Useful links now here: http://pastebin.com/JtFH682qLink for the Trove: https://mega.co.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg
Last thread: >>43812906
>>43880117
>>43880128
So a couple threads ago I proposed a system where Warriors mark their kills and can use these to learn useful combat abilities, but I got some flak for it because it might make Warrior players seek fights which goes against some of OSRs core values.
In this case, how could one make an alternate system for learning techniques? Maybe after a fight you can narrate what you learned, roll int, and if you succeed get the skill?
>>43883129
>which goes against some of OSRs core values
That's bullshit. OSR itself has no core values except "go forth and adventure while getting into the role of your character!"
>>43883737
A better way to put it is that it works at cross-purposes with XP for gold, and the whole tactical mindset that OSR games involve.
Modern games place enemies as defeatable challenges to be faced and overcome; Old school games place enemies as potentially insurmountable obstacles that stand between you and the loot, and so they are to be evaded and avoided whenever possible.
Giving rewards to fighters for getting into fights, but not to anybody else is driving the party in two different directions, like an old cyberpunk system where the other players have to stop everything while the hacker character does his cyberspace bit, only replacing boredom with a significant chance of a TPK, and no reward for them.
>>43883129
For a simple method you could tie it to level increases.
Better yet, allow them to purchase special training with all the loot they acquire, so that X hundreds of gold pieces will allow them to train under Barglario the Master of the Seven Blade Stance to learn his technique. This works better in the fiction, too, since people don't just punch a bunch of rats and suddenly know kung fu, they have to either go away and spend decades devising a system of techniques or find someone who's done that already and train with them.
>>43884335
I like the idea of special training techniques, but that seems a bit excessively needy for things like increased damage while weilding Axes.
Also I kind of wanted to make Monks a class in this game, so that may be really similar to how they learn techniques.
>>43884531
You could always just hand 'em out when it feels appropriate.
"This guy uses an axe all the time, and now he's hit level 2" means hand him the axe damage thing.
I generally prefer to make things like that explicit in the rules so players know exactly how and when they'll get them, but nothing says that you have to do that.
>>43883129
>which goes against some of OSRs core values.
The only thing that goes against the "OSR values" is the tedious bookkeeping.
I haven't played OSR games, but I have a question. If combat should be avoided, why play as a fighting man? Wouldn't it be boring to not do the thing your class was made for?
>>43885592
Just because you're good at fighting doesn't mean you go about looking for a fight. As a fighter, you have the best odds of surviving when the shit hits the fan, but you still want to hold that off as long as possible.
Likewise a wizard might have a spell that could save everyone, but he's only got one. You want to save that up for when you REALLY need it.
Ideally, the fighting man doesn't have to fight and the magic user doesn't have to magic. They just walk in, pick up a ton of loot, and carry it out, then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
>>43883129
I think the players should just be able to do whatever techniques they think of by default, but be better at doing them as they gain experience. What you're suggesting is essentially adding feats to OSR, which just turns it into modern D&D.
>>43885592
>>43885643
This is pretty much it, but also in Basic balance is set for about 6-9 characters. This means that you might be managing more than one character at a time depending on the size of your group.
>>43885592
You miss the point. Sometimes the best solution IS violence, when you know your fighting men can kick the enemy's ass. The point of GP=XP is that, if you get XP from killing monsters, it turns everything into a video game with opposite logic. You should never be positively incentivized to seek needless violence. Only when it's sensible. And you can't grind against 10,000 kobolds to get to level 15. You have to actually seek lost treasure, which is only found by adventuring.
>>43886111
I don't know, there's a lot more to modern D&D than just some feats.
As long as the feats are just a handy little bonus or else some unique thing that's really special, and not "you must have X feats to not suck" I don't think there's any problem with it.
>>43886111
While I don't want to add feats or anything, having a warrior who specializes in brutal knife fighting, or the tank, or the weapon switching gladiator/showboater guy, or a knight with big two handed sword are all archetypes that could be represented mechanically.
>>43883129
Whitehack has a somewhat similar system where one of it's classes can absorb monster abilities after killing them, it can only have some of them at a time, and only holds onto them temporarily, might want to take a look at that
>>43883129
http://goblinpunch.blogspot.mx/2015/01/weapon-mastery.html
Could always give fighters a skill die like specialists/thieves have that they can allocate points to for certain things.
In the game I'm working on, fighters gain "valor" as they level. For each chapter / act of the adventure (usually the period from the end of one battle to the end of the next one, but those who hate the meta-gaminess of that could just define a roughly equivalent period of time), a fighter of level X can spend Y points of valor, represented by poker chips. Used in combat, this allows them to make two attacks in a round. A point of valor can also be used to perform an act of heroism--usually something to do with great strength, fortitude or bravery. In these cases, the fighter's level is added to his skill check or possibly saving throw. So he can lift a boulder, rend apart solid iron bars, hold his breath for twenty minutes, etc.
>>43886773
Ahh yes, this blogpost was the impetus of me trying to come up with the system. The problem though is that it reflects the same problem; Fighters are now somewhat more driven to fight instead of run and be smart because they get stronger doing it.
However at the same time an argument could be made that every class has some version of this. Wizards could do stupid things to get a scroll or new spell, Clerics will venture to convert someone to their religion or find an artifact even if it is stupid, Thieves may go off alone for treasure, etc.
You could argue that all of these things give classes side objectives. Maybe even giving them all reward statues would balance them out.
>>43880117
>Running Tower of the Stargazer
>Players investigate the cells in the dungeon
>Brain slug attacks, burrows into Magic User's ear
>He tries to burn it out with a torch, ends up just searing his ear off
>Players brainstorm how to get it out
>Other magic user goes looks over her spell list, points out that magic missile always hits as long as it has an unobstructed path to its target
>They decide it's their best shot
>She stuffs her finger in her ear and fires
>Chunks of brain slug and the guy's ear canal come oozing out
>Magic user is now brain slug free at the cost of permanent hearing loss in one ear
Highlight of the session
I think Tower of the Stargazer is a subpar module because basically everything in it just punishes the players for interacting with it. It's supposed to be an introductory adventure but I think it sets a bad precedent. It's one thing to teach your players to be cautious, but if touching anything ever always hurts them they're just going to ignore everything you put in front of them, making them really hard to DM for
>>43887351
*his ear, shit
>>43887351
>but if touching anything ever always hurts them they're just going to ignore everything you put in front of them, making them really hard to DM for
Just dangle the carrot a bit lower, or make it a bit shinier.
>>43886212
But GP=XP coexists with XP for murder, it doesn't replace it.
>>43887432
Yes, it does. XP is the same and you get much more from GP.
>>43888000
Mentzer Basic, OD&D, and AD&D all say that you should give XP for monsters as well as for gold. OD&D has some bullshit formula, but the other two have tables for XP based on the monster's HD.
>>43888027
Reading comprehension. Turn it on.
I'm talking about Gold giving more XP than the Killing. Also, (generally) being less dangerous than actually fighting monsters.
>>43888177
>Reading comprehension. Turn it on.
Same to you.
>>43886212
>if you get XP from killing monsters, it turns everything into a video game with opposite logic.
makes it sound like you don't get XP from monsters, which you do.
And I'm saying that XP for GP doesn't replace XP for murder, it augments it.
>>43880117
Last night I ran my players through DCC#67
They were not ready for old-school, they actually tried tofight the kraken for fucks sake!
They made it all that way with only 4 deaths, were going to trounce the entire rest of it, and instead were wiped out in three turns flat.
>>43885592
Combat in OSR games is never boring, since it's hilariously lethal, and the times you fail to avoid it you'll never regret playing a Fighter.
That said, it's a free choice, you could just play something else if you prefer.
I made this 2e Character Sheet for my group, what do you think of it?
I'm mostly concerned about how easy to read and reference it will be
>>43888945
My all-time favourite one is this, simply for how much shit it's got on there. See if it has anything you think you might need.
>>43888188
>>if you get XP from killing monsters, it turns everything into a video game with opposite logic.
>makes it sound like you don't get XP from monsters, which you do.
There's a reason that one of the most common and uncontroversial Basic houserules is removing monster XP, and it's not just the fiddly bookkeeping.
>>43889129
Jesus, six pages?
>>43885446
That character sheet is super sexy.
>>43890909
I've got your back, compay.I'm not sure this is complete; it's missing some obvious stuff, but at the same time, would he have drawn every last race/class combination?
>>43891210
I don't even OSR, but those are amazing.
>>43888177
But the monsters are sitting on top of the Gold.
I'm so confused.
>>43888177
Yeah. XP for GP refers to the fact that you level by finding treasure, and that the Kobold slaughters give negligible amounts of xp
>>43891876
For reference: in Moldvay basic, gp=xp makes up for 75% or so of your total experience per dungeon level. (Most of that is from jewelry.)
