>Trove -- https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread: >>47713976
What good Necromancy stuff you know of (barring 2e books we discussed in previous thread)?
>>47768147
Talislanta (which is probably less 'osr' and more 'osr-adjacent') has a fabulous magic system overall, and excellent necromancy. Sadly, I am one of the only five people who know about it.
>>47768240
I don't remember, is Talislanta the one that had a bunch of PDFs released for free? Or was that just for the setting or something?
>>47768567
It's an offshoot of dnd from late 80s, and comprises both a system and a setting. It's basically abandonware by now, and most (if not all, shit had five editions) of it is availabe for free.
On the topic of free old-school games, I guess I should say that most of the old supplements for the Swedish RPG Drakar och Demoner are available for free. First to fifth edition, including the weird side-settings like Samuraj.
>http://riotminds.se/vara-spel/drakar-och-demoner-retro/tiden-innan-trudvang/
This probably isn't of much interest to most of you, but I figure that there might be another Swede somewhere here.
And yeah, I know that this isn't really "OSR" since it's not even D&D - it's based on BRP! - but it's pretty much THE old-school RPG here in Sweden so I figured that it's worth posting.
So I'm replacing race-as-class with race-and-class in my homebrew LotFP hack.
I'm expanding the class list to 9 classes. The 4 standard plus hybrids of those 4 classes in every combination but cleric/m-u (because they are alignment restricted and opposed alignments).
So, I have:
Fighter, Specialist, Cleric, Magic-User
Ranger (F/S), Paladin (F/C), Warlock (F/M-U)
Druid (S/C), ??? (S/M-U)
??? = ?. Not Bard. Bards are forbidden. Bards suck.
Alchemist? Enchanter? (exists only to poop out potions and scrolls for the party. Useful but no good on an actual adventure.)
Some kind of occultist, shaman or necromancer? (how to tie in specialist skills to that? Too high fantasy?)
I dunno. I'm stuck.
>>47769206
Occultist or antiquarian. Someone who knows about magic items and magic items, scrolls, and potions effectively and safely, and has the specialist skills to bypass or trigger magical safeguards in a low-risk fashion.
>>47769206
Just in case you're going to try copying some other Druids, you should probably be aware that the Druid is pretty much a Cleric/Magic-User. It's especially noticeable in BECMI, where the Cleric loses Turn Undead and gets... a bunch of M-U-esque offensive fire spells?
Similarly, why try to hack out a bunch of really specific hybrid classes when you could just allow two-class multiclassing?
Also, the answer for S/M-U is clearly a kind of magical assassin. the kind of dude who uses Silence and Invisibility to garrote a guy in the middle of a ball.
Or, y'know, the Bard. If they suck, just make a version that doesn't - it's plenty possible, given how I'm pretty sure that the only "bad" D&D Bards are the 2E and 3E ones.
They might be more in the F-M/M-U area, but the same goes for the magical assassin since the thematic space of the "specialist" and "fighter" overlap so much.
Or, y'know, a crafter. They're useful within an adventure by virtue of the items that they make - an Alchemist who uses their own potions and poisons, or some kind of Artificer who casts spells by virtue of the items that they make rather than memorization.
>>47769276
You might have a point with just allowing some kind of multi-class rather than awkwardly jamming in hybrids.
There is, however, no version of Bard that will not suck. The trope is silly.
>>47768567
It's not just free as in "easily gettable in torrent format", but also free in "I can download it from a website with the writers' consent".
I've heard it's amazing.
>>47769361
If you want, you could go the 4E route for hybrids. Just make weird little half-classes for each of the standard ones that you can merge together, so that you can be a Fighter/Magic-user without needing a shitload of experience.
Then again, that didn't even work that well in 4E so maybe it's a bad idea.
>>47769206
>??? = ?. Not Bard. Bards are forbidden. Bards suck.
Agreed.
To me, Druid seems like more its own thing than Cleric / Specialist. Magic-User / Cleric is Shaman territory, and maybe their specialty is bridging the gap between magic and miracle, chaos and law.
>??? (S/M-U)
Some sort of hedge mage or trickster? Maybe an Illusionist with both magical and mundane tricks up his sleeves?
>>47769250
>Occultist or antiquarian.
An Occultist could easily be a Specialist / Cleric
>>47769482
>To me, Druid seems like more its own thing than Cleric / Specialist. Magic-User / Cleric is Shaman territory, and maybe their specialty is bridging the gap between magic and miracle, chaos and law.
Flavor-wise, perhaps, but the mechanics of the Druid have traditionally put it pretty firmly in the Cleric/M-U camp.
Mostly because of the psuedo-fireballs and animal summons and offensive spells in general, to be honest. I'm still not entirely sure why Eldritch Wizardry gave the Druid such affinity with fire. Is it just because of forest fires?
A Cleric/Specialist, mechanically speaking, would probably just be some class with a few healing/buffing spells and a few skills to choose from. Flavor-wise they'd be, I dunno, one of those knowledgeable medieval monks as opposed to the Cleric's crusader. (Remember, the Cleric is already pretty Fighter/M-U-ish.)
It's also interesting to consider from what angle you're approaching the problem. The Paladin isn't a Cleric with some fighty bits, after all - they're a Fighter with some clerical bits grafted on. Would a Cleric/Specialist best be expressed as a Specialist with some clerical abilities, or a Cleric with some skills?
Also, the obvious answer for Cleric/Specialist is to play up the whole Van Helsing thing they've got going. A hunter of the undead and supernatural, of all that's wrong and Chaotic.
The whole issue with the Cleric already being pretty Fighter-y became REALLY apparent in Pathfinder, where they've got something along the lines of five divine warriors, I think? And they're all fairly similar, flavor-wise, since they all build on the Cleric and the Cleric is fighty as hell. All tromping around in plate and smashing in faces with a mace.
>>47768841
Swede here, thx for the tip. Thou i would really like to have a hard copy of trundvang...
hey I was told to ask here, what do you guys think of basic fantasy RPG? would it be a good game for a group new to tabletop games? and if it is any of good could I have some advice for running the game as a GM?
>>47770203
and I forgot my pic
>>47769979
Kollade på pricerunner, tradera, ebay och blocket - inte ett enda resultat för trudvang. Gissar att du får lov att söka omkring på nått svensk rollspelsforum, fast fan om jag vet vad det finns för några.
>>47770203
I've used BFRPG to introduce new people to tabletop games before. Heck, I've given copies of the book out as gifts, the recipients found it to be far less intimidating than the three expensive books you had to get for D&D/Pathfinder.
As for advice, I'd recommend reading The Role-Playing Game Primer and Old-School Playbook that can be found in the OSR trove under GM Resources. The overall tone is a bit condescending but it should give a few ideas on how to run the game. Morgansfort is a good starter adventure that can help get your feet wet on running a game, though it's entirely possible to use old D&D adventure modules such as Keep on the Borderlands. Just keep in mind that BFRPG uses Ascending Armor Class (higher is better) and D&D from that era uses Descending Armor Class (lower is better), a rough conversion to BFRPG is simply to subtract the Descending Armor Class from 20 and use that result. Hopefully you guys will have fun with the game, wishing you the best of luck!
Let's talk saving throws:
How do you like the classic method of 5 saving throw categories? Do you think the categories have any lacking ground so to speak?
Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?
Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?
how do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?
>>47770449
I kinda like DCCs: 3 saves based on Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower.
>>47770449
I think that the five saving throws work fine when the game is sufficiently limited in what it covers and you don't try to shoehorn more and more shit into it - the prime example there is vs. Wands to dodge shit in general and in one case vs. Turn to Stone to avoid dying in a rockslide, but there's more stuff too. vs. Breath Weapon for area effects, vs. Death Ray/Poison becoming vs. Death, shit like that.
Hell, even Dragon Breath becoming Breath Weapon says something.
It's obvious that there's "lacking ground", so to speak, and that people have generally found them too confining over the years - that's why you get more and more generic saves until 3E's Reflex/Fortiture/Willpower, and 5E tossing them entirely in favor of just defaulting to ability scores.
Still, though, I think that in a sufficiently confined environment - OD&D's LBBs, for instance - they probably work just fine. It's just growing pains from all the extra shit's that's been added over the years.
>Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?
I think that loses a bit of granularity, but honestly it's not a bad idea. I think personally I'd rather go all the way and make the entire thing into a 5E-esque Proficiency Bonus used for both saves and attack rolls.
>Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?
As much as I'd like to say "yeah, that makes sense", making random ability scores matter is a scourge upon the industry. Also, small fiddly bonuses.
>how do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?
I like the OD&D thing where the trap auto-hits if triggered but only has a 2-in-6 chance of triggering in the first place. It's a great equalizer - the Thief isn't easier to hit than the Fighter, the low-level character isn't at a massive disadvantage, and it hits the back row.
>>47770449
>How do you like the classic method of 5 saving throw categories?
Both too many and too ambiguous.
>Do you think the categories have any lacking ground so to speak?
