>Trove -- https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread:>>47838693
> Anyone got the Hex Crawl Chronicles line?
> When picking a hex size it's more important to think of it as a measure of "narrative compression".
> I'm starting to think we just need 4 classes: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.
> Is The Black Hack good?
> they don't need to pixelhunt - rather than asking the DM "can I do this?", you go the route of the old soothsayers and roll them bones.
>>47902263
I have nothing to contribute to the above, but I'm keeping an eye on the thread. Definitely interested in seeing the Black Hack stuff and related material, though.
Still looking for some feedback on my game here.
What are some campaign ideas that play towards the strengths of old school systems? Specifically D&D Cyclopedia
>>47903142
Flat out dungeon crawls and hex maps? Or 'sandbox campaigns' as they are called now.
Maybe you could try a sort of hybrid where you have dungeons and adventuring but tied together by a loose overarching plot, like a villain to chase or tracing the steps of a demigod hero of yore.
I just started running the Grinding Gear for my players (LotFP adventure).
Holy shit are they having fun. It's made me realize when playing RPGs, most people truly want dungeons and dragons (not the game, the literal things.)
Hey guys, I was pointed here to ask what the main things I would need to alter/change in the original 3.5E modules for DCC if I wanted to port them to the new edition. Can I get some help?
>>47904161
Might have to wait 'till tomorrow, folks are going to bed now. We do have some DCC fans around, though, so somebody should be able to help you out.
>>47903142
I'd recommend against having an overarching plot that depends on the specific characters surviving, at least until name level rolls around - the game is very much made so that you keep dying and getting replaced by new characters until you reach name level and can Raise Dead.
If you run a lower-level game where one of the players is a deposed prince trying to get back their crown, well, prepare for them to die to a random goblin and leave everyone feeling narratively unfulfilled.
You can get away with overarching plots involving villains, but be prepared for them to die if they ever show their face in front of the PCs and manage to get in combat with them. The lethality goes both ways.
Similarly, you can get away with having an NPC be the deposed prince since it's a lot easier (and more fun) to keep an NPC out of harms way than it is for a PC.
Sandbox campaigns are the way to go, yeah. Dungeoncrawls at lower levels moving into hexcrawls as the players get strong enough to brave the wilderness leading into dungeoncrawls in other remote areas leading eventually into domain-level play and politics and then the Quest for Immortality.
I'm pretty sure the BECMI boxed sets have pretty decent ideas for building campaigns organized in a more level-appropriate way than the RC, but you can also look around to see what adventures are good and maybe nick somethign from them.
>>47905483
Clerics get Raise Dead somewhere between 7th and 10th level, depending on the edition. Which is best?
>>47906732
OD&D and B/X both go for the really early one, which means that adventures in general are going to be more survivable; BECMI decides to link it to name level, which means that it actually interacts pretty well with the whole name level XP thing; AD&D also goes for level 9.
Getting it at level 9 mostly just has to do with smoothing out the progression from the crazy OD&D one, though. (I mean, it makes sense given how you can't prepare third-level spells in fourth-level slots but it's still weird.)
Which edition gives it to them at tenth level?
what are situations or circumstance where a PC doesn't have the opportunity for a saving throw against magic? or is it *always* an option?
>>47906940
>Which edition gives it to them at tenth level?
BECMI and BFRPG
>>47907359
Huh, so it is.
I guess it puts it closer to the XP total of the other classes, at least?
>>47907242
I always allow a saving throw, but I'm one of those weird guys who'd have preferred if Greyhawk didn't remove the saving throws from Sleep and 7th+ level spells.
Question: what's the difference between rolling 3d6 and reducing the total to a modifier and rolling 1d6 and using that as the modifier?
>>47907514
I realized that last night during our LotFP session, I forgot to allow a player to save against a MUs pre-prepped sleep spell. Not that it matters, but he was engaged in combat with someone else. Honestly, it was for the best since he was trying to be an edgy murderhobo and no one else wanted to fight, but I don't like to take away any PCs decision making.
What is /osrg/'s opinion on DCC? I've got a friend who's become obsessed with it for reasons I can't fathom. More importantly, it seems like he's all about that character funnel, which I absolutely hate, as does anyone else I ever ask. I'm all about random chars, that's fine, but to make 10 random characters so that a random one of those will survive is a bit...idk, shit. The game seems pretty neat after that point, but after trying the system once in a test game, and him as a DM, I really have no interest in it.
>>47907758
Did LotFP return saves vs. Sleep? I don't think they were a part of B/X, although I might be remembering wrong.
>>47907242
In most cases, it's up to the spell description. Some allow for a save, some do not.
>>47907763
DCC is one of the games that comes up fairly regularly for discussion. People seem to love it or hate it. Most people will agree that it does some neat stuff. People who dislike it are usually turned off by the funky dice or the excessive charts. I'm in the lattermost camp, personally. A lot of people enjoy them, though.
The funnel thing can be an interesting means to start off a campaign, but the novelty wears off if you do it too often.
Thinking about ordering some stuff from the LotFP store. Am looking at tower of the star gazer, carcosa, qelong and towers two.
Towers two and tower of the star gazer I'm pretty sure on getting, but can anyone comment on the quality of the physical products? I've found the pdfs in the trove, but I'm specifically asking for how the actual product look / feel and how usable you found them at the table.
>>47908006
The LotFP books are hardback, European digest A4 size. High quality. Typically 2 column, smaller fonts but easy on the eyes.
>>47907763
>10 random characters
I know it's hyperbole, but I need to state it's just 3 characters.
>>47908758
It would be pretty funny if it were true. Your party starts with 30-50 dudes in it. You basically begin as a mercenary company or the crew of a pirate ship.
>>47907672
3d6 has a bell curve of results, 1d6 is flat. The odds of a +3 or -3 stat goes from somewhere around 3% to 16%,
>>47908917
If you have five players that's 10-20 characters, you are seriously over-exaggerating it.
>>47907763
It's not that a random one of those will survive, the player characters still have control over all their 0-levels, so they can decide which ones of those take more of the risk. Also its not just one of your 0-levels surviving, that way you still have back-ups when you they hit 1st-level (also if one player was unlucky and lost ALL his, they players can give him one of their extras).
>>47907763
I'm a huge fan of the game. I'm currently playing a 5E game (Curse of Strahd, convinced my DM to let me try Critical Role's Witch Hunter class) but after that is finished we're running a funnel and then running a campaign in a not!Europe setting.
>>47909132
I'm not exaggerating anything. I was responding to what you were responding to, the idea that players would be rolling 10 characters each. I responded by saying that it would be funny, because the group would then wind up being 30-50 characters strong.
>>47909163
My bad, I see what you mean now. Having a starting group that large would be incredibly strong.
>>47908917
Actually that's pretty close to what I do. We use total party kill generator, so it literally takes a second to get a character ready to play. So we roll a dozen in advance and put them in the roaster. In-fiction, it's basically an Adventurer's Society that serves as a pool from which any player can draw any character they want, except if like, some dude falls in love with X character and decides it's his, but it rarely happens.
>>47907763
It seems solid. I don't like the d20 system legacy, especially the IMO boring three saving throws, and it's too fricking long for me, since I usually stop at about a hundred pages except for very rare exceptions like my single volume OD&D (not The Single Volume Edition. I just took the three original booklets first prints and stitched them together to have one big book that serves as my antique rule cyclopedia equivalent)
Here's a general Question for you, OSRg!
Do you write in your books?
I mark down house rules on post-it, mostly, but on books I've printed myself I usually write directly in it, especially games that beg you to house rule them like Sword & Wizardry or OD&D.
>>47908917
I'm >>47908758 and I agree it'd be funny as all hell. Could even be potentially interesting to make a funnel so large in size that instead of proper characters, everyone just has a number of units that get mowed down.
Fantasy vietnam. Literally.
Anyone have a Black Hack PDF?
Someone recommended it to me and I would like to give it a look.
>>47909843
I'm with you in despising the d20 legacy parts of it, although I have to admit that age lessened my bitterness towards the 3 saves (heck, the unified save score from S&W is incredibly popular around these parts recently), but what bugs me to no end is that they used the 3rd ed math and progression. I'd have been fine with the 3 saves working bechanically more akin to older saves, with it serving as a DC, instead of a modifier, but I suppose the decision was made with the goal of supporting the escalating magic system.
DCC is really splitting to me. It has a lot of awesome concepts and ideas, and the imagery and tone is incredibly strong, with the modules itself being some of the best in the business.
The system itself does get bogged down at parts with the tables and what not else. Again, I see why they did it the way they did, and it makes sense, but I prefer it a bit lighter on my table.
Luckily enough it's not that hard to steal its ideas, so it's the best of both worlds, really.
>>47909843
>I usually stop at about a hundred pages except for very rare exceptions like my single volume OD&D
Man, that's just 124 pages.
Comparing it to my PDFs of the Rules Cyclopedia (305 pages) and B/X (136 pages), that's actually kind of slim?
Definitely a far cry from the PHB/DMG/MM model, at least. There's slimmer RPGs out there, but they're mostly intentionally so.
