Mega Dungeon edition
Useful links now here: http://pastebin.com/JtFH682qLink for the Trove: https://mega.co.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg
Last thread: >>44100924
What are some good meag dungeons out there, /tg/? Does anyone have Into The Odd or Stonehell up for download?
Are most OSR systems, like DCC, LotFP, 1974 Style, or whatever else compatible with most Basic D&D 1e modules?
>>44212084
Pretty much, yes.
So I'm looking at running an old school D&D campaign but some of my players are very skeptical about the way spells work for wizards / magic-users in particular. The particular complaint is, at least at low to mid level, wizards will hardly ever be casting as their number of spells is very limited. And, of course, not all of these spells will be combat spells, so most of the time they'll just be guys in robes throwing darts or hitting things with sticks.
Now, I've done old school stuff before, but it's been long enough that I don't remember exactly how managed everything, and I was always very loose with the rules to the point where it was half freeform with dice, anyway. This time around, I'd like to actually play by the rules somewhat, at least in the typical, fiat-heavy old school fashion. So my question is how do you approach magic use in an adventure where even a mid-level wizard might only have 5 or 6 spells total, with only a few optimal for combat?
I realize that the players ideally want to avoid combat, but combat is going to play an important role in the game, and I can appreciate the concern of my players that most of the time their role is going to be very limited.
>>44211818
Stonehell is in the trove
>>44213179
Found it in the LL folder, thanks!
>>44213046
Sadly there is none unless you heavily roleplay it.
You can say that as far as magic goes, the magic user is the most able to identify and detect magic and magic items, the most resistant to magic, probably has a lot of arcane lore and knowledge, and so on.
If you want to make them more interesting give them cantrips. Cantrips can copy the effects of a prestidigitation spell (which is now a cantrip), mage hand (which is now also a cantrip) or copy the effect of another spell but to a much smaller degree. Fireball is a candle flame fired at an enemy, levitation is an inch off the ground, sleep makes someone yawn, etc.
Something like a nigh unlimited number of cantrips may work to give your magic user a little extra utility in all situations.
>>44213046
Combat is by definition not supposed to be the magic-user's thing, and I don't think it's great to change that. I would calm your players instead by pointing out that 1, combat in Basic plays fast as hell, so they won't be twiddling their thumbs long, and 2, spells are amazingly powerful from the start compared to new-school D&D; they can begin the game with a single-handedly encounter-ending spell.
If they don't like this, they can play fighters. Archers can contribute pew reliably to any number of combats.
Any chance anything from Genius Loci Games is in there. I keep getting told I should check the guy out but I'd rather not throw money at it unless I know its good.
>>44214256
They like magicky characters but not the whole religious vibe clerics have going on, so their interest in the game may hinge on wizard types, though possibly at least one might be into some form of multi-class option, allowing them to rely on the martial prowess of their other component. But just playing an archer isn't really going to satisfy them.
>>44213906
I'm considering the cantrip route but I worry about unlimited cantrips ruining the mood a bit and possibly providing a bit too much utility, even given their really low power levels. Even a dim candle flame of light can stop people from pawing around in the dark, which can kind of ruin the mood.
I've thought about just giving them infinite-use magical blasts that do very little damage (maybe a d4 with a tohit roll necessary, or a d3 or d2 without one), thus giving them a wizardy feel without actually unbalancing things, but I worry that this will change the tone of magic users and make them feel like some kind of video game blaster, like the wizard in Gauntlet.
>>44215076
Yes, the magical blast route could also work. Especially if you tie it into a wand or stave, it makes a lot of sense then why they'd carry one and it would mean they could basically be disarmed.
Of course if you don't like the blaster route, the only other option I can think of is to give them spells that last for a long time, or have multiple useful effects.
Best example I can use is, at least in my game, Wizards can control their own magic by doing a Wisdom roll with some modifiers, which allows them to do things like send orders to their summons, create a hole in a magic wall, levitate an object they've conjured, etc. Using this means the spells could be useful for longer.
But yeah, the blasting wand/staff thing sounds like a sure bet. Maybe their to hit with it goes off of Intelligence or Wisdom or something, which is always fun.
>>44215076
>I worry that this will change the tone of magic users and make them feel like some kind of video game blaster, like the wizard in Gauntlet.
This is why I suggested archers. Honestly, though, there IS a point where you just have to accept that your system and players just don't mix well, and if
>their interest in the game may hinge on wizard types
that don't fit with the OSR style, you may just have to accept that you're there. It's very hard to rework wizards to be blastier without shitting up the system and playstyle, as post-1E D&D shows.
Personally, I'd get pretty impatient with players who had that kind of specific demands on system traits and tell them to find another group or referee if they really just couldn't countenance playing Conan or the Mouser instead of Dr. Strange, but only you know what's worth it in that regard.
>>44215076
>>44215200
Here's an expansion on this idea.
>Magic Wands and Staves
At level 1; Magic Users may use magical wands or staves as foci for channeling raw energy into an attack. This attack uses a Ranged Touch Attack AC; or the creature's base AC + dexterity mod, the armor does not protect against this magic. However; creatures with innate magical resistance get a bonus to their AC for this attack equal to their magic resistance. Enemy spellcasters get to add their Cha modifier to their AC instead.
>Wands
Deal d4 Damage and are easily concealed- creatures that are a size smaller then the user get no bonus AC.
>Staves
Deal d6 Damage magically and d4 damage as a melee weapon- creatures that are bigger then the user take +1 damage.
I hope this may give you some ideas, at least.
>>44216015
>This attack uses a Ranged Touch Attack AC; or the creature's base AC + dexterity mod, the armor does not protect against this magic. However; creatures with innate magical resistance get a bonus to their AC for this attack equal to their magic resistance. Enemy spellcasters get to add their Cha modifier to their AC instead.
This is not great; it's the wrong king of greebly (and introducing touch AC into old D&D ay be the worst possible house rule, considering how much shit that caused in 3E). Either just use AC or give a save against the proper category -- wands or staves as appropriate. Since both of those have explicit categories it seems bizarre not to use them here.Also, I'm not sure you understand how magic resistance works pre-3E.
Im going to be running some people with limited experience (3.5e) and no experience gaming at all through a Swords and Wizardry introductory adventure. I'm looking for some things I should tell the ones who've played 3.5e how this will differ, so far I think of.
>Fighting monsters isnt necessary and should actually be avoided if possible. Treasure provides much more in terms of experience points.
>There are no skill checks, you check rooms by telling where you're searching, how you're searching. This is a lot more about experimentation.
>Traps will not be able to be automatically spotted, you might want a 10 foot pole to prod the ground in front of you, to avoid pitfalls
>Combat is a lot more freeform, if you want to do a cool attack describe it and ill stat it (got this from the "Primer to old school gaming")
>This will be a lot more lethal, you'll need to pay more attention and be serious when exploring, but remember to have fun...
>Chances are at least one of you will die, don't worry you will be able to make another character and start playing again almost immediately, though you might not start off with your top pick of equipment
Any more suggestions?
>>44216103
and ive never gm'ed before, this should be fun though..
Im taking general DM'ing tips but im pretty confident about it at this point
>>44216093
I just made it up. I thought it would make sense to use speed and size to determine it, because I was imagining the wand or staff shooting like a beam or something, save vs magic would probably work well enough and since its not a death attack it should be fine. Like not saving vs d4 damage isn't a big deal.
>>44216103
I'd get rid of monster XP entirely just to drive the point home: gold, not fights.
You probably need to say something to stop the 3E guys from bawwing over 3d6 down the line stats. You decide whether you think "stats don't matter as much in this edition" or "this edition predates stat bloat" will be more effective on your players.
I also think you can collapse a few of your points in that list into "this edition has much fewer rules than 3E, so get used to playing the situation and not the rules."
>>44216210
>I was imagining the wand or staff shooting like a beam or something
Save vs. wands is literally about avoiding a beam-or-something from a wand. (It's even used to save against analogous things in the official TSR modules.)
>>44216291
I was gonna use some modified version of this, but do you think im robbing them (and MYSELF) of the "old school experience" if I have them do anything except the original "roll down the line"?
>>44216382
I know there are at least a few guys here in /osrg/ who like to use that kind of thing, but I'll be honest and say that I don't get it at all. Why fag out over such a minor thing when you're going to be killing most of those PCs anyway?
I wouldn't go so far as to say you'd rob them of anything, though. I can consider a house rule good or inadvisable, but houseruling per se is a big part of the old-school experience.
>>44216518
>Why fag out over such a minor thing when you're going to be killing most of those PCs anyway?
Be fantasy Vietnam doesn't means shit is dangerous but it doesn't necessarily follow that most folks are going to die. Besides, outside of combat, an attribute check is the primary mechanic for resolving things, so it's nice if folks are playing on a relatively level field as far as attributes are concerned.
>>44215200
The wand/staff thing is an interesting idea I hadn't considered, and does at least put some kind of limitation on a caster's ability to do magic. Like, if you put one in a cell, he can't just zap away at the bars over and over and over until they weaken (unless you're stupid enough to leave him with his wand or staff). Thanks!