Physical danger and hardship, which is usually rolled as straight ability checks. Plus they do overlap.
>Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?
A single, homogenous progession with class bonuses? Certainly.
A single stat? No.
>Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?
No. You roll a save or you roll an ability.
>How do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?
On a case by case basis.
Example: Qwert the fighter triggers a trap, which is the classic blade swininging pendulum-like from one wall. I tell the player that a trap was triggered and what will happen, and ask them what they do. Qwert has a shield, and the player decides that he'll use it to block or deflect the blade. I tell them to roll an attack with a hefty bonus, and they 'hit'.
Qwert catches the blade, which breaks the shield in half and dents his vambrace, sending him crashing against the opposite wall, battered but not seriously hurt. He loses his shield and takes 1d2 damage, which the player rolls.
The player reacted to the trap, giving them agency, the trap had impact, and it expended an item the player might have had just one of.
Let the players decide what they do and pick what to roll based on that.
>>47770631
>I like the OD&D thing where the trap auto-hits if triggered but only has a 2-in-6 chance of triggering in the first place. It's a great equalizer - the Thief isn't easier to hit than the Fighter, the low-level character isn't at a massive disadvantage, and it hits the back row.
Correct me if I'm wrong but B/X does a similar thing with traps right? A base 1 in 6 chance of the trap springing when the condition is met (walk over a pit trap, 1 in 6 chance to fall in). It's an interesting idea, but for some reason it feels weird that against things like breath weapons and wand projectiles one can take a reaction, yet you can't react if a pit opens under you.
>>47770699
>Correct me if I'm wrong but B/X does a similar thing with traps right?
Eh, probably. B/X is basically just a cleaned-up revision of OD&D in some respects.
>It's an interesting idea, but for some reason it feels weird that against things like breath weapons and wand projectiles one can take a reaction, yet you can't react if a pit opens under you.
You also can't react if someone shoots an arrow at you, or swings a sword. That's entirely handled on their end, with you just having a passive defense against it in the form of AC.
Them's the breaks with making everything a subsystem.
Honestly, I can't really say that I would be opposed to a 4E Defense system - that is to say, your saves are a fixed value like AC and the opponent rolls to try to hit that value.
Or just having the players roll everything in the first place, and just giving monsters fixed "attack" values that the players try to roll to block/dodge/whatever.
>>47770772
>Or just having the players roll everything in the first place, and just giving monsters fixed "attack" values that the players try to roll to block/dodge/whatever.
So this just gave me an idea:
Let the players roll everything.
Attacking a monster? Roll versus that monsters AC
Defending against an attack? Make the monsters HD determine the value you need to deflect in line with how HD determines what a monster needs to roll to hit a certain AC. You get a bonus to this defense roll from your armor (so leather would give you +1 bonus to your roll). I actually really like this idea: as both the attack and defense roll are now from a player perspective, it becomes narrativly easy to determine situational modifiers: ''Because the kobold is attacking you by jumping down from above, the awkward angles give you a -1 to defense''. These little things can now all be described from the players perspective.
Dealing with a trap or other non attack situation? Make a saving throw (or what ever alternative this discussion generates).
Took x Turns exploring? Roll for a wandering monster (the DM still has the chart).
etc. etc.
>>47771604
> Let the players roll everything.
Hmm.. I think I've seen it before somewhere.
Either way - doesn't support PvP.
>>47772195
Why not? Unlike in DW, you could do opposed rolls for PvP.
>>47769206
One thing you could try is the ACKS method of "racial classes"; rather than give elves and dwarves the same class list, make a few "elf classes" and "dwarf classes". For example elves might be either Spellswords (the classic B/X elf), Rangers (Legolas type), or Enchantresses (Galadriel type). This gives demi-humans their own racial set of classes.
The ACKS Player's Companion also has tons of classes roughly compatible with a B/X system and suggestions on how to build balanced versions yourself.
>>47770313
Har kollat men inte hittat något, har dock pdf på den men det är inte riktigt samma sak
Would Torchbearers be considered part of the OSR?
>>47774147
Definitely: back in the day, hecnhmen to bear torches or carry loot were very common to bring along into the dungeon.
>>47774147
You mean the RPG or "profession" ?
>>47774143
>Har kollat men inte hittat något, har dock pdf på den men det är inte riktigt samma sak
Svensk version?
>>47774249
RPG
>>47774147
Last thread people said it was "OSR-adjacent," which I think is the most accurate term.
>>47774262
Jepp, vill du ha den ?
>>47774545
>Jepp, vill du ha den ?
Vore trevligt att ha något annat att spela än Kult, så ja. Ska ringa runt och se om några av mina polare har ett exemplar att sälja till dig (av trudvang dvs). Tror att de redan har sålt sina "dublletter" dock...
>>47774600
Har du en mail adress som jag kan skicka den på ? Pdf:en ligger på 130 mb
>>47768240
> has a fabulous magic system overall, and excellent necromancy.
I don't really understand what you mean by that.
5th edition player's book has some sample spells and that's it.
>>47774418
Agreed, along with Dungeon World, for example. The spirit is the same in places with both games, and some mechanics are similar to old-school D&D ones (e.g. adventure turns and race-as-class for Torchbearer, or XP form treasure in DW), but overall the systems come from a different place while aiming for the same end result.
>>47774702
5th edition is kind of borked.
4th edition has all the rules in one place and the magic system I'm referring to in its entirety.
>>47774843
... and I wasted 10 more minutes.
It looks like a cross between WoD's Magic system and Green Ronin's True Sorcery.
>>47774600
>>47774640
Kan också fungera via Facebook eller Skype, vet dock inte hur stora filer de tillåter.
>>47774811
Does anyone have a set PDFs for extra Dungeon World classes? Like The Medic or The Ninja or The Pirate?
>>47777120
This trove has a fuck-ton of DW stuff:
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/wq2k0r1bqesqt/RPG_Trove#y2di7esbabm7s
>>47770203
It's my personal favorite. I use the supplements (I like the sorcerer) and some house rules to help modernize it. Such as hit dice for healing (DnD 5e) and attacks of opportunity for when enemies move away from you during combat. I also allow the cleric to learn 1 spell at 1st level so they aren't useless. In my next play session I'm also introducing a character that uses magic from the DCC rule set for comedic purposes.
If I didn't use BFRPG I'd use 5e.
>>47770422
Didn't they use THAC0? So wouldn't you subtract from 19?
>>47774147
Speaking of Torchbearer, does anyone have some of those Conflict Action Cards? Those would be useful.
>>47778073
>Didn't they use THAC0? So wouldn't you subtract from 19?
What? I don't understand this on multiple different levels. What does whether something used THAC0 or just attack tables have to do with conversion values? THAC0 is literally the AC 0 column on an attack table.
Also, why 19? Are you think of 21, maybe, for AD&D, where unarmored is AC 10 rather than 9? Unarmored AC in BFRPG is 11, so in Basic that's 20 - AC 9 = 11. In AD&D that's 21 - AC 10 = 11.
But there's a problem with this. The gap between leather and chain in AD&D is 1 point bigger than in Basic. So you can either get unarmed and leather right (by subtracting from 21), or you can get chainmail and platemail right (by subtracting from 20). Of course the Monster Manual for 1st edition AD&D was put out before Gygax decided to change unarmored from AC 9 to AC 10, so it uses the original formula (which Basic continues), so you're probably better off sticking with 20 - AC. And if you just don't let things go below AC 11, leather armor is the only thing that's a point off.
>>47778944
>Also, why 19?
Because it starts counting at 0 instead of 1.
>>47779515
>Because it starts counting at 0 instead of 1.
I'm not following you. What does?
Regardless, the key thing you're trying to do is to accurately translate your chance of success. So let's say a guy with a THAC0 of 15 is striking at a girl in chainmail, which has an AC of 5. 15 - 5 = 10, so he'd have to roll a 10 or greater to hit her, which he has a 55% chance of doing. To convert: 20 - AC 5 = 15, which somebody with an attack bonus of 5 (THAC0 15 is equivalent to an attack bonus of 5, as it [the THAC0] is 5 points better than the base of 20) has a 55% chance of hitting (needing to roll a 10 or over).
Rolled 1 (1d1)
>>47779515
Computers do, but the dice roller does not.
>>47778073
Unarmored AC for BFRPG characters is 11 if I recall correctly. So in Basic, an unarmored character has 9 AC, 20 - 9 would be 11.
>>47779858
I've found that adding your AC to the d20 roll and comparing it to the target number of THAC0 to be a far easier method. Striking at the woman in chainmail would be a 1d20 + 5 against a THAC0 of 15, so he'd still need to roll 10 or higher to hit but it makes the mental math slightly smoother.
Do you use premade settings for your OSR campaigns, or do you make your own?
If so, can you summarise it?
Does the setting have any mechanical effects?
>>47779858
>>47780540
I was talking about AC. But you guys were right, I went through Keep of the Borderlands monsters and the AC for them and BFRPG mostly match up if you subtract from 20.