>>47904161
DCC is a bit of a niche within the OSR community. It's different enough from old school D&D and controversial enough that there are less people to help you out than with most retroclones. I'm saying this to explain why you haven't yet gotten an answer, despite the fact that /osr/ tends to be pretty helpful on the whole.
>>47909887
you don't need the PDF, you have the whole rulebook here http://the-black-hack.jehaisleprintemps.net i said this because i buy the pdf because i want to give a beer to David Black
also i don't like the BH character sheet so i made my own
>>47907797
Not if you play by the book. Sleep gets no saving throw in either B/X or LotFP.
>>47902263
Hey /osrg/, what's a good meat grinder system for a casual faggot like myself? Something to whip out and run a dungeon on when the whole group doesn't show up.
Dungeon Crawl Classics seems to fit the bill perfectly, thematically, but holy blue fuck is the book big. Is there anything with the same mortality funnel and crazy magic critical rules as DCC, but... easier?
Or, better yet, does DCC have an online aid that tracks all the weird dice rolls and tables for you?
>>47910667
Can you direct me to where it states that in LotFP? I'm looking at the spell descriptions and it only states it doesn't work against undead/elves etc.
>>47908945
>1d6 is flat.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about rolling 3d6 to get an attribute score, deriving the modifier from that, and then dropping the attribute score altogether. The 1d6 roll then replaces the d20 roll for attribute checks.
>>47907672
I'm actually in the process of making a homebrew that only uses modifiers without attribute scores, though I'm not using 3d6 for stat generation.
As far as the differences go, well, there will be a decent bit less variance as roughly half of your stats (48.14%) will have no modifier, at least if you use the typical 3d6 method with a result 9-12 giving imparting no bonus or penalty. So maybe it's a bit more boring than having 9s and 11s and so forth to roll against.
In terms of range, there are seven different possible modifiers (-3 to +3) as opposed to 16 different possible numbers for attributes. That means that your attributes take up 16/20--or 4/5, if you prefer--of the range of the d20 you roll for attribute checks. Meanwhile, your modifiers take up 7/6 of the range of the d6 you're proposing to use for checks.
That could, in my opinion, be problematic. If anything, I feel like having an 18 in a stat gives you too great a chance to succeed a standard attribute check. If a standard person (with a 10) has a 50% chance to succeed a check, you (with an 18) have a 90% chance. But on the d6 system, if an average person (with no modifier) has a 50% chance to succeed, you automatically succeed, and a guy with +2 has an 83% chance (meanwhile, a guy with a -3 auto-fails). Of course, saying that under normal conditions the best result (either a 1 or 6, depending on whether you're doing roll under or over) succeeds and the worst result fails, regardless of the numbers involved, does make things a decent bit better. A 1 in 6 chance is still significant (16.67%), if relatively small. If, however, you wanted your modifiers to have a similar effect on rolls as attributes do on a d20, then you'd want to roll a d8 or d10.
>>47910877
Dude, the DCC rulebook is mostly bulked up by the spell section and fluff, almost none of which funnels use. The core mechanics are virtually nothing. To run a 0 level meatgrinder, I suggest using this:
>http://purplesorcerer.com/0_charts.pdf
(Also, use their 0 Level character generator to speed shit up.)
Along with this:
>http://peoplethemwithmonsters.blogspot.com/2014/08/dcc-rpg-reference-booklet-revised-and.html?m=1
>>47910906
I don't claim to be an expert on LotFP, but LotFP seems to handle things the same way that B/X does: if you get a saving throw, it mentions that you get a saving throw. In both B/X and LotFP, there is no mention of saving throws for Sleep, therefore you don't get one.
>>47910947
>If, however, you wanted your modifiers to have a similar effect on rolls as attributes do on a d20, then you'd want to roll a d8 or d10.
Technically, you'd want to roll a d8.75, but those are really hard to get a hold of these days. Personally, I'd round up to a d10, because, as I said, I think that the range of your attributes is actually a bit larger than is ideal in comparison to a d20, and I don't fancy the idea of making that ratio larger. And if you go with min/max auto succeeds/fails, then I'm not sure rolling a d8 is really any better than rolling a d6, as 1/6 is obviously larger than 1/8 (you just get there a bit sooner on the d6, as it only takes +2, rather than a +3, to max out a roll that a normal guy has a 50% chance to succeed).
d10 is actually pretty nice though. If a normal guy has a 50% chance to succeed on a roll, a guy with a +3 has an 80% chance (and a guy with a -3 has a 20% chance). That seems about right to me, at least for rolls that you want to be competitive. There are obviously some situations in which you want the guy with the higher modifier to have an enormous advantage. If you're arm-wrestling, the guy with the higher modifier should probably automatically win.
I will say that I'm not very fond of a normal guy having only a 50% chance to succeed on a roll, however (unless PC scores are above normal, on average, that is). I think PCs should have a better chance to succeed than fail, as it's more fun to succeed, it makes the game progress more quickly, and it's frustrating to fail a bunch of times in a row (and that's gonna happen a decent amount if your average roll is 50/50). For that reason, I would favor using a d12 with the average guy succeeding 7 out of 12 times. That's 58.33% as compared to the 83.33% a guy with a +3 would have. It's essentially like you're rolling a d6, but everybody's getting a 1/2 point bonus.
>>47910622
tfw Black Hack is literally OSRified Dungeon World
>>47911241
>It's essentially like you're rolling a d6, but everybody's getting a 1/2 point bonus.
Well, that and everybody's modifier only counts for 1/2. So really, it's not very much like rolling a d6 at all. I stand corrected.
>>47910999
>Dude, the DCC rulebook is mostly bulked up by the spell section and fluff, almost none of which funnels use.
Well shit, that's what I get for being scared off by the size of the book and never reading the damn thing. Thanks, those tools look invaluable!
>>47911614
DCC is fun man. There's a GREAT app from purple sorcerer called Crawlers Companion that auto rolls spells, weird dice etc. It helps speed things up if you hate referencing tables.
Question about The God that Crawls. How are they players supposed to escape? The door at 2:01 is barred shut and reinforced with steel. Are the players supposed to be able to force it open? It sounds rather sturdy.
>>47912056
When I ran it, the players just instantly saw the carvings and followed the directions and escaped.
>>47908006
Tagging on to this:
What are your favorite supplements? Aside from a system to run (be it B/X, 1e, LotFP or one of the other various retro-clones), what should be in every referee's library to truly inspire the OSR? What should be in every referee's library that you consider valuable tool-boxes?
>>47912183
The Dungeon Alphabet
GM Gems
Vornheim
>>47912103
If I'm following the carvings in 1:07 correctly it just leads back to 1:07 right? And the ones in 1:08 lead to the trapdoor in the church?
Does anyone have any concrete examples of how you have handled traps (large room traps or small chest traps) in actual play?
Moldvay B/X mentions stuff like all players being able to detect room traps on a 1 in 6 chance, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what this actually looks like in actual play.
Do you telegraph traps in room descriptions - like a groove for a hidden blade or dart holes - in which case, the "search for traps" roll would be finding the trigger mechanism?
Or do you mention nothing about the trap unless the players decide to search the room and *then* you mention the dart holes/groove?
>>47912370
If I remember correctly (and I'm not sure I do, considering it was ages ago), both lead to the trapdoor, but one just takes longer and is a trap option.
Are there classless osr?
>>47912610
I'm going over it and it looks like it takes you back to 1:07.
>>47912505
If a player is actively, thoroughly searching a tiny room or door or chest or whatever (not just casually glancing around), and pass a successful Search check, I usually describe something looking off. Its up to them to surmise its a trap. Ex:
"You notice there is a small hole next to the keyhole on the handle" (poison needle)
"you notice tiny holes lining the roof above the door and small puncture marks on the ground" (dart trap)
"You see the faintest marking of a rune, caked in old dust" (arcane trap)
If it's a much larger room or hall or whatever, they need to be actively searching a particular area. Now of there is an obvious mechanism to disable said trap, they have an opportunity to disable it.
>>47912759
Just to clarify though, you don't telegraph the trap otherwise? The chest is just described until examined, and then when examined you describe the hole next to the keyhole? Also, it seems like you don't roll for detection either?
>>47912977
I use LotFP. Search is the skill for detecting traps as well as "good" hidden things like secret doors. So for example:
"You enter a largely empty room, save for a tattered rug and a simple chest against the north wall."
If a PC chooses to Search the chest and succeeds, they will find the trap/hidden button/whatever. If they fail or don't make an attempt, then try to open it: the trap is sprung.
If they find a trap upon a successful Search, such as a poison needle, and there is a logical way it can be disarmed (you couldn't safely disarm a trap with its mechanism hidden behind stone walls, right?), they roll a successful Tinker skill to do it. On a fail, the trap is (usually) sprung.
>>47913252
Now say there was a stone on the ground in front of the chest that was in fact a pressure plate. They would need to be specifically Searching the ground to find it (I would probably allow its detection on a successful Architecture roll too, if it had good reason to apply). There's no way to disable whatever trap it would cause to spring, since the mechanisms are out of reach. So they would know to simply avoid it.
>>47903069
I'd personally go d20 roll-under relevant stat, rather than having to deal with rules for "saves" as well. It makes the stats themselves relevant, instead of just the modifiers they represent.
