>I don't know how to start a thread edition
The Trove
>mega:///#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!vJsyAa5T
Chat-based gaming tables
>http://critkeeper.byethost7.com/?ckattempt=2
What is your "home" edition of D&D, and why do you always come back to it?
>>46790799
1st Edition A D&D, and I guess because it's what I grew up and cut my teeth on. I use OSRIC books nowadays, but I still have all my dad's old 1E books on the shelf. I have been trying out more B/X and BECMI stuff because of player interest lately though.
>>46790869
I also went through a big 2E phase, so it used to be that, but people hear THAC0 and start running, the pansies.
>>46790799
>OD&D (LBBs only)
Playing with any printing of the very first game is fantastic. When you go through the books and decipher them, and realise how crazy but actually insightful everything is put up, you cannot help but fall madly in love.
>OD&D (w/supplements)
Greyhawk is super weird. Seriously, it is. The mechanics make it some kind of AD&D lite, but in digest-size. I have to try it someday. Except for the Gods supplement which is kinda meh, it's all very good readings even if you're not into OD&D.
>Holmes' Basic
A mix between OD&D, B/X and Holmes' home campaign. One thing that I love about it is how MUs in it get all the first level spells in their magic books (not spellbooks), and then must either invent new spells, research existing ones or find/steal others. Also Scrolls are cheap so you'll see wizards carrying a shitton of paper around, which is very Vancian.
>Moldvay's Basic
It's awesome but I'm not a fan of MUs with one spell. Casting one in a day is cool, but having only one option to deal with shit kinda sucks when you're a MU.
>Mentzer's Basic to Immortal
I have to admit I'm not a fan of this one. Far less gonzo than Moldvay which is already starting to tone down the crazy setting, big rules with big words and 36th levels play. Meh.
>Cook/Marsh's Expert set
It's ok I guess. I don't know enough about it to have a fair opinion.
>Rules Cyclopedia
Strangely, while I don't like Mentzer's BECMI, I find a lot of pleasure in reading RC. Too huge a book for my tastes of today, but I would have loved it back when I played AD&D.
>AD&D
It's like the rambling insane rant of the old master, and it's pretty, pretty, pretty cool to read. I say plunder it shamelessly and leave out the parts that don't make sense to you. It's playable tho, despite what a lot of people say.
>AD&D2
My first game was of AD&D 2. Back then I didn't actually read the rules and we just winged everything but it felt like D&D to us since there was no other exemple. Cont.
>>46790943
>AD&D 2(cont.)
The main issue that I have with it today is the unnecessary complexity and ridiculous pseudo-historical stuff. I'm talking about scale or ring armor, and switching from tables to advance rates in a lot of stuff, which sounds to me like proto-3.X and the whole "build" era.
I love Planescape, I love Spelljammer, I love Dark Sun, but far too many bits and pieces that aren't needed. (I'd love to see a Dark Sun game with LBBs OD&D though)
>I haven't ever played 3.X or 4th edition enough time to get a proper opinion on it, though I've read 3.5 and quickly discarded the book. Also two runs ins with bad GMs doing Pathfinder. Meh.
>5e
Drop the feats completely (who needs feats?), roll stats, use only Background & Class equipment instead of adding to that the 3D6*10 and you've got a quick and dirty yet modern game. Fuck with the monsters, fuck "balance", maybe go away with the death saves for something grittier, and you've got yourself a neat old-school-y game. Well you also gotta get rid of most semi-spellcasting classes.
>>46790869
I've heard a lot about OSRIC, but never really got into it, how is it? What does it do well, what are its flaws?
>>46790938
B-but Thac0 is far easier than attack matrixes since you can math it in your head!
Though I have to confess, ascending armor class is my beverage of choice for any edition since I've spent a few years with LotFP. Plus my players actually have a hard time understanding how a class-based to hit bonus and a strenght or dexterity modifier have to "add up" in such and such way to get your total mod, so I don't want to imagine what would happen with descending AC.
>>46791036
>I've heard a lot about OSRIC, but never really got into it, how is it? What does it do well, what are its flaws?
In many ways, it's just 1E, only with a better layout and organization, and it's a bit clearer on the rules than ol' Gary was in my opinion.
>>46791137
Ah then I'll be sure to check it out, AD&D clones aren't that numerous compared to B/X based games, that's a bit of a shame.
Also daily reminder that OD&D means Original D&D, not Old D&D, which means it is the proper way to reference the 1974 Whitebox and its supplement, not the Classic Redbox and what came after it (which is usually called classic D&D or just Basic)
So how did last session went?
I had two unexpected drop outs so we went from 9 characters to 5 including two retainers, leaving the party with three shy non-leader types players. One of them took charge of things and led them safely through the dungeon, getting back out with enough loot for the thief to gain a level, after having fucked up a ghoul and "negotiated" with goblins. Also the MU took big rocks to the face because they decided to not deal with an obvious trap (as in, oh here's a stone trap, well, let's hope it doesn't kill us all while we cross through) but miraculously survived because I use a Death & Dismemberement Table.
>>46791226
Currently between games, trying to set one up, but it's a bitch because of my schedule not having set days off, and my friends being easily distracted by flashing lights. Still muckin' about with world-building in the meantime.
>>46791322
Do you play at a real table or online, or both?
I've been managing something like one game per year, as far as RL is concerned, sometimes two, three if I'm really lucky but that's about it.
>>46791322
>and my friends being easily distracted by flashing lights
Know the feel bro
I try to ease it up for them as much as possible, and we play online, yet games never work out.
And it's just not the same when playing with strangers I don't care about.
>>46791373
The technique I found is making friends with the strangers for a few years to finally have a proper online group, then watch it fall down in months because X goes away, Y has family issues, Z turns out to be an idiot etc.
>>46791365
Real table, as it's hard enough to keep em focused there, let alone online.Although, I have been experimenting with online so a friend 2 states away can play too.
>>46791373
Yeah, I can't play with strangers, just too... weird. Right now the main flashing light is FO 4, although I guess I can cut 2 of them some slack, as one just had his first kid, and the other just closed on a house.
>>46791451
Do you use the usual attention-getting techniques? Like starting In Media Res with a big thing happening followed by a "what d'you do?"
When I get the occasion to play Barbarians of Lemuria with a bunch of RL friends, I know they're not going to play "more seriously" than, say, if they were playing Smash Bros. So I just keep the flow of fun going. Anything goes, and the plot is more a recollection of cool suggestions and interpretations of events after the game than a red hook to follow during the game, which just look like a serie of fast-paced action sequences cut with short pauses where we drink, eat, joke around and actually think about what they're gonna do next. Then we jump back inside the action. I know most of those guys don't like old school play though, too slow. One of them does, and that's awesome, but he's not available a lot.
>>46791563
I've always just relied on me giving a good opening dialogue and descriptions. My players can handle the slower old school style mostly (the one that got the house has some trouble staying focused).
The main distraction problem is getting them to a session, not keeping them there for me,
Could I get a little feedback on this homebrew please? It's very close to being finished now, just want it to be done soon.
How do you make dungeons more interesting?
>>46793546
>Tie together a central theme
>Certain events will change the entire dungeon (example' water temple from Zelda)
>Interesting NPCs or neutral entites
>Movement or practical challenges
>Legal restrictions (it's In a lords lands, you are only allowed a portion of the treasure unless you can sneak it out from the outside guards)
>Sweeping Magical effects
Not to toot my own horn, but I did this once by making the door to enter a dungeon basically just vertical on a cliff face, you have to climb up their and bash or picklock the door without any scaffold or platform.
Also I've always wanted to start a party in the middle of a dungeon floor, having lost their memory of the floor. You don't let the players in either, they have to figure out what happened. I'd make a roll for each consumable item to see if used, and make a random amount and type of non-lethal damage on each party member. And make one of the parties favorite hirelings inexplicably missing. Not confirmed dead, just gone. It sounds like a fun way to kick off a session, and make them think what monster or spell could do that!
