>Trove -- https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread:>>47768147
How should an empire with regular human sacrifices look like?
If it's lizardfolk (or some other reptile) nation, would the gods prefer the warm blood or the cold blood?
>>47838179
> The Magic User has spells that can go horribly awry, so every spell choice is a decision weighing whether or not the consequences of using the spell is worth it.
Can they? IIRC that was purely DCC shtick.
>>47838693
>How should an empire with regular human sacrifices look like?
We talking ritualistic shit? Well, it really depends on the frequency. Also, what you mean when you say "human sacrifice".
Hell, by some definitions ancient Athens would probably qualify with their Pharmakos.
>If it's lizardfolk (or some other reptile) nation, would the gods prefer the warm blood or the cold blood?
Depends. Do you want them to be xenophobic, and if so how? Would they exclusively sacrifice warmbloods as proof of their domination over the lesser, or would they stick to coldbloods for the purity, or would they just go for whoever it's most politically convenient to off?
Think of it from a political point of view and then work things out from there, I reckon.
Also, if we're talking about something lovecraftian then chances are that it doesn't care about the blood at all and it's all just stuff the lizardfolk have made up to make themselves feel better.
welcome back, /osrg/
>>47838754
Check out Summon, specifically. Not all the spells are like that, and most are pretty straightforward, but when you can accidentally merge with the creature you're summoning... You think twice about casting Summon.
>>47838950
>We talking ritualistic shit?
Not sure if I understand. If the gods are real - that's practically scientific.
> Also, what you mean when you say "human sacrifice".
Intelligent beings. "Sophont sacrifices" don't really have the vibe.
>>47839219
> Check out Summon, specifically.
Right. Forgot that one. But that's just one spell.And we really need a class that specifically summons shit, rather than a spell.
>>47839464
Carcosa might be a better example for the tonal shift that the spells cause.
As for a Summoner class... the idea has merit.
Still in the mood for Gothic-themed adventures. Someone posted a link to Transylvanian Adventures in the previous thread, can anyone vouch for it or post other Gothic OSR material?
>>47839464
>Not sure if I understand. If the gods are real - that's practically scientific.
I was asking if the human sacrifice was ritualistic, as per the aztecs, or if it was something more practical like, say, sacrificing a virgin every month so the dragon doesn't kill the city.
There's a helluva lot of things that are covered under the blanket of "human sacrifice".
And, well, the frequency is the really important bit. Supply vs. demand. If they need more bodies than they have, they'll need to go get them somewhere else - hence stereotypical warlike aztecs and whatnot. If it's just something that's done as part of, say, a journey at sea, then that's something that can be sustained without having a huge warlike empire - merely one with slavery or something similar.
Also, of course, there's so many intelligent beings in a D&D world that I'd imagine that it'd be hard to run out - although I find large omnicidal empires a bit far-fetched with all the greater-than-human monsters out there. You ain't sacrificing a dragon - it's getting sacrificed to.
>Intelligent beings. "Sophont sacrifices" don't really have the vibe.
I was more talking about whether or not you specifically wanted rip-their-heart-out-on-the-pyramid -esque shenanigans, or whether or not you'd include stuff like the Greek Pharmakos as part of it. Toss a man overboard in a storm to calm the sea god, that's human sacrifice. Exile a scapegoat into the desert, that's human sacrifice. Give a virgin to the dragon, a child to the fairy, a wife to the troll? Human sacrifice.
Sometimes they don't die, but that's not the point. It's the sacrifice of a human to something else, be it as a slave or a lover or food or whatever.
There's a lot of variety there, basically.
>So, how do you utilize leveled NPCs, if at all?
From previous thread, still interested in discussion.
>Well, name level is when you're so amazing that the nobility is forced to recognize you.
But what forces them to recognize you? If it is the fact that you gain followers, why not follow the (imo) more logical LotFP example where followers are not necessarily level dependent, but money dependent; if you can afford the monthly wages for a mercenary army, why should your level stop you?
>Name level is only a requirement for becoming a land-owner in the wilderness beyond civilization
But that leads to a situation where name level characters become rulers of first a central point, and then become rulers in a circle increasing in diameter from that point, still leading to name level characters as rulers within the center of that circle, which is now lawful territory. I realize this is just theoretical and will never naturally occur through play (as you most likely won't devote so much play time in a single campaign to get that many name level characters), but it seems to be the logic within the system, which I don't really like.
>>47841221
You're assuming that NPCs get XP and levels like PCs do, or even at all.
>>47841221
>But what forces them to recognize you? If it is the fact that you gain followers, why not follow the (imo) more logical LotFP example where followers are not necessarily level dependent, but money dependent; if you can afford the monthly wages for a mercenary army, why should your level stop you?
It's the bit where you can fight a dragon one-on-one and have a chance of winning.
It's the bit where you went to an unclaimed bit of monster-infested wilderness, killed the fuck out of the monsters infesting said bit of wilderness, and then built a castle to house your army of mercenaries and occasionally go out on patrol to kill more monsters.
>But that leads to a situation where name level characters become rulers of first a central point, and then become rulers in a circle increasing in diameter from that point, still leading to name level characters as rulers within the center of that circle, which is now lawful territory. I realize this is just theoretical and will never naturally occur through play (as you most likely won't devote so much play time in a single campaign to get that many name level characters), but it seems to be the logic within the system, which I don't really like.
That's because the system originally didn't give a fuck about giving you any actual noble titles - that's a BECMI thing.
You're not an aristocrat, you're a settler, a colonialist. You go out into the dark and you light a torch. You bring Law into the Chaos, pacify nature and wrench civilization from the maws of monsters.
This is especially apparent in AD&D, where growing your settlement is literally just a case of hoping that the weekly wilderness encounter check brings up someone of an appropriate alignment to want to settle down in your territory.
D&D has some weird base assumptions lying within the rules - one of those is that the world is kind of post-apocalyptic, with ruins dotting the land and the only safe place being within town walls.
>>47841221
>>47841506
>if you can afford the monthly wages for a mercenary army, why should your level stop you?
'Cause the money required for upkeep and generally having a place for them to stay while off-duty is typically enough for you to be at name level anyhow.
Castles are hella expensive.
>>47841527
>'Cause the money required for upkeep and generally having a place for them to stay while off-duty is typically enough for you to be at name level anyhow.
If that money comes from adventuring yes. But I believe that if you gain that money, say through a lucrative monster slaying contract, it doesn't count to XP in most OSR games, right?
>>47841506
>D&D has some weird base assumptions lying within the rules - one of those is that the world is kind of post-apocalyptic, with ruins dotting the land and the only safe place being within town walls.
p o i n t s o f l i g h t
Going by my copy of S&W Whitebox (the closest OSR thing I had on hand), a Fighter gets to establish a stronghold at 9th level. That's 256,000 XP. It's extremely implausible that someone of that caliber would have gone amiss or unknown among the local non-shithead populace by that point. Hell, such a fighter would probably have foolhardy kids stepping on each other's toes solely to be close to the legend for a couple of levels now. It doesn't matter if this fighter is gutter scum of uncertain birth - by the time they hit name level, they're a true force to be reckoned with, and in old D&D this kind of personal prowess is soon followed by temporal power - even if many, or even most of the other rulers in the world aren't explicitly "name level", which is a mechanical construct at any rate.
>>47841221
>So, how do you utilize leveled NPCs, if at all?
Almost everyone is level 0. Level 1 fighters are veterans. Level 2 or 3 fighters are going to be "normal men who are ridiculously skilled' (the kind of thing you'd expect from a grizzled merc captain of a hundred campaigns). Anything higher than that is heroic/legendary special character territory. Very rarely do I ever need leveled NPCs though, unless they are named antagonists.
> But what forces them to recognize you?
You've missed the point. It IS the followers, but not because you can afford them. Anyone with money can afford mercenaries. That's not the issue. It's that your name, deeds, prowess, etc have become so legendary and well-known that you inspire the loyalty of these followers. You can inspire people to gather beneath your banner. You can't get that with money alone.
Sure, you can try to carve yourself out a kingdom at level 3 with gold and mercenaries alone.. but your mercenaries don't give a shit about you. People don't give a shit about you. At name level though, you have a company of hardened men who are loyal to you..people who are inspired by you and actually want you to rule them.
> But that leads to a situation where name level characters become rulers of first a central point, and then become rulers in a circle increasing in diameter from that point, still leading to name level characters as rulers within the center of that circle, which is now lawful territory. I realize this is just theoretical and will never naturally occur through play (as you most likely won't devote so much play time in a single campaign to get that many name level characters), but it seems to be the logic within the system, which I don't really like.
I read this a couple times and didn't actually get what you were actually trying to say, but it seems like you're assuming that NPCs work mechanically on PC logic, which isn't the case.
>>47838693
A large priest/sacrificeer/diviner cast, with rivalries between different schools of vivisection, burning, etc, and different methods of interpreting innards, tear-patterns, and such.
The different political and social crises mean different types of sacrifice. Some require cold blooded lizard people to be killed in groups of 7 when both moons are full via stoning to reafirm the compact between both wandering eyes and the Empire against the cold-spawn. Some require the youngest son of each noble family in the city to die charging the walls of a rival city to bring a plague of miscarriages and sickly births. Rare and convoluted sacrifices indeed are those surrounding inheritance of a priestly position, where one of the acolytes takes the life of their mentor.
