Link to the Trove:
>https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!vJsyAa5T
Relevant Items and Miscellany:
>http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Question of the thread:
>Why have so many OSR games not deviated from the Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling classes?
>>46221968
Probably because those were included in the editions they enjoyed and played in the past. Personally I wish people would put more options in their games or change up certain classes, there's enough OSR games that mimic the older setup that I'd think killing a few sacred cows for your own game would be perfectly acceptable.
Hell, let's make the Fighter the most complex class and the Magic-User the most simple class to play mechanically. Why not?
>>46222643
>wizard can magically add bonuses or penalties to d20 rolls
>the strength and frequency with which he does so increases every level
That'd be pretty simple.
>>46222643
>>46222689
Personally, I just like having races as classes. It's fun.
But I also hate, hate how the thief works. He's shite. Low levels his abilities might as well not exist, high levels you can just stop giving a fuck about being clever about traps forever because he can just magically get rid of them no problem. I'm not a fan of magic users being glorified peasants at level 1 either. It's like a tax on fun. "oh you wanna have glorious god like powers in the future? Well pay your "no-fun" tax at level 1 and 2.
It may make me a heathen, but I liked the concept of wizards having some weak at-will spells that they got in 4e.
Most of my basic D&D games have a party consisting of fighters, dwarves, elves, halflings, and clerics. No one wants to be a MU or a thief. Not at level 1.
>>46223006
I like it how LotFP handles both of those.
The Specialist class is a great take on the thief, and the fact that wizards aren't restricted when it comes to armor and weapons (besides having to be unencumbered to be able to cast spells), makes them viable at lower levels too.
>>46223006
Lotfp does a lot to make the thief relevant. You might want to look into that. But for tje MU, while i get where you're coming from, I think limiting the number of spells the wizard gets is necessary. Think about it, sleep is basically negate one encouter. If you can do this once per day your party should LOVE you.
However he should get a full d6 hp. Having d4 hp is fucking ridiculous.
>>46223093
>I think limiting the number of spells the wizard gets is necessary
And I perfectly agree with you. I'm not saying he should get more spells per day, just saying that I like the idea of giving him some not as powerful spells to use at-will.
Though I don't know what those would be because I'm not good at making up rules and stuff.
>>46223087
I will take a look at LotFP, it sounds interesting.
>>46223277
Thats trickey to do without A. breaking the game or B. ending up with spells so useless they might as well not even exist.
I'm always a fan of adding the Find Familiar spell in some form in low level adventures when playing B/X. Either as some kind of ritual that can be performed once by a MU or straight op ripping the spell from AD&D. It adds a fun dimension to the MU (whiles't giving a little HP boost).
>>46223422
>Thats trickey to do without A. breaking the game or B. ending up with spells so useless they might as well not even exist.
Yeah, that's why I just gave up on trying anything like it. I mean, just trying to think of some sort of combat cantrip is hard. It would have to be better than just trying hit a dude with a staff or throwing a dagger, but not as good as a fighter or cleric attacks so they don't get overshadowed. That's some tricky balance right there.
Gearing up for a short (10 to 14 session) sandbox campaign, using B/X (with a few house rules which are mostly re-writes like ascending AC). Making an area of about 20 x 20 miles. The central village will be a human settlement constructed out of the ruins of a dwarven mine.
What sort of forces (I want about three) should I place to keep the area alive? At the moment I'm thinking a young dragon (and his minions), a bandit leader amongst some elven ruins who see themselves as gaurdians of nature, a necromancer (animate dead altar or something like that with a crazed MU studying it) and some intrigue within the settlement itself (such as the evil priest from B2).
I'd love suggestions from you guys.
>>46223561
There is a mysterious "Master" that has recently taken over the nearby tribes of deset/steppe nomads (depends on the climate of the place). At some point, if he isn't stopped, he will send these nomads to attack the village.
>>46223422
I let my magic users do small things such as causing a spark enough to light a torch or impress somebody foolish enough, cause slight breezes, bend smoke into interesting shapes and sizes stuff like that.
My rule is to never give them stuff that has a direct usefulness but rather something they can use in a smart way to circumvent obstacles.
Per example, a certain magic user in my group has used his sparks to quickly light an impromptu Molotov cocktail, whilst in other occasion he's caused a slight breeze, enough to make the cleric's hair blow in the wind to help her intimidate some kobolds.
>>46221968
Does anybody here routinely play on the Critkeeper site linked in the pastebin?
Im interested in playing with you guys but ive never done online ttrpg before.
>>46223534
>It would have to be better than just trying hit a dude with a staff or throwing a dagger, but not as good as a fighter or cleric attacks so they don't get overshadowed.
I let my MU characters have the ability to throw little magical bolts in combat. It works just like throwing darts, but doesn't weigh them down, and stuff that's resistant to magic also resists the wizard's bolts.
You can often re-fluff other bits of equipment as magical effects with a little thought.
>>46223812
oh, and if they want this magic stuff, they pay the same cost as they would buying the actual item.
Is there any OSR game endorsed by Satan?
>>46223534
I don't see why it's that hard. Just come up with spells that don't quite make level one. Aim somewhere between magic missile and attacking with a dagger. At low level, a magic missile lets you autohit for an average of either 3.5 or 4.5 damage, depending on the edition. Striking with a dagger and a 19 THAC0 against an AC of 7 gives you a 45% chance to inflict 2.5 damage, which boils down to 1.125 damage per round. The lower damage magic missile is doing more than 3 times as much damage. That gives you plenty of options with damage spells, like:
d8 damage but requires a to hit roll.
Autohit d4, but only at close range.
d6 damage but target gets a saving throw to negate it.
All of these are better than a melee attack for a low level magic user, but worse than a magic missile.
>>46224156
Oh, I should say that those would be level 0 spells rather than at wills though. I mean, they probably wouldn't break the game as at wills, but they'd supersede melee attacks, which seems a bit silly.
>>46224305
I don't think it's too silly to have wizards just not do melee attacks.
Is it fairly easy to run LotFP with modules designed for LL, B/X or DCC ?
>>46221968
>Why have so many OSR games not deviated from the Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling classes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TtGQnyPZ6g
>>46223006
>It may make me a heathen, but I liked the concept of wizards having some weak at-will spells that they got in 4e.
4e had many good ideas, and this was one of them.
Well, it wasn't original to 4e, but 4e took it and made it core.
>>46224673
>yet another faggot who thinks people who like OSR don't play other games
>>46224156
>d8 damage but requires a to hit roll.
Better than the level 1-2 Fighter at ranged combat. Given a limited range of ACs, this is the one version that actually gets better as you level up.
>Autohit d4, but only at close range.
Averages 2,5 damage - slightly weaker than a Fighter attacking an unarmored target with a d10 weapon. Except it applies to all enemies no matter the armor.
>d6 damage but target gets a saving throw to negate it.
This actually gets worse as you level up, but given a base 25% save chance this averages 2,625 damage.
Personally I'd just skip combat cantrips entirely and just give them some sort of at-will Prestidigitation effect. Just let the players ad-lib minor magical effects as long as it doesn't step on the toes of bigger spells.
>>46224820
The first big experiment with them was what, the Warlock? Also, of course, one of the Dead Levels web articles eventually gave the Hexblade at-will Prestidigitation which was a cool thing although it probably didn't make the class worth playing.
>>46223006
>It may make me a heathen, but I liked the concept of wizards having some weak at-will spells that they got in 4e.
I actually liked the idea of all of the classes having at-will techniques (and somewhat also having encounters for more martial oriented characters).
>>46223709
Seems interesting. Bad experiences with text-based things just make me more inclined to start up a roll20 group with voicechat.
>>46221968
>Why have so many OSR games not deviated from the Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling classes?
Hey, that's not fair. Sometimes they axe the Halfling and replace it with some other small stealthy race.
>>46224584
Yes, yes, mostly.
DCC is a bit different, but the changes are sometjing you can mostly do on the fly
>>46224935
>The first big experiment with them was what, the Warlock? Also, of course, one of the Dead Levels web articles eventually gave the Hexblade at-will Prestidigitation which was a cool thing although it probably didn't make the class worth playing.