In OD&D, it ranges from 70% to NINETY PERCENT depending on the dungeon level. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greyhawk tables give even less, what with the change to monster XP, but I haven't seen the math on those.
Incidentally, if you have a dungeon with 50 rooms/level in OD&D then a party of four will level up after each level cleared. Sure is a freaky coincidence. (And it IS a coincidence - the assumed party was closer to double-digits.)
>>43891489
Yes, sometimes you'll have to kill monsters, (though if you can trick them into leaving the gold unguarded so much the better) but killing monsters is dangerous and gives you just shy of jack squat for XP, so you don't do it unless you have to.
>>43891489
>But the monsters are sitting on top of the Gold.
Not really. There are many monsters without any treasure (outside of their lair, for example; some don't have any gold at all). Gold-oriented parties would avoid those to conserve resources, while murder-oriented will fight for XP.
Moreover, gold-oriented parties will attempt to avoid direct confrontation even if monsters are sitting on top of the gold. It's not like there are no ways to distract or sneak past or employ some tactic that does not involve being on the wrong side of the ogre's club.
>>43892266
>Copyright 2014 DiTerlizzi
What game is this from?
>>43887351
Wow. Show goes on.
>>43892550
No game. He just drew some DnD stuff.
People have suggested running Keep on the Borderland to me as a first module, but I've had a hard time getting into it.
It just feels bland, a ham handed npc hub and then some burrows with segmented monsters. It doesn't strike me as part of this osr mythology even though it absolutely is, so, does anyone wanna sell me on Keep on the Borderland?
>>43892656
So he added the monster entry himself as part of the art?
>>43892770
You are having an acute case of Storytelling. Try thinking outside of the box. The real objective is toorganize the monsters and loot the Keep.
Also, I don't really understand what you mean by "mythology". Keep is simply "the first proper introductory adventure". Horror on the Hill is, probably, better.
>>43892845
Ah. I thought you thought it was some new game.
That's OD&D, IIRC. At least 400 goblins strongly suggest it.
After appreciating the OSR for it's ideas and enthusiasm, I finally started preparing a game with a retroclone: LotFP.
I have a couple of questions I'd like to share with /osrg/, since I come from a Storyteller system background and my experience with D&D is heavy on the story side:
1) After reading the OSR premier, I get that skills are sort of restraining and aren't really part of the OSR ethos. But LotFP has this whole d6 thing going on for task resolution, and it leaves me wondering how to make this skill mechanic with direct player-input. Removing it means doing away with the Specialist, and I don't want that. What do you do with this issue?
2) Do you have sources for trapbuilding? I know there's the Traps guide done by Courtney Campbell (and Grimtooth's books, but they are a little over the top on the deadly side for me). Is there anything else that I should read to do interesting/fun traps?
3) My players are green and most probably will tend to make epic, larger than life characters more inspired on LotR than Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
Any ideas on how to tug them slightly torwards a more... Appendix N kind of characters?
>>43892925
>Ah. I thought you thought it was some new game.
>That's OD&D, IIRC. At least 400 goblins strongly suggest it.
What I'm after specifically is: is there a version of OD&D or whatever it is available to buy or download with brand new DiTerlizzi art? Or is that just a one-off mockup he did?
>>43892845
Probably.
>>43892961
>is there a version of OD&D or whatever it is available to buy or download with brand new DiTerlizzi art?
No.
He made this, though:
http://www.amazon.com/Realms-The-Roleplaying-Tony-DiTerlizzi/dp/161655732X?tag=duckduckgo-ffcm-20
>>43892955
>LotFP has this whole d6 thing going on for task resolution, and it leaves me wondering how to make this skill mechanic with direct player-input. Removing it means doing away with the Specialist, and I don't want that. What do you do with this issue?
That's for the thief skills specifically. You don't have to use it for anything else. You CAN use it to determine whether something works or not, IF you want to because a bit of chance makes sense or you just can't decide whether it ought to work.
That being said this is one point where LotFP doesn't match up perfectly with the Primer ethos (which I'm not sure was ever Raggi's ambition anyway). The Thief is a problem for many referees, and people handle it in various different ways.
>Do you have sources for trapbuilding?
Sorry, not offhand. I'd browse some old modules and the various OSR blogs if I were you.
>Any ideas on how to tug them slightly torwards a more... Appendix N kind of characters?
Explain the setting to them? Or else they'll probably get it anyway after Arogarn and Legolar have their guts spilled by a goblin's knife as reward for their heroic charge.
>>43893157
>You CAN use it to determine whether something works or not, IF you want to because a bit of chance makes sense or you just can't decide whether it ought to work.
I was thinking about that sort of resolution mechanic too: describe your actions, if your method is reasonably adequate to do what yoiu want (you describe looking the place the secret door is, you don't put your fingers on the trigger of a trap during disarming, etc), it's done. Otherwise, if your description is on the general side (you say you "search the room for secret doors" or "disarm the trap"), then you get the roll.
In any case, if you fail, there's always the saving throw.
>Explain the setting to them?
Fair enough. I was thinking in ways to help them get in the mindspace of those settings without saying "read <book> or see <movie> to actually play in my table" and acting like an elitist prick.
>>43892955
> OSR ethos
OSR Primer is useful for explaining the basics, but (just like any other personal opinion) it's not some holy scripture everyone agreed on.
I.e. you will not be keelhauled or forced to walk the plank for disobeying the Holy Scripture of OSR(not promises, though; there are some opinionated people out there).
>>43886540
>>43886580
The reason this doesn't exist in OSR is because getting feat bonuses related to certain builds locks you in to only ever doing that. If you get a bonus to damage with knives, you will be underwhelmed every time you get an axe as treasure, and you'll only ever ever ever use knives. Furthermore, if you don't balance your monsters around the added bonuses, then they will be overpowered. But if you do, then people who don't specialize will be underpowered, forcing every character to specialize or suck, which is exactly what you see in all post-3.x editions of D&D and related clones.
There's also no reason to represent specialization and feats mechanically, unless it's more convenient and makes the game flow better. In my experience, the opposite is true, by far. Extra "build" options just slow the game down and confuse new players who just want to do things as they describe them, without referencing a rule.
That said, some special bonuses could be used without ruining the game. But they really ought to be minimized and carefully chosen to avoid rules bloat and system mastery.
>>43893432
Not only do I second what you wrote, but your pic is even more spot on. That's the key to me. Once you understand what the rule is for and what it's meant to achieve, do what the fuck ever. (Just make sure you *do* understand first. A lot of guys we get in here wanting to change the rules give the impression of having no clue what they're for in the first place)
>>43893430
>I was thinking in ways to help them get in the mindspace of those settings without saying "read <book> or see <movie> to actually play in my table" and acting like an elitist prick.
That's absolutely fair and I wouldn't do that either, just tell them it's not the kind of game where you can typically get away with Big Damn Heroing and they shouldn't expect that, it's more like selfish, clever rogues trying to make a comfortable living off the big score -- a heist movie with swords and spells.
>>43893477
Yep, this. Weapon specialization's a typical example of "great on paper, shit in play".
>>43893477
>>43893548
I, personally, choose to encourage my players to invent their own fighting techniques and maneuvers by describing their actions, and then as they gain levels, let them gain bonuses to doing these actions if they frequently repeat them in different scenarios. But I make sure to keep the bonuses small enough not to throw off the balance of the whole game and make it all about just doing THOSE things.
>>43893432
>>43893481
I'm absolutely aware that I'm not joining the cult of the Most Correct Way of Elfgaming, so don't worry.
Since I've never run dungeoncrawls, I'm following the spirit of the rule to see what's helpful and what not, so mostly I'm trying to get in the spirit of the game before removing stuff.
>>43893899
>I'm not joining the cult of the Most Correct Way of Elfgaming
You should, though, Dave brought cookies.
>>43893899
>Cult of the Most Correct Way of Elfgaming
Starting an OSR club with this name at my FLGS now.
>>43893603
This feels like really organic way to do it
>>43892925
I meant the mythology of dnd as a phenomenon.
>>43891210
Glorious.
>>43891210
>Dat half orc
Damn, I never would have imagined a half anything looking so monsterous. At least their reputation is deserved if they look like that.
So I've been thinking of running a OSR game recently but I want some feedback on the adventures/dungeons I have planned.
I don't like using written stuff because anyone could have read them. (Though probably not, its also easier to tweak them to my liking if I made it, you get the idea).
Currently my ideas are;
>House of Tigers.