>>44216015
I'd probably just have it work like a normal ranged attack so as to not encourage wizards to always blast the most heavily armored guy around (because if armor doesn't count for anything, you might as well).
>>44213046
Magic-user's spells are very powerful.
They are passable melee combatants.
There's an excellent chance that they will acquire powerful enchanted items at low levels.
>>44216382
Stop posting this shit.
I see it every thread.
Its literally retarded.
Stop shilling for yourself.
>>44211805
What do you think of this familia?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8azW7IbtcxzalBIRUl0VW5zY1k/view
OD&D or B/x for an introductory game for people new to OSR?
Gonna run a game for some family and I'm torn between the two systems.
I definitely plan on running the game in a modified version of Blackmoor (including the dungeon from the First Fantasy Campaign!), but I'm not sure which system to use. All the players are either familiar with RPGs (mostly 3.5/WoD) or are fast learners.
OD&D is gonna require some houseruling for it to work, I think, but might be more rewarding in the end.
Any thoughts?
>>44219690
B/X is a LOT clearer and requires a lot less houseruling and stuff to work.
B/X also has better XP tables IMHO.
>>44218285
Pretty sure that's the guy from last thread, who was specifically asking for something to keep people from getting screwed by low attributes (which folks then tried to provide him with). So, like, just chill out, man. Everybody else in this thread isn't the same person, and it's okay to like different things.
>>44211805
¿Is the stars without number style of attack (d20+bonus+armor if =>20 it hits), compatible with let's say ad&d?
>>44213046
Mike Mornard, aka Old Geezer on playing a magic-user:
>I played a Magic User in Greyhawk .. THE Greyhawk... for a while. Up to 6th or 7th level when I retired him because I was tired of him and went back to my 8th level fighter.
>My favorite adventure was as a 1st level MU. I had heard about an entrance to the 3rd level of Greyhawk and went down.
>Alone.
>With 3 HP and a Charm Person spell.
>Just me.
>A 1st level MU.
>In Greyhawk Castle.
>With Gary Gygax reffing.
>I hit 2nd level at the end of the night with enough XP to be one shy of 3rd.
>I ran, I snuck, I threw lanterns (fire, oil, and a handle in one convenient package!), I ran, and I ran some more.
>It was still one of the best single evenings of gaming I've ever had.
>So, I have heaps and heaps of "no fucking sympathy" for people who complain it's boring to play a low level MU.
So retroclones are pretty cool and all, but is it just preferable to just get the actual DND booklets? are they a lot better or what
>>44221144
BASED
B
A
S
E
D
>>44220938
I've never used that system before, but let's math this out. Normally, you hit if...
die roll >= THAC0 - AC
>let's move that AC to the other side
die roll + AC >= THAC0
>okay, let's break THAC0 apart
die roll + AC >= 20 - bonus
>now, let's move the bonus to the other side
die roll + bonus + AC >= 20
So really it's the exact same system. You're merely solving the equation in a different way. You just have to realize that in order to get somebody's bonus, you have to subtract their THAC0 from 20. So a person with a THAC0 of 18, would have a bonus of 2. Let me double check that really quick, to make sure I haven't fucked anything up....
Chainmail is AC 5. A guy with a THAC0 of 18 would need a 13 or over to hit him (18 THAC0 - 5 = 13). Now, a guy with a THAC0 of 18 has an attack bonus of 2 (20 - 18 THAC0 = 2). So his die roll + 2 bonus +5 AC needs to be >= 20. Since the bonus and AC combined give him 7, he only needs to roll a 13 to get to 20, which is the same thing the old THAC0 system gives us. So yes, it checks out.
>>44221217
Based god fucked gary gygex wife
>>44221176
>are they a lot better or what
It's kind of hard to give a universal answer to that since it depends on the edition and the clone. But most are pretty close to the edition on which they're based, with some formatting changes and maybe a few important tweaks (like, say, ascending rather than descending AC), and which you prefer comes down to nothing more than the presentation and whether you like tweaks. But there's really no reason to favor or disfavor retroclones as a whole.
>>44221357
the flavor isnt different enough?
>>44221492
Most retroclones really don't differ in the flavor of their setting. Labyrinth Lord, for instance, extends Moldvay to 20 character levels with more spell levels to go along with that, has a more granular to-hit progression, has a larger list of weapons and armor, gives clerics spells at 1st level and regularizes their progression, and... uh... that's about it. Other than that, it's really the same mechanics and the same D&D universe.
Of course, Labyrinth Lord has more of a horror vibe, adds guns, and changes enough mechanics around that it really feels significantly different from Basic. So, again, it's a case-by-case sort of thing.
I do think that retroclones have a tendency to be more minimalist in their presentation, and skip over stuff like "what is a role-playing game", but that doesn't apply to all of them (and in truth, I don't know how many it applies to, because I just ignore that stuff).
>>44217107
I wanna say that if the group is doing a thing together, you should usually only call for one stat check, otherwise the odds are someone's going to fail, every single time.
We always used to pick either the guy with the best stat or the guy with the worst, depending on the specifics of the situation and how things were going. If you have a crippled wizard, it's important to get the thief across first and have him tie a rope so the wizard can be hauled over and you can avoid having him roll.
I've realized I fucking hate rule heavy systems like Shadowrun and Pathfinder/3.5
What do you recommend? Like, if I want wing-it-fuck-it gameplay, what is your favorite OSR system?
>>44221768
>Of course, Labyrinth Lord has more of a horror vibe, adds guns, and changes enough mechanics around that it really feels significantly different from Basic.
Lamentations of the Flame Princess, you mean.
>>44221928
Yeah, that. I obviously haven't imbibed enough alcohol yet to steady out my typing. Give me a moment and I'll remedy that problem.
>>44221924
Just about anything OSR, really, so long as it's based on Basic.
Dungeon World is also a favorite of mine for that sort of thing. It's great for little-to-zero-prep, asspull gaming.
>>44221924
Most of 'em? You might favor the more minimalist Basic line over AD&D, but then AD&D has very few clones made of it, so if you're talking about the extended old school family, most of it works. Swords & Wizardry White Box is one of the most minimalist clones, but coming from Pathfinder, everything is going to seem incredibly light, so I'm not sure if it much matters. You're probably better off judging on other factors.
>>44221928
oh he was referring to the actually decent one
>>44221924
OD&D is unquestionably the maximum amount of wing-it, but if you're coming from 3E I think you'll be happiest with Basic. Get a Rules Cyclopedia; you'll feel totally at home.
HAHAHAHA! These oldschool quest generation charts are the best. From a bunch of random rolls in the original Unearthed Arcana and the d30 Sandbox compendium, I have made the following quest (That I may run in OD&D or AD&D, I haven't decided yet.)
>The PCs have found and been living in a utopian valley, thinking they have retired from adventuring.
>However, in an abandoned home, they find an old journal with an entry that suggests their peaceful dwelling may be in danger
>An evil dragon seeks to awaken a volcano that rests at the top of one of the valley's sides
>Shortly after discovering this, a hooded stranger reveals that the only way to defeat the dragon is a specific magic wand
>The wand is hidden deep within the volcano itself, in an old abandoned dwarven workshop.
Why are "new school" tables for quest generation this intuitive?
>>44216015
It occurs to me that if wizards could cast an uninterruptible Magic Dart cantrip at will, which functions identical to normal darts, it would probably please new people who think wizards suck in OSR. After the campaign's over, you can just reveal that it was the magic user yelling MAGIC DART while throwing darts at people. Material Component: Some darts
>>44223711I don't know why, but this gave me a hearty chuckle.
Need some material with excellent maps, any ideas?
>>44215949
Uh hm. Why not just give the wizard a bow?
>>44223809
See, normally I'd say "sure why not, try it", but I think we can all agree that >>44223711 is the superior fix.
>>44223809
>Why not just give the wizard a bow?
I think Gygax's reasons were that a magic-user's already a rear-line figure and would be too useful if he could provide strong archery support, that it infringes on the fighter's schtick, and importantly, that it doesn't fit the wizard trope. I don't think that should be underestimated as a reason. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but I do think there are good reasons not to. A DM who refuses to change the magic-user so that some 3aboo can have his magic gun isn't just being a faggot.
>>44219918
B/X has XP tables.
>>44223693
Nice. Wanna show what you rolled? Like what the result was so we can compare with the result.
>>44216015
While I'm not saying this system is great, I do love the idea of different wands/staves giving different boosts to attacks, one of my hugely favorite things about Harry Potter. At one point I made a gigantic list of materials and what properties they had for a homebrew game; the list influenced what wands were good at, how they 'behaved', and also how they reflected on their owner. Sadly its not osr/dnd, but it is a pretty good resource I can always fall back on when I need to.
So does anyone else here use scaling hit dice or modified hit dice?
Personally; I've never liked using extra/less hit dice to represent a weaker or stronger opponent. Since hit dice are kind of sort of representative of size and general strength; having the goblin chieftain have 2 HD instead of 1 feels sort of wrong to me. Instead you can use an alternate system where enemies hit dice are modified based on the standing of a monster;
>Wretched/Weak d4
Monsters who are starving, very young or old, pregnant, or otherwise crippled or severely weakened.
