Trove: https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
Useful Shit: http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
What was your favorite module back in the day?
>>46990298 here.
Bumping thread and also asking for advice.
So I've been thinking about how ACKs is conceptually organized, and I've been thinking of emulating something similar but on a bit smaller of a scale and more focused towards adventuring.
So for instance, the new table goes;
>Missions (Doing dirty work for people for pay)
>Wilderness (exploring wild places, hexcrawls)
>Dungeons (Dangerous, but high treasures)
>Politics (You're still fighters and wizards, but dealing with larger scale political threats or challenges; like raiding a palace of an enemy king or working as elite forces in an army or something)
>Expeditions (Go off to unexplored lands off the continent, here there be monsters)
I've never liked the assumptions that when the PCs get super high level they would become Kings, why not just become even more crazy powerful adventurers?
Hey, what are some good books on the "thought" of old school games, besides the "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming?"
I need to get the wheels turning and get back in the groove of old school RPGs (which I haven't played in a decade and a half) so I can start designing a game that I want to run for some friends starting in a month or so.
>>46992127
It helped me understand the nature of OSR and also got me interested in the hobby, since my only exposure prior was Pathfinder/3.5 games and since I really hate all the pointless numbers the primer was a breath of fresh air.
BUT like all things it is merely an introduction material. Once it has been absorbed you must move on to more advanced lessons.
>>46992215
Yeah, I like the book. I'm asking for those "more advanced lessons." Any recommended reading? Like I said, I was literally thirteen and playing a whole party while my granddad DMed last time I played anything older than 3.5.
>>46992234
Hack and Slash is a pretty good blog for this kind of thing. DnD with porn stars too.
So why is your favorite OSR game your favorite?
So, I'm not trying to start any fights so please don't attack any other system, just looking to read into something new.
I love gonzo shit like this. I love random tables too. Anything to share?
>>46993072
>>46993072
Hey OSR general. Last thread there was a bit of discussion about Flesh and Grit based HP systems. Has anyone here actually used them? I ask because I really like the concept and it seems to be really cool from both a gameplay and realism standpoint, but how much does it actually add? Enough to justify the extra bookkeeping and extra new rules everyone has to learn?
>>46990833
I never got a chance to thank CritKeeper Guy for adding RC to the B/X section of the site. Thanks!
I'm looking to play a simple level 1-whatever hexcrawl campaign with some anons. I'm working on a 40x40 mile grid for players to explore, and it similar to KotBL, except a little larger, and with a few surrounding ruins of varying types for players to explore, among other things.
Format will be RC on Critkeeper. I need at least 3 people to be interested, and if they are, I'll kick my production of the map into overdrive.
>>46993061
>why is your favorite OSR game your favorite?
AD&D 2e, for breadth of content and nostalgia.
>>46993265
no troubles. i'm probably gonna add some other B series modules aside from B4, as well. when I can.
http://critkeeper.site88.net/
>>46984393
>Immediately after combat, once per day, any adventurer can bind the wounds of another PC, restoring 1d4 HP.
One thing I've never liked is how much longer it takes high level characters to heal. I figure they should heal in about the same amount of time. So I like to give characters some kind of healing factor that's something like 1 plus 1/10 of their max hit points. Whenever they get a chance to rest and treat their wounds, they heal 1d4 times their healing factor.
That means that they regain a bit more than 25% of their maximum hit points on average. If you want to reduce that a bit, make it 1d4-1 times their healing factor. That heals them a bit more than 15% of their max. Either way, it means that low level characters don't spring back from the brink of death to fully healed in a day or two, while high level characters languish for weeks.
>>46993337
Why is the Rules Compendium under the B/X section of the site?
>>46993412
>Rules Compendium
Cyclopedia
>>46993412
i can just change the link from D&D B/X to just D&D.
>46983687
>Suggestions for running a game where my players can actually have a long-running character & campaign? Its not easy in OSR.
>Should I be kind when it comes to dying, or just say fuck it and run 5e? Do you have any 0hp house rules (aside from what was posted above)?
I think dying at 0 hit points is frankly ridiculous. The idea that you can go from being fine (or at least acting without penalty) to being stone cold dead in the space of a single hit point doesn't sit well with me. Having people be incapacitated or unconscious at 0 and dead at some lower point makes good sense to me. This point could be -10 or -5, negative hit points equal to your level, negative hit points equaling some fraction of your maximum hit points (1/4? 1/5?), etc.
Also, death checks/saves of some sort.
>>46993483
I don't really mind, it's just that the RC/BECMI is different from the B/X rules.
Maybe call it Basic D&D, so people don't think it's all D&D, Advanced included.
>>46993333
Is that considered OSR instead of just OS? I will say that 2e is the edition of DnD I have had the most fun with, but I think that might have been because of the group and it was my Friday night thing. Then I had to go to college, and then move across the country. Then one of my favorite guys in the group died. I can really never go back.
OSR is usually filled with old guys. Is this what getting old is like? Even remembering DnD sessions is bitter sweet.
>>46993568
2e is the very end of OS until the OSR, and dubiously OS at that. 2e's where story/objective-based XP rewards really come in, but it's simple enough to bring back the xp for gp rules (Return to the Keep on the Borderlands has them built in), and it's 99% compatible with AD&D 1e, so you can break out 'true OSR' content.
>>46993061
DCC. It's amazing to me. The funky-dice and tables usually turn everyone away, but they're missing a great RPG with fantastic adventure modules (and a super creative fan base).
Second would be LotFP. It's incredibly simple and my choice when running most any old-school adventure. It's official 16th century Euopean setting is cool, but I like that it's malleable enough to not need to adhere to that.
third would be Mutant Future, tho I've yet to run it. I just love that it's essentially Gamma World B/X.
>>46993655
Oh hey, DCC is the only one I own. I looked at LotFP and, maybe because I just got the version without art, it was a wall of text that just felt hard to read.
>>46993655
>>46993683
And I forgot to continue after my wall of text comment. Can you give me the elevator pitch of the mechanics of the game? Maybe one for the tone of the game too?
>>46993683
download the with-art version from the trove. It's layout is actually really lovely (aside from Raggi putting certain info in odd areas).
>>46993696
>the elevator pitch of the mechanics of the game?
It's B/X with d6-based skills.
>the tone of the game too?
It's probably the grimmest OSR game on the market. Sort of like WHFRP in tone.
>>46993696
for LotFP? welp...
based off B/X. lots of similarities.
everyone can attempt any skill on a d6, but only a specialist (thief 2.0) can increase odds.
only fighters get better at fighting.
no roll to cast a spell, you just do it.
this image should give you a good idea of the tone.
>>46993816
as should this one.
How do I design an OSR campaign? I've never DMed an old school game, and haven't played any in like a decade, but I want to start one this summer.
>>46993875
>How do I design an OSR campaign?
What do you mean by campaign? You can use things like A1-4, T1-4, and GDQ1-7 as examples.
You can also use DL1-14 as a campaign example of what NOT to do, as the series becomes quite railroady after DL4.
>>46993061
Game wise? Beyond the Wall, probably, just for the atmosphere in the game.
I'm thinking of using it to run a game set in A Red And Pleasant Land.
what are some decent hex mapping tools?
>>46994005
>>46993917
Yeah, I mean a series of connected adventures/modules a la A1-A4.
>>46994005
Hexographer, though most of the features are locked behind a paywall.
If you want to imitate the TSR clear hex overlay that came in some box sets, you can dump a map into Photoshop and have a hex grid on another layer.
>>46994207
I'd like to make maps in the TSR Blueprint style of map.
>>46994318
Hexographer and Dungeonographer, though they default to colour and black respectively.
Honest question to all the fine 2e anons: what are the things that make the AD&D2 rules special to you? In other words, what are the most evocative aspects?
I ask because I'm thinking of doing some kind of retro-clone or update or compilation or SOMETHING. A lot of the reasons I think of seem to be because of nostalgia and the fact it was my first RPG love, as it were. I look at other retro-clones or reworkings of other editions and they seem so much slicker and streamlined that I wonder if doing such a thing is a fools errand.
What's the best AD&D/OSRIC/LL:AE module for getting friends who've never played an old school game before, into them?
My intro back in the day was Keep on the Borderlands, but it's for Basic.
>>46995186
There's the 2e retroclone For Gold & Glory, but I haven't had a look at it. I generally use 2e itself, because I don't really see the need for retroclones when I've got the books right next to me, you know?
>>46995186
Dark Sun (the proto epic level system like defiler dragons, fighters that interact VERY well with Birthright), Birthright (the domain management) or Battlesystem (for mass combat), Spelljammer (the ships), etc.