>>47770203
I forgot to mention I like to give them EXP for every gold piece or gold piece equivalent (2 EP, 10SP, 100CP) they successfully take out of the dungeon. For example they would get 5 EXP for 1 piece of platinum. EXP is also shared so every character gets the same amount. If I didn't do this they'd have to kill over a hundred monsters just to get to level 2, and that could take dozens of hours of playing.
Question: Should I let the players know the monsters HP or AC? And can a paralyzed player be paralyzed again while paralyzed?
>>47782989
I've got my own that I first 'made' when I was DMing games in highschool, abandoned when I realized how dumb it was, and then picked it back up to rework when I got out of college.
>The old, traditional gods are dead. Four figures have risen from the mortal coil to a state of semi-godhood (enough to give clerics some power, but not enough to actively intervene around the world)
>At some point in the past, the largest civilizations splintered and shattered, leaving behind massive husks of cities now overwhelmed by nature and beasts of varying strength.
>Several virulent plagues swept the planet, cleansing it of much life before the world experienced a resurgence of wildlife and untamed foliage.
>Survivors settled in small, remote settlements, protected from the plagues by the Fonts of Purity.
>In the modern era, something deep in the planet has poisoned the wells, and adventurers are being sent out into the world for the first time in hundreds of years to find the source of the trouble, leaving safety to delve into megadungeons beneath the surface or into ancient cities to find a solution to the problem.
My experienced players enjoy dungeon crawls and RPing with the occasional settlement while new players have no problem getting into it because PC's aren't expected to know jack shit about the world they live in anyways.
>>47782989
>>47783116
Oh, I forgot to include the mechanical bits I've added.
Considering that the world's supposed to be big, strange and 'survival-oriented' I include or exclude some of the rules depending on what sort of feel I'm going for at the time. Typically, each region has different challenges that the players have to overcome. Megadungeons are punishing and slow enough that I rarely impose extra rules, if only because I like to streamline the process so that it doesn't become too tedious.
But, for example, when delving into the sandy crags of the Clawridges, I make them keep track of water consumption and occasionally they're forced off-course by sand rain, which causes them to roll 2d6 to decide which two hexes on the overworld map they're forced to pick between, the ferocity of the storm limiting their possible movement.
I find that one or two small rule changes based on the region adds a lot of flavor. Other than that, however, we use LotFP rules for the gameplay. If anyone here's never looked at it, do yourself a favor and at least check out the encumbrance system, it's worth stealing.
I've set up a hexcrawl over a continent and I am considering adding my own kind of underdark underneath it.
Should all of this underdark be a mega dungeons or its own hexcrawl map like the overworld?
ideas, suggestions?
>>47783238
When the players slip into the underdark, the world flips upside down with a strange night sky overhead, and everything is a perverse, mockingly mirrored version of the overworld. And everything is a little bit tougher to kill. If the party travels across the underworld and then attempts to resurface, they have a 50% chance of being 1 hex off from where they should be.
>>47783275
good idea. so it could be a sort of 'risky fast travel'
>>47783312
It could also be a place where the party could find the things that are lost in the overworld. More loot, more danger. Faster travel, at a cost. Disorienting, strange creatures, exotic and wonderful, shattered towers looming overhead filled with forgotten treasure.
I've done it before, and it's generally tempting enough that the players might actually consider it when they're feeling gutsy/broke/powerful/desperate.
>>47783032
I'd say why not, atleast give them the HD if they have encounterd the monster before. But don't tell them that the goblin only have 4 hp left of his 8 hp, says he's about half health.
It dosent really make a differance if you give them the hp or not, they will either look it up or count how much dmg they have done to a critter and then note down how much hp they have. That is what my group does, and i rather just tell them the HD than have them sitting the hole combat trying to guess the fucker HP by counting damage.
>>47783338
in that case, it seems like it shouldn't be a hex map like the over world but a series of short dungeons.
unless its just a much smaller hex map so passing one hex in the underworld is the same distance as passing 5 in the overworld.
>>47782989
either works depending on my mood, currently working on a setting inspired by this map I found relatively recently, with a lot of the setting details inspired by the old Wizards Presents books they published as a preview for 4th Edition as they hit a lot of my preferences(that and the game I'm probably going to use, Microlite 74 includes most all of the 4th Edition races in it's supplements, although there's a couple I'll have to homebrew), as well as some beats from the Dark Souls/Bloodborne franchises(primarily things like each area having at least one Iconic Boss enemy, and certain aspects to weapons like how Bloodborne does them, including firearms)
So the players are returning to Tower of the Stargazer today since they didn't check the whole place out the first time. You guys have any interesting ideas of what can have changed while they've been gone? Also, how would you make thebrain leechmore interesting rather than a straight up death?
>>47783541
>spoiler
have it lure them into traps.
>>47783554
That's a pretty neat idea, I'll use it. Thanks!
>>47781065
>I've found that adding your AC to the d20 roll and comparing it to the target number of THAC0 to be a far easier method.
Either way. It's all just different ways of solving the same math problem. The folks who make a big deal about THAC0 seem to miss the fact that's it's completely interchangeable with an attack bonus system, and that you're just doing shit in a different order.
>>47783032
>I was talking about AC. But you guys were right
I knew you were talking about AC; I just didn't know what "starting at" 0 or 1 meant. Unless you were somehow looking at the best allowable AC, but A) that has nothing to do with THAC0, B) it's undefined in any case, and C) even if there were some limit, what matters is how well armored somebody is, not how far they are from some arbitrarily set maximum.
To look at it another way, if armor gave you damage reduction, what you'd want to know is how much your target's armor reduced your damage by ("his platemail reduces the damage of your strike by 3"), not how much less your target's armor reduced damage than the maximum allowable amount ("his platemail reduces the damage of your strike by 7 less than the maximum amount allowed for damage reduction" doesn't, by itself, really tell you what you need to know).
>>47782989
I've got two. The urban fantasy set in a strange weird-fantasy universe and the traditional high fantasy minus the standard races.
Which would you rather hear about?
Speaking of armor class, I noticed recently when reading Vornheim that Zak S apparently plays with unarmored AC being 10 rather than 12 (this being ascending AC). How do people in /osrg/ play? I might change my system to 10 too just because battles often take way too long.
>>47770203
The system that my group patched together over the years essentially used Basic Fantasy RPG as a base. As long as you have an imagination and a willingness to adjust and customize the system, you will get endless replayability out of it.
>>47783490
This is very inspirational. Which book is tge source exactly?
>>47783922
I've never played LotFP, but I find it surprising that they actually made it harder to hit people (AC 12 rather than the AC 11 a direct conversion from Basic would give you) in a system where nobody but the fighter ever improves their attack bonus. That makes it ridiculously difficult to hit somebody in platemail who's using a shield (and god forbid it's a halfling, because that brings your chance of hitting down to a pathetic 5%). Maybe there's something I'm missing, but this seems like terrible game design. Besides, 10 is a very nice, round target number. And I hardly think it's abusive if the average character has a 40% chance to hit a guy in chainmail and a 30% chance to hit a guy in plate. If anything, those percentages are still a bit low. Any action that fails more times that it succeeds is at least a bit on the shitty side, and slightly bad luck could have you miss 4 times in a row, which is very frustrating.
>>47784067
He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
I just houserule it to 10
>>47784067
While we're at it, I think it's bad game design to give everybody but fighters a +1 bonus. Why not make it 0? Then a lot of people could just make naked, unmodified rolls. I don't think having 0 level characters be one point worse is worth the added hassle, and besides, you could always give them a -1.
>>47784089
>He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
That sounds like a really bad idea. First, how would you even determine that, as "hitting" somebody in D&D means getting in a good enough blow to do a significant amount of damage, and how would you ever test or measure that? Second, D&D has ramping hit points, which completely destroys any chance of a quantifiably realistic simulation (and dramatically moves the bar on how significant the damage has to be in order to qualify as a hit). I understand wanting to keep combat from being so implausible that it hurts your sense of immersion, but issues of game balance and fun should trump simulationism.
>>47783886
Are you the urban fantasy guy with the smokestack guns? If so, the other one.
If not, both.
>>47784089
>He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
...What?
>>47769482
How about something like this?
>>47783996
it's from an OSR blog, can't remember which one though
>>47784272
Maybe strip the turn/command undead out of it. As-is, it's a specialist wizard with one class feature each from the cleric and the bard.
>>47784132
Also, he thinks that IRL, you have a 50% to significantly wound an unarmored opponent in the course of 6 seconds?
>>47784334
>significantly wound
Are HP meat points in LotFP?
>>47784334
I need a source on this. Raggi sometimes has a weird design philosophy but this is next level.
>>47784369
>Are HP meat points in LotFP?
If they're not, then any comparison to real life becomes absolutely meaningless. "In real life, you have a 50% chance to inflict upon somebody 1 to 8 imaginary units of fatigue or disadvantage if you're using a sword. I know, because I researched it."
