![1447606249379[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IPHWKmP.jpg "1447606249379[1].jpg")
Useful links now here: http://pastebin.com/JtFH682q
Link for the Trove:https://mega.co.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg
Last thread: >>43654304
Looking forward to zine edition.
>>43734690
> And they'll have exactly the same mechanical weight as just rolling dice with no description
That's not how it's supposed to work at all. The whole point of having lighter rules is to allow players to respond in creative ways without being bogged down by the system. The DM is supposed to arbitrate on the fly when they want to do something that isn't covered and their actions should always have an effect on the world around them. In my game players are regularly making use of cover and the environment, tripping, disarming, setting ambushes and traps, getting off called shots, diving off of ledges, and all sorts of crazy shit. Our last session had them going full dragon's dogma on a giant ogre, with the rogue climbing up its back and cutting the straps to its piecemeal armor.
You can get more out of this than about any other setup, but you have to have a DM who both knows how to adjudicate on the fly AND sets up encounters so that there are reasons to handle them in other ways than "I roll to attack. I roll for damage." Once you have that, you then need the players themselves to realize that they can try anything and won't be punished for coloring outside the lines.
>>43737531
Need to convert monsters from ad&d to lotfp, ¿can i just use 20-Original AC?
>>43738896
You could, but LotFP uses a slightly different scale. Straight from the LotFP Referee book, here's a handy chart.
Generally don't give monsters better than 18 AC, though. If they need to be tougher, add more hitpoints instead. Remember the non-Fighters only get a +1 attack bonus, after all. "About as hard as platemail" should be the hardest something gets to hit, unless you specifically want some magical bullshit that will have to be dealt with either by a decent-level Fighter or more creative methods.
Does anyone have some nice one shot adventure tips? There's a lot of interesting stuff in the old Dungeon and Dragon magazines and I've found some resource of one-page dungeons but it's hard to separate the good ones from the shitty ones.
How much story do you usually involve in your games? The strength of OSR lies in dungeon crawling so I'm not sure if I should be thinking of an overarching plot and reasons for dungeon delving or if players should just be happy enough running dungeon to dungeon for profit? So many books explain how to build a dungeon, but lack any guide on story. I realize setting and the like is best generated through play, but I have no idea how much I should be focusing on fleshing out NPCs and potential plothooks since I'm not sure how much of that goes against the intent and focus of these types games.
>>43739087
Wait, so plate mail+shield = 19 ac, ¿isn't that too op?
>>43739613
Interesting question(s). And the answer is that it depends on the group.
>How much story do you usually involve in your games?
There are a couple of "philosophies" here regarding crawlers. Allow me to present two of them:
(i) The dungeon creates the story. That is, the adventure/campaign is about the dungeon. The storyline is minimal. Typically these type of campaigns/:whatever: are about beating the dungeon. The dungeon is one tough motherfucker. It changes shape, and all kind of other things. There are traps everywhere. It is a tough son of a bitch to win.
(ii) The dungeon takes the 2nd "role". It is not about the dungeon but rather about the characters, their motivation and development, etc.
The point is, this list could become quite large, just pick one that you prefer and go with it.
>>43739613
It depends on how you want to play. In my experience, there are two kinds of campaigns, generally. One is dungeon and exploration focused, often in a hex-crawl or west marches kind of configuration. In this case, I don't really worry about NPCs and plot-hooks save for those they encounter when in the field, with the general purpose of giving them hints about locations they will explore or reasons to explore new places. Everything feeds back to getting players to go places and encounter things. This is kind of important if youre going by oldschool rules where the primary means of XP is acquiring loot. That doesn't mean you shouldn't add in some context or narrative reasoning as to why they are going here or there, or what they are doing, but the focus remains the same. You can try to run deep and meaningful stories, but if they don't end in gold then the players aren't getting to advance for their effort.
The other mode is something a bit more plot or character oriented. This is completely valid, but requires you to adjust the XP formula. If you want players to pursue plot, then you need to start adding things like "story bonuses" and other kinds of xp. AD&D2e accomplishes this through various kinds of bonus xp and increasing the xp for fighting monsters. This is one of the few places where I'd advocate 2e, because it's already intended for that sort of thing.
Regardless of how you handle it, present situations, not stories. Don't write things with a specific solution in mind. Keep things open ended, and let players figure out what they want to do and how to do it.
>>43739613
Since the other anons covered the basics already, my advice is that you read some play reports of one of the more out-there games, like Planet Algol or Fomalhaut, to name two that I'm pretty sure still have online play report archives. That should give you an intuitive feel for how the game can go, a mental image, that sound advice might not be able to convey on its own.
>>43739793
>adjust the XP formula
I would like to add this because it is something that I should have stated very clearly in my reply. That is, it is quite important. I would go as far as to say that if you go "story/plot" based create your own XP tables. Adjusting won't be enough.
>>43740153
I was referring to the way AD&D2e adjusts the xp formula. In that edition, gold=xp is considered an optional rule, and one that the books actually recommend against.
>>43740395
>I was referring to the way AD&D2e adjusts the xp formula. In that edition, gold=xp is considered an optional rule, and one that the books actually recommend against.
Ah, I will have to give that a thought...
Let's try to get some kind of discussion going in the greatest thread of /tg/. What system are you currently playing? How is it going?
>>43739712
It gives unskilled combatants a 15% chance to hit a fully armored and shielded dude.
I like it, it avoids the "BAB" treadmill where everybody has to get better at hitting stuff and everything has to get harder to hit all the time. It also means that the Fighter is the best at fighting, which is nice.
>>43740625
>Let's try to get some kind of discussion going in the greatest thread of /tg/. What system are you currently playing? How is it going?
:why not ask you as well:
>>43740731
A) I think you mislinked that.
B) Don't be a muppet.
>>43740621
Currently playing an LotFP game with some minor tweaks. It was going well, but we've had some trouble getting everyone together lately, RL schedules being what they are.
On the side, I'm working for a Sword & Sandals hack/revamp of LotFP that will take place in a Hyborean style setting.
>>43739766
>>43739793
Thank you, these are some really excellent answers. I think "situations not stories" is the perfect way to think about it. I've always liked the sandbox and exploration OSR affords so I think that by focusing on the dungeons and immediate landscape the other aspects should naturally flow. Just set up the world and let the players take out of it what they want whether they have fun clearing huge complexes or spending some time working through character motivations. When thinking about it most dungeons have enough character that a story could always be built from the ideas within if the players are really intrigued by something.
>>43740004
I'll definitely look those up! Any other good play reports? Aside from giving an idea of how to play these games I actually just find them really enjoyable reads.
>>43740778
>A) I think you mislinked that.
>B) Don't be a muppet.
Sorry mate, I don't think I did. I linked it because my hope would be a response for some kind of discussion. Now, maybe you understood my "qoutation" differently, if that is the case it is because english isn't my mother tounge.
>>43740778
>Currently playing an LotFP game with some minor tweaks. It was going well, but we've had some trouble getting everyone together lately, RL schedules being what they are.
>On the side, I'm working for a Sword & Sandals hack/revamp of LotFP that will take place in a Hyborean style setting.
That is interesting. Hyporean (I persume) settings are always cool to hear about. What constitutes a Hyporean setting in your mind?
>>43740949
>Thank you, these are some really excellent answers. I think "situations not stories" is the perfect way to think about it. I've always liked the sandbox and exploration OSR affords so I think that by focusing on the dungeons and immediate landscape the other aspects should naturally flow. Just set up the world and let the players take out of it what they want whether they have fun clearing huge complexes or spending some time working through character motivations. When thinking about it most dungeons have enough character that a story could always be built from the ideas within if the players are really intrigued by something.
Good answer.
>I'll definitely look those up! Any other good play reports? Aside from giving an idea of how to play these games I actually just find them really enjoyable reads.
How about looking at some early computer games? Such as the wizardry series? Here, http://www.tk421.net/wizardry/, for instance you will get maps for those games. Hopefully they will inspire you in some way?
If you would need any help whatsoever do remember that the people, I at least will, in this particular thread will happily try to oblige.
>>43654351
To the anon who made this B/X DM Screen:
If you added the character classes at the beginning, consolidated the weapons stats into a single table, and added the equipment list you'd have yourself a pretty nice and clean Player Handbook.
In my endless battle to make Wizards a little less shitty at low level and make them less ridiculously OP at high levels, I want to introduce a new spell system to my group.