They're the mediators between the divine/obscure and the world, so they're sort of like lawyers, psychologists and consultants at the same time. Have a problem? There's probably a sacrifice for that.
>>47841506
>>47841607
>D&D has some weird base assumptions lying within the rules - one of those is that the world is kind of post-apocalyptic, with ruins dotting the land and the only safe place being within town walls.
>p o i n t s o f l i g h t
Really good points, thanks guys. I guess it would make more sense for all villages / hamlets etc. being maybe an hour or 3 max from their liege's keep, and actual cities being extreme rarities.
>>47841635
Almost everyone is level 0. Level 1 fighters are veterans. Level 2 or 3 fighters are going to be "normal men who are ridiculously skilled' (the kind of thing you'd expect from a grizzled merc captain of a hundred campaigns)
I completely agree. Basic levels (1-3) show pure skill, all levels above that start showing true epic adventure prowess.
> it seems like you're assuming that NPCs work mechanically on PC logic, which isn't the case.
I might just be guilty of that yes.
It's also worth remembering that recruiting an armies costs an arm and a leg. The real benefit of the Lord's mercs isn't that they're free - they aren't - but that they come without needing to spend thousands of gold on recruitment posters.
I think OD&D had 1d6x100gp per person per week, or something crazy like that? They only cost a pittance in actual upkeep, beyond needing a smith and armorer and whatnot, but the marketing cost is killer.
Also, of course, if you're name level then you're raking in enough dough in taxes that the mercenary upkeep is literally not an issue.
>>47841600
Sure as hell counts in mine.
I think I remember seeing a note that it didn't count in, like, the Rules Cyclopedia or something, but that book's got issues enough already that I'm willing to disregard it.
Feel free to point out anything that says elsewise, though. (Also, I'm somewhat uncertain of the viability of "lucrative monster-slaying contracts" in a game as gold-focused as OSR. That shit looks like it'll fuck with game balance something harsh.)
>>47841607
>p o i n t s o f l i g h t
Yeah, no shit. PoL was really just hammering down a vague-ish version of something that's been a part of D&D forever.
Points of light/civilization/Law in a vast canvass of darkness/wilderness/Chaos. To some degree it's the core concept of D&D, Law vs. Chaos, so it's a shame to see it lose out to Good vs. Evil as time goes on.
>>47842145
>>47841736
>>47841607
Can someone explain what points of light refers to?
>>47842215
The idea is that the only real 'safe' place where you could maybe start thinking about walking around unarmed, are settlements that are in or close to a castle / other fortified position with active gaurds. The rest of the world is untamed wilderness littered with ruins, deadly monsters, unscrupulous (non-human) bandits and the like.
>>47842215
More specifically, Points of Light is the default setting for 4E. Kind of like Greyhawk for 3E or Faerûn for 5E, in a way, except they decided to just make an entirely new setting.
There's a surprising amount of details to it in the various supplements that got released over the course of 4E, but the basic gist of it is basically what >>47842303 said - the great empires of old have fallen, and now you've just got little points of light of civilization dotted around the vast uncaring wilderness. It's left intentionally vague, presumably because they learned from the metaplotty mess that was the nineties.
There's still maps and myths and rough timelines people have managed to piece together, but it's not just pointed out to you and held up as the One True Thing that everyone must adhere to. Think Mystara before the Gazetteers nailed down the setting, I guess.
>>47842215
>>47842303
PoL is also the "default setting" of sorts of 4E D&D, amusingly enough.
>>47840602
Anyone?
What would be better for the game overall?:
DCC style luck Attribute that can be spent for bonuses to rolls. Thieves get special bennies for using it and other classes have some minor utility from it.
LotFP style x-in-6 Luck "skill", with your rank determining how many times per day you can re-roll stuff. Class independent, but thief (specialist) gets the option of putting more points in to it as they level.
Is there anywhere a compilation with all the classes from Basic D&D/BECMI/BX?
I have a question about Hexographer. when i try to print my map it prints small pieces of my map over several pieces of paper. (pic related) can anybody help me fix this?
Are there any good LotfP homebrew classes floating around? I'm aiming for a sort of Darkest Dungeon style game, and I'd like to add something like the Abberant or Plague Doctor.
>>47844891
There are quite a few LotFP modules that are basically gothic horror themed. They're a bit more weird than gothic, but that's necessary at this point because being afraid of eastern europeans doesn't really cut it anymore. Still works well with frankenstein/the invisible man/dr. jeckle and mr hyde sort of stuff though.
Check out The Cursed Chateau, Scenic Dunnsmouth, The Magnificent Joops Van Ooms (probably want to change the name, but otherwise might be the most straightforward gothic horror) and God That Crawls. Maybe fluff more of it as man's ambitions exceeding their grasp and it turning out horrifically instead of things beyond man's mortal ken turn out horrifically, but its similar enough.
>>47847254
Yeah, I was trying to avoid "weird" stuff and going for a more straight feel. Ravenloft without Ravenloft, basically, or Masque of the Red Death set about a hundred years back. I guess I'll look at those LotFP modules and see if I can salvage stuff from them.
>>47847454
>find tentaclerape horror
>replace with spoopy skelingtong
easy
>>47847750
This is now a skeleton thread.
What are some more streamlined OSR games? I would prefer four classes (fighter, thief, wizard and cleric), unified resolution mechanic, simplified AC and saves and d6 if possible but I realize that's probably not possible.
>>47848147
S&W Whitebox is pretty close.
>>47848244
Thanks!
Anyone have Lusus Naturae for LotFP? Doesn't seem to be in the trove
>>47845577
DCC
What did people think about today's OSR-ish Free RPG Day stuff?
>Slüg is edgy garbage as expected from LotFP
>DCC Lakhmar adventure is okayish
>The MCC funnel looks pretty fun.
>>47848797
all I wanted to grab was both of those, but I was busy. What exactly is Slugs?
And I absolutely cannot wait for MCC to be released. Crawling Under a Broken Moon fills that void (incredibly well) for now.
>>47848899
>What exactly is Slugs?
Slüg is about a giant bisexual rapist alien slug (or something to that effect). It's a Lamentations of the Fire Princess module.
>>47848899
>>47848965
It's the closest LotFP is ever gonna get to a monster manual
>>47848797
Give us a link and we'll see for ourselves.
>>47848965
Sounds weird, horrific, and cool. Do want.
>>47839464
>>47839737
Ars Goethia Something Something, for LotFP.
It's about doing faustian pacts with demons.
>>47840602
Have you read Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque?
>>47849667
I have not!
>>47849429
I love that within the time-span of LotFP's art, her illustrated maimings stay. She's still missing most of her hands fingers, one legged.
>>47850338
I know, it's great
It's also subtle as fuck. Until I read something about it on TVTropes, then went back and looked at some of the art, I had no idea she was missing anything.
>>47850338
I know, she's a badass. Look at that grin!
>>47850453
>>47850398
>>47850338
>>47848965
>>47849534
That just Love Slug.his love sessions give you 1d6 levels.they go away a rate of 1 level a day though
There's muscle slug
breakfast slug
hypno slug
glass slug
slugtron
vomit slug
rock slug
Are there any good modules set in villages that the players are actually from? I'm mining for ideas for a good introductory adventure, preferably with horror elements, that can be used for a very rural party. However, most of the adventures I've seen seem to depend on the PCs being strangers that are introduced to some weirdness rather than weirdness coming to the home of the PCs.
>>47850789
>rock slug
Is that like a rock lobster?
>>47850859
Sailors Under a Starless Sea
Question about casting spells in BFRPG. I can't find the rules. Do you roll a d20 and add your ability bonus? Do you add a dex modifier if it's ranged and str if it's melee? Do you add your classes primary attribute bonus (int for magic-user, wisdom for cleric)? When casting on a friendly or on yourself how do you determine success, is it automatic?
>>47850939
not really
its infected with contagious stone. If it hits you or touches you , your AC goes up 1 point a day. by the sixth day, you are now made of stone. you move slowly and do not heal naturally and have to hire a mason to patch you up.
For those of you who would like a free copy of Slügs, there's a guy who set up a contest. You gotta write poetry though.
http : slashslash anxietywizard dot blogspot dot fr slash 2016 slash 06 slash poems-for-slugs dot html
While it was discussed mildly last thread, I'd like a little imput on how exactly to implment a 'lore based' magic system, using player-inserted implements via class ability.
Or in short
>instead of casting spells the MU/lore master can determine certain facts about the world using his ability, which could include magic spells or powers but only in specific circumstances
>Example; as the party is attacked by beastmen the loremaster states "They are afraid of the sound of bells!" and scares them off by ringing his bell
All in all, a very interesting concept. But how is it actually implemented? Or how would YOU implement?
>Spells per day/adventure? What number?
>How to prevent obvious power gaming/god mode problems with balance here?
>How does character progress if this ability is available first level? Do they merely get more of it or is their another mechanic?
>Can the lore master learn spell/magic/special knowledge outside of using the ability or is it strictly tied to the obscure?
>Can the DM vito anything that clashes with world lore? What's the limit as to not step on the player's toes?
>How about equipment?
I'm very curious to see how /tg/ can make this concept work for a game.
>>47846081
That's not Hexographer. That's your printer.
And how do you even want to "fix" it? Scale image down to fit on one page? IIRC, you can export map to jpeg or what have you and scale it down to fit on A4.
>>47852238
The only issue I see with this is that it kinda turns something that can be done with player skill and game mastery (as in, mastering the rules of the setting, such as thinking about burning the troll, not mastering arbitrary game rules) into a character skill.
