The thread lives, the thread dies, the thread lives again.
Trove: https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
Useful Shit: http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Last Thread: >>46641003
ITT: What are you playing? What are you working on? Let's get some /OSRG/ homebrew thread.
>>46689900
Currently playing a roman philosopher/doctor in a sword and sandals hack of LotFP [spoilers]and a giovanni art dealer in VtM[/spoilers].
Working on getting Wolfpacks up to something I'd be willing to publish, and knocking together a couple of adventures for it: Spires Dreaming Beneath The Ice (dungeon crawl in a lost serpent-folk astrological observatory) and The Princess Clad In Amber (fountain-of-youth cult kidnaps children, creates foetus monsters).
>>46689900
>What are you playing?
I am DM:ing a game of Kult actually. It feels like I am having a break with only one game to DM a week, that will soon change though.
>What are you working on?
A new mega-dungeon. I am not quite sure whether to go monster, trap heavy or both on this one though...
>>46690606
> trap heavy
> monster heavy
>>46690332
> sword and sandals hack of LotFP
I've been working on my sword and sandals hack for a while now. I'd be curious how yours has shaped up.
I'm actually kind of stalled on development, as I've wound up creating two mutually exclusive combat systems that I like, but that do entirely different things. So I'm currently stalled while figuring that out.
>>46690685
> trap heavy
> monster heavy
>Why not both (motherfucker)?!
That is a good question. The reason being that I typically go after a particular theme, a abandoned keep swarming with undead for instance. That is not to say that there are no traps inside. But, I want the party to know early in their campaign what they typically are up against. So, that's typically why I choose to focus on one over the other.
>>46690685
>as I've wound up creating two mutually exclusive combat systems that I like, but that do entirely different things. So I'm currently stalled while figuring that out.
I am not the one you asked the question to, I am curious though, what are those two combat systems?
Hey, /osr/, need a peice of advice.
Planning on running ASE, but would like to introduce them a bit to the city and setting before they stumble upon the megadungeon.
What would be a good way to peacefully show them a bit of what the land has to offer and still get them on track towards the subsurface environment?
Anyone got some advice on which modules are gonzo enough to steal and reskin a bit?
Would Carcosa fit in?
>>46690870
>Planning on running ASE
Never played it.
>, but would like to introduce them a bit to the city and setting before they stumble upon the megadungeon.
Couldn't you just, for instance, create a simple 2nd or 3rd-level dungeon with lore scattered all over the place?
>>46690685
>I've been working on my sword and sandals hack for a while now. I'd be curious how yours has shaped up.
It's basically LotFP with a slightly different equipment list, and a few different skills.
Oh, and different gods grant different spell lists to their priests. They all have the same basic lists but swapping a few spells in and out to match the god's basic focus, so (for example) priests of Venus get charm person and so on.
>I'm actually kind of stalled on development, as I've wound up creating two mutually exclusive combat systems that I like, but that do entirely different things.
Oh? What are the systems you're looking at?
Is there something like a huge list of OSR spells? With a lot of unique non-standard spells?
>>46690332
>Currently playing a roman philosopher/doctor in a sword and sandals hack of LotFP
>>46691109
>LotFP
Fuck me, that reminds me, II really need to get a game of LotFP going.
>>46690685
>>46691109
> Combat Systems
I basically branch in two directions. The first is closest to how normal D&D is played. Very similar to LotFP, but instead of the combat options I have some more flexible systems in place. I also have a relatively simple grappling/stunt system that scales pretty decently.
The other system is more codified and uses a chain mail approach, letting you handle mooks in one way for larger scale combats and then having a Man to Man style table of armor v. weapons for more important fights. The latter also lets you use your dex as base AC when you can see an attack coming and actively defend against it, and defaults to your armor AC if it is either higher or you can't defend against it (attacks from behind, sneak attacks, etc).
The former is relatively simpler, faster, probably easier, and more flexible. The latter is more distinct, possibly more interesting, but probably less likely to grab mainstream appeal.
>>46689900
>What are you working on?
Some kind of extremely simplified OD&D variant where the players don't know shit and all the tables are on the DM screen.
I need to figure out what I'm doing with magic weapons, though, if I'm going to eliminate damage rolls. Maybe just have them deal two hits, three for the Dwarven Hammer? That might lead to them being way better than magic swords, though, so I dunno.
Maybe I'll just have to diverge from the original more for this one thing rather than having it be a simple-ish hack.
>>46690606
>A new mega-dungeon. I am not quite sure whether to go monster, trap heavy or both on this one though...
Just vary it by level.
If you ever run into the problem of not having your megadungeon be large enough for all the shit you want to stuff into it, just make it bigger. More levels, sub-levels, new wings of construction, etc.
You could even have a level that's nothing BUT traps, completely devoid of monsters - in that case the absence of them might be enough to caution the players in and of itself, although you might also want some pre-triggered traps near the entrance (there's a reason the monsters aren't in there, after all!)
>>46691289
>If you ever run into the problem of not having your megadungeon be large enough for all the shit you want to stuff into it, just make it bigger. More levels, sub-levels, new wings of construction, etc.
Well, generally I agree. I have built and DM:ed a lot, A LOT, of these before. However I do disagree with your assertion that
>Just vary it by level.
That is just not going to happen. Reason being that I want the "explorers/party" to know in, GENERAL, what they will face as they go forward. That is not to say that the traps will not be there though. In a "monster-heavy" campaign you might very well include "instant-death-traps", for instance, you should be able to realize the existance of them though.
>>46691264
Second one sounds intriguing, and if anything, "chainmail-inspired" would help you branch out from other retroclones.
>>46691289
>I need to figure out what I'm doing with magic weapons, though, if I'm going to eliminate damage rolls
Nothing. They just have an interesting magic effect.
A rune sword which, when you call out the inscription, is set ablaze
>>46691289
>Just vary it by level.
No. That is wrong. The party(s?) should know what to expect in GENERAL.
Monster-/trap heavy is the question, as far as I am concerned. A mixture (that is about 50/50), never really works for either personally, typically the party dies far to early.
>>46691556
Yeah, but this is just straight-up a simplified OD&D clone. Most of the magic weapons are just +X to hit, +X damage. With the exception of the Dwarven Hammer, which does double damage and has a whole boomerang throw thing, and magic swords which are all kinds of weird (+X to hit but not damage, harm people of other alignments, may be intelligent with special abilities in which case they will try to mind control you).
>>46691662
I get that, but the mechanics are simplified, correct? You have no need to simplify the actual idea behind an item.
I'm trying to find a quick way to keep track of money in LotFP.
Would I be able to do it in Excel or something where if you have 50 silver, it changes the gold value to 1?
>>46691789
>I'm trying to find a quick way to keep track of money in LotFP.
Okay. Pick up a paper and a pen. Then you...- What is the problem exactly?
>>46691907
Can't into math
>>46691522
I've thought about that. It definitely helps set the thing apart, but might wind up being too fiddly. I'm not sure.
It's really that weird gamble between "play it safe" and "take a risk on doing something different."
I might release both and then get feedback. I'd like to release the whole thing on drivethru one day, as I already have a handful of Robert E Howard style adventures I'd like to detail up and publish as well.
>>46691789
Don't do that. The players need to exchange the money somewhere due to the encumbrance rules.
Otherwise, Divide by 10, and then by 2.
The two easiest divisions known to man.
you have 1000 silver? 1000/10 = 100/2 = 50 gold
>>46691979
That makes more sense, sorry for the dumb question.
>>46692024
No problem, I'm glad it worked out for you after all.
>>46691971
>. I'd like to release the whole thing on drivethru one day
Whatever...
>as I already have a handful of Robert E Howard style adventures I'd like to detail up and publish as well.
And with that I am interested. Are those adventures "slaves" under a particular system?
>>46691789
>>46691933
This >>46691979
You need to know how much the coins weigh per encumbrance. It makes a huge difference whether they are carrying 2,000 silver coins or 100 gold.
>>46689900
>starting an introductory dungeon crawl for AD&D 2nd ed.
>players are 3.5/5e players interested in older editions.
>guy wants to play a dwarf fighter/cleric.
How do I explain how multiclassing works in AD&D? I'm not that articulate when it comes to things like that.
>>46692066
I'm a huge howard/lovecraft person. I got into pulp weird fiction long before I got into traditional fantasy. The system itself is tailored to be a better fit for that genre in a similar fashion that LotFP is supposed to be a horror twist on Bx.
The adventures are going to be written with said system in mind, but nothing I want to do is going to be out of general OSR compatibility. If I wind up making them into products, I'll probably wind up adding in the alternate stat blocks if necessary.
>>46691789
>I'm trying to find a quick way to keep track of money in LotFP.
>Would I be able to do it in Excel or something where if you have 50 silver, it changes the gold value to 1?
...
>Can't into math
...
>That makes more sense, sorry for the dumb question.
Good stuff (I mean it). Hopefully it will help you! Are you Dm:ing the game?
What's the best retroclone for play by post games?
Looking at fast playing, especially in combat
>>46692442
I can't say I can recommend any particular one as being more useful for play-by-post than any others, but B/x is about as simple as it gets, all things considered. Swords & Wizardry White Box Heroes is basically an OD&D clone pre-greyhawk.
Does it bother you if a dungeon is just a random, labyrinthine assortment of rooms with no rhyme or reason to them?
Would you even notice?
>>46693240
Having tried out some randomization algorythms, it's usually somewhat noticeable.
Especially if you're mapping.
Not to mention how the actual design of the level can actually make it better, more interesting and consistent.
You probably wouldn't get anything like Castle of the Mad Archmage's labyrinth level from a random dungeon generator, for instance!
>>46693240
>Does it bother you if a dungeon is just a random, labyrinthine assortment of rooms with no rhyme or reason to them?
Yes.
>Would you even notice?