Basically; imagine each spell level on a table instead as a spell school. You get that number of casts on what is essentially a level 1 spell in that school.
So the first 'spell level' is really the first school you choose to learn. This is pretty cool in my mind, because it means the very first spell you choose will be the strongest.
Say for example a wizard who wants to fight and be strong selects Evocation to learn. Then later on he decides he should learn abjuration to protect himself.
So the progression will look like;
>Evocation 1
>Evocation 2
>Evocation 2, Abjuration 1
Etc.
The only single problem I have with this system is it does sort of restrict what kind of spells Wizards can learn pretty hardcore, which I feel is a bit aspect.
Maybe Wizards can cast non-school spells with a much higher mark up of spell points, or they'd select a single school to act as a Hermeatic magical school that lets them perform magic made by other people/ritual style Vancian spells?
I'd love a little feedback to perfect this.
So what's this zine I keep seeing?
>>43742097
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but my main question is what do you think makes them overly shitty/OP because that really influences what you would want to be changing. Is it the power of particular spells or the variety they can cast?
If it's power then maybe it should be a specialization so choosing Evocation means you get access to the good stuff for that, but the rest is a little lacking. So an evocation wizard will have more power at low level (more/higher level spells in the school to start) and at high level they'll be able to cast Meteor Swarm but won't be able to also cast Impenetrable Globe for instance since they didn't specialize in abjuration. This way it doesn't fuck them outside their chosen school(s), but still provides a restriction.
If it's variety of spells then, if I'm correct, most games suggest wizards gain spells only through reading scrolls so rather than getting X spells every single level they only get a couple every few sessions as they dungeon delve and recover them. I prefer this system because it also gives the GM direct control of the wizard's power so you can force them to work for it if they really want some bullshit high level spells.
>>43742449
Troll Gods is a 'zine made by folks in the OSRG thread. First issue is nearing completion now, I believe.
>>43742475
Yes, the power of many spells seem too good or too weak. Spells levels are often really arbitrary like speak with dead, that shit is useful at any level!
To add on to the system, ypu can cast stronger spells by using up multiple spell points.
I'm also a bit if a fan at specialised Wizards, but this system is kind of hybrid and wonky. I just like the base idea.
>>43742729
Have you looked at FantasyCraft? It's a rework of 3e and it uses a spell point system for its Mage class so you might want to take a look at that. The spells are also divided into different schools and even subschools so while there is no mechanical component to the schools it could give you a few ideas. No idea how else to help you, but that game came to mind because it's the only one I've seen to use spellpoints and I think it does so well.
>>43741021
> What constitutes a Hyporean setting in your mind?
Hyborean being a reference to to the setting in Robert E Howards original Conan books. For my setting in particular, im taking a lot of the same themes and redoing them in something that's slightly more internally consistent - i.e. the world is more or less on the same tech level, instead of having 15th century buccaneers in one area, high medieval knights in another, and bronze age stuff in a third.
Instead, the whole thing is early iron/dark ages, set in a kind of primal world-before-time theme.
> Human-centric, humans are the only player characters
> megaflora/megafauna in places similar to pre ice-age stuff. Short nosed bears, mammoths, saber tooth tigers
> various alternate human breeds that are generally the bad guys based loosely on neandertal and other historical cousins to humanity
> Setting takes a lot of its themes from the greek dark ages - most of the major civilizations have collapsed, writing has disappeared in much of the setting, mass migrations, sea peoples, etc.
> The landscape is in many places littered with abandoned cities and forgotten places, often where riches or knowledge is to be had.
> Divine intercession is not a thing. There are people who can perform miracles, and often do so in the name of this cult or the other, but their power is in essence no different from black sorcery. (Cleric and Magic User have effectively been merged into the same class)
> Much of the arcane/cultic information takes on a lovecraftian vibe, particularly since there are still earthbound gods and powers deep in the earth.
>>43743281
> megaflora/megafauna in places similar to pre ice-age stuff. Short nosed bears, mammoths, saber tooth tigers
> various alternate human breeds that are generally the bad guys based loosely on neandertal and other historical cousins to humanity
You probably already know/thought of something similar, but friendly reminder that this was a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
>>43740949
>Any other good play reports?
James Mal over on Grognardia managed about 6-7 sessions' worth of play reports of his "Dwimmermount" game. I have to say they're not really worth reading, for all that he hyped his sci-fi/fantasy crossovering and gonzo elements Mal's a boring guy and his game was staid, but there are some bits worth a look. If you just really dig APs you might like it because of that too, for all I know.
>>43743281
> various alternate human breeds
Are you doing the classic race-as-class reskin of elves = Atlanteans, dwarves = neanderthals, halflings = Picts?
What's to stop player characters just running away if things seem to be going even slightly awry in a dungeon crawl? Seems so easy to cheat death just by running away at the first sign of mortal danger.
>>43744182
only smart people run away and players are stupid. But, really I think that's fine, most systems for dungeon crawling have random encounters so if they're deep in the dungeon they're going to run into something anyway, you can use that as a chance for the thing they ran from to show up again.
>>43744182
>What's to stop player characters just running away if things seem to be going even slightly awry in a dungeon crawl? Seems so easy to cheat death just by running away at the first sign of mortal danger.
Nnnnothing? Because that's fine? What?
>>43744182
I keep telling my players exactly that. And their characters keep dying.
>>43744182
There's nothing wrong with them running away because sometimes it's best option. However, if they keep being cowards there are options.
1) Put a time limit on the adventure. Gold reward gets reduced, more bad guys arriving in a few days, whatever to make them try to push through.
2) Wandering monsters. If they are running out of a large complex there's a good chance their clanking arms, armour, and sacks of stolen goods will make a lot of noise and something will hear them approaching.
3) If the enemies are intelligent then the players should realize upon returning that the bad guys are now on their guard.
Again, running is a valid option, but they should realize that it doesn't come without its own risks and should be for when they know they're fucked.
So, I want to give original DnD a try. I have the book for players already, but lack the other two and Chainmail. If anyone has those, could you please share.
>>43745002
Check the Trove in the OP.
>>43745051
If they are there I did not see them.
>>43744182
What seems to be the problem? Running away is the most important skill in OSR.
Well, determining WHEN you need to run away is also important, but you generally can just run away if there is any doubt. So that's less important than actually running away.
>>43745472
Check TSR folder. Also, get Single Volume Grayharp - it's more coherent than the "truly original".
Troveguy, is there a firm date of the zine being published? Or at least the latest possible date?
>>43747861
Shooting for Dec 1.
Just pondering shit over here.
What concrete stuff does a magic-user do when you're exploring a dungeon that is unique to the magic-user? You could imagine a fighter breaking doors or lifting bars, and a thief picking locks and climbing sheer surfaces. Do a magic-user benefit from knowing magic or is it just being used to "thinking alot" that could help them navigate a dungeon?
>>43748011
carry all the loot.
>>43748011
detect magic check if loot or traps are magic
identify for the magic swag
comprehend languages to understand goblins, kobolds etc
feather fall and spider climb to help get around the dungeon
magic user's gimmick is using magic
>>43748011
I think the magic user can best be seen as a utility guy. So long as he preps beforehand he can do whatever you think is needed very well whether it's nuke some guys with fire or do some neat tricks to overcome certain obstacles. Really though, what >>43748341 said. The magic-user gets magic and magic does a host of things no one else can replicate.
>>43744182
Some games don't have rules for fleeing and pursuit, so if you want to run away you just end up taking a free attack, and then next turn the enemy just moves right up to you and attacks again
does anyone have swords of wizardry quests of doom?
>>43748011
Mass debuffing is his niche. In the majority of OSR games, you will inevitably fall prey to a number of encounters you cannot hope to avoid, and survival is essentially a coin flip.
His other elements, like providing intel and buffs and so forth, don't kick in much til mid level.
>>43744182
Running away is usually not an option in OSR. Most enemies flat out move faster than the PCs. If there are any manlets in the party, you probably can't flee. If there are any fighters or clerics and they're wearing plate, you probably can't flee.
Or rather, you can, but you're going to be down half the party.
>>43749358
>you can't run away
What are flasks of oil, caltrops, bags of marbles, iron spikes, grease spells, wizard lock spells, hold portal spells?
>>43749404
Oh, I left out out bags of coins for the intelligent monsters, and rations for the unintelligent ones that eat.
>>43749358
Depends what you're fighting. Animals might decide to leave you alone once they've driven you from their lair for example.
>>43749436
Yup. You usually can't run away, but sometimes you can.
