>Trove -- https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread: >>47266738
Question of the thread: What's the weirdest shit you've ever encountered (or for you foreverDMs, put) in a dungeon?
Do you think the prevalence of retroclones is why WotC started selling PDFs of old D&D rulebooks and supplements?
Do you think there's any chance at all they'd make physical copies again? If so, what would need to happen?
>>47321633
A Green Man from Carcossa, who was brought to the Keep on the Borderlands by aliens. The cosmic radiation of his journey devolved his body to look like a chimp, and weakened his lungs but made him resistant to psionic attack. He diedgoing after the jeweled cup in the pool with the grey ooze. His name was Green Jimmy.
Should a monster become stronger if the party keeps losing guys to it? (a Manticor that eats the dead afterwards in my case)
>>47322012
I'd say no, if only because it's clearly strong enough as-is.
No need to arbitrarily power up enemies that the players already have problems with, I feel.
>>47321633
ForeverDM here. Making retarded, gonzo microdungeons is my bread and butter. Here's one I made for LotFP. Its got brain rubies, the cosmos, a wasteland, Locustmen, mutagen serums, car-battery warhammers and maybe an encounter with NPCs from a different genre of RPG.
>>47322012
If the PCs use oil on it, it should definitely start using oil on them.
In the end I decided to leave the Demihumans descriptions as only mechanics, leaving everything about their characterization to the players.
Now what are some goddamn cool Human cultures/peoples to add?
So far I have a martial-minded arrogant Caste-society where everyone is mildly psychic (ESP freely within the same race, socially acceptable within the same Caste), Nehwon Ghouls who do not need to eat but prefer to (and may or may not indulge in human flesh) and consider themselves the evolutionary perfection of the Human race (lives on the edges of the far-off desert/wasteland of mutated horrors along with small tribes of every other weird demihuman and human variation the players may want to play but I don't feel like giving a huge area in the setting), Giant-descended pseudo-Aztec/pseudo-Norsemen who live in inter-feuding Clans hillbilly-style who all get together twice a year to amiably sacrifice outsiders come summertime and midwinter.
Throw me some cool ones from your campaign/mindscape/favorite product!
>>47322012
No, why would it?
>>47322656
Because it may be young and grows up big and strong on the protein the adventurers are feeding it.
You know how sometimes DMs roll when there's nothing going on, to keep players on their toes?
What about the opposite of that? I was thinking of putting some kind of mat down to make dice rolling silent so that players can't ever tell if I'm rolling or just consulting a table or taking a note or following along a map or whatever behind my GM screen.
Then things will seem to just happen and they'll have to always be careful.
>>47322695
Just have your smartphone or tablet behind your screen and a dice app open.
>>47322543
How about a society that's all about tact and finesse? Think Victorian era, where appearance is everything, though maybe with a bit less of a puritanical overcoat. It's not that they don't do everything any other society does, but they put great importance on being tactful about things.
>What we might say: Man, that girl is hot.
>How we sound to them: Oh my fucking God, Jesus, I can't stand how incredibly fuckable that bitch is!!! I need--like NEED--to stick my dick inside her!!!
>What they might say: I won't deny that she comports herself with unusual grace.
This is, of course, comedy gold as members of this society attempt to hire or work with the party, expecting a level of subtlety and finesse from them that no group of adventurers has ever displayed. They can only recoil in horror when the party acts like a bull in a china shop, that shits all over the place as it smashes everything, they can only recoil in horror. In fact, the party's behavior is probably so outrageous to them that (fortunately for the party), they are so dumbfounded that they can't even formulate a proper response--one they would view as severe enough to match the party's deeds. Their reaction might be about the same as to somebody who pulls out their dick and starts swinging it around while insulting your sister. Yes, by all rights, he should get punched in the teeth, but mostly you just want to get the fuck away from the guy and make sure that nobody thinks you are in any way associated with him.
>>47322151
I totally saved that a couple threads ago. Good work anon. You should keep it up.
Formatting a module to sell online (PWYW with a suggested price of $2.50 or so). I know it doesn't matter all that much once you buy it, but do you tend to be more drawn to covers that imitate the style of old D&D module covers, with the diagonal strip in the top left corner saying what system it's for, the title across the top, then a picture, then a description below that, or covers that are unique and try to do something different visually?
>>47321633
> Question of the thread: What's the weirdest shit you've ever encountered (or for you foreverDMs, put) in a dungeon?
Inconsequential Quantum Pig. Don't ask. I still don't get what happened.
>>47323148
I'd say go with the former, unless you are actually educated in the fine art of cover design (and don't need 4chan's opinion; which, I gather, is not the case).
A question: how would you express the difference between Rulings, not Rules and Narrative railroading?
>>47323350
>A question: how would you express the difference between Rulings, not Rules and Narrative railroading?
Narrative railroading is "you can't try anything I didn't already think of and account for." Rulings not rules is "this is how we'll resolve your attempt because it's intuitive enough and doesn't make us take five minutes to handle IRL something that takes five seconds in-game."
If a player says "can I jump off this building and land on this dragon that's flying by?" railroading is "no." Rules-lawyering is "let me see if it's in the book, and how to handle it." Ruling is "you can try. Roll strength to get out far enough and roll attack to grab hold while it tries to dodge you."
I like low level play because it means the players get to feel like they're turning into badasses over time, because they get to know that their success wasn't a matter of stats but of their own cleverness, and so on.
My only concern is that I can't see how to have level 1 players take on remotely intelligent enemies and survive. If I throw my party up against cartoonishly stupid goblins, they have a chance. But if they're in a dungeon with intelligent goblins who sound the alarm when they see something suspicious, who re-set traps that have been disarmed, who have tactical maneuvers and seek the high ground and so on, even if they play cleverly, they're fucked in the long run.
Any thoughts?
>>47323646
It'll teach the PCs not to dawdle, that avoiding fights is better than engaging in them, and stealth is overall preferable to drawing the ire of an entire goblin tribe.
>>47323646
> My only concern is that I can't see how to have level 1 players take on remotely intelligent enemies and survive.
Well, you can have them fight intelligent rats, but that's not the answer you are looking for.
How do you engage in combat equal, but numerically superior enemy and win? Short answer: you don't.
Long answer: either give players some edge (invisibility rings, for example), or give them lots of henchmen, or stop expecting them to survive.
I have a beginner's question regarding listening, is it supposed to be rolled before an encounter, to prepare the player, or is it used if the player for example want to listen to what's behind a door? Or is it both or neither?
Also, certain retroclones like LotFP doesn't seem to have listening as a skill. Does that mean that the players always should "succeed" when trying to listen?
>>47323809
In LotFP, I'd assume that Listen is bundled up with the surprise mechanic.
Note that that isn't to say that you can't listen, but that where surprise is concerned, it's a part of that.
What I would do is simply tell the players what they hear. If they listen at a door, and the noises on the other side should be audible, then there's no reason not to tell them that they hear a number of persons on the other side speaking the hideous goblin tongue.
And all that means is that they don't start the fight surprised. Roll surprise for the goblins, and if they fail, the PCs surprise them. Not a bid deal.
>>47323809
The latter.
Think of the Listen check as a reward for thoughtful players who try to listen ahead before they might potentially be surprised.
Also, in my game Undead don't make any noise at all. So on top of never stopping, never sleeping, being able to see in the dark, they are also almost impossible to detect, making them frightening as hell for my players.
>>47324007
>>47324058
So generally, if the players have listened to the door and/or have a general idea that there should be an encounter behind the door, you don't roll for surprise?
>>47324171
I wouldn't. They're being careful, and they should be rewarded for that. However, you could still roll Surprise, but give the PCs a nice bonus on the check.
As I said >>47324007, I'd still roll surprise for the goblins (in my example).
>>47324058
I know that Listen not detecting Undead is a mechanic in some editions, at least. ESP even copies that aspect along with the rest of it's Knock-esque bits.
>>47323809
Listen is supposed to be used at doors so that you can have a chance to figure out if there's anything on the other side before you knock it open. However, it also takes a turn, and even if you have the entire party listening at a door they might not succeed.
It's a trade-off and part of the somewhat complicated resource management system in OD&D. Do you want to open the door directly and risk a dangerous encounter, or do you want to listen at it and run that much lower on torchlight in addition to getting a wandering monster check?
It's also multi-purpose, of course - even in the OD&D dungeoneering example they use Listen to have people keep watch at a door for random encounters (and then flee through a secret door with the loot once they hear someone coming).
>>47324171
Surprise is about whether or not you know that they're there - it's why in OD&D having a torch means that you can't surprise monsters unless you go through a door.
If you know that there's a monster in the room, you probably aren't going to be surprised by it!
>>47324203
Alright, that seems fair.
>>47324264
If listening takes a turn to do, is the DM supposed to give the players extensive information about what could be in the room if they succeed, or should it still just be "you hear something in there"?
>>47324397
Well, generally exploration turns are about 10 minutes long. So, yes?
I would say it depends on what's going on in the room beyond the door that they're listening to, and whether there are any other noises or something that might distort those sounds.
>>47322151
>Hey anon, how many characters are in my party?
>mfw I just thought of an easy way to make 12000 sp
>>47322151
you know, there should really be a way OUT of the cage
>>47324420
The reason I'm asking is because I don't think my players will be okay with "listening at the door" being a ten minute thing, and they're usually okay with OSR mechanics. I myself can't really picture anyone needing to passively listen to a door for 10 minutes just to figure out if there's something in there.
Am I misunderstanding the mechanic?
>>47324485
It's not that they're taking the full 10 minutes (though they could if they wish). If they only listen for a few seconds, and then bash in the door, you only need to describe a little bit of the sounds on the other side.
>>47324496
So in the case of listening, I guess I should treat a "turn" as an abstraction rather than a strict 10 minutes?
>>47324531
Probably. But also remember that in OSR, when dungeon delving, you're supposed to keep track of time via turns because movement takes time, torches burn out, and disarming traps and circumventing obstacles also takes time.
Time in which wandering monsters might be encountered, for example, or where NPCs/monsters might move from room to room.
>>47324560
Yeah, I've got that much. Although I haven't really figured out how much time it takes to move between rooms. Is there some universal guide for this stuff?
>>47324651
Well, in LotFP it's on pg. 38. The table, where it says Exploration. That is the per turn movement, which in LotFP is 10 minutes long (pg. 40, under Time).
>>47324485
I would ask my players, "How long do you listen for?" and maybe give them the hint that spending 10 minutes would give them a pretty good idea that nothing is on the other side.
Anyone have Old-school Adventures™ Accessory PX1 BASIC PSIONICS HANDBOOK ?
