>Trove -- https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread: >>47444684 →
How does one decently and fairly determine a rare item's price value?
>>47550155
Personally I just check how much XP they have to level and use that as a basis since I use XP = GP rules.
>>47550321
Well, this has less to do with leveling and more for rare items with benefit.
I'm working on a post-apoc thing and if a character finds a Gasmask [+1 AC, +2 Poison Saves] what is a good way to determine it's monetary value? It's not some thing that can be bought from just anyone anywhere, thus isn't in the standard equipment/armor/weapon list I have.
Anybody have their hands on Strange Magic that'd be willing to share? I don't think it's in the trove.
>>47550547
Read this and see if you agree with the design goals, if so check out ACKS pricing of magic items:
http://www.autarch.co/blog/pricing-magic-items-acks
>>47550566
It's $1.00 you broke fuck.
>>47550593
I'd still like to try before I buy.
>>47550593
Look, I don't want to sound like a total bread-head, but like, 5p is 5p!
Underrated Caveman gem.
>>47550155
> How does one decently and fairly determine a rare item's price value?
Randomly.
If it's rare item, there is no fixed price. It's some random amount of money the party can get for it.
>>47550593
Oh, fuck you.
So for those of you that have cannibalized different OSR games for elements you like (for example, the single save or encumbrance rules) from other games, have you made your own custom character sheets?
If you have, I want to see them, along with your thought process for what you borrowed and why.
>>47550547
In a post-apoc game especially I just wouldn't bother with assigning it a fixed value. I mean, there isn't going to be a currency anyway, right? So it's all a question of barter.
>Gasmask [+1 AC, +2 Poison Saves]
I'd probably just do "immune to gas effects" since it seems wacky that the mask makes it easier to deal with getting stung by a scorpion.
What's the difference between silk and hempen ropes?
Hey, /osr/. I'm working on a turn-based space opera cRPG based loosely on old school D&D rules. I was going to try to sell it, but I think since it's my first real game (besides pong clones, etc.) and I don't know much about the legal side of things, I'll probably make it free. Assuming it's free, I don't ask for money on here or anything, and I don't spam the fuck out of the thread, do you all mind if I talk about it here like people might talk about a homebrew class or adventure they're working on?
>>47556503
Weight, I believe.
>>47556638
I can't speak for anybody else but myself, but it seems like if a system is based on old school D&D rules, it's fair game for this thread.
>>47556638
Go for it. Though there was some sort of GameDev thread around.
>>47556503
Silk is simultaneously tougher and lighter, which means that a given weight of cord can support much more weight on it compared to a hemp rope of the same thickness.
In LotFP-style encumbrance terms, I'd have a coil of hemp rope take up slots as a large/unwieldy object while a silk rope only counted as a normal item.
So I just got a hold of the AD&D DMG. What do you guys think is the dumbest thing in it? And what is the most useful thing in it?
>>47556638
>rolling for stats
Yes, it's OSR and all, but some things are done away with for a reason.
So can anyone describe for me in non-vague terms what constitutes as an "old school" RPG?
>>47556926
>some things are done away with for a reason
Unless you can actually say what that reason is (and note that "rolling for stats is stupid" is not the reason), and know enough about >>47556638 's game to say that the reason applies to it, you're just talking out your ass.
>>47556982
Old school D&D is everything before 3e. All the editions share the same core system and are various degrees of compatible. The OSR category includes those "authentic" editions and, more narrowly, games based on those editions (retroclones like Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry that hew closely to the original material, and more loosely based games like Castles & Crusades). As to what mechanics exemplify old school D&D, that's a long discussion. Suffice it to say that there are many different traits prevalent in old school D&D and which ones are more essential to the experience will vary according to who you're talking with.
>>47556982
Nah.
I.e. someone probably can, but it's not like everyone will agree.Blasphemer! 2e is no longer Old School!
>>47557041
Not him but rolling stats in a CRPG typically means hitting reroll over and over until you get stats high enough to satisfy yourself or you become too restless to continue and settle for what you've got.
>>47557041
Rolling for stats is stupid. Especially in a videogame, where the GM isn't expected to salvage a dysfunctional mechanic by consulting every character sheet before starting the adventure. So you have a pre-built adventure that is playtested with some predetermined stat spreads, but generates your characters randomly. And is there any reason not to pick character #3 over the other two?
And no, inb4 is not a reason to discard something you disagree with.
>>47556926
>I want to be in /osrg/
>But I hate the mainstays of old-school play
I think you missed your exit for the 3.pf general.
>>47556982
"Old-School" systems are really of secondary improtance to the old-school playstyle. Old-School RPGs in this sense are those that support that style, which is basically only OD&D and its nearest derivatives — the Basic/Classic line, and AD&D through the early years of 1e.
OSR (Old School Revival) games are those which try to clone or emulate the play style of those early editions so people can still buy that type of game new in print today.
>>47557349
> "Old-School" systems are really of secondary improtance to the old-school playstyle.
This.
DnD and all is nice, but the core idea is this. It's more of a OSS (Old School Stylewhich is also vaguely defined) and RPGs that support it, rather than specific qualities of DnD-derived systems compatible with old modules.
>>47556926
The plan is to make it clear ahead of time that there's bonus starting money for not rerolling over and over and over.
>>47556982
An old school RPG is one where the primary means of determining what happens in the game is done via negotiation between the players and the game's judge, rather than between the players and the game's mechanics.
There was that one website with oldschool stats for monsters. Does anyone have it at hand?
>>47557430
>>47557349
And what is the play style here?
>>47557528
So... it's a narrativist game?
>>47557611
>So... it's a narrativist game?
No. It means that instead of saying "I roll to disarm traps," you say, "I wedge a log under the pressure plate so we can move across without activating it," and the DM makes a reasonable determination as to the result of you doing so.
>>47557611
>So... it's a narrativist game?
No, it's the literal opposite of Narrativism. It's more like a loose-rules squad-level wargame adjudicated by an impartial referee to allow participants to try anything.
Like, did you ever play a strategy game as a kid and wish you could try other stuff than the rules allowed you? Maybe you grew attached to one particular squaddie and wanted to be able to follow his adventures between the battles?
>>47557611
>So... it's a narrativist game?
Kind of. I'm not that anon, but I'll try to explain.
Old school games were purposely rules light, while still providing rules for how one passes or fails at something, and still making it possible to make characters who are better at certain things than other characters. This was the main reason for the class system. The thief picks locks and sneaks around. The fighter kills shit. The cleric heals, scares off undead, and/or buffs himself/herself and others.
But ultimately, much of the purpose was to combine rules-lightness with simulation such that players could get lost in the world of the game, which in most cases, meant feeling like you were really trudging through a dangerous-ass dungeon with monsters whose shit you were trying to steal. It's possibly the single most immersive fictional thing I've ever experienced with other people.
So success is based around being clever. "I want to get to the high ground," or "I want to hide behind the tapestries then stab him when he comes close." Rather than "I want to use my power attack feat" or "I can't even try to tackle him because I lack the requisite abilities."
If the DM thinks it's reasonable that you'd succeed, you do. If the DM thinks it's impossible, you don't. If the DM thinks you have a chance, you have a chance.
It's a resource management/narrative combo where the resource management element feels like ACTUALLY having a limited number of torches and food, and trying to scour a hole filled with nasty critters so you can steal their shit and get the fuck out of there.
>>47557626
>>47557649
Oh so it's more like Freeforming between stategy battles?isn't that was 4e was?
>>47557679
4e has extensive rules for disarming traps and no guidelines to improvising their removal or finding.
>>47557679
You're closer but still not quite there. It's like a really tough computer RPG, but one where you can attempt literally anything that a person could physically attempt in that situation.
>>47557674
> much of the purpose was to combine rules-lightness with simulation such that players could get lost in the world of the game
See that just makes it sound like you're in that state when you just started playing tabletop games and didn't understand the rules so you just described things, made up stuff on the fly and rolled what the GM told you to roll.
>>47557691
>and no guidelines to improvising their removal or finding.
... pretty sure it did tho...
>>47557611
>NGS
Forgers are cancer, and ignore how and why people play games
>>47557705
>See that just makes it sound like you're in that state when you just started playing tabletop games and didn't understand the rules so you just described things, made up stuff on the fly and rolled what the GM told you to roll.
So? That tends to be better than having an absurd number of rules, 99.9% of the time.
>>47557693
But computer RPGs are the reason why adapting D&D and AD&D into videogames never worked, since they give you an extremely limited number of options in any given situation and no way to improvise whatsoever.
>>47557716
No I agree with you. I'm just wondering why this needs to be its own seperate category when the only games I can imagine that do have a stupid amount of rules for shit are like, Onyx Path/White Wolf games and D&D 5e/3.pf
>>47557705
>... pretty sure it did tho...
Nopers. Their removal is usually defined only in the context of what skill is used and perhaps a brief description.