>>43749938
Better yet, let's set aside how I supposedly "misquoted" you. Do you have any actual response to my long list of tools that players can use to escape from enemies that are faster than them, without leaving behind the short ones and the armored ones?
>>43750058
Sure. The above proactive methods of avoiding combat are very useful to escape from some fights -- specifically those which haven't turned to melee range yet.
This of course requires that you identify a battle as a lost cause before it begins (not that hard for a savvy player), and that you have the initiative, hence why I noted running away usually isn't an option.
I'm DMing a session tomorrow night. I'm lazy. What's a module I can run first level characters through that won't require me to spend a couple hours reading to keep it straight?
>>43750162
Death Frost Doom
The Lost the City
>>43750155
You can use nearly all of those in melee as well, it just takes a bit of doing to arrange everything, especially if you've got individual initiative. With group initiative it's easier, usr your moves to put everyone to the far side of the door, have someone strong push it shut, have other start hammering in the spikes or casting spells.
I have no idea where you get the idea that you can't reliably run from encounters in old school D&D, it was an important strategy with tons of methods available to players. We used to do it all the time.
>>43750238
>You can use nearly all of those in melee as well
I suppose it depends exactly how "in melee" you are. If you're in a 5' wide hallway then the guy in front can definitely throw down oil or whatever.
If you're not in a comfy and safe situation, though, you may very well be fucked. If you're intermingled with the enemy, you're in serious trouble. In particular, you have to consider whether giving the enemies attacks of opportunity (yes, I know they weren't usually called that) galore is more survivable than fighting them.
Ultimately, unavoidable, inescapable fights are a huge part of OSR.
How does /osrg/ feel about Dungeon Crawl Classics?
>>43750337
>Zocchi dice
>>43750361
agreed
>>43750337
probably one of the best OSR games
>>43750361
>>43750412
but Zocchi Dice are cool
>>43750309
If you've let a bunch of enemies mingle in among you, you've made some bad decisions. Tight formations are more survivable.
In open terrain you can still set up walls of fire with a few flasks to delay pursuit until you get somewhere more defensible.
Attacks of Opportunity, meanwhile, are not even a thing in Basic - enemies just get a +2 to hit you if you ran earlier in the round, and in AD&D you can still maneuver near to a door or other choke point via withdrawal actions, then withdraw through the door and seal it, or throw down caltrops or oil or what-have-you.
Even in the worst case, where you think you can't survive the enemy's next couple of rounds of attacks, there's no reason not to just take those AoOs anyway, if it gives you a chance to escape alive instead of stand and be ground to dust. Besides, your front line should be able to tank a couple of swings on the way out.
Even better, big scary monsters with multiple attacks per round will only get one AoO on them when they withdraw, making the AoO look even more favorable in comparison to fighting another round.
All in all, I recommend a lot less theorycrafting and lot more playing the game.
>>43750337
It's a cool game that I would never want to play, given how many god damn tables you have to use. Plus, y'know, Zocchi dice.
>>43750640
>If you've let a bunch of enemies mingle in among you, you've made some bad decisions.
Not necessarily. You may have more than one hand to hand character, and ranged characters can't shoot at people in hand to hand anyway. That certainly applies for 1 fighter + a boatload of magic users, though.
Likewise, a lot of spells and traps can wipe out the whole party if they're all in close formation.
>Attacks of Opportunity, meanwhile, are not even a thing in Basic
Well, they're a thing in AD&D, BECMI, and just about all OSR.
>In open terrain you can still set up walls of fire with a few flasks to delay pursuit until you get somewhere more defensible.
Sure, but with that sort of lengthly investment of time and effort you're probably better off just fighting it out unless its something like 20-200 orcs.
> there's no reason not to just take those AoOs anyway, if it gives you a chance to escape alive instead of stand and be ground to dust
It really depends on the monster and why you're intimidated by it.
>All in all, I recommend a lot less theorycrafting and lot more playing the game.
Likewise. Not all OSR DMs are as kindly as those you've had.
>>43740621
>Let's try to get some kind of discussion going in the greatest thread of /tg/. What system are you currently playing? How is it going?
I'm running an ACKS game for 8 players. EIGHT. I'd never even consider anything close to this with non-OSR games.
>>43750337
Interesting to crib from, but the combination of "most of your chars are almost guaranteed to die, moreso than normal for OSR" and "spellcasters are almost guaranteed to become deranged mutants" raises the question of what the fuck the point of playing it is.
>>43750888
Oops, left my trip on...
>>43750858
If your argument is "if everything is lined up in a bad way, you could be boned" then yeah. That's always true, even if it's just the GM saying "rocks fall, everybody dies."
But I maintain that as long as you're smart and careful about it, you should be able to flee almost any encounter, including fast enemies and slow PCs. You'll probably have to burn some resources to do so, but it can be done.
Most TPKS I've seen happen when people keep fighting too long, especially if someone goes down and they really don't want to leave him, or when players are incautious and get themselves into a spot where they can't get back out.
And again, never underestimate the utility of tossing down what the enemy wants (food or loot) and booking it. Hungry things will take the easy meal over the one they have to chase, and greedy ones will often fight each other over the sack of coins you dropped rather than chase you down for whatever you might still have.
>>43750901
>most of your chars are almost guaranteed to die, moreso than normal for OSR
that only really applies to Zero Level characters, actual classed characters from level 1 onward are actually really strong by OSR standards, it's just that DCC doesn't pull punches very much, so it mostly comes down to not playing your character like an idiot
>>43750951
>If your argument is "if everything is lined up in a bad way, you could be boned" then yeah.
Less that and more that if some of the party is fighting in melee, the rest probably has to be fighting in melee, which means they're probably going to be leaving the hallway.
>Most TPKS I've seen happen when people keep fighting too long
Interesting. Most (all, come to think of it, except for ones involving some element of PvP) PC deaths in OSR systems I've seen happened beyond anyone's control at all -- surprise round stuff basically.
Not exactly sure whether centipedes, snakes, and spiders would stop for dropped rations.
>>43750984
>that only really applies to Zero Level characters,
Yup, most of your characters will die. The ones that escape level zero won't, but most don't.
>>43750888
My first osr game had 10 players in it, everything was so smooth and simple that they managed to clear about 10 rooms and three encounters per the hour session.
The most time consuming task was dividing treasure and deciding whether they'd kill any captives or not, as it always ended in conflict.
>>43751009
>Interesting. Most (all, come to think of it, except for ones involving some element of PvP) PC deaths in OSR systems I've seen happened beyond anyone's control at all -- surprise round stuff basically.
I'm speaking about higher levels; at low levels you don't have enough HP to really have control over what happens. Surprise rounds are just murder rounds at that stage.
>Not exactly sure whether centipedes, snakes, and spiders would stop for dropped rations.
The centipedes might if they're after you for food. In any event none of those are likely to pursue you long once you leave their lair, unless it's maybe giant wolf spiders or something.
>>43740949
The best recommendation is to look for the "Chronicles of the Grim Fist" play reports for Adventurer Conqueror King over at the official Autarch forums. It's an excellent "by-the-book" example of starting from 1st level dungeon crawls to mid-level wilderness caravaneering and exploration, to higher level fiefdom management, and really illustrates how the a story emerges as the PCs explore the dungeons, make enemies, string together plot hooks, etc. based on their personal goals.
For example, the party thief (the one that survives, at least) initially starts out getting contacts to fence items, gets in contact with a local thieves guild, ends up making enemies of said guild, ends up subverting the guild, and then ends up engaging in an underground war to create a criminal empire with other thieves guilds - all falling in lockstep with the player's progression from 1st level dungeon crawler to 10th level political power.
Basically, introduce things based on PC motivations and over the course of a campaign opportunities will arise to string things together.
>>43751073
>I'm speaking about higher levels
Ok then.
>The centipedes might
Well I don't really get what centipedes eat. Smaller bugs or what?
>>43751103
I believe centipedes are carnivores, but also scavengers. I think they'll eat almost anything if they're hungry. I'm no bug expert, though.
>>43750430
>Zocchi Dice are cool
>>43750361
>>43750430
>>43750709
>>43751902
what are zocchi dice? i found a guy who manufactures dice? is that related to DCC?
>>43741348
I'm not sure if you mean I should reduce the content because it contains too much information right now or I should try to see if I can add said tables and make everything fit on these four pages
>>43752052
Gamescience Dice. Widely regarded as some of the best quality dice on the market. Those on /tg/ who habitually make it a point to be unnecessarily contrary like to bitch about them.