>>47784398
Don't look at me. I was just examining the "logic" of >>47784089.
>>47784415
Well, you can start with this sort of logic.
>>47784431
See >>47784415. Also, consider that we're not talking merely about fatigue for 0th and 1st level characters, where you'd be quite likely to see death, or at least incapacitation, within 18 seconds.
>>47784424
Oh, sorry about that. I misunderstood the post and thought you were the same anon.
>>47784503
I was responding to my own post, so your confusion is understandable.
>>47774640
Ladda bara upp den på mega.nz eller nått, det är inte så svårt.
>>47784190
Yes I am the smokestack guy. I'll tell you about the generic fantasy one then.
>Setting's cosmology is basically that the world is hidden inside the closed fist of a god inside a speck inside a reflection inside a dream inside a sperm inside a woman inside a necklace inside an iron chest inside a random castle.
>This is done to hide the world from the great blue serpent (this serpent is also the sky). It's constricting our world and trying to find the end so it can swallow it whole, but it cannot because it remains hidden.
>The races are humans, goblins, tieflings and walrus men for a dash of gonzo bullshit.
>Tieflings are humans mixed with demons or any other spirit being
>Wizards sleep 8 hours a night not because they need to be well rested but because sleep is actually where the prepare their spells (magic comes from dreams, optical illusions, drugs, etc)
>Some Wizards may sleep for 12+ hours to pack on more spells, but they reset every time they go to sleep, so they may use drugs and other methods to stay awake longer and longer.
>The most powerful Wizards in the setting are probably in some century-long slumber preparing God-level spells.
>Super secret fighting moves and powers exist, meaning even fighters and thieves may learn special powers from secret societies if they prove themselves; not just Wizards have great power
>Hobbits exist in the setting but are the opposite of Liches (hobbits are essentially Wizards who have embraced life so strongly they are immortal living beings, where as Liches embrace death)
I'm not sure what else to really add, it's coming along slowly and surely though.
>>47784560
https://mega.nz/#fm/YEQQ3Tbb
Laddade upp den temporärt, får se om det går
>>47784560
>>47784577
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6THve6flgh1eWRBYllCVThabnM
La upp den på drive om det fungerar bättre
Perkele.
In what settings do you actually play now?
>>47770449
In my quest to remove superfluous numbers from my D&D game, I will be attempting the following saving throw system:
Roll under (Attribute) + (Level) +/- (modifiers)
Every attribute maps quite nicely to the oldschool 5. and the fort/ref/will system keys off 3 of the Attributes anyway.
STR = Paralyzation (break free)
CON = Poison/Fort (resist)
DEX = Breath/Reflex (dodge)
CHA = Will (charm, mind control effects)
WIS = Magic device (just 'cause)
INT = Spells (any spell not covered by the above)
So, to save against a wizard's Sleep spell (let's just assume it has a save for the purposes of the example), you'd need to roll under your CHA + Level on a d20, minus the wizard's level and level of the spell. Say you have 10 CHA and are lvl 1, and the wizard is level 1 and sleep is a level 1 spell. That's 10+1-1-1 = 9 or less on a d20.
Sound good? I'd like to know if my system is flawed in any major way.
>>47783996
I think that's from one of the Fighting Fantasy books - the ones that expanded FF into a full RPG.
>>47784415
d i s a s s o c i a t e d
m e c h a n i c s
>>47785595
Attribute + Level or Modifier + Level? Because if it's Attribute + Level that's going to change some things. You'll see a much, much wider variance in the saving throws, which will tend to make spells stronger (as you can choose the spell which targets an enemy's weakest saving throw). The fact that it's for all 6 attributes rather than just 3 different saves means that you have twice the options to target (which means that, on average, the scores you target will be lower: weakest of 6 rather than weakest of 3). This doesn't necessarily kill the system, but you have to recalibrate it. When calculating what your target numbers should be, you should look more at the weakest attributes that somebody has rather than the average ones, meaning that saving throws should be easier overall to compensate for a caster's ability to selectively target low stats. Of course, you won't always have the right spell to hit your opponent's weakest attribute, and you might not know exactly which attribute is his weakest anyway, so you should probably hedge things by a point or two from the weakest stat (maybe anchor things to the second weakest, or the average of the bottom three stats, or a score 2 points higher than the weakest stat, etc.). Of course, stats are going to vary from person to person and monster to monster, so these are all approximations anyway, but if you're going by straight 3d6, you might want to figure chances of success based upon a stat of somewhere around 8 or 9.
Realize also that this means that folks with high stats will be able to shrug off enemy effects much more often. So individual threats will tend to be more lopsided. The tough fighter may have comparatively little to fear from the poison of the giant snake while his frailer comrades are in dire danger. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and can actually make encounters more tactical, but you need to realize how things work and plan accordingly.
>>47786678
Also, saving throws need to get easier as you level or you'll throw everything out of whack (that was one of 3.x's major problems). Improved saving throws is probably the biggest way that D&D counterbalances the growing power of high level casters. Under your system, saving throws would actually get *harder* to make (as you subtract both the caster's level and his spell level, while you only add your level). That is a recipe for absolute disaster. Unless you're redesigning the spells, I'd drop the spell level subtraction part, and maybe only subtract half the caster's level. That way you'll gain ground as you level. If you make saving throws 30-35% of the time at level 1, then by level 10, you'll be making them 50-55% of the time, and by level 20, it'll be 75-80% of the time (and that's not too far from your actual chances of success under the RAW).
>>47786678
>>47786807
There is one other thing you might want to consider. It's not terrible uncommon for a magic-user to end up with a comparable or even slightly higher constitution than a fighter. The magic-user has very weak hit points (and weak Fort saves, if you're doing that sort of thing) and has to compensate for that, while the fighter has has good enough hit points (and Fort saves), that he can get by without a sky-high constitution. This kind of screws with your system, because supposedly tough-guy fighters will be as likely to fail constitution-based saves as magic-users, even though they're significantly more resilient in terms of hit points. One idea for this is to give every class the same hit dice progression (1d6 per level for instance), but to have class directly modify constitution. Thus, fighters may get 1 extra hit point per level due to their increased constitutions, while magic-users end up getting 1 fewer hit point per level because their constitutions are reduced by a similar amount. (And once you've done this, it's pretty tempting to give bonuses to other attributes as well, sort of like racial adjustments, only for classes.)
>>47786880
Don't forget the OD&D route, where everyone has the same hit dice but get different amounts of them as they level up. Which, in turn, means that constitution gives more hit points to certain classes than others.
Or the AD&D route, where certain classes just have a bigger available bonus. Non-fighters are restricted to +1HP/HD from Constitution, if I remember correctly, while the Fighter gets to scale higher. (The same goes for to-hit, damage, and - in OD&D, at least - dexterity bonus to AC. To be honest, I have a hard time remembering what's from AD&D and what's from OD&D.)
>>47784067
It hasn't come up in my own games (yet) but for the most part, the PCs won't be encountering men in plate, and if they do, they've done something hideously wrong.
Consider for a moment, that plate armor is only affordable to the noble class, who are expected to pay for it out of their own pocket. Lesser knights (household knights) may have some land that pays for their gear, but it's probably not plate.
If we're playing in a setting with firearms, very, very few people are going to both with the expense of plate (especially armies - its too expensive to armor soldiers like that). It's not the plate won't stop a bullet - it will, the problem is that its cost to benefit ratio is too damned high.
In some cases, you could buy a small ship for what it cost to make a custom suit of plate armor.
Which brings me to another thought: If you can't hurt the big scary man in plate, maybe you should avoid fighting him. Or, alternatively, create a situation that puts him at a disadvantage (knock him in the water, use spears to push him off of a wall, set him on fire, etc.). OSR is all about fighting dirty and with an overwhelming advantage.
>>47787436
>Consider for a moment, that plate armor is only affordable to the noble class, who are expected to pay for it out of their own pocket. Lesser knights (household knights) may have some land that pays for their gear, but it's probably not plate.
So the PCs aren't going to have much access to it either, then?
>>47787436
This leads me to a though: maybe the reason for unarmored being 12 is in order to further discourage combat?
>>47787497
It costs 1000 sp and is only available in cities. So, no, probably not.
>>47787497
The PCs would have to find someone to make the plate armor for them. Remember, this is a suit of metal armor. If it doesn't fit you, you might as well not be wearing it, since it won't properly protect you (and it will be even more uncomfortable to wear then normal).
If the PCs do have access to plate, and firearms are in play, recall that firearms ignore 5 points of armor (and/or shield) at short range (all ranges for muskets).
If firearms are not in play, enemies will either flee, or come up with a reasonable plan to shut down the man or men in plate. Because plate is so heavy, it's unlikely a party wearing plate will be able to catch up to those not wearing it (plate adds +2 to encumbrance on top of whatever the player is carrying).
I would have NPCs fight dirty, personally (assuming they have the means, opportunity, and the smarts). Otherwise, a sensible NPC should flee.