There was also the set of wizard feats that gave you babby at-wills for having certain spells memorised, an idea I've seen pop up in the OSR from time to time.
>>46223709
I'm thinking of running a campaign using BFRPG on it, but I'm more interested in playing since I have one irl and one Roll20 games I run.
So anyone want a look at Chainmail... 2nd edition? 2nd printing, shamelessly stolen from someone on the ODD74 boards.
Bit older than the usual one you see PDFs of.
>>46225298
I'd prefer to play bfrpg too.
It is surprising that we don't have a set group on roll20 just for /tg/ osr players In a similar fashion to the /vg/ guilds.
>>46225395
Nothing stopping us from making one I guess. Also, while I'd be most interested in a BFRPG game I wouldn't mind playing other games (even more modern games save 3.5)
>>46224395
Maybe so, but you'd probably want to ratchet those down a bit if they're at will to avoid making the magic-user a bit too sweet at combat, at least at low levels.
>>46224935
Generally speaking, they're all slightly superior to a starting fighter's attack, provided he isn't getting a strength bonus. But then the magic-user is having to burn up spells and is still quite frail, so I don't think he's outshining the fighter. And having a new level of spells (and not just combat ones) would give the magic-user more to do, especially if you start them out with a decent number (at least four and maybe a half dozen).
>>46225428
I have heard horror stories of people playing with guys they met on /tg/ so there would have to be a rule against memes and erpg stuff.
Like no monstergirls/elfslave/bearington.
And a password.
>>46225457
how about we copy newer D&D a little and go with these level 0 spells being able to be refreshed by taking a short rest (like 1 hour or something that is just inconvenient enough that they will want to avoid using all these level 0 spells in a single fight)
Does anyone have a good referee screen for LotFP? Either a scanned 'official' one, or better yet, screen inserts? Thanks.
>>46225585
I've always liked the idea of being able to regain a limited number of spells with a short rest, maybe a number of spell levels equal to the top level of spell you can cast. So if you can cast 2nd level spells, you could refresh one 2nd level spell or two 1st level spells. Level 0 spells would probably count as half-a-level under this scheme.
>>46225541
I'm down for general rules outlines like those but we should still allow jokes.
>>46225702
Another interested player chipping in.
I'd offer to run smaller games, but I'm infamously bad of a GM
>>46225794
How do you mean? Do you throw tantrums? Pit level 1s against Balors? Railroad your players?
>>46225855
Maybe he can't resist putting his magical realm everwhere
>>46223709
I played a short game of LL on it. It was fun! Been wanting to try LotFP on it.
>>46225903
Maybe, but I hope that we'd at least keep our magical realms in check for at least a few sessions.
>>46225855
Bad case of chronic caughing, and not being a native speaker really puts the lid on good narration and roleplaying NPCs.
Thankfully the other points I managed to avoid.
>>46226415
Coughing, I mean.
And scratch all that, I feel I'd be bad at those points even without all that.
>>46225362
Well, that's certainly a thing. And it's for a copyright from '72, so I guess this is the last pre-OD&D edition?
Wizards have levels and eight spells to choose from, including Protection from Evil. Didn't know that one got in that early.
Also, this little sentence which I was looking for in OD&D but couldn't find:
>In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person.
That's right, spell disruption is in OD&D. Knew that was somewhere.
>>46226586
>Well, that's certainly a thing. And it's for a copyright from '72, so I guess this is the last pre-OD&D edition?
The discussion had someone looking for a first edition, since there were reportedly changes made between 1e and the 3e most people have, but it's still interesting.
Bit like those early printing OD&D LBBs! Good old gaming history.
>>46226474
You could at least be a player if we can scrounge enough players together though.
>>46226633
Should be fine that way. I hope this works out. Worst case scenario, I can try running a one shot so we see how it'd go, but hopefully we can find someone more capable.
>>46226627
The biggest differences between 1E and 2E that I am aware of is how in 1E Wizards don't have any levels at all, and there's IIRC only six spells.
3E changes Wizards a whole lot (a dozen spells, yet another level, Spell Complexity), and then later prints removed the Tolkien references and sacked the Balrog.
>>46226633
>>46226705
Ideally i would love it if we had a drop in drop out style of game. Kind of like what it sounded like in the stories of Odnd.
I bet a bunch of people on /tg/ have varied schedules and that would allow us to all play in a semi persistent setting.
>>46226633
I'd be interested but I'm on the east coast and I work most nights. Plus I wouldn't be able to do Skype. As a DM people say I'm good but I've only run pre-written adventures so far.
Have my first attempt at a tiny dungeon, complete with messy chickenscratch writing.
>>46226802
Kinda like the "West Marches" games?
>>46226941
Yes.
>>46226937
Your kobolds are cute
>>46225541
I think that's overblown. The only problem I ever had playing online with fa/tg/uys was that half of them never showed up.
>>46226802
I'd prefer that too. Older editions and retroclones work really well with characters of different levels.
Who was on a particular session, gets the sacked XP. Simple as that.
Now, should it be a hex-crawl or a megadungeon affair?
>>46226937
Cute dungeon!
Try adding some secret treasure mounds, where kobolds have stashed their loot, of course protected with crude and rusty traps!
>>46227428
I think levels 1-3 should be simple dungeons and then a transition to full hexcrawl around levels 4-5. A megadungeon is nice but I would love a 6-mile to the hex hexcrawl (domains later?).
Real question is what game system to use. I'm most partial to BFRPG or Dark Dungeons myself.
>>46227773
Heck, I'm even willing to try ACKS
>>46227806
I'd be willing to try ACKS myself too, because it'd be really fitting.
Other than that, I got a sweet spot for LotFP, but literally any OSR game is fine in my book.
>>46227773
Speaking of Dark Dungeons, does anyone have the pdfs on hand? The webpage is dead.
>>46221968
>RE: Question
Why haven't they deviated far from the five weirdly-named and purposefully blurry saves? Why haven't they deviated from the hit die? Why haven't they deviated from "only thieves get mechanically defined skills"? (I guess that special elf and dwarf special senses are exceptions.) Why haven't they deviated from SIWDCCh?
The answer is that the OSR is an inherently conservative phenomenon.
>>46227954
It's too big to post here. Google "Gurbintroll Games", guy had to change websites and company names for some reasons. If not, they should (I beleive) be in the trove under the misc section.
>>46227954
He's moved to gurbintrollgames on wordpress. The PDF can be found on DRIVETHRURPG .com /product/177410/Dark-Dungeons.
>>46221968
>Why have so many OSR games not deviated from the Fighter/Mage/Thief/Cleric/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling classes?
One of the strong themes people tend to gravitate towards in OSR is minimalism. Fighter, Mage, Thief, and Cleric are the biggest, broadest human archetypes you can draw as distinct skill-sets. Pretty well any class concept you can come up with is either a specialization of one of these, or a blend of the two.
> Ranger - Fighter+Thief with an outdoors bent
> Paladin - Somewhere between fighter and cleric
> Spellsword - Fighter+Mage
> Bard - Variant Fighter+Thief+Mage
> Barbarian - Basically a fighter, but with some extra stuff
> Warlock - variant mage
> Druid - variant cleric
> Cavalier - variant fighter
> Samurai - variant fighter
There are a very small number that you can point to that really don't fit the mold. Monks are such a weird combination of things that they don't fit comfortably anywhere.
But on the whole, the broad four archetypes pretty well cover the bases and are all setting and culturally neutral.
(cont)
>>46221968
>>46228174
Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are a better point to argue because they are basically products of the implied setting. This is a combination of nostalgia and expectations. I'm not a huge fan of demi-humans as a whole, so in our LotFP campaign we use these classes as extra options - Elf becomes a Warlock, Dwarf becomes Barbarian (though the architecture skill becomes bushcraft), Halfling becomes Ranger (they lose the bonus to dex, AC, and missiles, but also lose the size modifier and gain fighter combat options.)