>>43752217
Not all gamescience dice are zochi dice. Zochi dice are unusual dice: d3, d5, d7, d14, and d30, if I remember it right
>>43752217
>Widely regarded as some of the best quality dice on the market
They're very light weight and their finish is quite rough, I'm not sure if this truly is the general opinion.
>>43752248
They are the best if you are looking for perfectly random dice. They're also ugly as fuck.
>>43752312
Except they are not significantly "more random" than other dice. Yes, I've seen the balance tests (having different manufacturer's dice afloat in a salt water solution) and while this does illustrate how solid Chessex dice have impurities and thus imbalanced the effect is greatly exagerated by such a test and of no significant importance in actual rolling. A while ago some anon posted the rolling results of (I think) 2,000 rolls with both a GameScience d20 and and Chessex d20 and there were no statistically significant differences.
>>43752358
As I think of it, it was only the rolling results of the GameScience d20 and I tested wether these results could have been obtained from a perfectly uniform distribution, which turned out positive.
/osr/, I really want my game's fighters to have a slower gear progression. Help make magic items feel actually 'special' by adding in a few steps to get to them.
Basically, I want to start them off with some really shitty fucking peasant weapons.
Currently the rule I have the idea in my head warriors start with either 3-5 pieces of shitty equipment, or only 1 piece of decent equipment, so they'll be deprived in some way no matter what.
Any rules I can use to make these weapons feel appropriately shitty?
>>43752396
I have stages of damage and shitty gear starts at one of the lower stages. Magic gear isn't noticeably magic if in the last stage.
1st stage, perfect condition, everything's fine.
2nd stage, damaged, attacks with this weapon have a hindrance but you can repair it relatively cheaply. Armor in this stage gives you the same penalties as the armor itself, but the benefit of the next armor down instead.
3rd stage, destroyed. You can set this aside for its weight in crafting materials, or use it as an improvised weapon with disadvantage. Costs as much as a new mundane version just to get it to stage 2.
>>43749358
OD&D has pretty elaborate rules for distracting monsters by throwing shit behind you when you flee.
>>43752440
that sounds like a neat idea.
>>43752246
This. Zocchi are the weird-ass dice.
>>43752677
Here's how I like to do weapon breakage.
>Improvised/Fragile weapons
These weapons are essentially made from nothing more then sticks and rocks by untrained hand, tied on with nothing but string or a little glue and friction.
Whenever these weapons roll a natural 1, they break.
Whenever they hit and deal more then 50% of the dice's top number in damage, they take a bit of damage. Each point of this damage can be easily repaired with a little time, but each point increases the breakage from rolling a 1 to a 2, then a 3, then a 4, etc.
Note that, at least in how I like to run games, characters can always choose to roll minimum (1) damage if they hit. This way they can safely use improvised or damaged equipment, but its so little damage its barely even important.
>Shoddy
Shoddy weapons are legit crafted weapons, just shitted or heavily rusted. These weapons don't break or anything on a nat 1, but they do take damage from it. Mark a check, X, or a 'notch'. This applies whenever the item rolls a 1, gets slammed into an enemy's shield or parried, hits a wall, gets disarmed and clatters on the floor, gets hit with acid and so on.
Once the weapon gets to a certain number of notches, it then goes to the shoddy level where it starts being able to break on a 1.
To determine how many notches a weapon takes before it starts breaking; small weapons (d4) get 4 notches, medium weapons (d6) get 3 notches and big weapons (d8 or higher) only take 2 notches before they start breaking. This means smaller weapons once again get a nice boost to utility; they are harder to break.
Additionally; whenever a Fighter uses a weapon and would accidentally damage it himself (by rolling a 1 on attack, hitting enemy's armor on purpose, etc) he doesn't instead. Fighters are good at not breaking their equipment like idiots, at least as long as they are controlling it.
Also; considering an optional warrior where a Warrior can reroll damage/attack rolls if they take a notch. Not sure.
Wow, I really fucked that up.
*The bottom bit was about legit weapons. 'Shoddy' weapons just take 1 notch before they start breaking.
>>43752726
>Additionally; whenever a Fighter uses a weapon and would accidentally damage it himself (by rolling a 1 on attack, hitting enemy's armor on purpose, etc) he doesn't instead. Fighters are good at not breaking their equipment like idiots, at least as long as they are controlling it.
I love details like this.
>>43752358
Not sure what exactly you're referring to, but I did 2,000 rolls on one of my speckled Chessex d20s and the results were pretty bad. However, subsequent float tests suggest that that particular die might be worse than normal, as it floated more strongly than almost all the other dice I tested (most actually sank, some more slowly than others) and favored the 1 side (which most but not all of them did, including the sinking ones, which tended to turn as they sank).
>>43752877
I guess you are the anon I am referring to then ;) How do you judge the results of your rolls to be "pretty bad"? A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on this data does not draw the same conclusion, for instance.
>>43752921
p-value = 7.81212E-06
I'm no statistician, but getting only 53 results for 20 when 100 is expected is a pretty good indicator that there is an issue with the die. Also note the image here, where the data was broken down into 4 sets of 500 trials each, and how consistent the results tended to be across the sets.
>>43752726
These are some pretty good intuitive house rules IMHO. Nice. I like how it's so easy to remember. Your weapon breaks if you roll really low (starting at one). If you roll the upper half of your die your weapons wears out a bit, and for each time you've worn out your weapon you increase the breaking-number (from 1 to 2 to 3 etc). Its great!
>>43752987
Hmm, I get such a convincing result since I find p-value = 0.001493. I remember finding a larger p-value before, though, maybe I made some error earlier.
>>43752987
>>43753221
>>43753302
Right, that looks to be correct. I redid the calculation by hand and I also got to to a convincing rejection of the hypothesis that these numbers come from a fair die.
So I've been trying to think of a more interesting way to do thief skills. Essentially my concept is;
>Throw away percentile and switch to d20
>Each # on a d20 is 5%
>Switch percentile skills over to increments of 5 that way if needed
Basically you are still trying to roll under a skill number, but that skill number will start at something like 4 or 5 and go up as you level.
However one concept I had was that whenever a thief rolls he can also add in a small dice to a bonus (either bonus to skill level or subtract the original total, either works the same). Maybe the dice is once daily; but essentially different skills the thief wants to use can use this different die.
This then goes into a sort of bartering or haggling mechanic with the character. For instance he could take a once a day d12 to try and ace that challenge, but if he failed the check by only 2 points maybe instead he wants to not waste his big skill bonus so instead he may go for a 50/50 with the d4 and so on.
Does any of this make sense? And more importantly, how would one figure what size die the thief gets and how many per day?
>>43752246
You forgot the Zocchihedron, a golf ball pretending to be a d100.
>>43752396
There's an OSR blogger who had this same thought and made up an elaborate system for it, complete with trashgear images that show up in /osrg/ now and then. I can't remember what the blog name is, but I bet some anon will.
>>43752726
These are good rules and you shoud type them up as an article for the zine.
>>43752396
how would you balance "trash gear" with gp=xp? By the time they hit second level, they have enough money to buy any mundane equipment they could possibly want.
Are you making everyone else start with super shitty equipment as well, (dwarf, elf, and cleric particularly come to mind) or is fighter being singled out for uselessness?
>>43752726
This is extremely close to an idea I was playing with. Do you care if I steal this for my hack?
>>43754214
Middenmurk uses a copper standard. Worth looking at that whole blog for an idea on how this might work.
>>43753987
My Zocchihedron disappeared ten years ago. I still miss it.
>>43754558
Did it disappear because you rolled it?
>>43754813
No, it just vanished one day. One of my asshole high school friends probably stole it.
>>43752543
Could you refer me to these?
>>43750337
Amazing game to play at conventions or to run as one-shots. For longer, weekly campaign type play, it's just OK.
>>43750337
What I like about DCC is the greater variety to the same old spells. OSR (and, hell, newer editions of D&D) almost always have magic that is very safe, samey, and predictable -- even fighters have more variety per casting.
DCC may go too far in the opposite direction, but its great for inspiration.
I also like the crit system.
>>43737531
Does anyone here know the game Pits & Perils? I remember stumbling across a version of it online before but the website seems to have gone down.
Is there a download for it somewhere?
>>43752396
>>43754335
>>43754014
http://middenmurk.blogspot.mx/2014/07/terrible-weapons.html
This is the system I've stolen for lower level weaponry.