>>46993388
An alternate idea: you heal 1 hp per hit die when you rest. So a level 1 character gets 1 hp a day, a level 10 gets 10. Everyone heals at the same rate.
>>46990833
Oh no, Scenarii's links are all dead. I knew I should have downloaded them all while they were still around.
>>46995369
Basic modules can be dumped straight into AD&D with pretty much nil in the way of tweaks. Replace monsters with the AD&D counterpart, convert characters with levels, and done.
My first was was Palace of the Silver Princess in AD&D 2e.
>>46995504
Awesome, thanks! I'll just start them off with Keep on the Borderland.
I haven't played Palace of the Silver Princess, but I imagine retrofitting it back to 1e is a bit more difficult anyway.
>>46993072
Wow this is actually pretty good stuff, a lot of it is surprisingly D&Dish for a sci fi setting
>>46995439
>An alternate idea: you heal 1 hp per hit die when you rest.
That would work pretty decently if you used all d6 hit dice, like OD&D (which I frankly think are superior for other reasons as well). With variable hit dice, it might be a bit wonky. Magic Users would heal 40% of their maximum hit points when they rest, while Fighters would heal only 22% or 18% (depending on whether we're going with Basic's d8 hit dice or AD&D's d10). Of course, that's kind of the way it is now, and to do things differently would be a boost to tougher classes, but then so is moving to AD&D's larger hit dice.
>>46995381
For Gold & Glory pretty much just takes all the old books and mashes them into one with a few other things added in. I get just using the old books, but a system with Ascending AC and To-Hit bonuses and a less obtuse saving throw system might be nice.
>>46995434
So really just the settings they published, not the rules at all?
>>46995547
>retrofitting it back to 1e is a bit more difficult anyway.
Nah. Grab a pdf of GAZ6 or something, they have the rules for converting characters between BECMI and 1e, and everything else is straight replacement.
>>46995819
>but a system with Ascending AC and To-Hit bonuses and a less obtuse saving throw system might be nice.
But I like THAC0 just as much as Ascending AC. Almost the exact same formula in my head. I could take or leave how saving throws are, I kind of like having more than 3.
>>46995666
Actually, while I'm thinking about it, it'd pretty easy to use OD&D-style hit dice as the basis for to-hit bonuses as well, and maybe even saving throw bonuses (you could pad the latter by having magic-users start off with better saves, only to fall behind, which might not be a bad thing considering how frail starting magic-users are). So, for instance, a 3rd level fighter has 3 hit dice while a 3rd level magic-user has only 2. So the fighter gets a +3 bonus to-hit, while the magic-user is a point behind at +2. You'd maybe want to play around with the hit dice progression, but it seems like a nice, simple way of doing things.
>>46995819
Rather the opposite, I find myself using rules from those settings every time we do 2e without the settings.
Obviously SJs are not of universal value, although, say, andeloids (slimes that pull multiple creatures into a single fusion until they reach max capacity and have a joint hellish consciousness) are creatures of universal value as far as making deranged abominations of Chaos.
Defiler dragons may not fit all settings, but half giants and half dwarves are certainly fitting for most all settings (at least, any that have giants, dwarves, and half elves). Defiler magic is also generally fitting as its got a strong necromantic flair, but also witches were blamed for ruining crops etc.
Finally, Birthright is... actually... I'm not sure how well I liked the implementation however they got fairly close as far as how to run a good domain management game.
>>46995666
Yeah, but you can argue that the Fighter can recover from wounds that would kill the wizard, it just takes a little longer. In this way of looking at it, they all have d8 or d10, but for the weaker classes a good chunk of that is in the "unconscious and dying" range.
>>46995992
This sound sucpiciously close to the "HP loss is blood loss" argument. I'm not he, but I prefer the "HP is plot armor/luck. Once it's out it is a blow that could fell a mortal man."
>>46995980
>>46995819
Also, SJs are highly underrated for those who like battlemaps and don't want to make too many of them.
>>46995980
Hmmm, you think pulling the more generally useful things from each boxed set and compiling them into a core rules would give a 2e "feel"?
Maybe I'm asking just what about 2e rules stands out among the others?
>>46996203
Ultimately, I don't know what would go in or what would be universally acceptable for something like that.
>>46996029
Yeah, this is why I like the flesh/grit system, it takes the ambiguity out, and fixes all this wonky healing rate stuff, by just splitting HP into two numbers: one for literal "meat points" and one for "fighting spirit."
As a total aside, has anyone tried out any of the Microlite games? I'm curious to see how they run and if they can work for a long-term campaign.
>>46996203
>what about 2e rules stands out among the others?It was built to be modular and plug and play. So if you're not doing Basic, its the one you can reduce to a really simple framework and then rebuild on top of relatively painlessly, while still having support within existing published materials for doing that.
>>46992127
Appendix N
Mentioned this in the last thread, but in the Trove under !Gm Resources, the "LeBlanc Hex Maps" is giving me errors when I try to download it. "File no longer accessible"
>>46996692
Oh wait, that's the same as the A2XA maps, huh? 'Cause those are down too. Must be a DMCA or something.
>>46996447
haven't run any of them yet, but of the ones I've read, I think Microlite 74 might be the best version, 75 and 81 make some changes that don't sit quite right with me in comparison(and older Microlite 20 material can be a bit disjointed in nature for my tastes)
Is there a Discord chat or anything in use here?
>>46993265
Time/day/method of communication?
So how cancer is my homebrew?
>Races are not classes
>Removal of clerics/they are fused with MUs
>Totally renovated class system
>Damage, To-Hit, and AC have been streamlined and combined into very simple Attack vs Defense
>Only fighters can fight worth a shit
>Thieves have one universal roll under number for skills, learn new skills in game
>Magic System is totally different and magic users are balanced
>No difference between level XP costs between classes
r8
>>46997797
I don't see anything that's necessarily bad.
>Races are not classes
I personally like race-as-class, but separate race and class could be done well (even though they frequently are not).
>Removal of clerics/they are fused with MUs
I'm not a big fan of the cleric concept, so I wouldn't miss them that much, though giving magic-users access to their spells could be a bit broken. One of the big things that kept old school wizards from getting too overpowered was that there were things they couldn't really do with their spells.
>Totally renovated class system
>Damage, To-Hit, and AC have been streamlined and combined into very simple Attack vs Defense
Not enough information to respond.
>Only fighters can fight worth a shit
Eh... maybe. I mean, they should definitely fight a lot better than other classes, as that's their shtick, but if the other classes suck too much, it could make fights pretty unfun for them.
>Thieves have one universal roll under number for skills, learn new skills in game
I'd have to see how it was done.
>Magic System is totally different and magic users are balanced
Different could be better or worse. Balanced with what?
>No difference between level XP costs between classes
I prefer this. The difference in XP costs tend to actually be pretty minor, and not worth the trouble of differentiating. There are other ways of balancing out a strong or weak class.
Is the OSR community mostly made up of hipsters who play 'narrative' storygames or ultra rules-lite RPGs?
>>46997797
Is an example.
Pic fucking related
>>46997894
>I'm not a big fan of the cleric concept, so I wouldn't miss them that much, though giving magic-users access to their spells could be a bit broken. One of the big things that kept old school wizards from getting too overpowered was that there were things they couldn't really do with their spells.
could set it up so Magic Users have to specialize in one to three types of magic
>Eh... maybe. I mean, they should definitely fight a lot better than other classes, as that's their shtick, but if the other classes suck too much, it could make fights pretty unfun for them.
agree
>>46997945
not really, it's just that since most OSR games don't have a central mechanic they can be be made rules lighter or denser as needed for what the DM and his Players want(really don't see how you could construe anything >>46997797 was suggesting for his own homebrew as "hipster" or "narrative" or "storygames" in nature, so I'm going to assume you're either trolling or you didn't think your post through properly)
>>46997894
>>46998016
It's this old thing. Been posted a lot in the threads.
>>46993061
OD&D. It's partially an archeological(?) interest, but I find that I really like the simplicity of its rules.
Pre-Greyhawk, obviously, because Greyhawk fucks up everything I like about it. Magic shields stack with armor, weapons/monsters do varying damage, etc. etc.
>>46998478
This is kind of hard for me to evaluate without knowing what the spells and skills are. Also, deciphering the thing takes some doing, as it's still sort of half-formed and written in shorthand, which is the way most homebrew stuff I've seen is, but usually you have a GM there explaining shit to you, with the notes being more points for you to ask questions about than full explanations in and of themselves. I will say that the weapons rules look interesting.