I think a lot of people like to keep these demi-humans both out of nostalgia, and as a rejection of the weirdness that comes about in later D&D. It's much easier to imagine a setting where humans get along with what essentially appear to be other humans with slight exaggerations, than a setting where humans are expected to peacefully coexist with dragon-people, demon-kin, and other more bizarre creatures. From the perspective of a rural peasant, an elf might be a creature of awe - or an object of superstition. It's hard to imagine said peasant reacting to a dragonborn or a tiefling with anything other than horror and pitchforks.
That said, it all depends on setting. Most OSR wants to remain in a similar kind of world as D&D grew up in. That's not objectively good or bad, it's all author preference. I like to see a lot of the variant races-as-class that show up because people brewed something for their home campaign (Hill Canton's War Bear makes me happy in a fairy tale sort of way)
>>46228148
>>46228159
I owe you one!
>>46225395
> It is surprising that we don't have a set group on roll20 just for /tg/ osr players In a similar fashion to the /vg/ guilds.
>>46225428
>Nothing stopping us from making one I guess. Also, while I'd be most interested in a BFRPG game I wouldn't mind playing other games (even more modern games save 3.5)
I am absolutely for this. Particularly since there have been a handful of people trying to recruit in these threads.
>>46225541
I wouldn't worry so much with this. Two of my four players are /tg/ gamefinder recruits, and they are bro-tier.
> Like no monstergirls/elfslave/bearington.
That's all crap that either the GM would have to introduce and make rules for in the first place, or said GM could smack their player down for trying to do in the first place.
Just talk to your players/GM before the game and make sure everyone has the same social expectations for the game ahead.
>>46228221
Hey, no problem.
So, should we try organizing a game/hex setting and a "roll of GMs by date & time" so people can hop in and play and/GM?
Once we pick a game system to use of course.
>>46227954
Dark Dungeons is in the trove, under OSR Misc.
>>46228321
Are you guys more inclined towards a standard fantasy setting? Or perhaps some gonzo goodness? Or just a rather plain and mundane medieval setting that catches you off-guard when the paranormal starts happening.
>>46228457
Originally i pictured something standard, so that people could hop in opt out at their leisure.
Making something for everyone in OSR /tg/ to enjoy.
With that said i do love some gonzo.
>>46228457
I like some gonzo, but I also think a general fantasy setting is the easiest to both run and play in.
>>46228457
I can also whip up a good hex map for play, make it about 2x the size of the one here
>>46227806
>>46228501
Let's just go standard and just keep humanoids low. And rump up the fungus problem of the Barony of Madred
http://strawpoll.me/7174953
Make your choice so we know what system to use.
>>46228457
I adore gonzo. I think Anomalous Subsurface Environment resonated so well with me, along with the DCC modules and Mutant Future, because of this.
>>46228321
>>46228457
I'd argue that we should go for a retro-style setting the way it was played. The basic assumption is elves and dwarves gygaxian fantasy with kobolds and orcs and whatever.. but then have all kinds of random bits of gonzo in the actual encounters.
>>46228920
I voted for ACKS, but I'd actually probably like something closer to B/x just for simplicity.
>>46226937
that's adorable
>>46228457
I'd vote for the known world pre-gazeteer.
Simple, everyone is familar with it, and open enough that people can add to it no problems.
>>46229063
>I voted for ACKS, but I'd actually probably like something closer to B/x just for simplicity.
I'm probably being a little blasphemous but I'm not the keenest for B/X. BECMI/RC is fine if one allows the extras from Mystara, but I prefer race being seperate from class or at least allowing full progression alongside humans.
>>46229623
Problem is it's highly dichotomous. I'd prefer a simpler hex area where exploration really is a major aspect and you and your party are trying to reclaim riches and, eventually, establish a domain beyond established political boundaries.
A simple hex map with a small start area and a vast "unmapped" or at least "unexplored in ages" area seems so fun.
>>46229664
I'd say it'd really have to be basic. Not everyone is familiar with all the others.
>>46229746
>simpler hex area where exploration really is a major aspect
That is basically pre-gazeteer known world though. You have some known points like specularum, but also vast lands where there's nothing detailed there.
>>46229664
> I prefer race being seperate from class
ACKS actually has race-as-class as well, albeit with two classes per race. I could have sworn BECMI/RC was also race-as-class, but it's been a while.
> or at least allowing full progression alongside humans.
Don't they have full progression in BX? The X portion lists dwarf progression to 14, elves to 10, and halflings to 8.. but the highest human progression listed is only 14 anyway.
If someone in this group actually takes a demi-human character through play for the years it would likely take to hit any of the above ceilings, I am perfectly fine in them continuing to progress.
>>46229799
Problem is the gazeteera themselves. I love the Known World setting, but if you run a game set in it (pre or post gazeteer) people will assume/expect/try to work on implementing things from them.
A simple setting map, nothing major implied and with only "scraps of civilization" here or there would bring mystery to the game. If a game is set in, say, Karameikos that carries with it certain notions of the settings such as the elven clans, the ties to Thyatis, etc.
But place the game in an unknown world and allow the GMs running it to plop down what they need and where gives more power to them. Need an marauding orc tribe? Maybe you should place them in the mountains over there? Need a mysterious series of caves? Well those hills next to the marsh seems fit for them. Oddball wizard tower? Well I guess this desert region can use something like that.
Just have the GMs place notes from the game sessions up for people to see, and the world starts to build itself.
>>46229921
They do have race as class, but I thought they capped somewhere between levels 8-11 or so.
Dark Dungeons and BFRPG break away from it to varying degrees and ACKS has multiple racial classes (more from supplements if I remember right).
>>46230206
>(more from supplements if I remember right).
Yep.
The Players Compendium also has rules for making new classes. There is like 2 race/classes for each elf and dwarf in the main book and the PC adds 2-3 more and a few more new ones.
>>46229921
>>46230206
on expert set dwarf goes to 12, elf to 10, halfling to 8, humans go 14, yes, but on the next two sets humans go all the way to 36.
However, the demihumans get the stuff the fighter gets, even without levels, trough raw experience alone.
So the only difference is that the human fighter will have is that humans get +2hp per level (no con bonus). for a total of 44hp over the dwarves, 48 over the elves, and 2hd+52hp over the halflings.
Seems easy to me to simply give them the extra hp they're missing.
>>46229921
>The X portion lists dwarf progression to 14, elves to 10, and halflings to 8.
Dwarves cap at level 12. But while you could argue that dwarves and elves have essentially full progressions (elves are pretty powerful at 10, after all), halflings get screwed pretty badly.
>>46230538
If we're talking about B/X, demihumans don't get any further progression once they cap out. It does, however, give cursory rules for human advancement past 14 all the way up to 36. It alludes to a Companion Set that was never released because they decided to start over from the beginning.
>>46230792
I thought we were talking about the becmi, in which the companion set gives them fighter abilities and more attacks, and more bonus to hit as they reach certain experience milestones.
I'm not familiar with just the b/x set, I always assumed they were the same shit different colours
>>46230872
>I thought we were talking about the becmi
It's a little hard to tell since it depends on which part of this post >>46229921 was being referenced.
>I'm not familiar with just the b/x set, I always assumed they were the same shit different colours
Aside from layout, B/X is very similar to the BE of BECMI, but there is nothing past the Basic and Expert Sets, which means it lacks stuff like demihuman progression after they hit their level cap (which was added in the Companion Set of BECMI).
I'm on my phone so can't look, but how spells and saves work in LotFP?
>>46231166
You gotta be a bit more specific here. They mostly work like they work in b/x, with some small twists here and there.
Which downloads are the most fun if you've never played an old-school RPG before?
>>46231218
So there's the same Breath, Wand, Trap saves? And I was told to spellcast, you just...do.? No dice roll to succeed?
>>46229755
This. B/X is pretty much the only sensible option aside from BECMI/RC and maybe LotFP, for purely practical reasons.
>>46231376
As far as official D&D goes, it's mainly an issue of differing levels of complexity / detail, with AD&D on one end, and Basic on the other. Most retroclones don't stray far from the editions they were based on, but there's still a wider range. But with how many of them there are, it's like a million shades of grey. I have my preferences, but aside from the systems that get overly complex and junky (like DCC and particularly Hackmaster), I find most of them to be very palatable.