Everyone in my game does what you're describing as a class. They experiment, they try stuff out, and they remember (or forget) about how X or Y creature responds to Z.
For exemple, they just painfully learned that some high level undead can drain levels.
>>47846081
How did you do that 3D efffect on the outer coast lines? Is that elevation?
>>47847007
The Doctor and the Skinned Moon Daughter in the Undercroft #9 are pretty cool.
>>47848797
I grabbed Slügs and the DCC booklet.
>>47853388
I need help making elves mechanically different.
Wizards have random daily "spell points" and they're often not aware of the number. Casting without enough power or when interrupted would cause a saving throw which if failed, results in corruption, mishaps, catastrophes, etc.(using the spell school's table)
Clerics get a die that increases as they level with a natural 1 indicating they cannot cast anymore that day. Each successful spell increases the natural disfavor rating by 1 which can later be mitigated doing stuff your deity approves of.
But elves are weird. They are supposed to be magical creatures closer to fey than man, right? My idea was to give them flat points that they can spend while still having the choice of casting without them. The consequences would be worse then though and they'd use a special Elven table for effects. They'd start as pretty human but slowly morph into a more fey-like creature, giving them both boons and banes or even just retiring the character.
They'd also not use a spellbook but just learn spells with each level.
Does that sound like something that could work on the table?
I was reading some blog posts about and LotFP playtest document that went out to members who bought stuff in February. A bunch of possible rules changes. Most of them drastically different to the current rules.
One of which was the idea of only 2 saving throws; magical and non-magical, keyed to CHA and WIS respectively. It is a dice pool mechanic. Higher the stat, the more dice you have in the pool. Rolling 1 six = partial success (save for half). 2 sixes = full success.
Sounds like an interesting idea. Except why CHA/WIS? Any explanation I can come up with is pretty strained.
Personally I'd either make them independent of stat, either going up with level or dictated by class. Or tie them to every ability and you save with the first appropriate one for the danger in question.
Thoughts?
>>47853811
I have the document. Gonna assume that the reason is because all the other attributes do something different, like INT decides the amount of skill points you get, STR decides the amount you can hold in one encumbrance slot etc.
>>47840602
http://diehardgamefan.com/2013/11/26/tabletop-review-transylvanian-adventures-dungeon-crawl-classics/
>>47853842
Could we see the document :O?
On a different not: Was reading through my copy of LotFP today in the train, noticed that it stated that wisdom affects saving throws that aren't magic-user spells, with intelligence affecting saving throws that are due to M-U spells.
Does this mean that all saving throw categories, including the magic saves you make for cleric spells, are modified for Wisdom RAW in LotFP?
>>47853842
> I have the document.GIBE
Seriously, why didn't you just post it?
>>47853871
>Does this mean that all saving throw categories, including the magic saves you make for cleric spells, are modified for Wisdom RAW in LotFP?
Yes
>>47853627
The best way to make elves noticeably mechanically different in a way that actually matters is probably just to give them different spells than a magic-user.
After all, despite both using the vancian system there's quite a lot of difference between Clerics and M-Us.
If all you do to differentiate wizards from elves is give them different amounts of spell points, that doesn't really differentiate them that much! It's like the difference between a vancian wizard and a spell point wizard - there's a difference, yes, but it's much less than that between, say, a Cleric and a Druid. On account of them having the same spells.
As for it working at the table, how the hell were you planning on sorting out the wizard's secret spell point stash? That seems like something that would be a pain to handle.
>>47853871
>>47854092
I sadly can't take any pictures of it right now, don't even have a camera or a copier. I can give you guys an overview of stuff if you want it though.
>>47854439
Pretty please!
I'm really curios to hear what's in it, seeing as Raggi is still not done with the referee guide and the seems no where on the horizon. Damn I'm salty about there not being a referee guide and screen for LotFP
>>47854225
So far I'm just marking the points next to their name in my notes. Worked well. Just make small circles and cross them out as they get used up.
Also to explain the rationale, Elves lose the random and unpredictable element of mages because fictionally they're supposed to be better at controlling magic and less prone to mishap. Basically they should work similarly because they're still dealing with the same forces (as opposed to the cleric), but be at least slightly distinct to not just be fighter/magic-user
>>47854482
Alright, here goes:
>Only three classes: fighter specialist and magic user
>instead of just bonuses based on ability scores, your attributes now determines a lot more about your character
>CHA determines the amount of d6 you get to roll when making a saving throw versus magic
>WIS determines the amount of d6 you get to roll when making a saving throw versus non magic
>STR determines how many items make up an encumberance point: 3-4 means just 3 items, 17-18 means 7 items etc.
>DEX determines the die you roll for initiative, 3-4 means 1d4, 17-18 means 1d12
>INT determines your "skill point total" for one skill, more on this soon
>CON determines what die you roll for hitpoints every level
>Saving throws now works so you wanna roll as many 6s you roll with your dice, 2 or more 6's mean full save and only one 6 means a partial save which only halves the effect
>Skills now use negative and positive numbers from -5 to +5 with +0 being the normal. You wanna roll a 6 on 1d6 to succeed with a skill. Bonuses make it so you can roll lower to succeed. Negative skill points means you have to roll 2 6's on 2d6 to succeed with the roll.
>four new skills, leadership, luck, medicine, seamanship. Leadership is morale and loyalty bonus, Luck is how many rerolls you can do a session, Medicine doubles recovery on success but can hurt if you fail and the patient is very injured, seamanship is bushcraft on the ocean
>There are four attack bonuses: melee, ranged, firearms and guard. The guard bonus is what you add to your AC when guarding (parrying)
>All weapons do 1d8 damage. Armor counts double against small weapons and half against great weapons
>If you get to negative hit points you can now still survive but fall unconscious if you succeed a full saving throw
1/2
>>47854804
2/2
>magic overhauled, all spells can be used at any level but scale in power with the level
>if a spell is cast when certain conditions for spellcasting are not met such as not having a spell prepared or being more than lightly encumbered then you risk an error
>a spellcasting error is basically like DCC, you roll on a table and something pretty bad happens
Other then this there's just some expansion for rules for climbing and traveling. I guess I can go into more detail about something if it wasn't clear enough.
>>47853627
>>47854225
On that note, have you seen the Scions in Red Tide? They feel very different from regular elves and magic users even if the only real difference they have is a spell list of their own.
>>47854804
>>47854838
>"LotFP"
>no longer a retroclone of b/x
This seems like a completely different game, m8
>>47855066
He is changing a lot of things but he stresses in the foreword that he thinks backwards- and cross-compatibility is incredibly important. Also these are just concepts at the moment, nothing's set in stone.
>>47854804
> >Saving throws now works so you wanna roll as many 6s you roll with your dice, 2 or more 6's mean full save and only one 6 means a partial save which only halves the effect
Dicepools in my elfgames? Blasphemy!
>>47854838
> >magic overhauled, all spells can be used at any level but scale in power with the level
How many spells are there?
>>47854804
>>47854838
>>47855114
Awesome thanks! All these changes seem pretty interesting. The two saving throw system really speaks to me. I do assume that the focus of the game is still the ''Oldschool playstyle'' where gathering loot etc. is emphasized?
Anyone know anything about when this stuff is expected to reach a released stage?
Anyone have Fever Dreaming Marlinko or Lusus Naturae?
>>47855712
>How many spells are there?
None in the document, just some words about how you could convert spells to this systems and adding miscast effects. If anyone would use this system now they would probably need to modify and use the DCC spells.
>>47855795
>I do assume that the focus of the game is still the ''Oldschool playstyle'' where gathering loot etc. is emphasized?
I would assume so, but I would guess that he's trying to make it more about low-level adventures rather than big epic quests, just like his modules.
>Anyone know anything about when this stuff is expected to reach a released stage?
At some interview I think he mentioned a 2018 release at the earliest.
>>47855802
> Fever Dreaming Marlinko
Trove. LotFP folder, IIRC.Or LL
>>47850859
The entire Beyond The Wall game is designed so that the players are from the same village and incorporates that into character generation. There are scenarios/modules that can be added to the process.
>>47851086
This module sounds more fun by the minute.
>>47856870
Its not a module. Its a bestiary.
>>47857248
Ah, okay. When the bluenose upthread called it "edgy garbage" I assumed it must be more than a set of monster stats.
>>47855863
>2018 release at the earliest.
Well that won't do.
Looking at the two saving throw categories, let's see what we can do with this:
It seems to allow for differentiating between classes on the basis of physical and mental / metaphysical resistance. Taking the classic 5 categories, and the 1 category S&W saving throws as a way to differentiate between classes as a base:
Physical saving throws govern things like poison, rock falls you die, snares and other such entanglements. It seems that your intuition can save you (my spidy sense!), although that wouldn't follow with poison.
Magical saving throw: governs spells and spell like effects. Things that you don't necessarily physically negate but mentally beat down (although, does this mean that dodging a spell is physical? Or are spells never dodged, but is the fire of a magical fire balls different from physical fire?).
All classes have a different progression for their physical and their magical saving throw. Seems workable and allowing for more granularity than a single-saving throw, but less randomness than the classic 5.