>>46991806
> I've never liked the assumptions that when the PCs get super high level they would become Kings,
> why not just become even more crazy powerful adventurers?
1) Historical reasons.
DnD was expected to be prequel to playing wargames.
2) Because players want to.
Being adventurers gets stale. Granted, that also means that you should be able to become Kings at low-level, but we get into grognard "we grinded 10 levels uphill in the snow" territory.
Also, there is a limit of how much content you have for crazy powerful adventurers.
>>46998016
I'm just being abrasive, and the fact is that there's a correlation with hipsters, rules-lite and narrative RPGs.
The OSR community in this thread seems dominated by basic D&D, which seems like an aversion to more crunch
>>46994207
> Hexographer, though most of the features are locked behind a paywall.
Yes. Though, their code was easy to break, IIRC. If you really need it, I might try looking into it.
Also - http://inkarnate.com/ is quite useful, if you don't need anything too complicated.
>>46997945
> 'narrative' storygames
Very explicitly - no. That begun with DragonLance and that's the cutting point for OSRs.
> ultra rules-lite RPGs
I prefer ergonomic. I'm not averse to having rules. I'm averse to having needlessly complicated rules.
Does anyone have the OD&D pdf as sold here: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/28306/ODD-Dungeons--Dragons-Original-Edition-0e
The "New prints" in the Trove are actually old prints
>>46999219
I do. You want them attached here (Blackmoor is too big do that with), or somewhere else?
>>46999064
Old school RPGs did have lighter rules, but they were more like "imagine a story game about being the only motherfuckers willing to play the game from Saw for a chance at a million dollars, where doing the wrong thing WILL get you killed."
>>46999155
Narrative "story games" have little to do with Dragonlance, and I think modern D&D and these "story games" are further apart than old D&D is from them, insofar as old D&D encourages creativity, description, and the DM just telling you "it works" or "that's physically impossible" almost as often as "gimme a (very simple) check." Whereas D&D 3.5 and 4e are clusterfucks that reward knowledge of the system over being a clever motherfucker.
>>46999264
Awesome, thanks anon! Maybe upload them to mediafire or something?
>>46999331
I put them on MEGA.
https://mega.nz/#F!RxhlQRZR!-n2_5x--UV5KpT6DxQi0QQ
Hey, /osr/. I'm likely to have two hours this afternoon where I'm chilling with my Kindle, some pencils, and a pad of paper. I'd like to start working on a setting/adventure for AD&D/OSRIC, somewhat like the A1-A4 modules (albeit obviously my own story).
What PDFs (besides the OSRIC rule book) would you recommend I have on my Kindle for MAXIMUM INSPIRATION?
>>46999288
> Narrative "story games" have little to do with Dragonlance
No. The old-school "story as an emerging property of RPGs" was replaced by the "story as artificial addition to RPGs" at this point.
Then we went through the "it's Referee's duty to tell the story" phase (especially evident in White Wolf's Storyteller) into the "narrative rights of players" phase.
> these "story games" are further apart than old D&D is from them
It was quite a bit of evolution, but - no. It all begun with DragonLance's idea that story is the most important thing of the game and should be controlled directly.
> Whereas D&D 3.5 and 4e are clusterfucks that reward knowledge of the system over being a clever motherfucker.
That's bait-level oversimplification.
It's not like you don't need to know the system in the OSRs.
>>46999455
All I'm trying to say is that OS games as I played them were CLOSER to "narrative rights of players" than "it's the Referee's duty to tell the story" games, albeit not really like either. (Caps-lock for emphasis of the word; would've italicized instead if I could.)
>It's not like you don't need to know the system in OSRs.
You're right, but it takes 10-15 minutes to get sufficient knowledge to be a player in OSRs, and in 3.5/pathfinder and 4e, you need to know the ins and outs, avoid trap options, and so on, in order to just be viable, at which point you're a god relative to everyday people. I'd say 5e is much better at this than the preceding two editions.
>>46999531
> OS games as I played them
I pointed out the fundamental difference. Nothing precludes you from playing OSR as narrative games (to some degree), but the basic idea behind them is radically different.
>>46999400
Would you mind at least sharing the idea behind your setting?
>>46999376
Many thanks!
A Question: how important to you is increasing Attack Bonus?
I.e. having scalable with level bonus to attack roll.
LotFP increases bonus to Attack Roll only for Fighters. It seems it works out fine. What would happen if we dropped this?
Would we need to drop Fighter altogether or does the Fighter archetype have something else going for him? Would it be enough to give him flat +3 bonus (and something else, scalable with level)?
>>46999400
Go rooting around in LotFP corner for a start, theres a lot of cool ideas rattling around in there.
>>46990833
I have been thinking a bit about class design for a game currently in concept stages.
One of the things I have always really liked about OSR games is how open each class is. You don't need 6000 different flavours of fighter, you just pick a fighter and fluff them up however you will.
Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, what does /osrg/ think about the idea of having a single base class for which you can select abilities from a pool? Instead of having to homebrew a class or make do with a clumsy approximation, just say
"I take the by-level AB bonus, increase my health die size by 1 and get MU spells at half my level from this list." and bang, instant spellsword.
It would also allow progression outside of level, as characters find new abilities or bonuses and assimilate them.
>>47001559
You could go full-on Fire Emblem and pre-construct classes from those parts. The players can build whatever they like, but would also have access to a pool of ready-made archetypes.
Another thing would be assigning each 'class' an ability or a bonus only they get. The player learns the abilities that make up a class, and bam, bonus. It'd make it easy to make up esoteric disciplines or isolated orders of mystics for players to find.
>>46999531
>>46999155
Bit perplexed as to how Dragonlance could be considered "narrative rights of players."
Mechanically, Dragonlance is a lot more "normal" than AD&D. Multiclassing appears to be wholly nonexistent, and you can usually get unlimited advancement in at least one class per race.
I've got no idea why people would find DL to be controversial. The modules themselves, sure, but Dragonlance Adventures is very normal.
>>47001718
> Bit perplexed as to how Dragonlance could be considered "narrative rights of players."
It's not. It's a precursor to the "DM the Narrator" idea, which caused "Narrative Rights" reaction.
If you take "Narrative is Important" idea as a whole, DL modules would be at the source.
>>47001718
Even DL1-4 aren't really that railroady. DL1, for example, gives no fucks what you do as long as you get to Xak Tsaroth before the Dragonarmy shows up.
>>47001795
Wasn't that the one that, even though it gave you a map to explore, it was essentially impossible to do anything worthwhile except the main plot before the time limit was up?
>>47001782
Wouldn't I6 be the source? Predates DL1 by a year or so.
>>47001635
I like the idea of certain combinations and synergies giving bonuses, although I hesitate to make it too complex outside of hidden mechanics. Prehaps it would be better to give the 'class' bonuses to specific skill combinations rather than to a whole set, so as to prevent additional skills upsetting an archetype.
Having defaults should really help the players, no idea how I didn't think of that one.
Should race be independant or a buy in? The mythos is loosely based on KSBD, so it isn't the conventional elf/halfling/dorf setup.
>>47001824
I'm not sure, everyone I know hates Dragonlance so I never bothered mathing it out.
Another one like that is DL3, which gives you a huge map, 4 or so points of interest, and a timer. I can't even remember the reason you'd want to go to Skullcap anyway. Presumably the dwarves at Thorbardin won't let you in without something from there.
>>47001559
> Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, what does /osrg/ think about the idea of having a single base class for which you can select abilities from a pool?
Wouldn't that beGURPS?
Technically, ACKS does something like this already (Companion book). Though you need Referee's approval (they kinda dropped the ball with the racial level limit thingy and ability to frontload classes).
>>47001940
This might be the only time I'd actually advocate looking at Skills & Powers. Check out how TSR did point-buying abilities and racial things, find the million holes in it, and make sure you don't fuck up the same way.
from an OSR perspective, what are your thoughts on 5e?
>>46998478
I'm curious, did Fearsome Gods Dev ever make an adventure tailor specifically for the game?
>>47001985
I like it, but for totally different reasons than I kike B/X. Namely for the power trip, and high population of players.
>>47001977
>>47001971
Ok, will go hunting. In your opinions, what did they screw up? What would you like to see as a player using such a system?
>>47002163
Meh. I thought about this before, but I can't say I really like this idea in the end. Seems overly complicated.
My preferences:
1) Lifepath generation (a-la Traveller).
