OSR: I've Never Played a Dwarf Edition

First for modules/adventures for begginers

File: TSR 9049 - B4 - The Lost City.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45935095
Ignore what everyone else says. It doesn't need to 'continue on' like the end suggests. This was mine and it was perfect.

I've been feeling really creatively dry recently.

Anyone have a request for some kind of random encounter table, item loot table, dungeon, etc. That I could make? I make things a little gonzo btw.

File: Thirty Sider Apocalypse - Industry Loot.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45935166
welp, I'm always looking for rando post-apoc tables to roll with. and I love my gonzo.

this isn't a good example.

>>45935219

What kind of apocalypse we talking about? Zombies? Nuclear? Mad Max style?

>>45935152
a good one for basic fantasy?

>>45935361
Perfect for it, in fact.

I have some questions about LotFP and OSR in general, I'm a bit new to this. Answers/ideas would be greatly appreciated.

1. LotFP and older DnD has saves that are not reflex, fortitude and will. Instead they're things like vs paralysis, vs breath, vs magic and similar. What should I tell players to roll for when a situation would come up that requires for example a reflex save, but none of the saves seem to fit the bill? Like for example if the floor is crumbling around you. What should the players roll to get out of the situation instead of a reflex save?

2. Some of my players want some more crunch to the rules. While I know that crunchiness isn't the main appeal of OSR games, are there any houserules for LotFP out there that are worth checking out? (And if you've made some houserules of your own, feel free to share)

3. In your opinion, which one is best: one initiative roll for the whole group or individual initiative rolls for each player?

4. Are the official LotFP adventures still fun with characters that have levels a bit above what's intended (usually level 1-4), or will the adventures become lame with the players able to beat everything no sweat?

File: Fearsome Gods OSR minigods no races.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Reposting my shitty updated rules, hope somebody finds them interesting at least.

>>45935814
1. they usually say which save to use in the module

2. the rules for firearms have some crunch

3.depends on how big the group/conflict is

4. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of that but there's some modules that do like 4-6. Regardless, I wouldn't worry too much about PCs having too much of an easy time.

>>45935814
>What should I tell players to roll for when a situation would come up that requires for example a reflex save, but none of the saves seem to fit the bill?
Modules would have you roll vs. seemingly unrelated saves (like petrification vs. falls) sometimes. This is one reason I don't like old school saves. We were talking about Swords & Wizardry's single stat saves last thread, and how it would be easy to just modify it with your attribute modifier and use it for level-scaled attribute checks and maybe just the sort of thing you're talking about.

>>45935814
>>45935953

I'm starting up a campaign and noticed the same problem.

I've elected to use breath save for these sort of things, since it seems quite similar to reflex saves of new.

In regards to the adventures, most of them seems okay for a couple of levels above what they suggest, otherwise I suggest adding difficulty to the module.

>>45935814
For 2. , Ten Foot Polemic has some nice addons. Why would you want to increase crunch though? Surely its better to have faster resolution and more open gameplay for OSR-style gameplay?

>>45935814
>>45935953
>>45936027
If you're not worried about them scaling by level, you could do either a straight out attribute check,* or maybe just assign a target number modified by a certain attribute. In the "floor is crumbling" reflex scenario, for instance, you could rule that folks succeed on a 12 or under, with the target number of 12 modified by their dexterity bonus (so that a person with a +2 dex mod would have to roll 14 or under).

*A straight out attribute check will, of course, mean that some people are almost assured of success while others are almost assured of failure, given that the difference between 3 and 18 is 15 points rather than the 6 points they differ when it comes to modifiers (-3 to +3).

>>45935822
Does this use the standardized scale of ability modifiers used in Basic? Also, I don't quite get how crook skills work. Expertise just gives you a bonus to succeed at skill-related tasks? And how exactly do focus dice work? Since you have the option to get more, does this mean they get used up? Or do you just roll all your focus dice and add them together (in which case you should never increase your dice size unless you have to, as getting more dice will always be superior, something you should probably make clear)?

Oh, and do you have weapon and armor stats? Because without them, it's a bit difficult to really understand the combat rules.

>>45935897
>>45935953
>>45936027
>>45936173
>>45936204
Thanks for answering, everyone.

>>45935953
Do you have any more info about this? From what I understand S&W has a single static stat for saves that is modified depending on class etc. Is the idea of the tweak to take the original saves and subtract that single stat from it, thus making it a "bonus to save"?