>Average d6
Struggling monsters on the hunt, demihumans in a tribe trying to raid or loot, undead animated by a moderate mage
>Strong d8
The 'average' for strong monsters- this is the grade for monsters who are established in their lairs or bases, on point with regular hit dice size. These are barbarians who have had some successful campaigns and gnolls who already have a camp with slaves, perhaps wandering monsters get a lower dice grade to represent their lowered success.
>Mythical d10
Extremely strong monsters of high health and vigor. Elite guards and naturally 'big' creatures even for their own type. These are often what the chieftains of clans or the biggest alpha werewolf will be.
The single only problem I have with this is that, indeed, certain spells trigger on different hit dice levels so stronger creatures of the same tier could still be affected and hit dice also equates to to-hit bonus on the monster's attack in some systems as well.
What do you all think?
>>44225116
You would also need to change the hit points quite a lot if this is to work.
It causes some trouble if a monster uses different weapons, a tail sweep is not the same as a fiery breath of flammable death.
Personally, I don't think this would add anything to my game and so wouldn't use it.
>>44225116
This severely lowers the various humanoid chieftains (going up one die size is effectively +1 HP per hit die, a meager substitute for doubled or tripled hits), interferes with monster XP values and dragon ages, disregards the contingent effects on saves and hit matrices/attack bonus, drops the average HD category from d8 to d6, and seems to misunderstand hit dice on top of that ("hit dice are kind of sort of representative of size and general strength" is simply inaccurate in a game where PCs gain hit dice from skill and increased dangerousness with every level, without growing larger).
I wouldn't use it.
>>44211805
So what sorts of cosmologies do you guys like to devise? Planejammer is the go-to model, but I've seen models based on solar systems, rose petals, world trees, and ocean sailing. What else is there?
>>44226732
I just use a bog-standard "dimension" model, all the different worlds are in the same place in some sense and you can open portals between them. Usually the portals will just open on the corresponding spot in the other world, but they can also be teleportals.
>>44213179
Does anybody have the second part, perchance?
Gone Fishin' is the single best retroclone adventure out there. Display evidence to the contrary.
>>44216015
Why all these 3.xisms? Isn't this the OSR thread? Is 3.5 old school now?
3.5 players should be rieducated before approaching any other game.
>>44229329
Haha, my thoughts exactly when I read >>44216015
>>44226732
But Planejammer already contains solar systems and world trees!
If we begin with the assumption that I find Paul/Jennel Jacquays to be the single greatest (A)D&D module writer in history, and Caverns of Thracia and Dark Tower the best campaign products ever sold, then which of the new old-school adventures would appeal to me the most? What modules out there, commercially published or found from somebody's blog, would I absolutely love to read through and run for my hapless group?
>>44220300
good guess that was me
>>44216103
Anyone else have thoughts on this ?
>>44216103
>This will be a lot more lethal
>Chances are at least one of you will die
Honestly, I never got the impression that 3rd edition was somehow significantly less lethal or more coddled than earlier editions - that didn't begin until 4e.
I'm looking for a collection of the Basic D&D alternate classes. Shit like Samurai and Rangers etc. Can anyone help a guy out?
>>44231552
Rules Cyclopedia? I haven't read through the thing in detail but from what I gather isn't it supposed to contain every single OD&D rule?
>>44231297
1st level characters in 3e are a lot more formidable, especially if you aren't house-ruling hit points. Hell, a lot of editions had you die at 0 hit points, and if you rolled low, you could end up with a character who died after taking 1 hit point of damage. Having higher attributes, modifiers that progress more quickly, and usually being able to put your points where you want them in 3e generally resulted in more durable and deadly characters. And depending on the old school edition you're comparing it to, casters in 3e had a much bigger list of spells to learn at each level that they got to freely pick from, they knew more spells (Moldvay Basic has the number of spells you know exactly equal the number of spells you can cast per day), and started with twice as many spells per day. Starting 3e characters might not be 4e-level tough, but they're a damn spot hardier than most old school characters.
>>44231665
It's a compilation of all the Basic D&D stuff, apart from Immortals, which I guess was too crazy and weird.
>>44231665
There is a difference between OD&D and Basic D&D tho, correct?
>>44231665
No, RC only has Druids and Mystics
>>44231705
I always wondered what the deal with those immortals rules was. What are they in a nutshell and why do people not like them?
>>44229297
Really like the cover. Ingmar Bergman & Dragons?
>>44232412
The rest of the adventure is great too - and it's free!
http://www.pfoorumi.net/beernbarbarians/
>>44232252
Hey guys need some advice. What stops a lvl5 party from completely obliterating a peasant village? How would some realistic village defenses and tactics look like to fight against murder hobos?
>>44232532
Didn't mean to reply to that post
>>44232532
I don't really know what point you're trying to make with this analogy. The closest I come up with is a whole world trying to defend itself from a bunch of gods, and honestly that sounds pretty fuckin' rad.
>>44232551
Oh, well, that makes more sense then. Too bad. Can we talk a bit about planets trying to keep murderhoboing gods away, anyway?
Anyone here play much AD&D?
If so, how do you handle the fact that the original Monster Manual has the wrong Armor Class scale?
Is there a formula for conversion or a re-balanced version? Back when I was playing a lot of AD&D we just used the book straight, but now that at I know it's got the wrong numbers for the rest of AD&D, it's just not the same.
Any advice for fixing the Monster Manual?
>>44232566
>If so, how do you handle the fact that the original Monster Manual has the wrong Armor Class scale?
I never even noticed.
>Any advice for fixing the Monster Manual?
Seems to work fine for me. What exactly is the problem here? You're talking like it's something completely obvious and we should all immediately know what the hell you're talking about.
>>44232532
Depending on luck and the size of the village, you might have at least a few people with more than one hit die. Regardless, there's probably at least a few hunters, and a few really brawny farmers. There might be an unofficial sort of militia, though tactics and discipline are likely rudimentary at best. So I guess a somewhat organized mob with most people having makeshift weapons--hatchets and wood axes, pitchforks, farming scythes, long knives and so forth--with the few hunters having bows, javelins, slings and so forth. The best tactic would probably be to rush the party en mass while the hunters snipe and hope for the best.
>>44232762
But then, if your average village could do that, they probably wouldn't need the help of the first level adventurers to deal with all those goblins stealing their damn cows.
>>44231042
My guess is you would like Melan's stuff best; he's the guy who first wrote on Jaquays' design principles in the early OSR, and I think he wrote some stuff for Fight On! based on those concepts. He also did the city-state of Khosura, which I think he put up for download somewhere.
Melan's original post: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?168563-Dungeon-layout-map-flow-and-old-school-game-design
>>44232614
See
>http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/2515
Basically, since the Monster Manual was made back during the tail-end of OD&D unarmored is AC9. There's also some other oddities, like the Holmesian 5-point alignment scale - no "Neutral Good", for instance.
>>44232614
I figured it was sort of common knowledge that the Monster Manual has the OD&D/Basic armor class scale (9-2) rather than the one that the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide to (10 to -10).
It doesn't completely break the game or anything, but the math is a little wonky sometimes. I was wondering if there was a fix somewhere that rebalanced the scale.
I'm not saying it doesn't work the way it is, but a set of unified mechanics might be nice every once in a while.
>>44232614
The Monster Manual was made before Gygax decided to change unarmored from AC 9 to AC 10.
>>44232566
1 point of AC honestly doesn't much matter that much, but if you wanted to reconcile things, the change takes place somewhere around AC 6, where studded leather and scale are inserted between leather armor and chain. Chain is AC 5 in OD&D, Basic, and AD&D, so it's only above that where things change. Leather is the next point of data, and it goes from AC 7 in Basic / OD&D to AC 8 in AD&D. So I'd say to leave anything of AC 5 down the way it is, and bump everything above AC 6 up a point. And with things that are exactly AC 6, about half should go up a point (studded leather equivalent) and half should stay the same (scale equivalent)--when in doubt, I'd just leave it like it is.
>>44232809
The average villager could do that, but half of them would probably die.
It's the same answer for why a magic-user would hire (or Geas) a low-level party to go get them a magic item rather than venture out themselves with their incredible arcane power - why risk their lives when they could getsomeone else to do it for them?
>>44232809
Nonsense. Just because the village can mob up in order to desperately defend itself doesn't mean that they want to do that, or that you could even get everybody to cooperate like that unless things got desperate. I mean, empires with large populations still hired mercenary soldiers.
>>44231665
>isn't it supposed to contain every single OD&D rule?
No, it's (almost) all of BECM from the BECMI edition of Basic. AD&D 1E is more like the OD&D compilation.
>>44231909
Yes.
>>44232252
>I always wondered what the deal with those immortals rules was. What are they in a nutshell and why do people not like them?
They were Mentzer's pet project, a game which was frankly basically unrelated to D&D -- players play quasi-gods ascended from the mortals their PCs used to be, fighting for dominion over the Known World. I think one big reason the rules were disliked is they only come into play for a D&D player once his character surpasses 36th level, i.e. never.
Another reason would be that it's a completely unplaytested game that isn't D&D.
>>44232532
>What stops a lvl5 party from completely obliterating a peasant village?