Bunch of captured, captive tigers are just chilling in this zoo kept by the Emperor of X and Y nation. The truth is that one of them is a God and the emperor wants to skin it and fuck his wife on its pelt so she will give birth to a demigod, which he can then raise to be a powerful warlord to finally finish off his nation's rivals. (this is a secret, most assume they are all normal tigers, and the PCs are only told enough that there is a special tiger they need to help find)
Most of the Tigers are normal but one of them is inhumanely intelligent and magical. The idea is that the PCs are in this place and the humans there are friendly, they are workers or helpers or priests. Maybe even some druidic style protesters. Que the fun when the tigers get released and all those funny little NPCs end up as the dead extras in a horror movie.
The PCs could possibly try to find out which tiger is the special one, or help it escape, or help the tiger get revenge and kill its captors since it can probably talk telepathically or something.
>The Scripted Sanctum
Powerful Wizard tome is found (perhaps as a reward for a first adventure). Whenever the book is opened it imposes the contents onto the surrounding rooms, creating walls and passages colored like dusty paper. Monsters can also appear here but you can 'see magic' if you can 'read magic', since everything is actually made by tiny words circling around a lot.
Those are the only two ideas I have for now; any others?
>>43898455
Sounds like you've got a couple of LotFP modules in the works there.
>>43898795
Is that a good thing or bad thing?
Also, I really like the idea of raiding a ruined city as a dungeon, but instead of being old it could be dungeon during the middle of a war on the city, so your group is trying to get money or something but may not even be a part of the big army.
I read somewhere (might have been here) that LotFP requires the referee to create the weird monsters that are an integral part of the metal feel of the game. I'm new to tabletop games but I'm planning on running a campaign in the near future. Any advice on making convincing monsters and how to stat them?
>>43898455
>House of Tigers.
I like this, it's weird and crazy and fantastic, and would make for a great adventure.
I'm not sure how the Scripted Sanctum works, does it remake your surroundings or just color your view of them?
>>43899703
>I read somewhere
My advice is to read LotFP, and then probably a few modules afterwards.
>>43899703
Check out the referee book on advice for that.
>>43899703
Yeah, if you're new I wouldn't start off with LotFP, for that exact reason. It's got some of these really newbie-unfriendly traits, I think Moldvay/Cook or Labyrinth Lord would be better for you. Or if you've got your heart set on LotFP, at least look through the monster section in Labyrinth Lord until you feel like you've got a grasp of the basics of monster types and power levels.
>>43891210
I just compiled that from the images I've found. I dont think he ever meant it to be a complete set.
>>43899758
I would say it both recolors and remakes your surrondings. It adds new rooms and corridors, but if the book is closed while your in a created zone you'll be trapped.
While extremely cliche, the book could be a prison. To be less cliche, make the sanctum actually a nice place to hold up with good materials and rooms for magic users (enough to give a bonus to magic research rolls) but you have to conquer the book first.
>>43903985
I was gonna bump the thread too, but by asking,
Who is hyped as fuck for the zine? I want to see these editors skills.
>>43904025
Looking forward to it. Hope some anons contributed some interesting material besides tables of weapon stats.
>>43904025
Can't wait! Will it be released tomorrow, you think?
So I'm trying to fluff up Rangers as a basic style class.
What sort of cool mechanics can I give them to make them stand out and interesting? I'm not a fan of their spellcasting but some more esoteric abilities are fine, like talking to animals.
>>43905696
--pathfinder / find impossible shortcuts
--walk through dense underbrush unimpeded, and leave no trace of their passage
--gain an advantage for uneven terrain
--gain an advantage when attacking or interacting with animals
--find and use medicinal herbs
--fashion shit like a lean-to, boat, etc.
--snares and simple traps
--stealth and camouflage
--tracking
--wilderness survival (hunt, fish, find food and water, etc.)
--predict weather
--unerring sense of direction or navigate by stars, tree moss, wind patterns, etc.
--endurance, exerting self for very extended periods without sleep
--withstand the elements
--outdoor skills like climbing and swimming
--fast run
--bow stuff
--dual wielding
>>43900640
Thanks for putting it together, Anon!
So how about them critical strikes? How do you handle them?
I really like to add in ways to make Fighters better, so maybe in my system I might rule that they get to add their Fighter level to their max damage on a critical hit. It's a moderately useful bonus, though it doesn't come up that often.
>>43905696
Know about animal behavior, including monstrous animals such as owlbears and rust monsters. This includes what attracts/frightens/calms/enrages them.
>>43907093
>So how about them critical strikes? How do you handle them?
I don't use them. They're not in Basic.
>>43907093
Critical hits are a bit strange. They've got that "wow" factor going for them, sure - the players got lucky, so they get a big bonus and that makes them happy.
On the other hand, they also unbalance the math ever-so-slightly if you just dump them into a game that lacks them.
On the other other hand, Team Monster gets a lot more attack rolls than Team Hero. Also, and this depends on your playstyle, but Team Hero might be expected to survive longer than Team Monster. (i.e. the "spellcasting NPC doesn't really have a reason NOT to nova since they'll most likely disappear from the game after combat" problem.)
If you're playing as dirt farmers or just generally in the low-level high-lethality zone, it's probably fine since the players aren't expected to have much attachment to their characters. But when you do something like, say, fighting OD&D's 40-400 goblins with name-level player characters...
Also, depending on what system you're using +level to damage could be either negligible or literally the biggest modifier to damage in the game. What system are you basing your games on?
>>43899703
Try reading the referee guide and skimming a couple of LotFP adventures. That should jumpstart your imagination.
If you're still stumped, check Teratic Tome.
Does anyone have the .pdf of the Judge's Guild Ref Screen? I have a physical copy of the Ready Ref Sheets, but I'd like to have something with THAC tables and response rolls and such for convenience's sake, since I'm gonna be dealing with players with no patience for me leafing through the book.
>>43899703
>Any advice on making convincing monsters and how to stat them?
You can take monsters from other OSR games without much trouble (granted, you'll probably have to flip AC).
>>43905696
>>43906571
Finding rare herbs. Granted, you'll have to make a few pages worth of stuff (not unlike spells).
What stuff do you think needs to go in a GM's book? So far I've got
>some stuff talking about the basic process of running the game, use of randomness and so on.
>some stuff on running adventures exploring caves; including a method of randomly generating cave systems, discussion on the various hazards found underground, and examples of the sorts of dangers that might be found.
>some stuff on running wilderness exploration; including random hex map generation, systems for populating hex contents, random encounters, and various terrain hazards.
>stats for animals and monsters, including options for customizing them
>stats for various sample NPCs, and methods for randomly generating tribes and specific NPCs
>rules for creating undead creatures
I'm working on some stuff on wider campaign-spanning events (stuff like natural disasters, plagues, tribes going to war, and so on). Other than that, what should go in there?
>>43909384
Grid-less combat system?
Also, random tables for tribes:
- description
- unusual quirks
- current events
>>43909384
Dinosaurs?
>>43908531
>Granted, you'll have to make a few pages worth of stuff (not unlike spells).
Not necessarily. If you wanted to keep it short and sweet, you can have a short list of maybe 6 things the ranger could do with herbs.
--aid healing
--counteract poison
--increase stamina and counteract sleep deprivation
--numb / counteract pain
--sedative
--poison
And so forth.
>>43910345
> effects, not specific herbs
... Yeah. I've been overthinking it (separate table for each terrain, etc.).
Moreover, when party travels through the wilderness, ranger should be collecting usable stuff by default. Then, probably, he'll retroactively roll to see if he has the necessary herbs for desired effect. Or something like this.
I'll have to think about it some more.
Thanks, anon.
Tell me /osr/ are there any systems that have XP as something that can be lost?
Pretty much every system has XP only going up and up and up. But I imagine some tasks like trying to grind and kill 100 goblins would end up with a net loss of XP or less XP for each goblin as thev event unfolded.
>>43911468
there are loads.This is what level drain is.
>>43911565
Apologies then, I didn't even know that was the name for it.
>>43880117
Has anyone made a 5e retroclone? If not, does anyone want to see a 5e retroclone?
>>43907904
>On the other other hand, Team Monster gets a lot more attack rolls than Team Hero.
This is why Gygax never included crits. They benefit the enemies dramatically more than they benefit the players.
>>43912374
That and he felt they were a redundant mechanic with the already-random damage roll. Rolling max damage for your weapon IS a crit!
>>43880117
So I wanted to write a short system-neutral modular supplement that introduces creature types a la 5e. Does anyone have advice before I write my first draft?
>>43912206
>5e retroclone
Not that I know of.
> does anyone want to see a 5e retroclone?
What for? WotC hadn't moved on to 6e yet.
Besides, I don't remember any particularly interesting things in 5e (well, except skills/saving throws) that would warrant it.
>>43913003
> supplement that introduces creature types a la 5e
What's so special about 5e creture types?
Explaining the reason why would anyone be interested in your supplement is important.
So how often should I give players non-class or level based bonuses? Like when they drink an ancient potion or receive a Godling's blessing and get a +1 bonus to a stat permanently.