Additionally, there were some suggestions about making a "random" class, that gets his abilities randomly at level-up (by rolling on table). IIRC there was something in Raggi's 5th Green Devil, Zak's blog (witch, I think) and Alice class from Red and Pleasant Land. Never tried any of those, though.
2) (my current pet project) Have 2 "tracks" of classes.
I.e. every character is multiclassed. This allows to get lots of combinations out of very simple and focused classes, as well as solve the "racial" problem, by having one of the tracks filled with "racial class".
>>47001203
Scaling attack bonus is not really necessary - there's some OSR-adjacent stuff that's done away with it, for instance, like Dungeon World.
However, it's one of those things that makes level progression actually feel meaningful. More health, more attack bonus, better saves - the numbers go up. Dungeon World handles this in a very different way - rather than scaling things by level, leveling up just gets you extra abilities. Horizontal progression rather than vertical - D&D builds a skyscraper while DW builds a town. (Unless you're a spellcaster, but that's a separate issue.)
All you need to is figure out some other mechanical way to make the "guy who fights" niche work. Because that's all the Fighter is, really - he's the guy who's actually good at fighting. More damage, larger non-scaling hit bonus, additional attacks, better weapon/armor access, intricate combat systems - there's a lot of different ways to handle it.
>>47001862
Deserts of Desolation, also by Hickman, is the one usually quoted IIRC.
It's an adventure module that actually has a plot and exposition and shit - I6 later comes along with cutscenes and whatnot, yeah.
>>47001985
Too complicated for its own good, the saving throw system is fucked (in a new and unique way from how 3E's and 4E's were fucked), everything's still got a focus on squad-level heroic adventuring, story-based XP, does Bounded Accuracy worse than OD&D, class balance is all sorts of whack, and probably a bunch more that I've forgotten.
It's 3E by way of 2E, but unfortunately I personally dislike both of those.
Oh yeah, and all the half-assed "optional" systems just throw me off even more. Give me information about the consequences of those rules changes, dammit. How much do I fuck up the math if I don't have magic items? How does changing rest lengths mess with different classes? What's the consequences of allowing/disallowing feats, and what characters feel the change the most?
>>47002845
> All you need to is figure out some other mechanical way to make the "guy who fights" niche work.
> More damage, larger non-scaling hit bonus, additional attacks, better weapon/armor access, intricate combat systems
Any ideas? I don't want to overburden class with ToB-style maneuvers.
So far I like only Cleave (can attack again if killed enemy, up to +1 attack per level) and bonus to damage.
>>47003016
Break out the old AD&D multiple attacks table, complete with 1 attack per level against 1-1 HD creatures.
>>47002780
Having looked over the TSR stuff it strikes me that these systems are needlessly complex. Even lifepath stuff seems irrelevant - surely deciding your own characters backstory is more personal and setting-flexible than sitting around with tables.
I was thinking of a basic core of only about 12 mechanical factors, some with degrees, and have stuff like weapon arts/new abilities left to in-game progression. Maybe a couple of common ones could be available to start.
>>47003340
Did you ever play Traveller?
>>47003369
No, I was looking at the TSR life tables.
I have heard good things about Travellers versions though. How well does it function?
>>47003484
Not that guy, but I've heard of groups that finished chargen and then wanted to go again.
>>47003484
> No, I was looking at the TSR life tables.
Well, we might be talking about different things then.
> How well does it function?
I prefer Mongoose. Core is quite good, even if the rest (splatbooks and setting) is iffy.
There is a Second Edition of Mongoose Traveller, but I never actually tried it. Shouldn't be too different though.
And god forbid you try using Traveller 5.It was made by Cthulhu cultists for Cthulhu cultists. Unless you worship ManyTentacled One, it'll devour your brain.
>>47003548
> Not that guy, but I've heard of groups that finished chargen and then wanted to go again.
Yeah. Traveller Chargen is basically a standalone game.
OSR would benefit from something like this, but only Beyond the Wall attempted something similar.
>>47001782
Ah. I don't consider the two related.
>>46996447
If anyone was interested, here's a link to all Microlite PDFs. The bonus it they're all free!
>>http://retroroleplaying.net/content/microlite74
>>47001985
At first it seemed great, like they were going in a more old-school direction, but there's still too much shit to keep track of for me. Sure, you could houserule it down but at that point you might as well play an older edition or a clone and save yourself the headache.
>>47003016
>Any ideas? I don't want to overburden class with ToB-style maneuvers.
Well, there's a lot of things that can be done to make combat in general more choice-filled.
There's the whole Weapon vs. AC thing, where different weapons actually vary in what they're good at, there's ToB-style maneuvers, but there's also Riddle of Steel-esque stuff you can actually have HOW you attack matter. As well as how the opponent defends - do they block, dodge, parry? Do you attack with a strong overhand swing, bash with your shield, feint, or go for their weapon arm?
There's a lot that can be done to complicate combat, but it comes at the expense of simplicity. 4E has very interesting combat, but it takes a lot more time than in OD&D!
>>47003772
>OSR would benefit from something like this, but only Beyond the Wall attempted something similar.
It does it pretty darn well. I'd be tempted to nick the system and tack it onto other games.
>>47004189
>4E has very interesting combat,
It's pretty much Combat and Tactics for 4E's power system, though, so you can just bolt C&T onto your favourite OSR game.
>>47004199
Shit, why hasn't /tg/ done this by now?
>>47002099
>I'm curious, did Fearsome Gods Dev ever make an adventure tailor specifically for the game?
No, sorry to say. I've kept all my adventures/encounter lists as generic and system neutral as possible as to allow the greatest number of people to use them. The thought really has crossed my mind though.
>>46999064
>The OSR community in this thread seems dominated by basic D&D, which seems like an aversion to more crunch
well that's cause AD&D is incredibly clunky to run by the book
>>46999400
look up some of the settings that have been made for OSR like Yoon-Suin, Weird Adventures, Slumbering Ursine Dunes/Fever Dreaming Marlinko, and Strange Stars to name a couple examples
>>47001559
personally I'd rather the opposite approach, I like lots of classes in my games, especially if there's a strong core set to derive the others from(so like how ACKS handles it since pretty much all classes derive from the core four classes of Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and Thief in some manner)
>>47001985
after playing in a campaign for a couple months, it's not as bad as I thought it was, but it's still something I'm unlikely to run myself without doing heavy overhauls to it via houserules
>>47005712
Do you ever ever playtest sessions? No one ever hosts OSR games in Finder Thread
>>46995186
I tried to play other systems but none are as fun as ad&d. Can't explain it, it is a very weird game, but except for late stage 2e, it was highly playtested, so it ends up being the most fun experience (for me).
I guess it has the right balance of things aspects im looking for in an RPG. Like with characters, you choose a class, but there is a lot of space for variation within thst class (the same class covers multiple character types) and there are other character options allowing you to play a very specific type of character. It is like that for most of the game's design, and for the weird idiosyncratic oddities, well they add to the game's charm.
>>47007629
I have, actually. But it was called something else. I'll reup it if you're really interested, though I do kind of have a group of 4 already.
>>47003772
Which book of Beyond the Wall has this system? Flicking through the troves copy of the core dosen't turn anything up.
>>46993568
>>46993635
There was no distinction between AD&D and AD&D 2E originally. They'd printed a ton of hardbacks in 1988, they didn't become invalid in 1989. One was constantly referred to the Manual of the Planes, the two Survival Guides, even Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures in other rules sources.
2E was a reorganization and restructuring of existing rules, designed for The Lump to sell more books while erasing evil things and forcing all PCs to be good and never face demons or devils or demodands.
These things never disappeared, and were later reintegrated into the rules. Nothing ever disappeared, and all material ever written informed and expanded upon the material that itself was informing and expanding upon previous material. It was and is a broad admiralty spire, always attempting increased perfection.
Gold for XP was an optional rule, it's right in the core books in blue (black-cover books are not canon). The 2E moniker was even dropped later on, and the system was simply Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. All rules enriched it, from the beginning through the end in 2000.
In this manner it is True AD&D.
>>46995186
If you want to help 2E by compiling rules, get a sealed paper copy of MC6 Kara-Tur Appendix and put up a high quality scan of the goblin creature that's missing from all existing PDFs and their derivative compilations. Thing is supposed to be a common monster and was in the Oriental Adventures hardback as a staple of such adventures, yet has been unseen by all except those who own its easy-to-lose looseleaf page.
>>46992127
Blogs : D&D With Pornstars, Jeff Rients, Tenkar's Tavern, Grognardia, JOESKI, Monsters & Manuals, Monsters Sewn From Pants, False Machine
OD&D Discussions, also the Eero's series of threads on the Story Games online board.