>>47787509
It's possible. It's also possible that the game assumes firearms are in play, and that because they ignore armor, PCs will be likely to buy firearms offset their lower attack bonus.
>>47787605
What are good Ravenloft-esque OSR adventures (aside from Ravenloft itself, of course) Gothic architecture and windswept cliffs rather than "weird fantasy." Blackpowder weapons and rapiers against gargoyles and whatnot.
>>47788103
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/121110/Transylvanian-Adventures
This comes up, but I can't vouch for it,
Bugbears don't let the thread die
I decided to drop a flat HP bonues each level in favor of using CON modifiers as an indicator how much you should step up the class hit die, and then you reroll HP each level and keep them only if they're higher than the last one.
+2 CON Magic User would have d8 instead of d4, for example
>>47785595
> STR = Paralyzation (break free)
You can break free from bonds (web spell/grapple), but paralysis is different. It can be poison, it can be some sort of death effect (puts living body into stasis), it can be mental effect that shuts down brain.
I'm not even sure if there is a paralysis that could be resisted via strength.
> CHA = Will (charm, mind control effects)
> WIS = Magic device (just 'cause)
> INT = Spells (any spell not covered by the above)
I'd put misc spells under Cha, mental effects (charm/mind control) under Wis, and magic device under Int.
In other news: alpha version charsheet for my OSR-ish system. It's not as bad as Pathfinder, but still not as simple as I want it to be.I didn't even add Wounds boxes and proper equipment.
>>47790668
I like that idea. What die would a Fighter with a +3 CON bonus use?
>>47790769
Honestly, still not sure. It's either just capping out at d12 or it allows the fighter to add his level to the rerolled HP(practically giving him d12+1 per level, but being less cumbersome to calculate on the table)
>>47790718
What's the difference between background and occupation?
So my players went back to the tower of the stargazer today with a couple more levels a vengeance. Managed to leave with the big treasure and a dead wizard, but one of them still managed to get his eyes burned out in the mirror room.
The players love the module, and it's so much fun to run.
>>47791037
Origin - is race/species/template. I.e. inborn abilities.
Background (aka Past) - pre-adventure stuff. Mostly bonus skills and Culture/Language.
Occupation (aka Role) - is current modus operandi. Mechanically it's social status and one of the sources of XP.
For example, occupation "murderhobo"(not actually present)would give you bonus XP for killing things, while making authorities very suspicious about you.
Motivation (aka Goal) - is the reason you go adventuring. Mechanically, it's "alignment"(could be used to resist mental influence; or make you susceptible)and the seond source of XP (Wealth would give you XP for gold).
>>47791914
Reminds me of the Keys from Shadow of Yesterday, a little.
BECMI DM tools: http://www.basicexpert.info
- Dungeon Turn Tracker
- Player Character Generator
- Wandering Monster
- Encounter Generator
- Dungeon Stocker
Still on the lookout for Crawling Under a Broken Moon #7-14. Thanks!
>>47787605
>the game assumes firearms are in play, and that because they ignore armor...
Oh god, please not this meme again.
can someone explain what's going on right here? what does the red column indicate? the yellow?
it doesn't match the DCC books listings for thief skills.
>>47795646
never mind. red is the armor's check penalty, yellow is the adjusted bonus with said penalty.
>>47794591
It's hard enough to make firearms rules that are playable and fun for an OSR system, don't get too worked up over realism, anon. Raggi's are probably the first firearms rules I've seen for old-school D&D that I've actually liked, and they're relatively low power already.
Nerfing them against armor is not going to help anything.
>>47796028
>>47796074
those ones are good, kinda wish they covered other modern and sci-fi weapons like Flamethrower and RPGs and what have you
>>47797123
Burning Hands and Fireball effects :^)
>>47768147
What's a good non-vancian casting system? I want some Conan type of magic, all painted warlocks and bubbling cauldrons and shit.
>>47797342
You have to make your own.
I'm sorry to be the first one to tell you this.
>>47797342
They're generally clunky. If you just want it for NPCs, don't worry about it. Use the stock Vancian and just give him some nasty spells, and it'll be fine. Bubbling cauldrons ans stuff can be flavor text that shows how he delivers the spells, but you don't need any mechanics behind the curtain.
>>47786807
Ok. what about against spell level only? If depending on the rules you use that modifier would cap out between 7-9, wheras your level can go upwards of 20.
>>47797342
> What's a good non-vancian casting system?
Ready to use?
1) Warlock-style (at will) casting from 3.5
2) BtW had simple spell points system.
3) Carcosa had rituals (but I have no experience with it)
I also like the idea of magic check system (each spell has a chance to exhaust caster or have some other bad consequence), but I don't remember a good implementation. Original creators went nuts with complexity (Black Company/True Sorcery) making it nigh unplayable.
Picrelated would be an example.
> all painted warlocks and bubbling cauldrons and shit
>>47793268
> Keys from Shadow of Yesterday
Well, yes. But mine are more restricted. Occupation/Role XP is tied to the class (wizard gets XP from research, ranger from exploring new locations), while Motivation/Goal is generally the same for the whole party.
>>47798730
>3) Carcosa had rituals (but I have no experience with it)
They're shit. Most are stuff used by Call of Cthulhu bad guys to summon tentacled monsters and the like (i.e., not really PC adventurer material) and are too tied to the setting (collect the shrooms that grow in this particular hex, then rape five Yellow girls while they're high on the shrooms and toss them into a fire pit to summon the Squamous Gingrichs). They're plot hooks at best.
>>47797342
Check the Last Gasp Grimoire houserules
I have lots of nightmares and insomnia and shit.
I dreamed I was on some kind of Dagon-like landscape with tons of hollow and holes and worms and shit.
So I wrote down this. I know it probably won't be of much use to most people, but I figured I might as well share and see if other, more competent people can make it gameable.
Also the 3rd page contains pictures of worms and that sick hole-phobia shit. 4th page is cool, there's just a cool monster.
>>47797342
It's not really non-vancian, but a thing I do in my LL campaign is:
All spellcasters have, on top of their standard allotment of spells (which work as normal), three RITUALS a day.
A RITUAL means that you take a turn (10 minutes) and some components and cook up a non-combat spell without memorizing it. It's ceremonial magic, involving stuff like magic circles drawn in chalk, boiling cauldrons, burning incense and chanting in strange languages.
Ritual components cost 10 gp for lvl1 spells, 20 for lvl2, 40 for lvl3, 80 for lvl4, and so on, doubling every level. They can also be obtained in appropriate circumstances from the environment or slain monsters. (so, the eye of a beholder, or medusa blood, or the legs of a giant spider, etc)
Lower level components can be bought in shops. Higher level components are harder to find.
I've introduced this system for a variety of reasons:
1) I love ceremonial magic and magic that takes time to cast, because it feels appropriately pulpy.
2) It offers players extra utility magic in exchange for taking an extra turn in the dungeon and spending some money/resources on it. I find it's a good option to give players
3) It doesn't unbalance the game much: it only offers extra noncombat spells (which people don't memorize as often), and the fact that it's fixed at 3 per day means it becomes less and less powerful and useful as character level up, while staying a useful option nonetheless.
>>47797342
SPELL
LOADOUTS
>>47797342
Seriously nobody mentions Barbarians of Lemuria?
Go check it out. There's a free old version around, and the legendary edition is probably easy to find. The last edition is Mythic and it's even better.
I can't upload my pdf as it has watermarks, though.
>>47768147
Recommend me some great low-level modules. Preferably something with a dwarfs and underground cities and complexes.
How do people feel about really abstracted, minimal rule systems for OSR? Or are you more in tune with the traditional crunchier-game aspect systems?
>>47799790
Examples, please.
AC and HP are "really abstract" already.
;_;
>>47799814
I'm struggling to come up with many examples but Dungeon World might be one, but now I'm remembering a game system where the Wizards power was essentially being able to create lore out of thing air. Like the beastmen of X fear the fires of man' and that would be like their 'power'.
It's a stretch but does anybody know what game or system I'm mentioning here? I kind of want to read it again now.
>>47799846
> Dungeon World might be one, but now I'm remembering a game system where the Wizards power was essentially being able to create lore out of thing air.
Both DW and the system you are talking about are based on AW (Apocalypse World).
That's not really OSR.
>>47799856
>the system you are talking
>based on AW
I don't think it actually was though, could you tell me what system I am referring to then if you know it please? I can't remember it off the top of my head.
>>47799846
I have no idea which system that is, but it sounds kind of familiar?
If you want some hyperpretentious bullshit to trawl through for fun freeform wizard ideas, though, WTF is always a fun read. Not really OSR in the least, but still.