I know the attitude of a lot of OSR stuff is 'just dew it' but that's really not helpful.
>>43914989
Hm. The trouble is, I don't think there IS better advice than "just go hog wild, they're gonna die anyway". Part of the pleasure of OSR is that you don't have to overthink shit, you can just throw it out and see if it sticks.
>>43914989
> should
*twitch*
>that's really not helpful
That's because there is nothing to help with.
Also, I wouldn't recommend changing stats. Too much hassle for little gain. Potions "5% chance to transform into dragon" (95% - into dead body) are much more interesting.
>>43914989
>>43915209
Oh yeah, one other thing: stats don't actually matter frightfully much, so just pour that shit on. Players'll be happy and there isn't much lost.
>>43914580
>What's so special about 5e creture types?
>Explaining the reason why would anyone be interested in your supplement is important.
It's based on the Rules Cyclopedia. All games use monster tags informally. I wanted to provide a framework for GMs to formalize them for the purposes of effects that would be expected to interact with them while remaining flexible.
>>43915337
Ah. Well, then don't forget to check LotFP Referee book. There is something along those lines already.
>>43915547
Thanks, that looks very helpful.
So I've been giving this matter some thought and I came up with something.
This might be a little bit too weird/meta for some, but I'd love some feedback.
Basically, Druids/Rangers get to pick an animal at level 1. This animal is more of a class of animals, like dogs or cats instead of specific breeds. Fish would cover everything besides Sharks, whales, and dolphins, etc.
Essentially you pick an animal, like a Fox. Your character would be called 'X the Fox'. Now, you can activate that power to either do something fox like with a bonus, or talk to or summon a fox.
As you go up in level, you'd probably advance your fighting skills and then your magic skills, or maybe flip flop between or the player can choose. As a Ranger advances in level they can start adding more animal to their sheet plus a daily use for them. Your Ranger may have Bear, Fox, and Eagle for their abilities. These could be used for self buffs, talking, etc.
Personally I think it would really hammer home the nature magic angle.
>>43914989
A thread or two ago, someone mentioned the Planet Algol play reports. Those guys were playing AD&D as it seems, but my suggestion is you check it out too, just to see how much crazy shit you can get away with.
planetalgol blogspot c o m, and fuck you, spam filter.
What's the best Module/Adventure to run for some low level (1-4) players? I'll more than likely be using a stripped down D&D 2e or DCC.
I've downloaded a ton, including (1e, 2e, DCC, Advanced Adventures) but want input from people who've actually played these.
I've got a feeling for this game that pulpier will be better.
>>43918521
Tell me what you want and I'll help you make something up.
Here's a question for the group: How do you guys deal with monsters and shit of vastly different scale? I'm not talking about stuff like centaurs and what 3.5pf would consider "large", more "medium" to "colossal" and larger.
I know Machinations of the Space Princess has some rules for scaling, IIRC RuneQuest has a Size stat, and as mentioned later editions of D&D have size categories. I'm just curious to see how you would handle your group of plucky adventurers attempting to deal with monsters and vehicles vastly larger (or smaller!) than they.
>>43910226
Dinosaurs?
>>43909384
I'd love to see a small section on rafts and boats. Fighting a Megalodon with spears from a raft that's probably gonna capsize sounds metal as fuck.
>>43922357
For anything really significantly huge, I would play them more as a set piece then anything else.
I mean honestly if you are fighting something the size of a building and it attacks you, you get a saving throw and if you fail you probably just die.
If anything is really small, the same applies in reverse. The PC's could just step on it unless it was super fast and deadly like a mosquito with cyanide injection, which could actually work pretty well as a FUCK YOU enemy.
So I've seen a few blogs and stuff thus far who like to have characters roll on a table to determine their level up bonuses.
How do you feel about this? Do you think it makes sense or is cool? Or do you prefer more traditional set leveling?
>>43891210
Everyone DiTerlizzi made is on his website. But I'm pretty sure last time I posted them, Troveguy compiled them into this PDF.
>>43907093
In my game, multiple damage dice for a single attack never happens except in the most extreme of circumstances. Critical hits give maximum damage. They don't multiply it or add a bonus they just give you the highest roll you could get, negating the chance that your two handed sword is going to nick someone for 1 hp. There is a higher chance for critical hits if you have exceptionally high Intelligence. You can train to have a higher chance of critical hits as an assassin.
I don't let monsters get criticals, generally speaking, because they have their own unique advantages as monsters and critical strikes is needless bookkeeping when I can describe any high damage hit as being a critical strike.
I'm really not a fan of how monster hit dice is d8.
Would it be too gamebreaking to switch it to a d6 instead? I am also lowering player's health a bit to compensate for this, I should mention.
>>43909384
Optional modular subsystems governing novel events and tasks likely to come up in the setting.
>taming and riding a dino
>the weather
>crafting weapons and shelter from scratch in the woods
>the many delicate intricacies of making a fire from natural materials
>exotic diseases
>trophies, totems, fetishes, and warpaint
>primitive drugs, medicine
The idea being to add a toolkit for a DM to build off of, or just employ directly.
>>43914989
When they earn it by successful adventure. This is a silly question because it's obvious to any DM when the players have earned a victory. You don't need a formula to tell you when it's time to reward your players, one doesn't exist in OSR and it's for the best, because relying on it would be a bad idea.
You put danger in front of the reward. If they overcome the danger, then they get it. It's that easy. You could put danger+treasure fucking everywhere and it wouldn't throw off game balance because they have to actually win to get the reward each time.
>>43916116
This is called totemism, and it's the root of a lot of the post-D&D "druids = nature stuff" that has become ubiquitous. It's a good idea and helps set totemists apart from other kinds of magic-users (who are usually alchemists or thaumaturgists, or some combination of both).
>>43922357
Really really huge monsters shouldn't follow a standardized table because they obviously would have some rules about climbing on them and maiming them based on their unique anatomy, so you have to handle it case by case.
Really really tiny monsters can just get a saving throw to avoid getting hit.
If you want to let players play as a fairy or something a bit smaller than a hobbit, you could give them a bonus saving throw to avoid all attacks from larger creatures, and of course penalize their hit points and carrying capacity, maybe even halving them or worse.
Kinda larger races, like playing a bugbear or ogre or something, probably don't need an extra table to reference just to figure out their defenses and such. I don't see why you couldn't just use the normal rules, and adjust their Strength and Dexterity to reflect their size.
Giant races are probably a bad idea from a balance and practicality perspective.
>>43922838
Sounds like Mordheim.
Besides the whole "it's fun to roll dice" factor, it might be useful if you want to add a few feats to your game but want to avoid the system mastery problems. Just need to be careful not to make the game revolve around them. Make the bonuses really weak (but cosmetically cool), or very situational.
>>43923798
What's wrong with it exactly? Just the fact that d8's aren't as common as d6's or you have something special against the number 8?
Changing health across the board will obviously be fine if you also change damage. It's just scaling the numbers down it doesn't actually change anything proportionally speaking. If you decrease all average hit points but keep damage the same, then combat becomes even more lethal, for both the players and the monsters. I think this would just serve to strengthen the players' already existing incentive to avoid random combat, as well as make combat encounters shorter.
>>43924271
I just think its kind of dumb to use a d8. d6 is what an 'average' sized weapon deals, and shitty little 1 HD creatures like goblins should only be able to take one of those, so it doesn't make sense to me they get a d8 for health. I just feel like lowering monster health by that little bit would be more fair to the player, and by increasing player starting health a bunch but decreasing what they get over time would make the game smoother, more realistic, and better balanced as a result. Less obnoxious level scaling, that's for sure.
>>43924307
Original D&D uses d6s for all hit dice, which is honestly superior, because it means that a +1 constitution modifier is just as valuable to somebody with a strong hit die progression. Meanwhile +1 hit point per die makes a much bigger difference on a d4 than a d8 or d10. You might want to look at Swords & Wizardry White Box if converting all hit dice to d6s sounds appealing.
>>43925284
>All those classes
What is that from?
>>43924307
>increasing player starting health a bunch but decreasing what they get over time would make the game smoother, more realistic, and better balanced as a result.
Here's a progression along the lines of >>43925284 that I was working on to do precisely that. The difference between 1st and 9th level hit points is something along the lines of 3x rather than 9x. (Of course, just doing maximum hit points at first level takes that 9x down to 5.67x, and doing double hit points at 1st level instead takes it to 5x.)
>>43925341
Those are just level titles for magic-users in original D&D. As in, a 1st level magic-user is a medium, a 2nd level magic-user is a seer, etc.
>>43925350
I should say that the intent with that progression was to roll hit points from scratch every time you gain a level, but to keep your old total if it ends up being higher. Still, you could do it the now standard way of only rolling the hit die you added when you gained a level. In the case of moving from, say, a 2+2 to a 3, I'd rule that the new hit die you're rolling (the one that's replacing the +2) could not equal less than 2, so that you never actually lose hit points.