>>47912701
You might want to take a look at Ancient Mysteries and Lost Treasures, though it's a single-class game strictly speaking.
Any module recs for a heist scenario?
>>47913252
>>47913549
This is helpful, thanks. So you wouldn't necessarily have them laboriously do Searches for 5-foot square increments, just a rough category (and maybe particular things) is specific enough?
In other words, "search for traps" is not specific enough, but "search the ground for raised plates" would be an acceptable formulation?
>>47916315
>In other words, "search for traps" is not specific enough, but "search the ground for raised plates" would be an acceptable formulation?
It really depends on how you want to go about things. This is something that different DMs do quite differently. I was mentioning last thread how I like the idea of using find trap rolls as a sort of intuition about general areas where the folks in the party need to be careful. As in "it seems like somebody would put a trap here", and then making them search for shit the old fashioned way: by describing everything they do, and poking and prodding until they figure things out. Of course, in order for this to work, you need a fairly high level of success: maybe a 3 out of 6 chance, on average, for somebody in the party to sense that something's up, with the thief's skill being a saving throw if that's failed.
>>47916315
Pretty much. The official rules have a Search roll cover a 10 foot area and take about 10 min/1 turn. I myself like to broaden it out to certain basic areas if the room isn't huge; ie) a particular object, a particular wall, a small length of a hallway.
For a much larger room, like a chapel or auditorium, I'd definitely need them to pick more specific sections than just 'the east wall' (which could be 50'+ long) or 'the floor' (which would be vast).
If your DM style really wanted you to give characters a sort of "6th sense" to danger or hidden secrets in a room (I wouldn't DM that way) I'd just secretly roll under the highest WIS characters ability score. Alternately, you could just roll a check of the highest Search skill in secret, and if it passes, give em a warning.
>>47907763
It's basically "Appendix N: the RPG", and all the gonzo fun and madness that entails. The character funnel is certainly interesting, but it isn't something I ciuld see myself running every single time I started up a new game.
>>47909866
Never ever. My autism will not allow it.
>>47913593
I considered that, but the issue there is it makes players too reliant on stats and brings more unfairness to the character creation- more stats is highly better where as the original has a much bigger spread and was less important.
Secondly, it also makes the option to take or roll for improved saves more alluring.
>>47913593
I'm opposed to making ability scores more important. It was one of 3e's biggest mistakes, and penalizing players for low ability score rolls makes the game less fun.
Class should have a far bigger impact mechanically, in my mind.
>>47919795
Making attributes more important is fine. 3e's problem is that the execution was flawed. MAD vs. SAD and all that.
>>47920948
If attributes become more important, then it becomes harder to justify rolling them. If you're not rolling them, it takes longer to generate a character. If it takes longer to generate a character, they need to be more sturdy so you don't have to keep making new ones at the drop of a hat.
>>47909866
>Do you write in your books?
Jesus christ no!
That shit triggers me so hard. My buddy was using post its in his own book and I was assmad. May as well just wipe your ass with it at that point, sad thing to do to a book.
>>47921281
hell yes write in books - rulebooks are your textbooks, not holy scripture
--
would it be rude to post a pdf of the game I've been writing? It's potentially being published and I don't want to shill.
>>47920948
> MAD vs. SAD and all that.
I'm going to need that explained.
>>47921309
Go for it. /osrg/ supports that kind of thing. Troveguy even hosts stuff (see Wolf Packs and the Winter Snow)
>>47921121
>If attributes become more important, then it becomes harder to justify rolling them.
Oh, I agree. Or at least you need a way that keeps everybody on the same level. carddraw.jpg
> If you're not rolling them, it takes longer to generate a character. If it takes longer to generate a character, they need to be more sturdy so you don't have to keep making new ones at the drop of a hat.
I don't think point allocation dramatically increases the time it takes to make a character. Sure, it takes a bit longer, but not enough to necessitate changing the way you run your adventures.
>>47921361
Multiple Attribute Dependency vs. Single Attribute Dependency. A wizard does pretty well just maxing out his Intelligence. A monk needs a pretty decent Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom and Constitution. So a monk ends up being spread thin compared to a wizard.
>>47921309
>would it be rude to post a pdf of the game I've been writing? It's potentially being published and I don't want to shill.
Not at all. I can't guarantee you that you'll get much if anything in the way of feedback, but it's certainly not going to offend anybody, and chances are that at least somebody is going to get something out of it, even if it's a silent lurker.
>>47921452
> I don't think point allocation dramatically increases the time it takes to make a character.
Honestly, my hatred of point buy stems from optimization issues. You always wind up seeing players with very similar, safe, boring stat lines that are tailored specifically to be the best at the character class chosen.
I absolutely love the results from random ability scores. Some of my most memorable characters have been really underpowered, or really good at things that I would have never chosen for them. You don't get high charisma or wisdom fighters in a point-buy system because it is extremely rare that anyone is going to allocate points that way compared to dumping them in strength, dex, or con.
>>47921526
>Honestly, my hatred of point buy stems from optimization issues. You always wind up seeing players with very similar, safe, boring stat lines that are tailored specifically to be the best at the character class chosen.
Yeah. That I agree with. It's nice because it lets you build exactly the character you want, but it's bad because the mechanics corral you towards a relatively small number of combinations, especially in a system like D&D, which has a pretty strong combat focus when it comes to explicit mechanics.
>I absolutely love the results from random ability scores.
I appreciate the randomness of allocation, but I'm less wild about how some characters end up being strongly favored overall. And it means that you need limit the impact of attributes.
>>47921583
> And it means that you need limit the impact of attributes.
So use something like the "random but fair attributes" chart that shows up from time to time. I started doing a variant of the idea that's class-specific, letting you choose to play an elf first (for instance) and then roll a chart tailored to elves as a class to determine attributes.
>>47921646
>letting you choose to play an elf first (for instance) and then roll a chart tailored to elves as a class to determine attributes.
That's a pretty cool idea.
>>47907242
>what are situations or circumstance where a PC doesn't have the opportunity for a saving throw against magic? or is it *always* an option?
No, it's not always an option. For instance, many spells specify a save against something else, most commonly Death Ray. You don't get to roll both saves, nor do you get to choose which one to roll (but it doesn't make sense to roll vs. spell anyway, as the Poison/Death Ray save is always a better value). And as noted some spells deliberately do not permit a save, such as Sleep. You only save vs. spell if the spell is not cast from a rod, staff or wand, allows a save, and doesn't specify another saving throw to roll against.
But if your question was about situations like being surprised, tied up or knocked out, then yes, in most editions you always get a save regardless of your physical situation. IIRC some editions even let you save against an unwanted Raise Dead even though you'd obviously be *dead* when making that roll.
alrighty, here we go lads
https://mega.nz/#!i44lXYQT!FQDHT5RC_i7CMl4BOANU4FjCQ8lkpKDhLqoN2-0Aqa0
it's kinda D&D run through WFRP for tone with simplification in mind
>>47921121
You can still make them random.
Me and my group uses cards with numbers as dice, 3 cards become one ability score. We atleast thik it's fair because everybody gets the same total score but still random individual scores
We only have 5 ability scores and uses the numbers 666555444332211
>>47908006
Carcosa is probably the nicest physical RPG product. Like, full stop.
>>47912759
>>47913252
It should be pointed out that this isn't really how it works outside LotFP. In D&D proper the detection chance is meant to be rolled automatically and instantly, and represents "something just catching your eye". If you search a room this takes one turn and it's handled freeform, with the expectation that players will notice anything that's reasonably visible in an area they search. E.g. scanning the floor carefully means noticing any protruding stones, pressure plate seams etc.
>>47922190
> Carcosa is probably the nicest physical RPG product. Like, full stop.
Is it "nicest" or "nichest"? Because I'm not too keen on Carcosa. Spells are literally tied to the hex map of Carcosa, for example.
>>47922496
>In D&D proper the detection chance is meant to be rolled automatically and instantly, and represents "something just catching your eye".
AD&D called - it said something about taking 1-10 rounds to look for small mechanical traps in a specific place.
They also told me to mention that OD&D and B/X also have you take a turn to search a 10'x10' area for secret doors, and that in the former Dwarves only notice slanting passages/shifting walls/traps/new construction "when looking for them".
The instant roll thing is more of a 3E thing, I think? It's somewhat popular to backport, although at some point I think it's probably better to just grab 4E's passive perception instead.
>>47922569
Nicest. As a physical product it's basically unbeatable, unless you count tiny-edition hype shit like those 25th anniversary editions of CoC.
>>47922697
> As a physical product
Ah. That makes more sense.
What are some good aztec-themed modules and adventures, both tsr and osr
What genre doesn't have a osr game to fulfil it? How far can osr games go in terms of wild/crazy stuff?
>>47923291
That's the same logic that plagued the d20 system, y'know.
OSR works best in a logistics-focused fantasy dungeoncrawl - the further you move from that, the better off you are just using a different system as the base.
Fuck, one big answer is "any genre that lacks combat". Next up comes comedy, heroic stuff, and modern no-magic stuff.
As soon as you wander into a genre where hit points are unsuitable, you start to wander beyond the domain of OSR.