Combined with a piecemeal/trash armor system it gets you through the lower levels without needing a lot of magic items to feel progression.
How does /osr/ feel about the general proportions of game time? As in how long it takes for things to happen. Level progressions, story arcs etc.
I feel like I'm in the camp of I'd rather play intensive short bursts of a week or two instead of dragging things out for months. It's like a good two season series rather than 12 season one.
>>43754047
It's already typed up right now! I guess I'll have to think about it.
>>43754256
No, of course not.
>>43750337
I feel a lot better about them after they made a hilarious post about the origin of dcc
So what's the best OSR game, huh?
>>43755982
I hate the idea that this group of adventurers goes adventuring every day. It should take weeks or months before they catch wind of the next dungeon and travel to it. It's a lot easier to skip over a long period of time in a role-playing game than in a video game or television show. I'm watching The Flash at the moment and it's super convenient how everything is in real time, those guys just have the most exciting Tuesdays.
>>43756190
>best
5e.
>>43756190
Delving Deeper, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess
>>43756190
Dungeon World.In real life, probably LotFP.
>>43756229
Swords and Wizardy, LotFP again
>>43756140
That was hilarious? It seemed more douchey and unprofessional to me.
>>43756190
It's all basically the same stuff, man. It's like "what's the best flavor of ice cream?"
(I like Labyrinth Lord and LotFP, though.)
>>43756240
DW is a pretty good OSR fellow traveller. It's one of the most fun systems to homebrew for IMO.
>>43756276
>That was hilarious
Yes? My significant other even thought it was funny, my coworkers chuckled at it, I sent it to my old 4e group back home and they laughed over how true it was.
It was a great post, you might not know what being douchey is.
As for unprofessional? Fuck yeah, anytime a business tries to talk to people like people it's unprofessional. I just like when someone doesn't pretend to be PC.
>>43756140
>>43756276
>>43756383
Got a link to this?
>>43756140
>>43756383
What post are you talking about?
>>43756383
I'm curious, link?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1409961192/dcc-rpg-4th-printing/posts/1412693
Found it
>>43756383
Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do, except perhaps my wife.. and some of her friends. .. Oh yes, and Captain Johnson.
Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point.Hey, maybe I'm wrong.
>>43756557
People remember things in a funny way.
While it definitely has 4 funny lines, it's mostly just informational.
>>43756622
Yeah, I'm not a fan of 4e, nor a hater. I've never played it and really have no opinion on it either way, but edition wars kind of bug me, so I guess that's why it fell flat for me.
So what's OSRG's opinion on Dungeon Crawl Classics? That Kickstarter has me curious but I'm not sure how the various retroclone style games measure up with each other.
One thing I've always found interesting about the older games is how they seem to kind of "zoom out" at higher levels, taking for granted that the PCs will get Keeps and fiefs and what not, does DCC have rules for that kind of thing in it?
>>43757077
DCC is a bit more 3E in its style than OSR, but it focuses on old-school style dungeon crawling pretty hard. I don't think there's any domain rules for it.
>>43757077
okay yeah I'm stupid and didn't see that someone already asked about OSRG's opinion a few posts up
>>43757097
what does "3e in it's style" mean in this instance?
>>43737531
Is the trove down?
>>43757152
3e style: 4 bros clear out dungeons and save the day
OSR style: A small mercenary company with amorphous membership clears out dungeons and eventually graduates to domain rulership.
DCC starts off OSR style, then graduates to 3e style.
>>43757195
Oh nevermind, I'm just stupid.
Anyways, I'm going to run a LotFP game soon, any tips? I've never really played any OSR games but I kind of get what they're about.
>>43756190
> So what's the best OSR game, huh?
The one you make for yourself, duh.
That said, I prefer S&W, LotFP and ACKS. Some ideas from DCC are also nice, but not the whole package.
>>43756190
>>43757524
Oh, wait. And Traveller/SWN.
>>43757239
Read Tower of the Stargazer, even if you don't run it. Almost every page has some behind-the-scenes explanation for the Referee.
>>43757524
>Some ideas from DCC are also nice, but not the whole package.
This. Still not sure how to feel about it. It feels incomplete, but the way magic works and the funnel is genuinely fun.
>>43753847
Actually thinking about this; maybe it'd be better to use these to replace your big skill dice.
So maybe replace a d20 once a day with a d12, and a d10, and a d8, which will help you succeed on most skills a LOT easier.
Maybe d4 is for really high level characters, or for a specific skill they really want to specialize in?
Or instead, roll d20 and the extra dice, and use the lower of the two?
Obviously the problem is if you get a skill to like 8, which is a 40% chance, then a d8 would what, be an instant success? Doesn't seem super fair.
>>43756190
No such thing. "Best" is a meaningless criteria. You have to respond "best at what?"
For OSR stuff, it's all broadly cross compatible anyway, so the choices are mostly flavor. If you want simple, then Moldvay Basic is a good starting point. Labyrinth Lords, Swords & Wizardry, and LotFP are all essentially different flavors of it. LotFP is generally best-loved or most hated because it is the most significant departure in terms of mechanics.
Other people prefer BECMI or RC.
If you want more complex, LL has an advanced companion to make it basically AD&D. AD&D1e is the next step up. OSRIC is basically the same game but with the numbers filed off so you can publish new AD&D content with it. I know a lot of people that play AD&D, but use all of the OSRIC stuff because the filed down rulebooks are convenient at the table.
ACKS between Basic and AD&D in terms of complexity. It also seems to be the best for campaign play focused on the stronghold building elements.
DCC is frequently described as "Basic turned up to 11" and makes some significant departures.
It's all to taste. I prefer LotFP as my starting point. It does encumbrance well, and it gets rid of a lot of things that annoy me - percentile skills, class-based weapon/armor restrictions. It's also my favorite system for playing martial characters.
>>43757239
go to the trove and get the LOTFP Referee book pdf
>>43759068
I've read it, it has great advice, but I'm still unsure of some things. Like, when is a dungeon or encounter "too" hard? How much loot should I put it the dungeon? How should I design a dungeon to be entertaining anyway? I've read a few adventures and a few of the GM books, but I'm still not confident.
>>43737531
What was the original rationale for descending AC, /osrg/? It seems like between having to read off a matrix and dealing with THACO, ascending AC is just a much simpler and more sensible solution, so much that it should have been the obvious choice from the start
>>43759118
>Like, when is a dungeon or encounter "too" hard?
You lost, buddy? This is the OSR thread.
In all seriousness though, part of the OSR movement is breaking the cookie-cutter mold of having dungeons with level appropriate monsters on every floor of the dungeon. Sometimes the boss is in the first room. Sometimes you can't possible defeat your foe, and retreating is mandatory. The only things I would consider "too hard" would be something that results in player death that they could not have possibly escaped/avoided.
>>43759342
Higher is intuitively better, but what is being asked? The question is "how easy is it to hit this thing?" the higher the score, the easier it is to hit someone.
Then look at the language. It's called Armor Class. Forget all game terms for a moment, if I tell you something is "first class" what do you think of? Best. First rate. excellent. 1st class, best class. Lower armor is better.
It makes perfect sense, if you aren't coming to it with assumptions from other games.
>>43759342
Because first class armour (ac 1) is better than second class armour (ac 2). This falls apart when you consider ac 0 or lower, but back in the day magic armour applied a penalty to the attacker, instead of a bonus to the defender.
>>43759118
Let's take a look at the basic rules of thumb. These are for designing a megadungeon; obviously if you decide to run many small dungeons you'll have to do things differently, but once you understand the design principles for a megadungeon it should be straightforward how or why.
A dungeon level should be a challenge for PCs of that (average) level. The typical monsters on the level should have [level number] HD each or less, with +1 and +2 HD monsters mixed in and occasional higher-level monsters you should probably place as setpieces.
On the entire level, there should be about 3-4 times as much treasure in money as needed for a party of the intended size to all reach the next level after that. The reason is that much treasure may be hidden, lost with dying PCs or otherwise missed, and the level should be large enough that any given party doesn't have to explore all of it before they level up, tire of its challenges and decide to delve deeper for greater fortune and glory.
The Moldvay/Mentzer dungeon stocking tables are good general guidelines of you're unsure of what you want to put where and to decide the proportions of empty/inhabited rooms. When you roll a Special, think up something especially complex, challenging or just plain fun. This should give you an entertaining mix between simpler, more straightforward encounters and more involved ones. (A special doesn't have to be anything to do with combat or treasure -- it can be as simple as a mysterious statue or as elaborate as a hidden temple complex. Use a free hand when interpreting the tables.)