So I really wanted to give players a 'set HP' pool at level 1.
Something like Con + Class Bonus + Race bonus as described earlier.
However I want to know what numbers would be good and balanced for a roughly level 1 and above character that don't grow in Health Points much except for fighters. While the character will be tougher at level 1 the scaling will be more realistic and less obnoxious and gamey.
Plus help me figure what numbers would be good. What numbers would add on to con well and keep with the rough estimate damage of d6?
I'm looking to borrow OSR elements for another game. Is there any place/system I should look in particular for actual hexcrawl/traveling rules? A particularly detailed or well done system for it?
>>43926069
Are you gonna redo all the damage spells and stuff like breath weapons too? Because otherwise it's not gonna work. I'd aim for somewhere around 3 or 4 hit dice, but one 8th level fireball would fuck everybody's world.
>Something like Con + Class Bonus + Race bonus as described earlier.
Let's see. So let's figure a magic-user would end up with just Con since they're the bottom of the barrel and so don't need a class bonus. One average, they'd go down after 3 attacks for d6 damage apiece, and only rarely to 2. That seems about right.
Fighters might have about twice that amount on average. Actually, to keep constitution from being more relevant to magic-users than fighters, you could simply have fighters have double their constitution in hit points. Clerics and thieves could have 1 1/2 times their constitution.
I'm not sure you'd really need fighters to grow from there (any faster than any other class, anyway). As it is, they don't pull away from the other classes. They have roughly twice the hit points of magic-users all the way through (slightly less than twice in Basic, and slightly more than twice in AD&D). And with better armor, they're already plenty durable.
>>43926620
>Fighters might have about twice that amount on average.
Actually, now that I think about it, that might be more than you're looking for if a d6 damage is average. If a fighter has a 12 constitution, it would take an average of almost 7 strikes to take him down. It'd work great with d10 damage though.
Assuming you want to stick with the d6 damage, maybe do 2/3 constitution for wizards, 1x constitution for clerics and thieves, and 1 1/3x constitution for fighters? Of course, if you use constitution as a basis for anything, you probably don't want to use a 3d6 method, as having low constitution would absolutely destroy you. If you made it so that somewhere around 7 or 8 was the lowest attribute you could get, that could work.
Actually, what if you went with 2d6 damage on average? 2d6 roll nicely and put you in about the right range for the initial distribution of hit points I was talking about (1x, 1.5x, 2x). It'd be kind of gritty, but with negative hit points, you'd probably be okay (especially if you had a chance to keep functioning), and you could have hit points rise a bit with level:
Fighters: +1 hp per level
Wizards: +1 hp on even numbered levels
Clerics & Thieves: +1 hp on every level not divisible by 3
>>43918521
I like the green cover B3, Palace of the Silver Princess, but that's where I started and it doesn't get much press.
>>43918521
Village of Hommlet or Keep on the Border lands
Zine when?
>>43880117
Is the trove still looking for a good quality scan of the AD&D 1E handbooks..?
>>43932492
Do you have a good scan?
I've got quite good, but there are some minor problems (page 34, for example).
- not TroveGuy
>>43932887
Damn, I have the same problem on page 34... Never mind, then :P
This weekend had some familial issues and I'm playing catchup. I'm finishing the 'Zine now.
>>43932492
Still looking, yeah. The pdfs that exist all seem to be wonky. At this point, we may just need someone to buy the bad OCR pdfs from the retailer, and then use them to splice in the broken pages on the scan (since the re-released texts have typos). Failing that, some hero needs to buy a reprint and cut it up to scan. Do NOT cut up an old original book. Cutting up an original provokes a save vs death.
>>43933309
The excitement is killing me. Glad you were able to get 10 pages worth of stuff.
>>43933309
>bad OCR pdfs from the retailer
Shouldn't that be re-printed pdfs?
http://www.dndclassics.com/product/17003/Players-Handbook-1e
Or are those the ones with the typos?
>>43934878
The Dwarf in the Monster Manual has 7HD, IIRC.
There's a lot of weird little OCR mistakes, mostly in regards turning "1" into "7" and "1/2" into... I think it was 1'2?
They're mostly fine, but the small stuff like that can sneak up on you if you haven't seen the originals.
>>43933309
Depending on how your scanner is built you may be able to scan without unbinding the book. It requires modding to remove the plastic on one side of the scanner so you can hang the book directly over the edge and scan right up near the spine, but I've heard of people doing it.
WHERE THE ZINE AT FAMILY?!
>>43931801
>>43941349
Patience, young padawan. It'll be done when it's done.
So I saw this on one of those roleplaying blogs;
It spoke about 'unlocking' character classes in a tabletop game. Has anyone ever heard of this before? I thought it was really weird.
>>43942971
Like a prestige class?
That's funny, guy.
>>43942971
Some blog mentioned "unlocking" race in some grand campaign. Players had managed to create a new one.
This one I can get behind.
>>43943083
I wonder if it went something like this:
>delving in the dungeon of a mad wizard
>all the monsters seem to be owlbears, perytons, mongrel men
>find a big red switch on one wall
>"I wonder what this does."
Does anyone else think that an OSR style hex crawl would make for a great video game? Anything outside of combat can be done through short CYOA-like sequences relying primarily on text and some illustrations.
>>43885592
>Those frills on her skirt
L..lewd..
>>43943269
It'd probably be pretty cool, but the best you could expect would be a small indie game. I'd love one where users could make their own maps, hex descriptions, encounters etc. Biggest issue would be rule sets. Using something like BX and marketing it as using official rules would draw numbers, but licensing would be a pain in the dick. I guess some other clone ruleset would be fine as long as you avoided upsetting WotC's legal team (somehow).
>>43943269
>>43943304
I actually wanted to do something like this with an RPG maker game.
While not 100% able to replicate the feel, a little bit of that engine and some clever scripting could eumlate enough as long as there was a bit of a linear storyline to tie it together. Which I think would be better anyway, give the game a more hand crafted feeling.
>>43943324
Non-spatial combat with the old front line/back line approach would probably work best, yes, but as to the plot I have to disagree. A linear plot that is not very loose and in the background kind of ruins the freedom inherent in hex crawls.
>>43943333
Well this is a video game. You can't expect to make no concessions because there isn't a DM to allow or abject everything. As such there would need to be some kind of direction if only its 'get strong enough to raid this final dungeon' because you can't switch gears and enjoy a city building game or get involved in guild warfare or anything because of the inherent limitations of a video game.
>>43943343
Oh I definitely agree with that. It is just that the story should be a very non-linear affair. Like "Wander about for 90% of the game trying to get rich. Stumble upon ruins. Accidentally trigger OUTSIDER INVASION oh no gotta find the Sublime Bell of Erdna Suth Al Sagun hurrah we are heroes!".
Which one of these two look more like a paladin/cleric, and which looks more like a Monk? Having a tough time deciding.
It's for my super secret project, so don't tell anyone.
>>43943944
Isn't the one on the right Pathfinder art?
>>43943944
Left could go either way, what with staves being a stereotypical Monk weapon as well as a Friar Tuck thing. Also, the hood obscures.
The right could also go either way, being either an unarmed Monk in robes or a semi-peaceful healbot Cleric. Probably less Paladin-y, IMHO, since I tend to associate that type with more of a combat focus. Then again, I also usually think of Paladins as being Fighters with swords and armor, and warlike Clerics to wield a mace and shield and armor. Robes are for the poor and Magic-Users.
>>43944079
Yes. I stole all the art from different stuff, just made it totally black so it would fit together better in a more unifed style.
I might also give it a shitty blur or gradiant effect to complete this package, but presentation was never a strong suit of the artistically retarded like myself.
>>43943944
Both look like monks to me. Although A could be a thief-acrobat.
Anyone have any links to cool youtube videos of people playing OSR games or explaining them?
I need something visual.
>>43943944
Right side looks like cleric. Left looks like Robin Hood-esque ranger.
>>43945981
> cool
> playing OSR games
I'm afraid you're going to have to choose there, son. Seriously though, I thought this video of an OD&D game with Frank Mentzer as the DM was pretty cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPxO-SJVK8
>>43946030
Heh. Thanks.
>>43946030
>Frank Mentzer looks like a grognard but also like an insane hardass
This pleases me more than I expected.
>>43945981
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iofsg3hqZjo
This is Swan Song. I personally find Stars Without Number to be pretty cool.
>>43946030
Haha, all those grognards...then that 1 hardcore punk.
This video review was quite informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=298&v=a-mLHG_cGuc
http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html
So I'm somewhat new to OSR and I'm absolutely overwhelmed with the amount of systems out there (see link).