Also Canton Hill, and, like, tons of other blogs.
As far as books, I'd recommend The Alexandrian's How to Run and At the Door of the Dungeon which are excellent essays regarding gaming in general, but they apply to the OSR alright. Read actual plays too.
>>47008684
>True AD&D
2e had some drastic changes, like with regards to the initiative system it invalidated a number of existing classes and at least one race, it completely screwed up experience points (both in terms of how monster XP was calculated and moved from GP awards to roleplaying awards).
So yeah. It wasn't "True AD&D." It was radically retooled AD&D, altered to fit political correctness and new wave sensibilities, and it was merely one edition of many.
No matter how you slice it, it was less "True" AD&D than 1e.
>>47009497
>>47008684
And this isn't remotely to say that 1e is "True AD&D" either. There was no True AD&D, there was AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e.
>>47009497
>>47009599
True AD&D is built from all material ever printed by TSR through summer of 2000.
You guys, True AD&D is a recurring troll/moron on /osrg/. Disregard/do not feed.
>>47009980
>it's a house rules should be made up for situations that are already covered by existing rules by way of canonical printing by TSR and its publications episode
>>47006010
personally I'd rather the opposite approach, I like lots of classes in my games, especially if there's a strong core set to derive the others from(so like how ACKS handles it since pretty much all classes derive from the core four classes of Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and Thief in some manner)
On the contrary, I find that larger numbers of class limit your options, unless the additional classes have a gimmick entirely seperate from the standard four (Like the ones on Goblin Punch).
Is it not better to be able to fluff your character in a broad bracket than to clumsily shoehorn them into one of the precreated manufacturer approved slots?
On a less vague note, I find that when players are presented with lots of classes they tend towards making their characters personality that class, as opposed to coming up with anything new.
>>47010076
An OSR episode? Yeah, probably.
>>47010121
My problem with 'less is more' with regards to classes is that while it'd fit with say fighter & magic user as the only two classes, cleric is an EXTREMELY EXTREMELY specialized class concept, while thief is either one of the highly specialized social class classes (like cavalier and barbarian) or something so expansive that it fits ALL S&S chars ever that aren't knights.
>>47010330
I would agree that those two are far more difficult than the others, but I reckon it can be done. LotFPs specialist, for example, is excellent for building a taylored support character - with a few additional skills (which the sheet supports) you could do pretty much anything in that vein.
Clerics are another kettle of fish though, as it really comes down to setting. You might be able to give it options to veer into monk or exorcist territory, but I think it would be best to dissassemble it and offer up its constituents to other classes - paladins from fighters, traditional clerics from MUs, ect.
>>47008490
the playbooks.
>>47010628
>but I reckon it can be done.
It can be done. I don't know how it COULDN'T be done.
>I find that larger numbers of class limit your options
>Is it not better to be able to fluff your character in a broad bracket than to clumsily shoehorn them into one of the precreated manufacturer approved slots?
As soon as you put in the thief/specialist and cleric -- and the former moreso than the latter -- I'm inclined to think that's where you're at.
>I find that when players are presented with lots of classes they tend towards making their characters personality that class
This sort of thing really holds true for the cleric at a minimum, and frequently the thief, in a way that it does not for fighters and magic users.
So for me, I tend to feel deep disgust when a setting espouses the idea that the fighter, magic user, thief, and cleric are more expansive, or more fundamental, or more suited for roleplaying, or whatever than other configurations. If the game has the thief/expert and cleric, you've already abandoned "better to fluff your character in a broad bracket than to clumsily shoehorn them into one of the precreated manufacturer approved slots."
It simply cannot get more clumsily shoehorned, or more of a precreated manufacturer approved slot, than clerics & thieves/experts.
>>47011338
Thats actually quite a compelling point. Thieves in particular are very much a class brought about by gameplay necessity as opposed to lore, at least in OSR.
Would then a system dividing MUs and Fighters as the only classes, with everything that is usually outsourced as optional additions, be an ideal then? Or a system with a single class which is built from the ground-up by a player, as per what I said in >>47001559 ?
I do think that how broad or narrow Clerics are is highly setting-dependant though. In the more standard OSR stuff maybe, but in a game with a very strong religious bent there is an argument to be made for divine-focused classes (Although I would still lean towards making such abilities supplementary).
what is actually the difference between the orange cover and blue cover X1 Isle of Dread modules? I see on amazon that the orange backed one is nearly half-priced. I'm assuming the orange back is a reprint? if there are any differences, which is better?
Anyone got any links to neat OSR settings? Vornheim, Red & Pleasant Land, Qelong (looking for this one in particular)—that kind of stuff?
>>47012641
Check the trove in the OP. All of the ones you're mentioning are in the Lamentations of the Flame Princess folder.
>>47012719
Well I can't believe I missed that. Maybe I should revise this to a question:
Do you guys have any OSR setting material you're particularly fond of? What settings do you use, or where have you found the best material to shamelessly steal for your own games?
>>47012949
Other than the ones you brought up, Yoon-Suin is pretty great. I guess Carcosa is pretty cool too. I've heard about a sourcebook called Red Tide that is supposed to be good, but I haven't read it myself and I don't know if it's in the trove or not.
>>47008729
What, this here Goblin Spider?
>>47012580
Orange cover's the '83 version. It's got the internal maps in a different order, but I'm not sure if there's actual text differences.
>>47001203
>A Question: how important to you is increasing Attack Bonus?
The main way that D&D adjusts damage per round to compensate for rising hit points as people level is to increase people's chances of hitting their targets. So at low levels, a single hit can be devastating, but hard to land. At high levels, a single hit doesn't mean a whole lot, but is easy to land. If you don't have people's attack bonuses increase, then you probably need to compensate for that in some other way, or high level combat will take forever.
My homebrew OSR game doesn't have increasing attack bonuses, but it has a smaller hit point gap between high and low levels than straight up D&D, and other ways for folks to increase their damage per round as they level (generally on the damage side rather than to-hit side).
>>47012949
Yoon Suin is pretty great, as is Weird Adventures and Strange Stars
Is there a PDF or something of all of just the charts/tables from the PHB and DMG that I might need to consult while running an AD&D 2E game? I want to put them in my DM binder so I can crack open the books as little as possible.
Trying to decide on a system to introduce D&D to a bunch of people.
Currently waffling between Swords and Wizardry Complete (the Frog God published-one one that's basically a well laid-out AD&D-lite) and Labyrinth Lord.
Anyone got experience with either of them and have any thoughts?
>>47013737
> Weird Adventures and Strange Stars
Can't find those in Trove. Are those in there?
>>47015381
Did you check S&W Whitebox?
>>47015445
Not all that interested in running Whitebox since I know their mindset well enough to know that they'd enjoy the larger mechanical variety in having more classes given by LL+AEC or S&W:Complete.
>>47011886
I don't mind the idea of just having fighters vs mages.
The issue, imo, with thieves/specialists and clerics is that, besides being VERY distinct while the fighters and mages are very broad, is they push game design in a weird direction: a recovery/reactive mechanic oriented class, and an out of combat oriented class.
Now, of course the thief can backstab, and the cleric has some attack spells and combat abilities. Often some VERY good attack spells and combat abilities. Yet you generally don't hear people go "we need a cleric bro, can't live without sticks to snakes," its more "we need a cleric bro, we need them heals." That's fair enough. But it leads the game into an odd direction; where the cleric is able to function partially as a fighter or mage, this role is frequently resented, because the cleric has his own thing (the ameliorative, post combat phase).
The rogue/thief is highly underrated in 3e and 5e, because he is a full combatant and a full noncombatant/scout/puzzleguy/what have you. So he has his own portion of the pacing he dominates, but he's top notch in a fight as well.
In Incursion, a game that's a pretty damn faithful translation of 3e (though it has strong 1e and 2e mechanics as well), despite that magic type classes get 60-70 extra spell slots a day or so (yes really), the rogue is almost universally considered just plain better.
So my point is: besides being more niche than the fighter or mage, they also push the game into an odd direction, wherein there is a portion of the game that the thief and cleric do stuff and the fighter and mage are highly advised to let them do their thing. One rare thing that I feel 3e got right, and mostly on accident, is giving fighters two strong noncombat niches: breaking shit (a fighter can get +19 to break things over 20 levels (the first +12 of which is available in the first six) and intimidating people (his noncombat intimidation can last for 24 hours after departure rather than ending).