>>47857382
>hipster "rebel" gets triggered by someone calling edgy garbage "edgy garbage"
*tips trilby*
>>47857425
>a listing of monster stats is "edgy garbage"
Question about spell casting in general because I can't find an answer in the BFRPG, LL, or CC rule books. Do you roll a d20 and add your ability bonus? Do you add a dex modifier if it's ranged and str if it's melee? Do you add your classes primary attribute bonus (int for magic-user, wisdom for cleric)? When casting on a friendly or on yourself how do you determine success, is it automatic?
>>47857532
Why would you need to roll anything?
It's the targets that roll saving throws.
>>47857525
>a monster that exists only to cause brutal orgies isn't "edgy garbage"
>>47857798
No, it isn't. It depends on how you use it.
Freaky sex-death cults are a staple of horror, which you would know if you read some books or watched some movies.
>>47857532
I only know LL out of those 3, but to cast a spell, you simply say it. No roll needed (usually). It will usually take effect the next round (the spell with describe its length to take effect) but you can't be hit during the casting round of combat or your spell gets interrupted and failed.
>party of 3 encounters a monster
>magic-user says they are gonna cast magic missile this round
>other 2 decide to melee attack
>everyone rolls initiative
>PC1; Monster; MU; PC2
Round 1:
>PC1 attacks, and hits. Monster attacks MU but misses. MU fires missile and hits. PC2 attacks but misses.
Round 2:
>PC1 attacks and hits. Monster attacks PC2 and kills him. MU declares they're going to cast Magic Missile again.
Round 3:
>PC1 attacks and misses. Monster swats MU upside the head. MU cannot cast spell due to being hit. on to Round 3. etc.
etc.
I meant on to round 4, etc. derp.
>>47857867
>>47857867
>dude there's nothing wrong with sex cults in my game, it's a staple of horror!
>dude there's nothing wrong with futa in my game, it's a staple of mythology!
>dude there's nothing wrong with rape dungeons in my game, it's a staple of history!
>dude there's nothing wrong with elves in my game, it's a staple of fantasy!
>dude there's nothing wrong with linear fighters and quadratic wizards in my game, it's a staple of dnd!
>>47857989
Do you have anything besides shitposting?
>>47857989
But all of that is true.
does anyone have any of the newer DCC modules past what's in the trove? It stops at about #81.
>>47848147
Beyond the Wall, S&W, LotfP, are all ones that imo aren't full of weird clunky design choices.
>>47851058
BFRPG is so poorly organized that it should be considered an international crime.
Still not as bad as Shadowrun 5e though.
>>47857735
So the enemy rolls a save vs spell and the player rolls nothing? Where does it say that in the rules?
>>47857887
Thanks, in BFRPG the players take actions on their initiative and if they have the same initiative they take their actions at the same time. If a spell caster is in any way interrupted (attacked, has to make a saving throw) the spell fizzles. If another caster is casting at the character who is casting both spells succeed.
>>47845939
Rules Cyclopedia.
It's kind of like an "encyclopedia" of rules.
>>47858415
> and the player rolls nothing? Where does it say that in the rules?
Nowhere. Just like nothing is written about necessity to punch Referee in the face, when you cast a spell.
Read the rules about casting spells and magic in general.
>>47859164
>Read the rules about casting spells and magic in general.
I did, there are very few. The only rules I've found are:
The caster must have at least one hand free and be capable of speaking.
If the caster is interrupted on his initiative the spell fails.
If the caster is being targeted by another spell on his initiative, both spells are successful.
And then there are rules for individual spells that indicate what saving throws apply and what the effects of a successful save are.
>>47859070
Thanks, but I was looking for a complete list of classes like orcs, trolls, centaurs, etc. I already found one
>>47855881
Nope. Not seeing it.
>>47859879
It's in Labyrinth Lord Modules. It's called Kutalik-FeverDreamingMarlinko
>>47857382
the average LOTFP critic looks at a picture, gets offended, and dismisses it.
>>47859356
Cutting in, don't mind me.
Yes, generally go off without a failure chance. The target sometimes has a chance of resisting its effects through a Saving Throw.
I don't think the rules specifically say "you don't roll nothing" but the assumption is you don't unless they state you do.
Anything else that's unclear so we can clarify it?
>>47860603
>Anything else that's unclear so we can clarify it?
I understand now. I went through the Pathfinder rulebook, apparently they use very similiar rules for casting but they explained it more clearly.
>>47850327
It's in the throve. Mostly settingfluff and houserules. But you could mine it for ideas I suppose.
>>47850859
I suppose you could hace Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh take place in the partys hometown. I like the module but in the end it's a scooby doo adventure.
Any d6 based OSR?
>>47861633
I think I remember seeing a 3d6-roll-under hack somewhere, but it's certainly not one of the big ones.
There's always OD&D with Chainmail combat, I suppose. You'll need to rework the saving throw matrices to a 2d6 system, but otherwise you're relatively fine? The players don't ever need anything other than d6s, and the DM only needs other dice for behind-the-scenes stuff like percentiles, treasure tables, numbers appearing and encounter tables. Most of which can be done diceless with preparation.
Can anyone recommend an interesting Pantheon of gods? I just cannot find a pantheon that really hits that sweet spot of weird but likeable.
>>47862391
Have you checked out Petty Gods?
>>47862440
I did, and stole a few things from it. Anything similar out there?
>>47862659
Well shit, I don't know much else, especially nothing in the category of "weird". Maybe you can check out Obscene Serpent Religion if you need some edgy as fuck evil goddess?
bumpo
I'd like to hear what you guys think about this houserule:
The player with the highest CHA has the upper hand in encounters and party decisions. Friendly NPCs will listen more to him and in group debates he (almost) always has the right to make his argument. If there is a party vote then all blank votes goes to his side.
I guess this isn't really an in-game rule but more of a meta thing. Still, thoughts?
Pic unrelated but OSR-related.
>>47857989
>mixing elves in with all that other shit
Way to be specious, fuckass, there's nothing wrong with those other things.
>>47862659
>Anything similar out there?
Yeah, there's a Judges Guild product that was the direct inspiration for Petty Gods. You could check that out, I assume it's in the Trove. I forget the name, though. I'm sure Anon can help you out.
>>47852533
i just used different colours for different depths.
>>47861633
>>47861859
Heroes & Other Worlds is based on The Fantasy Trip (proto-GURPS) and uses 3d6 and 2d6 roll under. I personally like it a lot.
>>47866414
I think he's referring to the lines *between* the different-depth bands. In the photo it looks like you've done some sort of half-tone outline between each two bands.
>>47866334
It's called Unknown Gods.
>>47866265
Just an idea, but you could make it mechanical by giving everyone a vote value based on their CHA bonus. If there's a group decision, everyone still gets to vote, but different character's have different values. Still lets people with low CHA be involved, sometimes even making the deciding difference, but gives more weight to higher CHA characters.
>>47866729
Anon comes through! Thanks, man.
>>47866265
My preferred house rule is that if they want a given character's CHA bonus to reaction rolls, that person has to be doing the interacting.
Players are greedy little monkeys, so they'll naturally gravitate to having the highest-CHA PC be the face -- but if he acts like a huge sperg they can just choose to have someone else handle it, which I see as a flaw in your rule.
>>47866765
That sounds like a good addition to the rule.
>>47866808
>but if he acts like a huge sperg they can just choose to have someone else handle it, which I see as a flaw in your rule.
I see what you mean, then again doesn't a high CHA score imply that you want to do things related to leadership, communication and generally not be sperging? I mean, someone with a high STR could be a coward during fights or just not fight at all, but that isn't what the score implies.
>>47866909
>doesn't a high CHA score imply that you want to do things related to leadership, communication
It might if you didn't just get it by rolling 3d6 down the line. But sure, let's assume you picked it somehow, because:
>and generally not be sperging?
Nope. Wrong-o. A certain type of That Guy will get it on purpose specifically *so* he cans perg out. I don't think giving those guys mechanical license to trample the opinions of the rest of the group to any extent is a good plan.
>>47866943
>I don't think giving those guys mechanical license to trample the opinions of the rest of the group to any extent is a good plan.
But the thing was that the player only has somewhat of an advantage in situations, perhaps I should have been more clear with that. If all other players want to do something else then they will get their way, and if the character asks some NPC for all their money they will obviously say no.
>>47867003
>But the thing was that the player only has somewhat of an advantage in situations, perhaps I should have been more clear with that.
Nah, don't worry, I picked up on that. That's why I said "to any extent". I guess I'm just used to having to deal with shittier players than you, guys friends drag in and so on. (I know /tg/ usually hardlines about kicking those types out, but for me it's often more trouble than it's worth to throw out some twice-a-year guy.)
>>47867084
Well I do understand your argument and I should probably watch out for anyone abusing the mechanic. I do have a feeling that integrating the mechanic might make the players more dickish just because they realize they can. If that happens I'll probably just scrap the idea altogether.
If anyone is interested; I'd really appreciate some feedback about this homebrew document I'm using for my upcoming urban fantasy game.
>>47845577
LotFP has more utility, with DCC if you burn your Luck you never get it back.
Does anyone have any suggestions for B/X compatible Specialist Wizards? Or suggestions on how to handle them?
I guess I can do the 2e/3.x thing and give specialists bonus spell slots in exchange for giving up spell schools, but that seems kind of bland, and also leaves out fantasy tropes like pyromancers and the like.