>>46231423
Ah, pretty much that. No dice roll needed, it just happens. The save categories are a tiny bit different (by memory, they're paralyzation, poison, breath weapon, magic device, magic), but work pretty similarily to the basic ones.
There may be tiny differences, but I didn't feel they changed up the gameplay too much.
>>46231796
>DCC
>complex
lol
>>46231423
>So there's the same Breath, Wand, Trap saves?
I don't know that "Trap" is ever a save in any major OSR game, but besides that: yes.
>And I was told to spellcast, you just...do.? No dice roll to succeed?
Yep! Simple as that.
>>46231909
Anything from AD&D on up is "complex" around these parts, stranger.
>>46231909
Not him, but even though I like the game, it's a junky mess with all the tables and shit.
It's not as bad as hackmaster and is actually playable though.
>>46231988
It's much simpler than ADnD though.
>>46232186
I dig it. DCC honestly got me interested in RPGs again.
>>46232315
It's the only system that can imho get away with potentially limitless spells
>>46232186
>It's much simpler than ADnD though.
No it isn't. You shouldn't need a fucking excel spreadsheet whenever the wizard wants to cast a single spell.
>>46232385
DCC made being a mage fun and unpredictable again.
>>46228037
Some have but they don't get popular. S&W has unified saves, Microlite has the 3 TFT attribs.
Eero's Primitive D&D seems hella cool
https://isabout.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/primitive-dd/
3d6 across the board
d20 ability checks for most things
If there's no rule, DM's ruling sets precedent
If you can't remember the ruling 3 sessions later, it sucked, forget it
>>46232385
Re-read adnd and play it by the book then.
It's worse, but in different ways.
Magic is something you try to actively avoid from using in DCC so the tables are rarelly an issue. Just roll your spell check and I, as the Referee, will check the result. It's not even meant for the player.
>>46229755
Would it really be that hard to pick up another system? These are clones after all, rules vary some but not much. BFRPG would probably be the most radical departure due to full race-class separation, ascending AC and some minor things here or there.
>>46232771
I'm with you here. Players don't have to do much in any of those systems anyway. Do I suppose the chosen ruleset should be argued between the GMs
Reall, player-side, you can explain those systems in under 5 minutes
>>46232836
Well, arguing which system is fairly easy: list pros and cons and hold a vote. In the event of a tie, roll a die or allow the "losing" votes recast to tip scales. But yeah, character wise it's all pretty quick.
>>46232771
It's not just about difficulty but also what you can realistically get people to all agree on using. I wouldn't want to use Basic Fantasy, for instance.
B/X for life
What advantage does level grant when using the man-to-man melee table? In 20:1 a higher level character counts as more men and gets more rolls, but man-to-man doesn't seem to be effected by level, outside of your total number of hit dice.
>>46233075
Okay, what about Dark Dungeons? It's basically BECMI/RC with full progression for demihumans and a few other changes like built-in rules for weapon talents, modified Immortal rules, clarification of rules, etc.
>>46234782
Is that in the Trove?
>>46235594
Yes, under the OSR Misc tab
>>46234782
thanks
>>46236152
No problem man
>>46227806
Here's my take for a start map for a hexcrawl. There are three small states in the far southeast. For scale, the hexes are 6 mile ones and that would bring this map to about 90,000 sq miles (or a little larger than the state of Minnesota).
>>46228457
My own blend of stone-age survival and weird supernatural stuff
>>46223006
I generally do two things for magic using classes; 1.) increase the amount of spells they get at level one to somewhere between 3 and 5, and 2.) add some weak at-will spells(and make a couple really crappy level 1 spells like Read Magic or Light at-will as well), including a spell I like to call Magic Bolt, basically Magic Missile, but only does 1d3+1 damage and doesn't auto-hit(there's also a close combat version that 1d4+1 damage, still no auto-hit though)
>>46224305
eh if they're not at-will then they become completely pointless
so has anyone else read this book;
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177622/The-Heros-Journey-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Swords--Wizardry
cause it seems fairly interesting, I'd post a copy but I don't know how to remove watermarks from PDFs, also it's above the file size limits for here, but it is available for Pay What You Want, so it's essentially free anyways
>>46232689
>3d6 across the board
>d20 ability checks for most things
Already it sounds retarded. Why does Babby's First Homebrew always seem to result in people who desperately want massive ability score creep beyond the most fevered imaginings of 3e developers? This almost as bad as using d36s for stat generation in 3e or 4e.
>>46228037
>>46221968
OSRs are intended to be basically compatible with each other to varying degrees. However, some people use what is basically a 9-12 stat scale (+1/-1, if that) and some people use what is basically a 1-35 stat scale (rollunder systems are essentially this masquerading as a 3-18 stat scale).
The elf (the actually good demihuman) basically drags the dwarf and halfling with them under the guise of largely suboptimal manlet races. The manlets have to suffer under considerations applied to demihumans as a whole just due to the elf (for example level caps on casting make some sense for a gish, but not for what is basically a slower fighter).
>>46223006
I don't think it helps the mage's flavor at all to make him PEWPEWPEW 24/7. 24/7 pewers do exist (there's one Elric meets, and he can do everything from blow up castles to pew pew every round) in S&S but I don't think they should necessarily be the universal standard.
If I wanted to make mages more fun, I'd flesh out the specialty mage weapons (quarterstaff and dagger) more. Alternately, let him find a wand of magic missiles early on.
>>46240281
And this isn't a criticism of the concept of the halfling and dwarf, mind you, but that the halfling and dwarf are made unnecessarily shittier.
>>46240241
Considering what he's aiming for with the whole thing, I don't see a way to make it work while not being ability-dependant.
>>46240281
What drives me nuts about this is that the halflings and dwarves were rocking in OD&D/Chainmail. Just turn invisible in forests and counts as 1.5 times the number men in ranged attacks with a sling, definitely not represented by a +1 or +2 to hit, halflings were beasty little bastards. That's without the mention of +4 effective levels for saving throws.
Then dwarves? They have infravision, not dark vision, as in HEAT vision. Like, the stuff that lets you tell if rooms are occupied, or in cold weather lets you track people due to the heat of their foot prints. The only thing left out in OD&D, which breaks the mold of every other demihuman race getting all their abilities in chainmail, is they suffer half "hits" from larger creatures such as Giants and Ogres.
I just wish most OSR writers would be willing to let demi humans have the rocking abilities they had in OD&D, not just some crap stat modifier or be a half assed race-as-class fighter.
>>46241815
Holy crap, that's pretty insane. And makes a lot of sense.
>>46238526
Pretty good; what is that, 50x50? For an arguably more relevant comparison to medieval-ish gameplay, that map covers an area roughly 2/3 the size of (modern) Germany. The entirety of Tuscany, which basically consists of the medieval republics of Florence and Siena along with some other stuff, has an area roughly corresponding to a 17x17 hex box (although its actual shape is longer and less wide) on your map. Just so you have some kind of reference.
This does make it a little bit weird that your map goes from jungle in the south to apparently subarctic in the north, but fuck it - gameplay. I do suggest you draw rivers in, though. Since you're using a strict-hex format anyway, just have them follow edges, that's easiest
Question about LotFP and older editions in general.
Is the rapier handled as any other weapon or do you use your dex modifier?
>>46240120
>eh if they're not at-will then they become completely pointless
How do you figure? It's an extra resource and allows a low-level magic-user to drastically increase the number of spells at their disposal.
>>46241815
This pretty much ties into the thing where +/-1 modifiers for the Chainmail system were imported directly into the alternate combat system without conversion -- goblins not getting that badly penalized from sunlight, that +1 attack bonus Fighting-Men get from high strength, and other stuff previously discussed in /osrg/. All those bonuses/penalties are serious business in Chainmail, but they're limp noodles in the ACS. The whole thing was just really badly handled, which is weird given that Gygax was one of the guys who wrote Chainmail in the first place and ought to've had a grasp on the probabilities.
>>46242082
>Is the rapier handled as any other weapon or do you use your dex modifier?