Didn't see it in the trove.
If you included a monster type tagging mechanic a la Rules Cyclopedia and 3.x &c, how would you design it? How would you avoid the oft arbitrary assigning of tags that plagued 3.x &c?
>>47325217
I wouldn't. Monster tagging begins to move the game toward a kind of metaplot naturalism, where every monster falls into a set ecosystem that every other person's game is supposed to be run.
That a.) ruins the mystery of a monster and b.) puts expectation on the GM from the part of any players that read the monster entries.
Back when D&D was being consolidated so that any person could go to a tournament or join any other person's game with little difference, it made sense. But OSR is meant as a return to the way things used to be. Where you had things like Tekumel and Arduin: completely different takes on the game, according to their creators' vision.
>>47324470
kek
>>47324482
That particular trap was stolen straight from Raggi's Green Devil Face #5. I kept it mostly as is, cause it's mean. Now, if you happen to obtain that waterbreather before fucking with the stone (or your party thinks of a quick way to get air to you) maybe you'd stand some sort of chance.
>>47325217
>>47325640
Seconded. There's no point. Monsters are monsters, and have d8 HD and do d6-d8 damage most of the time. They really don't need anything else, aside from a special ability or two to make them interesting, and some sensory abilities to keep the PCs from surprising them all the time.
>>47325158
I am also curious about this. Psionics is my bag.
>>47326122
The intent of the tag or keyword mechanic is not to affect statistics, but for spells and other effects to key off of. The beastmaster's animal empathy and Tolkien's swords that glow in the presence of goblins/orcs is a classic example.
For example, what IS an animal? More precisely, who is affected by speak with animals, animal empathy and may be taken as an animal companion? Only real animals or anything of minute intelligence that would naturally develop a fear of (demi)humans and humanoids and which may potentially be domesticated? An owlbear? A platypus? A platybus bear? A flying lemur? A jackalope? A duckbunny? A spider-horse?
>>47326321
That's all well and good, but then you start deciding the Undead are d12 HD, and that "mindless" Undead are immune to Charm Monster because they lack an Intelligence score (whereas before, they had no ability scores at all!).
I get that it's nice to have guidance with what an animal is and isn't, but tags or keywords might be better left to DM arbitration, rather than strict adherence to a system that adds greater complexity for the sake of complexity.
Any good old school campaigns in podcast format that I can just listen to while I work out or do shit around the house?
Very soon, I'll be buying some dice and a hardback copy of Swords & Wizardry Complete, to get back into the hobby full-tilt. While I'm at it, what FGG modules can you recommend I pick up to ship at the same time?
>>47327141
Hadn't thought about this but now I'm curious too.
>>47326122
>Psionics is my bag.
Me too man. Never understood all the hate.
So I've been getting more and more into OSR again (started with AD&D but didnt know the rules very well)
Here's what I like about OSR:
> lethality
> randomness
> lack of "building" your character
> rolling for stats
> things well balanced because no broken builds
> lots of room for GM fiat
> old school mechanics in general
> minimalist stat blocks
Bad stuff:
> tables for core mechanics like attacking
> obtuse rules like races as classes and race/class limitations
> tables in general for stuff besides XP and random treasure generation
> mechanics that don't fit into formulas
> overly complicated vancian casting
> saves for each ability score
>>47327712
BOY DO I HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS FOR YOU!
Swords & Wizardry Complete. It has all the things you listed that you like, and can be played without the ones you dislike as follows:
> tables for core mechanics like attacking
S&W optionally allows you to use ascending rather than descending armor class, which would let you basically just give characters a base attack bonus like stat based on class and level (it's still listed as a chart but you can google and there's a chart which tells you what each class's attack bonus is at each level).
> obtuse rules like races as classes and race/class limitations
It doesn't have race-as-class. It DOES have race/class limitations, but you can choose to ignore those if you really want to.
> tables in general for stuff besides XP and random treasure generation
Besides in character generation and rolling for monsters and things like that, the only tables are the attack ones, which I mentioned above.
> mechanics that don't fit into formulas
Can you be clearer here?
> overly complicated vancian casting
There are plug-and-play alternate magic systems you can find online. You can Google around for that.
> saves for each ability score
In Swords & Wizardry, each class gets a single saving throw, which has to be beaten to successfully save, and which goes down as they level up. Some classes have bonus to saves vs. specific things (such as Druids getting a bonus to saves vs. fire).
>>47326828
>the Undead are d12 HD
Why should type determine combat statistics? That is exactly the sort of insane logic that the 3e developers used. Combat statistics should be determined by the monster's role, which is not the same as its type.
>"mindless" Undead are immune to Charm Monster
I was under the impression that undead had a blanket immunity to mind effects in most editions.
>>47326828
>lack an Intelligence score
Don't the stat blocks in certain editions include Intelligence and/or Morale?
>>47326828
>tags or keywords might be better left to DM arbitration
Keywords are only important if an effect specifies a specific keyword. Giving keywords their own rules is a different thing entirely. I think a more accurate term for what you mean is "quality."
In the spirit of this thread's "weird" theme, what are some good modules that take the "weird sword and sorcery" vibe from Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser? I want weird-ass monsters and creepy, unsettling atmosphere.
>>47323646
>If I throw my party up against cartoonishly stupid goblins, they have a chance. But if they're in a dungeon with intelligent goblins they're fucked in the long run.
Fortunately for you, cartoonishly stupid goblins are a universally accepted trope.
Other solutions for if the goblins are already smart: bartering a deal with them for safe passage through their halls, pure luck on the attitude check when first encountered, making them generally intelligent but giving them some sort of strange compulsive obsession that hampers them, throwing treasure or food behind you to distract them as you flee. Equally intense preparations from players as from the goblins, if you like.
>>47325158
>>47326122
>>47327435
Here's a question I've come across in my homebrewing that I've posed to a couple of my other D&D buddies with interesting results:
In a setting with both Magic and Psionics, what differentiates the two, outside of "magic uses spell slots and psionics uses points"?
Also, how likely would you be to allow some sort of mixing of the two (i.e. a magic spell that also has some sort of psionic component to it to function, or something along those lines)?
>>47327818
I'll try it. Thansk anon. Already have teh PDFs from for-fucking-ever ago, too.
>>47329081
> In a setting with both Magic and Psionics, what differentiates the two, outside of "magic uses spell slots and psionics uses points"?
One is external and learned, the other is innate and trained.
> Also, how likely would you be to allow some sort of mixing of the two (i.e. a magic spell that also has some sort of psionic component to it to function, or something along those lines)?
Depends on lots of things. Primarily - fiddlyness of implementation. In general: why not?
>>47329081
Rolemaster's system defines arcane/divine/mentalism as this:
They all use the same kind of energy, but derive it from different sources. Arcane is from the environment/natural substance, Divine is from deities and otherworldly entities, Mentalism/Psionics is from the individual themselves.
Here's a thought. Clerics aren't priests like we understand them.
They wear heavy armour, go on quests for their gods, and receive potent magical gifts as a result. They're basically Chaos Champions.
>>47331500
> They're basically Chaos Champions.
> Clerics
You sure you didn't mix up threads?
>>47331500
According to some guy who played in a Gygax game a long time ago and who supposedly played the First Ever Cleric, Gygax specifically made the class to deal with a faggot That Guy player in his game who played a vampire.
The Cleric was basically intended as a Van Helsing style undead-hunting warrior. Then it slowly got deformed into what it is now.
>>47325158
Here's some PX1 Basic Psionics for you.
>https://mega.nz/#!8NJ1AagK!tmjg-OyGVlhlNXJSfP6oYAvcW6WWJHZsQz5UQz5Nv_4
>>47329081
>In a setting with both Magic and Psionics, what differentiates the two, outside of "magic uses spell slots and psionics uses points"?
My personal favorite OSR version is the OD&D one, somehow. There the main difference is that psychics have the whole mental combat thing, while powers take so few points to use that they're really almost at-will. Not too powerful most of the time, though, and there's a shitload of downsides to being psychic in OD&D as well. Yet another thing AD&D fucked up.
My favorite in how it actually works in play is probably 3.5's Psionics, though, where it's pretty much just spell point magic that actually works and is more balanced than the equivalent vancian magics. Mostly because there's no automatic scaling.
And then there's my favorite other implementation of it, which is Mentzer's Immortal rules. The actual powers are a bit too complicated and require a bunch of player knowledge (although I think you'd generally expect players to know what spells there are once they're that high level), but the actual "psionic combat"-alike system is wonderful. Mostly because it's pretty much just advanced rock-paper-scissors with a betting aspect rather than having all those complicated tables.
>>47324470
just charm a bunch of goblins and kill them one after the other.
Sorry, only 1000 sp per goblin, not 3000 sp.
>>47331620
You've got that a bit wrong, I feel - Sir Fang was in the Blackmoor campaign, and was part of the "baddies". Lots of player vs. player conflict in that campaign.
The Cleric was basically Van Helsing and made specifically as an anti-vampire class, though, that's correct. The various spells are mostly just various judeo-christian miracles.
Making a new Character Sheet for LotFP, and changed around the inventory system a bit.
A few more "base" slots for stronger characters and separate boxes serving as encumbrance points with oversized items taking up an entire box.
Does this look usable in play?
>>47332406
It has a bit too much art for my taste, but at the same time I like it for its whimsy. The big blank space in the lower left is probably a good idea.
Do you still have oversized items as a thing in the game and if so, where do players write them down?
>>47332590
It's still unfinished so I'm adding stuff as I go.
Oversized items are still a thing but instead of crossing those boxes, they just take up a whole encumbrance box for simplicity's sake.
>>47324651
Depending on the edition you get either one or two "moves" of, essentially, as many 10' squares as the party's movement rate, per turn. The movement rate's based on the slowest member of the group. This is the main drawback of heavy armor: plate means exploring at half the speed of going unarmored.
>>47333046
I see, that's a great mechanic. What movement rate should I use though, combat or sprinting or something in between?
Any recommended books that are just magic systems I can use to replace the default OD&D one? It's literally the only thing I dislike about S&W.
>>47333280
The primary movement rate, the one stated as just a number (from 6 to 12 for PCs unaffected by magic). I guess that's the one you're thinking of as the "combat" rate, but in practice in OD&D and Basic played by the book, it's really mainly used for exploration movement (in that more of a typical session will involve exploring than fighting, unless the players are kamikazes).
>>47333300
Will anything that isn't Vancian do, or do you have a specific taste?