>>47869274
So, maybe not entirely what you are looking for but:
B/X in the strictest sense already leads to specialist wizards: There is nothing saying that you are allowed to have more spells in your spellbook than the spells given in your spellslot table, just that you can choose to prepare one spell multiple times. If you combine this with that all spells (excluding any beginning spells) must be gathered ingame, suddenly all MUs have a hard-cap to their spell repertoire (leading to specialists), must research spells ingame (leading to the stealing of spellbooks from other mages / spell research) and can't hoard tons of spellbooks for only being allowed certain amounts of spells (leading to seeking out MUs that can cast the exact spell you are looking for in certain situations).
>>47866265
Just make 'em the caller. Might as well find some use for that old role, now that huge con games aren't as common as they seemed to be.
>>47869274
GAZ2 Principalities of Glantri has some stuff that might work, I suppose, although if I remember correctly it's really more meant for the full 1-36 range. I think they top out at 25 or so?
Otherwise, though, >>47869404 is right. B/X M-Us only have as many spells as they can cast, meaning that they'll be specialists by necessity.
Also, >>47869404, I don't remember if you can actually learn spells from scrolls in B/X? You can in BECMI, I know that, but I'm pretty sure that B/X goes for more of a OD&D route in that you automatically know all of your allotted spells?
>>47869456
>I don't remember if you can actually learn spells from scrolls in B/X?
So doing this pure from memory (to lazy to get my copies and check); Nothing states that you can learn spells from scrolls. Something is stated about being able to learn new spells when you level up, maybe in the sense that for the first few levels the MU has a master teaching him new spells.
However, read magic (the spell) seems to imply that you are able to read other MUs spell books, where you to acquire them, and spell research seems to be there to not only create new spells but also research existing ones. It is a very loose terrain, but I like to take the approach that all spells require spell research, and having a master teaching you reduces the cost significantly, whereas having a spellbook to guide you reduces it slightly.
But you are totally correct in that scrolls can't be transcribed, and I kind of agree with that logic desu. A scroll is just a spell that is trying to be cast bound to a bit of paper (or other medium). It isn't the complete spell or ritual required to cast the spell.
>>47869404
Wouldn't the limits of a spell repetoire lead to a very sort of "optimized" spell list, rather than proper specialization though? My impression is that the limits of spell repetoires end up making mages more homogenous rather than the opposite.
If I have only 4 level 3 spells in my repertoire, I probably want one of them to be Fireball. Ditto for Sleep at first level.
>>47869507
>However, read magic (the spell) seems to imply that you are able to read other MUs spell books, where you to acquire them, and spell research seems to be there to not only create new spells but also research existing ones. It is a very loose terrain, but I like to take the approach that all spells require spell research, and having a master teaching you reduces the cost significantly, whereas having a spellbook to guide you reduces it slightly.
Read Magic is mostly just the OD&D thing where you need to cast it to make magic scrolls usable for casting from, but yeah there's a note at the end about reading other M-Us spell books. Nothing about memorizing from them, though, which I honestly have to agree with because that single mechanic single-handedly makes M-U spellbooks one of the most valuable treasures in the game.
Looking through it now, spell aquisition is automatic but which specific spells you know might be chosen by the DM if they don't feel like letting you choose yourself.
There's also some notes in Expert about researching new spells, but who knows how the hell that's supposed to work. Are they in addition to the ones you already know?
Oh hey, what do you know, Expert actually has a pretty handy explanation of the general thing:
>GETTING NEW SPELLS: [...]
>Magic-users and elves must be taught their new spells. Most player character magic-users and elves are assumed to be members of the local Magic-Users Guild or apprenticed to a higher level NPC. When player characters gain a level of experience, they will return to their masters and be out of play for one "game-week" while they are learning their new spells. Either the player or the DM may choose any new spells. Magic-users and elves are limited to the number of spells they may know, and their books will contain spells equal to the number and level of spells the caster can use in a single day (thus, the books of a 4th level elf will contain two first and two second level spells).
>>47869518
Any thoughts on this? Am I just plain wrong in assuming this is the case?
>>47869518
>>47870018
> Any thoughts on this? Am I just plain wrong in assuming this is the case?
What is there to be said?
If you can learn any spell, but can lear only limited amount of spells - you'll be choosing the best spells, not thematically similar.
>>47869153
You get luck back if you keep on adventuring though.
That being said, I'm thinking of giving renewable luck to everyone, at a rate of 1 per day.
It's not a mechanic that'll unbalance things too much, and it's fun at the table.
>>47850859
A Thousand Dead Babies could work like this pretty well. All you'd miss are one or two "Gotchas", like the town smith being kind of shitty or the cards at the inn being marked, which locals would know already.
>>47870069
Note that this is dependent on you actually being able to choose the spells in question - if you can, though, it's most definitely true.
Also, of course, the same goes for AD&D-style "specialists" - not the Illusionist, though, that guy's cool. The guaranteed spells will probably be the best ones, and other scrolls are best hoarded to best maximize the chance of learning good spells and avoiding wasting your limited number of spells known on the chaff.
Also, of course, Fireball isn't always the best option for 3rd level. That's the level of Fly and Haste and Clairvoyance and Protection from Normal Missiles and actually a whole bunch of good spells, and Fireball has a 20' radius that makes it tricky in confined dungeon environments. (Even moreso if the DM uses OD&D/AD&D-style fireball volume expansion!)
If you're a fifth-level Elf or Magic-User who can only know one of those spells, which do you take? If you're a sixth-level M-U who can only know two, which would those be? Which three would the max-level Elf want?
>>47869518
>>47870018
>Any thoughts on this?
Like the other guy said, it's true assuming you let M-Us pick spells freely,
If you want specialist wizards, though, what I'd do is make a set of "schools" or "magic tomes" each containing a full repertoire of spells and only letting the player choose one of those. So if you want Fly then you might have to be a student of Surdus' Libram of Air Magic, but if so then Fireball's out of bounds. And so on.
What's the difference between the tons of various OSR games out there? If it's solely that they're cloning different versions of 1E, what are the differences between those versions? Why do so many exist if they're just clones of like two or three products?
Bunch of DCC pdfs, don't know if they're in the trove yet.
http://uploaded net/file/6li88brz/DCC%20Modules zip
First time trying to run keep on the borderlands. I'm trying to modify the keep though and make a different map of the surrounding wilderness.
Is there anything I should keep in mind about what the players could do to screw themselves over and what are the weaknesses of the keep itself that you think could be improved on.
>>47871394
First of all there is a split between whether they are cloning Od&d, Basic d&d or advanced 1e d&d.
Although those three games are similar in theme, they differ greatly in execution in some points.
Then within these different 'schools' if you will, there is difference between straight op clones (such as labyrinth lord), which where made in order to be able to sell material for older editions, and between the actual new / improved osr games that build upon the foundation of their respective school, and add material to it (such as new takes on existing rule systems, various house rules, completely re-imagining certain parts of the rules, modernizing the way the rules are presented etc).
>>47871508
Okay, cool. Some friends and I played through the D&D arcade games recently and it made me want to run an OSR Mystara game. The players have to stop a mad cleric of Slitherus from casting the most devastating spell: a kingdom-wide Sticks to Snakes.
>>47866334
I don't seem to be finding it in the trove, at least not under the Judges Guild folder
I wish mega had a better way of searching through multiple folders, really.
>>47854804
Been thinking about the Ability Score changes and reading comments on g+.
Here is what I might do:
Modifiers are the standard -3 to +3. Saves will be either dice pool or roll-under, with modifiers from class. Skills will be x-in-6 where an attribute modifier will be decided to roll on
Strength (STR):
Modifier: How many items per ENC point (Base 5)
Saves: paralyzing, entangling and slowing.
Skills: Feats of strength and athleticism.
Constitution (CON):
Modifier: Bonus HP at lvl0. Type of Hit Dice at level 1 and above (Base d6)
Saves: poison and disease.
Skills: Feats of fortitude and endurance.
Dexterity (DEX):
Modifies: Initiative die (Base d6)
Saves: reflex, dodging.
Skills: Feats of agility and hand-eye coordination.
Charisma (CHA):
Modifier: NPC Reaction and hireling morale checks (Base 7)
Saves: mind control, charm, fear.
Skills: Conning, bartering, diplomacy, intimidation
Intelligence (INT):
Modifies: Languages known (Base 0 + Common + Racial).
Saves: Magic and magical effects not covered by the above.
Skills: Academic knowledge of one or more subjects, Lore/Trivia
Luck (LK):
Modifies: Number of re-rolls per day (Base 3)
Saves: anything not covered by the above. Can also spend a daily re-roll to save against LK instead of another Ability.
Skills: Gambling and games of chance.
>>47871570
That being said, any chance Trove Guy would be able to release an indexed list of what's in the trove that could be found in the pastebin?
>>47871590
>Constitution (CON): Modifier: Bonus HP at lvl0. Type of Hit Dice at level 1 and above (Base d6)
I really dislike constitution modifying your HD type, it seems so counter the logic of differentiating by character classes.
If HP is not a pure physical measure, than a fighter with more HP than a mu is not necessarily more burly.
>>47871590
Oh. I forgot to add that I liked the idea of "no dump stats" but didnt like the awkward tying of all saves to two abilities that didn't cover the majority of those effects.
Anything there a dump stat? Or way better than all the rest?
>>47871755
I thought perhaps CON would be a base and maybe classes could modify it. Eg wizards are nerds so they go down one die type
>>47871394
Most of them are cloning B/X, really.
But even then there's a lot of mechanical difference in how they go about doing so, be it through simple tweaking of the numbers for legal reasons or through more radical stuff like sticking in feats or removing ability scores or changing spells.