>>47799790
>How do people feel about really abstracted, minimal rule systems for OSR? Or are you more in tune with the traditional crunchier-game aspect systems?
depends on the game, like both Microlite 74 and Whitehack are about as simple as you can make a D&D derived game in my opinion but both manage to be absolutely fantastic(Whitehack due to how versatile it is, and Microlite due to how easy it is to expand as needed), while ACKS is pretty complicated by OSR standards but is also really damn good, since it's complexity also allows for versatility in it's own way
>>47799867
I don't have a slightest idea, but that was clearly "spout lore" move from the AW. Practically all *W systems have it.
http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/moves#TOC-Spout-Lore
What rules do you guys use for determining how much different buildings cost to build, buy and rent?
>>47800036
"How much money you got?"
>>47800060
Funny, that's how I do encumbrance.
"Hey, so, how much shit do you pack? That much. Oh, ok. No problem, don't worry. Just don't go into a body of water deeper than your height. And don't expect to be able to run away from shit. It's cool tho."
>>47800085
personally if I ever get around to running a game, I'm pretty much not going to bother with encumbrance rules unless the players try doing something truly silly in that area
although part of that comes from my personal preferences for D&D fantasy, one of which is that unless it's a very low fantasy setting, all Player Characters from level 1 onward are supernatural in some aspect or another, so encumbrance isn't going to be an issue for the most part(whether it's due to the Fighter having supernatural strength and endurance, the Wizard having a cantrip that reduces the weight of objects he carries, or the Cleric using his faith and connection to his god to outright ignore any issues carrying a lot of stuff normally would entail) outside of combat situations, well that and presumably the party will have at least some hirelings and henchmen to carry most of the treasure and heavier supplies for them in the first place
>>47800036
Eyeballing or checking books.
Regular small townhouse (25 ft x 25 ft.) costs ~1.000 gp (sp) to build. Thus, large-ish manor house (50 x 50; two storey high) would cost 8.000 gp.
Price for land inside city walls is the same as first floor: manor house price would increase by 4.000 gp. Triple - for good neighbourhood, x10 for capitol.
>>47797769
>what about against spell level only?
Well, your top level of spells would work about as well as if you were doing 1/2 level instead, but your lower levels of spells would basically never get past enemy saves. So while you'd be saving maybe 80% of the time vs. level 9 spells, for anything below 7th, it'd be 95%.
This sort of thing might work better if you played with a smaller range of levels, maybe capping out at 14 like B/X. So if you started at with a 30% chance to save. level 1 spells, you'd end up with a 65% chance to save vs. 7th level spells (which don't technically exist in B/X, but you get them by level 14 in other editions, including BECMI), 70% vs. level 6 spells, 75% vs. lvl 5, 80% vs. lvl 4, 85% vs. lvl 3, 90% vs. lvl 2, and 95% vs. lvl 1. At that point, you'd need to glance over the spells and see if you're okay with lower level spells failing that often. It might or might not be a problem.
An alternate route--and I'm not specifically pushing for this, only listing it among the possibilities--would be to have saving throws based on the top level of spells you can cast. So if you can cast level 7 spells, that means your enemies get -7 to save vs. all levels of your spells. Of course, none of this really explains what you do with saving throws associated with monster abilities, which don't tend to have spell levels. And at that point, you probably have to fall back on the 1/2 level thing, and having to use two different systems seems less than elegant to me.
>>47799705
>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition
>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, fewer details & more minimalist presentation makes it even easier to learn, but the rules aren't as refined) -- http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf
>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want the bare bones minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up a bit) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A
>>47799945
Not him, but that's a basic move. Has nothing to do with wizards.
Mentioned this for HP yesterday, but I think I'll carry it over for damage as well.
STR modifier increasing an attack's die size. A +2STR longsword-wielder(d8) would roll a d12 for damage instead. (Excess after d12 going into a flat bonus)
Other than that, I'm writing something similar to a funnel (just one 0 lvl characters for each player, sturdier than the typical ones) with the intent of offering small tastes of class abilities and finding items that may set them on such a path. For example, finding a magical sword and armor, or a spellbook to study, or literally making a pact with a god.
Now, problem is. All classes are easy to handle here besides the thief. How do you go on the path of being an incredibly competent skill monkey?
>>47800393
The only need you need from Mythic is the armor rules. Armor in Legendary is stupid.
Basically, light armor is 1, medium armor is 2 and heavy armor is 3, no more.
Also you can replace any +X weapon by 2D6 take the highest roll and any -X weapon by 2D6 take the lowest roll, if that's your thing.
>>47801319
Armor is stupid in Legendary, though it's pretty easy to fix. Helmets should be dropped from Mythic. Large shields are kind of silly as they penalize your attack as much as your enemy's. But with as light and improvisational as BoL is, none of these are serious problems.
What's the best way to make sure players don't hog the time at the table outside of combat? Do you do PC actions in an order, like clockwise around the table? Or just let whoever say whatever whenever?
>>47799846
Reminds me of On Mighty Thews. I don't have the PDF, but here's the rule summary.
I just got England Upturn'd and The Cursed Chateau in the mail. If you guys were planning on getting them physical like me I can give you an idea of how they are like.
Cursed Chateau has metallic colors and looks even better than the pdf. Some copies have a misprint in them at the moment however (and Raggi is aware of this). I got one with a misprint but I just printed out the two pages that are wrong instead of sending it back.
I thought the layout of England Upturn'd was pretty awful in pdf form but I must say that it works better in a real book. Still can't say a lot of good stuff about the illustrations though but at least I can stand them more now.
How do you guys deal with movement in battles?
Specifically I'm wondering about combatants trying to gaurd their allies further back. Say there is a frontline, both sides have 10 lvl 0 mercaneries and 1 level 3 M-U as their commanders, maybe a fight broke out in an adventuring party leading to this stand of.
The mercenaries from side A, knowing that the magical master of side B is their most dangerous opponents, want to run past some mercenaries of side B to attack the master. Say using the charge rules presented in LotfP. How would you deal with this, consistently? Allow the mercenaries to just run around a group of enemies, provided they have enough Movement speed in one charge? enact an attack of opportunity rule? state that charging past ones enemies requires a saving throw?
>>47802196
I never pay the slightest attention to official rules when it comes to shit like this. I just ask myself whether it seems realistic to be able to bypass some enemies given the situation. But people on the front line can shift their position to engage anybody attempting to circumvent them, and can do so by taking a much shorter path. So one way of doing it is to figure that anybody can take a free 5'-10' move when it's not their turn to impede an enemy's path.
As far as draw attacks goes, my standard method is to make it the worse of two rolls if the person making the attack doesn't have to give up anything. Unless the person drawing the attack really exposes himself, anyway. There's a difference, for instance, between skirting the front line and drawing an attack as you run past, and trying to run headlong *through* the front line as if you were playing a high stakes game of Red Rover. In the latter case, I'd absolutely grant a standard, unpenalized attack.
Another option is to allow the would-be-attacker to sacrifice their next turn in order to strike. In that case, a standard attack is made rather than worse of two rolls (and in the case of the guy playing Red Rover, he'd get a significant bonus to his chance to hit, and maybe to his damage as well).
>>47799945
That's "Spout Lore" from Dungeon World; Apocalypse World's nearest equivalent is "Read a Sitch."
And that's still not what he's talking about exactly, since the results of that move are that the GM tells you stuff about the world. Giving the wizard the opportunity to invent lore on a success might be a houserule he'd played with, though.
>>47802196
I don't know how useful it'd be for you, but the way it's handled in OD&D/Basic is relatively simple: if you get into melee with someone (within their reach, basically - three goddamn inches in Chainmail, I think, and more like one inch/ten feet in B/X IIRC), you're staying in melee combat unless you spend your entire round retreating from it. In which case you either move half your speed or something along those lines, or you move your full speed and are vulnerable to being stabbed in the back.
If you're a melee character, this means that a wall of monsters is almost literally a wall for all it impedes you in targeting the ones behind them.
As for how I'd rule the whole mass combat thing, that's more an issue of getting things in place innit? You need to already have the charging stand positioned in the right way for it to work, assuming that the system you're using doesn't allow people to do loop-de-loops during charges and whatnot.
Also, on a related note, why the fuck is the M-U hiding behind the stand? They should probably be embedded in it, where they aren't as vulnerable to flanking maneuvers.
>>47803178
>charging stand
Is this some regional wargaming terminology or something? Because I've always heard "charging unit" or "units." Putting "charge" and "stand" together just sounds really weird to my ear.
Where can I find people who aren't spergs or tryhards to play OSR games with. Everything on r20 is 5e, and I don't trust them anyways.
>>47803619
Sometimes you just need to bite the bullet and become the DM.
Or you could go post in game finder threads or something, I dunno. Maybe advertise at the local gaming store, if you have one.
Personally I'm not that into playing with randos, though, so I can't be much help.
>>47803616
ORA ORA ORA
>>47803619
Define spergs and tryhards, and what you aren't looking in for co-players
>>47803846
>ORA ORA ORA
>jojofaggery
>in muh OSR
>>47794591
I'm the anon you were quoting, and I'm well aware that period plate was bulletproof. If I were really concerned about the historicity of plate armor, I would allow players to buy an upgrade to it that made it bulletproof (for twice the cost, so 2,000 sp rather than 1,000).