>>47557739
>I can imagine that do have a stupid amount of rules for shit are like, Onyx Path/White Wolf games and D&D 5e/3.pf
5e is not particularly rules heavy, especially not compared to, say, 4e.
>>47557739
Because OSR refers to games that attempt to simulate old school D&D specifically because, despite what many people think, it did what it was designed to do really, REALLY well and the flaws in the games were generally minor and easily fixable. In other words, it just refers to clones of the old D&D games and other related games.
If a rules-light game is designed to feel like a "the four of us against the world in a hellacious environment" simulator, then it's probably pretty close to the old school style of game.
Does b/x have counterspell rules?
>>47558081
Counterspell rules have a weird history in D&D. Here's an exhaustive study, by good old Delta, the D&D math nerd:
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/contra-counterspells.html
>>47557752
But 4e's rules were most centered around combat which is where D&D has always had its primary focus. It was rules heavy, sure, but it was at least focused in where its rules were.
>>47557771
> it did what it was designed to do really, REALLY well
Did it really?
>>47558241
>which is where D&D has always had its primary focus.
Much of old school D&D was about avoiding combat where possible, and only fighting when you had a huge advantage because combat was quite lethal.
>Did it really?
Yes.
>>47550593
I'm high listening to dungeon synth, lol
>>47558241
>But 4e's rules were most centered around combat which is where D&D has always had its primary focus.
Revisionist bullshit. Someone in one of these threads long ago said it so well: the first roleplayers didn't need to create a game where they could fight; they were wargamers already. D&D may have grown out of wargames, but the focus was on something else entirely.
When dealing with Henchmen (and other Hirelings), do you guys let the PC's know their stats, or no? Also, who controls the Henchmen, is it the DM or the PC's?
Anybody have the full PDF of Vornheim? The OSR trove seems to only have a very short 3-page kit and map.
>>47557679
Okay, new analogy. It's like Nethack but a version that lets you leave the dungeon and makes regular Nethack's object interactions seem few and stale.
>>47557679
4E had Skill Challenges, although I suspect that "freeform roleplaying" was probably what most groups ended up with between encounters due to the quality of the Skill Challenge rules.
>>47557528
>An old school RPG is one where the primary means of determining what happens in the game is done via negotiation between the players and the game's judge, rather than between the players and the game's mechanics.
I don't know that that's what I'd call the "old-school playstyle", really - there's a grain of truth to it, but it's just the way that most RPGs inch into the freeform once you go outside of the rules and how OD&D doesn't have much in the way of rules.
Hell, OD&D doesn't even go that far in that. It's got plenty of concrete rules, be it for combat (albeit in an entirely separate product) or exploration or negotiation with monsters. It's still very close to a wargame in some respects, and it shows.
No, if you want a game that's REALLY 'a negotiation between players and the judge' you should really go towards the more narrative games - and I don't mean the ones with strong universal mechanics like, say, FATE. I mean weird-ass indie shit like Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist or We're All Going To Die. The stuff that's only a few steps removed from freeform, only separated by having a clear goal or structure and some few rules to hammer shit down.
Hell, WTF is actually lacking mechanics and notes that in the book. The mechanics for lacking mechanics is for players and DM to negotiate over what exactly those mechanics should be (not to be confused with negotiating over what is true in the game world, or negotiating over how to play the game.)
Weird-ass games.
>>47558241
>Did it really?
Yeah, it's just that what it was designed to do was logistical megadungeon exploration/mapping with a side dish of mass combat.
Which isn't exactly the norm these days. With "these days" meaning any time from late 1E onwards. Perhaps earlier.
>>47558524
The DM.
>>47558524
I usually don't roll for henchmen stats, and just assume a 10 for everything.
As for control, the PCs can direct them, but if they give them some foolhardy directions, there's going to be a morale roll or the henchmen will say "Nope!"
>>47558787
This is the best way to do it. Let the PCs effectively control them until conflict occurs, then roll or just tell them the henchmen refuse. That highlights that they're following orders, not under direct control, while also not bogging the referee down with a ton of unnecessary interactions.
Have any of you ever tried running an OSR module with Burning Wheel (sometimes called Burning THAC0)? How were the results? Any tips?
>>47558636
The full thing is in the Trove.
>>47559179
Try using Torchbearer? I hear it's based on the system, and it seems to lean pretty hard on the whole OSR thing.
>>47559396
Uh, where? I only saw the kit under the LotFP directory. Is the 3-page kit the whole thing?
>>47559455
Definitely not. My copy is 9 megs, and 75 pages long.
>>47559426
I've tried it a bit, and there's something about the pace, and level of micromanagement I'm not too keen on.
Attached is Burning THAC0. It's old and pretty clumsily put together, mostly because it was made from a bunch of forum posts scrapped to make a small book.
>>47559455
>>47559492
Hunh. THe file must have gotten corrupted when I downloaded it the first time. Now I can see the whole thing. Weird.
>>47558199
Thanks a lot, this helped a lot!
Does a game HAVE to have a "this is the standard" race at all?
I was thinking of doing a game that's basically "what if the world of Redwall was more like Nehwon in tone," and I thought of basically doing race-as-class, but having no classes that aren't races, so you choose, "Okay, I'll be a mouse," or "I'll be a squirrel," or whatever.
Does this seem reasonable?
>>47560247
Not the first time this has been done, so you should be fine.
>>47560247
That sounds more than reasonable to me.
>>47558241
I'd say one of the major features of an OSR game is that they generally try to model the acquisition of wealth via dungeon diving.
In many OSR games (though not all), this is incentivized by the use of a "gold for XP" system - it doesn't matter what you kill down there. Ironically, this means while combat may often be *necessary* (since something's guarding the pile of gold), it's also disincentivized. This sort of incentive isn't strictly necessary with the right group, of course, but it does show what the games are focused on.
Since OSR is about acquiring wealth rather than just explicitly combat, many OSR games are equally concerned with rules regarding the procedures and logistics of venturing into dark ruins with lots of treasure (or alternately hauling that wealth back to town over expanses of wilderness). Things like the amount of time it takes to grope down a dark 10' hall are also given rules treatment.
This leads to the second hallmark of OSR style - an attempt to create emergent encounters based on the interactions between several rules systems, rather than consensual agreement (as is the case in "narratavist" games like Burning Wheel). In a narrative game, you might decide by group consensus it's more dramatic that the thief encounters a goblin patrol while trying to pick a lock in a dark tunnel. On the flip side, you might instead have a goblin encounter from a confluence of rules (the thief fails his lockpicking attempt a few times, which takes enough time for a random encounter to be rolled, which indicates a goblin, and the behaviour/reaction roll indicates a hostile patrol).
In practice GMs will probably use a bit of both and some games considered "OSR" will not neatly fit either - the whole point behind categories like this is they identify rough trends and movements, rather than some sort of purely Platonic ideal form.
>>47557593
http://www.lomion.de/cmm/_index.php
>>47560247
>Does a game HAVE to have a "this is the standard" race at all?
As the others said: Nope!
>Does this seem reasonable?
Yes. I'd say that's one of the two main ways of doing it, the other being "I'll be a fighter" and then just picking mouse or badger or whatever for race and having it not affect stats or class at all, just a cosmetic thing.
Personally I prefer your method, though, just because I like mechanical differentiation, especially when it comes to animal-men that can be wildly disparate in size.I predict that your main problem will be players whining "but I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!".
>>47560396
>This sort of incentive isn't strictly necessary with the right group, of course
It's not necessary, but it's not /in the way/ of that group either. That's the key, really. The mechanic's all gain and no drawback.
>>47562025
>"but I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!"
Badger = barbarian.
This is because I'm including two NPCs you can hire on who you have to hire together, who are nods to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.
Hatcher and the Gray Mouse.
Hatcher is a red and white badger from the arctic badger tribes, whogets to reroll morale checks once per battle due to his "Red Badger Courage" ability.
>>47562188
Yeah, I'm on board with that, I'm just saying that whenever you use race as class, some faggot always has to try and break the mold.
>>47560247
It's for this reason I like how ACKS approaches things; providing different racial class options to represent different archetypes. You can't be a dwarven Fighter or Cleric, but you can be a dwarven Vaultguard or Craftspriest.
If you go too far of course it ends up being unnecessary complexity, but giving two race options helps represent/inspire a wider variety of archetypes associated with the race.
>>47556892
Asking this again. Would love to hear /osr/'s views on the DMG and what are the worst and best parts of it.
>>47560247
as long as most Races have multiple classes attached to them, like for example say Hares get two classes, one is basically a Fighter with some of the non-magical bits of Ranger mixed in, and the other is pretty much a Bard(albeit one that fights better than Bard equivalents for most other races)
>>47562963
agreed, more OSR games should borrow from how ACKS does things
>>47563540
Shit, I don't know. The DMG is such a hodgepodge of information that trying to apply it all would lead to an unworkable disaster of a game. Really, it seems to me that--aside from a few key parts integral to the game (combat tables, magical treasure...)--you just grab the bits that interest you and work with your current campaign, and those are going to vary depending on what you're trying to do. I'm never going to use a lot of the crunchier combat stuff, but I might glance at it for reference to guide some decision I'm trying to make, so I wouldn't consider it worthless to me.