>>47871562
That'd be BECMI specifically, I suppose. Check out the gazetteers for details on The Known World/Mystara.
>>47871570
I'm pretty sure I got it from the Trove, but here it is.
>>47871595
I'm not sure if Mega even gives you that information anywhere. Chances are that TroveGuy doesn't fully know what's in there, either.
>>47868736
Oh my gosh you're the night garden dude? I really loved that setting concept! I'll give the document a read.
>>47871771
Intelligence might be somewhat of a dump stat, since "misc. magic" is pretty specific as far as spells go. I'd need to see the breakdown, though. I'm not really sure what percentage of spells is covered by what, not to mention the severity of the effect.
Speaking of severity of effect, was int/luck meant to cover saves vs. death?
Also, Luck seems like somewhat of a dump stat - rerolls are nice, but the stat covers so little that it pales in comparison to, say, Charisma. What saves does it even cover? Non-magical stuff that doesn't involve paralyzing, entangling, slowing, poison, disease, reflex, dodging? What does that even leave?
Speaking of which, despite losing number of hirelings Charisma is still king. NPC reaction rolls are huge and win fights before they start, the saves are good and common and dangerous, and the skills are ridiculously broad. Basically, if it's a social activity then Charisma seems to govern it. Compare that to physical activities being split into three stats, or Luck's hyperspecificity.
Honestly, though, you only need to worry about having dump stats if you're having non-random stats in some way - straight 3d6 down the line has some advantages in that respect. Although if you're doing some kind of weighted randomness (4d6, drop 3, assign as you will) then I really start to wonder why you're not going fully nonrandom.
>>47871562
If you want an OSR system to run that, check out Labyrinth Lord. It's a clone of Basic, though the Advanced Edition Companion adds in a lot of Advanced D&D stuff your players might like, too.
> vs enemy's Avoidance Characteristic (AC)
I'm not sure what to say.
>>47873916
I'm gonna guess that they're trying to reuse the AC acronym for backwards compatibility while at the same time sperging out about how you can be completely naked and still have a somewhat respectable AC. 'Cause dodging, I guess. Blame Greyhawk, as always.
What's a polite way to say "Special Snowflake"?
>>47874139
I thought that was the polite way of saying it.
>>47874139
Just explaining the specifics of what bothers you with the character?
>>47874139
A "unique individual?"
>>47871755
In my games, CON modifies the class hit die by chaining it up or down.
+1CON Magic-User has d6HD for example
>>47874190
>>47874211
>>47874239
Okay. That was unhelpful.
Situation:
I'm playing around with the Roles (idea I got from the Dragon Union above), trying to differentiate them from the classes. I.e. stuff players do (tracking party equipment, dividing loot, mapping areas) that affects stuff that happens in-game (the guy who keeps track of party equipment IRL can steal some of the stuff in-game, for example).
There is a Role which is basically … Special Snowflake (can freely multi-class and so on).
>>47873916
I like "avoidance class" when using armor as DR. Why? Well, if armor doesn't contribute to it anymore, you can't really call it "armor class" and people are so used to saying "AC", that it would take a long, concerted effort to get them to stop. This way, folks can still say "AC"; it just stands for something different. If, of course, your group tends to say "armor class" more than "AC", this might be a bit less attractive to you.
>>47874429
Ah. Champion? The Blessed? The Vanguard, since he'll probably be pushed to the front?
>>47874533
Hmm. I'm thinking Agility Class might be better. It's a bit less on-the-nose (things like size can affect AC), but it's honestly more accurate than "Armor Class" normally is and it's less awkward to say than "Avoidance Class". Plus, you can just say "Agility" if you don't want to say "AC".
I need module that's as dungeon-crawl as it gets. Already know Stargazer, DFD, The Lost City and Grinding Gear. What else? Any system.
>>47874429
The Jester?
Comic relief? Buffoon? Fuckup?
I like what you're doing there though with making roles interesting again. Good stuff.
>>47874540
>>47875711
Hmm. Champion and Blessed are good, but they made me think about Chosen One, which would be better. Sufficiently cheesy, so as to say.
And I'll probably rename Big Guy into Vanguard.Jester might replace The Kid, but I'll go with The Kid for now.
Anyone has Black Hand pdf?
>>47877208
There is free SRD online, IIRC.
Where can I get more uncommon dice like d7's and d5's and all the other obnoxious ones DCC wants me to use; preferably without having to pay an arm and leg?
>>47877908
There's an app for that.
Otherwise, though, it depends on where you are? Here in Sweden I'm pretty sure that I'd have to go to eBay, for instance. Speaking of which, there's a set going for a hundred kronor - roundabout fifteen bucks, if I remember the conversion rate right. Probably a bit more in shipping, though.
I'm pretty sure that Lou Zocchi, the guy who makes them, is in the US - so good on you if you live there, I guess.
>>47877908
d5 is just a d10 with the result divided by 2(rounded up)
>>47874262
All this does those is increase the range of your possible extra hitpoints. The mean for 1d4+1 or 1d6 per level stays the same, so unless you enjoy the extra randomness, I don't see the point. And what about a MU with -1 con? give him 1d2 hp?
>>47877642
Oh, thanks.
Any OSR that uses either ability scores or modifiers instead of both? I would like just one or the other, it is dumb having both when you only ever use the modifier anyway.
>>47858102
It's really hard to beat a Shadowrun book in terms of poor organization. They've been mastering the art of scattering rules across a book for decades.
>>47866718
>>47852533
show elevation in the show/hide menu.
>>47879012
> Any OSR that uses either ability scores or modifiers instead of both? I would like just one or the other, it is dumb having both when you only ever use the modifier anyway.
True20 did it, but i'm not sure if it qualifies as OSR.
>>47879551
I'm quite certain it does.
What's a good LoTFP adventure that takes place in a village?
>>47881529
Scenic Dunnsmouth is pretty neat
>>47881529
FFS is great, I really recommend it!
>>47881529
God That Crawls is a pretty good one
>>47882459
I'm guessing you mean Fuck For Satan?
>>47873538
Hrrrrrm...
How about the other saves are mundane only. Int can substitute for any other save against magical.
Remove reaction modifer from cha. Only hireling morale. Conning/bartering only. Social interactions can get a bonus from any ability. Eg if you want to intimidate by way of showing off your muscles, you can roll with str.
Luck can sub for any save and allow rerolls of any check, so if you have a high luck you have overall better chance to succeed at anything.
I go with 4d6, drop lowest, down the line, swap one.
>>47850338
>friendly reminder to have someone on watch before camping in a dungeon.
never forget.
>>47885085
I think that's more a case of getting trapped than camping in the dungeon.
But that's good advice anyway. If you're deep in a megadungeon and need to rest, go to the nearest room hidden behind a secret door, jam or wizard lock yourselves in, and set a watch.
>>47875347
Most of the DCC stuff is about, well, crawling through dungeons. In a classic sort of way. People Of The Pit is dope.
Slave Pits Of The Undercity for dnd is also that.
>>47877908
For odd-numbered dice, the easiest way is to roll an even die one number higher and halve the max result.
So for a d5, you roll a d6, and a result of "6" indicates 3. That gives you a number from 1-5 which averages 3, just like a d5.
For dice between d12s and d20s, simply roll a d20 and subtract 10 from the result if it exceeds the size of the die you're rolling.
So for a d16, you'd take 1-16 at face value, while 17, 18, 19 and 20 would be 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. That gives you a number from 1-16 which averages 8.5, just like a d16.
>>47885568
The 7, 8, 9, 10 thing really unbalances the odds though. I'd say 17+ should get rerolled.
Are there any good point-crawl resources?
>>47871595
>>47871800
I have a search function on my end. Not sure if it's because I'm logged in, or because they are my files. I have no idea how you'd make a directory, short of manually typing out the contents of each folder -- which I don't have the time nor willpower to do.
>>47886699
>The 7, 8, 9, 10 thing really unbalances the odds though.
That only matters if you're rolling on a table or something. If you're doing damage or rolling to-hit, you should be fine.
Just read the West Marches blog post, and something struck me as odd:
"If you started with 3rd Edition or later, this may not seem like a big deal. Trust me, it was. Huge. It fundamentally transformed how D&D was played. As a GM, it meant I could set up the situation and then kick back and let the players decide how to tackle it. They didn’t have to ask me what they were allowed to do each round or hope I ruled in their favor.
Without this fundamental shift, West Marches would not have been possible. Or it would have been a much weaker shadow of itself. Players could never have felt that they were really in control of their own destiny if they had to play “mother may I” in every battle."
Does this really sound reasonable? Are the ways of having the fairness while having combat be more free-form?
>>47871479
Have some monsters go ninja and scale the walls of the keep.
Plant rumors and roll a d10 On a 1-4, it's true, 5-8 it's false and 9-0 it's partially true.
Have people in the keep give them side quests other than "go to the caves for X reason". Maybe one of the people suspect that someone is a thief/spy/other evil.
I'm not sure if I'm doing anything wrong, but my players keep getting offended when they storm into situations guns blazing and have a bad time. Apparently it's the GM's fault?
>>47888272
Tell us what happened in more detail, anon. Maybe the players just misunderstood the situation or game.
>>47888272
It is. Either it's miscommunication or what you want to run and what they want to play are two entirely different things.
>>47888272
> I'm not sure if I'm doing anything wrong, but my players keep getting offended when they storm into situations guns blazing and have a bad time. Apparently it's the GM's fault?