Numbers. I mean, they could also be Tucker's Kobolds-esque guerrillas, but despite the Fantasy Vietnam schtick most villages aren't going to be populated by the Viet Cong, so ultimately, numbers. A level 5 party of six might perhaps have three fighters and one each of cleric, M-U and Thief; that means an effective thirtyish Fighter HD, perhaps? Thereabouts, anyway. A mid-size village can probably muster at least 50-80 able-bodied men, who will be armed primarily with primitive polearms -- spears, pitchforks, rehafted old scythes, earspoons. This means a larger number of hit points and two ranks of attacks, which in spite of worse to-hit rolls and armor will likely overwhelm the PCs pretty quickly, especially if the PCs aren't retarded and want to live, so that they surrender pretty much as soon as they see shit going pear-shaped -- before they've been hurt too badly or killed too many peasants whose friends want revenge.
>>44231665
If you want something that contains every single OD&D rule, go for AD&D.
BECMI did include a lot of it eventually, but you need to go to the Gazetteers to get stuff like dwarven clerics and half-elves. Also, it never included Psionics or multiclassing, and had a whole lot of new and unique rules (primarily looking at the mass combat, domain management and Immortals).
>>44232252
The Immortals boxset was Dieties & Demigods masquerading as a player supplement, really.
It's pretty damn cool, although hell if I know how you'd make adventures for characters of those levels.
Also, while it got cut from the Rules Cyclopedia it got highly reworked and released as the RC-compatible Wrath of the Immortals.
>>44222108
Are you putting those two statements to insinuate that dungeon world is OSR, or evokes a feeling similar to OSR?
>>44233226
Each of those three fighters can take down five peasants in a round. The M-U's single fireball will take down a chunk others, and each time he casts Sleep 4-16 peasants are effectively dead. The cleric patches up the fighters when needed and maybe tries to keep the bumpkins away from the wizard. Meanwhile, maybe three to five peasants can attack each of the fighters at the same time, or up to ten if they use their pitchforks to come from the second row. Most of them will miss, and those that hit will not do all too much damage: while they could eventually overwhelm the fighters, they will all be dead in four or five rounds, long before that would happen.
Meanwhile, the thief sneaks somewhere and loots the shit out of the peasant huts.
>>44232532
>>44232762
>There might be an unofficial sort of militia
ACKSHUALLY the way this would probably go, or at least went in feudalism, is that the peasants would send word to the manor house and the local knight (or titled lord, God help you) would come down with his men and fuck your shit up, or if it was a strong raid, the entire village would retreat there and the men would suit up out of the manorial armory: now you've got personally-offended peasants with brigandines, pot helmets, crossbows and bills. Whoops, dang.
Feudalism was about protection, protection against exactly this sort of shit: raids and brigandage. That's the ultimate justification for the warrior class.
>>44233452
Or, this being D&D, they'd just hire a bunch of higher-level adventurers to deal with it.
>>44233452
The problem here is that borderlands usually don't have such protection. Which is exactly why adventurers helping villages is a thing.
Now, the problem starts when they start destroying them themselves
>>44233319
This assumes that you're playing OD&D, with that interpretation of the rules for attacking normal men, which wasn't clear from your? first post. Nevertheless even then they won't take down five guys each per round on average, and worse, you could argue that in a fight against a village militia Chainmail mass combat rules apply (e.g. each fighter can be slain with four simple hits, and the others count (I believe?) as normal men).
I agree that the swashbucklers and thaumaturgist together can put a real dent in the peasants, though. Even in OD&D, I think it devolves into a race toward the morale snap.
>>44233587
Agreed in a way, but I'm not sure that's very distinct from demanding help from the local gentry. Early D&D does seem to *at least* strongly suggest that knights and nobles will be classed and robustly leveled.
>>44233599
Kinda-agreed here too, but it seems absurd that yeoman pioneers wouldn't be fairly robustly armed and armored for themselves, instead. I have a hard time reconciling "ungoverned borderlanders" with "helpless dirtfarming clods".
>>44233758
>Early D&D does seem to *at least* strongly suggest that knights and nobles will be classed and robustly leveled.
But probably no higher than 3rd level, because if they were level 4 they'd be heroes themselves.
>>44233786
To be fair though, it doesn't make much logical sense they won't be higher level.
For example, the PCs get a fort or wizard's tower or whatever at level 9. Why wouldn't all the people in the area with a fort or wizard's tower also be level 9? It would simply be taking the mechanics of the game to their logical conclusion.
>>44233929
All level 9 characters get a fort, but not all who get a fort are on level 9 or higher. It's just that on that level you're basically automatically noteworthy and awesome enough to be granted one, but there are many other ways for that honor, such as birthright or lots of money or the occasional well-placed assassination.
>>44233786
>>44233929
>>44234024
In OD&D (check the trove, and also have a look at the "OD&D Setting" PDF), the possible inhabitants of a random castle are a Lord, Superhero, Wizard, Necromancer, Patriarch or Evil High Priest, and they as good as always have *at least* numbers of heroes with them -- a wizard can have dragons or balrogs as guards.
A quick question for the OSR crowd: portable holes.
I am quite certain that back in the day we treated the portable hole as an actual, you know, portable hole. You stick it on a wall, you get on the other side - more or less as Roger Rabbit did - as opposed to a foldable storage space.
However, I tried looking around for support of this idea, and I actually haven't been able to find portable holes in older books, one way or the other. From AD&D 2e on, it was already the storage version. However, I did find some internet discussion about this, indicating that it wasn't just my table to do it this way.
Can you fine folks help me with an answer?
>>44233318
While the latter is true -- it does intentionally evoke the feel of OSR -- I meant only what I said:
Pretty much any OSR system could do that thing he wanted; also Dungeon World is a favorite of mine for doing that thing. (Minimal prep, light on rules, sheer winging-it gameplay)
>>44211805
Not sure where to post, but I'll start here.
The elemental planes, paraplanes and quasiplanes have always been off to me. The Aristotelean elements are used rather than the Wu Xing, even though both are equally nonsensical from a scientific perspective. The paraplanes are weird: ice is solid water, magma is liquid rock, and smoke is organic particles produced by combustion suspended in air. (The Dark Sun paraplanes are magma, silt, sun and rain. IMO these are slightly better, if still flawed.) The quasiplanes are weirder: Salt is a mineral, Lightning is electricity produced by clouds of water vapor, Mineral is what makes up rocks/soil, Dust is particles of earth and waste matter suspended in air, Vacuum is an absence of air, Radiance is light produced by any fire, and Ash is the powdery residue left after burning. They don't follow a consistent logic that informs their placement.
What do you think? Are there any other models with more consistent logic?
>>44235732
>applying 19th century+ chemistry to fictional supernatural cosmology
you see, that's way beyond where you should have stopped.
>>44235732
The BEST thing you could do with that curiosity of yours is to check out books about history of chemistry and focus on alchemy.
In fact, read any sort of book that makes sense of natural philosophy treaties. Just... stop at the moment where people start calling themselves scientists.
>>44234204
We never used them, they were too gonzo for our super serious roleplaying business.
Quick question, on the scale of rules-light to crunchy how would you rate the RC? The number of rules hits the sweet spot for me. I'm asking so the next time I ask for system recommendations I'll be able to give that detail.
Anyone got experiences with Tunnels & Trolls? Worth getting into?
>>44236319
That's an interesting question. If you play the entire book rules as written and with all the optionals, it can get pretty "consulting the rules a bunch for unique situations" crunchy.
Do you know what rules to apply to a blind character, off the top of your head? Because they're there. Most people I know who swear by RC wouldn't bother to look them up and just wing it, though.
>>44235732
I eschewed all that nonsense for a mix of Dark Dungeons and 5e. There are four elemental planes with the elemental chaos between and surrounding them. However, each plane is NOT a bland boring landscape of that element: they all have lands, skies, oceans, suns, etc like the material plane but made of some variation of their element (and all have innately survivable environments otherwise I wouldn't ever use them). The plane of fire has mountains and valleys of ashes, oceans of magma, and skies of smoky clouds. The plane of water has mountains and valleys of ice and salt, suns of steam shining overhead. The plane of earth has oceans of silt, dusty skies, and suns of glittering gemstone. The plane of air has moutains and valleys of semi-solid cloud, oceans and rivers of breathable liquid air, and suns of ball lightning. There is also non-elemental wildlife like arrowhawks, tojanida, flying sharks, burrowing squid, fire crabs and forests of coral, fungus, beanstalks and other things. The elemental chaos mixes and matches these environments for even more fun.
I didn't bother with the energy planes, but if I did I would probably give the positive energy plane stuff like tentacle forests, dancing singing furniture, gingerbread houses that travel on huge chicken legs, and whatever other bizarre stuff I can think of to make it memorable.
Still trying to think of a redesign to make the ravid's arm look not stupid. I'm either going to change it to a fingered trunk or heavily modified lip.
>>44236319
Hmm. That's an interesting question. I'd probably put it down as the being on the light end of rules-medium, or maybe rules-medium-light, if you you're okay creating in-between categories. But then where you draw the line between categories is largely arbitrary, and is colored by the games you have the most familiarity with. Folks coming from 3.x, for instance, are probably more likely to see it as rules-light, and folks coming from Moldvay Basic are probably more likely to see it as solidly rules-medium.