>>45936173
I don't want too much crunch either, but some of the players were complaining that "there weren't enough mechanics to help against danger". I think at least one guy is a bit scared because he can't always immediately see if there's danger ahead and how to deal with it. It might also be because we switched from a game with a lot of customization in the character creation to this.

>>45936204
I don't think I'll do this as I want to keep the "higher is better" design as much as possible, as well as the problem you wrote down in the end. Good suggestion though.

Maybe I'm just too much of a new-school kid, but I really don't understand the logic behind Prime Requisites, or rather the experience bonus that they confer. It seems rather like a kick in the face of anyone who happens to roll poorly, and for those who roll well it not only means they're going to excel in general but also advance faster. In other words, it feels kinda... undeserved? Aren't these old-school games supposed to award clever play over sheer luck?

Can someone with experience with older editions and OSR games explain the impact of requisites on these styles of games? I really feel I must be missing something. I'm genuinely curious.

File: saving throws s&w wb.png (32KB, 579x320px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 579x320px

>>45936511
>Do you have any more info about this?
See pic. The bit about modifying it with the appropriate attribute bonus for a sort of catch-all, attribute-influenced check was house-ruling.

>I don't think I'll do this as I want to keep the "higher is better" design as much as possible, as well as the problem you wrote down in the end.
You could flip the assigned target number, in that case. Do 9 or over (or whatever) and add your attribute modifier to your roll.

File: od&d.png (455KB, 1208x971px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1208x971px

>>45936711
Early on, attribute scores did little other than give you an experience bonus for your prime requisite (having an 18 *might* give you a +1 bonus to something), so I really think they're a hold over from that time. And honestly, a 10% bonus to experience is relatively minor. In cases where your comrades just miss going up a level, you might make it, but 90% of the time, you'll be the same level as them. I hate it, but I hate it because it's obnoxious and fiddly, not because it's too powerful. But I think it's also a way to encourage you to have a high attribute in something that makes sense for your class (clerics should be wise, magic users smart, thieves dextrous, and fighters strong). I personally like the idea of having your class modify your attributes (so that fighters get a bonus to their strength and constitution), but then we start diverging significantly from actual D&D (why bother giving fighters a higher hit die to represent how tough they are when you can just give everybody the same hit dice and have a fighter's toughness--and extra hit points--bestowed by his bonus to constitution?).

>>45936310

Expertise is like a generic skill number that all skills are rolled under. Each level you could increase this number by +1, or do something with the focus dice.

I should have explained the focus dice better. Basically you get each die per day. So if you have a d4, you use that once a day. You can't get another d4 the next time you level up because that slot is taken, so you would need to increase the size of that die to a d6, then next level get a new d4. The reason for this is because increasing the size of the die is obviously much less beneficial then getting a new one, so you're forced to do it for gradual leveling.

In my haste to keep it under 1 page, I didn't include very much about gear or anything, sadly. I'll have to fix that next time.

Could someone repost the original antipaladin article?

>>45936834
Thanks for replying. I appreciate your perspective.

When it comes to fiddly stuff, I'm all for trimming it out. That's why I figured it should be obvious that if you want to be a Fighter you should have a high Strength, because you want to hit and kill things.

But to continue on with the fiddly stuff... why hit dice? Just give everyone some base hit points and let class and abilities modify it. I know that HD often get brought up in stuff like turning undead, the effects of spells, how many extra attacks a Fighter might get, etc., but why not just refer to levels? I've never understood it.

Speaking of class-based attribute bonuses, I love that as a mechanic. I think The 13th Age does a wonderful job of introducing that without being too cumbersome. Your race and your class each get a choice of two different ability score boosts, and you can pick any you wish as long as your race and class bonuses aren't to the same score.

Not trying to trod on anyone's love of these old conventions, I'm just disappointed that so few OSR games try to trim as much of the fat as possible nor seem interested in implementing any modern design conventions. I'd rather like to get away from the high-fantasy, super-heroic stuff and have some grittier, weirder adventures of poking the floor with sticks and hiring peasants to carry lamps for us while avoiding too many fussy "just because" rules.