Since you are really bad at explaining things (judging by this post), I'm going to hazard a guess: yes. It's your fault.
Does anyone have that image for adding the S&W saving throw system to other OSR games?
>>47888444
>>47888496
>>47888527
Fair enough. I'll elaborate in a bit more detail then.
I pitched them the idea of running a small wilderness region, centered around a Fortress and multiple abandoned locales nearby. They are mostly modern gamers though, so I tried to stress that it'll actually be something where combat is discouraged, and the open nature of it may result in them ending up in a situation where they are way over their head.
Now, this is the spot that seems to have been problematic, as I didn't outright state that "way over their head" means that the circumstances would dictate the outcome and that they always had the choice of turning back or approaching the problem differently. Instead, it got interpreted by them as me being bad at designing balanced encounters which will result in them getting conveniently handheld through the situation until they best it.
That's exactly what they told me afterwards.
What I referred to in my original point was a specific line I heard, which went as follows:
"You're the Game Master! You should master the game, instead of just reacting."
The game itself was just very unlucky for them. They took the more dangerous option after being warned about it, and the dice weren't on their side at all. Dangers and traps were properly foreshadowed, there were no save or die effects.
Fighting without a plan while previously bursting in like action heroes and notifying a room full of creatures was bad enough, but dragging injured and dying and bleeding party members deeper into the dungeon "because there should be a place to rest where they can't see us" was not the best course of action, was it?
>>47888811
> I didn't outright state that "way over their head" means that the circumstances would dictate the outcome and that they always had the choice of turning back or approaching the problem differently. Instead, it got interpreted by them as me being bad at designing balanced encounters which will result in them getting conveniently handheld through the situation until they best it.
> That's exactly what they told me afterwards.
Well, there you have it. Talking to people (and making yourself understood) is important.
> "You're the Game Master! You should master the game, instead of just reacting."
Note to self: using Referee instead of DM/GM is important.
>>47888769
Would that be LotFP homerules for S&W-style saving throws?
>>47889026
>Would that be LotFP homerules for S&W-style saving throws?
I suppose so.
>>47888769
I've got this thing, which just shows you what S&W saving throws are. I'm not sure you really need anything else, do you?
>>47889177
>>47889252
Oh yeah, that's the thing I was looking for. Thank you!
>>47889275
This is also helpful, thank you!
What are you guys thoughts on skills in OSR?
Should there be a basic list, only thief skills or no skills at all ?
>>47889252
Dwarves and halflings gain +4 to saves vs. all magic. When using race-as-class (which S&W doesn't do), it makes sense to base Dwarf, Halfling and Elf saves on the Fighter progression.
Based on AD&D, Dwarves and Halflings should get +3 on saves vs. all magic and poison, while Elves should get a bonus vs. sleep and charm spells (they're supposed to be 90% resistant, but I'd probably just change that to a smaller, flat bonus... Half-Elves are 30% resistant).
Going by Basic, Dwarves and Halflings should maybe use the Paladin column and get a standard +2 bonus vs. poison and all magic. Elves should use the Fighter column and get a +2 bonus vs. spells.
>>47889519
No skills at all. Force the players to think about what they want to do rather than just looking at their character sheet and rolling the dice.
If thief skills must be a thing, stick to using them more like saving throws than skill checks.
>>47889522
There's also OD&D, which is a bit weird in how it handles things: Dwarves and Halflings simply ocunt as being four levels higher for the purpose of saving throws. This generally means a +2 or +3, I think, although the value fluctuates over levels.
>>47889519
What >>47889549 said
Though I'm ok with LotFP specialist skills. It isn't perfect, but inoffensive enough.
>>47889519
Something relatively simple, like this.
>>47889519
I like the LotFP way of handeling adventuring stuff with a 1 in 6 check (modified for stuff), although I'm not sure if you'd count that as a skill.
The reason I like using it is because I'm a fan of tracking turns in a dungeon; so for stuff that takes time and has a chance of failing / luring monsters with sound etc, I like being able to make a check, modified by how good characters are. If something is an immediate action and I'm not sure on the chance of it succeeding or failing, but it wouldn't take a ton of time or make a whole lot of noise or the like, a simple roll under relevant ability score will suffice.
>>47889519
I like skills, personally. But I don't think they should be too restrictive; ie) anyone should be able to try anything. But a character being better at certain things (lockpicking, languages, medicine etc) I do enjoy.
>>47890673
The skill-list im thinking of adding to our BFRPG is:
Athletics (Based on ones STR score)
Endurance (Based on ones CON score)
Acrobatics (Based on ones DEX score)
Knowledge (Based on ones INT score)
Interaction (Based on ones CHA score)
Perception
Horsemanship
Craftmanship
Thivery (Instead of the Thief Abilities)
Stealth (Instead of the Thief Abilities)
Survival
Beastmaster
Trapmaster (Instead of the Thief Abilities)
Medicine
Insight
Diplomacy
Decive
Intimidate
Preform
Where every race have a certain base in each skill and characters gains a number of skillpoints, depending on class, each level to distribute between his skills. Each skill point gives +1 in the skill. Maximum and minimum in skills are 3 and 18, where we will be using the roll under skill system. (We have removed / added wisdom to Intelligence because we felt it was unnessesary to have)
What are some good gonzo fantasy resources?
>>47891155
Gamma World, Mutant Future, Mutant Epoch, DCC Modules, Crawling Under a Broken Moon...
>>47891220
How about gonzo with little to none sci fi elements?
>>47887929
I read that at one point. It's something I find interesting, but not something I agree with. It's ultimately a clash of game design philosophy, specifically the merits of DM power. OSR has a freeform nature that's loved or hated. For people who like it, it makes things fast, dynamic and flexible. It does, however, require one trusts their DM and that the DM is good at their job. 3e was largely written as a response to people who looked at the freeform nature as a detriment. THey wanted restrictions on DM power. They looked at improv combat as "mother may I" fighting, and wanted charts and modifiers for everything. They disliked RP-based trap/door/etc-finding, so we get perception as a skill tax to avoid "pixel bitching," and so on.
The author is clearly in the latter camp. The thing is, I've played OSR stuff with a couple different groups. I like to think I'm a relatively good GM. My players have never had to ask permission to do anything or been under the impression that I was doing anything other than interpreting the dice rolls in an impartial fashion. "Mother may I" is an argument made when you don't trust your DM to be fair and impartial. If you have a good relationship with your DM, it's a non-issue.
To answer your question, you first have to assume that freeform combat is inherently unfair -- an assumption that I disagree with, personally. If you want to restrain the DM's role, though, you either need to go the 3e route and make exhaustive lists of modifiers to cover every combat situation or create some kind of stunt system to handle things that aren't default attack rolls.
>>47891402
DCC modules for sure.
>>47889519
As much as I like LotFP for a lot of things, I dislike how skill-focused it was and rumors I've heard about the next edition make it even more so.
I don't mind the thief having special abilities, but they shouldn't be looked at as "skills." Everyone in the group is by virtue of having class levels an adventurer. They should all be able to either auto-accomplish or have a decent chance to roll for adventurer type stuff. I want no skills at all, with the thief having special abilities. The fighter and thief can both be stealthy, but the thief has abilities that let them be stealthy when the fighter couldn't. Everyone can climb a wall, but the thief can climb a wall with no handholds.
The fact that the thief abilities are above and beyond the abilities of normal people is why it isn't necessarily a bad thing that they tend to start relatively low. They are bonus options on top of the same options everyone else has.
>>47891550
I never got the 'Mother may I' thing. Isn't everything about being a player like that? Boiling it down, as a player you either announce an action or ask a question, both requiring the DM's response.
Using 'Mother may I?' as a legitimate argument for or against anything makes no goddamn sense to me.
>>47891682
Like most of these arguments, it's based in someone's bad experience they had with bad DMing.
The hypothetical scenario being addressed is that you decide you want to do a thing you think is cool ("I'm going to dive down on them from the ledge!") and then the DM either says "No, you can't do that because reasons" or they let you do it, but only afterward announce that it's going to be a -10 penalty because they want to punish you for doing it. Either way, the idea is that the player is at the whim of the DM and that's somehow unfair. So the obvious solution is to make sure that every possible aspect of the game from combat maneuvers to encounter balance is precisely scaled according to very specific rules and requirements, so that when the DM steps outside of the tight cage you can scream "BY THE BOOK! RULES AS WRITTEN!" and reee them until they learn their place.
>>47838693
> How should a [...] look like
Be sure to pay better attention in English class next year amigo.
>>47891741
A bad DM is going to do that kind of shit regardless of the ruleset being used. Just need to combat that with good DMing advicethat will never get read by bad DMs anyways.
So guys, how do you organize your rules? Just play straight from whatever system you are using no house rules necessary, or do you have a weird Frankenstein OSR monster that you aren't sure you should be calling D&D? If the latter, what does it contain?
Is there a document that's just the bare-bones rules of old D&D in raw text with no more than basic tables in addition?
Preferably in a highly pasteable format.
>>47891878
2e AD&D to be exact
>>47891878
>>47891904
> 2e AD&D
For the record, if you say "old D&D" people are going to assume you actually mean OD&D or the original publication, which was effectively 6 editions earlier than 2e.
If you're wanting 2e though, go here:
http://www.purpleworm.org/rules/
It's basically the entire 2e book and most of the expansions done in HTML. It's not raw text, but it is pasteable.