>>46792056
Some thoughts:
Why let players arrange stats as desired? It sort of defeats the point of rolling if you can choose where the good and bad stats go. Maybe let them swap a couple of scores or something so there's a little control.
I really like how you're doing saves. Like, /really/ like it, enough that I'm totally going to use a similar thing if I do a new homebrew. However, I'm a little confused by the difference between 'will' and 'soul' saves. Maybe change it up so one is against all magical transformation and stuff, and the other is against all emotional/mind controlly effects? Might make it a little clearer.
I also really fucking like 'racial size modifiers', so smaller characters are harder to hit but also frailer. Thumbs up!
Other than this, your /mechanics/ look pretty sound. Do you have the fluffy bits to look at? I'd be interested to see what your different races do, what your equipment lists look like, how your magic works, and stuff like that. All the finicky details really.
Overall, I wouldn't say it's /done/ but it's certainly looking good, and I'd be really interested to see a full version.
>>46794517
Thanks!
Stat arrangement was done to make the game feel a little easier and more 'modern'. I'm not sure how I feel about forcing some if the stats in place as it would be annoying to be forced to play a Wizard with 14 strength and stuff, but I suppose that I'd part of the game.
Will and Soul saves; yes you're right on their general categories. Willpower is more about resisting mind control and pain and your 'charisma' Soul save is more about keeping people from changing what you are or instant death. Resisting curses too.
As for fluff and stuff, yes I really wanted to but I was trying to keep all the information as short as possible to keep it one page.
Finally, as for races I'm honestly not sure. At this point I might be more leaning to keeping the party all human until they encounter another race, in which case they'd be allowed to create or inherit a new character from them. Besides size modifiers I'm not really sure what special thing to give them, since humans don't really have anything special besides the social aspect. I might actually play that up a bit, nonhumans get bonuses but can't own property in human lands, aren't respected, maybe they are commonly slaves, etc. But that may make the setting's humans sound too edgy and racist. In short I'm not sure yet- the current idea is a Gonzo setting with a kind of mythological ancient/bronze age feel.
>>46791036
>B-but Thac0 is far easier than attack matrixes since you can math it in your head!
HSSSS
>>46795074
Just a suggestion:
In the real world, humans can't do magic, and if you look at things like old fairy tales you find that other creatures (elves, goblins, ghosts and what have you) tend to use magic much more than humans do. Make humans the 'anti-magic' race. They get better saves against magic, but to compensate aren't as good at magic naturally (in much the same way that, for example, halflings don't make good tanks).
Doing this makes the non-human races feel all weird and folklorey, whilst humans come across more as the mundane everyman.
Just my two pence.
>>46792056
The saves block is a little too rigid. Give the player the choice which save to increase (two from the class, possibly a third from the race) except for levels 10, 20 (+1 to all saves) and 5, 15 (+1 to two arbitrary saves - it's easier to remember).
>>46790799
I've been asked to DM a game of D&D for my first time (though have played a ton) to introduce a group to "D&D" but I can't really settle on an edition beyond "not 3E or later".
What edition would you guys recommend?
I've been looking at AD&D 1E, Rules Cyclopedia, Swords & Wizardry Complete edition and ACKS but i'm not really sure myself what would be a good introduction that could entice them to play more.
It'd probably be sandboxy and not overly focused on dungeon crawling (though i'll no doubt get a few adventures of that in there).
Not needing them to read a lot of rules is definitely a plus.
>>46795413
B/X or one of its descendants, IMHO.
Which doesn't make the choice too much easier, since there's a fuckload of B/X descendants.
>>46795074
>I'm not sure how I feel about forcing some if the stats in place as it would be annoying to be forced to play a Wizard with 14 strength and stuff, but I suppose that I'd part of the game.
Well, you roll first, and then pick a class. So you can either decide to play a strong, muscle wizard, or a fighter. Both work.
>>46795413
Seconding B/X (the Expert half has wilderness rules you might find useful).
Or Labyrinth Lord, which is a modern retroclone with a few tweaks.
>>46795413
thirding b/x or a clone. Honestly, it seems like the general favourite of the OSR crowd.
How do you rule ability checks like for climbing?
My thoughts were a simple 1d20, roll under appropriate attribute system. Thieves can elect to use applicable Thief skills if the first roll fails. They can also use Thief skills for feats of supernatural prowess (e.g. climbing a sheer wall with no handholds)
>>46795929
Ruleset is S&W
What do grognards think of Lamentations of the Flame Princess?
>>46796033
I really, really like the size of the book and how the equipment list is on the inside of the cover. That's amazing.
I had a flick through at my FLGS, the system seems robust and I like how encumbrance works. But I'm not a fan of the historical/weird fantasy tone. Some of the modules are downright awful. I don't think any GM alive could make a walking penis monster seem scary or funny or whatever Raggi was going for.
>>46796142
Chiming in, although I don't qualify as a proper grog.
I like the idea of the historical/weird fantasy, but I personally prefer much more gonzo and out-there games. Am currently using LotFP for an ASE game, and am enjoying it quite a bit.
Out of all things, I really appreciate the bushcraft skill, and how well integrated it is with hunting for food.
>>46795929
Just let them do it, no rolls required, unless circumstances demand it or it doesn't fit the character in question.
Meanwhile, Thieves can climb a sheer cliff using only their hands and feet. Once they get spikes and ropes in, though, anyone can follow.
The characters are assumed to be good at their job.
>>46796247
I'd say, make them roll if under pressure. Being chased by an angry mob and trying to climb over a brick wall may trigger a roll.
On a normal peaceful day, the same brick wall just takes time, as the character in question would take it steadily.
>>46795236
I appreciate the feedback but changing the setting, especially something that extreme, is really not something I'm into.
>>46795705
Sure, that works for me.
>>46795293
Hey, that's a good idea. Allow races to get their own saves! But what if a race shares a save with the class, does it just overlap or?
>>46796033
I don't like how the classes are setup
skills were a mistake
not just for lotfp
in general, skills were a mistake
One of these days I'll adapt the little class books from beyond the wall to regular b/x D&D
I like beyond the wall but they simplified casting too much for me.
>>46796033
One of the better clones I say. Maybe, arriving a bit later does have some merits.
Not perfect (i reworked saving throws and gave Fighter "Cleave"), but it is quite good.
>>46795236
I reallydig the idea of anti-magic humans.
>>46796706
How did you rework saving throws, if I may ask?
>>46796142
>I don't think any GM alive could make a walking penis monster seem scary or funny or whatever Raggi was going for.
I'm pretty sure that FFS is written with BECAUSE FUCK YOU THATS WHY as a main idea.
But even then, SJW-minded twinkling star is worse that giant walking dick.
>>46797001
>But even then, SJW-minded twinkling star is worse that giant walking dick.
Reading that my opinion went from "mite b cool" to "oh hell no" so quickly.
Has anyone ever honestly implemented that into their campaign? I doubt Raggi even has.
>>46797046
>I doubt Raggi even has
Uuuh...
>>46797417
In my head he doesn't even play games. He just listens to heavy metal and writes things.
Zak S. seems to do LotFP better. Including all the weird punk/alternative stuff (even if I don't like it).
>>46797046
I'm thinking of doing it at some point, if only to see my players reactions as well as seeing what the fuck Raggi would send me back in the mail.
Right now I have very inexperienced players at the table though. Would like to see what more experienced players would do.
>>46797707
>Would like to see what more experienced players would do.
Come to /tg/, make a thread talking about the wildly stupid thing their fucked-in-the-head DM did, and then get called liars for claiming that something so stupid ever really happened.
>>46798661
A GM once made a one-shot about exploring a giant's asshole.
The entrance was surrounded by a forest of black rooted snakes.
It's the part where the group decided, you know, there's adventure to be had back in the village as well.
So I've been doing some martial arts stuff in my game. How in resonable is it to allow players to change their attack bonus stat into something else, such as Charisma for a fruity rogue or Con for a big knight?
Anyone ran Beyond the Wall for a while?