I do think that alignment languages are one of the stupidest parts of AD&D in general, and the DMG has a small section on that, so I suppose that counts. I guess if I had to pick a favorite part, I'd go with the magic items section, since it's extensive, very useful, and can be ported into other games as well.
>>47563540
Assuming the 1E DMG, the best part is probably how it's jam-packed with ideas for practically fucking everything, there's just a shit-ton of stuff in there. An encyclopedia of gaming advice. Worst part's the whore table./osrg/ will rip me a new asshole for saying so, though.
If it's the 2E DMG, the best part's... I guess... that if you leave it in the bathroom you can wipe your ass with it in an emergency.
picked up a decent Dark Sun haul at a used bookstore
all of these were 8 dollars canadian, 30% off
City on the Silt Sea(everything but map, inclu box)
Rulebook for dark sun(map incl)
lorebook journal thing for Dark Sun(map incl)
Valley of Fire and dust
Dune Trader
Looks like most of it's from the original pre-1995 printing but Im a huge fucking faggot when it comes to collecting old shit like this so Im down. who /collector/ here?
>>47562188
>Red Badger Courage
What's your favorite OSR Game?
What do you like about it?
What do you dislike about it?
Has anybody run the Grimmsgate module for S&W? Thoughts?
Forgive me for interrupting this glorious thread, but some chucklefuck over here: >>47562279
Wants to know exactly how many of you beat the 13th level wizard at the Tower of the Stargazer
>>47563540
You can tell the AD&D DMG was written by someone who had run a lot of games rather than a 'games designer' per se.
It's full of stuff you invariably end up needing but no one ever includes in rulebooks.
The Potion Miscibility table for example. The section on how long it takes to dig through various substances. Effects of Alcohol and Drugs. Chances of Evading Pursuit.
There's a section on mirrors that just says 'It is important for DMs to remember that in order to be reflective, a mirror must have a light source.'. One can only imagine what prompted that insight.
It's very much a book by a DM for DMs. Not well designed, but drawn from experience.
>>47563540
>best parts
Gygax hammering in the importance of Time.
>>47563540
The bit where Gary says that players reading the DMG are less than worthy of an honourable death. It's like it didn't occur to him that some players might also want to DM.
>>47566537
I think there's been like two parties mentioned over the last few threads who did it in actual play?
The big deal is that spellcasting is interrupted in most OSR games if a magic-user is hit.
I allow saving throw against it but with a party of maybe 6 people attacking him it would definitely have a negative modifier added to it.
>>47562025
>"But I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!"
Then take off your noisy armor and start skulking around. You may be big but that doesn't mean you can't be quiet.
>>47566327
>What's your favorite OSR Game?
Dungeon Crawl Classics
>What do you like about it?
The aesthetic, the simplicity of the ruleset, the funnel.
>What do you dislike about it?
CHARTS.
>>47566327
>Fav
DCC
>Like
It is oozing with style
>Dislike
Too many roll-adjustments
Who /cyclopedia/ here? I'm using it with some lads for a megadungeon like campaign.
>>47567265
>that feel when Lankhmar boxset, Mullen reprint of the Core rules, Judges Guild reprint of their old stuff is making me sell off a fair bit of my old RPG collection to pay for it all
>>47566537
Tower of the Stargazer is an introductory LoTFP module for 1st level players. The module has players explore a wizard's tower that is long abandoned, and as it turns outhe actually accidentally imprisoned himself in a magic circle for almost a hundred years, and the players can stumble across him and free him.
As noted in the previous thread, the difficulty of wizard in OSR games often depends entirely on how you handle initiative. LotFP, if I recall correctly, has all casters declare spells *before* rolling their initiative, which determines when in the round the spell goes off. If hit prior to that the wizard loses the spell prepared.
Secondly, constitution bonuses are nowhere near as big in most OSR games as they can be in 3.x; and most games tend to emphasize 3d6 in order stat arrays anyway. Most wizards are stuck with d4 hit die, and hit die caps out at level 10. So at the very most a level 20 wizard only has 40+10= 50hp and is more likely to have closer to an average of 20+10=30hp; that's not a whole lot and even a 1st level 4 man party can output enough damage in a couple rounds to kill him.
>>47566327
What's your favorite OSR Game?
ACKS
>What do you like about it?
Does all the math for me.
>What do you dislike about it?
No one ever talks about it; it seems Labryinth Lord and LoTFP are the go-to B/X clones. I guess the concern with domain play just isn't all that necessary for the majority of groups?
>>47567315
don't forget Mutant Crawl Classics!
>>47567350
Rulesets like Swords & Wizardry combat is even meaner, making any missile attack (like a thrown weapon) occur before Spells so even if he wins initative he could still be fucked out of his spell in a lucky to-hit roll. (hence why I allow saving throws for magic-users)
>>47566327
>Favorite OSR Game?
Basic Fantasy RPG
>What do you like about it?
It's easy enough to teach to newbies, the text is written well-enough for newcomers to approach it, and you can supply the entire table with books on the cheap.
>Dislike?
The layout of the book is atrocious for character creation (the cleric's Turn Undead table appears in the encounter section for example) and thief skills are implemented somewhat poorly.
>>47566327
>What's your favorite OSR Game?
Whitehack
>What do you like about it?
The classes' abilities are specifically designed to support open-ended player creativity rather than closed mechanical operations. Also it tries to rein in the issue of "circumstantial character prowess" (i.e. the special snowflake mary sue problem, whereby a player tries to cram as many logical advantages into their character background as they can) that can plague overly freeform systems.
>What do you dislike about it?
Print-on-demand only
Also it's so good that I want "more" of it, even though that would actually be mostly antithetical to what makes it so good in the first place. It's an open-ended framework for crunch creation in the form of ad hoc rulings, which leaves very little room for overly specific shared experience, making it somewhat walled off from theorycrafting, which is an aspect of gaming that I love as much as I do actually playing.
>>47567371
That's also pretty cool but more of a read before you buy thing for me.
I own even a fair bit of shitty Lankhmar stuff and even Lankhmar pastiches like Thieves World.
An actually good full-featured Lankhmar release that doesn't just write one line about shit you already knew from the books and actually has gameable material is a must-buy for me like nothing else is. (hence why I buy from Goodman even though the shipping is more expensive than the products themselves)
I just hope Goodman et al releases that Free RPG Day Lankhmar adventure "The Madhouse Meet" as an independent release, it's nearly impossible to get those from over here.
>>47567462
What's your opinion on the old TSR Lankhmar stuff?
>>47566967
I interpreted that as being playful.
I also expected that at the time, the DMs were the people that had the dice, the minis, and the books, and the players were the have-nots who strictly lacked the means to DM.
>>47567494
The original 1E Core Box release is 'okay'-ish.
The rest is mostly bad to pretty bad.
For the best Lankhmar-like pastiche I would recommend Judges Guild's City State of the Invincible Overlord.
>>47564222
A concept I liked about the revised D&D Minis system was that instead of being focused on alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE) it was focused on environs/locales (Civilization, Borderlands, Underdark, and Wilderness). Your entire warband had to share at least one said locale in common.
In the context of Law, Neutrality, and Chaos, I can definitely see three alignment tongues -- one for civilized types, ones for wilderness types, and ones for subterranean types.
Of course I don't see how shifting alignment would cause loss of your old language but language barriers would be a strong tendency to keeping the three faction separate.
>>47567528
People really read the DMG far too literally at times. Pretty sure I recall reading an interview with Gary poking a bit of fun at the Harlot table calling it tongue-in-cheek.
>>47567580
>Judges Guild's City State of the Invincible Overlord.
Oh, and it's important that it's the original Judges Guild release. (maybe cribbing bits from the Necromancer Games one)
The Mayfair one is quite different.
>>47566327
>What's your favorite OSR Game?
I don't know exactly. I like the idea of taking the choice bits from different games, so having to pick a single system is a bit tricky. I guess I'd go with B/X as it's the basis of many of the OSR games I'd usually be stealing from.
>What do you like about it?
Simple and about as straight forward as far as D&D gets.
>What do you dislike about it?
Most of my complaints apply to old school D&D in general (thief skills are poorly done, differentiated XP progressions are more trouble than they're worth, demihumans are too powerful, too extreme a hit point scale, etc.), but for B/X in particular I guess I'd say that I'd like to see Dwarves and Halflings that were a bit more their own classes and a bit less "fighter with a few special abilities slapped on". Oh, and I wouldn't mind seeing a few more class options and spell lists increased in size a bit (maybe 20 magic-user spells per level rather than 12). And some sort of special ability for fighters, like additional strikes or whatnot.