Yes it is; no you don't. The rapier in LotFP is weird in that it's a strictly inferior option -- there's no reason ever to get one. As for the dex mod stuff, that's a strictly 3E rule AFAIK, and it would be silly to use it because according to HEMA guys it takes more and not less strength to use a rapier than a regular sword or two-hander.
In older editions in general I don't think there even are rapiers. Maybe in AD&D?
>>46242158
>The whole thing was just really badly handled, which is weird given that Gygax was one of the guys who wrote Chainmail in the first place and ought to've had a grasp on the probabilities.
Even weirder is that he apparently chewed out some guys back in the day for using a d12 rather than 2d6 for morale... since it fucked up the probabilities.
Also F-Ms don't get +1AB from high strength, they just bet +1 to-hit because their Fighting Capability is Man+1. Once you bring in Greyhawk and percentile strength things change, of course.
>>46242187
>The rapier in LotFP is weird in that it's a strictly inferior option -- there's no reason ever to get one.
I think it's supposed to be some kind of "legal weapon" of the >implied setting, unlike, say, two-handed fuck-off swords or cuntwhips.
>>46242301
It's still silly. Everyone who actually has any practice with the things seems to agree that a rapier's superior in a one-on-one confrontation.
>>46242187
>In older editions in general I don't think there even are rapiers. Maybe in AD&D?
Nope. Which makes sense as it'd be an anachronism. Not that D&D is always particularly tight with such things, but the rapier is an early modern weapon, not a medieval one, and clearly belongs to a different era as far as personal combat is concerned.
>>46242363
LotFP does at least take into account that it's hard to use against armour
>>46242274
Honestly it feels like, more and more as I read OD&D, that it was a collection of rules we got haflway through development. The rules were meant to be used in conjunction/derived from/with Chainmail, but everything is all kinds of fucked up. Great example is the man to man combat table, where they got all the bonuses and penalties to hit with different weapons from the 3 LBB. All those bonuses and penalties to hit are lifted straight from a 2d6 table and dropped into a D20 system.
Gygax built a wargame set of rules, and he didn't keep the probabilities in mind when he made these changes? I don't buy it, it just feels so off from that game designer from Chainmail. Its like looking at a guy who built the Warmachine rules stop halfway through the game system to switch to a D20 system and have the rules be as loose as the 40K 3rd edition assault rules.
>>46242479
Maybe it was intentional? D&D seems designed to be flippy--where folks usually have a chance to succeed and to fail, and neither is assured. That's not necessarily what you'd be going for in a miniatures game, where you're less connected to any particular miniature, and it's more about the balance of the battlefield and less about that of any given individual confrontation. So a +1 or -1 moves the odds a bit, making it worth keeping in mind, but isn't a complete game changer, so to speak. I'm just speculating here, but it at least makes sense that it *could* be the case.
>>46242423
Agreed. I was just hedging my bets considering the forty thousand polearms in AD&D; I'm not a big AD&D guy and I thought he might've just thrown it in there. My intuition was that rapiers in the PHB are a 3E thing, though.
>>46242550
Someone noticed how the Goblin math was fucked up, at least - Sword & Spells changed it to -30%, so a -6, but then AD&D undid that and changed it back to a middling penalty.
>>46242425
But it doesn't at *all* take into account that it's superior against an unarmored foe, which seems like a really weird priority for a gritty early-modern setting where you'd expect armor to appear only sporadically and in war, while fighting some lout in the street or a duel would be pretty frequent.
>>46242621
Yeah, it really is. I'm considering houseruling it, just to balance out the penalty.
>>46242550
I think its supposed to be so to some degree, but I also think the attention given to what weapons humanoid monsters use, and the generally subpar or rare nature of non one handed sword weapons, were intended with M2M probabilities.
>>46242683
Just giving it a simple +1 to hit against unarmored might be enough. If you wanted it to be strongly favored, I suppose you could go +2 instead.
>>46242479
Then again, it's also worth remembering how some of those +1s from the d6 mass combat system became straight +1s on the 2d6 man-to-man system, and how magic swords give +1 in man-to-man and +1d in mass combat.
Shit's inconsistent all the way down.
>>46242837
It's -2 against opponents with an AC of 15+, isn't it? It seems like giving it +2 against opponents of AC 14 or less would be perfectly fair. (Although of course, this once again shows how screwy it is to use AC and not the actual armor type for these considerations. Preferably it should be "chainmail or better" and "lighter armors than chain" respectively IMO.)
Turns out I'm running a game of Whitebox-style OD&D tonight, with fairly low prep.
Should I run a Basic module (if, so, which one?), or roll up an OD&D-style labyrinthine dungeon real quick?
Any tips to make the game easier?
>>46242925
Forgot to mention this, but I've got physical copies of B1, B2, and B4, which might make things a little easier.
>>46242909
Hm, magic swords iirc give +1 to hit in fantasy combat (which is about +2 or +2.5) but just an extra die in 1:20 (so a SH with a +1 sword counts as 9 men)... or presumably in M2M, nobody's really sure how fantasy stuff works with M2M.
>>46242925
>or roll up an OD&D-style labyrinthine dungeon real quick?
What generator are you thinking of? Strategic Review #2 or the expanded AD&D one?
The missing numbers from the periodic check are for the passage turning, by the way.
>>46242949
B1 needs prep, since you need to stock the dungeon - B2 needs you reading through the module first, mostly, and understanding how stuff works - B4 needs you to read through it a bit to get the NPC interactions right, but doesn't require much in the way of changes for a first session.
As for making the game easier, it's all about how large your groups are and how harsh the wandering monster tables are.
Also, do remember that B1 was written for Holmes, while B2 and B4 were written for B/X - there's some small differences between those systems and the LBBs that might pop up. Couldn't hurt to try, though.
>>46242925
Roll up a dungeon. Use Dyson's MegaDelve maps: rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/maps/the-dyson-megadelve/
Use Moldvay's random stocking when you run out of creative gas; for monsters, use the OD&D monster section (including Balors) and crazy shit you make up exclusively. That's my suggestion for speed and ease.
>>46242914
They say unadjusted AC, so it refers to pure armor, without bonuses. They could have worded it better I suppose, but I think that was their intent. It's less effective against chain and monster hive.
>>46242914
I agree that armor type is superior (using ACs could be handy when dealing with monsters though, when armor type isn't specified). But I'd leave leather armor at 0, as I don't think rapiers should have a clear advantage against it. Plus, that way you don't have such a huge jump between leather and chainmail, where chainmail is 6 points harder to hit.
Unarmored: +2
Leather: 0
Chain or greater: -2
That makes it a good town weapon, especially when combined with the idea that's it's less provocative and more acceptable to wear in public.
>>46242998
>(so a SH with a +1 sword counts as 9 men)...
No, a Super-Hero rolls an extra die. The distinction is important when you might be rolling multiple dies per man - a Super-Hero counting as Heavy Horse attacking a Light Foot rolls 24 dice, or 25 with a +1 sword.
Or, for the opposite, a S-H Armored Foot attacking a Heavy Horse rolls three dice - a +1 sword means that he rolls four dice. (It might be two and three dice if you round fractions downwards, though. I'm not sure how those work in Chainmail.)
>>46243107
Ah yeah, good point, forgot about that.
>>46243028
>B2... was written for B/x
Does B/x really use d6 damage for everything? It seems to me that its written with whatever edition used str bonuses to damage, but only 1d6s.
>>46243028
I was thinking I'd just free-draw some maps and stock them using the level tables.
My one problem is that I have a lot of trouble with room density/scale, and always get over-ambitious size-wise.
>>46243201
B/X presents variable weapon damage as an option. In my experience, absolutely everybody used that option though.
>>46243093
>But I'd leave leather armor at 0, as I don't think rapiers should have a clear advantage against it.
I can pretty well assure you that sticking a guy in leather armor (Or a buff coat, or an aketon, or even a jack of plate if you'd count that as leather-level) isn't notably harder than sticking an unarmored man, and certainly not to the extent where it negates the advantage you gain on him for using a shorter weapon — unlike a properly-armored guy, he won't be able to just disregard your point and charge past to twat you in the head.
I think the benefit of the armor canceling out the benefit of the rapier is closer to accurate — looked at that way, it's still overrating the leather if anything.