>>47327712
>overly complicated vancian casting
The bad news is that if you think Vancian's too complicated, you'll probably never find a system that appeals to you. Gygax was open about choosing that system for OD&D as the mechanically simplest one possible.
>>47333349
>Will anything that isn't Vancian do, or do you have a specific taste?
I'm looking around right now. Not sure what I want.
>>47329081
Psionics is inborn/mutated mental powers derived from little more than a mind capable of interacting with physical reality. (I use the Hill Cantons Psychonaut for this which uses dailies/weekly number of uses per power instead of Memorization)
Magic is learned manipulation of the natural laws and the necessary discipline to force yourself into accepting alien (un)truths about the nature of things for long enough to affect them. Hence why high level wizards tend to be either eccentric, outright alien or crazy. (I have my Wizard's roll on a DCC mutation charts on every levelup)
>>47333389
Mind sharing the mutation chart, or telling me where I can find it?
>>47333423
Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG Core Book.
They're called "Corruptions".
There's also a couple floating about the net like this: http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2012/09/the-winners-of-dcc-rpg-corruption.html
I only use the mildly positive/aesthetic ones though since S&W Wizards do not do the whole risk/reward thing DCC ones do to get their mutations.
HackMaster question:
My GM thinks that d20-4 is the universal defense roll for all situations; that your Defense Modifier and Shield Bonuses have to cancel out the -4.
I'm of the impression that the Base Dice is a separate mechanic from the actual modifiers, and that if you have a shield your base roll for defense is 1d20 + X.
He's sighting the rules for animals that states they always roll a d20, but there's a chart in the beginning of the advanced combat rules (~pg 22X) that seems to list of d20-4 only happening if you're No-Shield vs Armed, with 1d20 being the base dice for any defense roll where you do have a shield. Additionally each of the combat stances lists different default defense dice for their initial and subsequent defense rolls; few of which are initially 1d20-4.
So, say a character had a +0 Defense Bonus from their Attributes and was wielding a Small Shield.
By his ruling that character would roll 1d20-4+4, but by what I understand they should be rolling 1d20+0+4.
Which one of us is right?
I just joined the group though and I don't want to argue with the DM unless I'm sure I'm correct.
>>47333572
The DM is right because the rule as written doesn't matter at all to enjoyment of the game.
>>47333589
I disagree with your insinuated values.
>>47333608
Good for you.
Just be aware that any DM worth his salt doesn't give a shit about this sort of nonsense.
And if you're going to be that one guy who bitches about the group accepted interpretation of the rules at least take it with him privately outside of the game session and don't try to eat up game session time with petty bullshit of this sort.
>>47333637
> any DM worth his salt isn't going to care about running the game correctly
Okay.
And no shit I'm not going to halt the game to discuss mechanics.
>>47333389
>I use the Hill Cantons Psychonaut
>that feel when the Misty Isles have been released but you're 29 days away from payday.
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/183439/Misty-Isles-of-the-Eld
>>47333647
>running the game correctly
>muh RAW for an optional section of the rules for a niche ruleset
>>47333647
>> any DM worth his salt isn't going to care about running the game correctly
Holy shit. You're literally the kind of person Hackmaster was designed to make fun of.
>>47333666
Except Hackmaster and the KOTD routinely mocks this exact sort of rules niggling rules lawyer mindset where the most important thing in the world if a roll is arbitrated with the correct modifier. (complete with a tribunal that can remove DM's cards if they fail to stick to the One True Rulesset)
>>47333665
They are neither optional nor my choice; the DM is imposing them himself and doing so incorrectly; it's also effectively halving our ability to defend ourselves, making an already deadly game extremely volatile.
>>47333666
> HackMaster
> A game built to accentuate the inadequacies of D&D and impose wider but more intuitive rules for all sorts of variables and situations
> anti-rules
A. You're retarded.
B. I'm sighting core game mechanics, not back-of-the-book alternatives or splats.
>>47333698
That's what I'm saying. It makes fun of rules lawyers like the anon I'm quoting.
>>47333700
The game repeatedly mocks people who care more about the rules than the adventure.
>>47333572
>>47333700
http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?233-HackMaster-General-Discussion
>>47333715
Do you think I'm sitting mid-session trying to argue him down or start a yelling contest? Do you think I'm fussing about variants and supplements in-character while the party camps? No, I'm here, between sessions, discussing concerns about inaccuracies and core mechanics. Kindly fuck-off with your, "muh fun," nonsense like I'm somehow ruining a game by questioning a simple statistical modifier during the down time.
>>47333736
>muh fun
Where did I say that? I'm saying players shouldn't care so goddamn much about the rules. Let the GM handle that shit. As long as they're consistent, you know how to play the game.To be honest, I think you're probably interpreting the rules the way they were intended and your GM is mistaken, but I also don't care for Hackmaster.
Anyway, you should probably check this post: >>47333726
I remember some RPG book (it was a core game) that my grandfather had when I was a kid in the '90s, though the game could have been from the 70s or 80s. The cover had some guy holding the head of a decapitated dragon.
Anybody know what game that is?
>>47333765
Your entire argument has been pro-fun and anti-law, "muh fun," is an abstarct articulation of your general mindset; meant to mock your absurd dedication to a singular thought path and unwillingness to aid someone simply because they disagree with your agenda of party-cohesion being so much more important than running the game correctly that you should never ever question a GM's ruling over game mechanics. idk if English isn't your first language or if you've just got a 3rd grade reading level, and frankly it doesn't matter.
I found it myself; bottom left of page 224.
> "[...] Using a shield, however, negates the -4 penalty and improves the defender's roll to d20p plus Defense Bonus (as noted above and including the shield's own defense bonus)."
Thanks for nothing.
>>47330936
>One is external and learned, the other is innate and trained.
Which means exactly what?
>>47331239
So Rolemaster allows for psions and casters to all do the exact same thing, but just tack on different keywords in case something's resistant to, say, divine energy or psionic attacks? DESU, I've never really looked over RM outside of hearing about their hyper-accurate attack tables, so I'm terribly unfamiliar with what you're talking about.
>>47331969
That's all well and good, but it's all "magic = slots, psionics = points", and I'm looking for something a bit more substantial than mechanics.
>>47333389
I was about to write this off like >>47331969, then I looked at the Psychonaut, and I think you're probably accidentally the closest to what I'm looking for. Looking over what the 'naut is capable of, with one or two exceptions they primarily focus on persons, rather than objects or the environment.
***
What I was asking was less about the hard, crunchy mechanical differences and more about the subtle mechanics. Yeah, since basically the start of D&D there's been the "magic=slots, psionics=points" dichotomy, as well as "magic=outside, psionics=inside". That's all well and good, but how are they -actually- different?
What I had encountered when asking my personal friends, and had only reinforced my own idea, was that people tended to consider magic as the manipulation of the environment and unliving matter, while psionics was able to manipulate the self and others, along with living matter. Magic would be able to fuck around with solids, liquids and gases, while psionics would allow teleportation and healing.
To give an example, under this explanation casting Fireball would be actual magic, while hitting someone with Resist Fire to tank it would be psionics.
>>47333823
You're welcome.
So, grad student here; just managed to get a summer job. Pays a little better than the last one I had. That, plus a little money from the family for my birthday means I'm able to buy a hardback copy of Swords & Wizardry Complete. I'm also thinking about grabbing Crypts and Things, the S&W GM Screen, and Monstrosities.
1. What modules should I snag while I'm at it?
2. What's a good, fairly accurate, durable, easy to read brand of dice?
3. The free S&W Complete PDF should suffice for players, since they're just making characters and then rolling, right?
4. Anything else?
I know it sounds like I'm spending a lot, but I'm building a physical collection for the first time and would like to not have to buy anything else for quite a while.
>>47333924
>That's all well and good, but it's all "magic = slots, psionics = points", and I'm looking for something a bit more substantial than mechanics.
Oh, magic is something Wizards study and learn in their ivory towers whilst psionics is a natural gift that manifests without them necessarily having much power over how.
Wizards are vancian, psychics are X-Men.
The reason I prefer the OD&D approach to psionics is because it's still split into classes, and there's downsides to it: Fighting Men lose strength and followers, but gain "mind over body" abilities and some "second sight" powers; Magic-Users lose tons of spells, but gain at-will teleportation and detection abilities; Clerics lose spells and Turn Undead but get mind control.
None of them really get any direct damage powers, though, and "power that affects others" is mostly limited to mental effects. It's got a very different feel than magic, and the psuedo-scientific terminology used probably makes it even moreso - no wonder that the entire thing is infamous in D&D circles to this very day.
Primarily, I like the system since it lets you take an otherwise standard NPC and give them something that makes them special. Maybe the warlord can make himself immune to magic, maybe the Wizard can teleport around at-will, maybe the Evil High Priest can mind control people.
And the other big feature of Psionics is, of course, the psionic combat. It's a complicated game of rock-paper scissors - overly complicated in that incarnation, to be honest. Although OD&D did better than AD&D in that it's your action - you don't get the crazy "one combat every segment" of AD&D, and thus don't quite get into the Decker problem as much.
>>47334513
OD&D psychics fit "sword & sorcery" way better than D&D's version of Vancian magic.
What would you give Clerics instead of Turn Undead without depowering them too much? (I want Undead to get a less mookish treatment)
Swords & Wizardry Complete if that's relevant.
I'm sort of debating with myself between changing that and just turning all spellcasters into Wizards with different spell lists.
>>47334545
Maybe clerics can make holy water, which can be spread on the cleric's weapon and function as poison against undead? Then the undead get a save and all it does is extra damage.
Small roll reference for LotFP. DC checks houseruled in for things that aren't attribute based but still challenging.
>>47334672
>>47334688
AC modifiers for using different Modules.
>>47334563
Shouldn't they just bless the weapon?
>>47334727
Sure, that works. Though I was thinking they could also make a flask of holy water that does splash damage, and it would also cost water as a resource and be something they had to carry, which would add strategic complexity without adding much mechanical complexity.
>>47334513
>OD&D approach to psionics
Complete OD&D newbie here, is this in the original rules or in one of its supplements?
>>47328100
>Insane logic the 3e developers used
Exactly my point.
>Undead blanket immunity
In most editions, yes (RC for example), but in some OSR products, you have to read the monster description.
>Intelligence Score
Yes, and it's pointless aside from being a guide to how tactical the enemy will be. Basic Fantasy, for example, does away with Intelligence in the stat block.
>Keywords
Do you really want cram a keyword system into the game that locks down what is and isn't an animal?
What happens when you disagree with the keyword system? Do you just homebrew that dinosaurs are in fact, animals, and the keyword system is wrong?