>>47567315
I don't even care about DCC in general. I play S&W Complete. But I'm going to get the Lankhmar box set, especially if it doesn't require me to buy the DCC core book as well.
>>47567930
>I don't even care about DCC in general.
It's my personal go-to for a bit wackier games but
>S&W Complete.
Is my more straight D&D system of choice (albeit with B/X-ified ability scores and art ripped from Trampier, Parkinson and DCC RPG)
>But I'm going to get the Lankhmar box set, especially if it doesn't require me to buy the DCC core book as well.
I'm torn between using it for S&W or using it with DCC and it's own alternate rules. Probably going with the latter.
>>47566327
I'll admit it's hard to pick an absolute favorite, indeed the only OSR product I own a physical copy of that I don't love is Stars Without Number(indeed I think it's kinda terrible overall)
>>47567580
>>47567646
you familiar with the TSR UK published setting Pelinore, cause I think you'd like that one too
>>47568016
What's your issue with SWN?
I was sort of considering a bunch of systems for SF games and that's one of the ones in the list. (along with Classic Traveller, Mongoose Traveller, White Star and the Savage Worlds: Science Fiction Companion)
>you familiar with the TSR UK published setting Pelinore
I have "The Collected Pelinore" which Kellri did, I haven't read any of it though.
>>47568091
Not that guy, but as a fan of both OSR and Classic Traveller, a mashup of the two is less a case of "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" and more a case of "you got your pepperoni pizza in my bundt cake!"
It's not a good match, IMO, to have classes and levels and XP and saving throws in a science fiction environment, and Traveller is not noticeably improved by bolting in D&D combat and all that entails.
That said, the domain tools in SWN are great.
>>47567315
>>47567315
WHERE IS THIS BOX SET
FUCK I WISH I HAD NEVER DISCOVERED THIS RPG, HONESTLY OH
MY
GOD
>LITERALLY DOES WHAT NUMENERA DOES, BUT SMARTER AND LESS BORING AND SHIT
>DOES MAGIC RIGHT THE WAY i ALWAYS WANTED
>AMAZING SUPPORT
I JUST. JUST. JUST. FUCKING BOUGHT THE NIGGERCOCKING PERIL ON THE PURPLE PLANET BOX SET AND I LIVE I CANADA THAT SHIT IS NOT CHEAP AHHHHHHHH
>>47566327
LotFP
>Streamlined, simple, fixed 'thieves'
>Nearly anti-campaign modules.
Don't get me wrong. I like that death is always imminent, but sometimes it seems almost pushed. I like to reward players after 2 sessions of buildup and survival (lookin' at you TotS telescope laser) (PS they didn't read the 1d4-days-whatever book about how Star Crystal travel didn't work)
>>47568191
This is DCC we're spazzing out over? I've never looked at it, but if it has you this excited, I guess I should give it a try.
>>47568191
>complaining about Canada shipping
Step it up senpai
>>47568191
>>47568216
Both of you: DCC is the shit. Theres gonna be like 30 buttholes come here and tell you why it sucks and you're wrong, but you just ignore them.
also; DEM CASTING GAMBLES.
>>47568216
You should definitely try it.
A lot of old school types who take one look at 0-level funnels and think "that's retarded" have actually loved it in actual play.
DCC RPG first timers + Sailors of the Starless Sea = Love.
As DMs, how do you guys keep track of a number of different spells or effects with different durations? Do you think an abacus could be helpful in this regard?
How do you make dungeons, lads? Like what tools do you use?
>>47568448
I had never thought of it, but that's actually a very good idea.
>>47568457
>what tools do you use
Pencil and paper.
>>47568457
Stocking other people's maps like Dysons.
Making my own with pen & paper.
Sometimes I play around with Dungeonographer. (keys can be found in the archive: https://warosu.org/tg/thread/S47057375#p47057950)
>>47568457
Blank paper and pencil. I find the blank-ness makes it easier to be creative, then I do a grid version.
>>47568241
>Theres gonna be like 30 buttholes come here and tell you why it sucks and you're wrong,
Don't get all salty just because not everybody likes your favorite system.
>>47568572
My fav system is LotFP. DCC gets an unfair rap here because of its tables and magic rules.
>>47568598
Don't forget the dice, lots of folks don't care for the weird dice, much less the suggestion of having everybody use phone apps to roll the weird dice.
But DCC has it easy, at least people who dislike it have some valid reasons, even if they're just personal dislikes. Poor old Dungeon World gets shit for things that aren't even true.
>>47568684
At least its not numenera
(y-you can kill yourself by swinging a sword!!!)
>>47568598
Lankhmar looks like it's cutting a bit there. I think they were saying that while magic was still random it wouldn't use the mercurial effects that'll cause rain of frogs and the like.
>>47568684
The bigger issue than the weird dice is the fact that they're hard as shit to get and/or expensive to boot. I don't really feel like paying $35+ for 7 dice of questionable quality.
>Dungeon World
Meh, I can't get worked up about GNS people getting shit on. They're the types who do the same to other people when they can anyway.
>>47568742
>At least its not numenera
Oh yeah, I haven't been to a Numenara thread in a while, I forgot about that shit.
>>47568747
>Dungeon World
>GNS people
Those are two different sets of things, anon.
And even if Dungeon World and GNS were two peas in a pod, two wrongs don't make a right.
>>47568843
>Those are two different sets of things, anon.
Not really. They use lingo straight from the Forge and Koebel get pissy when people don't subscribe to Edwards nonsense about Systems.
>>47568684
i dunno, i kinda like the weirdo dice. it's a neat (albeit hard to find) alternative to just adjustment bonuses. my players enjoy it.
my only beef is the d24. you'd think it would be the d30, but nope. that fucking d24 rolls for daaaaays.
>>47568747
look up the Impact! DCC sets on Amazon. $18 or so for 14.
>>47568894
You mean "system matters?" Because that's true. If it wasn't, OSR wouldn't even be a thing, we'd all be playing 5e or GURPS or something.
The Forge had a lot of ideas and discussion, some good, most bad I'm sure Koebel will tell you the same.
>>47568598
DCC entirely deserves its bad rap. Its like a more punishing version of Realms of Chaos.
There some some Lankhmar fans here so I'll ask this. Every Lankhmar RPG out there has rules for magical corruption which mutates you physically in some way--is this modeled in the fiction anywhere? I know Sheelba and Ningauble are gross looking but I'm not convinced that they were ever human to begin with. Most of the other sorcerers that were deformed/weak/gross were either part merfolk or something, or became sorcerers because they were deformed/weak/gross not the other way around. Is there even a single example in the series of somebody fucking up a spell so bad they grow a tentacle or something?
>>47569043
DCC made OSR (and especially magic) less boring. Like LotFP, it took old tropes and reinvigorated them. And it's all the better for it.
Seriously, how many derivative systems do we need?
>>47569105
Its probably just homage to Warhammer.
>>47569119
What do you mean? Like, the RPG writers liked warhammer so they put some warhammer type stuff in a game designed for a totally different setting?
>>47568241
Well, count me among those buttholes. DCC has some cool ideas, but it's badly in need of streamlining. Old school D&D is best when it's quick and easy. Once the rules start getting more involved, it gets clunky. It's silly not to move to some sort of unified mechanic to streamline things. The disparate subsystems aren't a big deal when things are simple, but they don't make much sense for a crunchier system. AD&D, even after you ignore some of the silly or unnecessary rules, is already pushing up against this boundary.
The number of different dice you're supposed to use for DCC is frankly ridiculous (and having to improvise dice is equally silly). Having to sort through too many different dice inevitably slows down play. and there really isn't a need for that kind of granularity. And while the way DCC does magic can give you some interesting results, it requires you to consult and roll against a table for each and every spell, which is time consuming and obnoxious.
>>47567350
Wait, is that how initiative and spellcasting works? I had no idea. I don't think the book mentioned it
>>47568521
I have the keys, but what am I supposed to do with it?
>>47569106
>less boring
The whole "doing spells or taking hits gives you a chance to become a cripple" schtick looks like it'd get seriously old fast. Don't know what the point of a system is where most your characters are going to die, then even if you survive, you'll still probably suffer a random case of cripple syndrome.
I could see something like a Dwarf Fortress RPG where the damage system IS about specific injuries, but coupling the abstract HP system with roll to see if you're crippled and if so how bad strikes me as a mistake.
I see people gushing about how cool it is 24/7, but while I hear tons of people talking about every edition and Lamentations of the Flame Princess and such, I never hear about anyone actually talking about how great their ongoing DCC campaign is.
I wonder if its because its not conductive to long term or short term play, or if people just realize "oh yeah, this is going to be sticking my dick in a blender from beginning to end, isn't it?"
That sort of randomness is best suited to a one shot, a tabletop strategy game, etc., not a campaign mode game.