>>44236534
It's a neat little system, and some of the solo adventures are fun.
There need to be more solo adventures for systems. I'd like to learn Burning Wheel one of these days, and a solo gamebook to teach it would be great, but nobody does those anymore.
>>44236649 here
This guy >>44236598 brings up another important point of why it's hard to pin down the complexity of RC, or AD&D for that matter. RC is Basic D&D and the heart of it is pretty much identical to Moldvay Basic, which is rules-light. But it adds a lot of details that most folks use a minority of. If you went by all the rules, one could make a convincing argument that 1e is rules-heavy, but few people play it like that. I will say that RC seems neither solidly rules-light nor solidly rules-heavy, which leaves us trying to figure out exactly where it falls in between.
Okay, so I don't know if this exists within the realms of the OSR knowledge base, but I've heard of a weird RPG/wargame thing that emerged sometime in the late 70s/early 80s that sounds really amazing.
Basically, it was a set of wargames rules to balance WWII combat units against fantasy combatants. I heard of an ad that might have involved Rommel's Afrika Korps pitted against orcs in a dungeon?
Anyone know what this is, or am I just crazy?
>>44235732
Data has you covered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O5dZ9BLLc
>>44231671
3e PCs are stronger but higher level ones are weaker with regards to casters -- you become more fucked rather than less the higher level you go.
>>44233319
>>44233635
>>44233226
The #attack=levels would also work.
A mob of peasants could beat the party, but its very very improbable -- morale failures will probably crush the peasants.
>>44229329
>>44229476
The reason, as mentioned above for the Touch attack thing; is to make a magical attack that avoids armor. However perhaps a regular attack would suffice better, and you could say a beam can bounce off armor or be dodged potentially.
What I want to know is what kind of character advancement a 'blaster' style Wizard gets. Does having wand/staff based spells reduce or lower their ability to cast regular spells? Are combat spells phased out to make way for wand combat? Can spell slots be sacrificed to blast people better? Maybe something like you get a bonus to hit and bonus damage equal to a spell slot used to charge up the wand?
These are the sorts of things I want to see done, and I find interesting myself.
>>44231552
I don't know of anything like that, but it wouldn't be that hard to import stuff from AD&D. The main change is to lower everybody's hit dice 1 level (except for wizards, who are already at d4). Labyrinth Lord's Advanced edition companion can be a helpful, as it tries to give you AD&D's options built on Basic's simpler core system. It uses the lower hit dice of Basic and is designed to be compatible with Basic (so you can mix Basic and Advanced Edition classes in the same party).
>>44232762
Also, I'm not saying the village necessarily wins. But if it seems like it could at least put up a good fight and maybe kill a PC or two, that's a pretty good deterrent. A lot probably depends on the population of the village, which is a lot more intimidating if it's around 1,000 than if it's around 100.
I'm introducing my roomies to tabletops. Gonna run Basic DnD (B/X style). Can you recommend a good low level dungeon crawl for me?
>>44240149
B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. This module contains all ingredients for an authentic experience: a small town with some neat adventure hooks, some wilderness exploration and a network of caves to be looted in a true dungeon crawl fashion.
>>44240149
I personally like The Palace of the Silver Princess.
>>44231552
Dig through the trove, there's a ton of stuff there. Labyrinth Lord, for example, has a ton of classes built for it.
Also check out TSR's Creature Crucible series, PC1-4, which have a ton of odd classes for all sorts of nonhuman things.
>>44216015
>>44237162
What if a Wizard's magical wand or staff attacks didn't act like regular attacks but were hexes that damaged stats instead?
This could give them a non-damaged based thing they can do in a fight, as well as keeping them useful if they want to switch to regular weapons. Or maybe it can do both but you have to choose which one?
>>44241229
Sounds overly 3eish, requires you to come up with stats for all monsters, and causes needless bookkeeping.
>>44241330
So what, are you saying that nobody can use hexing/debuff based Wizards because that is 'overly bookkeepish'?
Stop trying to use 3e as an insult, god damn.
>>44241492
He means you're going to have to calculate and track stats for monsters during combat now, something that was unnecessary before.
So yeah, it's a lot of extra bookkeeping just to support this minor class feature in order to make it "not hp damage."
>>44241492
>Stop trying to use 3e as an insult, god damn.
It's not that it's insulting, but trying to force 3e-isms into old school games is kinda missing the point.
Why introduce touch AC (that has notorious issues even in 3e) in a game that already has a dedicated save vs. staff/wand?
Sometimes it seems like people used to 3.x can't process different rulesets.
>>44241492
Man, 3.x is my prefured game and I still knew what he ment, monsters in OSR style games don't general /have/ stats to debuff, you can't give generic orc #14 a -2 to STR or whatever becasus he dosn't HAVE an actual STR score don't be so thin skinned you're making us look bad.
>>44241330
>>44241560
>>44241587
>>44241669
Fine. In that case, tell me how a Wizard's wand should function with two modes; Stun and Damage.
>>44241854
"I put my wand to stun"
>>44240149
Is that fafhrard and gray mouser?
>>44241873
No, retard. How does nonlethal damage work in a basic context, and how should it work for wands?
>>44241922
>nonlethal damage
here we go again
>>44241935
Instead of using a sleep or color spray as sleep/stun effects, I want to make wands able to do these things instead as modified basic attacks.
How about instead of being a pedantic faggot you could tell me how this could be set up in the existing rules?
>>44240325
Thats a very good pitch. I'm looking for a module too, but its hard to really get a good feel for wtf that module is about when just skimming through it.
So its lika a three parter? Keep, Wilderness, Caves?
>>44241922
I was just making a stupid reference..
>>44242002
The thing is that if you give a wizard an effective at-will weapon, you're cranking up his power significantly. He's the dagger and staff guy to limit his combat effectiveness. So you'd want any blasts he could do to be limited--d4 damage (with a to-hit roll necessary) and the equivalent. So if he could do a stun effect, it should maybe just be something like "make a saving throw or you fall to the ground and lose one turn".
>>44241854
You could take a cue from dragon subdual and just say that you're zapping to subdue, in which case the guy just doesn't die when he drops to 0 HP. This is probably the fairest way, since it means the stunning doesn't become a cheap shortcut to beating an opponent.
Or, you could have the wand use the RC rules for a sap but at modest range. I think that would be overpowered, but it's not my game. (Basically, you take -4 to hit, the guy gets a save vs. death ray and if he fails he gets knocked out, stunned or loses initiative in the next round, depending on his number of hit dice. He also gets a HD-dependent bonus to the save)
>>44221924
depends on how light you want, cause on the one end you have Whitehack which is about as light as a OSR game can get and still be of any use, while on the other end we have games like Castles & Crusades and Adventurer Conqueror King System that are really meaty by OSR standards(still relatively light compared to Shadowrun or Pathfinder)
>>44223922
>>44223809
on the other hand, if you're allowing firearms, they are a perfect fit for Wizards(at least the lighter kinds), since mucking around with black powder is the sort of thing a Wizard would do(see Gandalf being an expert maker of Fireworks)
>>44226732
my main one I'm tinkering with uses a modified version of the 4E cosmology, but heavily alters the physical plane due to the setting's backstory(Earth equivalent blew up due to a magical cataclysm about 20,000 years ago, and the setting takes place on the largest surviving fragment floating in space)
>>44242254
I think Keep on the Borderlands is a rather sandbox-y module, laying out the environment and then saying "have at it!" Frankly, I never found it very interesting, but maybe that's because it's really not my style. I want something a bit more focused, instead of vague bare bones details about everything.
>>44242293
I actually think that Castles & Crusades is a lot simpler than ACKS, overlong equipment lists notwithstanding.
>>44242273
Yes, this is what I had in mind. Very similar to Harry Potter style magical attacks, which I like.
>>44242276
Yes, I like what you use here. The idea is Wizards can try to deal damage but shitty (Fighters are better) but can subdue enemies one at a time with blasts. This is to make up for the fact that, at least in my games, i remove spells like Sleep and other overpowered stuff and try to get Wizards to focus more on utility and other strange magic instead. The idea being that Wizard's shouldn't have to focus on being 1 pump-chumps and instead can be moderately useful in a fight to make up for it. But only barely.
>>44242002
Honestly I'd just do it the way recent games do. Whoever deals the killing strike can decide to make it a KO instead. Less bothersome than tracking a separate nonlethal damage.
>>44242404
>i remove spells like Sleep and other overpowered stuff
You know, I don't care how you play, have fun however you like, but it's dangerously close to bait to come into /osrg/ and complain that the magic-user's simultaneously overpowered and too weak. If you can't even bother to understand why the M-U has few but strong spells, people arent going to want to help you much longer.
>>44243283
>few but strong spells
BUT this is a shitty mechanic.
That's like making a character class that starts with 3 wishes at level 1 but never gets them back. Oh they are powerful but they have to ration it out. It's the same shit with magic users, giving them one spell a day that's just really strong is shitty. It's poor balance, I don't like it.