I just skimmed through it a bit, and am really intrigued. Seems like an interesting blend of two opposing playstyles.
>>46799593
Depends on what you want with it, and what type of system you're running with.
Although Charisma is that one stat that's really damn good and honestly doesn't need a buff. And Constitution is already a no-brainer, although not quite to the degree it is in some later editions. And Dexterity various between alright and awesome depending on system (initiative, armor class, AND ranged weapons?). Intelligence doesn't do too much for non-M-Us, although language can be pretty big and some systems have it give bonuses to saving throws. Wisdom is in a similar boat, although I think "Wisdom to magic saves" is somewhat more common perhaps?
It really, really depends on what the attributes actually do in your system. Also, how big the bonuses are.
Then again, personally I really like OD&D minus supplements and that shit doesn't even have strength give any bonuses beyond Fighting-Man XP. So I might not be the best one to answer.
>>46799746
The only reason you'd say that Charisma was particularly good was if you didn't take into account all of the campaigns where it doesn't come into play often enough to be good.
Which is many.
Charisma is like Turn Undead: very campaign dependent.
>>46795413
I really, really, really like this picture.
>>46799892
i never saw an oldschool campaign without hirelings
If I've just started a blog full of Ideas And Stuff, would it be terribly poor ettiquette to post a link here? I'm not sure how one gets past the 'shouting into the void' stage...
Would a game with no skill points of classes, but strictly roll-under-attribute to succeed be good or bad? Too boring?
You could you add the option of choosing from a ton of 'backgrounds' that affect rolls. For example, your Character has a background in thieving, fishing and acting. To climb, they roll under their DEX score, no modifier. But to lockpick, they roll under their DEX with a -5 to the roll due to their background in thieving. Or to haggle, roll under CHA. But to disguise, roll under CHA with a -5 roll modifier due to an acting background.
I dunno.
>>46800382
Doesn't seem OSR.
>>46796033
It's the best ruleset. Clear class distinction, worth using for the encumbrance alone. Has ascending AC instead of the bullshit.
>>46796142
But you've never played or run it, and others have, so you are assuming that part doesn't 'work' in the game, but it does. "You see a full male on male orgy, sweating and chanting and undulating. And then you see something truly disturbing."
>>46799986
Dave fucking went off and became a taxi driver Trampier. A sad, sad tale.
>>46800468
I see no reason why not. Its freeform. Its not like the idea is to have a list of skills, but to have the player (with the DMs allowance) simply do what they know their character is capable of, and only require rolls for challenges. Its similar to DCCs idea on skills and backgrounds.
>>46799600
Played in an ongoing game for a bit and ran a one shot. It's great. Easily one of my favorite OSR things since it just front loads so much stuff.
It was feeling a bit light on the player side of things once we leveled up a bit though.
They released a supplement that was supposed to help with the longer campaign aspects which is where I feel like the games weak point is compared to systems like ACKS which really grow into something more meaningful. I believe that was the 'Further Afield' supplement.
>>46795413
B/X or Beyond the Wall.
Was >>46800660 anon. Seriously I think beyond the wall has the best group character creation out there. It's at least worth taking a look at even if you settle on a meatier system in the end.
So has anyone gotten their hands on Maze of the Blue Medusa yet? Is it any good?
>>46800804
I'm waiting on it. I like Zak's art but the writer's other work (deep carbon observatory) I found tedious.
This looks cool:
>Swords & Wizardry Core + Lamentations Of The Flame Princess mash-up
>http://cryptofrabies.blogspot.ca/2016/03/starting-campaign-with-swords-wizardry.html
>>46790799
>What is your "home" edition of D&D
Its 5e right now but that's just because it's what my players felt like learning first (everyone in the group is totally new to RPGs, except me). I don't hate 5e but I am hoping to make a shift to LL or LotFP soon.
>>46795413
OD&D. Print the three booklets, read them and take notes, eat it all, sleep on it, maybe add Greyhawk if you want more rules, download the OD&D setting which is in the Trove or on Semper Initiativus Unum, enjoy wizards shooting dinosaurs with laser pistols.
>>46800991
That's going to be a hell of a shock. 5th edition is basically a simplified 4th edition, and OSR will feel like a massive step backwards to most of them.
>>46797046
I don't understand how it relates to SJW.
I've DMed it after reading it and did put the little bitch. They wasted their gift (it was the questions thing) on ridiculous things. Had a blast though. Never met the Giant Walking Penis.
>>46800560
I haven't, no.
I guess to be more specific, I couldn't see it working for me or any of my players.
If it's your bag then hey, props to you. I'm glad a weirdo module came along that worked for you.
>>46794517
>Why let players arrange stats as desired? It sort of defeats the point of rolling if you can choose where the good and bad stats go. Maybe let them swap a couple of scores or something so there's a little control.
Thank you. That's what I've been saying about rolling stats in general. It puts the random in the wrong place. I'd far rather have people pick an array and randomly arrange it than roll stats and decide where they go.
>>46796779
Not them, but I do quite prefer Swords & Wizardry single stat saves.
I have a confession to make.
I love Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and in play I always feel like it's the best shit ever for my DMing needs. But I have a hard time making it work without LotFP modules, and there are always bits that I think are lacking (I'm talking about monsters and treasure and such).
And I love the Little Brown Books, because they just feel fucking awesome to read. In play though, it's slower than LotFP because I get stuck at points thinking "how the hell does X work again?"
And I've got phases every week or so for almost all early D&D editions and a bunch of clones. How do you guys manage to stick to one game and not feel frustrated or discouraged?
>>46802963
>How do you guys manage to stick to one game and not feel frustrated or discouraged?
If I run D&D, it's a Frankenstein's monster combining rules from half the games out there. OSR is cross compatible, so why wouldn't you want to take the best bits from everything you come across?
>>46795413
Moldvay Basic with S&W saving throws ACKS encumbrance and LotFP skills?
>>46802963
I alternated between obsessing over DCC, Labyrinth Lord, then settled on LotFP. Why? Because the system was easiest for my players (newbies), compatible with old D&D modules (I only use modules for now, which always gave their own monsters), any can be malleable enough to cover all sorts of themes and aesthetic. Also its crunch lite and uses an ascending AC (my main peeve of LL & B/X). Just know which would be the best fit for your players. In my other group, we ran DCC cause we knew rpgs well enough to absorb the ruleset.
>>46794517
>>46795074
This homebrew guy here. I'll just talk a little bit about it because I'm never going to be sure, but any feedback for fluff out be nice. I'll go a little more in depth here.
>Different races
Currently my idea was to only be allowed to play humans, as I said from above, but perhaps others could be made available in setting.
So besides humans, you have Monkey Men, Trolls, and Barrow-Folk (redwall furries basically, all small woodland critter peoples). That's about all the major races out there, so creating entire race-as-classes about them seems unnecessary. Besides I'd rather them be able to play as any class as a race, not be limited like that.
>Equipment List
As I mentioned before, I was more going for a Bronze Age flair. So the weapons and armor are going to be bronze age. As for other equipment, I don't want things to be too specific and needing huge shopping lists, but rope and lamp oil are important for OSR in general.
>Magic
This is one of the bigger points of contention, but thus far it's basically going to be based on a more rigid but powerful/weaker but flexible system.
Every Δ spent on formulaic spells, magic items and minions is more 'formulaic' and more based on the ideals of a classic Wizzard. Every Δ NOT spent is instead used as spontaneous casting points and useful for both sudden flexible effects like cantrips OR for casting subtle magical rituals.
I'm actually going to codify these ritual spells, which do little more then manipulate luck but are really cool, with rules at a later time. Essentially imagine certain effects being tied to 'symbols' that you'd need to copy or use for your own spells. These are symbolic symbols, not literal ones. For instance, if you were trying to siege a town you would need a symbol for warfare, destruction/death, and civilization. If you were trying to avoid detection by a tribal group, you'd need symbols for stealth, night, and uncivilized symbols- etc.
What's the deal with class level caps for races?