>>47569131
Yup, most likely the thought process was "Hey that's cool and they're both kinda S&Sish."
>>47569576
Not him but it sets the tone well and implies all those things should be avoided.
Don't cast spells. Think of an mundane way of resolving the situation
Don't engage enemies. Avoid or trick them.
We usually gush about that
>>47569732
>We usually gush about that
You know, you're right. One point for house Slytherin!
>>47569553
Start the program, and it'll ask you for one.
>>47569732
Sure, I was just correcting the guy who said its rep was unfair.
Dumb question, but do you thinks dungeons need to be on grids?
>>47570002
No, but there needs to be some system in place to accurately (or abstractly) measure distance.
5e is a roleplaying game about a group of adventurers, od&d is an adventure game in which players roleplay. Is this a good way of putting it?
>>47569732
>Not him but it sets the tone well and implies all those things should be avoided.
>Don't cast spells. Think of an mundane way of resolving the situation
>Don't engage enemies. Avoid or trick them.
>We usually gush about that
I'll admit that's one of the aspects to OSR that I actually don't like very much, feels like if you follow that it doesn't actually leave much of a game to actually play(but that's coming from the perspective of someone who's mostly played with people who barely RP at all, and am in fact horrible at it myself, so the combat portions of the game become the most important or at least most engaging)
>>47570097
No.
>>47570281
Why not?
>>47569357
In LoTFP or OSR in general? Went back and double-checked the rules, I misremembered things slightly; it's under "cast a spell" in the combat section after initiative (p.57-58):
"If a character has taken damage earlier in a round, the character cannot cast a spell this round."
My recall was slightly off - the spell isn't lost, but you can't cast any spells if you are hit since your concentration is disrupted. I'm probably thinking of a harsher houserule for something else.
>>47570097
The difference between 5e and OD&D:
OD&D is a roleplaying game about a group of adventurers with level-based saves and attacks.
5e is a roleplaying game about a group of adventurers with ability score-based saves and attacks.
>>47570161
Honestly, I'm in the same boat. Little RP, but a lot of table chatter and discussions. It still leads to them trying their hardest to circumvent all my dastardly traps and monsters just to get to the treasure faster.
I don't even mind it, and we all are having tons of fun. I like to see what they'll think of next.
>>47570451
How would it be in basic? I kind of like the whole "declaring casting before initiative" process.
It makes sense, considering spellcasting is both obvious and requires your full attention.
>>47570770
Not that guy, but do Basic spells have casting times? In Advanced, the casting time is added to your initiative, so you have to declare the spell you're casting when you roll init. Same thing with weapon speeds.
>>47568241
Isn't DCC the game where casting is so convoluted that people need a cell phone app to actually do it?
>>47570813
Nah. Basic doesn't make you deal with all that obnoxious fiddly bullshit.
Here's the sequence of action for Moldvay Basic. I honestly think the level of structure is unnecessary given that it's one team acts, then the other. Why not make the rounds more freeform? And if you're gonna keep the structure, it seems like you should have both teams complete each step (with the one that won initiative going first) before proceeding to the next (so Team A shoots, then Team B shoots, then Team A casts, then Team B casts, etc.).
>>47570770
I've found that few groups play initiative by the book, often without even realizing they're doing something different.
I'm running Stonehell.
During the first session, the PCs went into the Gates of Hell, killed a few goblins, and eventually turned their brains off and got fucked up in an ambush. They all survived, and negociated in simple terms : get their friends back, never come back again.
Second session, they came back with two fighters, veteran players. They went full SWAT on the goblins, tortured a few of them, captured a few of them, burned most of them to death.
Each time, they met with the leader, each time they overestimated him and let him live.
Tonight, only three PCs go in. One Fighter and one Cleric are absent. The Cleric has nothing to do with the massacre, but the missing Fighter is half the party's brain.
There are six remaining goblins. All of them spent the last few days recovering, building hollow javelins that they filled with wasp larvae, wooden vengeance masks to strike fear into the enemy, a small watch on the gates itself to see them coming, a pit trap in the regular entrance and put a dozen wolf traps in the side entrances. They plan on watching the party from afar, picking them off one by one as they're weakened, and if possible, burn them all with burning oil they took from the bandits.
They took everything inside the gates to block the stairways up so that the party would have to take the trapdoor up. They plan on locking said trapdoor and setting fire to the whole place (which they already doused with burning oil). Every one of them still has one flask of oil, just in case.
Pic is their masks.
Any other ideas of what kind of fucked up guerilla shit they could pull on the party?
>>47570947
>obnoxious fiddly bullshit.
I think you mean
>important tactical decisions
>>47570996
Important tactical decisions aren't necessary related to a specific system, in my opinion.
Not the Basic guy, but I do know a MU takes one full round to cast a spell, so no need for initiative modifier, or individual initiative, for that matter. You start being tactical before having to roll initiative, actually, not during. Fights in themselves are chaotic and fucked up.
>>47571057
>a MU takes one full round to cast a spell
Not all spells. Example: Part Water takes a turn to cast. Which can be very important if, for example, your party is attempting to hold a point long enough for the wizard to Moses them an escape route.
>You start being tactical before having to roll initiative
And continue being tactical the whole way through the fight. Casting spells with long casting times is gambling that nobody else in the fight is going to have low enough init. to stop you.
>>47570957
Smoke is the answer. Let the party invade their territory, bar their progress with a hastily-constructed barrier of some sort (maybe a cart and some barrels filled with dirt and nailed together with planks of wood)--maybe even drag a portable barrier behind them to block their escape--and create a bonfire upwind of them, throwing tons of smoke-producing shit on top of it (pine straw and leaves, if nothing else), choking and blinding them. Hell, even the barriers could be set afire. Then, assuming the PCs don't succumb to the smoke or tear apart a barrier trying to escape (opening themselves up to spear thrust through holes in the barrier), the goblins can open up holes in the barriers and slip in unseen, having having several advantages: they are closer to the ground than humans where the smoke is lighter; they don't need a light source and can see people's ankles and such; and they know the tunnels better than the PCs and so can operate much more effectively if the smoke is thick enough to obscure even their sight. And if they can always slip back through the holes if necessary, as they are small enough to do so and know exactly where they are.
>>47571158
I see your point, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied with a few one turn spells and overall one round spells. I started with AD&D 2 and AD&D, mind you. It's only years after I stopped playing D&D, rediscovering the game with the OSR stuff, that I realised I get much more satisfaction and play time from using simpler systems like B/X or its clones. The fidlly parts I liked as a teenager, but those days I don't have the brain power to put so much system in my memory when I already want to remember so much game content like what's in a room, how I want to portray X NPC or Y monster. If you can manage to use AD&D-level complexity without handwaving it and it not being detriment to the quality of the other parts of your DMing, then that's great and you're very lucky.
>>47570996
It doesn't add enough to be worth the sacrifice. The time and effort would be better spent elsewhere.
>>47571173
Actually they already put a lot of crates and wooden shit on the stairway entrance that the PCs tend to not use. The only way up is the trapdoor and this they can easily block. They'll have sacks full of pine cones, that's an excellent idea. And they probably waxed the murder holes so that the smoke doesn't go. They got the idea from the PCs, after all.
They'll go in when there's smoke, yes, that's a great idea. The masks help them breath, too.
Thanks that's pretty cool advice.
>>47570002
No, but it makes them a hell of a lot easier to map. And describe.
If you're not having the players map things out on grid paper, though, or if they're experienced enough that they can reliably map without it, there's no particular need to fit things to a grid.
>>47570753
One of those has a skill system, gives bonuses for roleplaying, has a "build" metagame, encounter building rules, and doesn't give experience for gold (or, in fact, discourage combat whatsoever).
The other one is a bit of a clusterfuck with so many optional rules and variants and interpretations that it's hard to know what exactly people mean when they talk about it.
Still love it, though.
Also, what the fuck is up with the Superhero's ability to detect invisible foes and how does it work? It's referenced in both Chainmail and Monsters & Treasure but never given concrete rules, as opposed to something like the Roc's ability to do the same.
>>47570002
Yes and Ugh.
I'm french. I use the metric system. I have trouble understanding space and distances due to a brain fuck-up I have. 10 feet is around 3 meters, and the metric system is in base 10.
I want to describe measures in feet to my players, because since I've been using them for years in my DMing, I can relate almost better to distances in feet than in meter, but they don't have my familiarity with it. So every fucking time, I have to either calculate room sizes and corridors in advance, do the conversion on the fly and eventually make some mistakes, sometimes costly ones.
>>47571310
Same. I tried a couple times to use 3m increments but it's much harder to count them on the fly.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 squares = 50feet
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 squares = 5*3 = 15m
Upside is that hexcrawling is better in metric. 6 miles is 10km and daily distances are all increments of 10.