When you random generate, eventually you'll probably find the results giving you ideas for combinations and situations -- if your creative juices start to flow, put the tables aside until you need them again. Man was not made for the law, but the law for man.
>>43756190
I also like Arrows of Indra, being a fan of Vedic and ancient Persian cultures. The "enlightenment powers" are a nice take on magic.
Playing houseruled Loftp however.
What's the simplest game for a novice DM to run? I don't care about anything other than getting some semblance of role playing into session.
>>43760465
B/X, Labyrinth Lord, or LotFP, probably. Some tables you need to have handy, but it's largely interpretation outside of those.
>>43760465
Basic Fantasy RPG
>>43760481
LotFP is not good for a novice DM. The game is super incomplete.
>>43761750
Well I feel that way about Basic D&D, but the rulings come from the adventure module or the DM. e.g. if a character tries to walk across a narrow beam or something. There's no strictly right or wrong way to handle that (percentage chance? roll under Dexterity score? Dexterity score of 12+ automatically succeeds? Elves automatically succeed?).
I think this is a good thing since it gives novice DMs like >>43760465 something to work with. You don't have to worry about a lot of specific rules or weird checks. "Do I recognize the armor?", "You're a dwarf, so sure."
>>43761951
No, I mean like it has no DM book.
>>43761977
Neither does Basic, really.
>>43761993
But it has a section on monsters and magic items and such.
>>43762085
LotFP has Referee book, you know.
>>43762465
I think his point is that the LotFP referee book is singularly useless when it comes to providing common monsters and magic items. Even ordinary animals are totally absent.
>>43762465
It's the old one, new book and monster book should be published around March of next year.
>>43762085
That reminds me I was going to ask, is there a fanmade Monster Manual for B/X? I saw the Dungeon Masters Index in the OP, but it's format is questionable at best.
Is FASERIP OSR?
>>43763821
I'm not sure that "common monsters or magic items" are meant to be part of the LotFP vibe. It's not really an orcs and swords+1 kind of game.
That said, I'll agree that an animal bestiary would've been nice, but it's not like you couldn't get that information from dozens of different places.
>>43764587
You totally can, but the original point was that the lack of such makes it a bad choice for novice DMs.
>>43764567
Did you look for the Creature Catalogue? That's for Basic.
>>43764587
>I'm not sure that "common monsters or magic items" are meant to be part of the LotFP vibe.
Right, which is why anon was saying that it's woefully incomplete for a beginner.
>>43764601
>>43764716
Fair. I didnt read far enough back up the thread again. Apologies, anons.
>>43757622
Fun fact: The funnel originates with TSR. I believe it first appeared in module N4, Treasure Hunt, labelled as an adventure for characters levels 0-1.
Props to DCC for reviving it, though.
>>43764587
The referee book has a simple table you can use to get any animal you need on the fly. Basically "at this weight, you should have this many HP, and these two attacks" with herbivores only getting the secondary attack so they're less dangerous.
Maybe this is a weird question for this thread, but what non-OSR games do you guys like to play? I'm curious what OSR gamers do when they aren't playing OSR games - or, alternatively, how many people exclusively play OSR games.
Are there any tabletop games that uses the metric system?
>>43766035
Alternity!
>>43765830
Exalted, FATE, Shadowrun, Ars Magica and a whole lot more. I'm even an occasional TORG GM.
>>43741348
...aaaaaand saved.
Any interesting ways to make Clerics feel a lot different from Spellcasters?
Different style of spell system?
>>43765830
I pretty much stopped playing anything but Basic D&D when I figured out what I liked in a roleplaying game and how to get it. That said, I had a lot of fun with 4E and would still play it. It's a very different experience, but it does its thing really well.
>>43766035
Star Frontiers does. The old FASA Doctor Who RPG did, when it wasn't using "squares". I believe Traveller does. Honestly, I think use of the metric system is fairly common in science fiction games, and fairly rare in fantasy games, but then that kind of makes sense.
>>43768197
> Star Frontiers
Does anyone actually play Star Frontiers?
>>43768265
I played it a fair amount back in the day. But while I like the setting and the focus of the game, I'm not hugely enamored with the mechanics. It's not that I don't appreciate what they're trying to do; I just don't think they're terribly well executed. I've given some thought to retrocloning Star Frontiers, but there are a few stumbling blocks that I see to that (one being that I'd like to have attributes affect skill checks in a simple and elegant way, without requiring some wonky conversion). And truth be told, Gamma World has a tendency to take the focus away from Star Frontiers when I'm considering where to devote my time.
>>43765830
I play 3e, 4e, 5e D&D, 40krpgs, very rarely WoD & Exalted.
>>43765830
I run Cypher Systen campaign/one-shots when I'm not running LotFP or rarely a few DCC one-shots.
I tend to play OSR more with people newer to RPGs, or who wouldn't normally play.
>>43767572
>Any interesting ways to make Clerics feel a lot different from Spellcasters?
> Different style of spell system?
1. Remove spellcasting. Cleric is a Specialist
2. Rename Turn Undead. It's now Banish (works on undead & demons) and it is cleric-only skill.
3. (something something)I'm still thinking what should Cleric have. Apparently Medicine skill and Gather Info/Investigation. That's why I went with Necromancer in this zine.
>>43769093
I personally would keep the spellcasting, but switch out the system.
Make them actually have to, you know, fucking PRAY for miracles and shit. They have to do rites, attend churches and uphold their responsibilities but they can ask their Gods for help and miracles. Maybe less often then a magic user, but more powerful and perhaps more flexible in general.
>>43769240
Spells always seemed contradictory to cleric's to me, what ever happened to your God's plan? Why do they get to decide what miracles happen?
Either way, a different system would work.
>>43769261
It's been suggested before, but seriously what would be wrong with a little charisma checking for any non-kosher miracles the God could perform? Each miracle cast otherwise would also require a minor sanctification or rituals to restore the God's favor and also the user's faith.
Alternately, to make the Cleric's feel more focused, you could instead make a cleric's primary ability similar to turning in that its all about moving around some sort of aura or consecrating things relating to their God's specific aura. God of Life/Healing restores living things, the aura is actually bad for weapons as it makes them less harmful. Or a God of Orcs enhances orc weapons, guides and is good for orcs, but fucks up anything that is an enemy of the orcish race, etc.
I've rigged up a new class for my LotFP homebrew to replace the Cleric, witha bit of a Warlock feel, called the Initiate.
He has two options for magic, he can either call for a Ministration, wherer the PC makes a check against their current favor with their patron/"deity" and then hopefully it intercedes with some spell on the Initiate's behalf, or as they level up, they can negotiate with their patron for an Allowance, whereupon they can call for a specific miracle a number of times per day, as per a regular cleric, but with fewer uses.
If they're in a desperate spot, they can also spill some of their own blood (or for some patrons, someone else's) as a way to call attention, in order to gain a bonus to their odds of a Ministration, which is dangerous but can help you when asking for higher level spells and things.
I need to playtest it, though.
When you guys do hexcrawls, do you still have an overall narrative or some smaller story threads? Or is it just "let's head west today" and then there's a dungeon?
>>43771737
Well you want some stuff going on. What's in the dungeon? What is it doing there?
Narrative in an OSR should be emergent and unplanned. To that end you want lots of things to interact with.
Give your players rumors about stuff that's out there, like a woodsman could swear he saw a strange castle way off up in the mountains, but when he went that direction he couldn't find it anymore, or maybe a messenger bird arrives in town from someone asking for help because they're trapped somewhere. Stuff for players to investigate, and maybe it becomes a plot later, but you don't have to worry about that now.
>>43771737
>When you guys do hexcrawls, do you still have an overall narrative or some smaller story threads?
I build a political situation. I don't know if you'd count that as story threads. Depending on the setting, the situation can be anything from French-style strong monarchy, to individual city states with invincible overlords, to post-collapse wilderness with lords whose rule extends only as far as their own weapons reach beyond their castle.
The important thing is, every political situation is inherently unstable. Everything flows. So once you've set something up it necessarily has a vector, and it's reasonably easy to see where it points, and most importantly, how the PCs might fuck stuff up with their ill-gotten outside-context loot.
>>43752102
Not really suggesting you remove anything. your DM screen, as well as many of the tables in the books have stuff like price, weight, damage, cost, etc all separate. I'm suggesting you put those together. and adding class descriptions. it would make a really nice Player Handbook.