The biggies seem to be LL, LotFP and S&W (sort of), but does anyone have OSR systems they recommend or find cool enough to check out that aren't so well known?
All genres and kinds of OSR welcome.
>>43948463
Beyond the Wall is really cool. Check it out in the Trove.
>>43948463
You forgot Basic Fantasy, DCC and ACKS among the biggies.
I'll second Beyond the Wall.
I say Torchbearer is worth checking, also Arrows of Indra (India) and Spears at Dawn (Africa) are also useful for setting-specific feel.
Exemplars&Eidolons / Godbound - are still kinda rough, but if you want Exalted-like game with OSR rules, that's the place to go to.
>>43948463
>I'm absolutely overwhelmed with the amount of systems out there
Almost nobody actually knows them all. You kind of just use an edition of D&D to get you started (like, if you want simple, you go with Moldvay Basic) and branch out from there based on what you've heard/read and what, in particular, you'd like to see changed or added to the game (and sometimes how *much* you'd like to see changed or added).
It's not exactly obscure, but I like Castles & Crusades, in large party because it more or less breaks the mold. It's based on 1st edition AD&D, but borrows the d20 mechanic from 3e to streamline the game. In fact, it gets rid of a lot of the clutter of AD&D and then changes enough things around (rangers, paladins and bards don't get spells, for instance) that it really plays like a different game (to the point where it can be a little hard to put your finger on which edition it's based on).
It's not without it's flaws. The armor, weapon and equipment lists tend to be a bit ridiculously long; the saving throw system is downright broken (an easy fix is to add only half the caster's level to the saving throw difficulty of his spells); and the SIEGE system, whereby you designation attributes as primary and secondary, is wonky if functional. Still, it's an intriguing game and for every flaw it has, it does away with (at least) one that's common to old school D&D. It also has value in it's very difference, giving you a different point to work from, and different ideas to mix and match with straightforward old school D&D, if you're houseruling.
>>43880117
So what is the relative popularity of the retroclones? Which have the most active or biggest communities?
Do you guys like S&W complete?
So, I'm going to prepare my first dungeon, for newbies, using LotFP.
I'm not new to RPGs, but I'm very, very new to classic D&D.
Any suggestions you'd like to give?
Pic super-related.
does anyone have the 6th edition printing of castles and crusades?
Has initiative always been a thing? My retroclone has been going without it, where whoever the first to announce their attack goes and then it's just around the table, but I'm not sure after about 2 months of twice weekly playtesting that this is how I wanna go, so I was curious as to when and why it popped up.
>>43951167
I personally only use Initiative when it matters. Most of the time it doesn't, you use a turn order and the enemy goes first if they act in surprise. But if a player needs or wants to do something before an enemy, like grab an object or slam his weapon back into his face, you'd roll initiative.
Also; Wisdom as Initiative is the only way to go.
So I'm trying to make magical healing more significant in my game and less common.
Essentially I'd like to make most of the 'healing' powers of a Paladin equivalent to Temporary HP. It accomplishes the same goal but isn't a permanent solution for most injuries. How much would this fuck up the game to change Lay on Hands, for example, into a mystical kind of Vigor that grants temp HP instead of full blown healing?
>>43951050
1) use saving throws from S&W
2) don't give Summon (1st level spell) to players (at least for the first few sessions, until you familiarize yourself with it) - warn players beforehand
3) use group initiative
4) make players make 2 additional characters (or bring enough pregens) - it's a high-lethality game
5) warn players that rolling dice (unless it's loot) generally means they've fucked up.
6) warn players that there are no resurrections
7) make some generic monster (animal/human) stats (Raggi does not believe in monster manuals), or take from some OSR
>Pic
... knowledge check failure.
>>43951478
>WIS
Fucking thank you. I've only talked to two people irl about initiative and they both agreed passionately with me on that point. I suppose I could even let people use the highest (or, if I weren't so rules- light, the average) if i ever did it.
>>43951050
Google 'Five Room Dungeon' by Johnn Four. Its a good article on basic dungeon outlines and how to make them exciting with an arc.
In the trove at the OP there are a few primers for OSR in the GM section. They've got good ideas and are quick reads.
Take a look at basic modules from 1st edition DnD. They're pretty classic and straight forward. Loot them for ideas you like.
There's also a five room/one page dungeon contest that's been putting out some cool stuff.
>>43950525
>So what is the relative popularity of the retroclones? Which have the most active or biggest communities?Pathfinder.
I'm not sure if there are any exact statistics, but I'm quite certain LotFP/DCC/ACKS/S&W/LL are the Big Five. I don't think there is any significant prevalence of one system.
Besides, most of the stuff is interchangeable and is often significantly homeruled. How are you going to evaluate "we are using custom ACKS classes with LotFP skills/combat/encumbrance"?
>>43951758
Personally, I use Wis but in the (rare) event of a tie then you can break it with Agility.
Wisdom is more important to see it coming and see what you need to do and react quickly, then agility to actually have the composure and reflexes to do it.
>>43951167
It's always been a thing, it's just that OD&D didn't actually outline it in the booklets - much like they didn't outline how the halfling's ranged bonus worked, or how the high-level Fighting Man could auto-detect hidden creatures.
Basically, it's just because it was in CHAINMAIL.
It's somewhat standard wargaming stuff, where you roll a d6 and the side wiht the highest result decides what order they'll go in and then they take turns in the various phases.
>Move
>Artillery (Simultaneous, possibly includes magic?)
>Missile Fire (simultaneous)
>Melee (resolved by throwing buckets of d6's and hunting for kills, then checking morale and maybe continuing for another round of melee if the difference is low enough)
>Repeat
There's also a simultaneous movement system where you write down orders secretly. It's all on page 9 of this PDF if you're interested.
This version is from before they removed the Balrog, by the by.
>>43952028
Come think of it, I guess the only thing you take turns on is moving the pieces. Melee is automatic with every group within 1", IIRC.
Also, the OD&D Balrog. It's between the Dragon and.. Lycanthrope, I think? There's a Tom Wham illustration there in the newer post-Tolkien Estate editions.
>>43951707
>... knowledge check failure.
Shit, I forgot to take that from the earlier thread I did. That's just some spoopy owl man that's the inspiration of a character of mine. The original thread had a Migniola rendition of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
>>43951821
Looking at it right now. I think I'm going to plunder One Room Dungeons for traps and stuff.
>>43950745
I prefer S&W. I don't need all those extra classes.
>>43952762
whats wrong with extra classes?
I know it has been discussed a few times; but I really want to do a roll under for saving throws business.
>Strength
Catching things thrown on top of you, holding yourself upright when hit with magical force from above, others?
>Dexterity
Dodging out of the way of things, clutching a rope while falling, etc.
>Con
Poison, disease, infection, spores, etc.
>Int
Stop yourself from reading a cursed manuscript, avoid being charmed by a dumb creature, others?
>Wis
Keeping your wits, avoiding illusions and willpower saves.
>Cha
Avoiding being changed in form against your will, avoid being charmed maybe?
I'm looking for what types of events or bad stuff could go under each stat as a style of saving throw. Don't worry, I plan to give each class bonuses or mechanics to saving throws but I like the concept of roll under as well.
>>43880117
So I was thinking of writing system neutral gazetteers for the elemental planes based on the mirror world portrayal in Dark Dungeons but without the death on arrival part that prevents low level adventuring.
Any interest or suggestions?
>>43880117
Are there any OSR equivalents to Tome of Battle/Path of War or Spheres of Power?
how do you guys handle player deaths?
like if in a dungeon, the wizard dies but he has already prepared a fighter do you just kinda fudge the rollplay a bit and introduce the fighter in or wait?
>>43953519
Here's what Castles & Crusades does.
The big thing to remember is that basing saving throws on attributes creates weaknesses that can be exploited. Because of this, you usually want to make saving throws easier to make across the board, so that the weak save is only ever slightly worse than the undifferentiated saving throw you had before.
>>43951050
Take focus away from the rules and more onto the action. Don't let players stare at their sheets or pore over the rulebooks looking for something to do. Tell them to just do it.
Don't let players complain about character customization (characters become unique through adventure and roleplaying, not through base stats).
Don't let players whine about dying to save-or-die situations. They're supposed to be careful and avoid those to begin with. Tell them to actually try not rolling dice all the time and instead come up with practical and cautious courses of action that leave less to chance.
Also, be prepared to roll more characters. Death is especially common in LotFP.
Which S&W rules in the trove are the latest?
>>43951478
This, but I've been adjusting it for Intelligence because of the earlier issues about Int being useless except for magic type stuff.
>>43953964
I keep the game going for 5-10 minutes and then allow them to introduce their new character. The point of gathering together as a group and gaming is to have fun, and it's usually not fun for a player if they have to sit out for too long.