So I've been using them together in a weird frankenstein system
>>47571792
Yeah, hexcrawl is easier for me, though I recently experimented with square shaped grids and I find them very attractive so I use those for the big measures, and make 10km hexmaps of separate squares that the players have an interest into.
>>47571310
Just convert every 5 foot increment to 2 meters. 2 meters is actually more like 6 1/2 feet, but that's close enough (and it's not like everything in the world is actually in handy 5 or 10 foot increments anyway, so I see them all as approximations).
Or you could just keep a table like the one here handy.
One thing that's nice to know is that a yard (3 feet) is close enough to being a meter (3.28 feet) that you can use them interchangeably.
>>47571981
Another alternative is to measure things in paces. If you use a double-step pace like the Romans did (the distance of a full stride from the position of one heel where it raised off of the ground to where it set down again at the end of the step: two steps, one by each foot), it comes out to pretty close to 5 feet. (A Roman foot was equal to 5 Roman feet, or about 4 feet 10 inches by our standards.) So instead of saying "squares", you can just say "paces" (of course, if you're using the bigger old school scale where 1 square is 10', that's 2 paces rather than 1).
Does character death ever happen in Barbarians of Lemuria?
>>47572348
All the time. At least when I DM.
>>47572348
If you want to make things more deadly, you could take away the defensive capabilities of hero points.
>>47570864
If you're retarded and can't use a book, then yes.
>>47572360
Would you mind expanding on that? Which of the three versions do you use?
>>47572465
Nah, I want the PCs to use those hero points and to need it, but I don't want to go overboard with insane adversity all the time just to keep up with their power. I'm ok with having badass characters, I just wonder if character death is really a danger for them. I've seen plenty of character getting knocked out in boss fights, but never worse than that, and that was with Legendary.
>>47572856
That's how I feel about it too. It's just a table you use in the book. It's not like 8 players will cast spells every round.
>>47572884
Some of it depends on how you approach armor. If the PCs end up heavily armoring themselves, it can be a bit tricky to do more than chip away at them bit by bit, which makes it easier for them to avoid suddenly dying. There are definite penalties associated with armoring up too much (though these penalties can mean more in some games than others), but a guy with very heavy armor and a shield is virtually invulnerable in Legendary (a guy with a 1 strength and a sword will do an average of about half a point of damage on an actual hit). Mythic is a bit better in this regard, especially if you ignore helmets, but it's still an issue. Personally, I like the idea of stopping at medium armor (and calling it "heavy"), which seems perfectly in keeping with the tone of the game. But I'm not sure if armor is even a factor with your personal concerns.
>>47569019
It's true but played up too much. Games aren't "narrative" or "simulationist" or "gamist;" they're all, all three.
Don't get me wrong: I prefer old school games as well, but that's because they're relatively simple and make it easier rather than harder to do the specific IN-UNIVERSE things I want to do.
That is, certain systems are better for certain kinds of setting/story, rather than for certain kinds of play goals (which is what GNS focuses on).
>>47573088
I'm using Mythic rules for most stuff, with the Dogs of W.A.R and Legendary edition for damage and firearms rules. I'm doing a Space Western campaign.
>>47573088
but my players never wore anything heavier than light armor and still, nobody ever risked dying.
>>47570957
Murdering any pack animals the party had brought along, and spoiling their extra supplies?
Allying with some other Dungeon denizen for some unexpected muscle?
Is there a document with all the canonical B/X spells and their descriptions that can be printed out as little cards that I can hand to players so that they have a reference with them?
>>47573312
As far as I know, "all the canonical B/X spells" is pretty much just limited to what's in the B/X booklets. Not a whole lot of supplements and adventures for that edition.
Now BECMI on the other hand...
>>47573609
I'm not looking for a bunch of weird spells just the ones in the book, in a printable index card/business card format
>>47568843
mind you, friend, I still think Numenera is a crap system for a bunch of reasons. I also feel like DCC, released in the same year, manages to "out-numenera" numenera in many ways.
>>47574435
I've heard of Numbers. Whys it shit?
>>47574556
Numenera. Autocorrect...
>>47574435
Why so?
>>47574556
>I've heard of Numbers. Whys it shit?
It started off fine, but then seven eight nine.
>>47575133
But I thought it was six seven eight?
>>47569576
There's issues with DCC as it goes.
For one, it's hard to convince normies to play ANY OSR game, especially one that's...fucking hard.
For two, the dice are a huge barrier to a ton of people, especially if you dont live in America. Canadians are playing retarded amounts like 30 bucks for dice. It's worse in other countries. Also, the print runs are pretty low.
DCC is great for ongoing campaigns, but it's also not really about epic world crossing journeys. They flat out say that you can get years of adventuring done in a small province of 100 square miles because it's meant to be a feudal game and most people will live their entire lives and die in the same 20 square miles they're born in. You're not "sticking your dick in a blender" at all. The nature of campaign building is generally "if a player wants something, make it a quest." and you go from there. Usually you tie multiple goals into said quest. If one player wants to have his own keep, you are gonna get that keep. But, to get it, you're going to have to deal with the what looks like a kobold infestation that turns out to be a front for something more sinister. More Sinister? Maybe that spell the wizard wants is in there. He'd heard some sessions ago that there was a spell that could lull enemies to sleep even if they were filled with a mad bloodlust, and he wants to investigate. Meanwhile the thief hears tell of a famous statue that once belonged to a great king, but now it lies in the hands of the cultist ETC ETC ETC
Most people dont play DCC regularily unless they have a group of people who want that style. Most normies just want to play other editions where character death is extremely rare.
>>47570864
.....no?
>>47573125
>Games aren't "narrative" or "simulationist" or "gamist;" they're all, all three.
Absolutely.
GNS theory has some obvious flaws, but I think it's still a useful tool for talking about the structure of a game's design, in much the same way a geocentric model of the solar system can be wrong and still be used to predict the movement of planets. It's kind of clunky, and you have to be aware of its flaws while using it, but the study of roleplaying hasn't advanced far enough to find its own heliocentric model yet
>>47575579
At the risk of over-extending your metaphor, you don't teach geocentric models to teach secondary phenomena (like the movement of the planets) if you know for sure the original model is wrong.
You simply just teach the secondary phenomena: "planets move, but we don't have a model that explains why." Trying to keep GNS concepts alive when they have so many fundamental issues is a disservice and makes the lives of people trying to come up with new models harder.
>>47575126
>>47574556
>>47574556
My issue with Numenera is not the setting. Setting is 10/10 and also, as a slightly conservative person I hate the whole "diversify existing properties" shit that has been going on.
Numenera is SJW as hell, but it's also good so whatever.
The system fails for me on two fronts.
The first issue NMN has is the character creation is rules lite shit, where the idea is without much effort, you can use the keywords to make a super powerful and really cool character without much in the way of frustration, effort, or fiddling with builds. The idea is there isn't power gaming. This is accomplished by using a formula of "(Name) is an (adjective) (noun) who (verbs)."
Before we begin, I'll explain the mechanic really really quickly.
You have 3 pools, Might, Speed, Intellect. These aren't ability scores, you "spend" them to make rolls easier. Rolls are on a difficulty scale of 1-10. Rolls are Difficulty x3. So, the rolls require a roll of 3-30. You can obviously make the difficulties easier, and they can also, conversely, get much, much fucking harder. Typically most enemies will be around level 4(requiring a roll of 12). When enemies attack, you roll to dodge their abilities. The GM literally goes "The Rock robot is shooting a laser beam at you. Difficulty 6 to dodge." Damage is predetermined, and players can help each other, more or less. If you reduce a task to 0 difficulty(usually your skills, which are freeform and spending 3 points from a pool are how you reduce a task, there are limits based off your "level" how much you can reduce) it automatically succeeds. If you lose all the points in a pool, you get wounded hard in some way. Losing all points from all pools = dead, but of course there's rules for letting crybaby players get to keep their characters if it so matters.
For the Adjective, it's usual
>>47575579
>talking about forgefaggotry
>in OSR threads
What the fuck.
>>47575683
But that's not true. If you have a model with useful, predictive power, you don't just discard it because it has obvious problems and then say "we don't have a model, you're flying blind, kid." You make use of the model in the meantime, while being mindful of its limitations and flaws.
To continue stretching the metaphor upon the metaphorical rack, people didn't order a shiny new heliocentric astrolabe, throw their working geocentric astrolabes in the trash, and tell the king "I don't know where the planets are going to be, your majesty. Until the new astrolabe arrives, I don't have a model for that."
>>47575775
Okay so, the character creation:
The Adjective is usually minor, and involves almost always a small buff to some kind of pool, usually involves a skill of some kind for free, etc. They're called Descriptors and are usually shit like "tough" "aggressive" "brave", but there's an expansion booklet that adds negative descriptors like "Mad" and "doomed" and "hideous" which offer different effects.