>>43771737
You generally want a fragile and explosive situation. Lots of things for the players to interact with. That way whatever the players do, it'll have ripple effects throughout the setting. The players actions and decisions end up creating a sort of story. The main difference is that the GM doesn't try to guide the story in any particular direction, he just resolves in a neutral manner what effects the players actions have.
To make an OSR game work though, the players have to be able to decide their own goals and create their own quests. That's why a huge amount and variety of plot hooks, situations, interactable locations is needed in osr game.
>>43765830
4e is my go-to system of choice because it handles combats very well mechanically. My players like to have clear cut options and statistics to crunch on. We have an extreeemely rules-light way of approaching things outside of combat.
When we want to loosen up, we'll play Paranoia.
>>43768310
>The redhead chick's body language
"I'm too hungover for this shit."
>>43771737
I basically just steal the Fronts system from Dungeon World. Make a (short) list of active threats and factions in the game world, assign an MO and general tactics to each, and make a rough outline of what each one will eventually do if the PCs don't intervene.
By way of example, one threat in my campaign is an Orcish warband hunting for a magical artifact. Their tactics are to send out raiders to loot and pillage for supplies, interrogate captives for intel on the artifact, and to descend in force once they've tracked down the artifact. The outline of what will happen if the player's don't intervene is:
- Outlying farms are raided
- Villages are attacked
- Hordes of piteous refugees stream across the land
- The forces of law and order are driven back
- The warband marches, a thousand strong
- The Warchief seizes the artifact and unleashes unholy power.
>>43741348
This should be included in the zine.
>>43771737
>>43774608
This is a pretty good start, I heard a Twitch DM do it, and I tried it myself. That Twitch DM is now trying to make a fantasy version of Stars Without Numbers GM Turn, for something more meaty.
>>43774686
I think that's too big, but maybe it could get a mention or something.
>>43739613
>The strength of OSR lies in dungeon crawling
Only by tradition. Lightweight mechanics are often very flexible, and I think the only standard theme across D&D editions is that physical fighting is going to happen (simply because most of the numbers on your character sheet involve hitting something, not getting hit, or doing something clever so that you don't have to just charge in and hit something).
I like OSR for story rich games just because the mechanics can go into the background very easily, and the powerscales remain at a human level. As you level up, you go from "tough kid with a beatstick" to "guy who might be able to rumble with Captain America".
Whereas later editions quickly scale you up to the point where either every NPC has to be a high level PC class, or the players have to nod along and pretend that they still care if twenty armed militia respond to their shenanigans.
So I know /osr/ is heavily rooted in the original and old school DnD style with 4-5 basic classes, some basic races and race as classes etc.
But is there anything inherently wrong, at least in /osr/ terms, with having newer classes or more fantastical races? Things like Monks and Alchemists could be created in such a way that it still supports the old school gritty gameplay, right?
>>43775583
You could homebrew them but I actually find the reduced options more flexible for this. A fighter doesn't necessarily call himself a "fighter" or whatever the level rank is.
He could be a soldier, a bodyguard, a knight, a monk, an archer, a cavalier, a barbarian, a ranger, anything.
Same goes for races as classes. Just because you're an elf or a dwarf doesn't mean you can't be an elf ranger or a dwarf barbarian.
>>43775583
Nothing wrong with having new classes/races. To me at least, OSR is more about a style of play than a style of content.
Also, let's not forget that the implied setting of OD&D had straight-up dinosaurs and martians roaming around (pdf related).
>>43775583
Monk was introduced as a class in the 1975 Blackmoor supplement. Alchemist was a class introduced in Dragon Magazine number 2 - Aug, 1976. For reference, the first publication of the white box rules was 1974. That's about as old school as it gets.
Most of the early editions also have some note somewhere stating that players can be anything the GM allows, provided that the thing starts relatively weak and progressively gains power through experience points. There was an entire Creature Crucible series that had rules on playing everything from werewolves to centaurs.. and somewhere is a whole book full of rules on orc and goblin classes.
>>43775828
The trove has both the creature crucible and gazeteer series.
How do handle (and/or would prefer to handle) illusions?
>>43775583
>But is there anything inherently wrong, at least in /osr/ terms, with having newer classes or more fantastical races?
No. Not in the least. One of the players in Gygax's original Greyhawk game played a balrog. A lot of the well known revival games are completely gonzo, both personal campaigns and products. (Planet Algol and the D&D with Pornstars games are examples of the former; as for the latter you have the Anomalous Subsurface Environment series and Yoon-Suin just to mention two.)
As >>43775693 suggests, OSR isn't about low fantasy. It's about an attitude to the game. (I like to compare it to Mordheim when explaining to new players. It's not a perfect analogy but it helps snap people out of the MUH MAIN CHARACTER mindset into "ha ha, he died in a comical way, I love it!".)
>>43775693
>>43776447
> OSR isn't about low fantasy.
That's actually one of the biggest differences between the way D&D was originally designed and WHFRPG is designed.
Both games cover similar territory with famously high mortality rates, but D&D assumes from the beginning that your character is heroic. Even at level 1, you're better than the level 0 world around you. As you progress, you become even more powerful and heroic. It's never quite as ridiculously high fantasy as later editions, but it wasn't meant to be low fantasy at all.
WHFRPG carved its shtick out of keeping you at that "low power" area. You progress, but you never really get out of the "oh god, these orcs are going to kill me" stage.
>>43775583
How does one even create a Monk or Alchemist class in /oldschool/?
>>43777634
I guess one could begin by looking up the alchemist or monk classes that were officially introduced by TSR within two years of the original game being published.
Weirdly, this question has come up several times now in various threads particularly in respect to monks. I can easily see someone not being familiar with the Blackmoor supplement, but monk was an AD&D 1e class as well and that came out in 78.
Do a lot of people just assume that "oldschool" just means "Basic D&D"?
>>43777634
There's an OD&D alchemist in either issue 2 or 4 of Dragon, and I guess you could just adapt the monk from OD&D, BECMI, or 1e.
>>43777882
Even then, the Rules Cyclopedia has a monk in it. It's just called the "Mystic".
Of course, that edition of basic also has the bugbear that is the Gazeteers and HUNDREDS OF CLASSES
I'm pretty sure that one of the Glantri wizarding traditions was all about alchemy?
>>43772410
>>43752102
I've decided I'm going to try to do it, instead of telling you to. I have no idea how to use Word, and near the end I realized I messed up one of the tables and I don't know how to fix it.
Anyway I did the hard part if you're interested at all:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l7x9z2exmgzuber/Weapon%20and%20Equipment%20Tables.docx?dl=0
>>43756190
ACKS, DCC, and Whitehack are my top choices
>>43757077
in my opinion it's one of the best OSR games, it also has some of the healthiest support of any OSR game
>>43775583
the weirder the better in my opinion
>>43775693
the OD&D Implied Setting is still one of the best things in my opinion
>>43778189
well those supplements are purely optional(although most of them are well crafted, except Orcs of Thar, that one has terrible balance)
>>43775693
>Reading that for the first time
FUCK That is so goddamn cool. All the implied stuff going on because of character levels and spells available and shit.
I'm a huge worldbuilder myself and I'm actually kind of butthurt reading this; how am I suppose to copy something like this? Crunch mixed with fluff is my fetish, just like this.
For some reason the ACKS core book in the trove keeps giving me an error, whereas every other file downloads fine. Can someone upload it here? Thanks.
>>43780285
Trove support here. File name and nature of the error?
>>43780285
>>43780431
I was having trouble with some of the downloads too. When I tried to get Creature Catalog (found under Basic D&D AC Series) got "Temporary error. retrying." And that was yesterday, never did sort itself out.
>>43780533
If there's a problem with the file itself, I can always try re-uploading it. If it's mega being wonky, not a lot I can do. Have you tried downloading it since then?
>>43780431
ACKS folder, the one that's just called "Adventurer Conqueror King". Getting same error as this guy >>43780533, two days in a row now. All other files I've tried work fine though.
>>43780607
>>43780533
Pretty sure it's Mega in general. I'm getting that problem with stuff completely unrelated to the trove.
>>43753847
>>43757728
PLEASE RESPOND
>>43780750
Thanks family.
>>43783065
Whoa there, captain caps.
If you're going to insist - What is this supposed to achieve? It gives the thief more juggling to do with their skills, but I don't know that it makes the rolling of skills inherently more interesting. This is particularly true if you're playing in the old narrative style where the thief percentile skills are more of a backup saving throw in case the player can't narrate their way through the situation.