That depends on the game we are playing. Perhaps the man that created this particular dungeon was insane and... (you will notice though)
>>46693240
As a DM designing a dungeon? It bugs the shit out of me and I get self-conscious about it and wind up going through a ridiculous revisioning process that takes my random output and keeps layering on top of it until it seems like some kind of consistency, because I don't want to be some kind of "bad DM," even though I know my players almost certainly won't give a shit. This is all the more dumb because as a player, I know that it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. It's cool when the DM goes the extra mile, but once you enter the "dungeoneering" genre of RP you sort of just expect weirdness.
"Why was that trap THERE of all places?"
"We're in a dungeon."
"Fair enough."
I struggle to live up to unrealistic standards that I don't hold anyone else to, then get self-conscious about meeting them.
>>46693509
But then you fall into thetrapof explaining that trap too much.
That crude arrow trap was rigged up by goblins who settled there thirty years ago. Then the dungeon was overtaken by a necromancer, and the goblins' skeletons are the enemies in room 3F. Guys, are you sure you don't want to investigate the trap further? What do you mean you don't care? It appears to be of goblin make...
>>46693576
As far as traps (and whatever really) is concerned, give the players a clue. If they ignore it, whatever.
>>46693576
>But then you fall into the trap of explaining that trap too much.
That is not the case, at all. In the end, the party should be on the look out for clues. :scooby doo:
>>46693576
This is one of those places where your reputation with your players comes up. If your dungeons have a reputation for being kind of random and stuff being there "just because" then they aren't going to bother questioning why things seem weird sometimes.
If on the other hand you have moderately intelligent players and you as a DM have a reputation for designing things in a way that generally make sense..and even better - that you have designed things in such a way that strange=clues=something worth investigating - then when you do drop something that doesn't make sense, they perk up and pay attention.
In a game that's theoretically about player-skill, the investigation/checking for clues aspect is a big part of the fun. Of course, that requires your players to be on board with the idea that dungeoneering is about player-skill and investigation.
>>46693731
>This is one of those places where your reputation with your players comes up.
Agreed.
If you are somewhat famous, (in RPG terms), you will notice "it", and why "it" does work/or does not work. It is quite a weird question in the end.
>>46692135
Whats the problem? Theres a chart that shows multiclass combinations.
It's a really short section in the book too.
You get both class features, the worse armor selection of the 2, better weapon selection and attack. Spells are the same. Split xp between each class.
>>46694347
It's really hard for me to explain it to people, I have read the section an I confused by it.
Thanks man.
>>46694347
wait, ftr-clrcs in 2e get edged weapons?
>>46693576
You're taking it to the overly extreme point.
Traps should make sense for dungeon's current inhabitants - like, for example, an evil wizard's kitchen door wouldn't have a trap that disentegrates everyone passing through.
In case of crude goblin traps, they could be easily handwaived if they're not in area that necromncer uses often.
>>46689900
>What are you working on?
This, still. I've been developing my magic user system to be a little more freeform and interesting, but I am having issues with expanding the class sections to include necessary and good information. Should probably use the bottom open part of each to add in the equipment, expert skills, and magical powers under each respectively.
>>46694712
Sure thing. So I should clarify a bit. If you do mage/thief you can use armor, but you just get a spell penalty.
Same with fighter/druid. You can use any weapon, but you still have to meet the natural weapon material restrictions of the druid class.
HP you roll one die for each class. Like a fighter/cleric you roll a d10 and d8 and half the result then add con bonus. Then when each class levels you roll that HP die again.
So the weird part, probably what you're having trouble with, is that both classes level separately. So thief/mage for example will level at much different rates.
Also class specific bonuses, like XP gained from gold for thief and monsters per HD slain by fighter only apply to that classes xp total, not your overall total.
>>46694790
er yeah you're right haha. So the blunt weapon restriction would still apply.
Also fighter multiclass can get Weapon Specialization, but not Weapon Mastery.
If you're using non-weapon proficiencies you can choose from all the potential classes. Don't forget that druid counts as a priest subtype.
And if you're using combat and tactics, any of the weapon styles, like 1 handed weapon specialization, Weapon and Shield proficiency etc are available.
Also you can't backstab as a thief multiclass unless you're using a thief weapon like a dagger, even though you can fight normally with a 2h sword for example.
half-elf druid and ranger multiclass does get more complicated so just keep an eye out on those. Like ranger/cleric can wear heavier armor, but can't get the ranger sneaking benefits in heavier than studded leather.
>>46694790
Just to add to it, if you're using domain weapons as an optional rule there is the potential for clerics to use other than blunt weapons. I believe there is also kits available.
After learning that the addition of the thief came later in OD&D's lifespan and essentially removed many skills that were assumed for the other classes, I kinda feel like thief/specialist is kind of a lame class to have. You might as well remove it and let the other classes be able to do the things it does. Or I dunno, change it around or something. It feels weird that it's a fundamental part of basically all role playing games.
>>46697874
>essentially removed many skills that were assumed for the other classes
Is that right? I thought they just added the chance that everyone had. It was the standard assumption that each class had the 1/6 chance where as the thief just gets a 2/6 and adds the ability to climb a sheer surface which no one had anyway.
>>46697874
I don't feel that way because the only really redundant classes are Cleric and Magic User, they could be rolled together. I've always preferred whimpier white mages anyway.
And especially if you don't use race as class, then it just leaves 3 archetypes. I feel they are distinct enough however.
>>46697874
>It feels weird that it's a fundamental part of basically all role playing games.
It's a fundamental part because the agile sneaky lockpicky guy is a staple of fantasy fiction. Even Bilbo's technically supposed to be a burglar, and Taurus in the Tower of the Elephant is one of the more memorable secondary characters in Conan.
>>46697874
I think the important thing is that the experience of playing each class is very different. I'd say there's five distinct roles in DnD:
>Fighters (and variants such as paladins etc) are solid and reliable. Good armour class and HP, and a focus on equipment over abilities, means the fighter is your simple option that can just keep on going. Also the simplest class, so good for beginners and secondary characters.
>Thieves (and derived classes) are the gamblers option. They're squishy, but have a chance to pull of some impressive feats (such as sneaking up and backstabbing). Playing a thief is all about taking big risks.
>Magic Users (and elves, I guess) have the ability to just solve an encounter/problem, but only a finite number of times. They're all about carefully managing a limited resource.
>Clerics (and I guess druids and stuff to a lesser extent) are about supporting the rest of the party, through stuff like healing, buffs and defensive abilities. The cleric is there to help out their mates, not to achieve objectives on their own. Like Magic Users, there's a bit of resource budgeting here too.
>The halfling and dwarf (and often other demi-humans) are good at Not Dying. They often lack the punch of other classes, but can survive disasters and attrition much better.
which class you like playing depends on your personality, really. I tend to prefer the survival characters (so dwarves and halflings) since I enjoy deliberately minimizing risk: I wouldn't really enjoy a thief (with their % chance to fuck up) or a magic user (with their drastic drop in power once they've blown their load).
>>46697874
I think that the main problem is that the thief is poorly executed. Really, there should be some sort of rudimentary skill/check system for all classes that is compatible with the system used for thief skills.
>>46698862
Conan is himself a thief, period. Almost all S&S protagonists are thieves, almost all D&D chars should be considered thieves. Its not remotely a class in its own right.
>>46697874
I felt the same way really, the thief is essentially what all adventurers are, so adding in a poorly defined skill system set a precedent that gave the classes even stricter roles.
I'm of the mindset that thief skills are supposed to be supernatural and treated like saving throws. Anyone can try and sneak past the palace guards, but only the thief has a chance to do it in broad daylight without getting caught.
>>46696295
There are specialty priests, which are their own animal.
S&W Whitebox with the Greyhawk weapon vs. armor matrix, would it slow the flow of combat too much?
Also, what would be the consequences of removing weapon restrictions on classes? Most likely I'd I limit magic arms and armor to the Fighter on the pretense that it interferes with magic.
>>46703599
Assuming you're using differentiated damage for weapons, it'd be a bit of a boost for clerics and a significant boost for magic-users in terms of the pain they could dish out, at least up until the point when you found magic weapons that they would've been able to use before (but are barred from now). If you're going with all weapons doing 1d6 damage, it'd do fuck-all at first, and limit clerics and magic-users later on due to them not being able to use magic weapons. Either way, I think the overall effect on the game would be minor.
>>46689900nice double dubs
>What are you playing?
Monster Hunter Cross. Seriously, though, right now I have Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays free due to work, and I can't even find a D&D Encounters group that meets on any of those days, let alone a real group.
>What are you working on?
I'm trying to piece together a d6-based science fantasy game built off of LotFP, SWN, White Star, and others. My biggest concern right now it trying to reconcile why magic and melee combat are resolved using two different systems, when it's really just facets of the same thing, combat. As such, I've been tweaking with attributes, rolling around the idea that a PC has Fortitude (modified by Vitality and Will), Evasion (Agility and Cunning) and Spirit (Might and Wit, though I feel it needs a better name).
Attacks, whether melee or magic, are made via
>3d6 + Spirit vs. Evasion, damage (dealt to? reduced by?) Fortitude
with typically mental stats vs. mental stats and physical vs. physical (though not always). I've also looked into at least the sample file of Neoclassical Geek Revival to get an idea of the "pie method" of building characters, and have been trying to mesh that with the "classes" from d20 Modern (Strong, Fast, Smart, etc) to have more generic-ish classes. It's all a clusterfuck of various systems that's kinda starting to take shape, but still needs a huge amount of work.
>>46703729
I see, mostly I wanted to protect the Fighter's niche though I can see letting magic-users and clerics wield those kinds of weapons as they'll have lower to-hit bonuses and hit points to kind of balance it out.
>>46697874
The problem stems from the rules badly explaining how the skills work and people assuming it banned those things from other characters.