>>46228037
>Why haven't they deviated from "only thieves get mechanically defined skills"?
basic D&D already has rules for skills though, either in the rules cyclopedia, or in the gazeteer series
>SIWDCCh
Kinda bullshit calling OSR as a "conservative phenomenon" because of something that literally every edition of D&D has kept. That stat spread is basically in the definition of D&D m8
Okay, so this is an idea I've thrown around a bunch, and it's pretty fun every time I use it:
I call it the DIE-ning Room.
It's a dungeon room that's a huge dining room, full of silver tableware that's worth ~10k SP,
However, if any of the tableware is disturbed (around 60 of them) come to life and start attacking players.
The chair monsters are Chippendale-types, doing 1d4 damage, and with 1d4 HP, AC 8, vulnerable to fire.
>>46243959
>60 chair monsters
Sheeit nigga you ded
>>46243676
Wait... so in a confrontation between a guy with an arming sword in cuir bouilli vs. an unarmored guy with a rapier, you think the latter has a distinct advantage? Because I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.
>>46243959
Perhaps the first they take, only one chair monster comes to life, and then the second silver they take triggers the chairpocalypse?
>>46244446
>Wait... so in a confrontation between a guy with an arming sword in cuir bouilli vs. an unarmored guy with a rapier, you think the latter has a distinct advantage?
Entirely aside from the fact that cuir-bouilli was probably never used for armor once in the entire early-modern era: yes, I do. A guy in a boiled- or waxed-leather breastplate is still going to be highly stabbable in all the stabbiest regions: face, arm, armpit. He's certainly not armored enough to feel safe against charging in heedlessly, especially if I can just step back out of range. Same goes for a shirt of leather scale, with better armpit protection but the added possibility of thrusting up through the scales.
If you imagine somebody encased head to toe in some outlandish and unhistorical leather full-plate type of construction, it might change a bit, but I for one would not gamble my life on boil-hardened armor not cracking under the pinpoint thrust of a solid rapier lunge. Frankly, as the rapier wielder I'd be more concerned about an arming sword and shield, no armor. (Shields are consistently strongly underrated by D&D.)
The fundamental issue is you're looking at a blade length of about 30" for an arming sword, against as much as 45" for a rapier. It's much harder than you probably think it is if you haven't fenced much to get around this sort of range advantage. Even six inches' disadvantage is a huge pain to deal with.
>>46242187
>The rapier in LotFP is weird in that it's a strictly inferior option
Not "strictly." It's the least expensive Medium weapon you can get, and it's the only one that Halflings can use one-handed.
>>46228174
>Monks are such a weird combination of things that they don't fit comfortably anywhere.
yeah, they're literally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer_(novel_series) the class.
>>46244787
>The fundamental issue is you're looking at a blade length of about 30" for an arming sword, against as much as 45" for a rapier. It's much harder than you probably think it is if you haven't fenced much to get around this sort of range advantage. Even six inches' disadvantage is a huge pain to deal with.
Reach advantage.. Maybe instead of fiddling with to-hit numbers, rapiers just always hit first in a combat? As an LotFP Fighter I think I'd trade a couple of +1s versus the rare "dude in serious armor" in exchange for a chance to always get the first hit in.
>>46245348
On the other hand, going second can sometimes be advantageous as well, due to retaining the ability to parry.
It's all situational though.
>>46244787
>Entirely aside from the fact that cuir-bouilli was probably never used for armor once in the entire early-modern era
I can't speak to the early modern era in specific, but even if LotFP includes early modern stuff, it sill mishmashes it with medieval stuff. And if your argument is that cuir bouilli never existed at all, that differs from what I've read or seen. Take, for instance: https://youtu.be/KUPIUHpkK88
As far as how you'd fare vs. a guy in leather, it seems like you're going to need a pretty good hit to do real damage, and a glancing blow may well let your opponent close on you, where your blade is not very effective, as it's optimized to thrust rather than cut, meaning that armor is going to be very effective against it.
>The fundamental issue is you're looking at a blade length of about 30" for an arming sword, against as much as 45" for a rapier.
But closer to 40" on average, to my understanding. This is still a big advantage, but if you're going to compare blades, you should go with the average length for both, not average for one and "up to" for the other.
Please recommend me some necromancer supplements!
>>46245489
>I can't speak to the early modern era in specific, but even if LotFP includes early modern stuff, it sill mishmashes it with medieval stuff.
That's exactly what the words "entirely aside from" were meant for. Note that circumstance, then move on to the actual issue anyway.
>And if your argument is that cuir bouilli never existed at all
It is not.
>it seems like you're going to need a pretty good hit to do real damage, and a glancing blow may well let your opponent close on you
This assumes that he knows it's going to be a glancing blow before it connects, so that he has time to take advantage of the glance in order to close. That's a bad assumption. (I'm guessing you haven't done a lot of HEMA-type sparring? I'm not trying to talk down to you or anything, but these are common misassumptions and if you're into this stuff you might really enjoy trying it out.)
>if you're going to compare blades, you should go with the average length for both
I'm actually under the impression that 30" is more like the upper bound of blade length for an arming sword; that's why I chose it. But even so, ten inches is already a hell of an advantage. Like I said, six is already a surprising bitch to deal with.HURR PENIS JOKES
>>46245348
For my part I probably wouldn't do this, because the advantage of a rapier isn't something that disappears after the first pass (unless you meant it goes first in every round, but even then...).
I also have an admittedly totally personal issue with it in that I'm comfortable with throwing bonuses and penalties on the attack rolls of D&D combat because it's so abstract anyway, but as soon as this kind of more specific mechanical effects get involved the realism(autism)circuits in my brain blink on and won't turn off. Case in point, the first version of this response I wrote out started to discuss how one of the great advantages of the rapier's reach is that it keeps the opponent out of range of harming *you* and how this in itself forms the offensive advantage and blah blah, but then I realized it was all completely irrelevant to the topic and would require a totally different combat system to apply in a meaningful way.
Of course, if you're not as gigantic a sperg as I am about it, letting the rapier go first in every round would provide an interesting scenario where the higher level a fighter got, the more inclined he'd be to use a rapier, since the bounded AC of LotFP and rapidly escalating hit bonus means the -2 to hit would eventually just be piffle compared to permanent initiative.
>>46244787
>shields are consistently underrated in D&D
Not really an "elegant simplicity" way to handle it but that's one thing I like about the Chainmail M2M table probabilities, shields often offer more of a bonus than the armor does. Shields seem to protect better against blunt than plate as well, not sure if that's accurate or not.
What are some good LotFP modules that have less of the 16th century Europe feel, and more of the classic dungeon diving feel, like Tower of the Stargazer?
>>46246901
From the top of my head I can think of Death Frost Doom, Hammers of the God,The Grinding Gear and Doom-Cave of the Crystal Headed Children
>>46241938
This was just the start map. I'm still working on it, at least adding/adjusting geography and stuff.
As for the wide differentiation of climate regions: Basically the area is still very large, and it offers different and unique exploration zones. Hell, we could just out and out say "a mad wizard did it," and move on. Also, the island in the Northeast, I was thinking of putting a elven state on it. Thoughts?
I want to run a simple adventure for my players, but we're all new to D&D B/X. What's a good module to have good fun with friends?
>>46247224
Personally I really like Tower of the Stargazer as a good starter module. I know some people in this general often recommend B4 The Lost City but I haven't tried it myself. Still, check it out.
>>46245172
Man I'll be totally honest, I completely forgot about both of those advantages because they're such unintuitive ones for a rapier to have. Rapiers cheaper than other swords, and easier for short guys to use? That's just the direct opposite of the truth in both cases.
>>46247277
>first time playing a new game
>die as soon as you open the door
LOL that'll show the noobz for playing!
>>46247040
>This was just the start map.
Oh, I didn't mean it was too small, on the contrary. I just wanted you to know that "as big as Minnesota" is pretty fucking huge actually by medieval standards. Americans (notably the Americans Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson) get this type of geographical scale stuff screwed up all the time, which is why I wanted to mention it -- just for example, the D&D rules on establishing a barony require you to clear a region larger than I think literally *any* historical European barony.