It's an easy fix, and it keeps both firearms and custom plate armor competitive.
>>47796074
I'm definitely going to give this a read.
Is Other dust any good? I'm thinking about using it for a Metro 2033 style game with it.
If not, what other OSR game should I consider using?Pic unrelated
>>47802196
Traditionally "flanking maneuvers" worked by having more dudes than the enemy. Your ten guys engaged the enemy's ten guys in melee, while your five more guys ran around the sides of the line, and either geeked the mage, or did high bonus back attacks.
This is why Americanhandeggmakes a distinction between linemen and running backs.
>>47803846
On retrospect, "spergs and tryhards" is kind of a narrow descriptor of what I dislike in a player. There's three main stereotypes I try to avoid:
-The edgy guy who's a half-dragon vampire loner assassin etc etc
-The wacky "so random" guy who just wants to do "hilarious" things like stab the king and "I cut off his face and try to fool the orcs XD XD XD"
-The disinterested player who's totally unengaged with the game and just browses the internet when it's not his turn
Basically I just want to find a group of players that are mature, reasonable, who won't push their magical realm fanfic crap, who are open to trying new systems and don't play the same type of character every single time, and actually want to play the game instead of talking about whatever fucking cat meme their girlfriend posted on Facebook.
>>47804067
You can totally play a Hamon user in Exemplars and Eidolons, FWIW.
>>47804796
Sure, play how you want! Just don't push your JoJo memes in thread, like referring to a group of hirelings as one of your "stands." It's annoying.
>>47804831
Uh, man, that wasn't me. And I read that as a stand in wargame terms - you know, a common base for a number of soldiers.
>>47804951
Oh, ok. So maybe it is a regional thing like I thought? I know of "stand" in wargaming terms, but the way it's used down at the LGS, stand is to unit as character sheet is to player character. The stand is just the thing the unit's on, and referring to a unit as a stand would be weird, and lead to strange phrases like "charging stand."
>>47805189
It's definitely nothing to do with Jojo like you thought.
Does anyone have suggestions on how to handle encounters for a "base camp" in a relatively fair way?
The scenario I'm thinking of is any time the PCs set up some sort of base camp outside a dungeon before venturing inside. This might be as simple as tethering horses to a tree branch unwatched, to a more involved affair with tents, medical aid stations, and hirelings waiting outside.
What would be a good interval to check for encounters, and how would you resolve encounters that happen against the base camp?
>>47805189
I'm the guy who said "stand", and that's because the thing you're moving around is the damn stand.
Also I think I might have picked up the usage from Chainmail or something? I dunno, I'm not in an anglophone country.
>>47806422
Once daily, as per ordinary wilderness adventures.
Although, to be honest, I'd rather not do that at all. It discourages thinking of the surface as a safe place (as opposed to the dungeon).
>>47804242
I'll play with you anon. I want that group too, but mine is fucking meme spouting morons half the time that only want to play 3.pf
>>47804242
it's easy, you just join my groupsystem: homebrew LL at the momentcontact Flavio Max Skype on skype or hendyadyoin at gmail dot com
>>47798896
>Squamous Gingrichs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BagYRDEFvy0
I asked this in a thread about a month ago but it was lost to the tail end of the thread:
If you have made a cool/better custom character sheet for a game or game variant, or decorated a sheet neatly for your current character, could you post it? I like those a lot, and the OSR ones always seem to be the coolest.
>>47806713
>I'm the guy who said "stand", and that's because the thing you're moving around is the damn stand.
>Also I think I might have picked up the usage from Chainmail or something? I dunno, I'm not in an anglophone country.
Sure, I figured it was some kind of odd regional wargaming thing. (At least until that other guy started going ORA ORA ORA)
>>47790718
You're mostly just an (semi-)innocent bystander for this, as it's an accumulation of things (so don't take it too personally), but when the fuck did we decide that reading numerals was too difficult or unsophisticated for us, prompting a move towards shading in circles? Are we pre-literate now? Like, we can slowly count things out on our fingers, but recognizing arabic numerals is still too tricky? Is this like in the eighties when everybody got velcro shoes?
>>47808849
yo velcrowns
>>47808849
It requires less erasing, so less trouble with the paper getting thin and breaking?
Also less wear on your eraser.
>>47808953
But you could use the extra space it takes to put down all those circles to write a new number out to the side if you had to. Also, on the autistic side, the dots on those d6s aren't going to be in the proper geometric arrangement.
>>47804242
I may be guilty of the so random trope to some degree, but it's nothing extreme like attacking people, but mostly talking back to authority instead of kissing their ass like the GM wanted me to
What would be a good magic item for LotFP specialists? Just anything fancy that fits the class.
>>47810075
Literally anything
>>47810075
Depends on what kind of specialist they built. Thief? Assassin? Spy? Engineer?
What do you guys think about the saving throw system in The Black Hack? For those who don't own it, it's basically that you want to roll under the relevant attribute score with a d20 to see if you make it. Does anyone here use it?
>>47810075
Immovable rod.
>>47811218
>you want to roll under the relevant attribute score with a d20 to see if you make it.
See >>47786678 and also the bit ab,out saving throws needing to get easier in >>47786807 (even if the actual system is a bit different that the one discussed there, the implications are the same... but worse).
>>47811218
>What do you guys think about the saving throw system in The Black Hack? For those who don't own it, it's basically that you want to roll under the relevant attribute score with a d20 to see if you make it. Does anyone here use it?
Seems kind of hastily designed, and makes attributes way more important than your class or level. Nope, would not use.
Dammit, now captcha wants me to tell it that a pizza counts as a pie.
>>47811310
>>47811321
These are good points. I suppose saving throws are pretty much intrinsic to the class rather than the attributes. I guess I'll just use S&W's system.
>>47811321
>Dammit, now captcha wants me to tell it that a pizza counts as a pie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfHuSqLIEw
What do you guys think about rolling under stats vs target numbers? In my own hack of the Black Hack (with some Old School Hack and GLOG thrown in, call it the Grey Hack) I started out using roll-under for its simplicity, but ultimately ended up switching to using modifiers instead of stat numbers and having every roll be trying to beat a TN of 10.
>>47804134
Stars Without Number is amazing, and Other Dust builds on that, so yeah, pretty much.
Silent Legions is also possibly my favorite Horror game so far, with Cthulhu Dark but that's not OSR.
>>47811873
My homebrew started out as roll-under, which I find more aesthetically pleasing, but I switched to target number when the range of numbers I was dealing with got too big to be ideal for roll-under. Target numbers are infinitely scaleable, but roll-under is clumsy and a bit ridiculous by the time you're giving people -15 modifiers. For games that don't have the degree of level-based power advancement that D&D does, I'd definitely prefer roll-under.
>>47806713
>It discourages thinking of the surface as a safe place
That's an interesting point of view - I've heard a lot of opposite advice - that players shouldn't just leave things like horses tethered out in the open and that careful logistics preparation is important.
I'm looking to start a Mutant Future campaign, what's everyone's favorite adventures for it or for Gamma World?
>>47813184
It may not be the kind of thing you're looking for, but here's a scenario I came up with on the fly a good while ago (not too long after I first got here IIRC) in response to somebody asking for an adventure idea. It obviously doesn't have all the stats and details and everything, but I was pretty pleased with what's there.
>>47799846
>>47802023
While it was just discussed, does anybody actually have a problem with this lore-based ability?
I think it's a really interesting way to do magic and of course means magic users don't have to just be wizards, they can be loremasters, alchemists, necromancers, etc.
>>47815967
No, actually I really like the idea. Even though I like to lurk /osrg/ I don't like D&D's magic system. Systems like lore or Whitehack miracles are more interesting in my opinion. If possible, I suggest to my players to bind to a general theme in the kind of spells they choose, and offer new options as they explore the world. Simple rules, with a resolution system that ensures freedom to the players and the master are my favorites.
>>47816097
So you are saying use the lore system but restrict it to certain areas?
Such as healing/restorative arts could be a theme of lore where you couldn't figure out how to open the ancient magic door but you could cure this one specific poison because a curative plant exists within this region, for instance?
How about limits; how many 'per day' or 'per adventure' uses do these get? Or is it based on the lore/skill roll or check?
>>47816197
I never used the lore rule specifically, but the magic system that I use is like this. Your example is more or less how things usually work at my table, with players choosing a theme and a specific focus for their spells.
> Dwarf with a shield full of runes using protection spells
> Religious Bard seeks hymns and prayers of the god of the seas
The second had no time to develop the character before leaving because of college, unfortunately.
I don't worry too much about mechanical limitations of any kind, since in general the theme of magic is enough to make players don't try to use them for everything. Conjuring requires a roll, and I apply penalties if the player wants an extreme effect (or just veto), or do spells work even in failure, but having negative effects also for the characters.