Why not simply make these decisions as they come up, rather than spending page count on codifying them?
Take a look at this optional Druid class for Basic Fantasy. Specifically the table in the back for the druid's animal affinity ability.
Does making a keyword/tag system solve the issue of what is or isn't an animal better than the one presented there?
>>47334796
Alternatively, they can each day consecrate a prepared place, an item, or a quantity of an appropriate substance to their god, enabling it to harm or repel the unholy.
>>47334906
There is still an overwhelming tendency to divide "animals" into arbitrary categories based on whether they are real or not. This wouldn't make sense in a fantasy world where Young Planet Creationism is true and those sorts of creatures are common.
Doing things on a case-by-case basis works, but might lead to contradictions. It's better to define the criteria beforehand in a precise manner. In this case, what is the dividing line between, say, an animal companion and a henchman? I'd say it all boils down to intelligence.
>>47333924
In general, there's not a huge difference mechanically between magic and psionics. Each one is a limited use special power with a duration, a target, and area of effect, and the effect itself.
However, magic tends to be more powerful and have less uses, psionics tends to be less powerful and has more uses (or is more flexible).
I've always liked it because it gives characters special powers that they can use fairly frequently, but aren't so strong that they can disrupt the game (Charm Person, for example, can last WEEKS).
>>47334513
>Psychics are X-Men
This is another reason I enjoy psionics, because they can be added to existing classes and races to create something unique or uniquely self-sufficient (like a Fighter with a prescience ability).
>>47334528
>Fits Sword & Sorcery better
There's something very flavorful about a person who has a limited set of powers (say, pyrokinesis), and is the same "psychic" class as someone with mentalism powers. They both are psionicists, but they are extremely different in execution.
I enjoy that more than say, Vancian magic and specialization, since Vancian specialization is still a broader set of powers, fewer times per day, but are proportionally more powerful.
It also doesn't hurt that I like SF/Fantasy and Sword & Planet type stuff where psionics fits the tone far better.
I heard someone say that AD&D is basically OD&D with a bunch of extra stuff included.
1. How true is this?
2. Does this mean modules and supplements made for AD&D 1e will fit with OD&D more easily than they will BD&D?
>>47335107
Part of the reason people draw a line between real animals and non-real animals is because the non-real ones tend to be a lot more powerful than the real ones.
That being said... Hit Dice should probably be the main indicator for something like that.
To keep using Basic Fantasy as an example, in the core book, there are statistics for brown bears and for flying horses (Pegasi). The brown bear has 5 HD, and the flying horse has 4. With the +1 HD adjustment for being a "near-animal" that puts the flying horse on par with the brown bear as far as the Animal Affinity check is concerned.
This means that only a 5th level or higher Druid has a chance to calm and communicate with either creature, whereas without it, a 4th level Druid could calm and communicate with the flying horse, but not the brown bear.
If that tiny +1 HD modifier bothers you, I don't see why you couldn't simply get rid of it (though it does delay a character from Befriending a flying horse by one level). Ultimately, I would classify an animal based on the following criteria:
- Is it humanoid?
- Is it weird? (slime, ooze, jelly, mind flayer, beholder, aboleth, etc.)
- Is it undead?
- Is it a golem?
- Is is a demon?
- Is it an elemental?
- Is it an angel?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then it can be considered an animal.
Some may or may not want to include dragons as being off limits, and it depends on the setting and how intelligent dragons are.
>>47335327
*If the answer to any of those question is yes, it CANNOT be considered an animal.
Should have given that another once over before clicking post.
I'm reading the introduction to The God That Crawls.
>Why not stay home and be a cobbler or a stableboy? For players, that's boring, and for characters, that's boring and there's no money in it. Why not join the army? It's not boring, but who wants to be told what to do and who to fight and when? And military discipline? agghhhh...
>So the game is about undisciplined adrenaline freaks who want to get rich without doing an honest day's labor.
This is pretty much how I envision D&D player characters, at least/especially in OSR.
Besides The God that Crawls, what modules and supplements (compatible with S&W Complete) can you recommend that give that vibe of "these assholes are crazy enough to jump in a hole full of monsters just because there's treasure in there" and really make you feel like that's what you're doing, and it's dangerous and scary and if you make it out you're a total badass?
Are there any published settings that manage to give off that vibe?
>>47334489
>2. What's a good, fairly accurate, durable, easy to read brand of dice?
Easy to read comes down to the particular dice more than the brand. I relatively recently (from the standpoint of how long I've been playing) discovered how unbalanced my Chessex dice were, otherwise I'd recommend them. Game Science is touted as the good, balanced dice out, but you have to contend with the imperfection where the sprue was. The d16s I have are pretty good, however, though an alarmingly high number out of the set I got were flawed (mostly had one side that was a bit concave, like not quite enough plastic was put in the mold or something)--maybe as many as 1 in 8.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you get translucent dice, I'm told that you're safer, as you can see if there's an unbalancing air bubble or not (meaning that they're probably more careful about there not being any). Of course, readability is more of an issue with translucent dice, and you'd want to make sure to get a dark color so that there's a high contrast (red translucent dice are almost always pretty good in this respect, I think).
I don't think durability is much of an issue. My TSR era dice from the 80's kind of crumbled along the edges, but I've never seen modern dice which had this problem.
>>47334545
You could always advance their spell progression by 1 level, so they start getting spells at 1st level instead of 2nd.
>>47334489
>3. The free S&W Complete PDF should suffice for players, since they're just making characters and then rolling, right?
With the possible exception of spells, there's not much that players really need to reference during play.
>>47333800
Dragonquest
It's free now: http://fantasist.net/dragonquest.shtml
>>47336093
Thanks. Has anyone here played it? Is it good?
Is it good enough that it'd be worth buying it off my grandfather for like $20?
>>47334845
Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry.
Fair warning, EW has easily the worst organization of any OD&D book. Also, the psionics rules are really confusing and hard to follow on a first read.
I think I've got a hang of it, though, and it actually seems pretty cool? Very wonky, but I like its approach.
>>47335177
AD&D is all of OD&D's supplements plus the magazine material plus years of Gygax's tinkering. There's some differences, but it's remarkably similar.
However, B/X is also pretty much the LBBs with a smattering of Greyhawk. Most of the rules are either direct rewrites or slight reinterpretations, with a focus on being "basic" and thus less complicated - see, for instance, how even B/X's optional variable weapon damage still doesn't have OD&D/AD&D's damage vs. large opponents. Not to mention stuff like weapon adjustments vs. AC, or how AD&D has a different armor/AC system, or how AD&D PCs have abilities that their OD&D/BD&D counterparts don't necessarily have - multiple attacks, for instance.
tl;dr: it's really complicated and your best bet is to just use the system you know best and wing it whenever anything weird comes up.
I always thought the Lone Wolf gamebooks did psionics in a high fantasy setting very well.
https://www.projectaon.org/
>>47331907
>https://mega.nz/#!8NJ1AagK!tmjg-OyGVlhlNXJSfP6oYAvcW6WWJHZsQz5UQz5Nv_4
Nice! Thanks anon!
>>47335177
>I heard someone say that AD&D is basically OD&D with a bunch of extra stuff included.
Basic D&D is a continuation of OD&D with the Greyhawk supplement, while AD&D is a continuation of OD&D with all the stuff (though both make some important changes).
>2. Does this mean modules and supplements made for AD&D 1e will fit with OD&D more easily than they will BD&D?
Aside from some spells that might not exist in Basic, and maybe some classes (though usually you can just, for instance, treat a ranger as a fighter mechanically speaking, and improvise the rest) there really isn't much in an AD&D module that doesn't translate. And you can always look up the occasional spell online / in a pdf, or maybe trade out what spell's on a scroll. Hit dice for character classes are shifted up 1 die level for everybody but magic-users (fighters roll d10s in AD&D rather than d8s like Basic, for instance), but that's hardly a catastrophic change and you could always just change it anyway (-1 hit point per level for any classes that are statted out). Really, all old school D&D is built on the same core system, so mixing and matching isn't a big deal.
>>47336137
I've never played it, but heard lots of good things about it. It's been a while but it did seem very crunchy the last time I looked at it.
Are there any clones of retro versions of Gamma World? I'd really like to play it, but I much prefer physical books for RPGs.
>>47336205
>(though usually you can just, for instance, treat a ranger as a fighter mechanically speaking, and improvise the rest)
Oh yeah, it's worth noting that AD&D includes a bunch of stuff from The Strategic Review and The Dragon. Like the Ranger and Illusionist.
However, it's also worth noting that sometimes the similarities can be deceiving: an OD&D Bard and an AD&D Bard are two very different things. Psionics was similarly revamped.
Also, if you go far enough forward with AD&D adventures they start to assume things like Unearthed Arcana or 2E. While BECMI eventually included most of OD&D (sans zines) in some form or another, it never really got any of the later AD&D material.
>>47336281
Mutant Future.
The rulesset is iirc LL but it's specifically trying to recapture the feel of Gamma World.
>>47328337
>weird
I don't know if its "weird" enough, but I liked Worms of the Earth, from Howard's Bran Mak Morn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_of_the_Earth
>>47336460
I was asking for modules. I'll probably read it anyway, though. Thank you.
>>47334513
>psychics are X-Men.
I think you really nailed it for me here. I've always preferred the telepath type to the fire starters and body shapers.
2e was my jam so it'll always be my reference point for Psionics in D&D type games.
While I think it can be harder to show mechanically, I feel like magic should be grand and psionics should be subtle. Throwing a fireball compared to reading someone's mind.
>magic outside psionics inside
I mean that is a part of it, but I think the flavor is a part of it. It's the adventurers hunting down displacer beast skin and drinking foul smell liquids. It's building a lone tower to observe the stars vs an isolated mountain temple.
It's the emperor cackling while shooting lightning from his god damn hands from underneath his dark robes and wrinkled skin compared to a subtle jedi mind trick.
Like traveling to the astral plane. Wizards can do it with a silver cord, but psionics send a part of themselves. I feel like it's a wizard battering down the doors of reality, forcing a door spike in to hold open arcane portals, while a psion is merging themselves between 2 worlds.
What can I say I've always wanted to be the Professor X, the Obi Wan or The Shadow. I can see why people would say that's not D&D or whatever, but it's the media I was influenced by before I started playing D&D and some around the same time as I started.
tl;dr there is room for both magic and psionics. Magic can cover it all, because magic, but I feel like there is room for both.
>>47335545
Bunch of LotFP modules have this vibe, like Death Frost Doom and Death Love Doom. If you want to be an actual asshole to your players you could read Fuck for Satan. Other than that, check out modules with the description "negadungeon".