>>45935814
1. The name of the saves can be confusing. Paralization is against any movement related effects, including things like avoiding a pit that just opened under your feet. Poison is against binary damaging effects that affect only you, usually deadly ones, but can also be the save against drugs or alcohol. Breath weapon is against area effects, generally damaging ones. Magic device is against magic or special skills that are not innate to the caster/user, while magic is against, well, magic. The saves have priorities, you roll against the first one to fit the effect, the priority being paralization>poison>breath weapon>magic device>magic.

2. Please try the game before adding things on top. Most times the crunch is not actually needed.

3. I like group initiative best, just because it's faster.

4. In my opinion, once the player characters get too powerful the game loses some charm, but it's not a bug deal. It will never get 3.5 stupid.

>>45937157
Thanks for the help, especially with how the saves work.

If you want to know, we have played two sessions of the game. The player complaining the most is a fighter and I believe he's not satisfied with just getting an attack bonus while others get stuff like magic. There might also be other reasons that I listed in >>45936511

>>45937763
Well, if your players hace actually played the game, ask them what they find lacking. Tell them outright that formless complaining won't do it, they need to be able to find what they don't like like grown ups. This is so you won't spend your time in a detailed grappling ruleset if what they want is dual wielding rules.

Once they tell you what they think would improve your game, it's time for glorious houseruling time! This is more art than science and we won't be able to help until you tell us what your players want.

>>45937763
Its funny too, since a lot of times mage players get pissed over their one spell a day.

>>45937985
Ten Foot Polemic's houserules were suggested earlier, so I think I'll bring those over to them to see what they would like to add (as well as discussing why and how etc). I also found that the houserules at the end of Seclusium of Orphone might be something they'd like so I'll show them that too.

I'll come back to these threads once I've talked with them.

>>45938002
The magic user, cleric and elf are actually pretty chill about everything. It's only the fighter and dwarf who are perturbed really.

>>45938110
Did they not notice all the combat stances that fighters can use?
I think you need to mention that you can do more than 'I hit it with my sword'. Fighters should be able to do all kinds of stuff with the enviroment (overturning tables, pushing off heights, ect.)

>>45939133
They have noticed, or at least I think so. They've done basic tactics like pikeman behind swordman for example, but they haven't done any combat moves that they should be able to do even though I've told them about it. Maybe they just see them as pointless since they're just extra points added or detracted from AC and to-hit.

>>45939133
That's not really a fighter thing my man, that's just a PC thing. Fighters are really magic sword: the class.

For combat actions like pushing, tripping or disarming. Roll 2 d20, if both hit, you do damage and complete your action. If only one hits, you do damage OR your chosen action. If none hit, your recieve an attack.

Yay or nay?

>>45939439
>pushing, tripping or disarming
>DISARMING

Nonononoooo

One of these things is not like the other

Disarming should be at least as difficult as killing an enemy outright, probably moreso. It is essentially impossible to disarm an enemy of similar skill level.

Remember, if you disarm a fighter... stick a fork in him, he's done. If he's got a special weapon its a particular ripoff.

I'd say something like, if you can deal a blow that would kill the target in one hit at max hp, you can pull the hit to disarm him instead.

In many cases, this means that level 2-3 and up fighter types can't be disarmed, ever. This is a good thing, and entirely realistic.

Just imagine how ridiculous sword matches would be with the aforementioned ultra easy disarming system, and how weird they look. People chasing around Elric or Arthur to Yakety Sax, knocking their swords out of their hands over and over again.

>>45939542
You have a point, that didn't really concern me dice my games usually use monsters that don't use weapons, scratching off disarming is no big deal.

>>45939647
That's fine then.

>>45939375
Eh, I like to give my fighter players bonuses to stuff like improvised weapons and battle tactics as well as the usual stances and counterattacks. I think its pretty neat to have fighters (and to a lesser extent certain specialists) be more able to control the flow of a battle than the untrained clerics and scholars.

File: CoDZilla.png (1MB, 988x691px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 988x691px

>>45939970
Clerics are, of course, not untrained, they are heavily armored and armed knights of badassness.

As to
>battle tactics
>usual stances and counterattacks

What are we even talking about?

how i can make a grid? do i need one?

>>45940014
Combat stances are a feature of LotFP where you can choose to take buffs and debuffs to your AC or AB depending on whether you want to press or fight defensively. Counterattacks are just a houserule, where fighters with high enough strength or dexterity can counter-attack if an enemy rolls its attack badly enough.