I don't know a lot about OSR rules or D&D rules in general, but aren't the charge rules in LotFP a bit too overpowered? A successful hit does double damage and the character only receives -2 in AC that round. A character with a great weapon and plate armor can do upwards to 20 damage while still having a solid AC of 16. Seems a bit against the spirit of the game, no?
>>47015381
I really like S&W Complete but if you want lots of crunch and extra classes it might not be for your group. It encourages the very old school casual approach (within guidelines) to GMing, rather than heavy crunch of later edition.
>>47015567
Ah don't misunderstand me, i'm not really after a crunch heavy game or one with rules rather than rulings. Whitebox is just a little bit too light on player options for their tastes imo, while something like say 2E with it's kits would be way too much for me.
S&W Complete and LL+AEC (i.e. closing in on 1E without becoming quite as overly complex) is about what i'm looking for, and even then I might cull the classes a bit. (like maybe dropping monks and giving the assassin's poisoneering class abilities to the ever-pitiful thieves)
>>47015519
>>47011886
Likewise, magic users don't really have too much of a hard time being imagined to enter the pre or post combat phases in different ways. If the post combat phase is desirable (like the cleric's healing spells), then I could imagine fighters getting some sort of repair mechanic and mages getting some sort of recharge mechanic, not sure.
As is its sort of odd that the pre/noncombat phase has a strong criminal bent (due to the thief dominating, and if you believe thief abilities are additional or borderline supernatural abilities, eventually becoming 99-100% successful), and the post combat/recovery phase of the game has a strong religious bent (at least if you want a hope to be saved from poison, blindness, level drains, death...).
> Or a system with a single class which is built from the ground-up by a player
It could be cool if its not too obtuse (I'm not a fan of in depth character building). But then a lot of it is also costume; if you can't sneak in armor heavier than leather, would, say, there be any mechanical argument that it would be overpowering to let someone decide whether they want to wear heavy armor or to sneak that day, for example? That's also part of why I view the fighter vs thief dichotomy to be largely unnecessary. Although it would be perhaps unnecessary and too extravagant for mages to always be able to sneak.
>>47015552
I don't see a problem at all. Charging results in you being potentially surrounded while rewarding the side that wins initiative. You may wind up wanting to charge just to deny your enemy the chance to do so.
>>47015711
You'd only be potentially surrounded if a small part of the group decides to charge, no? Almost everyone in my group charges in, thus evening the score anyway.
>>47015798
If your whole party are meleedudes AND win initiative, what's the problem? No I don't know whether LotFP uses individual or group inits.
But if it uses individual inits then there's a pretty good chance that the first chargy guy is gonna get charged a lot from the sides too.
>>47015833
You're right, I guess the problem I have lies in the initiative system I've been using. LotFP allows both group initiative and individual initiative but I've been doing group init to ease the players into the game.
>>47015854
I like a sort of hybrid system. Initiative is by group, but on the first round of combat, the everybody on the team that goes first only has a 50% chance to be able to act. This balances things out so that neither team has a clear advantage.
>>47015623
Have you looked at White Box Heroes or White Box Omnibus? They provide additional classes for S&W White Box.
>>47015944
So if the player party wins initiative, each player would roll to see if they can act before the other group? What happens of someone fails, does that mean they move after the opposing team instead?
>>47016014
Yeah, but I don't think they really add much over just running Complete and getting a few optional rules mentioned on top of a much, much better layout and presentation.
>>47016076
>What happens of someone fails, does that mean they move after the opposing team instead?
Yeah. They effectively lose their first turn, only acting on the party's second turn.
This means that at the end of their turn, whichever team just went is up 50% of a round on the other team, no matter what round it is. For instance, if there are 6 people on each team...
50% of Team A goes: 3 character turns
Team B goes: 6 turns
Team A: 6 more turns = 9 total turns so far
Team B: 6 more turns = 12 total turns so far
And so forth.
>>47016183
That's an interesting system. Would probably be too advanced for my group to follow though, or it would frustrate them too much.
>>47015623
>while something like say 2E with it's kits would be way too much for me
The kits are 100% optional, though. The PHB and DMG are all you need for 2E.
>>47016378
>Would probably be too advanced for my group to follow though
Advanced? Except for the 1st team to act on the 1st round of combat, it's exactly the same as standard group initiative: everybody on one team goes, then everybody on the other one.
>or it would frustrate them too much.
I suppose that it's nicer for the party for everybody to be able to go before any enemies, but it's also nicer for the party not to have all the enemies go before they do.
>>47016439
You don't actually need the DMG, in the same way you don't need either MC1 or the Monstrous Manual.
>>47016439
I know, i've played it a ton. The major issue with kits isn't really the crunch so much as their design and balance being all over the place with every different splatbook. Hell some kits even had different more powerful versions in other splats. (Swashbucklers if memory serves me right)
That said, this is the first time i'm running anything for newbies to roleplaying and D&D, and they expressively want "the D&D experience", which I personally consider to be either OD&D or B/X as the base with heavy sprinklings of 1E on top. (like most people played it back in the day)
But S&W Complete or LL+AEC are hundreds of times better in terms of legibility and layout than just about all of those original books. (due to either Gygaxian language or being spread across multiple books)
>>47016521
I run a 2E game with my own setting (that I make up as I go), and all we use are the core books (PHB, DMG, MM) and house rules. I've never worried about the splat books since I don't use them.
Honestly, though, the only reason I decided to go with 2E instead of 1E was because I wanted to run an AD&D game and it was less books to buy and easier to read.
>>47016665
A pretty big sell of S&W and LL is that it's all in one fairly short book the majority of which player's don't have to read.
>>47016521
>not liking Gygaxian language
Are you not entertained?
Is that not why you are here?
>>47016824
His language is actually pretty great for setting the tone.
It's not what I look for in newbie-teaching material though. (at least not when the bulk of the work is on me)
>>47013556
That's the one. Erased from existence.
http://www.lomion.de/cmm/_contents.php
>>47016999
Well, good news. I fixed up my copy of MC6, so this one can go in the trove.
>>47016999
How do we send this to Lomion to get it added?
someone haves On Mighty Thews pdf?
>>46997311
date and time aren't decided yet. I have tuesdays free every week guaranteed, and usually a weekend day, but I'll look into switching that around if necessary. I am est, so game time will have to conform to eastern time standards. other than that, time of play happens whenever everyone is ready and able to play, at least once a week usually. method of communication I'm not sure about yet. scheduling could be done through email, or a public calendar of sorts where people could list which days they are and are not available, although I'm not sure such a tool exists. please let me know if one does.
>>47016444
>Advanced? Except for the 1st team to act on the 1st round of combat, it's exactly the same as standard group initiative: everybody on one team goes, then everybody on the other one.
I guess "advanced" was the wrong word to use. It's just that the players are already forgetting a bunch of rules and I constantly have to remind them. Making the initiative roll into one roll for all plus one roll for everyone would honestly probably confuse them for a couple sessions.
>I suppose that it's nicer for the party for everybody to be able to go before any enemies, but it's also nicer for the party not to have all the enemies go before they do.
It's more like, I have a feeling that scenarios like "Yes, we got initiative! But oh, I won't be able to go first anyway" will occur, making it less rewarding to win initiative somehow.
>>47017451
It sounds pretty interesting, if I wanted more fairness and less swinginess in combat. It also depends on party composition.
For example, I mean in a 4v4 mage battle, for example, 2 mages going before the 4 would still probably hand victory to them. Obviously mages aren't necessarily a good baseline for this sort of convo, but it shows how important inits can be.
>>47017451
I wouldn't generally have players roll for group initiative when doing something like this. In most cases, it makes sense to just have it be set by the circumstances, but otherwise, I'd roll for it.* Then, it becomes a matter of telling the players to roll for (individual) initiative to see whether they can act on the first round, in those combats where the PCs are first up to bat.
*Having the opportunity to go first is usually still an advantage, because it gives you a greater chance to shape the battlefield, protect vulnerable party members, and so forth.
>>47003099
This, or instead of increasing attack bonuses, you could give bonuses to damage instead.
>>47017343
>a public calendar of sorts where people could list which days they are and are not available, although I'm not sure such a tool exists.
There's quite a few of them.
https://zapier.com/blog/best-meeting-scheduler-apps/
Hello OSR general. Where can I find text only online OSR games? Voicechat isn't an option because I'm pretty terrible at speaking English.
>>47021906
i look on roll20, reddit/r/lfg, google plus, and game finder thread
sometimes you'll find people in this thread like >>47017609
>>47022570
i mean >>47017343
So how can I better justify race as class?