>>47923389
So mad maxian osr wouldn't work as well? It could do hex crawly stuff
>>47923389
> OSR works best in a logistics-focused fantasy dungeoncrawl - the further you move from that, the better off you are just using a different system as the base.
That depends on the definition of OSR you are using.
>>47923291
> What genre doesn't have a osr game to fulfil it?
We don't have transhumanist (body-swapping, Ecplise Phase style) OSR, IIRC.
> How far can osr games go in terms of wild/crazy stuff?
As far as you can take it. I don't think many games went as far as Planescape.
Can someone help me.
Why are adventurers needed when there are armies?
I dont get why the keep cannot raise 20 men and storm the caves of chaos
Sure, the wilds are dangerous, but less so to a bigger number of well prepared people
>>47923760
Because while two men could do the job of a second-level Fighter, chances are that one of those would die.
Meanwhile, the adventurer is one of those suicidal fuckers who would probably do it anyway and doesn't ask for payment beyond looting rights. And pays for their own equipment and lodgings.
Also, and I'm not entirely sure if you're aware of this, but the Caves of Chaos are probably actually a superior military force to the Castellan's? The only reason they aren't too much of a threat at the moment is because they aren't united, but if an outside threat shows up...
>>47922024
I dig this quite a bit actually. Still reading through it, but it's nicely presented.
>>47923862
Would a typical soldier be a lvl0 character or a lvl1 character?
I guess my question is, wouldn't a group of murder hobos be enough to unite the caves after they start clearing some of them?
>>47924167
the actual version will probably have much better layout, but hopefully keeping the art style
>>47924187
d8 hit dice Normal Man, depending on the system they either have the same THAC0 as a Fighting-Man or one lower - the same goes for saves as well, I think? I'd need to check.
The level one title for the Fighter is Veteran for a reason, y'know.
The thing with the Caves of Chaos is that it's pretty damn difficult to "clear" them - if you hurt the orcs hard enough the other tribe expands into their area etc. So all in all it's less a threat to everyone than it is a threat to an individual group - and the other groups might be fine with that group being wiped out.
On the other hand, a military operation is a lot less ignorable. Especially if they aren't quite as mercenary as adventurers are (or will have to be in the CoC, at least - hacking & slashing is a death sentence in that place).
>>47922496
I'm pretty sure it's this >>47922686
Traps have an automatic 1-in-6 to go off on you (or 2-in-6, whatever), but you need to spend one turn (10 minutes) to get to roll the 1-in-6 search function.
>>47924239
Alright, thanks, that's pretty helpful.
I've been meaning to run a game inspired by the Keep's premise, but never running it as-is before, I have difficulties grasping some of the more obvious assumptions that should be taken.
One last question. What stops the rest of civilization from reinforcing the Keep and starting to conquer the area for its land?
>>47922496
wait, i've never played nor DMed B/X proper. but the '81 edition says:
SECRET DOORS:
"A secret door is any door that is hidden or concealed.
A secret door usually does not look like a door; it may be a
sliding panel or hidden under a rug. Any character has a 1 in 6
chance of finding a secret door; any elf has a 2 in 6 chance. The
DM should only check for finding a secret door if a player says that
the character is searching for one and searching for one in the correct
area. The search takes one turn. Each character has only one
chance to find each secret door."
TRAPS:
Dungeons often contain traps, such as a trap door in the floor
which springs open when a character walks over it. If any character
does something which could trigger a trap (such as walking over a
certain point), the trap will be sprung on a roll of 1-2 (on 1d6). The
DM must check for each character passing the spot until the trap is
either sprung or safely passed by all. Trap damage is usually automatic
once sprung, and traps are not considered part of combat.
Monsters may either have the same chances as characters, or
might never spring traps; the choice is left to the DM.
"Any character has a 1 in 6 chance of finding a trap when searching
for one in the correct area. Any dwarf has a 2 in 6 chance. (This
does not apply to magical traps, such as a sleep trap.) Checking a
specific area for a trap will take one full turn. The DM should only
check for finding a trap if a player says that the character is searching
for one. Each character may only check once to find each trap."
that doesn't sound like a "something just catching your eye" roll to me.
>>47922024
I've actually seen this floating around G+. Nifty.
>>47924280
> One last question. What stops the rest of civilization from reinforcing the Keep and starting to conquer the area for its land?
Not him, but your question is very weird. What are you even talking about? Socio-political situation of the Karameikos?
>>47924498
Well, historically, unclaimed land is extremely valuable and wouldn't just be ignored with one under-stacked Keep barely there.
I just wonder what's the "standard" DnD answer to that.
>>47924577
> Well, historically, unclaimed land is extremely valuable
No. That was true in a very specific time, in a very specific place. Not every place is Medieval Western Europe.
Take a look at Roman or Chinese empires, for example. Both had long borderlands for a very long time. The same goes for Egypt, Russia, India, and Persia.
> I just wonder what's the "standard" DnD answer to that.
There is no "standard" DnD.
>>47924577
Keep in mind, old-school D&D (particularly the generic material for B/x and a lot of the early stuff) had a lot of assumptions about the setting built into the rules. It's assumed that there are ruins all over the place with treasures and wondrous artefacts of some bygone age. The setting is almost post-apocalyptic in many ways, with the wilderness being this vast, untamed and ridiculously dangerous place that belonged to the forces of chaos, with the only "safe" places being pockets of civilisation. This is nowhere better exemplified than in Keep on the Borderlands.
As to why they don't just go clear the caves of chaos themselves -- to what end? The fort certainly doesn't have the intel to know exactly how many enemies they are facing, which makes going in a terrible idea from the outset even without pointing out that their job is to defend the fort and they'd have to leave the fort unguarded to do so. Even if we assume that the fort's garrison could take out all of the monsters and other secret terrible stuff out there, they are going to suffer horrible losses in the process and while they are doing so, compromising their ability to hold the fort when the next inevitable wave of terrible comes in. Humans certainly aren't going to settle the caves of chaos, so all you're doing is clearing out the habitat for some future badness to move in. On top of all of this, there are also kobolds and bandits in the region that could potentially raid the fort when it's either unguarded or undermanned because half the people are dead.
>>47924746
Fair point, fair point. I'll keep that in mind.
>There is no "standard" DnD.
I meant it as "standart DnD-answer" and not as "standard-DnD answer"
>>47924941
This has been put excellently and I can perfectly visualize the entire situation now. Thank you a bunch.
>>47923862
>Also, and I'm not entirely sure if you're aware of this, but the Caves of Chaos are probably actually a superior military force to the Castellan's? The only reason they aren't too much of a threat at the moment is because they aren't united, but if an outside threat shows up...
That and the Castellan has the keep, which is obviously a big advantage. They could probably hold out against a pretty long siege from the forces of Chaos, so there's sort of a built-in equilibrium in the scenario pre-PCs. Just one of those details about it that makes Keep so good.
What's your current system of choice? How have you house rules things?
Currently using LotFP.
>Clerics and MUs get one prepped spells scroll at creation alongside their normal spell.
>Medicine Skill + one use medkit (20sp).
>Roll-under ability score for questionable/difficult actions.
>Self-amputation requires a successful Medicine roll to do it without damage (1d4).
>Rule of Cool almost always.
I'm considering making Read Magic a free-use 'cantrip' of sorts, but don't know if it will ruin anything.
>>47923760
Make 20 0-level men. Storm the Caves. See what happens. It might be fun as a lark, and any of those 0-level men who survive could become adventurers with real class levels.
>>47925951
> Make 20 0-level men. Storm the Caves
Caves are for pussies! There is more wealth in Keep!
>>47926011unless the caves is under the keep, what then?
>>47925927
I don't think it would break anything per se, but it would heavily favor Magic Users in that they could easily decipher large piles of magic writings for essentially no cost or time investment.
>>47926011
>There is more wealth in Keep!
How would the players know that?
>>47926074
Common sense.
>>47925927
Labrynth Lord
The only thing I ever house ruled is a magic item that an Orc Warboss dropped.
>the unicorn horn: this off colored horn that hangs on ratty leather strap necklace gives the wearer some magical resistance to magic, when worn, the user is treated as if they are a dwarf in terms of magic saves. If the user is a dwarf, he is treated as if he was a level higher on his saves.
>>47926011
>>47926074
>>47926080
Can confirm. Around level 2, the party had worked out a deal with both the goblins and the orcs. They used the latter as footsoldiers to storm the keep and rob it instead. This happened after they realized how many shiny bits all of the major NPCs were wearing.
>>47925927
Basic Fantasy RPG
>Max hit die at first level
>Most of the optional rules at the back are in play, including Save vs. Death and mitigating Save or Die poisons
>Magic-Users are allowed to use crossbows
>Druids as described in the Morgansfort campaign book are an option for Clerics
Been also considering porting the Assassin's assassinate ability and giving it to the Thief in lieu of their normal sneak attack, with the restriction that it only works on enemies that have fewer hit dice than the thief.
>>47926507
I've always hated class based weapon restrictions. Could never see the point, and I'm glad LotFP did away with it.
When you look at new OSR games, are you looking for something very rules-light (white hack, The Black Hack, S&W White box)) or something with more crunch to it (AD&D, ACKS, AS&SH)
>>47926974
Neither.
I'm looking for ergonomy and death of Sacred Cows of DnD.