Not to mention it encourages retarded habits like 10 minute adventuring days and going to sleep in the middle of a dungeon. I hate that trash more then most other things (unless its a megadungeon that you are supposed to spend days or weeks inside of, then its different)
>>44243307
What are wandering monster rolls?
What is encumbrance?
What is resource management?
>>44243307
It's a nice mechanic for group play. In a group setting you cannot realistically give everyone equal focus all the time; someone is always going to be dominant force in an encounter. Giving a character powerful but very limited resources (or very specialized skills) ensures that they have a few moments to shine but don't hog the spotlight.
>>44243414
Things not used in 3.x.
I really think our anon friend doesn't really want an OSR game, he just wants to play 3.x while claiming some imaginary hipster creed of "old school".
>>44243473
>I don't want to use shitty, outdated, boring, unbalanced, and not fun class design
>That means I want some imaginary hipster cred
>I don't "really" want an OSR game even though I'm in the fucking osr general
Kill yourself.
>>44243547
Ah, see, now you went too far and made the trolling obvious. GG, better luck next time.
Guys, let us all ignore the obvious trolling.
This general is usually calm and collected, so that we're easily caught off-guard by such things
Hey, a new thread! I wonder why there is such a long pause between the new thread and the last one?
Here's my homebrew classes here.
I also have 4 more advanced classes that I need to work on, would love any kind of feedback on them.
http://pastebin.com/EYf72GGE
>>44232902
>http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?168563-Dungeon-layout-map-flow-and-old-school-game-design
God damn, look at all the faggotry in that thread. I know that's in late-period 3E and the OSR hadn't even really got going yet, but a ton of the ENWorld big names are just scurrying to condemn the dude while pretending to praise him. What a shithole, I've rarely seen as good an argument for anonymous boards.
>>44243953
Just read through all of it.
Pretty disheartening, really.
>>44243953
>>44244267
Honestly I think the best takeaway from that thread is that you can really see the attitudes that OSR was pushing against at work while at their height. And Melan's really tearing shit up there which is great, he has a way more nuanced and important argument to make than his detractors, especially about changing trends in game design over time.
>>44213046
>only letting them play one character
>not letting the magic-user have a second dude
shit DM
>>44245834
Not him, but I'm curious.
How many characters do your players usually play btw?
I first stsrted doing it recently. Every player has 2 characters so far.
Going really well so far.
>>44245689
Honestly it's kinda odd to me because I actually started dnd with 3.5/pf and that shit because everyone was recommending it as the best.
It was rubbing me the wrong way since day one.
The rigid attitude of GMs and players were simply off-putting. For example, all my plans to quickly defeat enemies and skip over encounters were vettoed because it wouldn't let them use their fancy abilities in 2-hour long combats.
Was this close to quitting the hobby.
Best part in that thread was the guy talking about meaningful choices and using a no-choice example to prove his point.
Thank you, /osr/, for having a creative spirit and chill attitude.
I was expecting bitter grogs, but I found a very open-minded and friendly general. I salute you all.
The wand guy being the first proper attempt at shitposting I saw here in half a year is a good indicator of the quality of these threads.
>>44246320
>>44245834
I just go with henchmen, and its not remotely the DM's responsibility to provide all PCs with them.
>>44243953
I understand both perspectives, really. In particular, I don't find there to be any need for the wandering, nonlinear dungeons for one simple reason -- we have hex crawls and town/wilderness encounters for that.
>>44246320
I'm like >>44246653, I go with one PC per player with a passel of henchmen for anyone who wants them. Henchmen can take over from a dead PC but can't be of equal or higher level than the PC, so there's always *some* loss when a character bites it.
>>44246494
>The wand guy being the first proper attempt at shitposting I saw here in half a year is a good indicator of the quality of these threads.
We have had a few, like this sterling specimen: >>44166651 who just shows up now and then to deny various well-established OSR lore, but I agree with you in principle. People were even trying to help out wand guy!
>>44219058
It has cool character creation but seems op.
>>44247375
Actually this reminds me of something I wanted to ask:
How do you handle new characters joining the game? Both players who rerolled new ones and new players joining.
I am honestly considering halving the experience his previous character had, and the newcomer rolling up a level 1 character who'll keep being ultra careful.
>>44230198
I mean as the main cosmology, not part of it. Planes as fruit on the tree or planets in a system.
>>44247709
>How do you handle new characters joining the game? Both players who rerolled new ones and new players joining.
All new characters start on level 1, with very few exceptions (these would be something like "the player's existing PC works hard to incarnate an extradimensional hero's soul into an artificial body built expressly at great expense", not "Jeff brought me a candy apple! Yay!"). If the character joins as a henchman and is leveled up alongside the main PC, that's how he comes into play when the old PC dies, otherwise, well, the group are nice folks and will generally help brand new PCs survive and improve quickly.
In an in-game sense, new PCs join up in town, or they're found chained in the next or next but one room of the dungeon (or equivalent: tied up, locked in a cell, crammed in a cauldron with a lid clamped on it and being boiled with onion and turnip, whatever). Henchmen will almost always have been present to witness their master's death, so that's no problem.
>>44248086
Is there any issue with party balance/levelling taking too slow?
Just curious
>>44248865
Not really; I run a megadungeon game and the best practice is to have 3-4 times as much loot on each level as it would take an average party to level up. So, if a newbie player joins they just take it easy and go explore an unexamined part of a higher level until that character's leveled up. Given that this can still mean a level 1 character getting an equal cut of level-4 loot, it's typically decently fast leveling.
>>44249195
Great point there.
I'm considering how to adapt it to hexcrawls, but the principle should be more or less the same
>>44249266
A hex crawl can be thought of like an overland megadungeon. The further from the "starting point", bigger challenges and rewards.
It makes sense if you are in an unexplored frontier or something like that.
>>44246494
>>44247524
>People say wand guy was shitposting
>People unanimously hate him
>mfw I was just trying to fix Wizards
>>44251693
wizerds r fine as is tho
>>44251693
The thing here, though, is that wizards don't need fixing. The way they're designed, they're supposed to be highly fragile early-on, and become godly, world-crushing sorcerer-kings by around level 9 or so.
This actually spawned in a lot of sword and sorcery literature, where magic-using characters were often either limited in physical strength, or were simply cleverer than those around them. In the Dying Earth stories (a direct influence on the Vancian magic system), every spellcaster prepares his spells from a spellbook, and due to the limited uses, there's a tendency to be extremely careful in using them.
While I don't think the ideas presented by Wand Guy are inherently bad, I don't think there's a need to "fix" anything about spellcasting in OSR games, since it's an intentional balance decision, not a case of forgetfulness in writing the rules.
>>44251755
What if you don't agree with that?
>>44251782
What if you don't like that way the game is balanced? I'm slaughtering a sacred cow here not to be edgy but because I legitimately think it could be improved with a new mindset.
>>44251829
Nobody is stopping you from doing what you want family, but if you start suggesting throwing in 3.PF stuff to osr games, you're not gonna get a great reception here. It's /OSRG/ after all.
>>44251829
Then you should go play another fucking game.
>>44251829
>What if you don't like that way the game is balanced? I'm slaughtering a sacred cow here not to be edgy but because I legitimately think it could be improved with a new mindset.
That's fine!
That's great!
Homebrew is in the spirit of OSR, and I think adding your own rules and altering things to suit your own wants and needs.
I think that insinuating that it's better is inherently wrong (and I'd say that to anyone who was entirely against homebrewing things- I think blanket statements are horseshit).
At the same time, I also think that adding mechanics like that isn't really in the spirit of OSR games.
For one, it adds an extra gameplay system that clutters things up. It also removes the limitations/focus on resource management that make OSR games fun. Due to the rules-light nature of a lot of the games in the genre, creative play is the focus, not dwelling on what the rules say you can/can't do.
I think that if you like the mechanics you're trying to implement, then you should totally go for it. See if it works. If it does, that's great, and if it doesn't that's okay, too.
>>44251693
I think folks are just overly sensitive about shit that seems too 3e-ish, especially if there's implied criticism of OSR and the implication that it should be changed to be more like 3e. I actually do think that some of the ideas (touch attacks, ability damage and so forth) are unnecessarily complicated and indicative of bad habits inherited form 3e, but I don't think they were shit-posting or anything, and in any back-and-forth, you have to expect that you're going to hear stuff you disagree with. And then you come up with counter proposals and dialectic goodness results. So I apologize if folks have been beating up on you. That sort of thing happens on this board, but /osr/ tends to be one of the more cordial places around these parts. So I hope you'll shrug off the hostility and continue to post, even if I disagree with your overall approach.
>>44251693
You called people responding retards and sperged out a few times.
>>44251693
The shitpostingest parts were these:
>>44243307
>>44243547
You gotta understand that this isn't going to generate massive goodwill among people who already think the system works great and plays great in practice. Those posts are where you lost everybody, before then you were getting good suggestions the whole time despite sneering at many of them (like when anons explained why touch attacks are a bad idea, at least one guy was totally nice about it and at least two mentioned the saves as a better mechanic).