Or better, I enjoy race as class for playing things like Dragons, intelligent slime or bug people or something, but for races with a generally human body otherwise and a close to human mind I find it impossible to justify as why they can only be like this and can't learn other skills.
Anyone agree with me? It's just a pet peeve of mine.
>>47022965
One of the underlying suppositions of Basic D&D is that the world is human-centric. With that in mind, it makes sense for approximately half the classes to be human, and half demi-human. And in that sense, race-as-class is no more confining than cleric / fighter / magic-user / thief. And RAC helps demi-humans be more iconic and not just some bonuses you slap on top of whatever class you are. And it's not like all members of a particular race belong to the PC adventuring class. And with enough play, there's no reason not to tweak and individualize things, allowing players to act outside of the strict class boundaries.
>>47023061
I agree with the concept to make races more interesting and to keep about even numbers if both, but
>race-as-class is no more confining than cleric / fighter / magic-user / thief.
I really disagree with this. These are vocations people choose to follow and specialize in. Many games allow multiclassing, but if you're an elf it's not like you can multiclass as an elf as something else or multiclassing as an elf with something else!
>>47023128
The idea is that the number of people playing elves is equivalent to the number of people playing clerics, or the number of people playing fighters. The thing is that you are viewing elf and human as equivalent units, when you should be viewing elf and cleric as such. (Human is super category, the same way demi-human is.) And just like it's impossible for a cleric to learn new skills (going strictly by the rules, that is), so is it impossible for an elf.
If, however, you wanted elves to be as prominent in your campaigns as humans, then having a single elf class would probably be inadequate. Personally, I wouldn't mind a high elf / wood elf split or something like that. But in the end, I don't see the restrictiveness of race-as-class really being any different than the restrictiveness of classes at their core.
So continuing on the idea for a death-and-dismemberment system that I wrote about last thread:
When a player gets to 0 HP, a roll is made on how severe the wound is. The severity should be something from permanently losing 1 point in an attribute to permanently losing 6 points in an attribute and getting dismembered in some way. The DM gives the player a choice: Either take this wound and get another chance at surviving (still with 0 HP though, so death is near), or die and roll up a new character/start playing a retainer or something. I'm also considering having a sort of death check, where rolling a 6 would let the player get out unscathed, but rolling anything else would mean instant death.
How does this sound?
>>47003016
>can attack again if killed enemy, up to +1 attack per level
It's OSR approved, Arneson called this "Chop 'Til You Drop"
>>47023977
It works, if that's what you want in your game. You going to make a table for the severity? Flat d20, or 3d6, or...?
Is the death check a further, riskier alternative to getting a wound, or what?
>>47023128
>These are vocations people choose to follow and specialize in
There's your problem. Class should not be seen as "vocation", it's your archetype.
>>47023977
You the guy who was also shilling your new blog last thread? That's not an insult either, I was enjoying your house rules, and your races as fairies article was also pretty cool even if it's not personally what I like.
>>47024109
>You going to make a table for the severity? Flat d20, or 3d6, or...?
Yeah, I'm thinking something similar to fumble and crit tables. Flat d20 with higher being better or something like that.
>Is the death check a further, riskier alternative to getting a wound, or what?
The death check would be rolled if the player refuses to get a wound and also refuses to die, for a small chance to get out no problem. A sort of third option I guess.
I'm thinking it will either be used if a player is stubborn and refuses to get any disadvantages, or when the player character is so fucked up already that they might as well roll to see if they can get a final hurrah. Either way I imagine it would lead to some tension and possibility of fun scenarios.
>>47016824
When did I say that I don't like Gygaxian language? Just because I want rule books that are more straight forward doesn't mean that I don't enjoy Gygaxian language.
Question!
I like Carcosa. I haven't read it all, but I've skimmed through the book, checked out the Carcosan Grimoire (any other ressources for Carcosa around?), and read a lot of reviews, both good and bad.
But I can't find any play report/actual play stuff, so if anyone here played in it or DMed it or whatever, I'd love to know how it was in play.
I'm planning to run an OD&D (LBB only) game and might use Supplement V : Carcosa with it, since even though it's LotFP-based in its current version, the way mechanics are wrote down makes it easy to convert.
Second Question, mildly related : how do you handle Death? I never fudge, but I try to incorporate rules about death with which I am satisfied. I never actually tried dying at 0hp though, my best option so far has been the Save vs Death at 0HP : if you pass, you get an Horrible Injury (from a cool table), if you fail, Game Over.
>>46999155
>Yes. Though, their code was easy to break, IIRC. If you really need it, I might try looking into it.
That would be awesome. Hexographer seems really great for OSR games but the price is a bit steep for something as auxilliary as the overland map.
Hey, /osrg/. I read the Old School Renaissance Handbook and still can't decide which game to play.
>players aren't really interested in in ACKS' tiers of play
>don't really want race-as-class
>something based on (and balanced for) D&D (not AD&D), would be ideal
>>47029655
Swords & Wizardry Complete.
>>47029655
Dungeons & Dragons, the three little brown books, first printing.
If it's too hard to grasp, Blue Holmes's Basic.
Or, if you want something modern, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Swords & Wizardry White Box, Labyrinth Lord and all are great choices too.
Anybody here use old modules and campaign settings with OSR games? Is it usually plug-and-play or are there often fiddly bits that have to be tweaked to make them work?
Say I want to use S&W with the Keep on the Borderlands. Anything I need to do?
>>47030600
I can't remember the particulars of Keep on the Borderlands very well at this point, but with a little common sense to deal with occasional shit like spells or magic items that are different / don't exist, I think you'd hardly notice the difference.
>>47030600
The main point of the OSR is to make modules and systems that are compatible with old TSR modules and systems. It's a lingua franca of old-school gaming.
>>47028399
I've run it. It's lethal. Very lethal.
Additionally, the dice mechanic (where you randomly determine your damage and HD for each encounter) makes characters even more squishy than normal. It's probably not great for long term play unless you're planning on bringing a ton of character sheets and don't mind making more characters mid-game or pregen them beforehand.
My biggest problem though with Carcosa is that there's not a lot for the PCs to interact with. The largest settlement on the including hex maps is ~750 people and ruled by a 10th level warlord.
The setting is about as barebones as you can get. Cool, weird, and good, but you'll really have to make it your own if you want more than one-shots or dungeoncrawls.
>>47024279
No, that was someone else. Probably someone with more ideas than me if he made a blog.
>>47017212
His submission form is busted. Have many full pages not known to the internet, mostly from Polyhedron. Don't know how to send.
>>47036457
>Polyhedron
You wouldn't happen to have a full copy of issue 95, would you? All the copies I can find online are missing pp15-18.
>>47036548
Missing those in my copies also
>>47029304
There. Don't forget to remove spaces, the code is 16 digits
4070674584666764
0879658939602070
7978673460145264
2072515985255152
9677657055720672
1371650857740458
7577564959012570
If you need new key, but don't know Java:
1) Go to pastebin http://pastebin.com/T2eLgmkH
2) Copy raw code
3) Go to http://www.tutorialspoint.com/execute_python_online.php
4) Replace existing code (hello world and stuff) with copied raw code from pastebin
5) press Execute
6) copy randomly generated key (16 digits, no spaces) from the text below
7) enter key in Hexographer (via Update Licence, if you already launched it)
8) (optional) repeat if something didn't work
>>47037730
Absolutely amazing. Thanks a lot!
>>47037730
Do you know how to crack City- and Dungeonographer?
>>47037881
Probably. You need those too?I'll have some time tomorrow.
>>47037933
Only if you want to.
>>47037933
Not the same guy but Dungeonographer would be good.
Can dungeonographer handle diagonal corridors/rooms?
Any way to get a Labyrinth Lord GM Screen that's printed on an actual screen, like you could get for any edition of D&D, rather than having to set up two folders like I'm that kid in middle school who was afraid everyone would copy his test answers?
>>47039372
Savage Worlds Customizable GM Screen is your friend imo.
bonk
If you were required to buy one book and had to use it, plus whatever you could make up, for every OSR game you DM for the rest of your life... what book would it be?
>>47041172
Rules Cyclopedia
>>47041172
> If you were required to buy one book and had to use it, plus whatever you could make up, for every OSR game you DM for the rest of your life... what book would it be?
Blank notebook.
I don't like the idea of being forced to use one book as is
>>47041286
Nice choice.