To me they seem unduly imbalancing, but since almost every retroclone leaves them unchanged and I have a hard time finding alternatives am I just missing something?
I get that the games aren't supposed to be perfectly balanced and I like that, but it seems to be a bit much of a fuck you when you get stuck at level 9 as a dwarf while the human can progress indefinitely. As much as I love all these rulesystems it has been a real sticking point for me and I don't know what to make of it.
>>46804261
Generally speaking, demihumans are overpowered compared to their human counterparts. Level caps are a (crappy) way to counterbalance this. Though at least some of the motivation for them seems to be to an aesthetic one, as Gygax apparently felt that giving demihumans unlimited levels would lead to a world that was no longer human-centric (given their longer lifespans, they would all be super high level). I personally don't understand this point of view because it's not like PC classes accurately describe the population as a whole, and going by that logic, demihuman PCs should be starting out like 10 levels above human PCs.
I think they mostly get kept in retroclones due to tradition (and maybe lack of a good way to balance out demihuman advantages). But BECMI / RC gave some "totally not levels" advancement for demihumans after they reached their level cap.
Multiple attacks in Basic?
AD&D gives fighters multiple attacks as they levels 7 and 13. It seems like Basic fighters are kind of weak in comparison. Is there any reason not to give them additional attacks as well, especially in Moldvay Basic where there's no weapon mastery?
>>46804261
depends on the game really, not a fan of it in most OSR games, but Adventurer Conqueror King System makes it work, partially cause level 14 is the max anyone can reach(so stopping at level 9 isn't a big deal), and partially cause non-human Racial Classes tend to be really strong
>>46804590
best way to give a BX Fighter extra attacks would be to crib the Cleave rules from ACKS, as they're the best ones I know of
>>46804391
Yeah, I agree with you. I get Gygax's reasoning, but it is pretty stupid.
I think you're right that the biggest thing, aside from tradition, is the fact that there is no easy counterbalance. The only one's I've found are experience changes with BFRP giving humans +10% xp and Microlite 74 giving demihumans varying increases to their "experience factor" so it takes longer for them to level. Still, neither of these fix demi-humans getting free shit compared to humans, but at the same time there's nothing to really define humans as a race. I was thinking of adding bonus to resist fear and giving a boost to hirelings to represent humans being able to become great heroes and leaders in their comparatively short lives. Nothing is quite right though and creating a specific number for those things is a challenge.
>>46804647
I've always felt good about what ACKS had in place. Since we're talking a smaller difference in max level and the fact the game places so much emphasis on actually getting to those levels and thus making the handicap relevant I think they have a good balance.
I'd honestly love to play ACKS, but goddamn do those proficiencies annoy me. Forcing the characters buy skills seems to go against the simplicity and "yeah, don't roll anything, I'll say that your character can do that" old-school mentality.
If I just had one easy way to patch out race caps for my retroclone of choice I would be so happy.
Page 9 bump.
Ever feel like your games have too much dungeon and not enough dragon?
Any tips for running play-by-post games, especially in terms of thing like hiding status info to heighten the dread?
>>46804899
We're playing ACKS right now, and I'm not enjoying it so far. It's the first OSR I've played since playing actual 1st edition back when I was a kid, and it just seems really fucking limited.
And boring. Like, fights are dull as fuck. We roll initiative. Henchmen eat a hit and probably die, we throw oil at enemies, rinse, repeat.
My blade dancer just hit level 3 and honestly, the entire party would be better off if I wasn't showing up. XP would be divided among fewer people and can barely contribute anything.
>>46807552
Wow, that sucks. That's the first bad stuff I've heard about ACKS.
Even if the bladedancer is a crap class, what's going wrong with the combat? From what I read it wasn't too much different from other retroclones and even then the changes seemed to add a bit of complexity. If combat's boring it might be the GM's fault. It's up to the GM and players to add depth and colour to their actions through roleplay and descriptions or it very quickly becomes a back and forth slog of just attack rolls over and over. Page 10 of this pdf gives a good talk on what OSR combat should be like because it should not boil down to a "rinse, repeat" situation.
I never minded racial level caps, myself. It seems an obvious choice laid out for you when you create your character. You have the option of trading out greater power later in exchange for greater power now. It's just another tactical decision that you make when setting up your new PC.
>>46808219
Except it's not a gentle difference in power. It's a straight upgrade a lower levels, then once you hit the cap your character is fucked. This isn't as if there will be a couple levels difference, we're talking a hard cap vs theoretically infinite levels.
Using Swords and Wizardry as an example, some aren't so bad. Dwarf max fighter level is 8th (if you have 18 str) and fighter's grow in power much slower after 9th level. Halflings cap at 4th level and their +4 to save against magic and +1 to hit with ranged does not warrant being gimped by taking away 5 hit die and all that attack and saving throw progression. Then we've got the opposite case with elves and halflings being able to progress infinitely as thieves, so the "power tradeoff" argument doesn't even hold up because they will always be superior to human thieves. This is one game example, but it's present in pretty much every retroclone. Hell, some even give demi-human thieves bonuses to some of their skills which skews things even more in their favour.
>>46808544
>Except it's not a gentle difference in power. It's a straight upgrade a lower levels, then once you hit the cap your character is fucked.
I disagree with "your character is fucked." We're not playing a game where everybody has to be at the same level to "balance" encounters. Not being the same level doesn't mean you can't contribute anything in an OSR game, and level 8-14 is nothing to sneeze at unless you're playing Immortals or something ridiculous.
It seems to me really no different than the choice between playing a Fighter and a Magic User. At level 1, it's a no brainer, the Fighter is awesome, and the MU is squishy and weak and maybe lucks out and has a decent spell once a day. Why would anyone play a MU, huh?
Oh but then the Fighter doesn't get access to the super cool fireballs and things that high level MUs get later on. He'll never get to play with those things. So you make an upfront choice to take either more power now, or more power later.
>>46808642
I get that levels are less strictly important in this game. Hell, I really like how classes have different level curves. You're also right that 8-14 is a higher level and the power difference will be minor. I actually didn't really think about it like that and I doubt many would want to get up to Immortals level nonsense. So yes, you could argue that caps around that point are more fair.
For me the bigger problems lie in where the system totally falls apart where races, such as the halflings mentioned, get so severely punished by level limits that the power boost early on is not at all proportional to the power they miss out on later. Or cases of the thief class removing that choice of "more power now, or more power later" and making demi-humans literally always the best choice.
>>46796779
> How did you rework saving throws, if I may ask?
Saving Throw = 1d20 + class bonus vs DC 15
Halfling = character level x1.5 (+4 as long as it isn't magic)
Fighter/Elf = character level +1
Dwarf = character level (+4 against magic, poison and tech)
Cleric = character level /2 (+4 against poison and paralysis)
Mage = character level /2 (+4 against magic)
Specialist = character level /2 (+4 against tech)
Round up. Class bonus cannot exceed 10.
Wands, staffs and magic traps count as both magic and tech.
fuck it, have the link anyway. I'm gonna be posting a bunch of stuff up here, and try to host Wolfpacks once I can work out how to get the PDF up, so I figured you guys might be interested.
http://pastebin.com/W4xsdHAn
link goes to a pastebin with the actual URL, because 4chan is convinced anything vaguely like blogger's url is spam. It's pretty frustrating.
>>46800991
>new to a game
>I know, let's start with ADVANCED D&D
this boggles my mind. Is it just WotC marketing?
>>46806718
Whatever you do, don't make a quest thread on tg about it.
>>46809872
>new to a game
>let's start with the variant that's currently supported
Gee, why would anyone do that?
>>46809989
>currently supported
An RPG ruleset isn't a software product that needs constant updates to function properly.
How many turns should pass between rolling for wandering monsters?
How long should it take for a party to search a room, and to walk to another room?
>>46810316
>they have the area mapped
1 roll for one way ("we go to that particular room")
>they have to explore
1 roll every 120 feet
>>46810044
>support means patches for software products and nothing else
Events. Easily available official material. Active, readily found and joined communities. Why would anyone in their right mind want these things?