>>47926011
Certainly, but I was advising that other anon that he could play out his "the Keep solves its own problems" scenario that he was wondering about.
Heck, you could play a version of this where an orc or goblin tribe loots the Keep (and the PCs play the goblins or orcs).
>>47926941
Presumably it's to protect the Fighter's niche, but I might just give that class extra attacks as they level.
>>47927339
Or you could follow LotFP's example of Fighters getting an attack bonus of 1+their level, vs everyone else's flat 1.
>>47925927
My own homebrew. It's all house rules.
But that's only because I'm an insufferable special snowflake. For fantasy I like just 3 classes, clerics rolled into MUs, and I'm also trying to make some stuff without classes for urban fantasy.
>>47927387
> My own homebrew. It's all house rules.
Gibe. I need ideas to fuel my world domina- ... I mean OSRish homebrew.Will post it when it gets finished.
>>47927544
Sure, here's the newer more 'rules lite' one that I actually like...
>>47927544
...And here's the much older, much shitter one. It's a lot more rules complicated and has incomplete mechanics, you'll have to excuse it. I do like the classes, but other than that I much prefer the lite rules.
>>47927779
Oops, that's not even the heavy rules one, that's an even older FATE based one.
HERE is the rules heavy one. As you can see I've been working on this shit for a while.
I'm done shitting up the thread now, promise.
>>47926941
It's a balancing thing - Magic-Users get daggers, which are arguably the worst weapon in Chainmail, and thus also only have access to a paltry few magic weapons - none of which are all that impressive. However, being magic-users they get exclusive access to some very impressive rods and balls.
Clerics get maces and hammers, pretty much, which are better than daggers but generally pretty average. The magical versions of said weapons are alright but boring, and the most impressive one (+3 dwarven hammer) is only really impressive if a Dwarf is using it. And they can't be Clerics.
Fighters, meanwhile, lose out on vast swaths of the more magical magic items but also get access to the entirety of the weapon selection. Also, magical swords are probably some of the best magic items in the game.
But yeah, it's a balancing thing. Fighters can't use the Staff of the Archmage, Magic-Users can't use Excalibur.
Also, perhaps unintentionally, OD&D Fighters are the only class with access to a ranged weapon. Greyhawk changed that by adding slings to the lineup, however.
Whether or not all of this is relevant to your system of choice is up to you. Probably not, if enough other stuff has been changed.
>>47927763
>>47927779
>>47927852
Hoarded.
>>47927863
> It's a balancing thing
It's a bullshit legacy from wargames and lack of imagination. Fighters should've been NPC class or should've gotten weaboo fightan magic of some sort.
>>47926974
Rules light, ease of compatibility with modules and other material. Evocative setting and random tables are good too, but I can steal those from all kinds of other stuff.
>>47928094
Fighters in Chainmail were pretty much anti-trash and able to walk up to a group of mooks and annihilate entire swaths of them in a flash.
>>47928094
>Fighters should've been NPC
Ok kids choose who you're playing. Spellcaster 1 or spellcaster 2? What's the difference, you ask? Well, one of them has a god!
>>47928094
>It's a bullshit legacy from wargames and lack of imagination. Fighters should've been NPC class or should've gotten weaboo fightan magic of some sort.
How can it be a wargame legacy thing when Chainmail wizards could use magic swords?
It's entirely a niche protection decision.
Also, dem magic swords man. In OD&D every single one has an alignment, for instance, and half of them are actually intelligent enough to have extra powers.
Even the most boring one - a Lawful sword +1 with minimal intelligence - will smite the fuck out of any orc who tries to use it. A more interesting sword will literally make you into Superman, and mind control anyone who tries to pick it up.
The Fighting-Man is very much defined by his magic items, for good and bad.
And the attacks. Good god, that's a lot of attacks. An extreme example would give you forty four attacks in one round, although the actual number would probably be lower on account of the guy being deader than dirt after less than a dozen attacks.
Also high-level Fighters can see invisible dudes and that's hardly ever mentioned, even in Chainmail. What's the deal with that?
>>47928321
>Also high-level Fighters can see invisible dudes and that's hardly ever mentioned, even in Chainmail. What's the deal with that?
Also in Chainmail, it's dangerous to send a Dragon unit flying over a Hero or Superhero unit. The Superhero can pull out a bow and shoot your dragon out of the sky on a 2d6 roll of 7+, which is average.
The Superhero fights as eight men in combat, allowing him to bust through enemy lines like Sauron in Fellowship of the Ring. Much like Sauron, when he takes to the field, enemy combatants immediately have to make morale checks or break on the spot.
Fighters got nerfed over the years, man.
>>47921721
beyond the wall does that
>>47928413
I mean, the thing I'm specifically bugged about regarding the Chainmail/LBB Superhero is the whole "can detect hidden foes" thing.
AS far as I know, it's only ever referenced in two places.
Chainmail, Fantasy Reference Table
>F - The ability to detect hidden invisible enemies
There's four units with this ability:
>Dragons, specified in description as detecting hidden or invisible enemies within 15"
>Rocs, specified in description as detecting hidden critters within 48" but not invisible ones
>Wraiths and Superheros, who don't say shit on the topic
My best guess is that it simply lets them attack hidden enemies - the invisibility ability of hobbits, pixies, elves and wizards seems to just make them untargetable by attacks. Hell if I know if that's correct, though.
I mean, fuck maybe it's supposed to be handled like those weird-ass undermining rules. Secret movement all up in this bitch.
This wouldn't annoy me that much, really, if it weren't for this little paragraph in OD&D;
>PIXIES: Air sprites as described in CHAINMAIL, Pixies can be made visible, or make themselves visible, but they are naturally invisible to human eyes. Therefor, they are able to attack while remaining generally invisible. They can be seen clearly only when a spell to make them visible is employed, although certain monsters such as Dragons and high-level fighters will be aware of their presence.
I mean, look at this shit.
>They can be seen clearly only when a spell to make them visible is employed, although [...] high-level fighters will be aware of their presence.
This doesn't show up anywhere else. I've checked. The only way I know what it's even referring to is because I'm annoyed at Chainmail.
What the actual fuck.
Do you think DCCs 'deed dice' could be added to LotFP without fucking combat up? Not the additional bonus to hit, but the concept of saying what you want to attempt (disarm, body shot, tripping, etc) and if it lands on 3, its a success.
>>47929284
I'm using it with rolling twice. Once for hitting. If that's a hit, he can roll again to see if the stunt succeeds too. Due to the fighter's attack score getting bigger, it's mathematically around the same.
>>47929284
I prefer simply having the player roll two attack rolls. If they both work, he does his damage AND performs the stunt. If only one succeeds, he has to pick either or. If they both fail, he'll get in some kind of jam, which discourages doing this on every turn forever.
Does anybody know the alternative to lomion.de?
>>47925927
>>47926507
BFRPG here as well. I'm glad to see it getting more love. I don't understand why anybody would use another retroclone. To me it's either this or 5e.
Hit Dice. Players may use hit dice (equal to their class and level) to heal themselves when resting. Players regain half their spent hit die per day of full rest, and always regain at least 1 hit die. For example a level 1 Human Fighter would regain 1d8+con HP and lose his Hit Dice for the day. This is to midigate the Clerics being useless at level 1.
Attacks of opportunity.
Experience for gold pieces recovered.
Save vs Death
Every 4 levels the players may increase an ability score by 2 points or 2 ability scores by 1 point. Ability scores may not go above 18. Max level is 20.
When rolling a new character they may use their max hit die plus their constitution modifier at first level. If their ability modifiers total less than 0 they may reroll or subtract their ability score from 20 and use that as their new score. For example if their abilities and modifiers look like this:
7 -1
8 -1
10 0
7 -1
7 -1
9 0
They can make their character look like this:
13 +1
12 0
10 0
13 +1
13 +1
11 0
>>47928094
I like 5e's proficiency system. You can use any weapon you want but you wont get your level bonus with it. If you're wearing armor you're not proficient in you cannot cast spells, you also need a free hand and be able to speak and gesticulate.
>>47927303
> I'm looking for ergonomy and death of Sacred Cows of DnD
What does that even mean? And at what point does "kill all the sacred cows" become counterproductive compared to playing some other kind of game instead?
>>47931764
>What does that even mean?
It depends on how verisimilitudinous your milieu is, I bet. I think that guy's is "not very."
>>47931529
I'd still say the other retroclones have their merits, especially when it comes to ideas to smooth out gameplay like LotFP's encumbrance, ACKS's empire management and class building, and S&W's single save category. Plus some of the best OSR adventures are made with Labyrinth Lord or Lamentations in mind, though that's not too much of a problem as the most you need to usually do is just convert the AC. BFRPG is my choice primarily because it's easier to ease players of other editions in with ascending AC and separating race and class.
>>47931764
Not that guy, but there's plenty of sacred cows in OSR that really don't need to be.
Any system that uses modifiers but doesn't have a direct use for attributes, for instance. Or, y'know, descending AC.
Those two are probably the biggest, IMHO, but you've also got stuff like playing up the TotM aspect but keeping concrete distances in spell descriptions, or moving away from GP=XP but keeping encumbrance, or using all-weapons-are-the-same/universal d6 damage and yet having a longsword cost more than a dagger, or just generally leaving spells unchanged from their B/X versions (a big sin IMHO).