>>46704595
It's not just bad explanation. Mechanically determined skills down to the percent don't fit very well with... what? Attribute checks? Just winging it? Even if you use thief skills as a sort of saving throw if other things fail, the system is still not ideal. And, I mean, there's a difference between not explaining something well and explaining it flat out wrong.
>>46704595
Its very VERY hard to see how picking pockets or opening locks was intended to be something everyone could do, with the thief just being better.
Its not the fault of people "assuming" anything. People shouldn't have to read rulebooks and leap to conclusions that aren't even distantly implied in the texts.
>>46705064
Definatively. The problem is that the intent itself wasn't telegraphed well.
>>46705047
1 in 6 chance for other characters. Thieves get improved chances and use a percentile die instead.
Confusion pops up in some editions where the percentage chances got reduced.
>>46705556
Yeah depends on the edition. In the ones where it was a chance smaller than 1/6 (Moldvay, for example), you got 2 rolls instead of just the normal 1/6 chance.
>>46705587
To add to that, it's even more confusing, because there was additional clarification that ADnD didn't give other characters the 1 in 6 chance, but people houserules it anyway.
Is there anything like a guide about narrating room shapes, corridor turns, and similar dungeon layout advice?
As a non-native speaker, I have big issues with that, and it'd be of immense help. I constantly get the urge to draw the map for them, because explaining the shapes is tough.
Sure is active in here
>>46707030
What is there to talk about? Nobody is discussing any of the homebrews posted, so there is not much to say.
>>46703599
I'd recommend not using a weapon vs. AC matrix if you're not also using a to-hit matrix.
It's something that works fine when you can just copy down the adjusted to-hit numbers as a row on a character sheet, and less so when you need to cross-reference and do math and stuff.
Consider the late 2E thing of giving specific bonuses/penalties against leather/chain/plate/shields.
>>46697874
The big problem with the Thief, really, is that it's a bastardized version of the Warlock thief that Gary pieced together from a phone conversation.
And the whole thing where it encourages rolling over roleplaying and lead generations of players to think that they could only do what was listed on their character sheet, obviously. This got worse in later editions, though, when "things you can only do if they're on your sheet" started to include stuff like "hit someone harder at the expense of accuracy".
Also, for those talking about a 1/6 universal chance, are you aware that the OD&D thief has LESS than 1/6th chance in Open Locks/Remove Traps/Hide in Shadows?
>>46699888
I don't really know that the Not Dying "class" is distinct from the Fighter. Hell, I don't really know that the THIEF is distinct from the Fighter, or even the rest of the classes.
Does anyone have Fire on Velvet Horizon or Black Hack?
Trove seems to missing those.
>>46697874
This is one of those topics that comes up every so often - not just in these threads, but within the OSR community as a whole. The short version is that the intentions of the class were very poorly communicated. Everyone has the same general "adventuring" abilities. Everyone has the ability to be stealthy, climb shit, etc. What we know from Arneson and crew is that the thief abilities were meant to be something above and beyond normal men's capabilities. For anyone else there was a flat chance of doing a thing. Thieves were the ones who could get better at it. Anyone could pick a lock, but thieves got better at it and could even pick magical locks. Anyone can try to hide and sneak around, but thieves can attempt to move literally without making a sound. Anyone can hide, but thieves can literally disappear into shadows. Anyone can climb, but thieves can scale sheer vertical walls. They are better understood as magical abilities than having a monopoly on "adventurer skills."
Word from On High further indicates that these abilities were often used more like saving throws if the normal method of resolution (talking through it or rolling a standard thing) failed, giving them an extra chance at things.
There ARE OSR purists who claim that because the thief didn't come out with the original three LBBs, it's a "later addition" to the game and should be ignored or whatever, but keep in mind it was published in 1975. The original game was published in 1974 and only started really picking up steam later into that year. By the time most people even then had heard of ODD, the thief was already part of the equation.
Either way, the archetype has been formed and sticks with us as a major part of fantasy both in fiction and gaming. Basically every major Sword & Sorcery character from the pulp era exists on some triangular axis between Wizard, Warrior, and Thief, and the role is even more defined if you go into more traditional fantasy.
>>46707204
>Also, for those talking about a 1/6 universal chance, are you aware that the OD&D thief has LESS than 1/6th chance in Open Locks/Remove Traps/Hide in Shadows?
And even if you were to treat thief skills as a saving throw on top of a 1 in 6 roll, their chances of success are still abysmal. They're 6th level before they have at least a half chance to pick licks or remove traps, and 7th level before they have at least a half chance to hide in shadows (see pic).
>>46709024
>here ARE OSR purists who claim that because the thief didn't come out with the original three LBBs, it's a "later addition" to the game and should be ignored or whatever, but keep in mind it was published in 1975. The original game was published in 1974 and only started really picking up steam later into that year. By the time most people even then had heard of ODD, the thief was already part of the equation.
Absolutely. The original print run of OD&D was rather small, and a most people never saw it before Greyhawk hit the shelves.
I've also heard sources that say Dave Arneson had a "thief" class in his early Blackmoor campaign, though I don't much about it.
The Thief isn't an Arnesson creation, although it's not entirely a Gygax creation either.
This page goes into it a bit:
>http://playingattheworld.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html
Switzer's original Thief was probably more like the one you can find in Warlock. Which is a better class in general, IMHO. It's got more to it.
>>46707287
Fire on the Velvet Horizon is physical copy only.
What would be a good starting module for a sandboxy campaign? I don't want to just dump the party into a dungeon, I want them to start in a city or a town and start expanding from there. So I'm looking for a good, open-ended city/town module to populate that first, central hex of the campaign.
I've looked at stuff like Vornheim and Fever-Dreaming Marlinko, and while they're very nice, they're also kind of unconventional. Something a bit more vanilla would work better for what I'm doing.
Suggestions?
>>46711248
Better than Any Man and Yoon Suin come to mind.
desu I can't think of many "vanilla" published hex crawls.
Keep on the Borderlands might fit the bill? I can't think of any "vanilla" hex crawls published since AD&D hit the shelves.
>>46709024
In our group, we've always run thieves kind of like this. Anyone can fucking hide or ambush people, and unless you're disabled, you should be able to climb up things to some degree and whatnot. Thieves don't magically make everyone else incapable of attempting these things. But for others, it's always about the circumstances. Right tools, right environment and whatnot. You have to arrange things so that they'll work for what you're doing.
Meanwhile, thieves can do all that even when it'd be really implausible. Circumstances help of course, but even without a lot of hassle, a thief can try to do his thing. And the results are usually better.
>>46711238
WHY
>>46711248
How open-ended are we talking?
Because personally I've really been itching for starting a game in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord and then letting the players hexcrawl into the rest of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy if they want to.
There's a lot of vague detail there, but it's also extremely open-ended and sandboxy? Also, you'll need to grab encounter tables from somewhere else probably.
>>46711368
Honestly, I think Better than Any Man would work better without the time constrains, at least if you fiddle it around a bit so that the focus is less on "Holy shit you have to do something before everything goes to hell" and more about "This area is fucked in many, many ways. Try your luck."
I mean, there's a lot of stuff in BtAM, and most of that will probably be unfeasible for the PCs to achieve in the very tight timeframe. Just moving around is going to take a lot of time. Of course, it's not like the PCs should be able to do everything and succeed at everything in a game like this, but I just find that the adventure is a lot of wasted potential.
Putting in a bit of status quo (that the players will of course kick over) might work well.
>>46711248
Some OSR adventures have fairly well-detailed settlements with a situation (the adventure) going on. If you take one of those, run the initial adventure, and then keep the settlement as starting point of the campaign, you'd a town whose current situation was already established one way or the other by the characters. For example, A Thousand Dead Babies is a good adventure in general, and there's a lot of possible outcomes. The town is pretty small, though. But there are other settlement in modules that are not necessarily about the settlement itself, but still give you a lot of detail about it. For example, Dwimmermount has a pretty decent town.
>>46711408
No idea, really. Some part of me wants to say that it's to make piracy less of an issue (which might actually work for something like this, to some degree), but other than that I don't really know. I've seen the people behind it talk a lot about product quality, so maybe they feel it doesn't work as well as a pdf?
Man, I should really get it at some point. Deep Carbon Observatory was really, really good, and I want more stuff by the same guy.
I recently bought Dungeon World so I could read through it, its concept is pretty interesting but the rules are so all over the place, I swear I have to bounce around everywhere just to find a single rule I'm looking for.
I don't think Dungeon World is OSR, since it wasn't in the Trove, so sorry if this is out of place.
>>46709024
> Anyone could pick a lock, but thieves got better at it and could even pick magical locks. Anyone can try to hide and sneak around, but thieves can attempt to move literally without making a sound. Anyone can hide, but thieves can literally disappear into shadows. Anyone can climb, but thieves can scale sheer vertical walls. They are better understood as magical abilities than having a monopoly on "adventurer skills."
If the thief's skills are essentially magical, then it seems like they shouldn't be seen as something that can fail at all. Systems that have thieves/specialists merely boosting their skill chance seem to get it wrong then.
>>46712009
>If the thief's skills are essentially magical, then it seems like they shouldn't be seen as something that can fail at all.
Remember, the Thief's skills are percentile-based so that they are balanced around the time economy - each use is one turn less torchlight, one turn closer to a wandering monster check.
Compare and contrast with spells, which are often automatic successes but also highly limited in terms of uses per day and foresight.
The most direct comparisons are probably Open Locks vs. Knock, and the Thief's ability to read magic/languages vs., well, Read Magic/Languages. The latter are guaranteed but take precious daily resources, the former are somewhat unreliable but limitless.
Now, it's arguable about whether or not it works. But that's the logic, at least.
>>46712009
This >>46712336
The magic user generally has a thing that works 100% of the time (at least in theory - assuming the target doesnt save or something) but with extremely limited uses. The thief can use their powers basically all day, and those powers are at maximum output at all times - they just start with a lower percentage chance to get it off.. as opposed to a mage wich has something like a magic missile that will always work, but is a one-off use per day and starts at basically negligible potency.