>>46807552
If combat goes like this, you're doing it wrong:
>I attack the goblin.
>Roll it.
>[clatter] 16. I hit for...[clatter] 3 damage.
>The goblin is badly hurt but still alive. He swings at you and...[clatter] misses.
That is the most boring shit ever. The simplicity of the combat system makes it easier to improvise and be colorful, but it also means that you absolutely *have* to improvise and be colorful. Combat should go more like this:
>The goblin lunges at you, trying to skewer you on his short sword!
>I'm gonna sidestep and bat the thrust aside with my shield, leaving him open to my counterattack.
[GM figures PC could play it safe by simply blocking without batting, so he decides that if the PC gets hit, he'll take +2 damage. However, if the goblin misses, he will, indeed, be open to the PC's counterattack. Because of this and because the PC's action seems colorful and appropriate for the situation, and because it's conditional--only happening if the goblin misses--he'd get a +2 to both damage and chance to hit on that counterattack.]
>[clatter] Success! The goblin shifts his mid-level attack upwards, trying to strike above your shield at your unprotected head, but you're quicker than he is and slam your shield into his arm so hard he almost drops his sword. His arm is up and to the side like this, leaving him wide open, but he still has some forward momentum, so you don't have much clearance between you.
>Okay! I... uh... if he's gonna be in really close, I'm not gonna try to him in the front of his body. Instead, I'm gonna bury my axe in the top of his shoulder, where it meets his neck.
[The GM thinks this is about the perfect response and ups the +2 bonus to damage and to hit to +3]
>Roll it.
>[clatter] Damn! I... uh... miss by 2.
>No you don't. The goblin's wide open and though you're a little slow and the goblin is almost inside your swing by the time you land your blow, you still manage to connect with the lower corner of your axe. Roll damage.
>>46810441
Of course, not every attack is going to be quite this involved and descriptive, but it should be at least partway there. If you're not describing your actions and counteractions, and the GM isn't applying modifiers based on them, then you're really not making the most of things.
So, there's always a lot of talk about the how the rules light and tightly focused nature of OSR games contributes to their distinct feel. For example, I just love the amount of emphasis on actual Adventure the Basic rules put; there are clear protocols on how to judge adventuring in a dungeon (or similar environment) and that's it!
But what do you feel is missing from OSR games? Anything (or system) you always homebrew into your OSR campaigns because you feel the inclusion makes it better instead of worse / bloated / what ever?
>>46810549
Magic and the supernatural in its entirety. I don't feel odnd and its prodigious brood really do anything interesting or even worth playing with those systems.
What are some good racial traits for races in a game that doesn't' use race-as-class?
Just adding +2 and -2 racial stat modifiers are kind of boring.
>>46810765
Rather than stats, I tend to use additional abilities. Cool stuff the race can do, basically. A few racial abilities I've used in my games include-
>darkvision
>scent, like a dog
>can wriggle through any gap big enough to fit a finger through
>can perfectly value treasure hordes instinctively
>architecture sense like a dwarf
>d4 (or better) damage on unarmed attacks
>natural armour from scaly skin
>stealth, like a halfling
>can eat rotten/tainted meat without getting sick
>beauty gives bonuses on monster reaction rolls
>always know depth below ground and which way is north
>can burrow like with a pick/shovel using bare hands
>Can fix any broken item with a little time and work
>can regain HP by drinking blood
>Can smell magical things
>>46810882
Cool list bro, thanks.
But how do you balance them with humans? Are they supposed to be more powerful or?
>>46809872
I'll admit, when I wanted to get into D&D a few years ago and I had no idea where to start, I just went with the newest edition because; newest = best. I know better now, but when first getting into the hobby and having no idea what any of the editions are or their differences, you usually go for the newest one.
Everyone knows "D&D", and most of the people who have never played before just assume "D&D" is the one and only thing, but hey those are just my experiences so far, everyone's different.
>>46810978
>But how do you balance them with humans
I use humans as the non-magical, mundane race. Humans get +2 to their saves against supernatural effects (and everybody gets +2 to their saves against spells cast by humans). I also give humans access to a better selection of equipment compared to the various fairy races.
See the blog I linked here for how I'm thinking of putting it together when I start my next thing. >>46809848
>>46810316
>How many turns should pass between rolling for wandering monsters?
Depends on the system. OD&D had it at 1/6th every turn (but players move twice in a turn), Basic has it at 1/6th every other turn (but players move once in a turn), AD&D mostly left the rate to the DM although I think there's an example giving 1/12th every third turn or something like that...
Although I think Gygax also gave instructions in AD&D to crank up the encounter rate if the players are waffling around searching every nook and cranny and generally slowing things down? I need to actually get around to reading AD&D one of these days.
For walking to another room, just use move rates. Use the "running" rate if they want to move fast without mapping and checking for traps and whatnot. As for searching a room, I think the old rule was one turn for every 10ft square? That's per character, note, and if you're only searching, say, a bookcase then it's not going to take as long as it is to search an entire room.
Feel free to modify to your tastes, though.
>>46810441
I agree that description is important but you're just making up bullshit arbitrary rules there. It's basically a homebrew, not D&D. That's the problem with adding mechanics on the fly...every GM will do it differently.
>>46802794
I don't like this about S&W.
>>46811643
>you're just making up bullshit arbitrary rules there. It's basically a homebrew, not D&D.
It's a matter of semantics, but I wouldn't call improvisation "homebrewing" because you aren't creating permanent rules for the game. However, I would also argue that homebrewing, itself, was an essential part of the D&D experience, and the way the game developed (and continued to develop) in the first place. And any DM worth his salt (at least anyone with a bit of experience under his belt) would have a number of house rules for his game. One of the strengths of old school D&D is how easy it is to tweak.
And given how many things were unaddressed or addressed unclearly, early D&D pretty much depended on DM fiat. Without DM fiat, it's honestly not a very good game. Also, why go through the trouble of describing what you're doing if your descriptions are mechanically meaningless? What you describe should have an impact on the game, (even if it's decided that that impact will be relatively minor, at least you know that it does actually exist). Man, I would really hate to play a fighter in a game where all you did was literally just roll against your to-hit score over and over. That would be utter shit.
>That's the problem with adding mechanics on the fly...every GM will do it differently.
Sure. What's the matter with that? It's not like there is some true orthodoxy that GMs must adhere to or they will offend god. Running a game is a creative process, and any decent GM's game is going to have a very distinctive flavor.
>>46801630
First, it is not a standard LotFP module, it's sort of a silly one and not indicative of the general game tone presented in the more serious ones (like World of the Lost, Better than Any Man or FORGIVE US). Raggi actually writes in there to NOT tell players it is a LotFP module as it starts off as sort of a straight story. Second, it's a module that's supposed to be extremely frustrating to players. The dungeon is a horrifying deathtrap, the kids are likely NEVER found and the scene with the waking penis is ridiculous and fantastic, especially if they instantly kill it (which is a possibility) and the orgy-men start asking where the beautiful women are and they all start to piece together what happened.
>>46811746
Really? Because most of the variation in D&D saves is relatively minor, and most people out there probably couldn't tell you if a Basic D&D magic user's save vs. death ray is one point higher or lower than their save vs. paralysis(it's actually the same). So what's the point of having 5 different categories for every class, when you can just have a single number and then give a thing or two they're strong against? Because that's the thing that really matters.
>>46800126
Missed your post earlier. I don't see anything wrong with posting a blog link. You might not get any comments on it, but somebody's bound to find it interesting.
Which name is better;
>Ancients and Alcoves
>Fearsome Gods
>Something else?
Obviously the first one is more of a play off of D&D in general, but it might be a little played out at this point.
>>46813547
>Something else?
Got a weak spot for this one. Rolls off the tongue
>>46813613
Nah. It'd get confused with That Other Game.
>>46813547
Fearsome Gods works well, provided that the name actually ties into something in the game setting.
>>46813547
Trollgods pls
>>46813843
That name is taken!