Or, hell, the whole idea of instant death poison on a failed save. That's only a thing that works if you want a lethal game, y'know. Double so for the OD&D version where you lose half your remaining HP on a successful save.
At some point it's definitely a better idea to just look for a different game, though, I'll have to agree with that. My go-to example would be that one-shot horror is done better by Dread - on the other hand, Dread fucking sucks for anything that isn't one-shot horror. Use the right system for your game, and don't try to fit the square peg into a round hole by using B/X to play Star Trek TOS or something dumb like that.
>>47930697
What was lomion.de?
>>47932203
A site that archived all of the 2E Monstrous Manual monsters in a HTML format. It's had a pretty shaky connection the last while, I think.
Also it might have had other non-MM stuff but hell if I ever used them.
>>47931529
BFRPG. Is that not in the trove?
>>47932290
If it's 2e stuff, purpleworm is the best reference site around.
>>47932302
No, but everything's free on the basicfantasy.org website so there's really no reason to mirror it on there.
>>47932373
It is, but I'm pretty sure it's missing all the looseleaf monsters that were released for 2E. Y'know, the whole misguided binder thingy.
It would probably have worked better if they didn't print two monsters on opposite sides of the sheet, meaning that later on if another monster appeared alphabetically between them the sorting system was ruined forever. (They did, and it was.)
I mean, shit, just look at the google cache for lomion.de's Complete Monstrous Manual indec:
>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DPcCPUIcMSMJ:www.lomion.de/cmm/_index.php+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=se&client=firefox-b
That's a hell of a lot of monsters!
I think all purpleworm has in its rules section is the material on the old CD, which wasn't really all that comprehensive.
>>47932480
Do we know that it's permanently gone? If it ever comes up, someone ought to try to archive them.
>>47932584
You can still see it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141209201930/http://www.lomion.de/cmm/_contents.php
Did this MS Paint thingy for a friend of mine, but figured you guys would appreciate it.
The Black Hack seems to be the next big thing in OSR, despite being a fairly large mechanical departure in many ways. None the less there are countless people developing different stuff under that banner.
Is the future of OSR ultra-light D&D derivatives?
So I'm considering doing two-tiered spell effects. I'm not sure whether it would be better to give two saves (for full effect / partial effect / no effect) or just one (with a failed save indicating a lesser effect). Why do this? It's frustrating to waste your time and blow a spell to have it do absolutely nothing. At least with a sword strike, there are cinematics that go with a failed attack (you lunge forward, swinging in a wide arc at the hobgoblin's head, but he batters your sword aside with shield and makes a quick thrust at your exposed midsection...). And, of course, you haven't depleted your "sword strike" for the day. With a failed Hold Person, nothing happens.
Having some relatively minor effect happen on failure (how minor would depend on the way saves worked, but it could be something like being stunned for a turn and getting -2 to rolls or maybe losing an action) would help this and take away the artificiality of the "all or nothing" approach. Now, obviously this would affect spell power, and things would have to be adjusted to compensate (by making saves easier, for instance), but I don't think things would be too difficult to balance.
There might be some standardization to partial effects to make things easier to manage--a few common effects like Stun--and avoid the pitfall of making casting too reference-dependent (as DCC-style spell tables are). Regardless, I'd want partial effects to be very simple and quick to implement.
What do you think?
is there a PDF copy of BFRPG that has bookmarks?
>>47934632
Release 97 has them, but not the recent releases until someone in the community gets on doing that. Wonder how hard it would be to port bookmarks from one PDF to another.
FYI, /osrg/, some guy's looking for opinions on his OC: >>47933908
What's the best dungeon crawl you've ever ran or been a part of?
>>47928413
>The Superhero can pull out a bow and shoot your dragon out of the sky on a 2d6 roll of 7+, which is average.
Is that with or without magic arrows?
>>47932031
>Or, y'know, descending AC.
Does it really count as a sacred cow if everybody gleefully slaughters it all the time?
Rando module share. I'm diggin this one.
Which trap is more devious:
A. a pile of leaves in the middle of a dungeon (ie. an obvious pit-trap) concealing a pressure plate which disarms a trap further down the corridor
B. A pile of leaves in the middle of the dungeon which is actually pit trap
>>47935863
A for sure.
Better yet, combine them both. Player falls into a pit, takes falling damage and cant get out, but the floor has a plate disarming the trap ahead.
How do you guys feel about critical hit tables?
>>47936174
Am I playing WFRP? Sure.
Am I playing Rolemaster? What the fuck is wrong with me, but yeah.
Anywhere else, fug that.
>>47936174
Replace with scrabble tiles.
>>47936174
Slow the game down too much, IMO.
>>47936834
because rolling an extra dice or two is so unprecedented in RPGs. hah.
>https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1409961192/mutant-crawl-classics-rpg-mcc-rpg/comments
MCC kickstarter is up: for fans of DCC, Gamma World, Mutant Future etc.
>>47936970
It's the "look up the results on the chart" bit that breaks the flow of the game.
>>47931764
> at what point does "kill all the sacred cows" become counterproductive compared to playing some other kind of game instead?
That guy. How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap of sand?
For example, LotFP dropped gold, Attack Bonuses for non-Fighters, and old weight system. Dare you say it was counterproductive? I say: let us keep killing sacred cows, until we can say that it serves no purpose.
How do I rework save or die poison effects to be less instant death, but keep their deviousness?
>>47935433
> Does it really count as a sacred cow if everybody gleefully slaughters it all the time?
No. But killing the whole AC concept would.
>>47935953
> Better yet, combine them both. Player falls into a pit, takes falling damage and cant get out, but the floor has a plate disarming the trap ahead.
That's really not how it should work.
>>47938678
> How do I rework save or die poison effects to be less instant death, but keep their deviousness?
Give 2d6 rounds of coughing up blood before death? And there should be different poisons.
>>47911614
you should get it, even if you never run it DCC is a beautiful book full of wonderful things
>>47925927
>What's your current system of choice? How have you house rules things?
Microlite 74, and as for house-rules, well still sorting them out, might post them here when I do though
>>47926974
honestly it depends on the game and how it advertises itself, as my personal preferences shift all the time, although most OSR games are great in at least one area(and indeed most OSR games I own there's probably at least one bit I'd steal for use in another, like how ACKS handles Cleave, that's something I'd use in pretty much any OSR game I'd run except DCC)
>>47927339
use ACKS' Cleave rules, they make Fighters really damn strong in combat as they level
>>47928094
>It's a bullshit legacy from wargames and lack of imagination. Fighters should've been NPC class or should've gotten weaboo fightan magic of some sort.
OD&D Fighters actually were pretty superhuman even at level one if you pay enough attention to the rules, even if they don't become equal to their Chainmail counterparts till around level 4 or 5
also in my campaigns unless it's a low fantasy setting(and I don't use those often) I generally assume all classed characters from level 1 onward are indeed supernatural in some form or another, even if it's not always as obvious as it is with Wizards
>>47932031
>don't try to fit the square peg into a round hole by using B/X to play Star Trek TOS or something dumb like that.
honestly I'd probably have more fun doing that than using a system built from the ground up for that purpose, if mostly cause I've found most non D&D derived systems to be terrible and/or boring in some form or another, plus honestly it wouldn't be hard at all to modify BX to work for Star Trek, it even pegs into the Class system fairly effortlessly
>>47933447
OSR jumps onto new trends all the time, heck DCC was the hot ticket for a while
>>47936174
depends on a lot of different things really
>>47935259
It's 8+(41.67%) for normal arrows, 7+(58.33) for "enchanted" ones.
Of course, the Superhero also has 21" range and the Dragon has a 25" move immediately followed by a 9" firebreath that the Superhero must roll 7+ to survive, so it's more of an even match than you might think.
Also, of course, Dragons won't automatically attack Superheros and also cost twice as much. So, well, that's a thing.
>>47938678
Well, one feature of poison is that it's the great equalizer - it kills the Lord as well as the Veteran. It doesn't give a shit about HP, which means that the monsters that have poison stay a threat.
Of course, at lower levels poison doesn't really matter much, if at all - a goblin could kill in one hit even without a poisoned arrow. It's only once you've got higher-level characters that it becomes a real threat, since you've moved out of the danger zone for common enemies.
As a side note, it's really similar to dragonbreath in some ways. Except dragonbreath in some cases is basically a save-AND-die, since it can do so much damage.
There are multiple ways to "fix" poison, though. There's the gradual death of >>47938696, there's BECMI's "X damage per monster hit die on failed save", there's even HP-ignoring stuff like just nicking OD&D's result for a successful save and having poison halve your hit points.
Or you can go for the more annoying 3E thing where it does ability damage - that's a major pain in the asshole, though, so I reccomend against it. You can also just have it give other status effects or just knock the character unconscious with them dying if they don't get treatment within X days.
Read up on actual poisons and figure out what it is you want. Direct damage is probably your best bet, IMHO, AD&D Assassin-style.
Bumping from page 8.
So what are your opinions on save-or-die effects? Should players have access to such effects? Who should/should not be immune? Should they all target vs. death, or is it alright for them to target harder saves like vs. spell?