>>43951643
Sounds interesting, because it sets paladins apart from clerics. Personally I'd use the temp HP mechanic to stand in for all forms of inspirational healing, like a bard, or 4e style warlord, in addition to the paladin's miraculous awesomeness.
I've been using a minor and major injury system with hit points serving to tell how close you are to injury/death. Because of the focus on injury over GACK I'M DED, hit point amounts are smaller and easier to recover. Any magical healing will restore you to maximum, but will have limited ability to remove injuries. So this makes it more important and less common (because you don't need it as often, but when you do need it, it's not just dialing back the death meter, it's also removing penalties from you).
>>43953519
Because saving throws are solely the province of when players fuck up, I feel comfortable not giving a level-based advancement table for them. I just throw 50/50 on 1d20, with adjustments for high relevant Ability (no higher than +3 for 18), and +1 adjustments for other helpful circumstances. I try not to penalize player saving throws, because the situation is bad enough as it is if they need to save.
>>43953964
Death sets you back to level 1, which is hard enough on the guy. Losing your dude and all his shit is rough so I'll do everything in my power to make sure he gets his new character back into the game ASAP.
That said, I'm pretty stubbornly opposed to raising the dead, unless it's so difficult and costly that the players rarely do it.
>>43952873
Nothing really, I just don't find them necessary.
>>43953964
>like if in a dungeon, the wizard dies but he has already prepared a fighter do you just kinda fudge the rollplay a bit and introduce the fighter in or wait?
*Assuming* the fighter wasn't already in on the expedition as the wizard's henchman, which is how that would usually go for us, they'd normally find the fighter chained or lost or something in the next empty room.
>>43955439
I like your system, but I was gonna use something a little less complicated.
Essentially, I want the basic paladin/cleric to keep his good fighting skills, turning abilities and miracles but I'm not a fan of their awesome healing to. So instead I'm making a wimpy spellcaster healer, basically a white mage. They get shitty health like regular Wizards but have different powers.
>>43955095
probably complete
I'm still trying to figure out what Monks do in my system.
As mentioned before;
>Monks switch stances to increase damage or AC
>Defensive, Offensive, and Balanced
I'm still trying to figure out how to work it.
now I'm thinking maybe it should work by doubling and tripling ability scores? To make up for Monks lack of equipment?
Such as;
>Balanced; 2x Dex to AC mod, 2x to Strength to hit mod, d6 damage
Then defensive could be d4 damage but 4x Dex to AC bonus but no to hit bonus. How would this work for Martial arts?
>>43960570
I don't like adding a lot of unnecessary crunch to differentiate classes when they're already similar to the existing staples.
Monks are fighting men who attack faster, but less lethally (staffs, tonfa, nunchaku, sai, and unarmed strikes), and they fight unarmored with a bonus to AC rising by level, capping out at the equivalent of plate armor, or less. You could optionally put in rules for using pressure points to paralyze humanoids, and/or give them some thief skills, as long as you balance it out, perhaps by giving them less hit points than a standard fighter.
Is there really much justification for adding a lot of rules to learn, apart from making them feel special?
>>43952028
Are there any retroclones that add these abilities back in explicitly?
>>43960732
>Apart from making them feel special
No, but this is important. Additionally; having them have a mechanic like this not only makes them FEEL way different from a standard fighter, but also significantly changes how they actually end up winning encounter. Different magical items, for instance, that boost stats could be much more useful on a Monk then a fighter, which makes a degree of sense since they are powerfully physical, primal beings as opposed to adventurers of skill and steel.
Making monks just warriors but with weird/no weapons is a cop out, it robs players of meaningful choices and makes any potential balance issues that much more painfully obvious, where has having a layer of abstraction can distract from this in a positive way and keeps the Monk or Fighter from complaining about each other stepping on each other(s) toes.
And don't worry, I already have mechanics for Monks to attack many/multiple times a turn. Monks kill swarms of shitty goons, Fighters go up against dragons and stuff. They have a bit of a strong split just like that.
>>43961349
I don't think you understood the point of my post. I don't consider monks to be significantly different from fighting men in abilities, except how I described. They are fighting men who fight in a special kind of way, and may arguable have some thief skills, depending on the DM.
I think attempts to tack on "tactical build" options doesn't add to the game, in the sense that you intend (arguing that not adding mechanical differences robs players of choice as you say). There's no reason to shoehorn in mechanical differences to things that are the same in a literal sense. The monk doesn't serve a different role in the party from a fighting man in a literal sense: he fights monsters. Making up specialized forms of fighting monsters only adds system mastery, which, ironically, subtracts from player choice because players are forced to specialize or suck. You could make the mechanical differences negligible enough not to cause this, but then what was the point of adding the rules to begin with?
This topic of fighting specialization has already been discussed earlier in the thread.
>>43961459
>I don't consider monks to be significantly different from fighting men in abilities, except how I described.
I honestly do. While there is some overlap, would you argue that Paladins and Clerics should be fused into one class? What about Clerics and Magic users? I'm not a fan of having a million specific classes, but I feel the divide between Monks and Fighters is important.
Also you 'claim' that adding in system mastery subtracts from player choice, but these choices are not always applicable or can't be described in terms like that. How can you mathematically rate an ability like using a shitty attack but having great AC for a round, or being able to tank save or die effects like a boss, or never being able to be disarmed unless someone literally cuts off their arm? These are inherently impossible to judge by a mathematical scheme, hence why I said that keeping it as the same class with a few new tricks or abilities is harder to do this.
I understood your post just fine, I just didn't agree with it.
>>43961459
>>43961598
Also my last post sounded kind of douchey there at the end, I think a better way to put it is;
I understand your concern, but I want to include Monks not only for the sake of making something different but because I like Monks and want to include them as a separate class.
>>43961598
>>43961623
I think paladins lean more towards the fighter side than the cleric side. And yes paladins have been a subtype of fighting man since the beginning as far as I know. They function the same but with added powers. In 1e they have obscene requirements to play and less of the fighter's focus on pure combat. I don't really agree with their attempts to balance them out in that particular edition, but you see how they fulfill the same role and use mostly the same rules.
You don't need exact math to game a system. There's no math behind why casters dominate 3.X. They just do because their class has more power to destroy encounters and render every other role obsolete. But that's not the point anyway. I'm not saying don't include mechanically unique classes. I'm just advising caution because putting in more rules is the design pitfall that leads to the modern gaming sensibilities and away from what makes OSR great. Everything a monk could physically do should probably be emulated by existing rules where possible, because otherwise you're adding rules for their own sake. Of course, in wuxia type games or those centering more around related subgenres of fantasy, monks are probably capable of more supernatural powers which a fighting man doesn't have, like floating on air and breaking stone with bare hands. If you let them do those kinds of things, it gives you a completely different design problem to solve (what's the point of being an ordinary fighter, if I can play one with superpowers?)
>>43961598
>While there is some overlap, would you argue that Paladins and Clerics should be fused into one class?
For a lot of OSR people - anyone playing Mentzer/RC - Paladin *is* the same class as Fighter; a packet of abilities a name level Lawful Fighter can get. Personally I like that a lot; I've never been happy with the Paladin implemented as a full class.
>What about Clerics and Magic users?
People do this *all the time*. It's one of the most common class house rules to either just eliminate the Cleric or transfer his spells to the Magic-User; virtually everybody going for a more sword & sorcery feel seems to do this.
>>43961033
I don't know the details, but I know that there's at least two Chianmail-based OSR games - 27th(iirc) Edition Platemail and Ringmail.
I think most just go for the Alternative combat System and just use the Fighter as the are in later Basic games. Extra attacks, perhaps, or maybe something like BECMI's variants and fighter combat maneuvers, but not the "see hidden critters, boost morale of allies, cause enemies to check morale when you show up" powers of the Super Hero and Wizard.
By the way, if you're wondering, Chainmail Halflings simply have that two halflings fire as three on the missile table. (Which is lethal as fuck, by the by.)
>>43951478
>>43951758
>>43951968
I've never liked using ability scores as any major combat modifiers (including WIS or dex for initiative) simply because the normal monster and NPC generation doesn't bother specifying what the ability scores for those NPCs are. When in doubt and it comes up, I go with 10 unless its obviously not (Giant Strength, etc) but that just feels awkward.
>>43961598
>would you argue that Paladins and Clerics should be fused into one class
Yes. Paladins and clerics are the same thing: holy warriors.
>>43964529
Well, not if there are different interpretations of their archetype.
Clerics could be Monster Hunters, while Paladins - Charismatic Warlords.
>>43964529
> Paladins and clerics are the same thing: holy warriors.
I've never really liked that. Maybe it becomes more true as the editions progress, but old school paladins weren't cleric-like at all. Clerics were divine spellcasters who had a direct byline to god. They are like wandering saints, and by old-school designation, they are sworn from spilling blood. They are every bit the priest.