Also keep in mind that the thief's base statistics are meant to be modified. You're supposed to have +X% for this or that. If it's harder terrain to see you in? Bonus to hide in shadows. Most nonmagical locks should give you a bonus percentage to picking them, etc.
When you listen to people talking about how the things were used, a lot of things click and make more sense. One of the frustrating things about the earliest days of D&D is that despite having rules in print, it was a largely oral tradition. You generally learned because you knew someone who taught you.. which is why the further away you get in geography and time from people who actually played with gygax, arneson, etc the game begins to change.
>>46712985
>which is why the further away you get in geography and time from people who actually played with gygax, arneson, etc the game begins to change.
Hence why they made AD&D, since they desperately needed a unified ruleset for the tournaments they were running and whatnot.
This is also the reason for why Ggyax was so against houserules in AD&D, since it would 'no longer be AD&D', and recommended using OD&D for houserules instead. Because it's hard to have a standardized ruleset if people start making their own modifications of that ruleset.
Not that it matters now, but it helps add context.
Although if you're in some kind of community where a lot of DMs are running AD&D games and people are migrating their characters between them you might want to make sure that everyone is using the same rules, I guess.
>>46713115
Yeah, there was some weirdness surrounding that whole shift, as the push for AD&D to be "standardized" rules went very much against things Gygax himself had said about the game prior to that point.
I've heard different things about this from various sources. Some argue that it was because the drift of the game had gone so far that people weren't really playing the same game anymore. I can see the argument, but a lot of other Gygaxian anecdotes would seem like he would be fine with that sort of thing.
Another (perhaps more likely) theory is that it was part of a change in culture at TSR as the success turned them into a slowly more "professional" company. They wanted to start selling more products. They wanted to get into the tournament scene, and so on..and for all of that they basically needed people to be all playing the same game.
I think I finally found some decent versions of the AD&D PHB and DMG:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/rdgrcgafr69a6nz/AD%26D_1E_Players_Handbook.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7y5c6jyacz4q70p/AD%26D_1E_Dungeon_Masters_Guide.pdf
Maybe these can be added to the trove?
>>46714276
That's not a straight-up Player's Handbook. There's classes from other sources in there (like barbarians and cavaliers). Elves have twilight vision instead of infravision. A druid's power to assume the shape of animals has been named "totem shape". To-hit is expressed in attack bonuses. And that's just the shit I noticed in the minute or two I had to spare before I had to set off for work...
>>46712985
>If it's harder terrain to see you in?
That also implies that the reverse is true, which certainly shreds the idea that thief abilities are "magic."
>>46709024
>There ARE OSR purists who claim that because the thief didn't come out with the original three LBBs, it's a "later addition" to the game and should be ignored or whatever,
Its not that it should be ignored, but that the thief belongs to the overly busy Greyhawk fork of the game and like everything from Greyhawk, it should be taken with a handful of salt. It only arose once OD&D had become, basically, AD&D.
For some reason people have been tricked into thinking that thieves are an archetype themselves when close to all S&S chars are thieves.
>>46699888
One of the important elements of the game is how multirole many PCs are. For example, elves and halflings are in the gambler category, halflings, dwarves, and clerics are in the Not Dying category.
Its a credit to D&D that clerics are definitely not pathetic white mages and can achieve objectives on their own.
>>46715578
Or that the idea is "hide in shadows" and therefore the more things casting shadows, the better your odds. I'm not sure anyone ever argued that in an empty, surgically-bright room with no shadows a magical ability called "hide in shadows" would work.
>>46715802
Sure, if that's where you want to draw the line.. but the point remains that the edition of the game you're then referencing existed for a year at best. It showed up within a year of the original publication of D&D. The LBBs came out in 74. Greyhawk showed up in 75. If your purity test is "only stuff that was written in that period" then more power to you.
As a point of reference, AD&D started publication in 77. Even then, the game existed for all of three years.
>>46715802
> For some reason people have been tricked into thinking that thieves are an archetype themselves when close to all S&S chars are thieves.
How, exactly, does one get "Tricked" into an archetype existing? I'm not sure that's how archetypes work. Archetypes are literally a recurring motif. If 'thieves' keep showing up places with similar characteristics/themes/traits then they are an archetype. That's what the word means.
We can argue about whether or not they exist in S&S, but going by the source material (I'll defer to Howard's Conan) then yes. Thieves were an archetype in his world as well. Yes, Conan himself defies the archetype because he's both a fighter and a thief by D&Disms.. but there were TONS of characters in the world he lived in that were identified primarily as thieves. It just happens that as much as I love Conan, he would today be considered the most egregious of Gary Stews. He's a better fighting man than just about any fighting man, he's a more cunning strategist than most any general, he has a greater willpower than most of the sorcerers he comes across, on more than one occasion he simply overcomes their spells by sheer will or is simply immune - almost entirely because he's born a barbarian ubermensch, descendant of the great Atlantian tribes and the primary theme of Howard's work is a rejection of civilization in favor of the wild "natural" vitality of man.
And then on top of that, he speaks a half-dozen languages, knows a great deal of lore about lost gods, forbidden rites, and on at least one occasion I can think of, he pulls some sorcery out of his ass, inscribing a glyph of some forgotten animal god that thwarts the panther minion of a pictish shaman.
I love Conan.. but if he is an argument for anything, he's an argument that class systems are dumb for S&S anyway as almost all some combination of thief abilities, fighter abilities, and arcane lore.
>>46716388
>How, exactly, does one get "Tricked" into an archetype existing?
First, everyone was a thief. Genuinely the only S&S protags you will find that aren't thieves are some sort of knight.
Then the thief stole from everyone else to be born (how fitting), but at least Gygax was perfectly aware in S&S, everyone is a thief. For some reason until Oriental Adventures humans were restricted from being fighter thieves (or in OA's cases, multiclassed as neenjas).. but at least all demihumans could multiclass as thieves and (iirc) get unlimited advancement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Then FURTHER adaptation decay sat in and B/x fucked things up further by removing demihuman thieves.
And so, what once belonged to everyone was restricted to some and then to one.
>We can argue about whether or not they exist in S&S
They do. They're called "all S&S characters." Conan for example is absolutely a thief.
>Gary Stews
With regards to being a fighter/thief, he is not, because that is virtually all S&S protagonists.
the thief's abilities aren't 'magical'. they're a measure of aptitude for doing things. i don't understand why anyone even sees it that way.
a fighter can bash a door in on a roll of 1-2 on a d6. a lv. 1 thief can pick it 15%. less of a chance to get it open, but the act isn't fucking loud and alerting enemies. this gives advantage.
i see a weird double standard where people thinking a warrior using magic or a wizard having attack bonuses are incomprehensible and make the other class redundant, but suddenly think every character should know how to pick someone's pocket?
implying that anyone should be able to do what the thief does makes no sense. picking locks, disarming traps, and utilizing stealth are learned, honed skills.
a kick-boxer doesn't know how to disarm a pipe-bomb or know whether to use the half-diamond or rake picks to charm a tumbler lock. he knows how to hit people.
>>46716388
There's a significant mileage of magic item use that one wouldn't expect in D&D from fighters etc (protection scrolls, detection wands, and rings of spell storing for example) that should satisfy any need for minor magic, but the encounter-blower-upper (or encounter-sleeper) mage is definitely distinct in S&S, in a way fighters and thieves are not.
We do have Luthien putting Melkor to sleep and Galadriel (who, unlike Luthien, is not of divine ancestry, but received Melian's tutoring on magic) blowing up a fortress, and similarly Elric rescues a wizard with a very distinctly different kind of magic than his own (no armor use, no combat ability, and a lot of pew pew and even being able to blow up fortresses), plus of course Professor Armitage.
Very powerful sleeping spells are actually relatively common, come to think of it, but I don't know of any instances of any beefy combat monster type characters also throwing Sleep spells. And while people think of Fireball etc. as the most iconic wizard spells in D&D, generally I think of Sleep as such. But I digress. I don't know much about Vance's stuff, tragically.
Such characters are a lot more infrequent, of course, but the actual destructive/incapacitating magic user has an entirely different feel and style.
The cleric is, of course, a pure D&Dism, but he adds rather than subtracts from the setting.
what is the best program to go about creating a module? I want something that can become a pdf, but not necessarily Adobe.
>>46717386
its called graph paper lmaoactually some cool program I saw lets you make classy looking dungeons/buildings right in your browser, don't have it on this comp
>>46716939
Don't worry Anon, I'm one of the people who agree with you.
However a few people comment that the Thief's ability to 'move silently' is magical or semi-magical in some way. I don't agree with this because being able to keep your possessions from jangling around, keeping yourself from stepping on twigs or objects that make noise as well as controlling your breathing and stuff are all very realistic skills someone could have. It would only be magical if it was 'move invisibly'.
>>46717155
>he adds rather than subtracts from the setting.
See, I disagree--to me the cleric is the one member of the core four who is redundant and breaks with pulp fantasy themes. He was originally designed to be a sort of van helsing character.
It also implies that senior clergy all have overt magical powers, which doesn't make much sense to me.
I think the thief is especially worthy if he's more of a "specialist" like in LotFP. The original thief is just a specialist specifically tuned to the challenges of dungeoneering.
If you really wanted to boil things down to the essentials, just have Fighting man and Sorcerer.
Or just "adventurer", with point buy abilities...
>>46717923
>Or just "adventurer", with point buy abilities...
maybe have spells in a spellbook and spell slots cost money from the equipment lists?
>>46718070
I wouldn't tie character abilities to how much money they got... it pretty much dictates some kind of wealthy by level progression to keep the wizard from upstaging everyone else.
I was sort of joking about the adventurer class--at some point you're no longer playing D&D, just some weird ass version of Gurps.
>>46717923
>breaks with pulp fantasy themes.