Is the bonus dice juggling supposed to represent something specific? It seems like a purely game-level mechanic. That can be fine, but I'm not a huge of them in my OSR.
>>43783254
I think a strong gambling/risk reward mechanic makes a lot of sense with Thief/rogue style characters.
Giving them something like this makes them more fun and interesting to play. While not 100% in the oldschool spirit, its like letting warriors use combat tactics and wizards get all their cool powers; thieves get to juggle a little dice and gamble success.
For instance if they only need 3 more points to succeed a challenge, they could just roll 3d4s and automatically succeed. But their chance of success is pretty good with just 2d4, but there is some inherent risk.
Additionally, these could be fluffed as tools or something for the character, which are 'used' in such a way so that they can't just get them back instantly. Once again it can wear a party down and down over time; the warrior runs low on health and his weapons start to crack, the wizard on spells, and the thief starts losing his backup dice; whatever luck or failsafe he has going for him is going to run out eventually. That's part of the theme.
OH and each dice used also adds X amount of time to any lockpicking/climbing/trap disarming event, so wandering monsters will show up more often and all that.
What do you guys consider the best AD&D 1e clone
>>43783640
Castles & Crusades. And I'm only half joking. C&C is based on 1e (though it borrows the universal d20 mechanic from modern D&D), but changes far too much to be considered a clone. Still, it's my favorite 1e-related game.
So in Swords & Wizadry it says a Fighter gets to attack a number of times per round equal to their Fighter level. Is that against one enemy or spread out among every enemy they are fighting at the time?
Also; could this ability be allowed to drift up a bit? Like whenever they fight a creature they have at least 1HD more then, they get to attack once extra per time? Or it could be based on the HD of the highest creature?
I got a question for you guys - treasure as experience points. In a dungeon crawl, for non-gold items obviously, when do the points apply
>after they acquire it
>after they get it out of the dungeon
>after they sell it
And then, are they rewarded exp based off the base cost of the item, or how much they sold it for? If they decided to keep the item, they still get the exp, right?
>>43784235
It's meant for fighting hordes of little things, so it would be spread out as necessary.
>>43784347
So would it become too strong if, say, it went up to 2 HD creatures, or 3, or any number provided the warrior has a higher level?
Like the warrior is fighting a small force of HD2 creatures and he's level 4. He would get two attacks then?
How about if the group of creatures has a stronger/higher HD monster in its midst? I kind of like the idea of this ability only going off the strongest enemy HD, would really give the feeling of that creature being an 'elite' or leader style enemy.
What do you think?
>>43784346
It counts when you returned it to civilization. If your party got eaten by owlbears on the way back and had to drop all the loot to run away, it doesn't count for XP.
>>43784235
You could always adopt AD&D-style multiple attacks. The 3/2 rate is a bit clumsy, requiring you to remember whether it's an odd or even-numbered round to know whether you get two strikes or one, but there are ways around that. One thing you can do is to make it a 1 1/2 rate, with the 1/2 being represented by an attack that gets the worse of two die rolls (so you'd get one regular attack, and one with the worse of two rolls).
Another thing you can do is to give out poker chips representing extra attacks. You can spend a chip in any round (but no more than one) to gain a second strike. Once you're out of chips, you're out of extra attacks for the battle (this can be rationalized as something like fatigue). So as fighters level, they get additional chips to spend.
Or fighters might simply have to take a -2 penalty to both rolls anytime they choose to strike twice (something they can do whenever they want to). Or you could just do it the way it's written.
>>43753847
Switching over from a d% system to a d20, d12 or whatever system just makes sense. The gap between a d20 and a d12 is too large to make the once-a-day thing you were talking about work very well (in my opinion anyway). Why not just make it the better of two rolls? That way a 50% chance to succeed turns into a 75% chance, which is a pretty big bump.
>>43784727
So would you say they would get the base value of the item upon return to civilization then?
>>43784346
I've seen many give XP after it is *spent*.
This way, it not only encourages spending but it actually supports realism in a lot of ways. Nobody gets a shit ton of money and sits on it, people get wilder and wilder and adapt to the new income until your wild lifestyle forces you to go back into the crypt to find more gold!
>>43784991
Machinations of the Space Princess takes away most of your unspent gold after an adventure to simulate boozing and wenching and shit.
>>43783640
For whatever reason, the AD&D editions aren't really cloned much. The most obvious clone is OSRIC, which was literally the exact same game with the numbers filed off. It wasn't even meant to be a stand-alone game, but rather as a means for people to publish new content for AD&D without being able to advertise the AD&D label.
Functionally, the games that best cover the same territory (at least in my opinion) are Adventurer Conquerer King (it has a bunch of specific classes, proficiencies, etc) and Labyrinth Lord's Advanced companion.
Neither of these are really aiming to copy the actual mechanics of AD&D1e, but rather to do what a lot of people did (and still are) doing: taking the simpler mechanics of Basic D&D and bolting on the parts from AD&D that they actually wanted to use.
>>43784346
I use it as "treasure they get back to town with." So when you get back to town, then you get XP. I also offer a bonus for carousing with it or donating it to charities.
>>43784235
I played with this a bit, but while it was cool to watch the high level fighter mow down hordes of dudes, it kind of slowed play down.
>>43785255
>>43784991
>>43784891
I use a half now, half when you spend it method.
>>43778189
>Of course, that edition of basic also has the bugbear that is the Gazeteers and HUNDREDS OF CLASSES
It's pretty clear that nobody meant for all the Gazetteers to be used at once, though. Eg if you wanted to set your game in Glantri you could use the special Glantri material to make the game feel tailored to the details of that setting, rather than just bury the players under a heap of gazetteers and choices.
>>43784346
>And then, are they rewarded exp based off the base cost of the item, or how much they sold it for?
Gygax supposedly used the sale value, and tried his hardest to swindle his players. Personally, though, I think the base cost is more reasonable -- partially because it makes it faster and easier to "score" an expedition, but honestly mainly out of realism. When the money's silver and gold, that means it has its value from the metal, so jewelry's functionally a kind of money; the Vikings for example used to just hack bits off their bracelets and pay in gold or silver weight. It just makes more sense to me that people would be able to figure out the value of a gold ring or whatever correctly.
>>43785961
I give them the base cost in XP, but when it comes time to fence the goods, I have them roll 4d10. The resulting total is the how much the fence takes off the top. So if they roll 25, then they only get 75% of the value in actual cash.
>>43786195
Not that it has anything to do with experience, since I tend to arbitrarily hand out XP according to what seems appropriate for what the PCs have gone up against and done (when I bother with XP at all and don't just level people when I feel like it, that is), but I like the idea of sell prices being 1/10 buy prices for magic items, and something more like 1/2 for jewelry and such.
>>43760465
Actual D&D? Moldvay Basic. D&D Family? Maybe Swords & Wizardry White Box, which is very minimalist. Any full length fantasy game (that isn't, for instance, a five-page dealie)? Barbarians of Lemuria is quite rules-light and doesn't have the same, often complex underpinnings of D&D.
So I know that rolling for hit points is a very oldschool thing to do but I have to ask;
Is there seriously NO way to reroll your shitty HP rolls?
>>43787704
Do it the old, old school way. Roll your hit points from scratch each time you gain a level (so when you go from 3rd to 4th level, instead of rolling 1 hit dice and adding it to your old total, roll all 4 hit dice and discard your old total). Optionally, you could be allowed to keep your old hit points if your new roll is lower.
>>43787732
Hell, some folks recommend rolling your hit dice to newly generate your hit points for each adventure, regardless of whether you've leveled or not.
So I've been thinking on how to spice up my Monks in /osr/ style games and put them on the level of other characters.
I had a rough idea like this;
>Each round when the Monk attacks, he chooses a stance
>The stances are Light, Balanced, Heavy, Deadly
>Light; damage d4 but +3 AC
>Balanced; damage d6 and +2 AC
>Heavy; damage d8 and +1 AC
>Deadly; damage d10 but 0 AC
>The monk may name these stances or combat moves whatever he wants, such as named after animals (hummingbird, monkey, tiger, viper), seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter), elements (wind, water, fire, earth) or whatever else he wishes.
This should, in theory, make up for the Monk's absolute lack of good armor or weapons. Though I admit the numbers might be a bit high, perhaps they need to grow in level instead of right off the bat.
What do you think?