Paladins weren't based on priests. Paladins were based on knights. Their whole shtick is chivalry. They are ~named~ for the knights of charlemagne, and every example given of a paladin in the old books were based on King Arthur's knights or similar. They get a magic sword and a magic horse. Hell, in OD&D, they didn't even learn spells by default, and in AD&D, they don't get cleric spells until level 9 - a point which most campaigns never get to, and by which the party fighter has already built a castle and has a company of warriors at his command, and no edition RAW seems to require paladins to even have a God (though some settings do)
>>43964567
Paladins also work as monster hunters.
And clerics as charismatic warlords.
Yes, we all know you can reinterpret a class, but there's value in economy of statistics. White space helps creativity.
>>43942971
You start with your basic races and classes (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief).
Then, as you travel, you encounter a sea elf trading caravan and are on good terms with them. Now, when you make a new character or get a henchman, you can have Sea Elf as an available race.
You run into an Assassin's Guild, and get all up in their business. Now, either you can play renegade assassins who want to help you fight the Guild, or maintain good enough relations that they'll work with you.
Its cool for a sandbox game - gives options without front loading all of them at once.
>>43960732
here is how you do monks.
Start them off as fighters.
A monk can't ever use a weapon or armour, they must fight unarmed. They get way less money to spend on gear as well.
At first level, a monk can pick three weapons/pieces of armour. They know these as 'martial arts techniques' and can use any technique they know at any time, using the full rules for doing so (including downsides). So, for example, heavy armour might be a defensive stance that reduces their mobility but lets them deflect blows, a great sword might be a powerful roundhouse kick, and a javalin might be a rapid flying kick where they dart forwards and back again to attack. Monks don't need to worry about ammunition, equipment breakage, or encumberance, but also can't loot weapons; they just get their martial arts.
Each level, the monk gains a new technique.
>>43964796
>White space helps creativity.
So ... free-form?
>>43964991
Agreed. It might seem videogamey on paper, but all this stuff is actually kinda gold. Hell, I did the same thing with the Elf class once.
>>43964795
They're prohibited from spilling blood, yeah, but they're okay with breaking bones and crushing skulls, so they aren't exactly adverse to violence.
I do agree that paladin should be more fighter than cleric, but I think they should just be lawful fighters. No distinct class or powers or anything.
>>43963050
>Ringmail
Do you have a link for that?
>>43966239
I guess it's not actually OSR and just an OD&D combat variant based on Chainmail?
>http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/2141
>>43965027
¿Does that include ranged weapons?, so a monk can have a hadoken.
>>43968468
No. This is OSR. Make it an anagram and then you can have it.
>>43969788
>Naked Ho
>Dank Hoe
>Knead Ho
>Ankh Doe
>A Ed Honk
Not that guy, but I'm laughing my ass off here.
>>43922357
Paraphrasing Zak S' "Scale the Bastard" rules:
If you’re attacking something at least twice your size, you can spend a round of combat improving your position (Dex check). For every round spent climbing you get +2 to hit and +2 to damage against the thing.
While you’re on it, it probably can’t attack you normally, but it can spend an attack to shake you off (Str check to hold on). If you don’t hold on, you take 1d6 falling damage for every round that you spent improving your position.
>>43970842
Don't forget to add some limit. I.e. you can climb up to "size difference-1" times or something like that.
So I'm still working on a fixed health system.
So far, I think I'm going to do something like;
>Add your Con and 1/2 your Strength
>Add bonus from race (if applicable)
>Add bonus from class (if applicable)
Since the average attribute of a 4d6 drop lowest is 12-13, I'm going to go with 12 for both examples.
So;
>Half-Orc Warrior
>Str 12 /2 = +6 HP
>Con 12 = +12 HP
>Race= +6(?) HP
>Class= +10 HP
So we have a 34 Health character. At level one. Obviously this is a pretty big amount of health but it doesn't really scale upwards from here.
>Elf Wizard
>Str 12 /2 = +6 HP
>Con 12 = +12 HP
>Race= +0(?) HP
>Class= +4 HP
Total = 22 HP.
Obviously the above is a lot of HP for a Wizard, especially at level one, but this is mostly because of the large stats in strength and con.
One more example I generated myself for the Wizard character; the lowest stats I put into Con and Str= which were 11 and 10.
So;
>Str 10/2 = +5
>Con 11 = +11
>Race = +0(?)
>Class= +4
Total = 20 HP
This is just a rough example and obviously players will have to work with this, but I'm still not sure how much I like Wizards being this close to warriors, though the purpose of it is to be more 'realistic' then most.
Perhaps every class gets 1/2 their Hit Dice in bonus HP instead of the full amount, and only some races get a small bonus to health. Maybe warriors actually get a negative?
I'd appreciate any feedback for this fixed HP system. It assumes very little level scaling except for the Fighter, who gets +1 HP per level.
>>43972306
Oh and I forgot to mention, another way to try and 'balance' this system would be to make most average weapons deal d8 damage instead of d6.
Additionally, I'd like to state that even those though seems to give non-fighters a big advantage due to high HP amounts, I'd probably give Fighters extra ways to boost their AC or reduce damage they take. For example, things like being able to reroll saving throws or gain temp HP for battlecries or whatever seems like a solution to give them a more durable character where as Wizards basically just have empty HP pools they have to rely on, as little as it is.
>>43942971
Yeah. Some guy at odd74 said that he ran a game that started with 6 classes: fighting-man, cleric, magic-user, hobbit, elf, dwarf.
When your character made it to a certain level or did certain things you could play new classes.
>>43972372
Why not use Last Gasp's rules?
>Attacks are Divided into HARD and FAST
>HARD uses your strength modifier and it counts for melee weapons that deal d8 damage and bows
>FAST uses your Dex modifier and it counts for melee weapons dealing d6 or less damage and other ranged weapons
That way strength and dexterity based fighters feel unique and limited to a playstyle, plus it would help nonfighter characters that want to dump strength, daggers instantly become more valuable for them.
>>43969788
Zagyg pls.
So do people here do 3d6 strict or 4d6 drop lowest?
I ask because I've been using a few online dice rollers to simulate my game's potential character stats for balancing purposes and I've found the 4d6 drop lowest method actually seems really damn generous sometimes, it seems like half the characters I make don't have a single negative modifier in a stat.
I somehow feel that 3d6 is better but I can see how crazy high and low stats would make people upset. Though that may be the point of the game.
High level Fighters get nations and their armies, Magic Users get Wish and other powerful spells, but what do Thieves get at high level?
What unique thing do you think a high level Thief should bring to a domain level game? Crime syndicates are the default, but that is so fucking boring. Ideas about high level play concerning other character classes welcome as well. I just want to make each class feel very distinct.
>>43975909
I don't see what is wrong with crime syndicates, but I'll go a step further.
>Theives get strongholds, holdouts, bandit gangs and so forth
>Thieves become hired as spies and spymasters for various nations or powers that be
>Thieves get a huge amount of money and get the most return from invested businesses
>Thieves have a vault of magic items they can use and equip themselves with when needed
>Thieves have political immunity
>Thieves gain a persona that lives on even if they die (robin hood or the gray fox from elder scrolls)
>Thieves can fake their own death (if they ever die, allow them to suddenly come back from the shadows. The dead thief was actually a hired actor apprentice thief or maybe even a magical doppelganger
>Thieves improve their conversational abilities to the point where they can cast minor enchantment magic nonmagically, just from how suave and sneaky they are
>Thieves can study a mark or a location and will semi-magically gain information on how to defeat or enter the place.
Here are a few ideas, you could take as many or as few as you'd need. Some of them are kind of high fantasy but it fits the high level theme.
Can someone tell me what "trap thac0" is?
>Magic users start with either 1 spell of their choice OR 3 random level 1 spells
>Warriors start with either 1 good piece of equipment or 3 shitty pieces of equipment
>Thieves start with either 6 points of skills to start with OR 12 points distrusted randomly (4 in 3 separate stats)
Is this too weird and meta to justify? I kind of like the idea but I don't know how many players would be on board with it.
>>43972306
I thought you wanted to limit health. Your wizard is equal to a 8th level character in Basic or AD&D. Unless you are looking at playing to very high levels, you've actually increased hit points. Also, why include Strength in the equation? That makes Strength flat out better than Constitution, which seems unnecessary (because it does it's own shit, and half of Constitution's as well).
>>43975763
I prefer something like a random array to dice rolling, but think that the range provided by 3d6+1 (max 18) is about the right one. This gives you more bonuses than penalties, but doesn't make you a superhero with no weaknesses.
>>43977316
>>43975763
The averages of various stat generation methods, in case that helps (the ones that are starred are calculated values, while the others are determined using a shit-ton of trials).