>>47891876
Me and my group is using BFRPG as core with a little modification to numbers, DCC spellcasting system, home made skills that uses roll below (se >>47890829
), home made / DCC saving throws Fort/Ref/Will that uses roll below system too and lastly some AD&D 2e Feats/Speciality system where you start with a certain number of points that you uses to give your character some uniqe features like Weapon Expert, Berserker's Rage and other sub class feats.
I don't even know what it is any more but we atlest have fun playing it, this is the home made character sheet that we are using.
>>47889519
I'd prefer not to have skills because it's a snowball effect. First you add Detect Traps, and then you decide you need a Perception skill (which you then decide should be split into Sight and Hearing, because they're very different senses). Pretty soon you've got some kind of Persuasion skill and then you're right on track to adding Knowledges.
In general, skills are pointless rolling. The PCs either know a thing, or they don't. The PCs either can do a thing, or a they can't.
Ex. 1.) The PCs are exploring a dungeon when they come across a defaced mural. It's difficult to to tell whom was the subject, but the armies depicted suggest some kind of king or general - unfortunately, his face has been completely obscured by the damage.
The PCs decide this might be worth investigating later, and as none of them put "artist" in their RP background, they begin questioning their hirelings. As it turns out, one of them isn't too bad at it, and he makes a fair representation of the mural.
They can now take this reproduction to a historian who might be able to identify the subject of the mural, and the PCs may be able to discover something new about the dungeon, or the clues might lead them elsewhere.
2.) The PCs encounter a long narrow hallway with suspicious looking niches in the walls. Their feeble torchlight isn't enough to make out a whole lot of details unless they advance slowly. Someone mentions that they should have splurged on a lantern, and receives annoyed looks. The party very carefully advances, probing the floor with a ten foot pole and some water from a spare skin.
When they begin to reach the holes, they decide it might be best to plug them somehow, but they haven't brought anything with which to do this, and decide that it is best to leave them for now, and return with some clay or mortar.
Do either of these scenarios seem like they'd be more fun of it you just rolled a Knowledge (ancient history) or Detect Traps/Perception rolls?
>>47891987
Well, any edition of AD&D would be fine, but i realized what i'd done after the fact, hence the follow up.
Purple worm's great tbs, but I'm of the gumption to format my house rulings into a system (both so I can just hand that to my players, and just share it in general), but I don't want to have to type out all the basic rules that I do intend to keep, for no reason other than I'm lazy and that's hundreds of thousands of words I really don't want to have to type out.
>>47892155
>Detect Traps
That's an interesting thing, actually. I'm honestly not sure when that became a thief skill?
It wasn't that way in OD&D, and I thiiiink B/X also left it out, but AD&D has Find Traps right there. Weird.
Also, I guess Complete Warlock's Detect Poison works pretty similarly as well. Hmm.
Personally I'm way more into player skill on the player vs. character skill argument. The whole game's a puzzle, and even the new editions accept that puzzle-solving should probably be a player skill thing.
Do note that the puzzle should probably actually be solvable, though, and shouldn't have too many red herrings. Also, you shouldn't be anal about searching - nobody likes pixelhunts. That's not even a difficult puzzle, it's just an annoying one.
>>47892155
Welll the way me and my group is using skills is if you succeed you have a greater chance or a hunch and if you fail you have no idea or arent adequate enought to make it 100%.
If the party says they serach the walls for arrow traps they don't need to roll for perception because they are quite easy to find if you know what they are and are looking in the right place, but i would make them roll for detect traps to see if they found them all or maybe missed one.
>>47887929
Yeah, but 3.5 take four times as long to PLAN, so I think it balances out.5e is much better in this regard, and I think in general. Haven't played 4e.
Anyway, if I want to screw around with builds and intricately detailed stats, I'll play a computer RPG. If I want to dungeon crawl with my friends, I'll play OSR. If I want to be a medieval superhero, I'll play 5e. And if I want a more "narrative" experience, or something a bit heavier without being the "you have to learn to game the system to be viable" that 3.5/PF is, I'll just play something unrelated to D&D.
I haven't played 3.5/PF in years and see no benefit to it whatsoever, especially now that 5e exists.
As far as the comment you're quoting goes, it genuinely boggles my mind that anybody thinks 3.5 was a step forward in game design. Basically every flaw in OD&D was a wrinkle that came from being new to making RPGs (the fact that lower armor classes being better is counter-intuitive to many people, for example). In later editions, the flaws are baked in.
>>47892240
Totally. Puzzles should more or less be obvious. They should be a fun little diversion, not a show stopper that grinds the game to a halt.
Assuming the PCs bring enough light, they should generally be able to see whatever it is they're supposed to see to find a trap or discover a clue for a puzzle.
There is, in my mind, no reason to tell them "You see nothing!" until they guess that they're supposed to go interact with the dragon head on the north wall. Instead, it should be something along the lines of "The dragon's head on the north wall is missing a horn. It doesn't appear to be broken, and on further examination, there is a socket with a peg that would accept a horn shaped object with a hole in the bottom."
This gives them the information they need (assuming they declared they were searching the room - and thus spending the time to do so, and brought enough light) without needing to roll anything or waste game time with a pixel hunt.
And I want to stress this: Time should be the force they're fighting against. Rolling is pointless. If the PCs have enough time to do a thing, then it should happen. However, it does run the risk of wandering monster encounters and such, so they have to balance how thorough they are with how quickly they wish to explore the dungeon.
Also, light. Light is super important. If you can't see something, you might as well automatically fail to gain any useful information from it unless a character is already blind (and has been for many years) or a Thief.
>>47892308
I rarely use traps, but when I do, I make sure I understand how it works and in what way(s) it could be detected. And if the PCs come up with a creative solution that should work, I let them have it.
>>47892155
The first example I'm totally in agreement with, as that's actually how I tend to run knowledge things anyway. The second example runs into something that requires more thought.
Detect traps, perception, and similar ideas show up because of the peculiar nature of 'finding hidden things' in a medium that is entirely verbal. Without any kind of roll involved, how do you handle discovering hidden things?
Do you just make every possible hidden thing blindingly obvious? That takes the player skill out of finding it. If you describe every single room in incredible detail, you're going to take forever to resolve anything and risk losing your players in descriptions. If you only describe the interesting bits, then you are basically just broadcasting "Trap here!" or whatever.
>>47892527
Describe the interesting bits in every room. Don't put traps in every room. Make looking for traps take time.
Ran my first session of Delving Deeper on Friday. I loved it and my players loved it. Charm Person is ridiculous in old editions, and it really messed up my initial plan, but it was fun to have to actually adjust to my players
>>47892371
4E is fast as fuck on the DM side for improvising adventures and shit, although probably not quite as fast as just good old OSR random encounter lists - the latter doesn't need to care about balance as much, after all.
However, the actual combat - probably the reason you're playing 4E in the first place - takes a lot longer. I guess it can go pretty fastish if the players actually pay attention and plan when it's not their turn, but it's still slower than, say, any OSR game.
Although wizards are faster to play, I suppose.
Turn-by-turn it might be faster than 3E, but it's slower over the course of a combat encounter on account of 3E being rocket tag.
But OSR is still the fastest on account of the simplicity. And the group initiative.
>>47892527
>hidden things
It depends on what the hidden thing is. Secret doors and such already have a mechanic for finding them (1-in-6, 2-in-6 if an elf, etc.). LotFP just makes this Search (which I'm fine with).
>Blindingly obvious
It depends. Some of the things I think are blindingly obvious aren't. So, a Search roll in this case is fine and fair. What I don't like is when every single interaction in the game comes down to rolling dice.
As an aside, I once ran a puzzle where there was a stripe of different colors on a wall. It ranged from red to orange to yellow to green, to blue, to indigo, to violet.
There was a line on the floor in front of the wall, a socket in the ceiling, and a pedestal containing a sunrod, a prism, a mirror, and a magnifying glass.
My players got stuck on "This is stupid. Who brings a magnifying glass into a dungeon?" and ignored it.
>incredibly detailed descriptions
Actually, one should vary description based on the time the party spends searching. If they open a door, shine a light in, and move on, then they should only get a brief description.
It comes down to time management. They're burning turns (and lantern oil) to get that description.
>trap here!
It again, depends on the trap. I'm all for the Search skill. That's fine. It's necessary for the game to function. What I have an issue with is Perception being a thing, or Persuasion (which reduces things down to "roll a die for great success!"). However, at some point you do have describe things without the PCs rolling all the time, and for some traps, it's going to be pretty obvious that there's a trap.
But bypassing or disabling it is another matter.
I'm going to post something from the Primer to Old School Gaming so we talk about it.
>>47891831
English is my third language, тoвapищ.
>>47892837
>The Pit Trap (Old Style)
>GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”
>John the Roguish: “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.”
>GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something.
“Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the
party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]
>John the Roguish: “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.”
>GM: “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?”
>John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped
in a square?”
>GM: Mulls this over, because there’s a pit trap right where John is looking. But it’s dark,
so “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that
easily, anyway.” [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap,
since he’s looking in the right place for the right thing].
>John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to
pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal
some kind of pattern?”
>GM: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor
where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.”
>John the Roguish: “Like there’s a covered pit trap?”
>GM: “Could be.”
>John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”
>GM: “How?”
>John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?”
>GM: “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are
you going to jam?”
>John the Roguish: “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.”
>GM: “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”