>>47337637
>Fuck for Satan
Holy shit, edgy. Anyway, I'll give it a skim and not use it if I think it's too insanely shitty. I do want them to have a chance; I just want them to have to work for it.
Besides pic related, what Sword & Planet can you recommend I read? I'm thinking of making a campaign setting for S&W with that kind of vibe.
>>47337659
It's shitty and unfair on purpose, as a joke. Only use it if you hate your players or if they really really deserve it.
>>47338076
Oops. I forgot the pic. It was meant to be an image of Princess of Mars.
>>47338076
Well, there's the Eric John Stark series of short stories, and he's also the main character in The Book of Skaith trilogy by Leigh Brackett.
>>47337637
>Death Frost Doom
I liked it better when it was called The Lichway and it wasn't written by a hack.
>>47338076
Venus ones by Burroughs.
Pellucidar.
All of the Mars & Skaith stuff by Leigh Brackett.
Plane of Adventure by Jack Vance.
Dray Prescot series.
Clark Ashton Smith's The Door to Saturn, A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay and CS Lewis Space Trilogy all arguably fall in under that.
L. Sprague de Camp's Viagens Interplanetarias.
Robert E. Howard’s Almuric.
Otis Adelbert Kline's Venus & Mars stories.
The Jason Croft Sword and Planet Trilogy by J.U. Giesy.
Gor series by John Norman.
Do you all think $1 is a fair price for a PDF containing tables which will allow a DM to create a bizarre familiar for a PC or NPC magic-user?
It would include
>species
>anything visually strange about the creature
>any special abilities it has
>a particularly distinctive behavioral/personality trait
>its actual goals/desires, toward which it will attempt to steer the magic-user
>>47338387
Put it as pay what you want and you'll probably get more sales.
>>47338387
I'd say so, yeah. Certainly if there was d20 of each.
>>47321633
Why aren't the Hackmaster books in the trove?
>>47338076
Mother of Demons by Eric Flint is a good one, also Wyrms by Orson Scott Card
>>47336338
And it does so amazingly.
I'm currently running a mutant future campaign with some house rules for a more mad Max/fallout vibe, it's a blast.
The rules are a bit changed to and streamlined to fit LL and most OSR systems, whilst still being fully compatible with early Gamma World editions and Metamorphosis Alpha. The very essence of the original game, however, is there.
The art is also marvelously gonzo, same goes for the monster section.
>>47338366
>Gor series by John Norman.
The spider plant cringed as its owner brought forth the watering can. "I am a spider plant!" it cried indignantly. "How dare you water me before my time! Guards!" it called. "Guards!"
Borin, its owner, placed the watering can on the table and looked at it. "You will be watered," he said.
"You do not dare to water me!" laughed the plant.
"You will be watered," said Borin.
"Do not water me!" wept the plant.
"You will be watered," said Borin.
Borin picked up the watering can, and muchly watered the plant. The plant cried out. "No, Master! Do not water me!" The master continued to water the plant. "Please, Master," begged the plant, "do not water me!" The master continued to water the plant. It was plant. It could be watered at will.
The plant sobbed muchly as Borin laid down the watering can. It was not pleased. Too, it was wet. But this did not matter. It was plant.
"You have been well watered," said Borin.
"Yes," said the plant, "I have been well watered." Of course, it could be watered by its master at will.
"I have watered you well," said Borin.
"Yes, master," said the plant. "You have watered your plant well. I am plant, and as such I should be watered by my master."
>>47340031
WUT
>>47340075
It's actually a human woman. Women on Gor are treated like things. What you have read is intended to be erotic.
>>47321633
As a player, I once fought some kind of teenage mutant ninja turtle monster, saw a chase between a Grey and Hermes, debated whether being gay was ok or not with the Judeo-Christian God and discovered Ostriches and Men were once battling for Earth's domination during prehistory, and wrote the Bible as an effort to become allies and share the planet.
We didn't care when we were teens, and it turned out to be great games. Sometimes letting go of all the "oh it's gotta be super duper well thought of" and just going with the flow can lead to unexpected and cool results.
As a DM, I once put a BBQ & Justice God's Altar in a gonzo dungeon. Basically there was a scale with mergez on it, and only if everyone took the same -faire- share of it would it work as healing sausages. Otherwise it released the Grease Crocodile.
The thief stole all of them, of course.
>>47340075
It's lampooning the Gor books, substituting plants for women.
>>47340075
It's a hilarious (and very true to form) jab at the Gor series. There's some sections that read exactly like that.
The entire series varies in quality. If Norman spent more time developing the Priest King/Other conflict rather than deviating into nonsense like >>47340031, it would be a much better book series.
>>47340106
You could probably turn that into a dungeon module and make a few bucks nowadays.
>>47340106
Reminds me of a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-inspired game, imaginatively called "Aliens", that I ran when I was in middle school. I just sort of made shit up as I went along.
All characters had, among their attributes, Luck and Unluck. Anytime you had to do something that was nearly impossible, you could roll against Luck as a Hail Mary to get you out of your sticky situation. Of course, your chance of succeeding your Luck roll ran from 1 to 3 out of 10, if I'm remembering correctly, so ludicrous shit happened all the time, like a deathray reflecting off somebody's sunglasses, and hitting an aircraft overhead, which crashed into the heavily armed squad that was opening fire on the party.
Unluck, on the other hand, is something you had to roll whenever your chances of success were virtually assured--sort of like a Luck roll for your enemies.
I've forgotten most of the adventures, but I do know that their biggest enemy was The Great Tuxedo, a suit of tremendous power, worshipped by the local populaton of whatever planet it was. It rested content above a great dais, upon a coat hanger at the end of a golden chain that descended from the sky. The party made the sacrilege of trying to take the tuxedo, at which time it surged to life, a great energy glowing within it, and tried to shred the party with its spectral hands. From then on, the party was always pursued by the Great Tuxedo in its quest for revenge.
There was also a session where they were zapped into a Super Mario Brothers game and they had to navigate through a board I built out of blocks and such. It was all great fun, and very definitely stupid.
>>47340106
>>47340587
Now I kind of feel like doing both of these in DCC RPG.
>>47340671
In Aliens, you could play a Human, an Alien, A Weird Alien, or a Very Weird Alien. An example of a Weird Alien: one of the PCs was a sentient floor tile who considered people's feet a delicacy.
Another character was a makeshift warbot made on the cheap by using balsa wood instead of metal, and blades sticking out of it all over the place instead of guns. It was called "Splintron" and in the middle of one session the party got dropped in the middle of the ocean with only one inflatable life raft. Fortunately for Splintron, he floated, but of course he insisted on climbing into the life raft with the rest of the party out of ignorance of the fact that it would pop the raft (IC) and gleefully being a dick (OOC). It was that kind of game.
In perhaps what was a social commentary, the party was accompanied by an NPC who was perhaps the coolest guy in the universe (his cool stat was through the roof). He was too cool to really care too much about the party's predicaments that he often contributed to getting them into, and the rest of the characters would scramble just to survive, while he would calmly rely on his cool to save him (a death squad hunting the party might politely ask him to stand aside while they shot his cohorts, out of concern for endangering somebody that cool).
>>47340872
>An example of a Weird Alien: one of the PCs was a sentient floor tile who considered people's feet a delicacy.
Sorry, that was a Very Weird Alien. Too far beyond that and shit just got nonsensical (a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue is a bit tricky to play as a character).
>>47335327
>Part of the reason people draw a line between real animals and non-real animals is because the non-real ones tend to be a lot more powerful than the real ones.
That isn't always the case. Ref. Avatar: The Last Airbender.
>- Is it humanoid?
Since gorillas can learn sign language, I'm going to assume this includes "anything with smart enough to pass down an oral history."
>>47341576
>Isn't always the case
Sure. Use your best judgement.
>Smart enough to pass down an oral history
That's not a terrible choice. Not necessarily the one I'd make, but one could always change "humanoid" to "sapient" and it would work well enough.
>>47341576
>That isn't always the case. Ref. Avatar: The Last Airbender.
But badger-moles aren't real.
>go to YouTube
>search "best d&d settings"
>find this video of a guy ranking all the published settings he's played from bottom to top
>he repeatedly freaks out about people putting sci-fi in D&D
I wonder how he'd feel knowing that Vancian magic came from a series with sci-fi elements.
Anyway, here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_kWDMBWBs
>>47341707
>guy doesn't like Spelljammer
Welp, his taste is shit.
>>47341576
>Since gorillas can learn sign language, I'm going to assume this includes "anything with smart enough to pass down an oral history."
GG crows. Or was it ravens? One of those, anyway.
>>47341769
He starts shitting on 3d6 straight down the line at one point. Not in the "I don't like it" sense, but in a way that seems to suggest it objectively cannot be fun.
He's talking about how Greyhawk is "not neat, not cool" and then says "and the people who ran it were the ones who always went 3d6, straight down the line. 'Alright, haha, you got a strength of four! You're a crippled mental retard! Go on and play that, kid, so I can kill you in the third game session! Ahahaha, I'm better than you are!'"
That's word for word.
Jesus fucking Christ.
>>47342033
Wait, wait... HOLY SHIT. He just said whoever created Greyhawk clearly had no pride in their work.
>mfw Greyhawk is created by Gary motherfucking Gygax
>>47342033
>>47342075
Yep. I sat through the whole thing. Jeez. I get the impression he doesn't understand some of what he's talking about.
Clearly he's had bad experiences, but 3d6 down the line is not inherently bad. I've done it, even when I had to the option to do otherwise.
Also:
>Ravenloft is just Universal Pictures monster movies
Way to reduce something that could be really cool and deep into something an eight-year old would think up.
I want to slap the smug off his face.
I just turned saving throws into an unified roll called Luck, that can be burned for bonuses (DCC-inspired) and gets renewed when the character levels up.
This is probably a bad idea
>>47342203
I actually didn't like the diss toward the Bella Lugosi movies either.
I wonder if he'd shit on the books Dracula and Frankenstein if they came out today, too.
>>47342299
Agreed. At least the first Lugosi movie is a classic, despite the deviation from the book.
However, one thing that demonstrated his ignorance to me was how he said that Plaenscape reduced angels and demons to just stat-blocks to kill, and that the Hells having "levels" was so you could hack and slash through them...
It's like he didn't even read the setting, or any of the old monster manuals.
>>47342419
>he said that Plaenscape reduced angels and demons to just stat-blocks to kill, and that the Hells having "levels" was so you could hack and slash through them...
>It's like he didn't even read the setting, or any of the old monster manuals.