>>46247421
is this the 30 mile AD&D one or something else?
>>46247421
Forgot my trip for a moment. Anyway, when I said this was the "start map" I didn't mean that this was the map where players started, I meant more along the lines of "this is a first draft". And yes, Gygax and Arneson got scaling a little off though I believe that the domain rules for carving out a barony didn't out and out exceed the largest of baronies (though it did for most, I will give you that).
>>46247277
I'll check them out, thanks senpai
>>46247418
>not describing that the already imposing door has snakes for handles, making the players suspicious and leading to them trying things like poking at it/using detect magic or detect evil
Or maybe it's your players that are dumb?
>>46247540
OD&D's one is 20 miles distant, or four hexes - that's a sixth of Wales, for reference, or 804 477 acres.
Of course, that's not to say that that's the actual size of your OD&D barony - that's just how large an area you need to clear out. Y'know, just the entirety of Rhode Island.
It's probably also worth noting how random wilderness castles only trigger encounter within two hexes, which is considerably smaller.
Also noteworthy is the bit where applying the "clear out 20 miles" rule to the Outdoor Survival map means that most of the wilderness is free of monsters. Clearly they are negligent rulers, if random wilderness encounters are still a thing.
>>46247833
First. Fucking. Door. Of a game they've never played before. You can't remotely expect players to be genre savvy in a genre they've never touched before.
Not to mention the probability that a caster will prepare a detect x spell as his sole spell, use his sole spell on the first door, and that he will think this to be a good idea when preparing his spell and that it will turn out to be a good idea are pretty slim.
>>46228174
I've always felt that clerics were an archetype searching for a niche, and the divine/arcane split is too arbitrary.
>The wizard can raise the dead, open portals to other worlds, and disintegrate you into dust
>But he can't heal a cut on your hand. Not ever.
They make a strange sort of Van Helsing character... turn undead is a neat ability but hardly something to build a character around. And the heal bot role can be spread throughout the party with potions and a first aid skill of some sort.
Maybe with some bonuses for characters who want to play a member of the clergy and roleplay accordingly (such as access to a relic that turns the undead).
>>46247996
I played with people brand new to the game about two months ago, they first used detect evil on the door, and then poked at the handles with a stick making it move.
But if you think your players can't even think that far, how about you let them play two characters each for the adventure? Or, you can downgrade the "save or die" to "save or suffer", I can't link to a guy who made a rule for it, but just search online for "Damn Nature! - Oleander" and you'll find it.
Have you even played or DMed the module or did you just read it?
>>46248142
>downgrade the "save or die" to "save or suffer"
That's a pretty good way to handle it. Though, consequences still need to be somewhat severe - for example, losing ability to use one of your hand for the duration of the adventure. Not permanent, but still painful.
>>46247996
Eh, I think it's a defensible design choice. Not something that fits my personal style (save or die in general is just a bit dull, even if I want to be nasty).
It puts them on notice that they're going into harm's way in the most visceral way possible.
And at least with 1st level OSR characters, it's probably wise to think of them more as game pieces than as fleshed out characters you can get invested in. If one dies, roll up a new one and throw him into the mix.
>>46248142
You keep using "your players," which is a colossal assumption, which you intermix with a personal anecdote.
>how about you let them play two characters each for the adventure?
I've been DMing for a little over two decades, and I've yet to see a group that finds it engaging to play multiple characters. I have seen individual players be up for that sort of thing, but its not something I'd spring on new players.
>Have you even played or DMed the module or did you just read it?
Not relevant to my point, which is that its fundamentally bad advice to start off someone's experience with an RPG in just bam, you're dead.
>>46248325
I don't find it an indefensible decision because I don't think the module, or the RPG, was intended for absolute newbies to the OSR experience.
I do find it iffier to introduce instant death on absolute newbies before even they take a single hit point of damage. That's probably going to discourage whoever's char was obliterated, and for good reason.
What are some good apps for osr gaming?
I use the Crawlers Companion for DCC and DnDice for when I gave to resort to virtual dice.
Is anything else out there that's must have?
>>46247943
Yep, this is exactly it. For context, "a sixth of Wales" is the approximate size of most of the historic counties of England. That's counties in the literal sense, as in the fief held by a count, or as the British peerage has it, earl. And many of those in turn were *kingdoms* before the Norman Conquest -- Sussex, Essex, Kent and Lindsey would all have been of approximately that size or smaller, off the top of my head. (Lincolnshire's considerably bigger now, but most of that extra area was underwater at the time and some of it was part of Anglia.)
I realize this was to some extent a gameplay thing meant to challenge the players more than anything, but ultimately I think it would be better if the size of the region you opted to clear determined what type of title you could claim without nearby noblemen getting up in your grill -- Clear one hex and you'll pretty much have to associate yourself to a lord as a baron, clear OD&D's four hexes out from your castle and you can call yourself either a king, count or marquis and nobody's likely to make noise about it. (Historically a marquis or margrave is a count in a difficult border region; if you cleared a huge swath of wilderness of its monsters, that's pretty much exactly you.)
>>46249538
>I realize this was to some extent a gameplay thing meant to challenge the players more than anything
It's 61 goddamn hexes. In the least monster-filled terrain, that's still ten encounters. Big encounters, since this is the wilderness. Likely more, given how unlikely you are to find that big a grassland, and given how you might want to be near a hill or mountain for defense.
At least it's better than AD&D, though. I think that one has you explore subhexes, if I remember the graphic someone posted right?
In D&D B/X's dungeons, how many feet are each square?
>>46248492
>You keep using "your players," which is a colossal assumption, which you intermix with a personal anecdote.
Since you critique the module based on how you think players will play it, then I assume that you have a group whose behaviors you know well, and your judgement while reading the module got you to the conclusion that they wouldn't be able to handle it. I guess I was wrong then. You however also made an assumption that the only people who would DM the module would only do so because they want the players to die and laugh at their misfortune.
>I've been DMing for a little over two decades, and I've yet to see a group that finds it engaging to play multiple characters. I have seen individual players be up for that sort of thing, but its not something I'd spring on new players.
This is as anecdotal as my own point in the post before, so I'll just say that I think it really differs between people.
>Not relevant to my point, which is that its fundamentally bad advice to start off someone's experience with an RPG in just bam, you're dead.
I agree that maybe for players who don't even know the concept of RPGs and dungeon delving, it might be dangerous. I didn't give the advice for someone who has new players though, just an anon who wanted to play B/X with his friends, and they were new to THAT kind of game. In that case I don't see why a mildly dangerous dungeon is such a bad idea.
>>46249841
Ten feet, traditionally. Some might vary, in which case they probably mention that somewhere in the module.
>>46249836
>It's 61 goddamn hexes. In the least monster-filled terrain, that's still ten encounters.
I thought that's what I said? A challenge, more than anything.
You know what
I`ll say it.
A save or die on the first door of the dungeon is retarded, regardless of how gud your group is.
>>46251194
Agreed. Unless it's Tomb of Horrors, there shouldn't be one.
>>46251194
Fair enough. I don't think I'll ever do it again, but when I played Stargazer it was a great mental gamble and I think that nights game benefited from it. It feels cooler for the players to understand that they avoided certain death with their smart instead of just avoiding HP loss with their smarts.
So LotFP has a few blank skill dice on the character sheet. What are some good skills to add the core book doesn't include?
>>46252285
Called shot.
>>46251194
>described as insane wizards tower
>door description has a non-threatening knocker
>handles shaped as a traditionally dangerous creature
How dumb do you have to be?
>>46252285
I like Arcana and First Aid that 10 Foot Polemic put in his homebrew.
>>46238526
Updated some. Added the elven state on the northeastern island and combined the smaller three states into one.
Already decided to define the region as a result of the Mad Warlock Yugevort.
>>46253530
I guess I might need to add the map...
>>46253553
Oh man, I'm getting hyped. This is looking nice.
>>46254481
Thank you! I'm slowly working on it, doing it in broad overview and then when I actually run the games that this setting will be in (though I hope this to be for my own OSR project, it is currently good enough for any system) I'll start adding major threats and points of interests
>>46252343
Called shots are a horrible thing to add to D&D, given how abstracted the combat is. You'd need to significantly alter combat to allow for targeting different areas to make it work, at which point that's basically just Rune Quest.