I mean, honestly. We don't owe you shit, and you barged into a pretty buddy thread to tell us the shit we like sucked and then expected us to do the heavy lifting to rebuild things to your taste, what the fuck did you think would happen?
>>44252333
Trips of trips confirmed for truth
Forgot this one too >>44241922
>>44251782
>The way they're designed, they're supposed to be highly fragile early-on, and become godly, world-crushing sorcerer-kings by around level 9 or so.
This isn't even really true, an 11th level Dwarf for instance can most probably paste a Magic-User of the same level but good. Sure, the wizard can cast Disintegrate now: so fucking what? There's a 95% chance it's going to fail, and after that first spell (assuming you even won initiative) he's in melee and can't cast at all anymore, plus he has shit AC and about four axe blows' worth of hit points.
>>44252440
That's why the magic-user uses the funds he's no doubt earned manufacturing and selling magic items and questing to hire himself a force of bodyguards, or gotten himself a pet dragon.
A magic-user, unless they're multi-classed, will almost never have the combat power to stand up to a fighter of any level.
If they play smart, though, they won't need it.
>>44252519
>That's why the magic-user uses the funds he's no doubt earned manufacturing and selling magic items and questing to hire himself a force of bodyguards, or gotten himself a pet dragon.
You could say the same for the fighter types, though. My point's just that the class balance itself isn't "magic-users start fragile and become demigods", it's "magic-users are glass cannons, they start out and remain both fragile and having powerful abilities". An M-U will always need fighter backup or great ingenuity; an M-U will never be the smart bet in a one-on-one arena fight.
I just don't think it's fair to say that the pre-2E editions deliberately balance the M-U to eventually become TEH BEST, I guess. That to me is a 3.pf thing and one of the big reasons I don't like those editions.
>>44252628
Definitely. I agree with you, and I probably just phrased my original post poorly.
There are some hugely powerful spells in those high-level lists, though, for sure. Those could ruin pretty much anyone's day if wielded with even a little intelligence.
>>44252752
Eh, maybe I just misread you because of the spergs you see sometimes saying caster supremacy is deliberate and good. Those guys drive me nuts, but on second thought I guess they mostly say that to defend 3.pf against 4E players...
Either way we definitely seem to be on the same page.
>>44252440
>Sure, the wizard can cast Disintegrate now: so fucking what? There's a 95% chance it's going to fail
People underrate the importance of old-school saves for preventing caster dominance so often. Not even the categories so much, just the principle of saves getting easier as your char gains levels until most direct offensive spells are pretty ineffective against a name level martial, which is a very Conany idea. Even a bunch of the retroclones fuck this up, like doesn't Castles and Crusades use save DCs?
I was reading through some old adventure modules when I came across something that raised a question.
There is a trap where basically, you blindly stick your hand in a hole. If you don't succeed a relatively high save, you get your hand cut off.
My question is, how common was this, back then? And how should the ruling of losing a limb go, using basic fantasy role playing as an example. Or any d20 based game.
Does anyone have a better map for the Keep on the Borderlands dungeons?
The scan on the trove is really great, but the Caves of Chaos maps themselves are pretty bad (due to that classic TSR copy protection).
Anyone got a better map, or should I just copy it onto graph paper?
>>44251782
The wizard becomes more powerful than the warrior in about level 5-6.
>>44254286
Losing a limb should be hombrewed, there are some modern osr documents for losing body parts, i would roll a d2 to see if he is left handed or right handed, then if he looses his main hand the in would give a -3 bonus to his other hand, then he would need to take a left hand proficency to be able to properly use a sword with that hand.
>>44211805
>You will never see troll gods in your lifetime
>>44259095
I know that feel.
I wrote an article for the first zine and was preparing more to be posted each consecutive one. Just fuck my shit up.
>>44259095
How long's it been since we saw TroveGuy, now?
>>44242276
Was thinking about this.
Maybe if a wand deals d4 and a staff d6, then you roll this after making a successful ranged attack vs the enemy. If the number is equal to or greater then the enemy's HD, the target is stunned for one round. If the number is equal or greater then the target's CURRENT hit points they are knocked out instead.
Every point you have left over over the enemy's HD can be splashed onto nearby enemies instead; knocking them out or stunning them as well with another successful attack roll each. Essentially the Wizard can still stun multiple targets or even knock them out, but the problem comes with scaling; how should higher level Wizards get more powerful knock out abilities?
Maybe the Wizard gets a bonus stun points equal to 1/2 their level each cast, or spell slots can be sacrificed to empower the wand attack (preferred). Another idea is to improve the size of the wand's damage dice, which could be done when the Wizard gets more powerful wands/staves as they level and find treasure.
This doesn't seem too powerful, and in fact seems kind of weak without stronger scaling elements. At least when compared to what the real spells are like; these are a suitable combat alternative.
>>44260192
It's not that it's too powerful, it's that it's needlessly complex.
>>44260462
It's only about as complicated as the Cleric's turning ability, and actually less so when you consider it uses the same mechanics as dealing damage with the wand, so any modifiers to a wand's power/damage can be carried over to either system without issue.
>>44253048
C&C uses save DCs, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the DCs get harder at exactly the same rate as characters' save bonuses. And since they start off appropriate for low-level characters, the result is that saving throws are really hard to make no matter what level you are (assuming you're saving against a caster of your same level).
>>44255415
Google image search is your friend.
>>44260192
The basic mechanic (a die vs. HD) is interesting, but I'd drop the splash. You might want to do something like the caster's HD + d6 - d6. That way, on an average roll, the caster can stun somebody of his own HD, but only just barely.
>>44261042
>>44261140
>>44261151
last one
>>44261106
Also, I don't see the point in having a staff be more effective than a wand. The end result of that is just that everybody uses staves.
>>44261256
Well my reasoning is that wands let you add your Dex to your attack roll and are easier to conceal then staves, but staves can be used as weapons and a little stronger.
I personally like the caster HD vs creature HD thing, but I'm not sure if I'm giving players HD in this game. Level is a close enough alternative.
>>44261012
>C&C uses save DCs, but that's not the problem.
Sure, I was using it as shorthand. Technically I guess you could call the old-school saving throw numbers DCs as well. But yeah, I totally agree that the real problem is that they don't get progressively easier to pass. Hell, even the fix in your pic doesn't go all the way.
Save-or-die spells only look super powerful if you forget that they only work reliably on mooks, if that. A normal man has a 35% chance of passing a death save!
>>44261256
>Also, I don't see the point in having a staff be more effective than a wand.
If anything it should be the other way around, shouldn't it? Wands have an easier save, so granting them a bigger damage die would make wand vs. staff a meaningful choice.
>>44261299
If anyone actually used AD&D weapon rules but me, it seems, I'd have staves be more powerful (the aforementioned d6 or whatever) but wands having a very nice speed factor.
>>44256212
>>44251782
The highlight of a wizard's power curve is level 1, in which, with a speed factor 1 action, he can wipe out 200% to 400% of his weight in a single action, no save. He also has darts (3/r, fast speed), daggers (2/r, fat speed), or staff (great reach). Unless using weapon vs AC, darts have same average damage as a longsword (1.5 x3) and is less swingy.
The wizard becomes more versatile and able to do more in a day, but as he gets stronger your bang for the buck is best served by buffing, generally.
In contrast, fighters etc. start off as wholly nonfunctional garbage, who are essentially coin flips vs orcs, and eventually become quite decent.
Steps to fix wands.
>Give Wizards mana
>Using a wand uses mana
done.
What kind of things make a game "challenging?"
>>44261540
Some people like to describe challenging as things like instant death traps or way too high-leveled enemies but I prefer a more nuanced approach.
Personally I think challenging entails making even simple, everyday things hard. Seeing is a normal thing, but in a dungeon where it is really dark? Then it starts getting hard. If you have a party scrambling to burn anything they can to keep their torches going, I think that's a step in the right direction.
Personally for me, darkness, heat and cold, water, and falls should be just as much a hazard for adventurers as the monsters and traps are.
Challenging things;
>The players are forced to make tough calls using their abilities or resources. Should they throw down their rations and run away from the monster or will they starve without them?
>As above; Resources must be limited
>There are multiple ways to solve a problem, and all of them cost something
>Victory is not guaranteed, but possible
>At least one party member should die each adventure, unless they play really well.
>>44261626
>Some people like to describe challenging as things like instant death traps or way too high-leveled enemies
These things can absolutely be challenging, you just have to make sure that they're clearly hinted at beforehand and/or possible to flee from. Realizing when to cut your losses and scram is a perfectly valid challenge.
>>44261700
Yes, I agree with you there.
I was more referring to gay shit like a DM pulling a gorgon out of his ass around a corner with no statues nearby or an unkillable level drain ghost that pops out of a mirror without any indication or warning.
I've had a DM that did some shit like that before and it was pretty infuriating. I'm glad I'm not playing with them anymore.
>>44261708
mh yeah. The DM should be an obstacle course not a fucking brick wall
>>44231042
Is Dark Tower in the trove?
>>44211818
Related note, anyone have a PDF of Castle Gargantua? It looks neat. It's apparently a large-scale megadungeon in the same way that Vornheim was a city - some pre-written highlights, and some useful tools for building the bits the players are in.