Or Dante's Inferno, for that matter.
Anyway, Frankenstein remains my favorite novel of all time and I'm coming up on 30.
>>47342457
Frankenstein is a very good book.
Personally, my favorite is A Wizard of Earthsea, and I AM 30.
>>47342475
>A Wizard of Earthsea
Damn good book. I love Le Guin in general.
Can someone link me to a detailed explanation of the origins of D&D, the different versions, when they were released, how they differed and why, what led to the decision to split BD&D and AD&D, what happened to make Gygax leave, why TSR sold D&D to Wizards of the Coast, and so on and so forth?
Basically, I want a history of D&D.
A video or podcast would be preferable so I can watch/listen while I do some work around the house, but if that isn't available, a blog post or PDF or something is fine.
>>47342736
Gygax and Arneson make OD&D.
Gygax ruins it by making the Greyhawk splat.
Gygax makes AD&D 1e which is a clunkier version of OD&D
Then Holmes (?) makes B/X for kids.
Followed by Mentzer's BECMI a little later.
Gygax is almost as terrible businessman as he is a game designer (cf. Mythus and Cyborg Commando) and gets his majority stake stolen by a gal named Lorraine Williams.
Lorraine is a bitch but she actually makes TSR really profitable for a while; AD&D 2e streamlines somethings while introducing some new problems.
Splat bloat causes the line to collapse.
1997-WOTC buys out TSR. AD&D 2e is still supported but it's shrunk significantly.
WOTC makes 3.0 then 3.5, ruining the hobby forever by creating one of the most obnoxious fanbases ever to blight the hobby.
>>47343334
>WOTC makes 3.0 then 3.5, ruining the hobby forever by creating one of the most obnoxious fanbases ever to blight the hobby.
So far, anyway. Also, didn't 3.5 also kind of save old school gaming, what with the OGL making retroclones possible?
>>47343334
I take it you favor BECMI?
>>47343552
I lean toward B/X and 2e. I'm part of the minority who thinks that 2e is better than 1e with the caveat that 2e has a lot of shit that needs to be vetted/banned.
>>47343619
That's fair. I just run S&W as of right now. It seems to take the better system of 0e/BD&D and add in a lot of the stuff that people running other systems borrowed from AD&D.I think it might be what AD&D would have looked like if Arneson and Gygax had worked on it together.
>>47343334
You're leaving out the Blumes, who are the real villains of the piece. Gygax was not a great businessman, but it was the Blumes who nearly drove TSR into bankruptcy. Without them, there wouldn't have been a need for Lorraine Williams to come in and clamp down on everything
(Also Lorraine Williams gets a lot of flak for stopping the playtesting during 2e's development, but to be fair, I wouldn't doubt for a second that there was a whole lot of goofing off going on under the umbrella of "hey, we're playtesting, man!")
>>47343531
>didn't 3.5 also kind of save old school gaming, what with the OGL making retroclones possible?
Every cloud has a silver lining, anon.
Watching a video about Mystara. This setting seems fucking awesome.
>>47343850
One of the gods used to be a nuclear physicist.
>>47343894
I saw that. Raphael, right? How'd he get to Mystara?
Also, is there any way whatsoever, short of spending a bajillion moneys, to have all the Gazetteers in physical format? Is there any book collecting them? Would it be worthwhile to go to a printer and get them all bound in one big book?
>>47342419
>the Hells having "levels" was so you could hack and slash through them...
>Dante Alighieri was a munchkin
It's like he's transcended ordinary mortal retardation.
>>47342736
The best history of early D&D is Playing at the World, but it's like 700 pages long.
>>47334672
better version.
>>47342419
Planescape really was bad though.
>40-year old men talking like edgy youths to cash in on WoD kiddies
>Demons and Eladrin are more likely to ally than Angels and Eladrin because muh Law-Chaos dichotomy
Cant is that Planescape is overrated garbage for cucks and berks.
what are some essential Gamma World modules?
>>47344088
Not sure. Enjoy 15 minutes of Gamma World inspiration, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f49yRhJ0NjI
>Ha’ponies have the upper body of a halfling combined with the lower body of a pony. Their pony hindquarters are varying shades of brown and chestnut, with some grays. In most tribes, the mayor has a piebald coat. Ha’ponies wear brightly colored shirts and tunics, and the majority braid their hair and tails with many-colored ribbons. Their complexions are weather-beaten, with hair varying from sandy to dark brown.
>Habitat/Society: Ha’pony villages usually number between 80 and 150 individuals. Of this number, 15% are young and 30% are females. Ha’pony females do not normally fight, but if the village is threatened they will defend their homes and children with slings and daggers.
>The village has a mayor, but most important decisions are made by a council of elders known as “The Circle of Oak”. In extreme cases, the Circle can remove a mayor from office and exile the unfortunate ha’pony.
>Ha’ponies are a cheerful people who are briefly wary of outsiders. They take pleasure in simple crafts and in nature, but they do not have the great love of food which characterizes their halfling cousins.
>Ecology: The main fare of a ha’pony is fruit, supplemented by cereals. They make up to 20 different varieties of bread, each community having its own speciality. Ha’ponies occasionally hunt game birds such as pheasants and partridges.
>Ha’ponies have a life span of approximately 120 years. They live in small family clusters within the village community. They don’t breed often, but once a child is born it is lovingly cared for and spoiled by all its relatives.
>>47343334
>Then Holmes (?) makes B/X for kids.
>Followed by Mentzer's BECMI a little later.
Nah, Holmes makes Holmes Basic, the blue-box edition, for kids. It's meant as an intro to OD&D, but in the intervening time between him writing it and it getting published, Gygax goes full AD&D and converts Holmes to an AD&D introductory set.
Then Moldvay writes a new Basic and Cook creates Expert to follow it, forming B/X. They mean to publish a Companion set to round off the Basic/Classic line, but before that TSR decide they have to revamp the Basic line for kids who are coming into D&D cold instead of being taught by an older kid, so they can learn on their own. This begets Mentzer's Basic just two years after Moldvay, after which Mentzer goes on to write an Expert and Companion box set of his own, as well as a Master and Immortals set which are both weird and kinda hard to defend as standalone products. These combine to form BECMI, the Voltron (the good lion Voltron, not the shitty car Voltron) of Classic D&D.
However, Mentzer Basic is hyperpedagogical for 10-to-12-year-olds who don't know how to play to learn on their own with, which makes it kinda suck as a reference book, plus having a whole stack of box sets at the table's clunky, so TSR subsequently publish the Rules Cyclopedia as a one-volume reference hardback for the use of established players. It shines on high over all the land as a perfect jewel, spreading prosperity and good harvests and thus still costs $50 used at a bare minimum.
does your mood fluctuate between OSR and modern (3.0+) , or do you stick to one?
>>47344550
I play OSR if I want a challenge where roleplaying happens but is secondary. I play 5e if I want something fantasy that's more centered on backstory and character motivation all that stuff, with a moderate to high magic level.
If I want something else, I play something else. I used Within the Ring of Fire for a low fantasy game with lots of political intrigue once. I've played Call of Cthulhu and so on. The only "story game" I've played is Misspent Youth, and I loved it.
But I have no desire to play 4e, or to play 3.5/Pathfinder again.
>>47344550
Right now I'm running a 3.5 game (but its low level, so it's not too irritating. Yet), and LotFP/OSR. I'd much prefer to ditch 3.5 altogether, but there are extenuating circumstances for using it.
>>47344607
>>47344642
I found a copy of Pathfinder at Goodwill for like 3 bux. What is shit about 3.5/PF? I have a blank slate, fill me in. It seems like it's the most revered version for the populace.
I've only played/run LotFP (love), DCC (love), 5e (liked) and a session of 4e (meh.)
>>47344642
If you have people insist on something modern, you might try convincing them to play 5e. Or just something that isn't D&D.
>>47344657
Pathfinder is essentially a update of Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition Revised (also known as 3.5).
It purports to fix the problems with 3.5, but actually just ends up repeating the mistakes of the system. I can list the biggest problems if you like, but it's not the worst system you could play, and you can have fun with it.
>>47344666
I don't have 5e (yet), but our group does have several members who have the 5e books, and we do play it.
We plan on playing non-D&D games as well (and already have) but we actually like D&D.
>>47344657
Mostly it's just pretty rules-heavy without a good reason to be. It takes like an hour to make your first character. There are character options that seem cool but actually suck. If your character isn't optimized, you can't handle the shit that's considered appropriate for your level, which means there's kind of a "minigame" in making your character, of figuring out the best options.
Characters who are like, level three, are also so obscenely above everyone else that it encourages players to treat NPCs like dirt in a way that's different than "oh, those rascally adventurers" and sometimes crosses into fucked up territory.
It genuinely can be fun, but it takes more effort for it to be.
Which version of Gamma World is the best? I don't want some reskinned 3.5 like d20 Modern and shit were.
>>47344782
just use Mutant Future.
>>47344550
I prefer OSR on a mechanical level for the most part these days(with ACKS, Microlite 74, Basic Fantasy RPG, and White Hack as the most likely ones I'd use), but as someone who first got into D&D through the 3rd edition starter box, and whose first D&D edition I personally bought was 4E, well I'm more than welcoming to ideas from more modern iterations of the game, hell Pathfinder Beginner Box is something I'd gladly run as it's Pathfinder trimmed down into something more usable(and there's some nice fan content for it if you know where to look), and the two Wizards Presents books released about a year before 4E are still very inspirational towards how I build my campaign settings
>>47344666
>Or just something that isn't D&D
sory Satan, but most non D&D fantasy systems are pretty damn awful, and 5e while not the worst version of D&D, requires way too much work to make truly usable for my tastes at this point in time, at least if I were to GM it
This is a *very* early WIP for alternative familiars, for use with games based on 0e. The goal is to make familiars strange and creepy.
What do you think? I realize there's very little balance going on, but I'm mostly brainstorming right now anyway.
>>47346818
I like it. Very flavorful, and I'd love to see more.
you know what I realized that I love about OSR? not just the simplicity for myself, the forverDM, but for my friends,
i can play it with my non-tabletop-usual friends. they dont need to scour over a handbook and know a billion rules. I just invite them over, they pick a class, flavor it up, and we start having fun.
>>47347015
Isn't it grand how something so simple can create such complex interactions, and becomes more than the sum of its parts?
>>47347029
it really is. i'm having a difficult time imagining half the fun night's we've had being as effective or fluid if we were constantly referencing rulebooks or stopping to see if something was allowed.
i see the want and need for complex systems, but i'm glad the simple 'alternative is still going strong. it really is the pinnacle of roleplaying games for me.