Moreover, no-Spellcasters end up having their own thing on my table, like fighting styles, animal companions, magic items, specific contacts, etc.
>>47811509
I use the following system
Single number saving throw that increases as they level. Roll under
Depending on the danger, you would have to roll a d20 and roll that number+MOD
Each class gets one particular ability score they are proficient in. If that's the case, roll 2d20 and keep the higher one.
>>47808694
Do people here actually make character sheets like this?
>>47816815
All the time
Does anyone happen to have that nifty picture with "random but set" attribute generation?
Don't really know how to explain it better than that. Basically it worked that you rolled once and got six random numbers that you can put anywhere. It's a alternate way to decide attributes.
I'm currently writing a small homebrew system with the goal of taking DCC concepts and translating them into something much simpler and more managable on the table, while mixing it with a bit of LotFP.
Can anyone throw me in a list of things they love and hate about DCC so I can get some third-party input as well?
>>47817553
love: more toys for fighters, luck mechanic, funnels, no skill list.
not so great: random table fatigue. Wizards have too many toys and the game just generally gives sweet hj's to spellcasters constantly, making fighter and thief boring options again in comparison. Difficulty class rolls (I don't like arbitrary target numbers).
Using Stars Without Number, how hard would it be to run a game that's ACTUALLY set in the Star Trek universe at the same time as TOS? My thinking was basically that the players are on a five-year mission to explore in a totally different direction, allowing me to present them with alien planets, spacefaring con artists, and so on, with a background made for me but no need to worry about what specific planets are described in the series.
Anyone played or at least read any adventure made by Zzarchov Kowolski (Neoclassical geek revival)? Is it any good?
>>47808849
> when the fuck did we decide that reading numerals was too difficult or unsophisticated for us, prompting a move towards shading in circles?
I must say I already asked people a few threads ago about their charsheet preferences, but got no answer. Either way, I'm not certain I understand the problem.
Do the pip-based notations look too condescending and insufficiently sophisticated?
As (>>47808953) already said - it's easier on the charsheet in the long run. Since all my variables (with the exception of XP and Level) are within the 0-6 range and I wanted to make very ergonomical system, using d6 for everything looked logical.
>>47808996
> But you could use the extra space it takes to put down all those circles to write a new number out to the side if you had to.
Yes. But it will look scruffy and dice don't take that much space. Also, nothing precludes you from writing everything on blank sheet of paper.
>>47817024
I need to kidnap some of those people.
>>47818297
Adventures are in the trove. The rulebook, however, is not.
>>47817659
Not that much, I guess. There is Starships and Spacemen if you want an explicitly I Can't Believe It's Not Star Trek OSR game.
Hey /osrg/, I've got a predicament. I'm the GM for my group, and we like to float around systems, playing whatever someone feels like playing at the time. One member just came to me with the LotFP rulebook and asked if I could run a few games in it. I've never really done any OSR before, but I looked through it and I understand it enough, but I didnt see anything talking about monster generation. Is there another book I need to get, or should I just make them up on my own? Or should I just run one of the written adventures? Any help would be appreciated
>"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, vicious monsters, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success."
>>47819576
LotFP focuses in monsters being fairly rare, bizarre and otherworldly. Grab Raggis book the Random Esoteric Creature Generator from the trove and create one. Otherwise, if going for traditional monster encounters, use Sword and Wizardrys monster books.
>>47819576
LotFP is weird in the sense that monsters are presumed by the developer to be extremely rare, bizarre, and dangerous.
My advice would be to take a Monster Manual from the original D&D editions and just convert the ACs if you want classical monsters.
>>47819728
>>47819721
Ok thanks for the advice I'll look into those. Does that mean that most encounters should be against fellow NPCs with levels in player classes? Like a band of magic-user cultists?
>>47819768
Completely depends on your campaign and the kind of feel you are going for.
If you want LotFP 'weird fantasy', you keep combat to a minimum, but extremely lethal, and the monsters are cthulhulian creatures that may or may not be impossible to beat.
If you want classic D&D 'Law vs Chaos' thing, you could have humanoid enemies like goblins, orcs, etc; aberrations like Beholders, rust monsters; forest animals... you know the drill.
If you're going for low fantasy, you could have human enemies with PC levels or just make up statistics and HDs for them as if they were monsters.
You can really do anything if you're willing to adjust the monsters yourself.
>>47819768
Yeah, that's more in line with LotFP's general vibe. The monster would be whatever they unleash, if their foul rite is enacted.
There are some excellent modules for LotFP, too. Like award winning, and generally fantastic. Modules are one of LotFP's big strengths. My favorites are Death Frost Doom, Tower of the Stargazer, and A Red and Pleasant Land.
If you want to convert stuff from other OSR systems, there's pic related from the old Referee book.
>>47819866
>>47819893
Thanks so much for the help! Are those adventures in the trove?
>>47819904
Yep. DFD is a great campaign starter. (Or campaign ender. Maybe both.)
>>47819961
I'll check that out then
>>47819576
>>47819576
>>47819904
Check Referee Book for LotFP. It has some guidelines on generating monsters and stuff. In addition - you can easily convert regular early DnD monsters to LotFP.
Hey guys is Wonder & Wickedness in the trove? It's an alternative magic system I'd like to give a read first.
>>47820214
Should be. Check the Misc
>>47808849
Both this >>47808953 and the fact that it's kind of a clever presentation. It works for d6s because of the specific nature of pips on a d6.
Plus, some people just like filling in dots. Look at WoD.
>>47817550
do a google image for Random but Fair Attributes and you'll get a whole bunch of different versions.
>>47820392
Sounds cool, but I don't see it in the Trove. If nobody can find it by the time I get home from work tonight, I'll see if I can't dig up a copy.
>>47820392
I didn't have this before, but it's in the OSC Misc folder now. This is really interesting, now that I'm skimming it.
Also:
Now monitoring thread for any new uploads.
>>47820656
Did you get the Western games from last thread?
I'm sure this question has been asked a dozen times, but what OSR is best for class balance?
I'm looking at Whitehack at the moment, and it seems interesting.
I'm failing memory checks.
There was an OSR supplement for generating charaters (elf, halfling, fighter, mage). Dragon something IIRC, black and white.
Idea was that you choose your class based on what you rolled. The one who stopped re-rolling stats first would be leader (and Fighter). Elf - the one who got the best stats, and so on.
>>47820920
That sounds like fun.
>>47820758
There is now a folder called OSR Westerns. Blood & Bullets and Go Fer Yer Gun are currently in there, as well as Tombstone. Per the post that started this, there's still:
Shotguns & Saddles, Revolvers & Wizardry, and High Noon (when it comes out)
>>47820920
That sounds really interesting. I don't know what it is but please let us know if you find out.
>>47820858
LotFP has surprisingly good class balance given the way it handles it.
That said, class balance isn't quite as much of an issue in OSR games as it can be in more modern versions of D&D. Most OD&D and Basic variants are going to be fine across the board (though, the thief often feels slightly underwhelming). AD&D is more or less balanced until you start throwing in Unearthed Arcana. Can't speak for AD&D2e.
What's a cool mythic-feeling setting?
I'm reading through the DCC modules, and I'd like something similar in feel to it, but the official old DCC setting was really underwhelming.
Do you prefer starter characters to roll for money and then buy their starting gear, give them a fixed amount of money, let them pick their starter gear within reason, or just select appropriate gear for them?
>>47821647
We roll randomly for money and shop, normally.. though lately we've taken to using a random equipment generator:
https://dl.orangedox.com/fDpEOOV7YJSn9FMOxv
Is Qelong in the trove? Can't seem to find it
>>47821647
Roll random gear.
>>47821000
>>47821240
Found the goddamn thing. It's Dragon Union (PWYW)
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/137719/Dragon-Union--an-addendum-for-the-fantasy-roleplaying-game
Font is atrocious, though.
>>47821904
It is. Lamentations of the Flame Princess/Modules.
>>47820489
>Look at WoD.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
> It works for d6s because of the specific nature of pips on a d6.
But they're in the wrong pattern half the time.
>>47822738
>Two wrongs don't make a right.
Not him, but if he elaborates that there's a ton of people liking the approach, a sensible retort is not "ITS WRONG CUZ I DUEN LIKE IT"
Just sayin'
>>47822738
> But they're in the wrong pattern half the time.
Poser. Real autist would've noticed that all character abilities have the same number of letters.
Did the Chthonic Codex hit the interwebs?That's me being hopeful. I don't think it did, but one has to try.
So for someone who wasn't around for 2E, is there still appeal in OSR games? What is the point of them? And if they're all just versions of 2E, why are there so many? My understanding is OSR games are to 2E as Pathfinder is to 3.5.
How are the Basic Fantasy RPG adventures? Thinking about doing Morgansfort as a starter module for some family members, but I could just as easily run something else if they're no good.
Also, what modules convert pretty easily to BFRPG? I know it'll take some jimmying either way, but I just wonder if there's some good stuff somewhere that flips systems with relative ease.
