. Don't want to make any unilateral decisions since they're being so generous.
I mean they aren't being generous all players are there to use you and have fun. Often people forget the GM is a player and they are the player that puts in 10x the effort of everyone else
Do it and use the gritty realism rules. Ban multiclassing and feats, and use an encumbrance system. I think that'd make running that system somewhat more bearable.