On a similar note, should Finger of Death be vs. Spell or vs. Death Ray?
>>47902263
I desperately need a module (of any level or system) with the maps for a manor, preferably abandoned and filled with orcs. Save me /osrg/ you are my only hope.
Sorry for ask this but where in the trove are the handbooks dedicated to historical settings for AD&D?
>>47940259
Folders are:
*> TSR
**> AD&D 2nd Edition
***> AD&D2e Core Hist Reference Sourcebook
Enjoy the read, bruh.
>>47940219
How about Judges Guild's Tegel Manor? Might be a bit too big for you, though.
>>47938949
>honestly it wouldn't be hard at all to modify BX to work for Star Trek, it even pegs into the Class system fairly effortlessly
Yeah, there's already a clone for it, and not even a retroclone - Starships and Spacemen, published in '77, was only the second science fiction RPG ever published, and was recently given a second edition by Goblinoid Games. It's in the Trove, and skimming it over, I found that it's actually surprisingly good. I don't know how it would go at the table, but I liked what I saw.
>>47940219
>>47941815
>>47940219
Tegel Manor by Judges Guild
Does anyone have Hack&Slash compendiums I and II ?
>>47942227
Could you post the other ones of theses? Also who makes them?
>>47942309
> Also who makes them?
hackandslashmaster.blogspot
> Could you post the other ones of theses?
Well, I've got third compendium, but its w-marked.Googling about cleaning intensifies
>>47942374
> hackslashmaster.blogspot
fix
>>47942374
>>47942391
Thanks mister.
>>47938949
>and indeed most OSR games I own there's probably at least one bit I'd steal for use in another, like how ACKS handles Cleave, that's something I'd use in pretty much any OSR game I'd run except DCC
What's so great about cleave in ACKS (not familiar with the system) and why wouldn't you use it in DCC?
>>47942868
DCC has its own thing for Fighters.
As for ACKS, have a look.
>>47942868
>>47943021
They key thing is that ACKS Fighters also get bonus damage as they level up, which indirectly makes Cleaves more potent.
By level 12 a Fighter has a base +5 damage bonus, which is means a single hit on any man is almost a guaranteed deathblow (assuming a d8 hit die; with a +3 weapon or greater, it's absolutely assured).
Said 12th level Fighter is almost guaranteed to cut through a platoon of men in a single attack.
I'm working on some houserules for ACKS to provide a way for MUs to specialize. How do the following powers sound?
An MU's starting proficiency must be spent on one of the following Lores (or roll 1d8 to determine randomly, re-rolling invalid picks), which lets you pick a starting spell based from the lore list and gain benefit #1. Spending a second proficiency on your starting Lore will grant the second bonus.
The Lore selected will also influence spells added to the repetoire with experience (although spells can always be found in the world otherwise).
Lore of the Charter (Charter mages only)
starting spell choice: Any
1. +2 to saving throws vs. any non-Charter magic source
2. Spells that protect against magic of any kind (ex. Shield, Globe of Invulnerability) have their duration extended by 50% (round down)
Lore of Fire/Ice/Storms:
starting spell choices: Magic Missile (picked element only) Burning Hands/Slipperiness/Light (based on element)
1. +1 damage per die for spells of selected element
2. -2 to saves for spells of that element
Lore of Metal
starting spell choice: Sharpness, Shield, Floating Disc, Hold Portal, Read Languages
1. +2 to magical research rolls for constructs, +1 to research rolls to make items
2. spells that enchant inanimate items or create walls/barriers (including shield) have their duration increased by 1 round/turn (whichever nomenclature is used in the description)
Lore of Clouds
starting spell choice: Sleep, Charm Person, Wall of Smoke
1. +2 saves vs. clouds
2. spells that create clouds give a -2
Are these getting too complex?
>>47944180
> with a +3 weapon or greater
+2
>>47944207
I like it, reminds me of Monastic Wizards from Goblin Punch.
>>47944331
What I'm mostly worried about here is that this might get too fiddly or too complex to digest. At the same time a single proficiency with only one level seems kind of boring.
>>47944207
>>47944439
Well, if you ask me - it is too fiddly. But then it's ACKS, which is bit too fiddly for me already.I'm being unhelpful, I know.
>>47944439
Why not have a Wizard be able to learn multiple lores, or make each lore have more skills/levels of proficiency? Why not have more interesting powers instead of direct spell-based improvements.
I'm not sure exactly what you're going for, but why not something like;
>Lore of Clouds
1. +2 saves vs clouds
2. spells that create clouds give a -2
3. Wizard can enter combat and always surprise enemies if from a cloud (or fog, smoke, etc)
4. Smoke created from the Wizard's pipe, fire, or hookah can be shaped at will (no practical use, but cool)
5. Can cast any of their spells in gaseous form. Single target spells only create a small amount (enough for a single creature to inhale), but AoE spells create large clouds of gas
6. Caster can cast 'Gaseous Form' at will.
etc.
>>47944827
I'd rather not systematize things too much. The Lores are meant to add flavour and suggest concepts (things like the shaping smoke from a pipe) rather than completely define the character.
If I wanted to go that far I might as well make a custom class using the ACKS rules for building B/X classes (which by the way are excellent). I'm doing this precisely because I don't want to have to build up a ton of different Magic User varieties.
Here's some really random shit I just made up regarding the 'chit pulling' system as proposed by the WWCD blog the other day. What can I say? I was inspired.
Essentially instead of rolling dice for damage you simply draw a tile and the number of the tile is the damage it deals, plus tiles have negative combat effects added to them that can either help the players mitigate them (if low/weak tiles) or really hurt them (if powerful tiles). After each combat/healing tiles should be returned to the bag.
>>47945622
The effects seem pretty fiddly.
Also personally I'd like to let them spend a turn to heal if they can form a word, but that's just 'cause it sounds fun. Maybe add instant death if you have too many tiles.
Fuck, maybe that would work as a magic system. Literally spell out your spells, with relatively freeform effects having to do with whatever the word is. Gotta get some rules down for what powerlevel effects should have, though.
>>47944827
>>47945397
That being said, I'd really appreciate more suggestions for other interesting powers. The reason a lot of these are "direct spell-based improvements" is because I'm an unimaginative hack.
Any more ideas like this for the other lores?
Does it excuse that my getting all my issues of Fight On! from the Trove if I'm saving money to go to GaryCon next February?
I feel like I'm committing some kind of awful sin, but I just want to be able to meet Frank Mentzer ;_;
>>47945756
I'd love to, but I have to go to work soon. Maybe I'll try it when I get back, or piecemeal on my break.
>>47944207
Here's a few ideas.
>Lore of Metal
1. +2 to magical research rolls for constructs, +1 to research rolls to make items
2. spells that enchant inanimate items or create walls/barriers (including shield) have their duration increased by 1 round/turn (whichever nomenclature is used in the description)
3.The caster may expend a spell slot or prepared spell to gain +1 AC per spell level versus metal weapons for a combat round.
4. Either through tasting it or banging it against a wall and listening to the sound, the caster can get a rough aproximation of the composition of a metal object.
5. The caster may have one of his limbs or skull become as hard as steel after a moment of concentration for as long as he concentrates.
6. If the Caster succeeds an unarmed attack vs an armored target AND they fail a save vs magic their metal armor falls off around them.
>>47902263
Does anyone have an alternate DL link for Dyson's Dodecahedron #4? The one in the Trove seems to be busted.
>>47937087
I'd heard of this, and hells yeah! It's like pure awesome! I just hope they do a proper space one after this.
>>47951493
Not sure about the Trove, but here you go.
>>47952534
Thanks!
>>47944207
The other Anon here; I have no idea what the 'mages of the charter' is, so I'll just do the storm one and take my leave.
1. +1 damage per die for spells of selected element
2. -2 to saves for spells of that element
3. +2 to saves the caster makes against that element, also +2 AC against elemental creatures of that element.
4. The caster can 'bottle' his selected element in glass bottles. Each bottle can be thrown as a ranged attack, or used for utility (pour a potion of fire essence onto food to cook it, pour a storm bottle out to make wind for a sail, ice to freeze a path on the lake, etc.) The caster needs a 'pure' source of the element to bottle it (cannot be created via magic) and can only have a number of bottles equal to their caster level at any one time.
5. By concentrating, the caster may ignore the negative damage and effects of his element, or even move through it without danger but his equipment will not be so lucky. Examples include walking on hot coals, walking through a blizzard, being struck by lightning, etc.
6. The caster can, at will, command an amount of his element nearby enough to hear or understand his words. For example, he could tell ice to shift into a sculpture, fire to jump from a log to his torch, or a storm to rain hail upon a rival's house. This cannot deal more then 1d4 damage in a single attack (no lightning bolts), but can be used as much as desired.
Anyway, I hope these helped you out or at least gave you some ideas.
Anyone got that Ready Ref Sheet-compilation pdf?
Is Morgansfort any good?
How does ODnD with Chainmail combat work?
>>47955679
Like an old school combat.What is the question? How to make it work? Or how good it is?
>>47955679
Who knows.
As far as I can tell, it's basically just using the Man-to-Man charts in place of the THAC0 ones, with the associated combat rules (longer weapons strike first on charge, shorter get multiple attacks, etc.)