Then there's the Noun, which is class. You have the same class no matter what flavor of the cypher system(numenera system) you use. There's a warrior class, which gets abilities that generally drain might, but A L S O get much more might than usual. There's a wizard class, same but they're wizards and also much better for utility than the warrior, thank you Monte Cook, and then there's the middle of the road which gets both stabby and magicky attacks and also equal pools for starting.
Finally there's the focus. These range from mundane(needs no weapon) to insanely powerful(masters the flow of time, phases in and out of existence, etc) The idea of this system is that you are supposed to be able to, as a player, just cobble together whatever you fucking want and make it go.
The first glaring issue is your superpower is tied to different pools, and there's no reason for you to use a pool you're shitty with unless you're a Jack(middle of the road).
See, if you make a Glaive that like, is Intelligent and Bears a Halo of Fire you'll be able to use your superpower, but here's the clincher. The superpower isn't usually that good at level 1. At level 3+(maximum of 6) it's stupidly strong, but it's a crap ability at level 1. Your main utility abilities and skills are going to be tied into your main class pool. A warrior is going to have a ton of Might based abilities and jack fucking shit for anything else.
>>47575907
I'm not the one who brought it up.
>>47575944
So you will need to invest your extra points in a pool that you dont normally use so make your superpower viable to use, because again, if you zero out a pool, you get fucked, and all of the really valuable abilities will nuke a pool quickly, unless it's your primary pool. Also, valuable skill abilities scale with cost in regards to level, so you need to be able to use your abilities, which get more expensive, but you need to buff say, your INT pool so you're actually able to use your abilities more than twice a day(healing rests basically heal 1d6+ level and it takes an action, then an hour, then 8 hours, then 24 hours before it resets, so healing is rare. Also, did I mention that wearing armor drains one of your pools for every hour it's worn?).
So basically, you're going to have a far less smooth time picking an INT-based focus as a warrior or Jack than you are as a Nano(wizard). So if you're gonna be a glaive, you might as well pick a physical one.
Basically the system's idea of purely freeform character creation unfortunately ends up pidgeonholing your characters.
That's okay, because you can just houserule that shit away by going "nuh uh" and letting players sync their super powers with their primary pools. Its mostly led to hilarious joking in my play group, where the Glaive(warrior) can create minor illusions by flexing really hard.
The other issue is the nature of Cyphers and how they fit into the general idea of the system. Because you're crazy advanced humans that also have a super power and a ton of valuable combat abilities, but then you also, also have Cyphers, which are little one-shot magic items that do something. You crush a small bug in your hands and drip its goo into your eyes and you can see in the dark for a day now. You pick up the glowing shiny rock in the cave and whip it at some enemies and it causes all of the cave walls to impale them with spikes. A small needle jammed into the wrist gives you +15 points into a pool/day
>>47576063
Cyphers are a cool concept, but it's hard to make players use them. The idea is you're picking up left behind objects from the previous civilizations and using them probably not in the way they were meant. If we found batteries and used them as a poison because battery acid will kill you, etc.
So you're a super powerful advanced human who finds magic spells to supplement his abilities constantly. The problem is that cyphers are completely random in their process unless the DM wants to make up constant cyphers and most have outside utility. You can only carry a small amount(2-5) or else you die. And ya die horribly, friends.
So basically this rules set is this weird...strange gooey mess. It's not deep enough to facilitate player build-style dedication, its not focused enough to be about adventuring, even(the main goal of numenera PCs is literally just "discovery" and XP is awarded by finding cool shit in the world and learning a lesson) and it's not really simple enough to be a rules light game because it has fucking trap builds.
So, what is it? What the fucking shit is it???
It's what DCC does a million times better.
DCC involves burning off of ability scores, but its not necessary, but it's also much, much more risky to do so, but the benefits are great. magic items are more permanent than cyphers, but they're also written in such a way that they feel more impactful. Most cyphers are gonna throw up a barrier, heal a small amount of hp, or teleport you a dozen feet. Most magic items in DCC are insanely powerful, but also, insanely rare. You risk your characters to quest for a ring that shoots 4 fireballs a day. It's the prized possession of a chaos lord who has his own cult, a temple in the middle of nowhere, and a mountain of dead adventurers littering his grounds. You make a difficulty 2(6) check anywhere in numenera and roll d100 to find a cypher. they can be as mundane as a spraypaint that gives you +1 armor for a day
>>47573312
Start with Zenopus's Spell Reference sheets
>>47576179
or they can be a wrist-mounted laser beam that lets you cut enemies in half ten times a day.
I'm so hyped on how great Numenera's setting is i'm going to run Numenera campaigns using the Mutant Crawl Classics rules, but I don't like Numenera's rules. They lack a focus, and it's hard as hell to tell exactly what the fuck the system wants to be. It doesn't want to be DnD, but it actually does want to be just like DnD. this isn't dungeon world, but it totally is.
Basically other systems do its shit better without:
A) Dumb trap builds in a game which proudly claims no trap builds
B) a lack of exact focus on what the game is supposed to be about, considering 90% of character progression gain is combat-focused(Dungeons and Dragons) but then the game flat out tells you combat should only be around 15% of any session, and talking to NPCs, roleplaying, exploring should make up 85%. If you can have ten sessions without combat that's entirely a good thing(World of Darkness) SO BASICALLY WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS RETARDED RULES SET TRYING TO BE
C) mundane and boring loot.
DCC >>>>>>>>>>>>> Numenera and the Cypher system in general. And again, the fluff for Numenera is amazing. I've dropped 300$ on Numenera shit, 90% of it fluff, because wow.
Anyone ever build a minifigure-scale dungeon in LEGO? Complete with minifigure and brickbuilt monsters and NPCs? Complete with local towns?
>>47576954
...no. This was a horrible oversight, and I will talk to my daughter about rectifying it ASAP.
Why does everyone referencing D&D in their OSRs call it "the world's most popular role-playing game", as if writing "Dungeons & Dragons" would summon the apocalypse? Is it part of the OGL that D&D is that which shall not be named?
>>47577882
That's suposedly the original reasoning, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is just a meme now
>>47577882
It's to avoid implications of being associated with Wizards of the Coast.
Nevermind that the epic level handbook for 3e explicitly names Gandalf.
>>47577882
"Dungeons & Dragons", much like the Beholder, is a protected term that is purposefully excluded from the OGL.
If you use it in any way that implies that your product is compatible with D&D or otherwise sanctioned by WotC, they can theoretically throw their lawyers at you until you stop.
IIRC they instituted the policy after the whole Book of Erotic Fantasy debacle, since they didn't want to be associated with that OGL d20 System product.
Don't ask me how it's changed with 5e's OGL, since I don't know.
What's the latest on the status of Troll Gods..?
>>47578175
No word from TroveGuy lately. IRL troubles, I gather.
>>47569105
In the Gray Mouser's backstory when he starts using dark magic to try and murder the guy who killed his mentor, he starts changing. In addition, the guy who used magic to make those rats go kill Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser's girlfriends was described as very ugly. Not impossibly ugly, admittedly.
>>47554080
Vornheim has a system for this.
>There are five categories of item. Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Dollar.
>Penny. Includes items a commoner might buy in a day. Usually up to 1 gp/sp (depending on standard) per day. Purchases are generally less than 1 gp/sp individually. A modest meal, a beer, a torch, etc.
>Nickel. Items are usually basic adventuring gear. Rope, pitons, lanterns, etc. These things cost 5 gp/sp per syllable (a lantern would cost 10 gp/sp).
>Dime. Specialist items, usually things a regular person would only buy once. Thieves tools, a religious text, tables, chairs, musical instrument, etc. These things cost 10 gp/sp per syllable. A pipe organ would cost 30 gp/sp. A flute would cost 10 gp/sp.
>Quarter. These items are luxuries. A sapphire pendant, courtier's clothing, rich Corinthian leather bucket seats. These items cost 25 gp/sp per syllable. So, those rich Corinthian bucket seats would cost 200 gp/sp. Each.
>Dollar. These items are generally dangerous and/or lethal. Drugs, poisons, dangerous animals, trained gymnast assassin yetis, etc. Can include gunpowder if the setting includes firearms. They're generally 100 gp/sp per syllable. A vicious war ostrich would cost 500 gp/sp. The concentrated poison of the tailless ootsquirrel would cost 1300 gp/sp.
>Guidelines for other items: Weapons cost in gp/sp equals their maximum normal damage. Ranged weapons cost twice that.
>Guidelines for armor: In general, you should just look this up. (author's recommendation, not mine).
>Guidelines for Food Animals: Cost in gp/sp in representation of how many days worth of food they represent. So, a chicken might be a single gp/sp, but a large modern turkey might be 3 gp/sp.
>The syllable thing may sound silly, but in general, the more specific a thing the PC wants ends up costing more. There are some things that don't exactly make sense. "Rope" has to be assumed to mean "hemp rope" because otherwise hemp rope and silk rope cost the same, etc.