Battle tactics are just the nonsense players tend to invent on the spur of the moment, like forming defensive blocks or flanking enemies. Fighters tend to be faster or more precise.

I would agree with you about clerics in most OSR, but I am currently running a weird fantasy game where most 'clerics' are simply clergy - those trained in combat have fighter levels.

>>45940508
Take a bunch of lines and have them overlap each other at repeating intervals.

File: NBD-DungeonCrawlWorksheet.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45940824

Mr. Rogers would be disappointed, anon.

>>45940508

Generally run one off of your printer. Grids are usually used for drawing a dungeon map, since it makes giving the players dimensions to make their own easier. (PDF related may be handy)
For running combats, grids aren't necessary. You basically just need a general notion of ranges and positions. Minis can be helpful, or you can just describe it.
OSR games usually don't have a lot of support for grid-based tactical stuff for those who crave it, though.

>>45935166
1d20 favorite dishes by common D&D races. Double up if you want.

>>45935166
some random encounters for begginers, i want to show my groupo how deadly is OSR

File: 1447259117731.jpg (515KB, 1180x1714px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1180x1714px

>>45942134
A random tavern food table might be interesting as well.

File: 1447259462570.jpg (457KB, 1130x1623px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1130x1623px

>>45942583

>>45942583
>>45942606
not him but thanks Mr. Anon

Do you guys count unsheathing a weapons as an action in combat?

>>45942606
>>45942583
Source?

>>45943559
I would in a six second round, but not in a sixty second round.

>>45943559
I usually absorb the "getting combat ready" into the reaction phase. When players want to change weapons while in combat, I tend to not let them attack that round.

>>45943564
Dragon's Crown Artbook

>>45943700
PDF me nigga

Anyone have an ebook friendly version of Playing at the World - the DnD history book?

>>45943754
Not on me. Have it on my home computer though.

>>45944712
Shoot, think you could upload it later? I'd like to put it on my kindle and read it while I'm on vacation.

Has anyone had any success with the weapon type v. armor type style tables?

It looks really cool in chain mail's man-to-man, but their solution doesn't fit well with the general combat setup. AD&D1e takes a stab at this, but it's such a clusterfuck.

Anyone done this well?

>>45945487
Anon posted some good Chainmail tables revised for d20 a few threads ago. I thought it looked really well done, but I don't know what makes you feel the man-to-man table doesn't gel well with the combat in general, so I don't know if you'd like it. Still, can't hurt to ask for them.

post random tables

File: Chainmail d20 AC.jpg (108KB, 863x599px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 863x599px

>>45945487
I'd generally agree that the 1e weapon vs armor tables are barely worth it because the translation was borked; its not clear what mechanism they used to convert, but they didn't get the probabilities right at all. For example, while swords aren't the best weapon, they should honestly not take a penalty against plate, they have enough problems.

These much beefier modifiers make the contrast of man vs man-like foes (including orcs etc) and man vs monster (or large foes in general) a lot more striking; you don't get the to-hit bonus, but you do get the larger damage modifier, meaning a two handed sword is still very advantageous but level is much more important, calling to mind the fantastic combat of Chainmail.

Also, this sort of probabilities is probably what people had in mind when having there be a surplus of normal swords and a deficit of magic flails, morningstars, etc.

And I don't find these charts to be slow or onerous at all. Enemies typically have only one or two ACs per group.

>>45947858
>I'd generally agree that the 1e weapon vs armor tables are barely worth it because the translation was borked; its not clear what mechanism they used to convert, but they didn't get the probabilities right at all. For example, while swords aren't the best weapon, they should honestly not take a penalty against plate, they have enough problems.
AD&D's tables are lightly modified versions of the Greyhawk tables (with an additional version in-between in Swords & Spells).

IIRC, all they did was assume that 8-9 was +0 and then literally just translated the modifiers straight over.irrespective of how AC already modifies the to-hit chance.

How do anons feel about the health of the OSR scene? Or the indie RPG scene in general?

It seems like things have gotten quieter, or that we've passed a peak somehow... but I don't know if this might also just be a bias from being able to look backwards at all the good stuff.

>>45948019
> indie RPG scene
Disclaimer: I've been around since the early days of the forge, so I have a decent perspective on the whole thing. That said, I have absolutely no love for the forge. I'm just giving credit where credit is due.