>>46813547
How about "The World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game"?
>>46813547
Ancients and Alcoves sounds like a senior citizen porn reel.
Fearsome Gods will inevitably get shortened to Feag, and subsequently FAG. Which might work, actually.
Something else.
Should a roll of 1 on a skill check (dcc specifically) have negative repercussions? Trap goes off in your face, you fall from the wall, etc?
>>46814336
Fuck no.
I'm kind of against skill checks in general, but critical failures and successes can both go die in a fire.
Skill check failure in general should probably have some kind of negative repercussion if only to make it more interesting - that repercussion could be as simple as "you need to spend a turn knocking the door down rather than lockpicking it". But crits specifically shouldn't be a thing.
>>46814406
They never were. For some reason skill fumbles and crits became a popular houserule for GMs that take pleasure in making your character act really retardedly.
Oh, what's that? You fumbled on your history roll? Hurr, you totally think the sky is green durrrrr
>>46814336
Fuck no.
>>46814336
If you, as DM, want it to. If you can use the dice rolls to give you more interesting and nuanced results, go for it.
>>46814336
Doesn't failing skills usually have negative repercussions anyway?
>>46815204
I think he meant it as in
You roll to see if you can disarm the trap
A success means yes
A failure means no
A fumble means yes, sure, you disarmed the trap. What technique did you use? Oh, I dunno, it was the "accidentally triggering the trap" technique, you probably never heard about it
>>46815433
But how would one "fail to disarm a trap" without setting it off? I guess you could see it as the character looking at the trap for 10 minutes and then go "nah, nope, can't figure it out", but that doesn't really add much tension to the encounter, right?
>>46815623
Yeah, you try to figure it out, and don't see how it'd work. You'd only start disarming a bomb after you know how it works, right?
>>46815433
some rolls have an obvious fumble result (trying to climb a cliff? Have some falling damage) but outside of this I don't see the point.
>>46816104
I feel like there's an assumption that the character attempting the disarm already knows, or think he knows how the trap works. The skill check is to see if he got it right.
Don't worry about level caps for demi humans. Nobody would play beyond level 8 anyway it just takes too damn long to get anywhere from level 1.
>>46819273
Sure, but then things are balanced in favour of demi-humans at low levels. Zero reason to downgrade to human. It's a terrible mechanic.
What are the core concepts of OSR-ness?
One can say "like old DnD", but which parts exactly?
Can someone help me naming the player roles and a rough description of their job?
Like the leader, the mapper, etc.
>>46821766
Well, the two big ones are probably the Caller and the Mapper. The Mapper is fairly easy to understand even these days - it's the dude who's in charge of mapping. The Caller is a bit trickier, though, and something that really shows the age of D&D. They basically act as a middle-man between the players and the DM - the person who gets the group consensus on what exactly everyone is going to do, and then gives that consensus to the DM.
I imagine that it's a lot more useful in larger groups.
And, of course, the biggest and most important player role is that of the DM. But you probably know what their job is already.
There's also some roles within the party, of course, but nothing quite as big I don't think? And nothing really universal either.
>>46821766
We commonly have somebody to keep track of group inventory and treasure, somebody to map, and... that's about it.
>>46807552
That has nothing to do with ACKS; it's your group/DM.
You'd get exactly the same experience using any other OSR system. In fact, I'd say ACKS with its proficiencies actually adds a little MORE depth to combat than other systems.
>>46814336
Negative repercussions that are fun for the players and allow opportunities for creative roleplaying are fine.
>>46819273
>>46820856
The 2e DMG has some sort of slowed XP progression for non-humans, I think. Probably similar systems elsewhere, too.
Does Oldschol D&D have any explicit rules that make it much more terrifying to fight entities larger then yourself, or is it more just based on monster stats?
I ask because considering adding in a size-based mechanic in my homebrew to give large characters/races/monsters a bonus to fighting but a negative to surprising or sneaking up on people.
>>46826699
Nothing explicit besides greater HD and damage, but there's enough room left for GM interpretation to make a go of it.
>>46821535
>original six ability scores
>class and level character creation
>Experience points/increasing power as a primary incentive
>focus on action-adventure and creative problem solving (as opposed to pure strategy or story gaming).
>>46792056
>>46794517
Well, after the better part of two days I've finally finished my multi-page update to my one-page RPG.
This is much closer to what I'd consider a finished product, still pretty rules lite but I'm pretty on the fence on how exactly I am going to use the races. I still think I'm only going to let the players be human, at least for the first party, and introduce the others slowly over time.
Also the biggest change is the introduction of a new 'Shock' mechanic which makes larger creatures more suited to fighting and dealing damage, and smaller creatures more suited to sneaking up on people. This way if a Goddess offered to make your Fighting Man a giant it would actually be a choice with pros and cons instead of just being a flat upgrade represented by more HP and damage like in other games.
As usual, please tell me what you think. I'm finally feeling comfortable enough with this system that I am going to be using it to run a game pretty soon. Maybe I'll keep a play report for later.
Does anyone have By This Axe mass combat rules pdf?
What are the best retroclone mass combat rules?
I've been tweaking my poker chip system for multiple fighter attacks.
In AD&D, fighters start getting multiple attacks at 7th level, getting 3 attacks every 2 rounds (2 attacks the 1st round, 1 attack the second, then 2 again, then 1, and so forth). It's a necessary bridge between 1 attack per round and 2 (otherwise the leap in power would be ridiculous; I'm looking at you, Castles & Crusades), but I've never been very happy with the mechanic, or at least the execution of the mechanic. So I came up with the idea of tracking things with poker chips, so nobody gets confused. This, in turn, opened up the possibility of graduating the attack progression still further, by starting people off with varying number of chips.
The idea is this: once they reach a certain level, fighter-types draw a poker chip every round and can cash in 2 chips in order to get a second attack in that round (you're free to hoard the chips, but you can never get more than 2 attacks in a round).*
Additionally, you start combat with more and more chips as you level. At first, you start with -1 chip, which just means you don't draw a chip on the first round of combat. That means that it isn't until the 3rd round that you can make an additional attack. Then you start with 0 chips, which means you can make an additional attack in the 2nd round... then 1 chip (1st round)... then 2 (1st and 2nd rounds). Eventually, you'd reach a level where you quit drawing chips and got two attacks every round.
Anyway every column on the table (see pic) past "starting chips" is just illustrating the effects of the system: the rounds you'd be able to get multiple attacks in, assuming you cash your chips in as soon as possible and so forth.
*So basically, on any given round, you can either draw a chip or cash in a chip, which, when combined with the chip you would have drawn, gives you an extra attack.
>>46819273
>>46820856
personally I find that in most OSR systems(and indeed in most non-OSR D&D variants) that the vast majority of non-Human races do not get anywhere near enough benefits for level limits to make sense(and to a lesser degree class restrictions in systems where race is separate from class), same with ECL and other systems that only seem to exist to screw over anyone who dares to play anything not a human(or occasionally an Elf or Dwarf), 2E and 3E are the worst about this, but most other D&D variants besides FantasyCraft, ACKS, and DCC are guilty of this as well to varying extents
>>46831038
>not wanting to punish demi-human players
It's like you want a party filled with special snowflake celestial half kobolds.
>>46830644
An Echo Resounding has pretty simple and robust rules.
>>46821535
I think there are trends more than absolutes. D&D in general is built around rigid classes and strong class divisions, as well as dramatic power increases (and ramping hit points) through leveling.
OSR tends to be an organic hodgepodge of rules lacking a central mechanic. It tends to be a bit more gamist, a bit more you and your cunning against the dungeon. It tends to be a bit grittier and more down to earth than later D&D, more fantasy Vietnam. It tends to be more focused on treasure acquisition than seeking out fights. It tends to be a bit more mercenary, with PCs in it for the money, and less heroic than later stuff. It tends to be more rules-light with a stronger emphasis on DM fiat and malleable rules. It tends to have more of a "work with what you get" rather than "design and play the exact thing you thought up in your head". There doesn't tend to be a whole lot of character building, mechanically speaking. It tends to have a narrower focus than later D&D, being more tied to dungeon crawling with less of an attempt to try to make a niche system apply as if it were a universal system (like the D20 System).