>>47576954
I've wanted to, but LEGO is expensive and time consuming.
>>47563540
The best part is all of the stuff in there that can inspire, or cut down on prep time.
The worst (and I massively disagree with >47564507 about the Whore Table) is actually the Alignment Languages section. It's pointless, convoluted, and just eats up page count that could have been used better.
The Whore Table is just a silly thing that you can ignore if you don't don't like it, and is at most a paragraph's worth of space.
>>47566327
>Favorite
Lamentations of the Flame Princess
>Likes
I love the encumbrance system, I love the firearms, I love the "weird", and I love the lethality.
>Dislikes
None really. But it does favor a specific sort of game, and if I want to do something different with it, I need to hack it to make it work. For example, I have a campaign setting I made with AD&D 2e in mind, and in order to make LotFP work with it, I need to use Basic Fantasy RPG's races, multiclassing rules, and occasionally extra classes.
I am okay with this. OSR is great because in one way or another, they're all roughly compatible with each other.
>>47567367
>Domain Play
You've just piqued my interest. I love that sort of stuff.
>>47568448
I occasionally use dice, and "countdown" the combat turns/exploration turns.
Otherwise I just write it down.
>>47578808
ACKS is the system to go to if you want a solid foundation of number-crunching behind the veil (it's in the trove). It's designed to work around your typical hexcrawl campaign, and assumes a progression where players dungeon delve in the early levels, explore the wilderness in the mid-levels, and become big political players managing land at high levels (i.e. the typical OD&D progression).
The idea is that all the numbers in the system work on top of each other - you can extrapolate from the average wages of a peasant the tax revenue you would get for a given domain of X hexes.
It does it in a relatively easy package too, but of course the cost is that you can't just handwave things as easily (the accounting is simpler than Battletech but I suppose that's not saying much). Most of the numbers are in easy increments but you'll still probably want to keep track of things on paper.
Another approach I enjoy about the game is that it compromises on race as class, by giving a couple of different "race class" options. Elves can't be Fighters or Thieves or Magic-Users, but they can be Spellswords or Nightblades. It keeps racial stereotypes there but without completely pigeonholing them into a one mechanical representation.
The other thing that the game is really excellent at is providing ways for a GM to build your own classes or spells that don't break the game's implicit balance via a point buy system (this is in the Player's Companion though, not the base ruleset).
If you're the sort of GM who would rather just arbitrarily wing the numbers then probably you might get more out of the Echo Resounding supplement for Labyrinth Lord, whereas ACKS provides you more of a steady foundation on what numbers to come up with.
>>47579135
I'll have to look at both of those, but thanks for giving me a rundown.
I like both the option to prepare in advance, and also to handwaive where necessary. I used to wing everything when I first started out, but I favor a balanced approach these days.
>>47575775
>Setting is 10/10
The setting is the worst thing about Numenera, imo.
>>47579285
Generally speaking I still prefer ACKS because having a number to wing off of makes things a whole lot easier for me.
For example, if the PCs discover a ruined castle they want to renovate and turn into a base of operations, I don't know how much a medieval castle costs or any of the work required. ACKS does a lot of the math for me by allowing me to figure an approximate value of the castle and that number gives me a base to extrapolate the PC investment needed for the renovation. It also means that my ballpark estimates won't be wildly out of whack with each other since I'm drawing from the same base set of assumptions in the book.
Echo Resounding takes a more abstract approach, breaking down a domain into three major metrics - Wealth, Military, and Social. It's somewhat more "board-game", and the abstraction means you probably need to do more work to fit the numbers in, which is not what I really needed from a domain supplement - I can do abstract metrics on my own easily enough.
Hi /tg.
This is the dude that was talking about creating a mashup of a ton of OSR systems to create my ''perfect'' campaign system (LOTFP, ACKS, B/X, AD&D 1e, S&W complete, etc.). I would be cherry picking my favorite take on all the relevant sub-systems for my own campaign.
Now I come to you wise osr-rpg-folk with the following question: how in over my head would I be by creating my own OSR pdf involving all the relevant subsystems split in to 2 groups, the Players section and the DM section?
Anyone with experience in such mash-ups wanting to dissuade me? I feel like I would be able to punch this thing out in a weekend or so, but I really want to avoid creating my own fantasy-heartbreaker if I might be better of creating just a reference PDF with the relevant book references per sub system.
>>47579701
>I really want to avoid creating my own fantasy-heartbreaker
Honestly if you're at the compendium/reference PDF point you're already halfway there to be honest and might as well go whole hog.
Alternatively it might be better to explain "why" or "for what purpose" you chose this particular blend of sub-systems. The problem with many in the fantasy heartbreaker genre (at least the first generation of them) is that they present the rules but never explain how or why.
I'm a bit confused as to what version of LOTFP is the most recent and/or has the most complete set of rules..
>>47579858
I believe it should be the Rules & Magic Hardcover edition (that's the one listed on the official store).
>>47579955
I can't seem to find the "Referee Core Book: Procedures and Inspirations", though. Is it just non-existent or something?
>>47579701
Are you planning on selling this? If not then what is the point of a DM section?
>>47580067
Isn't out yet. Only ref book available is the Grindhouse Edition.
>>47580195
>Isn't out yet.
Wasn't the kickstarter for it in 2014? I know these things take time, but still.
>>47580132
Presumably so that he can give the player's section to the players while keeping all the premade monsters and treasures and shit secret.
Also, since he's not really making it as much as combining a bunch of pre-existing stuff it might help him keep track of all the fiddly little rules that players honestly don't need to worry about? Lord knows there's a lot of relatively important rules I forget when DMing and need to look up.
How often are wandering monster checks in LotFP?
>>47577882
They know that their work will be completely obviated and irrelevant if they invoke the name of True AD&D in any way.
>>47581161
As often as you like. ;^)
>>47581161
LotFP doesn't have rules for that by default, as monsters are supposed to be weird and unique, but some of the modules have rules for it.
A quick check finds Dungeon of the Unknown says once every three turns, 1-in-6 chance.
>>47575928
>If you have a model with useful, predictive power
None of which GNS has ever given the least bit of a hint of having.
>>47580487
It took Gary Gygax five years to write the original 1e DMG.
So, I suppose it depends on what all Raggi is putting in the book, and whether or not he feels that his existing material (from the Grindhouse edition) is good enough. I suppose we'll know when it comes out if the wait was worth it or not.
Could anyone remind me of how I can have anydice do, say, highest 1 of 2 exploding d8 or whatever?
I'm working on an RPG that kinda straddles Chainmail & D&D and I like the probability curves of an exploding d8, but I can't recall how to get roll two d8!s, drop the lowest.
Looking for a blank spell card template for OSR games. Everything I have found thus far is geared toward 5E
>>47578587
I kinda wish I was at my own computer, because this is a really neat idea that I want to steal for my own homebrew but can't just yet because I'm housesitting. At least now I can find it in the archives, because seriously how often does housesitting come up on /tg/?
Character creation for my OSR-inspired cRPG is coming along, slowly but surely.
I'm aware that it's ugly. That will be improved later. Aside from that, any recommendations?
Are there any good post-apocalyptic OSRs?
No zombies.
>>47585811
>Are there any good post-apocalyptic OSRs?
Mutant Crawl Classics is coming out in two weeks or so.
So after delving through the various items, I stumbled across the fan made AD&D 3E that was held in there, has anyone looked over it in depth? Downloading it now just to see what all they did for it. Though with minimal experience with 2e or 1e I wouldn't really know what to compare it to as far as how it would work in play.
>>47586157
I know somebody in an OSRG way back when was really interested, and upset that the creator had been forced to take it down. Somewhere somebody got a copy and Troveguy upped it.
The creator supposedly built what he believed TSR would have done for 3E had the collapse and buyout never happened.
>>47586145
No it isn't.
I just downloaded a watermarked PDF for DCC via drivethru...but I see no watermark. At all. Is this thing safe to share? It's not in thew trove.
anybody else take the plunge on the Driftwood Verses?
It looks pretty cool and they have a good track record withKS
Fantasy heart breaker dude here, sorry for late replies, went to sleep (European TZ):
>>47579800
Good points, thank you very much!
>>47580132
Not planning on selling it, but definitely sharing it. >>47580493 is dead on the money; I'm a DM that loves being internally consistent even with things my players will never find out about (such as treasure generation).
My biggest worry is just that having to redo all the tables in one format as well as finding a way to rip all the text and re-writing it where necesarry is gonna sucks, so why not make a reference pdf. But knowing my players and myself, I'd much rather have a 32-64 page compendium which I could print and have at the table (and send out as pdf) instead of 5-6 different books and a list referencing them all.
>>47586618
>Is this thing safe to share?
I'm guessing not. I think there's hidden shit you have to take care of.
>>47573126
Speaking of BoL and variant rules, has anybody looked over this thing? Do you think it's any good?