That's a good thing, because it makes D&D more unique.
>>46718170
Eh, I guess it all comes down to what flavor of game you want.
whitelisting/blacklisting classes is a great way to tune that.
And D&D is definitely it's own weird animal, no matter what we do--there's really no fantasy lit that feels like D&D, except maybe for D&D licensed novels.
>>46689900
Anybody got advice on converting AD&D1 monsters to B/X on the fly? Like, are they directly compatible or should I tweak some stuff?
I'm going to use the DMG's random encounter tables for my homebrew B/X-inspired clone, and it works well with the Monster Manual.
Also, are there great random encounter tables I should be aware of?
>>46718404
Turn their damage dice down by a size, to compensate for the lower hit die size of B/X characters.
Would you use Doc Aquatic's random encounter chart? Have you? What happened?
Can't post the link, 4chan says I'm spam.
Just google it or go to the archives if you don't know about it, it's pretty funny.
>>46716852
> The thief archetype doesn't exist
> everyone is a thief
The archetype can't exist and be ubiquitous at the same time.
> First, everyone was a thief. Genuinely the only S&S protags you will find that aren't thieves are some sort of knight.
Or the dudes that were magic-users/cultists that weren't demonstrated to have any particular thieving ability. Or the dudes that were Magic-User/Fighters that weren't demonstrated to have any particular thieving ability.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one then. Even in Howard's writing there were a ton of characters who weren't thieves and there were quite a few who were not specified to be specifically a thief by trade and title without any indication they were capable of slugging it out with anyone. You're leaning on the "But S&S protagonists!" angle, which is fine, but Conan himself is not representative of the whole of the setting in which he lives.
>>46717155
>The cleric is, of course, a pure D&Dism, but he adds rather than subtracts from the setting.
Agreeing with this guy. >>46717923
The key word you used there is "The Setting." If you're assuming that D&D should be geared to specifically play D&D as a meta-genre of its own (which it has largely become through various editions) then the cleric is part of the accepted D&D tropes along with paladins, tieflings, and whatever else. If you want to use it to emulate more specific settings (like old-school S&S) then it's fit depends on the particular setting.
>>46716939
>>46717865
The argument is generally for abilities that are so refined as to border on the supernatural, rather than any kind of assumption that thieves themselves are doing arcane rituals for their abilities. Scaling sheer walls is a good example of this. They aren't casting Spiderclimb, but they are so naturally gifted at the thing that they can succeed where others wouldn't have a chance.
cont..
>>46719565
In the end, though, none of this matters. There are arguments that can be made as to the logic behind how certain design decisions work. Whether one likes a particular decision or not is personal preference and people will home brew accordingly.
>>46719565
> Even in Howard's writing there were a ton of characters who weren't thieves and there were quite a few who were not specified to be specifically a thief by trade and title without any indication
Should read
" quite a few who WERE specified to be specifically a thief by trade and title without "
Editing mistake.
>>46711238
>>46711648
someone really needs to scan a copy, after all someone finally scanned Whitehack a couple months ago
>>46717386
Your question is too vague. What do you want help with? Making maps? Text layout? Organizing ideas?
>>46721789
text and image layout
>>46718256
>there's really no fantasy lit that feels like D&D, except maybe for D&D licensed novels.
Well, there's this. While it's not actually a licensed D&D novel, it is written by the Holmes of Holmes Basic, and is pretty D&D even without the logo.
>>46724138
And while I'm at it, Michael Shea's World Fantasy award winning "Nifft the Lean" has a fairly D&D feel to it as well, even though the party is usually just two thieves having picaresque S&S adventures, including the best depiction of a trip through hell to be found outside of a Hieronymous Bosch painting.
It's not too surprising that it resembles D&D, though, since Shea's first book was basically a Dying Earth fan sequel. (One that was so good Jack Vance personally authorized it and launched Shea's whole career)
>>46720568
I have it but :
1) It's fucking beautiful, it would be a shame to ruin it and I can't afford another copy.
2) The pages have this weird texture that doesn't work well with my scanner, it's like a mix between old paper and anti-flash classbook thingie.
Tell me, /tg/, why should I ever play a Magic-User instead of an Elf?
>>46724933
Because it's AD&D and Elf is not a class.
>>46724933
Wanting to eventually be able to cast 6th level spells? It's not until their level cap that elves are an entire level behind magic-users, so from a power standpoint, there's really very little reason to be a magic-user except for high level play. (What a crappy way to balance a class.)
>>46725040
If you're doing BECMI you hit a pretty hard brick wall as an elf
>>46724967
Sorry to confuse you, I'm playing a better edition of D&D
>>46725040
That's what I thought/ My games tend to be in the 1-3 level range, so there's not really any reason to not play an Elf when you rolled up the appropriate stats...
>>46725075
Oh, how unfortunate for you.
>>46724967
>>46725111
What is wrong with /tg/ today, jesus
>>46725075
If you're condemning your players to an eternity in level 1-3 hell, then they may as well make the most of it and play an elf.
>>46725075
>Sorry to confuse you, I'm playing a better edition of D&D
>My games tend to be in the 1-3 level range
You sound like a dick.
>>46725812
I'm not condemning anyone, it just takes ~10 sessions to get to about lvl 3, then players get bored with their characters and want to make new ones. It just happens to turn out we don't really get to high level games.
>>46725821
I'm not too bad, I'm just quickly fed up with elitist pricks like >>46724967
>>46726254
>elitist pricks
If you think that was elitism, what's this >>46725075?
>>46726280
Eye for an eye, indeed
>>46726254
>it just takes ~10 sessions to get to about lvl 3, then players get bored with their characters and want to make new ones.
That being the case, I'd make it so it took 2 or 3 sessions for folks to gain a level, so they'd get to level 5 and gain access to level 3 spells. Not only would that provide greater variety in and of itself, but that greater variety might, in turn, keep their interest for long, and you might even make it to level 7 before their interest wandered. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with taking you time, but you've gotta play to your crowd.
>>46718169
>I wouldn't tie character abilities to how much money they got... it pretty much dictates some kind of wealthy by level progression to keep the wizard from upstaging everyone else.
What is GP=XP?
>>46718404
Monster Manual 1 monsters are directly compatible, on account of that being a secret Holmes supplement.
The main differences, in general, are morale scores, alignment, and AC. Mainly in whether AC9 or AC10 is unarmored.
Also, just out of interest, what's your opinion of B/X's random encounter tables?
>>46724933
Magic-users have better experience tables.
If you're not expecting to play to name level, though, and can stomach being a bit behind on spell levels, it's a good enough trade-off that you might as well take the hit for the improved armor and weapons.
Although there's also the thing where the two things - magic and melee - are largely incompatible and you won't be doing them at the same time so you might as well stay off the front lines and leave that to people who are good at that job.
Also, before you get magic armor it's a bit of a slog since you're basically just a slower-advancing M-U with better weapons (that you won't use) and demihuman senses.
>>46724967
Elven Fighter/Magic-users are, though! And that's pretty much exactly the same thing.
Although I should probably note that the OD&D Elf has a good reason not to play it on account of it being mildly confusing and also not actually that much better than a human magic-user in the long run. Or a human Fighting-Man, for that matter, since they cap Hero/Warlock.
Just a very random thought from reading these threads: my group plays such a different version of D&D, with such different assumptions and design decisions and all that, that it's actually intresting to see and remember that a lot of D&D is very different from the game we play.
The system in question was designed by our DM, more to match his ideas of what D&D is about and what it should feel like than on mechanical basis, and it has such an unique, strong feel to it that it has more or less become the idea of what D&D actually is. And at the same time, it's not conventional at all and very different from what most people think D&D is. It's always kind of weird and intresting to see how other people do it instead.
I also honestly feel that it's the best edition of D&D ever, even with the fact that it's mechanically pretty different (you could reasonably call it a different game with a lot of D&D-esque elements), but at the same time I recognize that most people would hate it, at least if compared to other (O)D&D/OSR stuff.
To lesser extent, you also see a lot of different views on how things should be done here, all the time. I dunno. It's intresting to see how many different things D&D can mean to different people. OSR especially has this intresting thing of everyone doing their own thing with a gaming equivalent of a lingua franca. There's the framework, and people kick it in different directions to make it do what they want it to do. I guess a lot could be said about this heritage.
>>46726999
Can you give any specific examples of what it does differently, mechanically?
>>46726951
The OD&D elf is amazingly strange. It may or may not have secret abilities when using Chainmail combat, seems to be partially or wholly unnecessary (by the ol' 300k xp marker), etc.
But I do like how the BECMI elf also contains intentional or unintentional similarities, as it starts B/x elf and morphs into OD&D elf, if using elves of Alfheim, in that they go from progressing in both at once to being able to advance fighting or magic further under human or elven tutelage, but only one at a time.
>>46727032
I started typing a very long post listing all the changes, but then I realized they weren't really communicating any of the actual intent of this system, and it looked like a jumbled mess.
Basically, it's a pretty light system with a lot of room for improvisation (I guess at least partially because endless rules for specific situations suck, and it's easier to discuss situations when they come, agree on what happens in a given situation and make that a ruling). The sensibilities (impartial DM, player-defined goals, sandbox campaign, all that) are very OD&D.
Mechanically, it has a lot to make it less strictly defined and faster, looser and such. You have your basic statline (which is also a lot more versatile and a less narrowly focused than the traditional D&D stats), your class (three basic classes, wide in scope) and a single specialization, which is a loose, pretty freely decided definition of your background and/or specific skills. You get more of those as you level up or something happens in the game that makes us agree your character obviously has background like this. Honestly, this feels great to me. It reduces staring at the rules and thinking about mechanics, and frees me up to think about the tactical/strategical situation, the fiction that's happening and all that.
(Cont.)