>>46831038
2e did significantly raise the level limits to the point where they very rarely apply at all. An elf can be a fighter 15 / mage 15, which is high as fuck. And that's without the optional rule about prime requisites increasing your level limits (which would allow an elf with an 19 strength and intelligence to get to fighter 18 / magic user 18) or the optional rule about slowed advancement after hitting your level limit. Meanwhile, in 1e, elves can only get to fighter 5 / magic-user 9 if their prime requisites are 16 or less (fighter 7 / magic user 11 with 18s). That's a huge fucking difference. And in Basic, they tap out at level 10 (though BECMI / RC give them some bonus advancement past that). Let it be said, however that Basic Elves are way better than Magic User, or really any other class in the game. And if you're playing Moldvay Basic and stopping at 14th level, the level limit really represents about how far they should be behind a max level magic-user (only they hit their level cap way before a magic-user hits 14th level), And dwarves going to level 12 works out pretty well for them too. It's really only halflings that get fucked in the ass.
>>46831479
>which would allow an elf with an 19 strength and intelligence to get to fighter 18 / magic user 18
*18 strength and intelligence
>>46830967
>In AD&D, fighters start getting multiple attacks at 7th level,
Not strictly true. They start getting multiple attacks at level 2, but only against 1-1 HD or 0th-level entities. Not sure how you handle mixed-HD groups with that rule.
How do some of you real, bone fide grognards feel about the old school style getting renewed interest from the younger crowd?
Are the feelings more on the positive or negative side?
>>46831588
Aren't the multiple attacks against less than 1HD enemies incompatible with the generic additional attacks you get starting at level 7? You choose one or the other? If that's the case, I'd assume in a round you opted for the < 1HD multiple attacks, you wouldn't draw a chip and couldn't cash any in.
>>46831809
I hesitate to call myself a grognard, because that implies a greater dedication to old school D&D than is perhaps accurate, but I was playing it in the early to mid '80s, so I'm at least old school. I've always had a tendency to rewrite a bunch of things with any system I'm playing though. In any case, I think the "back to the basics" phenomenon is interesting. I don't get along with the folks who see whatever edition as the one true word of God or who think you have to play a certain way or you're badwrong, but you don't really see many of those sorts here on /tg/. I mainly like OSR because it's a common tongue that everybody can speak, and it's simple enough that it's easy to run and tweak. And I'd be lying if I said there wasn't at least a little nostalgia in there too.
>>46831823
>>46831588
I'm not sure I've ever seen a group play with that rule, which is fine by me because creatures with less than one hit die are plenty weak as it is, and eventually getting a dozen attacks a round only really works if you use minute long rounds, which I detest.
>>46791226
I started on the Redbox, what's the main differences between that and the whitebox printing?
>>46831891
Which red box? The '81 Moldvay one or the '83 Mentzer one?
>>46831891
OD&D didn't have race-as-class (though before the Greyhawk supplement, each demihuman could only be a set class, so it might as well have been race-as-class). All weapons do d6 damage and all hit dice were d6s (though fighters go them quicker, and you'd get shit like 2d6+1 to represent a midway point between 2d6 and 3d6). Basic did a lot of tidying up and clarifying things (OD&D is more or less stream of consciousness and a lot of things are mentioned but not explained).
>>46831934
Moldvay box was magenta (with red book).
>>46831978
Oh, right.
>>46831978
Forgot pic.
>>46830967
A related question: how much would you say the value of an extra attack goes down as time progresses? Like, it's obviously much better to get a bonus attack in the 1st round of combat than in the 10th. Chances are good you'll never even make it to round 10, and even if you do, that extra attack might have killed somebody 9 rounds earlier, meaning that's 9 less rounds of their attacks you'd have to suffer through.
So by what amount do you figure the value degrades per round? Would you surrender an attack in round 1 in order to get 2 attacks in round 5, or would that be a bad trade off? Where's the break even point?
Is there a reason to use AD&D 1st edition rules instead of 2nd edition? I'm only familiar with basic.
>>46833627
If you are a fan of Gygax's writing style, you might prefer 1e over 2e.
Honestly, you're better off with basic: AD&D 1e (and 2e too, for that matter) are kind of a big mess.
>>46832866
>So by what amount do you figure the value degrades per round? Would you surrender an attack in round 1 in order to get 2 attacks in round 5, or would that be a bad trade off? Where's the break even point?
You don't actually get MORE attacks by surrendering an attack in round one to get one later, so I'm not sure I see much point. If I was going to balance it, I'd make it 'don't attack for a round, and get a single extra attack on the next two rounds'.
>>46834268
I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out, for instances, what's the difference in power when you get an extra attack every other round and you get your first extra attack on round 2 instead of round 1. What if you just got 1 extra attack in combat, but you got it on the 1st round? Etc. The whole surrendering an attack to get one wasn't meant to be something you could literally do, but rather a method of figuring out the balance of things. If you think that getting 2 extra attacks in round 5 is about balanced with giving up your attack in round 1, that means that you think an attack in 5 is worth about half of one in round 1.
A question.
I want to make a "megadungeon", except locations are not proper "dungeon rooms" but places within (magic/black/cursed) forest. So, a bit like wilderness exploration, but more tightly packed (with dungeon exploration rules, instead of wilderness - which is why megadungeon).
Are there any relevant materials I can use? Or some advice in general?
>>46834495
Play Dark Souls
Jokes aside, I'm also interested in this, and please share if you ever make a write-up.
>>46834495
Maybe read about pointcrawls?
http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2016/02/hexcrawls-vs-pointcrawls.html?m=1
>>46834495
>I want to make a "megadungeon", except locations are not proper "dungeon rooms" but places within (magic/black/cursed) forest. So, a bit like wilderness exploration, but more tightly packed (with dungeon exploration rules, instead of wilderness - which is why megadungeon).
If I may ask, what would the difference be between "dungeon rooms" and "forest rooms" besides their descriptions and related traps?
>>46835884
> If I may ask, what would the difference be between "dungeon rooms" and "forest rooms" besides their descriptions and related traps?
I'm still thinking about it. Hence request for materials.
As is: size - bigger; treasure - different (weird magic fruits instead of piles of gold); probably, day/night cycle in places not too overgrown.
>>46835949
>I'm still thinking about it. Hence request for materials.
>As is: size - bigger; treasure - different (weird magic fruits instead of piles of gold); probably, day/night cycle in places not too overgrown.
Ah, that's what you're after.
Well, personally, I treat "forest rooms" as "dungeon rooms". Now, certainly you can add and/or subtract particular properties, such as day/night cycles. The "coming of the night" could, for instance, imply a negative modifier for skill X.
In the end though "dungeon rooms" and "forest rooms" are basically the same thing and you should not really need any "different" material for this stuff (I think?). Wizardry: "The proving grounds of the mad overlord" is still the same game, with the same type of gameplay, whether you replace the walls with trees or not. That is, what is your particular problem in this instance?
>size - bigger
That is debatable.
>treasure - different (weird magic fruits instead of piles of gold)
That could very well be the case, and would depend on the setting. Is it the setting that is bothering you perhaps? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
How does spellcasting work in regards of initiative, does the spell get cast at the end of the players part of the round, at the end of the full round or at the beginning of the next round? The rulesystem I use is LotFP, I'm not sure if the rules are the same for most B/X games.
>>46836561
> That is, what is your particular problem in this instance?
No real problem.
I'm just checking if someone done this already. I.e. if there are modules/settings to check for ideas and content (forest-specific monsters/traps - Assassin Vine, for example; as well as forest "treasure").
>>46836614
In LotFP's case it depends on the spell. If the spell is instantaneous or permanent, then it gets cast on the caster's initiative. So, as soon as he starts casting it. Otherwise, it gets cast at the beginning of the following round, before the initiative roll is even being made.