>>47041365
You'd be allowed to have as many notebooks as you want. You can make up all the houserules you want, or even roll your own system. The idea isn't that you would be required to slavishly follow it, just that it would be the sole published resource available to you. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
>>47041172
DCC
I'd build my own system anyway, but DCC has a lot of neat shit in it like warrior deeds and magic swords, plus the tables it uses to generate stuff are easy to adapt.
What old module should I run for my players to get their feet wet? They've only played newer D&D games, and storygame type stuff largely unrelated to D&D. Both are fine, but clearly different from old school stuff.
Probably going to use Labyrinth Lord as a system.
>>47042121
B2 Keep on the Borderlands.
T1 Village of Hommlet
U1 The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. (part 1 anyway, part 2 is a bit harsh on beginners)
L1 The Secret of Bone Hill.
B10 Night's Dark Terror.
N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God.
JG Illhedrin Book.
JG Trial by Fire.
I'd flow some of them into each other in all probability.
Something like U1 -> L1 (maybe combining the two) -> N1 -> T1-4 -> G1 -> G2 -> G3 -> D1 -> D2 -> D3.
>>47042121
>What old module should I run for my players to get their feet wet?
Allow me to be a contrarian. Create one yourself. Since you are looking to incorporate the rules for Labyrinth Lord, just do one yourself. You don't need a module.
>>47042355
Thanks.
>>47042394
That's true, but I haven't played anything older than 3.5 in over a decade and thought it would be nice to ease back in myself as well.
>>47021906
Critkeeper.
>>47042539
>That's true, but I haven't played anything older than 3.5 in over a decade and thought it would be nice to ease back in myself as well.
I don't think you have to do that to be honest. Just read through "Tomb of Horrors" (or whatever (and the rulebook)) and you will be good.
>>47042793
>Tomb of Horrors
>tournament play meatgrinder murder-fest module
>>47043211
>>tournament play meatgrinder murder-fest module
I should not make you sad. Especilly, considering my point is that he should create his own adventure. Tomb of Horrors should be enough for the GM (that is him) to "update himself" on the OSR ruleset.
>>47043772
>) to "update himself" on the OSR ruleset.
:and mindset:
>>47042762
Aren't games actually at rolz?
Tips on dungeon design? Any books or essays that really go into it? Not necessarily inspiration, but things to avoid, things to make sure to do, and so on.
>>47043865
>Tips on dungeon design? Any books or essays that really go into it? Not necessarily inspiration, but things to avoid, things to make sure to do, and so on.
Consistency is the term. If the adventurers finds themselves inside a whale (or whatever) they are inside a fleshy whale. The walls "pulsate", etc, etc. Is there anything in particular you are after?
>>47043865
For me personally, a few points.
>Some encounters should be stronger then the players. Some should be weaker.
>There should be multiple paths both physically and as ways to solve problems
>Create at least one interesting NPC or faction so the more diplomatic or high charisma character can do his thing
>Create at least one new spell or magical item so the Wizard can do HIS thing
>Create an obvious 'boss' monster, which perhaps could be returned to later by the party when they get stronger for better loot
>Make at least some of the treasure or stuff found basic supplies (rations, rope, lantern oil, etc) so the party can feel good about restocking
>Make the challenge of getting the treasure out as hard as getting to it in the first place
These are just some of my personal points, you don't have to follow them if you don't want.
>>47043934
Basically a cavern megadungeon through which they have to travel in hopes that they might someday get back to the mainland after being shipwrecked on a beach where the tide was rising and the only way to avoid drowning was to climb up to a cave in the side of a jagged cliff. I think there'll be a dwarf city a ways in, with some kind of kobold fortification set up between the entrance and the dwarves. The fort is absolutely impenetrable from the dwarf side, but coming from the other side, as the party is, it's much less well-protected since literally nobody has ever come from that way before, and the only way for a dwarf to get there would be THROUGH the kobolds.
Seems like a good way to start the party off, as well as a way to solve the "how do you make a dungeon beatable while making it look like its occupants designed it to be unbeatable" conundrum.
Mostly I want to know how to handle things spatially. How do I make the layout itself interesting?
>>47043865
Google "Jaquaying the Dungeon".
>>47044124
The occupants probably didn't design it as a dungeon or it's so aged and the new occupants aren't as bothered about keeping their non-territories dangerous.
It also depends on if the Dungeon is a "regular" dungeon or what old D&D used to call the "Mythical Underworld".
>Mostly I want to know how to handle things spatially. How do I make the layout itself interesting?
Jaquaying the Dungeon over the Alexandrian's blog is a good for this in particular.
>>47044124
>Basically a cavern megadungeon through which they have to travel in hopes that they might someday get back to the mainland after being shipwrecked on a beach where the tide was rising and the only way to avoid drowning was to climb up to a cave in the side of a jagged cliff. I think there'll be a dwarf city a ways in, with some kind of kobold fortification set up between the entrance and the dwarves. The fort is absolutely impenetrable from the dwarf side, but coming from the other side, as the party is, it's much less well-protected since literally nobody has ever come from that way before, and the only way for a dwarf to get there would be THROUGH the kobolds.
Good stuff.
>Mostly I want to know how to handle things spatially. How do I make the layout itself interesting?
That is interesting. Do you have options for the adventurers? As an example, Wizardry - Proving grounds of the mad overlord - already had a elevator for the party from lvl 1 to about lvl 6.
>>46993061
That's hard.
> BX for being dead simple and always fun.
> LotFP because it's everything I like about B/x, but with a tighter system and some specific and flavorful tweaks that I enjoy.
> ACKS - has everything I like from AD&D without the dumb.
>>46995980
>>46996055
What are SJs?
>>46996746
>>46996692
>>46997945
> Is the OSR community mostly made up of hipsters who play 'narrative' storygames or ultra rules-lite RPGs?
I have no idea why you assumed the anon you linked to is a narrative hipster, or what story-games have to do with anything being remotely discussed.
That said, there's a huge overlap between people who get into OSR and people who get into more nar-driven games, because those people tend to be very interested in looking at how mechanics affect play and how games can be designed to do specific things.
OSR is a perfect example of this. The mechanical structure (and in cases, lack thereof) lead to very different play styles and procedures than in 3e or even most other RPGs.
>>46997945
>Is the OSR community mostly made up of hipsters who play 'narrative' storygames or ultra rules-lite RPGs?
FUCK YOU. What is this all about?
>>46999064
> The OSR community in this thread seems dominated by basic D&D, which seems like an aversion to more crunch
Crunch is only useful insofar as it contributes to gameplay. I think we can all agree that if an additional complication doesn't add anything then there's no reason to do it.
AD&D had a lot of good material in it, but the individual parts were clunky and made for a poor fit. AD&D2e wasn't so bad in that regard but was wonky for other reasons.
The reason Basic is so popular is because it's the universal starting point. From there you can add as much crunch as you want to it through subsystems you tack onto it, and those subsystems are discussed fairly often on these threads - usually the particulars of combat rules and magic.
>>46999531
>>46999455
>It's not like you don't need to know the system in the OSRs.
The players really don't. The most anyone actually needs to know up front is in character creation - roll 3d6, this is what those stats mean, pick your class, buy some gear. This can be even more simplified if you have pre-made characters available.
I have run the game on more than a few occasions for players who were completely new to the system (and in some cases, RPGs in general) who knew nothing about the rules. They played just fine. Even from the GM-side, I would just have to tell them what die to roll when. Even in combat, they gradually picked up how it worked over time without me needing to explain it to them.
If you look at how the AD&D books were constructed, this was basically how the game was intended to be played. The PHB is just a giant character creation/advancement book. It has spells and character options.. but all of the functioning rules were in the DM book with a thing on the front that said "PLAYERS DO NOT READ THIS."
So no. I don't think the players need to know anything about OSR systems to start playing. What little procedure they will wind up working with directly they can pick up as you go. I have grown to prefer this method.
The thing about all the mechanics going on behind the scenes? The players stop thinking about them and concentrate on the situation in front of them.
>>47011338
>>47011886
> It simply cannot get more clumsily shoehorned, or more of a precreated manufacturer approved slot, than clerics & thieves/experts.
I've never been a huge fan of clerics because the line between cleric and magic-user doesn't seem particularly strong to me outside of post-D&D fiction.
Thieves I actually like, however. There is a distinct triangle of skills in sword & sorcery fiction - skill in battle, skill in magic, and then skills in stealth and subterfuge.
If one wants to model something like Robert E Howard's Conan or Michael Moorcock's Elric, you wind up needing to set up a situation with the classes where the three can overlap to a significant degree.
Im about to run a LotFP game. One of my players bought like, 15 dogs. What's a good way to work with that?