>>46727402
Gameplay-wise, it's more or less punishing OD&D stuff. Very few characters have made it to level 2 or farther, and it focuses on low level play, and generally assumes that most of the world is low level as well. This isn't as terrible as it might sound (not terrible at all, really) because the system makes low level play feel lot less shitty than it often feels (the way your stats and trying to do something works means that a level 1 character can very well be an expert in many things, it's more about survivability and all that). Intrestingly, although characters die a lot, there's a wounding system in place that actually gives you some degree of character protection (while still fucking them up). Getting wounded (taken down past 0 and failing rolls to resist getting fucked up) reduces your stats (and possibly mangles something up) and gets you a black mark (characters can have one mark per level, more than that and you're dead no matter what). However, stats increase during play, so it feels dynamic, with characters being better or worse off in a a given situation. Fights also have stunts and the like, which mean that succeeding better gives you chances to do more than just hitting them for some damage, which makes it feel more fluid and dynamic as well.
It's very sandbox-oriented, as I said, and a lot of attention is on that. In general, the game feels very nicely organic and fluid, and never bogs down. It just does things quite differently from your conventional D&D.
>>46727402
>>46727409
Well, that doesn't tell us much at all, but its good it works for you.
What do you think about random tables for when a character hits to 0 hp?
And more importantly, I see how they can be cool for battles, but what about traps?
>>46728400
You mean random tables for what happens exactly, like whether you're horribly mangled or dead or whatever? Don't see why it wouldn't work for traps. If you want there to be more possibilities than just death, I don't think it'll be any less relevant for getting hit by a swinging pendulum than it is for getting hit by a swinging axe.
>>46728486
Ah apologies, I phrased it badly. I meant save-or-die situations. For example, you get bitten, and fail your save against poison. Just dying seems a bit cruel, considering that other methods now have a lifeline.
>>46728661
There's a poison table in the DMG. Page 20 in the 1e one, page 101 in the revised (1995) 2e one.
Okay, so I noticed something when I ran my a brown-box OD&D game a couple weeks back-
My players pretty heartily dove into the rules, and got really excited when they learned that monster PCs were an option (I didn't tell them this, but it's pretty heavily implied right in the character generation section).
So I made some quick rulings and pretty soon we had a minotaur and a young Ent in the party.
I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure I gave Minotaurs a +1 to hit/damage with two-handed weapons and -1 with everything else, plus no darkvision, but a strong sense of smell.
Ents were weirder, and I restricted them to Clerics only. I think the only starting ability was +1 HP/HD.
The game itself wasn't perfect, but we had a lot of fun that night, and I think that just goes to show how inspiring the rules still are, in terms of giving room for improvisation like that.
>>46728661
>>46728400
Hmm. If I were going to do something like that, it would be along these lines.
POISON PERMANENT DAMAGE -- persists until Neutralize Poison or similar potion or effect is received.
1. Nerve damage in hands. Suffer from fumbles on natural 1s. Cumulative results increase range of critical fumbles.
2. Blurred vision. Increase penalties from poor visibility by 1. Cumulative.
3. Poor equilibrium. Increase penalties from blindness, invisibility, or total darkness by 1, cumulative.
4. Nearsighted. Increase range penalties by 1, cumulative.
etc.
Basically the idea I'd go with is minor penalties that ramp up. Of course, more severe effects could be envisioned, but I wouldn't want to encourage players to drop characters. Also, I'm planning on an RPG with grievous sounding wounding effects that mostly just drop you out of the fight until healed.
>>46728737
Nice. Its also almost inevitable that a large and long lived enough campaign will result in someone being Reincarnated.
>>46728486
Well, save-or-die traps are kind of a two-sided thing. On one hand, they force you to be smart and pay attention and all that. On another, they can also suck balls terribly if handled poorly, or if your group just doesn't want that kind of play.
If you're going to have them, be sure to be fair about it. I've seen some DMs get into this "You're not a thief so you have no chance to find the trap" -style of play, and that just ends up being a random roll about whether or not you die, which kind of sucks. Traps should be findable through mundane means (such as good explaining of how you're looking for them and testing for them). My group has taken to rolling barrels down the stairs to spring any unexpected traps, for example. Terribly noisy, but it works sometimes.
The other option is to just do away with them. There are other ways to make traps nasty and encourage players to be mindful about less obvious dangers. Level drains, curses, slower poisons (that might not necessarily kill), shit like that.
If you're going to use them, the group needs to be on the same page about what they mean and how you can avoid them. They can add to the game, if you're looking for that type of game where such tactical considerations are an issue, but they can be very frustrating.
>>46728838
Whoops. Should be for >>46728661
>>46728817
Oooohhhhh
I completely forgot about the rules for reincarnation.
IIRC, there's some really good tables for that in the AD&D DMG.
I'll definitely have to use those at some point.
>>46728838
Save or die traps can be a fine addition to a game IF the players understand that save or die traps are going to be in play.
A great example of this was when I made a player roll a waving throw for a henchman in tower of the stargazer when he tried to open the door. He was joking that maybe the door would take the henchman's hand off, but I corrected him on the poison saving throw was against death, and everyone at the table got quiet. They asked if I misspoke, I did not, though the hireling did live to fight another day. From that point on, the players were wary of every door, chest, or potion they came across. That first trap, with an instant death saving throw involved, quickly made sure that everyone was following trap detection and disarmament protocol to a T.
Tldr: Put save or die traps in a dungeon only if you're players are aware that they can be there, and not just killing the level 9 character "as an example" or "not careful enough, better be careful next time"
>>46729583
Yeah, completely. Still, it should be emphasized that if death traps are going to be in the game, the DM should be fair about it, and allow for creative means of circumventing them. This *should* go without saying, but I've seriously seen the thief scenario (where lack of one just means you have to trip every trap), and that's no fun for anyone involved.
On a sidenote, that's probably the whole idea of the door trap in Stargazer. It's supposed to be an introduction module, so Raggi probably wanted to show the players right away that this game doesn't hold hands or pull punches.
Heh, obviously it worked for your game.
LotFP > DCC > Labyrinth Lord > Mutant Future > S&W
fight me.
>>46731302
Do you consider all these to be pretty good and this is your order of preference or do you consider S&W to be absolute shit?
>>46731302
If we're talking retroclones, then sure. LotFP is my favorite of the bunch. I haven't played DCC, but I like a lot of what it's doing.
I usually prefer S&W to LL, but that's purely a preference thing. Haven't even looked at Mutant Future.
>>46722236
There are a ton of programs (free, paid, pirated) that can do this. Libre Office, MS Word, Scribus, InDesign -- there is no real standard.
Read around on desktop publishing programs and find one you like. They are all functional and all of them can make PDFs.
>>46731478
MF is great. it's basically a b/x version of gamma world.
>>46731678
In addition, here are some guidelines in typography:
http://erebaltor.se/rickard/typography/
Has anyone made guidelines on how to efficiently keep track of time and use wandering monsters in a good way?
>>46727402
>>46727409
this sounds rather cool, and you should post specific mechanics for me to shamelessly steal.
>>46731302
>dungeon crawl classics is good
Iunno man, I never got into the GIANT TABLES for everything.
>>46732293
>how to efficiently keep track of time
This little puppy right here.
>>46701902
Zak, please go.
>>46732338
90% of those tables are referenced once during character creation. the rest are just flair to add for crits, fumbles, and magic.
have you ever even played it, or did you glance through it once?
>>46726254
>~10 sessions to get to about lvl 3
That sounds horrible. No wonder your players get bored.
>>46732626
If it's ~3-4 sessions per level, then thats 6-8 to level 3. Adding in 1-2 sessions for player antics, roleplay, goofing off or having to cancel, that's 7-10 sessions to level 3.
How fast do you get to level 3? Or do you start there?
>>46732460
That's definitely helpful, thanks. Do you have any guides on how long things should take, like how long it should take to pick a lock, or how long a torch lasts?
>>46733010
Usually a turn for those attempts.
Torch is 6 turns
>>46732626
I don't think that's too excessive. How many sessions does it take for you?
>>46733010
Check your rules set. Generally speaking, most stuff takes a turn, torches are usually 6 turns, candles 12, lanterns 24 I think?
>>46732338
>shit talking giant tables
Fuck off newfag. Don't you have a 3aboo thread to shitpost in and pretend since your edition has been cancelled that it makes you a grog now?
>>46733758
Do you feel better now?
What happened to OSRG? It used to be so comfy.
>>46733829
we've had a shitposter problem for the last 3 threads.
>>46733758
Okay, here's the thing. I want to be able to fit everything I need to know to play on a single A4 sheet, and then maybe the gm's rules on a couple more. Tables often irritate me because they break the flow of the game. Ideally, the basic mechanics (attack rolls, HP, saves, roll-under-attribute) are something quick and intuitive to apply that fades into the background and lets the game become a back-and-forth of exploration and narration. Complex rules, including tables for stuff like crits, a lot of spells (which have variable effects depending on level), odd class abilities and so in get in the way of that- they make the game pause whilst we look stuff up and do some maths/consult the table/work out what happens.
I mean, there's a place for tables; normally in the hands of the GM in order to spark creativity. Things like reaction rolls, 'what are the monsters doing' and so on. But DCC has each spell require a roll to cast and then looking up what it does, which just feels too fiddly for my tastes.
I guess, ultimately, I want a very streamlined game, and DCC has more fiddly parts than I enjoy.
Of course, anybody whose opinions you disagree with is a 3aboo newfag, god forbid that people in the thread have different tastes. These threads used to be really chill, let's try to dial back the hostility. I mean, I've been kinda bitchy too, so I'll try to reign that in.
>>46734675
You should give Swords & wizardry Whitebox a whirl, then!
>>46734675
I'm the exact same way. I love tables for generating the content as a GM, or stuff I can use as part of setting things up (random encounters, for example).. but once the ball is in motion I don't really want to stop it to look something up.