The Forge facilitated the concentrated exchange of ideas. A ton of games got their start there, and a ton of the bigger names in the indie-RPG circles got their start there. That's why people like Luke Crane, Vincent Baker, and so on all seem to know each other. Even The Riddle of Steel's Jake Norwood got his start on The Forge. It was networking, it was an exchange of ideas, and if you were into that sort of thing it was a place you could go to actually see those niche games actively developed, released, and discussed. There's no real equivalent to that now. Even if you're keeping an eye open for them, it's hard to keep a watch on new stuff showing up and what it's all about.

That said, indie games are facing the same sort of problem that occurred after the OGL came out for d20. The biggest names in the last "generation" of indie games were Apocalypse World and Fate. Both of these games were wildly successful and broke new ground in many ways for how they were played and what you could do with them. More importantly, they were both incredibly hackable AND owned by people who were perfectly fine letting you use their material to make games of your own. Fast forward a few years, and what you see is that a goodly proportion of new games are all Powered by The Apocalypse or Fate-based. That's not to say any of these are bad things inherently. Saga of the Icelanders is actually really fun if you have a dramatically-oriented play group. It's simply the same problem that came with d20 OGL. Devs who have a concept but maybe not the time/patience/skill to develop their own mechanics will instead take use existing systems as the structure for their games.

>>45948019
>>45948556
> OSR scene?
OSR has always been a weird niche-within-a-niche. The majority of people developing indie games are often leaning towards a more nar-influenced experience or trying to find new ways to do things. So OSR is a weird venn diagram of people who want to experiment with new systems, like D&D, but also don't want modern D&D or else they'd be playing that instead.

As a whole, I'd say we're still reaching something of a peak. New material is being churned out constantly. I just added Hideouts & Hoodlums to the Trove. It's a superhero OSR game based on the 3LBBS, of all things. Crazy stuff. What I think we're seeing though is the same thing you're seeing with d20, AW, and Fate. People are creating stuff to create it, more people are interested in it than ever, but because so many of the parts are familiar, there seem like fewer and fewer stand-out titles.

OSRIC is known because it was basically the first real OSR thing that people did, and it's THE clone you go to for AD&D. LL and S&W are both known mostly again because they are the defacto clones for what they are trying to do. But when you look at DCC - it carved it's own place as being providing a new and different experience. LotFP is the same way. It took the genre and did something new with it, packaged it in a new way. Stars Without number can make a similar claim. Adventurer, Conquerer, King does an aspect of the game better than anyone else.

>>45948019
>>45948556
>>45948640
On the other hand, if someone talks about.. Adventures Dark and Deep, Delving Deeper, Beyond the Wall, For Gold and Glory.. These are all perfectly fine games in their own right, but I'd wager they are nowhere near as well known simply because you'll always have someone say "why would I use this over X?" with X commonly being either B/x, or one of the games mentioned in the last paragraph. This is especially true due to the hackable nature of the hobby and the overall compatability between OSR products. I have very little reason to play anything other than LotFP (which is my current default game) when I can bolt on the subsystems I like from elsewhere to my existing game.

In time, I suspect we'll see the hobby shift and the market make a course correction with a shift from making games to making content and adventures for said games.

I'm aware of the irony that I say all of this while working on my own game for potential release.

>>45948556
I see what you mean.

It certainly seems like it's easier than ever to choose a system, and bolt your setting or play style onto it. Do you think that's a bad thing?

ie, choosing FATE, OD&D, ORE etc as the "operating system" and concentrating your limited time and funds on the setting, art, etc.

I don't know that that's a bad thing... I can think of a few games with great imagination, but very derivative or weak mechanics. It's hard not to think they'd have been better off using open source mechanics (for marketability if nothing else).

>>45948744
> Do you think that's a bad thing?
I guess you'd have to define "bad" in this case. From the perspective of "more games on the market" it's probably pretty good. People who would never have wanted to design a game from the ground up (or perhaps were simply not skilled enough to design a game from the ground up) can still be part of the conversation and contribute to the amount of games, contents, and ideas floating around the indie RPG scene overall in a way they might not have if these opportunities were not available. I don't see anything wrong with that.

On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to speculate that some people who are creating fate or AW releases might have instead created wholly new games that might themselves have been interesting if they didn't have such frameworks to lean on.

It creates an opportunity to get more people designing and publishing, but I fear as a consequence it might also be contributing to some stagnation within the community as a whole.