Question: What do you want to see in a hexploration adventure?
Do you all add "dark world" or other concepts to your games?
>>46256744
Nope.
I mean it can work, I've just never done it.
>>46255757
I like mysterious ruins. Especially if the players can work to figure out the secret connections behind them.
Maybe paradoxic, but I also really like having a megadungeon in the hexcrawl, preferably at origin point. It's good to be able to switch up. (Plus, that way everywhere else you explore doesn't have to fit into the dungeon model)
So, as a wizard travelling. Most of the time you only really a single combat encounter in a day.
Would a DM punish me for going hog wild with my spells because I know I'm gonna recover those spells before the next combat anyway?
Obviously I'd keep a few ace spells for the inevitable night ambush, but otherwise, it'd be nice to once a while just cast shit every round instead of casting once and then throwing daggers the rest of the fight.
>>46257315
Depends. If the referee doesn't like that kind of shit he might use the spells-per-adventure rule variant, thus restricting you to use your spells only once per game session (I do this, for instance).
Or, he might just be content with you using all your spells on that one encounter because it's 340 goblins anyway, or the castle of an evil high priest with a retinue of vampires.
>>46257315
Depends. If I were GMing, I'd probably throw the odd extra battle or two into the mix, make you regret blowing your spells in one fight if it's a recurring issue.
>>46256744
I implemented a "Light World" and "Shadow World" in my games that correlate with Heaven and Hell respectively with the twist that mirrored versions of the world is implemented in each. A prince in the Light World might be a brave warrior in the "Prime World" and a Bandit King in the Dark World. Angels and celestials live in the Light World, Dragons and natural creatures live in the Prime World, Devils and fiends live in the Dark World just for a rough example.Then there is the Realm of Nightmare and the Realm of Dreams too...
>>46259101
And I think I may well be stealing this idea now.
>>46246489
>That's exactly what the words "entirely aside from" were meant for.
Usually it's a snarky way of saying "your argument is so wrong that I'm going to quickly invalidate it with a secondary point before I even get to the primary one."
>This assumes that he knows it's going to be a glancing blow before it connects, so that he has time to take advantage of the glance in order to close.
I was thinking more than he's making an attempt to close and that if he gets hit in the process, a glancing blow may not slow him down. Plus, there's a significantly greater opportunity for him to, in a pinch, use some (armored) part of his body (like an arm) to effectively deflect the blow than there would be if he were unarmored and being attacked with something better configured for cutting. Or to pivot his body and maybe still take a hit that would've seriously hurt him if it weren't for his armor. Basically, he has a much wider margin of error.
>I'm guessing you haven't done a lot of HEMA-type sparring?
No, but I've done plenty of sword fighting with wiffle bats, and there the difference of just a few inches is quite noticeable. Not sure how wiffle bats stack up to actual swords in this (you don't have as much of a weight/leverage issue with bats, but you have more wind resistance) but regardless of that (and bearing in mind that extrapolating from plastic bats to actual swords is, at best, a rather tentative process), I'm not contesting that having almost a foot more of reach is a big fucking deal. But so is being able to take a hit or to cut your opponent effectively. And I think you'd be hard pressed to test that sort of thing out when sparring, without risking significant injury, at least. "I'm using a sharp rapier to see how good of a hit it takes to fuck you up in that armor."
>I'm actually under the impression that 30" is more like the upper bound of blade length
Don't think so. AFAIK, it's pretty typical, and quick google search seems to confirm that.
Stat him in your favorite OSR system. I'm curious to see what you all come up with.
>>46260405
Keep that to the stat threads man.
Bump
>>46262008
Instead of bumping;
Somebody help me figure out how I'm going to mix primitive/early black powder weapons with swords and sorcery fantasy for OSR material? Something about shooting at trolls with a matchlock carbine in a desperate bid for treasure seems oh so right.
>>46262233
Takes two rounds to load and fire, roll 2d8 and take the higher. If on the attack roll you roll a 1, gun malfunctions and take one round to prep it again, then the two rounds once more to fire. If the attack roll comes up a 1 again, your character instead takes 1d8 damage as the gun explodes.
They're dangerous but pack a punch. Problem is they take a long to prep and fire. Good for a backup "BOOM" to an enemies face but not so much for continuous fighting (it took generations before guns were safe and able to be fired "rapidly"
>>46262008
I love the fact that both "old" and "modern" examples are fucking terrible.
I guess this is a trap to make sure no new people get into the OSR community disguised as a guide?
>>46262233
LotFP's default setting is the 1500s and assumes that primitive firearms are available for adventurers. I'd take a look there for starters.
>>46259435
>wiffle bats
>>46262233
it's not really all that hard, heck I'd say firearms only really intrude upon the fantasy when they reach WW1 levels of sophistication, and even then you can accommodate for it with a little bit of work as the Weird Adventures setting shows
>>46257174
>Maybe paradoxic, but I also really like having a megadungeon in the hexcrawl, preferably at origin point. It's good to be able to switch up. (Plus, that way everywhere else you explore doesn't have to fit into the dungeon model)
Isn't that pretty much how the game started? I don't really see anything paradoxic about that.
>>46260405
Literally just a (Hylian) Fighter was a bunch of magic items. OSR generally isn't focused on "builds" - you're better off asking in another thread for another system.
>>46262233
Literally just crossbows. Specialized rules for firearms tend towards the terrible.
I kind of like OD&D's firearms rules, in a way, since they're pretty much just crossbows. I know that it's just because they're inherited from Chainmail, but hey.
Here's the entirety of their rules, either way:
Arquebus (18" range)
6"/12"/18"
AC9 +3/+2/+0
AC8 +3/+2/+0
AC7 +3/+2/+0
AC6 +3/+2/+0
AC5 +2/+1/+0
AC4 +2/+0/+0
AC3 +1/+0/-1
AC2 +0/-1/-3
Heavy Crossbowmen fire every other turn. They may move up to one-half of their normal movement (excluding charging) and still reload or fire, but if they are moved over one-half of their normal movement (excluding charging) they must beat their opponent's die roll to fire, and no reloading is allowed.
Arc of Fire: Footmen - 45 degrees left or right
Indirect Fire: No indirect fire is permitted.
Cover: If the target is up to one-half concealed by hard cover (trees, walls, rocks, etc.) deduct 1 from the score rolled on the "accuracy die." If the target is over one-half concealed by hard cover, deduct 2 from the score.
Bonus: Arquibusiers who fire while their weapon is resting on a strong support (wall, prop, etc.) add 1 to the score rolled on the "accuracy die."
>>46263079
Thanks for that pdf. Surprisingly fun read so far
>>46262008
That primer is pretty bad, this one is leagues better.
>>46263745
First time seeing this one. Really reminds me of one of those How To Play booklets
>>46263745
I like the later parts, but the "Example of Play" segment just sounds condescending as fuck.
Maybe it's just the writing, but that DM sounds like a pretentious ass.
>>46263476
Of course, worth mentioning that said bonuses can often translate into a +8, a +6, or a +4.
Didn't realize that bit about the bonus on accuracy die from propped weapons.
>>46263745
>that whole intro with people discussing the very very basic tenets of what a roleplaying game is
What is this, the Dragonstrike VHS movie?
>>46260405
The cool thing about Link is that he is essentially just a fighter with a lot of items.
He uses his magic items and mundane tools to solve problems and puzzles.
>>46253553
I am so stoked that you are making content for the OSR hexcrawl we talked about earlier.
which system did you pick?
>>46265957
Poll said Dark Dungeons (though only 11 people voted. I'm still at work on it (coming up with custom random encounter rolls and such). First few levels will be a dungeon bash to get used to the system but around levels 3-4 the party will venture forth.
Also surprised no one has picked up on the Easter Egg about the mad warlock I mentioned earlier.
>>46233280
this
>>46240120
This is how caster supremacy starts.
>>46264620
No wonder people keep coming to these threads and start calling us elitists, every single person who writes primers like these seems to be an elitist fuck.