>>47347113
Same here. The OSR bug has got me good.
>>47341841
It's crows they ran the experiment with, but most corvids are stupidly intelligent compared to other animals.
is there a copy of Lejendary Adventures floating around?
>>47344550
I tend to play either osr style stuff, or else go for world of darkness games. I'm unusual in that I genuinely enjoy Wraith and Changeling, it seems.
I like the mechanical approach of OSR games, but the old world of darkness setting is just /cool/ to me. If there was some sort of retro-style game where you could play as angsty ghosts and vampires and shit, I'd probably explode with fangirling.
>>47347290
You're not the only one who like Wraith and Changeling. Wraith is my favorite line followed by Mage.
>>47340031
Top kek
Still cracks me up after all these years
>>47340031
You gotta post the whole thing, man.
>>47342736
Basic D&D is based on the core OD&D books (the white box set with the 3 little brown books) plus the first supplement, Greyhawk (which did things like introduce the thief as well as the idea of using variable size dice for hit dice and weapon damage--as well as some stuff which Basic doesn't use, like percentile strength and different adjustment to hit vs. each individual AC for each individual weapon). AD&D is based on fully-fleshed out OD&D, including all the supplements, plus stuff from the magazines.
The first Basic edition, Holmes Basic, only covers levels 1-3 and is pretty much an OD&D starter set which is then used as a bridge to AD&D, which starts to be released the same year. Moldvay/Cook Basic (B/X) comes a few years later and is more of a fully-fledged edition, comprising two sets: Basic and Expert. It's intended for there to be at least one more set for it, but instead, they start over from the beginning with Mentzer Basic (BECMI) two years later. It retreads the Basic and Expert Sets, using a different formatting and presentation (including a learn-as-you-go story/play through in the Basic Set), but is essentially the same game otherwise, with minor tweaks. Additionally, Companion, Master and Immortal Sets are released for it, covering levels above the 14 covered in the Basic and Expert Sets (going up to level 36 and beyond to immortals).
At this point, Mentzer Basic has something like 450 pages of material split between 9 books, making it very difficult to reference (each set other than Expert is divided into a player's manual and dungeon master's rulebook--compare this to Moldvay Basic which is 128 pages split between 2 books). The Rules Cyclopedia consolidates this material (most of it anyway) into a single volume, serving essentially as a reference-able version of BECMI.
>>47347664
On the AD&D side, 2nd edition was released after corporate hi-jinx lead to Gary Gygax being forced out of TSR. It cleaned up some of the clutter of 1st edition, made it more presentable, and brought some of the material from the supplements into the core rules. On a subjective basis, I will say that it also lost some of the energy and passion of 1st edition, and it also dropped things like half-orcs and assassins that might give people the wrong idea (following the D&D is satanic scare), as well as devils and demons (which were ultimately included under different names). With increasingly story-based games and supplements that allowed you to get fiddly with the rules (kits and so forth), 2nd edition at least begins to move away from old school, but the big break comes with the release of 3rd edition D&D (continuing the numbering of AD&D, but dropping the "Advanced" moniker and dispensing with the parallel lines of Basic and AD&D) by Wizards of the Coast, which had bought out a financial insolvent TSR, which had been run into the ground in the 90's.
>>47342298
Main problem with doing this is that you can't differentiate between types of danger. You'll notice the saves get more difficult for certain things.
Having a single save for everything doesn't allow for this granularity. Though you could just offer bonuses to the roll for different circumstances.
>>47344657
3rd edition / 3.5 / Pathfinder has some good ideas, but the implementation is flawed, and once you put everything together, it's an overly complicated, unbalanced mess. It takes a completionist approach to gaming, attempting to have a rule or formula for everything, but there are enough things that come up with silly results that you have to improvise them away, leading you to wonder what the point was in the overly complicated completionist approach in the first place. Additionally, the game tries to be a little more granular, allowing you to allocate skill points, buy feats and so forth. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the foundations of D&D it's built on top of, result in a bit of a mess. The uniform d20 mechanic, which eliminates all the disparate subsystems, is generally a good thing though. Looking through 3.PF, it can seem like a really cool--if somewhat heavy--system, with many of the flaws not revealing themselves until you've had some experience with the system. Oh, I should mention that class balance is completely fucked. This could be a bit of a problem in old school D&D (though being more rules-light and improvisational lessened the problems), but it's orders of magnitude worse in 3.PF.
4e gets a bad rap. It's a pretty good game for what it is. If you want more tactical, war game-like combat, it's the ideal edition. A whole lot of people play D&D like an uninspired war game, and they should really transition to 4e so they have something more to do than just say "I attack" and roll a d20 to see if they hit over and over. It's not my cup of tea, as I like an immersive game heavy on cinematics, and the tactical options can get in the way of this (instead of a more freeform description of what you do, with the DM improvising modifiers and results based on that, you just end up picking maneuvers off a list).
>>47348027
An approach like Swords & Wizardry can address that. You have a unified save score, but you get a class bonus to hit you're good at.
>>47347664
So I'm thinking of dividing up attributes a bit differently, splitting up Dexterity and taking melee to hit away from Strength and dropping it into one of those split stats. Judging solely from the standpoint of what it modifies, as well as how much the names of the split stats work with these names, what split makes the most sense? I'd like to come out with two stats that are relatively balanced.
List of modified things:
--bonus to AC
--bonus to (appropriate) saving throws
--basis for most coordination attribute checks / thief skills, etc.
--bonus to melee chance to hit
--bonus to ranged chance to hit
--initiative
The only thing I can really figure out is:
Reflexes -- AC, saving throws, initiative
Dexterity -- Melee and ranged to hit, most skill and attribute checks
Is there a better way of doing things?
>>47348349
Is there a particular need to neuter strength in this fashion? Perhaps merge it with constitution? If its realism, we gotta remember that strength being to hit really is the realistic solution.
>>47348059
Really, I think 3.5e and 4e deserve to be appreciated on their own. I particularly like the oddball races/classes introduced in each that have their own unique style never since repeated (warforged/artificers, changelings/shapeshifters come to mind for 3e, devas & revenants and invokers, avengers, and stuff like that for 4e).
>>47348445
>Is there a particular need to neuter strength in this fashion?
Well, I'd be neutering dexterity as well, splitting it into two stats. This leaves only constitution as being potentially overpowered in comparison, but I'm still playing around with the way I want to do hit dice and I'm pretty sure I can balance it accordingly.
>Perhaps merge it with constitution?
That might put it in line with a single Dexterity stat with melee to hit subsumed into it, but you'd end up with like three stats overall if you wanted to balance things (Might/Brawn, Dexterity, and a single mental stat), and that might be a bit too little.
>If its realism, we gotta remember that strength being to hit really is the realistic solution.
I disagree. Strength certainly plays an important role, but it's more a matter of reflexes and coordination, which obviously falls under Dexterity. It's just that realistically speaking, Strength underlies Dexterity as well. You need muscle strength to be able to move your body quickly and efficiently enough to be all dodgy, and give yourself a bonus to AC.
>>47348556
>but it's more a matter of reflexes and coordination
I really can't imagine a world in which that is the case. With melee weapons, strength is speed and accuracy both. Swinging a sword? Reflexes and coordination? Maybe with a purely wacky weapon like a whip or spiked chain.
>You need muscle strength to be able to move your body quickly and efficiently enough to be all dodgy, and give yourself a bonus to AC.
Eh, in all cases I'm aware of a dodge is going to be dodging a specific body part (typically a head or arm) out of the way, not flinging your body. I would buy that reflexes can play a role there.
>Well, I'd be neutering dexterity as well, splitting it into two stats.
It'd still be superior to strength for a purely melee focused character.
Just seems painful to have strength be reduced to the second fiddle -- even if you're melee only.
Why change stuff in the pursuit of making the game less balanced and less realistic at the same time?
>>47348642
>With melee weapons, strength is speed and accuracy both.
>Speed and accuracy
Random internet dictionary gives me this definition for Dexterity:
>the ability to perform a difficult action quickly and skilfully with the hands, or the ability to think quickly and effectively:
Obviously that's a narrower definition of Dexterity (equating to "manual dexterity") than D&D uses, which encompasses agility: "the power of moving quickly and easily; nimbleness".
>strength is speed and accuracy both
>Reflexes and coordination? Maybe with a purely wacky weapon like a whip or spiked chain.
Reflexes is speed and coordination is accuracy. I mean, it's like you're arguing that intelligence isn't how smart you are.
>Why change stuff in the pursuit of making the game less balanced and less realistic at the same time?
You don't know how I'm going to balance things. Hell, *I* don't know how I'm going to balance things yet.
>>47348349
>>47348445
>>47348556
My game uses a modified attack method, so to hit and damage are rolled into one, but I found a solution to this that I believed solved most problems inherit.
Essentially you use Dexterity for all melee weapons and bows that deal d6 or less damage as well as blowguns, crossbows, slings, and similar ranged weapons.
Then you use Strength for melee weapons and bows that deal d8 or more damage, as well as the damage from throwing axes and javelins.
Strength characters go for big damage using this system; since they already get the biggest weapons, but naturally they will have shit initiative and get no defensive bonus from their strength stat where as Dex users get a bonus to their offense with weaker weapons/ranged and their AC.
>>47344550
I float around a lot.
My current fix is OSR, 4e, Reign, Feng Shui and homebrew.
I've slimmed down to just over a dozen systems on my shelf and have played dozens more. It just really depends on my mood. I feel like there is a right system for certain games.
Which reminds me I need to brush up on One Ring and Qin again.
All "retroclones" are inferior. All "houserules" are inferior. Only those rules produced and printed by TSR are True. Nothing can be done better that has not been done before. One can spend a lifetime attempting to collate all rules into a unified game system, only asymptotically approaching perfection.
>>47344782
>I'm reposting what I said in an earlier thread, because I'm lazy.
2e is pretty much the definitive edition. It's basically a tweaked, expanded 1e. However, it's old school TSR, so it may seem a bit dated to modern eyes (though that's less of a concern here in /osr/, where folks are probably at peace with that.
3e tried to make Gamma World more sophisticated than earlier editions. It used an action resolution table whereby you achieve different levels of success on a percentile dice roll (instead of using a d20, like earlier and later editions). For weapon damage for instance, blue did one damage multiple (7 for instance), green did two (14), yellow did three (21) and so forth. It's a neat system, and is a decent bit more detailed than 2e, but it's rather disorganized and had a ton of errata to contend with. It provides the basis to be the best edition, I think, with streamlining and organizing, but as-is it's a bit of a mess. So it's a fixer-upper.