DCC has some really interesting ideas, but I'm not going to stop in the middle of a fight to look something up. I want everything I need to run the entire game in the moment to sit nicely on my DM screen. I don't have room for a pile of random effects tables to be referenced in the middle of a fight.
Does a wild west OSR exist?
>>46739468
Boothill?
>>46739468
>wild west OSR
Owl Hoot Trail is wild west with fantasy races
>>46733758
My edition is B/X, dumbass.
>>46689900
Hey guys, im new to DM'ing 1st ed DnD, i want to run one of the classic modules ive read so much about, so i was thinking of running The Temple of Elemental Evil, since its a levels 1 to 8 campaign, but im having trouble understanding the mechanics of runing Modules, since most of the books are just Descriptions of places, interiors some npc's, and dont explain much about the story itself, or how to manage to get the PC's to actually get to the first dungeon, any help?
>>46741521
ToEE is a monster of a module. Most old school modules are 30-60 pages, whereas ToEE is 180 pages and the temple itself has like 400 rooms. I'm not saying it can't be done but I would start with something shorter. I6 Ravenloft?
>>46741521
>1st ed DnD
>ToEE
great module, but it's AD&D so it will require some amount of conversion/reduction
>>46741118
>Owl Hoot Trail
have a copy?
What kind of music seems OSR-ish to you guys?
>>46744940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7sIqyoRFiU
>>46744940
I've used most of this soundtrack when running games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V-KLn_PgQg
>>46744940
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR7KfKlErwk
Now before I ask this, please take this as a trigger warning.
Now on to the question; Has anyone created aSergal Race as Class?I have several friends who are interested, if just for morbid curiosities sake.
>>46748408
That's not much of a warning, you know. You don't specify and it's not like people would even know what this "Sergal" is.
Thankfully first link was to "furry encyclopedia" and I stopped in time.
>>46748408
>Sergal
>several friends who are interested
Anon, if they're interested in sergals, then friends they are not. I've been down the rabbit hole, I've seen how far it goes. Trust me, you do not want to begin that trip.
>>46744940
>What kind of music seems OSR-ish to you guys?
For me, it's 80's music, because that's when I started playing the RPGs that are now considered old school--Moldvay Basic and so forth.
For implicitly (if not explicitly) post apocalyptic (say, Gamma World), there's this: https://youtu.be/Bsy30eHDXnc which more than coincidentally goes fantastically with Fury Road.
For science fiction (say, Star Frontiers), there's this (cheesy though it may be): https://youtu.be/dX4Jlm75CdM the beginning of which gave me childhood fantasies of futuristic soldiers with blaster rifles hunting down some shrieking, monstrous alien in the darkness of a moonless night.Of course, if you don't mind tying yourself down to a particular setting, there's also this: https://youtu.be/GsdOKYFjNIE
For more modern day (maybe Top Secret), there this: https://youtu.be/nrfgseVDUQU which was apparently inspired by the original, book version of The Bourne Identity.
It's actually surprisingly tricky to find something thematic of fantasy, though https://youtu.be/ib4uodmkaR8 works for me (the line about the king on a throne with his eyes torn out actually inspired a scenario I used, though not in keeping with the probably Oedipus reference).
>>46748482
They were a bit of a meme on /tg/ back in the day, with one of those old illustrated quests actually including one and various avatarfags and shit like that.
Never liked, I don't think, but they were there.
Speaking of which, never google "chakat".
>>46748408
Not as far as I know - the 1d4chan page only lists a 3.5 and 4E race, as far as I can tell. There might also be something for 5E.
I'd recommend not actually looking any deeper, though.
>>46744940
Electric Wizard, SunnO))), Boris, classic Sabbath
>>46748918
Of course, if I weren't just nostalgia-ing about my childhood experience with RPGs, I'd probably go with something more like https://youtu.be/RW68zUxqsqM Black Sabbath, https://youtu.be/IpWE20G4Hq8 Iron Maiden, or https://youtu.be/3Y1ZecQgWiI Blue Oyster Cult, maybe with some https://youtu.be/-21AtiWV3TE Led Zeppelin thrown in.
>>46744940
70s prog, space and psychedelic rock, mostly. I play that a lot when I DM. Sometimes I play 70s electronic when spacey/gonzo stuff happens.
>>46743741
ToEE is actually four modules in a single book, not a single module, though.
>>46744940
The Ladyhawke soundtrack.
>>46748918
The opening to the Alan Parsons Project's P-K4 is really 70s-80s SF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiCVGIdW76g
>>46741216
Get the fuck out of here with your new-fangled "fighter" classes and your optional variable weapon damage tables. This thread isn't for middle schoolers. Why don't you go watch The Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, Speed Racer, or whatever car-related television show is all the rage with you kids these days? This discussion is for adults who understand that real games shouldn't go past level 3.
>>46749603
>This discussion is for adults who understand that real games shouldn't go past level 3.
Are you aware that Holmes Basic tells you to graduate to AD&D when you hit level 3?
>>46749634
Shh! Quit trying to counter my feels with your logic. What good has logic ever done?
>>46691979
Isn't LotFP 1 gold = 50 silver, so that would be 20 GP, not 50 right?
>>46749586
Speaking of science fiction, what could be more futuristic than arcade games? https://youtu.be/iNAuGs-JM98
>>46749702
You're right, I blame dyslexia. 5 and 2
>>46744940
Hawkwind!
>>46749603
Get the fuck out of here with your new-fangled "Thief" classes and your variable hit dice. This thread isn't for middle schoolers. Why don't you go watch Charlie's Angels, Family Feud, Little House on the Prairie, or whatever - oh shit, The Amazing Spider-Man premiered in 1977? Really? I didn't know that.
Something something unlimited level advancement and sixth-level spells, I guess.
Also, Holmes wasn't meant to be anything other than an introductory product, I don't think? The original intent was for it to be a compiled and edited version of OD&D, but I'm pretty sure that got thrown out pretty quickly to make an introduction to OD&D/AD&D.
This is an official Bump.
Also, a question: what OSR systems (except Winter Wolves or semi-related stuff like Traveller) do not have HP bloat? I.e. you do not get +1dX HP each level-up
>>46751623
Metamorphosis Alpha and its family? MA has a static Xd6 hit points, IIRC, where X is your 3d6-down-the-line constitution stat.
OSR games in general don't have that much HP bloat, I don't think, especially since the hit dice are limited and the constitution bonuses generally low.
The least bloaty D&D would probably be OD&D, where even the burliest Lord just has 9+12 hit points. (i.e. max 66, average 43,5). Still nine times that of a first-level character, though.
For OSR games that just straight-up don't give you HP advancement, though, I'm not really sure what there is. I know that Dungeon World does it that way, and then there's stuff like Torchbearer that doesn't even have hit points, but that's not exactly standard OSR stuff. Only tenuously related in a mechanical sense, really.
>>46707287
Bump for Black Hack, pls. I'm intrigued
>>46751924
> OSR games in general don't have that much HP bloat,
Having 10 times more HP than you started with is bloat in my books.
> Torchbearer
Huh. I think that's what I needed. They even started playtest to get it above level 5.
Thanks anon.
> Only tenuously related in a mechanical sense, really.
Meh. My blasphemous heartbreaker system doesn't even use d20.
>>46753713
>Having 10 times more HP than you started with is bloat in my books.
I don't think you're looking for something with an hp system, really.
If you want players to just never gain hp or almost never then you're looking at a wound system like in world of darkness or shadowrun, where you start with like 8 or so wound points and get at most +1 or +2 over time.
Though usually these types of games are much more mechanically complex then OSR because HP itself is an abstraction meant to keep things simple.
Any good sci-fi OSR modules? What about tables or DM resources? Need some ideas for my next session.
>>46753941
DCC has Purple Planet, and then there's Machinations of the Space Princess.
I bought the LotFP book and I'm planning on DMing it next Saturday, one thing I noticed in the book is the mapping section, where it says that players are responsible for making the map.
I don't know how well this will work out (and if I should even bother with it) since my only option of playing is online (with roll20), and that my players are all fairly new and I don't know if it will be a turn off or not.
Does anyone have Chthonic Codex?
I didn't see it in the trove.
>>46754010
It can be fun having a player map, but you need the right conditions. They can't be a perfectionist about it, and have to sort of enjoy the makeshift nature of the map, because fuckups are going to happen. If the conditions aren't right, then you really shouldn't hesitate to do something different. Honestly, the player map thing is an ideal that, more often than not, isn't followed, at least in my experience.
>>46754611
Different guy here. I started playing b/x and have the players doing the mapping
My question is, if I notice the players just fucked up majorly (heard west instead of east or some shit like that) should I just say "no dude, I said EAST, the corridor goes EAST" or just let him fuck up?
>>46754705
I'd say think about it in terms of common sense and memory. If they're standing in the room they're confused about, you can tell them what's up. If they're talking about something from some time ago, I'd say that you shouldn't tell them unless they go back there thus risking wandering monsters.
The way I do it is I doodle a little sketch of the room they enter on a small piece of paper, then remove that paper as they move to the next room.
>>46754853
Yeah that makes sense. I'll start doing the room sketch thing as well.
>>46754902
Mapping is actually the thing I've had the most arguments with my group about. Some players wanted me to draw the map for them, and I wanted them to do it by themselves. The room sketch method was how we managed to settle things.
>>46754705
I'd suggest not using cardinal directions and instead just using left/right/etc. in regards to the doorway they entered through.
Absolute directions mean that you can't get them turned around through all the various ways to do that. (Including, but not limited to: rotating rooms, corridors going in weird angles, (unknown) teleporters, a maze of twisting passages, running away from a monster and getting lost, and shitty mapmaking.)
Do make sure to actually describe the room/corridor properly, though - if you fail to describe it clearly, that's not necessarily their problem. Maybe have some kind of standardized thing, "the standard corridor is Xft wide, Yft tall, the standard room is Z feet tall", as well. You might also want to ask the mapping player to repeat a description of the room to you if you think there might be some confusion going on. It's not immediately obvious. cf. Gazebos.