>>44211818
I've got ItO, though it's not a megadungeon. Or were you asking those two questions independently?
>>44251033
It's too big to post, but here's the uploadmb link I used. This is the whole version, not the free version he has on his blog, so don't click if you have a perfectly understandable ethical aversion to piracy.
>http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1444155548
Don't worry, it's legit, I promise.
>>44265608
>>44211818
Into the Odd is in the trove, under OSR Misc.
>>44265750
Some people can't download from mega for stupid reasons. I assumed they were one of them, seeing as they were asking for it when it was in the trove the whole time.
weird question - I always loved the original cover art for Swords & Wizardry White Box. Did anyone ever publish a higher-resolution version, or sell posters or prints of it? I just adore the style, especially the adventurers.
>>44265788
Yeah, fair enough. The trove's a mess to find things in though, even when you know what you're after. Even when you're in the right folder.
I still find it a more convenient format than mediafire, but sometimes my eyes glaze over and I scroll past something a dozen times.
>>44261493
I don't think anyone has made a mana system that works in an /osr/ style game, but I could be mistaken.
>>44266382
Tunnels and Trolls, kind of.
What's your preferred Gamma World edition? Any good source books or starter-adventures you might suggest?
>>44266382
>I don't think anyone has made a mana system
Oh, tons.
>that works
Good lord, no. One of three things inevitably (and I mean literally inevitably; as far as I can make out there's no way around it) happens: either
1) The spellcaster saves up all his spell points for only the maximum-level spells he can afford, thus becoming OP;
2) To avoid the above problem spells are costed higher, so that the spellcaster can't afford even as many spells as he got from Vancian casting, buttaguing caster players; or
3) To avoid both the preceding problems spells of various levels are so carefully priced and regulated that there's no real difference from just having Vancian slots.
(Most games that aren't D&D just go full-bore for #2 and get away with it fine, but in D&D itself there's an expectation on M-U power especially)
>>44264970
Sadly no, but that sounds incredibly intriguing.
>>44266523
Personally I was thinking of using a mana system for my own homebrew. The idea is that if you tie a faster but smaller regenerating mana bar with mana potions you can drain the resources better from a party.
While it is true a traditional MU has a more restricted amount of spells per day, I honestly think with enough tweaking you'd better get the feel of getting worn down by dungeon crawling from a mana-using one instead. The idea being that instead of camping and returning ALL your spell slots, you can stand around and wait a few minutes to recover a little mana, but this takes time that invites wandering monster checks. In the same way the party will start running low on healing and regular supplies, the mage will start running low on mana and mana potions and only regenerates slowly.
Does anybody else see where I'm coming from here?
>>44266615
>mana potions
Sacred 2 was a pretty decent, underrated ARPG. Mash spacebar to pop a potion, and it played the sound of someone opening a can of soda.
It just sounded perfect. Now, in an RPG, you'd be amazed how loud that sound can be when you're trying to stay hidden...
I hope this gives you inspiration for your use of mana potions in dungeon-crawl roleplaying games. I'd encourage you to also rip off the cyborg megaman anubis character class, but that might be going a bit far for the OSR.
>>44261493
For the same effect a wand could use up a prepared spell of equal or higher level, adding versality but not power
That' a little boring though
>>44266615
I see where you're coming from, but it'd also introduce the issue of mana potion hoarding.
Items that refresh spellslots are already incredibly rare, so unless those potions are rare, this'll be an issue.
On top of that it gives the magic-user an additional resource to consider which may be overkill at this point.
>>44266615
>>44266523
Maybe handle it like a powerup system?
Mages can not store mana in their body, unless they drink a potion. But they can draw some amount every turn, instead of moving.
Lets say you draw 2 mana a turn. You can then decide to.
a) do nothing and have mana for a huge 4 mana spell next turn
b) cast a 1 mana spell so you can have big 3 mana spell next turn, but still support some
c) Sustainable average 2 mana spell this turn, not saving up anything
As you level you can draw more mana/turn, so your spells become more economical.
But drawing mana is noisy and makes sneaking impossible. So a caster doesn't collect any mana until a fight starts, or needs to use the potion reserves he has inside his body.
>>44267015
Maybe something like a combination system?
Let's say a magic user can store a small amount of mana naturally that they naturally restore. Something like their level + Int modifier. This is the magic that naturally seeps into their brain and blood, and as such can be cast without powering up.
However, this means at level one they'll have between 1-3 magic points they can store (zero if they have a negative Int!) but a basic level spell could cost 3 points. That means that for many casters they'll still have to charge for a few turns to get up their magic points.
Of course this system falls apart pretty fast when you consider this means that magic users will always have mana to cast on spells. Seems to powerful; the only alternate solution is to make either all the spells really weak or somehow enforce really strict component requirements for any spell that isn't a simple combat or utility spell.
Maybe I should just go back to spell circles, or perhaps keep mana but make it only recharge every day again.
>>44267174
Personally I would just remove the charging in combat thing. Charging in combat, while thematically cool, brings about a big problem considering now magic users can just charge up any mana they lost instantly. Additionally it doesn't make sense why they couldn't use this charging method outside of a fight, so they can always use spells whenever they want by just standing still and charging up, even when no enemies are nearby.
Letting them get back 1 mana every hour or something might work better. The only exception to the charge thing I could think of is letting them charge up 1 temporary mana point that they must cast the next turn, which could be used to either cast a big spell they are missing just one point on, OR used to fire off a wand shot, which would cost 1 mana each.
>>44267174
>>44267236
Obviously, spells would be mostly combat only with this system. Alternatively, out of combat spells could cost a lot, more than you can draw/store as drawn. Which would be fair, considering you should be finding mundane solutions if possible. Magic should be your last resort.
>>44266469
Mutant Future.
It streamlines done rules and is freely available.
100%compatible with Labyrinth Lord and thus with most b/x clones.
It even comes with a handy conversion between both systems.
>>44267331
Or simpler, they are drawing from the outside world, and that energy cannot stay in their body for long. It start seeping out
>>44267513
Right, forgot to say that in >>44267174
all non-potion mana seeps out a turn or two after its drawn.
>>44267513
>>44267566
This doesn't stop people from just drawing in mana and casting their biggest utility spell whenever they have a peaceful moment.
>>44267600
Combined with utility spells costing more than the mana you can draw, yes it does.
>>44267630
So you're saying you have a pool of mana inside the character and you can only draw a small amount? So you still need to have all your natural mana to actually cast your big utility spells?
>>44267696
Yes. You can mitigate the casting costs of higher cost spells with the drawn mana too. Combat spells would be on the cheaper end, but maybe after enough levels you could probably afford to cast some utility spells from drawn mana, but not at the beginning, and not the really useful ones.
>>44267765
And restoring inside mana is only through potions and long rests, obviously. So basically manapots can be used for combat nova or utility (but probably have them hoarded for emergency when you need that utility spell but the wizard is out). Drawn points would theoretically be enough to last a mage through combat doing average stuff, so you don't get the "mage out of spells, must rest" thing so often.
Or something like that. It's 10 pm and I haven't slept in days so yeah, I can't even tell if that's supposed to be good or bad.
>>44266469
2e is pretty much the definitive edition. It's basically a tweaked, expanded 1e. However, it's old school TSR, so it may seem a bit dated to modern eyes (though that's less of a concern here in /osr/, where folks are probably at peace with that.
3e tried to make Gamma World more sophisticated than earlier editions. It used an action resolution table whereby you achieve different levels of success on a percentile dice roll. For weapon damage for instance, blue did one damage multiple (7 for instance), green did two (14), yellow did three (21) and so forth. It's a neat system, and is a decent bit more detailed than 2e, but it's rather disorganized and had a ton of errata to contend with. It provides the basis to be the best edition, I think, with streamlining and organizing, but as-is it's a bit of a mess. So it's a fixer-upper.
4e took GW in the direction of AD&D, with classes and honest-to-god levels and shit, something I think was a mistake. GW already shared a common heritage with D&D, and the differences between them were largely a matter of them being better adapted to their respective settings.
I've never even seen 5th edition or played the Alternity system it uses, so I can't help there. Alternity apparently folded right after 5th edition came out, though, so I don't think 5th edition ever got much circulation.
6th edition looks terrible to me, but then it's based on d20 modern, and I'm really not a fan of d20 modern.
I've not played 7th edition, but it's been billed as a short-term, pickup game of zany fun (albeit one with a high death rate). That seems like it could be cool, but I prefer to take my Gamma World seriously (even when it's ridiculous), and to run longer term campaigns.
>>44269377 continued
I've not looked over the Savage Worlds port that it's in the trove, but if it's well put together, I suspect that might be your best bet. Savage Worlds seems like it would work well with Gamma World, and the cool part of GW was never the mechanics, but rather the setting, mutations, technology and so forth. If you want an authentic edition, I suppose I'd point you towards 2nd edition. Even if you decided not to go with it, it's a good point of comparison.
Is there like a book of city/village maps somewhere I could use? Just a big selection of maps I can drop into a campaign.
Something similar to what Dyson is doing.
>>44259095
>>44259196
Have some artwork.
>>44270704
>>44270725