4e took GW in the direction of AD&D, with classes and honest-to-god levels and shit, something I think was a mistake. GW already shared a common heritage with D&D, and the differences between them were largely a matter of them being better adapted to their respective settings.
I've never even seen 5th edition or played the Alternity system it uses, so I can't help there. Alternity apparently folded right after 5th edition came out, though, so I don't think 5th edition ever got much circulation.
6th edition looks terrible to me, but then it's based on d20 Modern, and I'm really not a fan of d20 modern.
I've not played 7th edition, but it's been billed as a short-term, pickup game of zany fun (albeit one with a high death rate). That seems like it could be cool, but I prefer to take my Gamma World seriously (even when it's ridiculous), and to run longer term campaigns.
>>47344550
I fluctuate between Swords & Wizardry Complete / stuff from Crypts & Things for my "regular" fantasy gaming and DCC RPG for the crazier stuff and shorter pick up & play stuff like the Funnels.
I am considering:
a) Picking up Runequest to run Glorantha for the first time after the 2.5e edition they're currently developing gets released.
b) Creating an ersatz Whitebox of Tekumel from the original Petal Throne release (with stuff from Gardasiyal) and Jeff Berry's 300+ pages of answers on RPGSite.
>>47346969
I'm glad you like it. When it's done, I'm going to professionalize it all up and put it on drive thru RPG or something with a pay-what-you-want cost (minimum of free).
>>47348027
A bit late, but I'll clarify it. You have both a base luck score, a +1 or +2 depending on the class and can use a ability modifier depending on the danger.
the test-printing of wolfpacks just arrived in the post! This is good!
It's full of printer fubars. This is less good. Back to work, I guess.
Any of you all ever use miniatures? How often do you use them, and for what?
>>47350342
Rarely, for pivotal bosses and critical NPCs. I prepare maps of the relevant levels/buildings beforehand. I feel it really drives home the idea that this encounter is both hard and important, to the point where 'oh shit, graphics' is a running joke in the campaign.
How do you fellows feel about hand-outs and other visualization tools?
I personally like drawing them a lot so I use it as an excuse to doodle.
>>47350342
I like to use maps and visual shit, and my players enjoy it more too.
My minis are just tiny printouts of characters held up by mini binder clips because minis are fucking $$$. I don't put any emphasis on exact placement of figures, or turn combat into some 4e wargame fest, but it gives the general info of where a creature is/can be seen/appeared etc, or what room a PC is in.
>>47351627
I love props in general, and letting players bring their creativity to games in ways other than just the ideas they come up with during play. OSR or not, it's a universal for me and gaming.
>>47350283
That is amazing!
>>47350342
At the table we mostly used tokens and printed paper minis, nowadays I can make some decent looking cardboard and clay minis, and am about to invest in some old Warhammer empire minis for lotfp.
(The main reason I don't have a lot of RPG minis is that I already have a staggering 40k painting backlog)
Maps are quite common in my table, but that's always a given.
Holy shit. I fucking LOVE Swords & Wizardry. It's like everything in old school D&D organized by someone with decent fucking organizational skills, has ascending AC for people who are into that, doesn't have race-as-class, is fully compatible with all the old modules which means MOTHERFUCKERS I'M RUNNING SOME MYSTARA, and has a visual presentation I like, all in a hardback book.
It's a good time to be a tabletop gamer.
Any recommendations for cheaper "monster manual like" alternatives to buying the Monstrosities book if I want something physical?
So, there's like 50 versions of S&W in the trove. Im looking for whichever is most mechanically akin to B/X, has divided race and class, and is the most widely revered I suppose. Thanks!
>>47352983
Whitebox one if you want race as class and a B/X tone. The rules are free.
>>47352983
Labyrinth Lord is the B/X clone and has race as class.
Swords & Wizardry are all OD&D clones and mostly use race/class divide. (or in Complete's case OD&D with some AD&D 1E stuff added on)
The differences between the two are pretty minor though.
Swords & Wizardr: Complete by Frog God easily has the best layout of the lot, but then I edited the pdf to remove a ton of the cruft and some classes I dislike. (for some inane reason they added text about why something differs from "muh original OD&D" like I give a shit)
How would you handle disguise in LotFP?
>>47348349
> So I'm thinking of dividing up attributes a bit differently, splitting up Dexterity and taking melee to hit away from Strength and dropping it into one of those split stats. Judging solely from the standpoint of what it modifies, as well as how much the names of the split stats work with these names, what split makes the most sense? I'd like to come out with two stats that are relatively balanced.
More stats? More stats is bad. Don't do more stats.
> Is there a better way of doing things?
Combine and/or remove stats. Try to boil everything down to 4 stats. Or even 3.
It might not work out, but that's way better than introducing additional abilities. That way AD&D 2e lies.
> I'd like to come out with two stats that are relatively balanced.
I smell Gygaxian tournament play.
You can't balance. Not as long as you can predict how specifically game will be run. And that means severely restricting and simplifying everything 4e-style. Everything else is a delusion.
>>47348916
> Essentially you use Dexterity for all melee weapons and bows that deal d6 or less damage as well as blowguns, crossbows, slings, and similar ranged weapons.
> Then you use Strength for melee weapons and bows that deal d8 or more damage, as well as the damage from throwing axes and javelins.
Just don't go full-FATAL on us, man.
If each of my 4 players has one hired henchman, and each henchman receives 1/2 the $$$ share (and $$$ is the main source of XP), does this mean I am effectively halving the XP my players main PC receives?
>>47353571
>simplifying
>4E
Is today opposite day?
Also, attempting balance is the entire reason for the M-U being nerfed first in Greyhawk (limited spell list, lower hit points) and later AD&D (all the various downsides to spells). Not to mention the various buffs to the Fighter - increased health, damage, AC and accuracy in Greyhawk, multiple attacks in AD&D...
That's not to say that the solution is to make more stats. That way Unearthed Arcana lies. The solution is to, like you said, consolidate stats so that they actually have equal worth. If that's what you're after, that is - I'm pretty sure that Intelligence is as shitty as it is in an attempt to balance the Magic-User, although fuck if I know what's up with Wisdom.
The best stats are probably dexterity and charisma, closely followed by constitution - strength trails behind a bit (although being a Fighter can boost it), and then you get Intelligence (mostly just bonus languages, although M-Us need it bad) and lastly Wisdom.
Prime Requisites have a very interesting interaction with the stats, to be honest. Just look back at OD&D, where everything was less: Strength, Intelligence and Wisdom do fuck all but give XP, Dexterity gives ranged to-hit and nothing else, Constitution gives HP and system shock, Charisma gives reaction rolls and henchmen and loyalty.
Stats have changed a lot over the years, so I don't really see any issue with changing them further. Do you really need to separate ranged and melee to-hit into two stats? Do you really need individual initiative from Dex? Do you need the bonus to reaction rolls, or system shock, or bonus languages? Hell, do you even need stats at all? I know for a fact that making a statless OD&D would be easy as balls.
>>47353762
Each henchman gets half a share. The players have one share each, so four shares. The four henchmen have two shares in total.
This means that the players lose out on a third of their experience - however, since they're twice as large a group they could probably get more than enough extra treasure to make up for it.
Not to mention the whole thing where they're backup PCs if the first dies and whatnot. Fun fact: half experience means that they'll always be a level behind the player due to the way the tables work. (This stops applying at name level, but by then you have resurrection magic.)
>>47353828
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If the party's total treasure found is 8,000sp:
Each PC gets 2,000sp. Each PC hired one hireling as their sidekick.
Now if each hirelings share is 1/2, their employer's why aren't they receiving 1000sp?
is there an OSR supplement with feats and more classess? smartass answers pathfinder,3.5
>>47353775
> attempting balance
Apologies, if I was unclear. I never intended to say that "attempting balance" should not be done. I'm just stating that it is not something you should pursue relentlessly, at the cost of other things.
Let me elaborate:
Primary objective of any game mechanic is to be easy to use by meat-brains with dice and pencils. It's not balance, it's not accuracy, nor anything else. Ergonomy is the king.
I'd say, secondary would be memetics. I.e. expressing some archetype or archetypal action (even at the cost of accuracy or balance) in expected (and tangible) way.
Only then balance enters the fray. Realism is the last to the party
> Hell, do you even need stats at all?
Nope.3e saving throws (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) can replace even basic ability rolls. Unfortunately, that will not work with 5-saves system.
>>47353988
Not that anon, but (1000*4)+(2000*4) = 12,000.
You calculate the entire number of shares, p + (h/2) = s. Where p = number of players; h = number of hirelings; s = number of shares.
p = 4
h = 4
4 + (4/2) = 6
Thus the treasure is divided into six. The players each get one, and the hirelings each get half of one.
8000/6 = 1333.33...
So each player gets (roughly 1,333) and each hireling gets half of that (roughly 667).
>>47353988
Not him, but:
1) Total amount of shares: 6
- 4 PC shares (1.0 share x4 for each PC)
- 2 NPC shares (0.5 share x4 for each henchmen)
2) Value of each share: 1.333sp (8.000 /6)
3) Each PC gets 1.333sp (1.333sp x1.0)
4) Each NPC gets 666sp (1.333sp x0.5)
>>47353455
You are either disguised if you can explain why it's convincing. If the player can't describe it himself, then it's probably not a good plan to begin with.
Afterwards you assign a percentage depending on the description and roll for it in secret. A couple of times to keep them on their toes.
>>47353988
I was confused about the same thing, actually, and then noticed that 1/2 share isn't supposed to mean half of experience, but that they count as half a character when it comes to distributing xp and gold.
>>47353455
Oh, let's see. I think I'd do it like so: Disguise is a skill, starts at 1-in-6 for everyone like always. When you craft a disguise, use up a disguise kit, and roll your skill. If you succeed, the disguise's value is your skill + 1, if not, it's just your skill.
When somebody inspects you suspiciously, like a guard who's on the lookout for you, or the host of a party who's not sure he invited this guest, roll a d6. If it's equal or under the disguise's value, no problem. If it fails by less than 3, he suspects you're not who you pretend to be. If it fails by 3 or more, some part of your disguise slips or fails, and he also knows you're actually wearing a disguise.
>try to find stuff about old school d&d on youtube
>half the shit is people trying to define old school roleplaying, and the other half is people who play 3.5 calling themselves "old school" because they played AD&D 2e once
About to watch this. Anyone seen it? It's entitled "What Happens When You Take Story Gamers And Put Them In An OSR Dungeon?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EytOUnVDTlg