Also, of course, be prepared to draw sketches of the more complicated rooms. That one sacrificial platform in Caverns of Thracia comes to mind.
Of course, mapping is a lot less relevant for some modules than it is for others! And some modules make it more difficult than others, and whatnot.
For a small example of what exactly mapping can do, here's a thing from B4 The Lost City:On one of the central levels of the pyramid, you can find the tomb of the ancient king and queen. However, the entirety of that section is behind secret doors! It's not too difficult to find if you map it out well, though, since it's a big fuckin' empty section in the middle of an otherwise cramped map. It's still missable, but it's not like there's anything really important there except loot and corpses.
Talking about maps, what's the terminology you use for some things?
Like for different types of intersections, or how do you explain nonstandard room shapes, etc?
What OSR games have cantrips?
>>46754705
If it doesn't make sense that their character would fuck it up, then I'd correct them. If they miscalculate the length of the corridor by one square, that's one thing. But it seems to me unlikely that the map maker is going to have a corridor turn to the left when it actually turns to the right.
>>46755147
>I'd suggest not using cardinal directions and instead just using left/right/etc
Really? I mean, I have nothing against describing a corridor turn to the right, but it seems like this is more prone to error rather than less as people aren't going to rotate their map all the time, and thus will have to turn things in their head. So if they are coming down the corridor from the north and you say it turns right, they need to draw the corridor proceeding to their left (the west). Not that this is terribly difficult, but it's something you'll be doing time and time again, and either the DM or the player can make a careless error.
>>46753918
> I don't think you're looking for something with an hp system, really.
Well, wounds are a lot like HP.
>>46755632
> What OSR games have cantrips?
Beyond the Wall. But there are checks involved, so they are not PF-style "eternal magic ability".
>>46756065
>they are not PF-style "eternal magic ability".
I was thinking of regular spells, only level 0. I'd honestly forgotten that cantrips are infinite use in some of the more recent systems.
>>46744940
I'm probably going to betray my age here, but my brain mostly associates OSR with black sabbath, motorhead, Judas Priest.. Iron Maiden.. a lot of shit from the 70s metal scene. A lot of shit from the early punk scene, too.
>>46755821
>Really? I mean, I have nothing against describing a corridor turn to the right, but it seems like this is more prone to error rather than less as people aren't going to rotate their map all the time, and thus will have to turn things in their head. So if they are coming down the corridor from the north and you say it turns right, they need to draw the corridor proceeding to their left (the west). Not that this is terribly difficult, but it's something you'll be doing time and time again, and either the DM or the player can make a careless error.
If they're drawing the map they probably have a fairly good idea of where they came from, but honestly my big issue with the whole compass thing is that it's a lot harder to actually get the players legitimately lost. Especially in an above-ground dungeon like, Ravenloft, for instance, where "north" probably has a whole bunch of implications since you have a good idea of what the outside of the structure is like. Although you could also just assign a temporary "north" if they actually get turned around for whatever reason. Hmm.
I dunno, maybe it works better than I think it does. Stick to what you feel is right, I guess.
Also, it's a bit of a crapshoot if your dungeon isn't actually situated in the compass directions (relevant for ones close to other locations etc.), although in that case you might just go up/down/left/right in regards to the map, I suppose.
Also also, if you go with NSEW then everyone needs to have a pretty damn good idea of which direction is north and have that be a constant through multiple sessions. But that probably goes without saying and should hopefully be pretty easy to solve.
I'm working on a 24-face tesseract dungeon, so I've been thinking on this for a bit. NSEW isn't really applicable in that case, although I guess I could use it to try and disguise the true nature of the place.
>>46754010
> it says that players are responsible for making the map.
This was pretty much the standard for most dungeon crawling/exploration games at the time. You'll find the same advice in B/x, etc.
It does add a ton to the game, and players who get into it will actually wind up cherishing their maps after a while. I've got a player who keeps a notebook full of his maps and looks at them like they were trophies or something - a scrapbook of their adventures. He also took to marking little Xs where everyone died, along with the name of the character and how. It's pretty funny.
That said, it can be a pain in the butt depending on your medium. The game won't break if you wind up drawing it for them in roll20. If you go that route, I'd just put your map on the GM layer and stretch it to scale, and then just trace it for them as they explore the relevant bits.
>>46756065
> Well, wounds are a lot like HP.
Alright. You don't want a system that has HP. You don't want a system that has wounds.
I guess. Fate? Though one could argue that stress tracks are basically HP.
I have no idea what you're looking for.
>>46756664
>That said, it can be a pain in the butt depending on your medium. The game won't break if you wind up drawing it for them in roll20. If you go that route, I'd just put your map on the GM layer and stretch it to scale, and then just trace it for them as they explore the relevant bits.
roll 20 has fog of war so you can just uncover it from the map as they go, no need to draw anything.
Now up in the Trove: The Lost Handbook under TSR\AD&D1e\Third Party
The Lost Handbook was a fantastic print-on-demand product that was available for only a very brief period of time. Some guy went through and compiled all of the relevant articles from Dungeon, Dragon, erratas.. interviews, and all kinds of crap into one massive 500 page book with a custom cover, orange spine, and all.
This lasted right up until Lulu realized that this book was essentially pirated distribution of the contained materials, and was pulled. I finally snagged a copy of the pdf.
If you have any interest in AD&D, grab it.
>>46757188
Holy crap, that's really awesome. Thanks!
As a side note, is there anyway to see all files in the mega and when they were added? I'm not sure if there's anything I've missed that I might want.
What is the better random dungeon generator for a mythic underworld campaign: Donjon.net or Wizarddawn?
>>46756718
Maybe their point was that having a system with a limited number of hit points isn't that different from a wound system and therefore there's no reason to prefer the latter over the former. That is to say, "hit point bloat" is not redundant and the only problem with it is the bloat part.
Does AD&D 1E have a monster manual?
>>46757340
> is there anyway to see all files in the mega and when they were added?
I'm not sure, honestly. I try to announce when any major updates come up.
>>46757989
Several.
\TSR\03 AD&D 1st Edition\AD&D 1st Edition Core Products Monster Books
>>46757989
>>46758035
Do note that Monster Manual 1 isn't fully compatible with the rules.
I mean, it's mostly compatible. There's just some weirdness, mostly because it seems to be a Holmes supplement in some ways. A lot of stuff changed in the years between the release of the Monster Manual and the Player's Handbook!
The big differences are, IIRC:
>Alignment is five-point - no Lawful Neutral here
>Unarmored AC is 9 rather than 10
>Some monsters (e.g. Yeenoghu) reference Holmes rules, like using Dexterity for initiative (Yeenoghu's tail attacks with 18 Dex)
That's mostly it. though. Just small inconsistencies that popped up since AD&D was a work in progress - there's even changes between the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, like IIRC what save/attack tables Monks use.
>>46758149
Does AD&D 2e have unarmored at AC9? I"m going to use Godbound and that's the default assumption. I'd like something most compatible with it.
>>46758168
AD&D as a whole has unarmored as AC10, I think - it's only OD&D and Basic that stuck to AC9.
Do note that plate didn't actually get changed from AC3, it's just that IIRC there was some extra stuff added in the AC9-7ish range.
Godbound is somewhat based on the B/X ruleset, I think, but I think it might have its own stuff for monsters? I haven't looked into that product as much as I want to, sadly.
>>46758408
The gap between leather and chain is one point larger, which I attribute to the insertion of studded leather (though ring and scale armor are also in that gap).
>>46758168
This >>46758408
They added additional armors in AD&D so they stretched the range out slightly in order to make it work.
>>46753941
Nick the Star Frontiers modules.
>>46755632
Cantrip is a first-level AD&D spell.
>>46751623
winter wolves?
I don't know this system
>>46758408
Which retroclone or version of D&D would you recommend? Something that's compatible and has a good amount of material? Monsters, spells and gear specifically.
>>46758656
>Monsters, spells and gear specifically.
AD&D 2e. There are 28 monster manuals (not counting monster sheets that came with other products), a four-volume set of every magic item up to '94, a four-volume set of every wizard spell up to '96, and a three-volume set of every priest spell up to '99.
The conversion tables in the back of RC are for 2e as well, so it's pretty easy to convert.
>>46758734
It uses AC10 for unarmored humans though, right? That makes me think there may be other differences from B/X or OD&D that would make it more different from Godbound (which has AC9 for unarmored humans)
Is there a difference between Black Box basic D&D (1991) and BECMI (1983) rules?
>>46758606
Not in 1st edition.
>>46758851
That's a really good question, and sadly one for which I have no answer (other than layout and going through levels 1-5). I honestly don't know if there are any differences to speak of, but seeing as I've only glanced at it, I'm not really the person to give you an answer. It doesn't get talked about much.
>>46758656
Are you wanting a retroclone for "OSR" gaming, or just as a general-use platform?
If the former, AD&D2e is the last thing I'd recommend. It changes some major assumptions about what the game is about and the sprawling splatbook list is difficult for the uninitiated to sort. If you just want a general "high adventure" kind of game though, it's probably fine. Just stick to the core books first until you get your way around it.
If you want to play something that's more specifically in the playstyle of OSR, then the holy trinity is usually Moldvay Basic, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lords. The majority of homebrew content and products made these days are related to some version of Basic, and it's all pretty well interchangeable.
>>46759186
I want material to steal for Godbound, which is meant to be OSR compatible BUT one thing it does assume is that unarmored humans are AC9. Which implies it's slightly (though probably not significantly) less compatible to systems with AC10 as default.
>>46759228
The Basic line then, certainly. Anything in the TSR/02 Basic folder should be compatible. There's 150 or so pdfs in there you can look around.
>>46758635
Check the trove. Some anon made a mod to LOTFP, it's some sort of kinda-prehistory version. Cavemen and such. It's pretty neat.