Not sure if anyone else can clarify this, but if you as a caster win initiative, and start casting, but get attacked on the enemy's turn, does it cancel your spell?
>>46836762
>No real problem.
>I'm just checking if someone done this already. I.e. if there are modules/settings to check for ideas and content (forest-specific monsters/traps - Assassin Vine, for example; as well as forest "treasure").
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. Hopefully someone will be able to help you out. I love and have DM:ed a lot of megadungeons, I never use modules though.
>>46836972
Not him, but I'm starting a megadungeon campaign soon.
Mind sharing some advice on the beginning? Should I cut the chase and get them to the dungeon instantly, or give them a session of build up where they stumble upon the information and discover it themselves?
Also, do you have experiences with more newschool players and how long it takes them to adapt?
>>46837194
>Not him, but I'm starting a megadungeon campaign soon.
That is awesome. Good luck! Is it your first one?
>Mind sharing some advice on the beginning? Should I cut the chase and get them to the dungeon instantly, or give them a session of build up where they stumble upon the information and discover it themselves?
I have done both and they both have their merit. Sometimes it depends on the group, have they done anything like this before (etc?,etc?). Other times it depends on the setting that I create. I have posted this before (I think (?) (it would have been a while since though)), but once I created a megadungeon in which the players started immediately inside a dungeon. On the lowest level, and their goal was to make it to the top and get out of the thing (they did not know that though). After some time they realized that the dungeon itself changed shape. When they were tracking back, the dungeon did not look the same anymore. And yada yada yada (to cut a VERY long story short) but apparently they were inside a sleeping god, and that particular gods movements in its sleep changed the shape of its interior. I even added some stuff that would make them (that is their characters) realize, if they would notice, that they would be able to predict how the dungeon would change its shape. Point being, there is a lot of things one can do with a megadungeon.
>Also, do you have experiences with more newschool players and how long it takes them to adapt?
I do, and if they are the majority, I would go (from experience) "give them a session of build up where they stumble upon the information and discover it themselves". Reason being that they need to get to know the mechanics of the game and feel comfortable using them.
>>46836561
bare in mind that, in a forest, you can (in theory) just push through the trees if you need to, or climb a tree to get a view of your surroundings from above. So you get a little more freedom of movement than you would underground with solid rock in the way.
>>46836614
One thing I'll add to >>46836934 is that initiative is one of the foremost things that groups tend to do their own way. If you have a half dozen different campaigns of a particular system, chances are good that only a couple do initiative anywhere near by the book. Or that's been my experience.
So LotFP has a new hit dice rule: the die used is based on you CON modifier (-3 is d4, +3 d12 etc)
What are your thoughts on that? I think it's pretty fucking rad myself. Muscle Wizards.
>>46839124
What effect does your class have on hit points? Also, how do you translate six different modifier ranks (from -3 to 3) to 4 different size dice?
>>46831479
admittedly when I'm talking about 2E being terrible to non-human races, I meant less the standard Elf/Dwarf/Halfling/Gnome set of Demi-Humans, and more how it applied to pretty much every other race they gave rules to be able to play as
I played OD&D and both editions of AD&D as a kid with my grandfather. He had the books from when my dad was a kid. I've played a lot of other games since, but this summer I think it would be really cool to run a game of something old school for some friends who never had the experience of those kinds of games like I did.
Two questions for /osrg/:
1. What system would you recommend if I want to start out by running some modules/store-bought adventures from my childhood so I can nostalgia and see how my friends react to them?
2. I remember an adventure my grandfather ran for me when I was a kid, and I know it was from some module or other, where I went on an adventure to slay some young red dragon? I distinctly remember a cave with the dragon in a room in back, and right before that room, the hallway split, coming into the room from two different angles.
>>46843307
I hope some of the anons here know the answer, because I'm curious about this too now.
>>46843307
>1. What system would you recommend if I want to start out by running some modules/store-bought adventures from my childhood so I can nostalgia and see how my friends react to them?
That would really depend on your experience, wouldn't it? Moldvay Basic is my go-to system for OSR because it's a lot more comprehensible than OD&D, and a lot less cluttered than AD&D (and you can always import anything in specific that you want from AD&D), but if you already have experience with AD&D, that seems to recommend itself, especially if you're going for nostalgia. (You might want to look at Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion if you like the idea of a somewhat streamlined AD&D.) Module-wise, I like the S-series for AD&D, but it tends to be relatively unusual (from a crashed spaceship, to a deathtrap tomb, to a magical lair with puzzles and shit), and maybe not the best thing to start newbies out with.
>2. I remember an adventure my grandfather ran for me when I was a kid, and I know it was from some module or other, where I went on an adventure to slay some young red dragon?
It's not immediately ringing any bells. Do you know what edition it was for? It's not a Dragonlance module, is it? I ask because it's about a dragon and I'm not really familiar with the Dragonlance stuff. There was also a Dragon's Den boxed set thingy for "The New, Easy to Master D&D Game" introductory boxed set for Rules Cyclopedia-era Basic D&D, which I think was boardgame-y, and since I think it was for low level characters, any dragon you're fighting would probably be young.
>>46848846
Thanks. It wasn't board gamey at all. Might have been using a module and improvising a lot. May just get AD&D, or LL Advanced. Thanks.
>>46839124
> -3 is d4, +3 d12
.. so:
d6 for -2
d8 for 1/0/+1
d10 for +2
Well, thats interesting. Either way, where did you look for specifics?
>>46839812
This, I guess
> * Constitution determines what die you use for rolling hit points, no matter what your class. Fighters roll twice and keep the highest, Magic-Users roll twice and keep the lowest, Dwarfs roll one die higher and roll three times and keep the highest, that sort of thing.
>>46839124
>making stats matter even more
it's shit.
>>46851288
That actually makes them matter less. The difference between the average of a d8 and the average of a d12 is 2 points. Obviously, applying a +3 modifier directly to your roll is worth 3 points.
So important question for /osr/ people;
Would you actually be interested in players as things like a lizard man, monkey man, bunny man, etc. As a race or race-as-class? I ask because I know a lot of people out there would feel out of their comfort zone playing anything but a human, elf, dwarf and so on.
>>46848871
Might have been the Dragon Mountain box. What level were you?
>>46852748
2e already has lizard, cat, and dog people (Dragonlance, CBoH, and Savage Coast/Red Steel). Don't know how much play they got, though.
>>46852748
Yoon Suin has Crab People as a race-as-class, and Slumbering Ursine Dunes has Bears.
Basically, I'd only want one or two of those oddball animal-folk classes in a game, and I'd want them to actually have a role in the setting. That said, I'd be /well up/ for playing a monkey-man character.
>>46852748
Way back in the day, I used to always create a lizardman class for the games I ran. Never catfolk or anything else though; just lizardmen.
>>46852748
> Would you actually be interested in players as things like a lizard man, monkey man, bunny man, etc. As a race or race-as-class?
Nope.Well, there is some leeway for lizardmen. They are an old trope.
But I can see myself interested in playing as an actual lizard/monkey/bunny. Granted, with some abilities strapped on top, but still.
Make a pseudodragon class. Or Black Cat class (you get nine lives, ability to hex things, eventually getting boots, and a castle with princess).
>>46853805
>Or Black Cat class (you get nine lives, ability to hex things, eventually getting boots, and a castle with princess)
Totally stealing this.
>>46852770
I was like 8 years old, which means this was 20 years ago. Maybe... 3 or 4?
>>46796033
Love it but I have veered so far off the rules now with houserules and stealing shit from Last Gasp that it doesn't even resemble anything else out there...and my players love it.
I love the fact with how we've cobbled together so much other shit that I can just pick up a module from any system and in a few mins just run it and not worry about shit not working with the frankenstein system we have.
One day I think I will just write out all the rules we use but for now its either in my head or strewn about in Word/PDFs.
Overall LOTFP is a really good jump point to create your own shit while keeping the flavor of what made OD&D great.