With a switch to the mass combat rules in, well, mass combat. Mostly just for wilderness adventures, I'd reckon, although you can get some crazy encounter numbers in low dungeon levels depending on how you calculate things.
And no, I don't know what the hell kind of category you get put in depending on your arms and armor. The best advice I can give you is to look at the examples given for the various unit types and try your best to extrapolate from there.
You'll also want to rework the fantasy combat table, for obvious reasons. That'll probably be the trickiest thing, really, although I think you could probably simplify things so that you just stick the vs. Hero/Superhero/Wizard target numbers in the monster statblock.
Also, and this is probably the most important thing to know about using Chainmail with OD&D, but look at the numbers appearing to figure out if something is Fantastic or Normal. If it looks like a modern game would stick a x10 after a die for resolving the amount, they're normal.
Also also, I'd kind of recommend going with 1:10 scale rather than 1:20.
who has ASE2-3?
>>47954217
I love it. I actually have used it (though I scrapped most of that "setting") in other systems like DCC and Darker Dungeons. Looking to get a game of Gray Six going with it as well.
>>47957714
no one ever seen this elusive beast
>>47957900
>Gray Six
Is Gray Six even done? Last I checked it still needed to finish writing up classes and monsters.
in LotFP, only a character lv. 3 or higher can employ a Hireling, correct? Since they must be 2 levels below the character?
>>47958463
> i'm too lazy to check rulebook, i'd rather post on 4chan
> please waste some of your time to answer my questions
No. As long as you have money, you can hire anyone.
>>47958570
>shitposting like a champion
>>47957714
I actually do. Guess I'd need to get the watermark off somehow.
>>47957900
What do you think are its strengths and weaknesses? I'm trying to mix and match elements from similar adventures and am wondering for what someone who ran it already would recommend/warn against.
>>47958229
Pretty much. I'm going to have to hotfix some things but it looks playable enough right now.
>>47958651
It's just all around solid. I never really change much about it except the overall setting it's set in. The Morgansfort setting is just really bland so I add my own pantheon and depending on system slight changes to the townsfolk (add a cultist here, beggar king there, etc.)
CANTRIPS!
Yay or nay? Does anyone have a spell list including cantrips that would mesh well with Basic/LotFP/LL?
>>47958627
please do! everyone has been looking for it for ages.
>>47958796
I make Read Magic, Prestigitation and an "Arcane Bolt" that does a single point of damage all the cantrips unless I'm running DCC.
>>47958627
> I actually do. Guess I'd need to get the watermark off somehow.
Did you get it on drivethroughrpg?
>>47958861
No, on Lulu.
>>47958916
Oh, well. If you do, don't forget to tell what method you used.
>>47958779
Thanks! The stuff I've read of it is pretty good so I feel like I'll be using it as a base.
>>47958796
I have a real problem with cantrips, not gameplay wise, but from my own gradual fluid opinion of hating to liking them that seems to change every 1-5 hours.
Basically I like the idea of Wizards being weak or restrained by the magic system, and while I don't like vancian magic I like the idea of a Wizard 'running out' of spells and needing to help the party in more mundane ways, such as being the torchbearer, translator, medic, etc.
However at the same time I feel like a real wizard would be able to do more then just cast 1 spell a day to justify their usefulness. I also really like Harry Potter style magic where the magic is sort of weak but could be 'spammed' in some way, or is kind of limitless. So a Wizard can cast 1d4 stunning spells all day, or levitate the jail guard's keys, or use the tip of his wand to draw a chalk symbol on a wall to show where they had already been, but fireballs and shit would be way out. The question then becomes when do they get to be 'powerful' or should they be? Would it not be better to let Fighters be the true combat heroes and restrict Wizards to pointless utility? Or would that not turn many people off since many people seem to enjoy the concept of being a POWERFUL Wizard.
In the end, I still haven't decided, but I've kind of been mocking up a side system that I'm planning on using. Essentially instead of spells per day replace with spells per adventure- and each 'spell' isn't a spell at all but a magical effect, power, or item they can bring along with them. The powers have many uses, potentially unlimited, but each power could be destroyed or lost in some way, and are still situational and not meant to be overpowered.
It's slow going but I really do think it's going to be good when I can actually test and describe what I'm talking about to everyone. I've called it 'Magical Loadouts' and similar names before, but I don't have any good names for the concept beyond that. I'd love some advice if anyone has any.
What module would you recommend for a single session (up to 7 hours) dungeon crawl? Needs to be fairly beginner friendly, so Tomb of Horrors is (sadly) out of the question.
>>47960273
Honestly the issue with Wizards in games is that magic is at it's literary best when it's dangerous, unknowable, mysterious, and/or unpredictable.
These don't make very good gameplay options for a player class however since then all the cards are in the hands of the GM and the player has no meaningful choices - which means most of the time, magic spells have to be written up in predictable ways - and it's the actual spells as written that are often the cause of grief rather than how many times a wizard can fling spells.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your idea, but overall the actual magical effects you write up are the ones that will have the biggest impact on how this system plays out, rather than simply fixing the number of castings.
>>47960430
>>47960430
Tower of the Stargazer gets thrown around a lot. Keep on the Borderlands is another but perhaps lends itself better to a few sessions (multiple caves). Village of Hommlet (first in the ToEE series) is another good one.
>>47960434
>Honestly the issue with Wizards in games is that magic is at it's literary best when it's dangerous, unknowable, mysterious, and/or unpredictable.
I agree with this, but I like whimsy too.
>These don't make very good gameplay options for a player class however since then all the cards are in the hands of the GM and the player has no meaningful choices - which means most of the time, magic spells have to be written up in predictable ways - and it's the actual spells as written that are often the cause of grief rather than how many times a wizard can fling spells.
>I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with your idea, but overall the actual magical effects you write up are the ones that will have the biggest impact on how this system plays out, rather than simply fixing the number of castings.
Not trying to be insulting here but did you read my post? At no point did I say I was simply 'fixing the number of castings', the effects are inherently important.
As I was saying, make magic a resource that can be used more then a fixed number but weaker and with other limiters or ways it can be 'taken away' in a bad situation.
>>47960454
Yeah, Keep on the Borderlands is a bit too wide in its scope for what I have in mind. But Village of Hommlet is actually a pretty good idea, never thought of running it as a standalone. I'm gonna read the Tower of the Stargazer too, but seeing as it's from LotFP it might not be my cup of tea. But thanks for the recommendations!
>>47960430
B4 The Lost City is the one I usually like to reccommend, but I'm not really sure how "beginner friendly" it is. It does have a pretty nice "in medias res" feel to it and has ye olde fastpacks to make character generation lightning-quick, though.
The biggest thing that makes it not fit that well to your recommendation, however, is that it doesn't have an "end" that can be achieved in a single session. Then again, it's one of those modules that you could stretch out to an entire campaign if you wanted to.
What exactly are you looking for in a single-session module, actually? Is it just that you don't want there to be a lot of dangling story threads when you wrap up the night? Are you alright with the players ending the session still inside the dungeon, with no real "end" in sight?
I'd tell you to go look at the tournament modules since those were designed for single-session play, but those were also designed for players who were very much NOT beginners so perhaps not.
>>47960430
The Keep on the Borderlands might actually work fine - nothing says that you need to actually clear it out, after all, and in fact the module has suggestions to the effect of making that nigh-impossible - monsters will move around or new ones will move in and all kinds of fun anti-completionist stuff.
The quest isn't to go clear out the caves - it's just to go out and bring back loot. Hell, even if you contribute 1000gp/a magic item to the Keep and the Castellan gives you a mission, it's not going to be "go genocide those fuckers." Mostly because that's nowhere within the reach of the PCs. The Caves are pretty rough, to be honest.
Whichever module you play, though, for the love of all that is holy don't forget reaction rolls and morale checks.
>>47960434
Eh, well, a lot of S&S features either relatively controllable magic or has it as a subset within it. For example, in HPL's fiction, good and evil wizards both existed -- I know of zero who were in between, but what really struck me about magic in HPL's fiction is that its generally very repeatable, and closer to what we'd think of as "arcane" -- yeah it invokes the Old Ones, but the evil wizards in his work weren't well intentioned people corrupted by dark mojo. They weren't neutral people that found they had to commit sacrifices or do morally iffy things to use true power. They're just plain, out and out, evil, and the most evil beings in Lovecraft's fiction are generally his evil wizards.
Fuck, this is driving me crazy.
Does anybody here know which blog it was that propositioned a magic system something like;
>You can make any spell you like, as long as it copies a physical object
>ie; Light (Lantern), Ascension (Rope & Pulley), etc.
Does anybody know the name? Its driving me crazy looking for it.
>>47960767
The Lost City looks cool, I might just cut out one of the later tiers and put some treasure/goal on an earlier one.
Ideally I'd like something that can be fully concluded in one session, like the Fourthcore dungeons (I am aware they are very much not beginner friendly) so I guess something like a tournament module would be the best. I just don't want it to be a complete meat grinder.
I know I'm asking a lot, so I'll probably just end up modifying one of the adventures suggested here.
>>47960673
The Grinding Gear may be a good one as an alternative.