>>45944712
Bump for this guy.

>>45943754
>>45944712
>>45944758
>>45948930
https://mega.nz/#!vI0UkSaA!-HaapBUd3upUp7o_u8ri_VLBleleNOk0RVZjdELKmsk

>>45949026
Cool, thanks anin

>>45948010
yeah, I meant Greyhawk

>>45948019

OSR may or may not be bigger than its ever been. Certainly its healthier than, say, the 2e days.

>>45949979
Agreed, with the rise of the OGL, I feel that you can find an OSR game to scratch pretty much any desire you want.

File: 2016-03-11.jpg (89KB, 334x593px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 334x593px

this arrived today.

>>45951528
Looks nice Anon

>>45950495
Not to mention that it was genuinely difficult to find any of the old stuff in print back then, let alone find anyone who would be there to discuss it with.

Has anyone here heard of Godbound on Kickstarter?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes

It seems really fucking cool, I've already backed it, but I was wondering what OSR modules, supplements, etc. would actually be /good/ for using in such a game? The rules are the same but the general mode of play is...vastly different.

A friend of mine got a laser printer, so I finally printed out a first-printing version of OD&D's Men and Magic.
It's so good, guys. Like, actually the best.

File: Frazetta Conan.png (6MB, 1400x1804px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 1400x1804px

>>45953201
Very cool!

Unrelated:
Frazetta artwork is so damn inspiring to me. How can I make my OSR game really feel like pic related?

>>45954378
Maybe level everybody up to lvl 3 to start with? Give them a steady diet of 0level mooks to hack apart.

Reward XP only for *spending* gold--which must be captured at some risk of life and limb. Cue insane cavorting, ridiculous costumes, and heroes rushing to pawn off cursed magic items to fund their party lifestyle.

After that I reckon it's all about describing the milieu.

Personally I'd reorganize the spell list into "lawful magic" and "chaos magic", throw out spells that don't fit the aesthetic, and meld Cleric and Magic User into a single class if you're playing a game that has clerics. And maybe make this new "sorceror" class a bit more fighty since there'll in general be more combat.

Or play Barbarians of Lemuria... it's simple, feels pretty oldschool, and handles magic in a way that suits the genre as well as any I've ever read.

http://strawpoll.me/7058216

>>45955387
I voted condensed. Its hard to say. I like Chainmail probabilities but d20s feel more natural for me when doing an RPG like thing, d6s when I'm doing a wargamer like thing.

>>45955795
And what I meant to say is that if I planned on using more than d20 + d6 I'd probably zocchi things up.

>>45955387
I'm really into the idea of d20s and d6s only lately.

>>45955894
>>45955873
>>45955795
Voted for Chain Mail. It's not going to be the popular one by any measure, but after I started reading the chain mail rules and OD&D, it occurred to me that you wind up only needing a pool of d6s, which I find weirdly appealing. Part of this might be my love of bell curves though.

File: image.jpg (370KB, 870x1126px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 870x1126px

Tell me about clerics

>>45956890

I don't really like them and combined them with magic users instead.

File: anticlericarmy.jpg (88KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 555x555px

>>45956890
As PCs I like them a lot, as NPCs they make me uncomfortable.

Anticlerics are, in my opinion, the single best antagonist as they combine traits of all three primary types of PCs, as offensive casters, being heavily armed and armored like fighters, and of course, being bad versions of clerics, along with having a built in reason for conflict with the PCs (their powers being intrinsically tied to some force of chaos, evil, a malevolent demiurge, or whatever).

File: darkcleric2.png (199KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 333x333px

>>45957079
And the thing I forgot to mention is that unlike an enemy magic user they are unlikely to obliterate the party in a single action, so their pacing is much more likely to feel right than an enemy mage. They don't die in a stiff breeze, and they don't play rocket tag much.

Of course once an Evil High Priest shows up all bets are off.

>>45955387
I voted for Standard, and maybe add in an option to go DCC levels of dice craziness

File: Beholdercaco.jpg (111KB, 634x480px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 634x480px

I don't know if AD&D 2E falls into this, but I have a question. I'm preparing to run a campaign using only the rules in the core books (PHB and DMG) and without NWP. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible, but I don want to use weapon proficiencies.

So, problem is, I'm not really understanding how they work. I understand the basics of it...You get a penalty if you use a weapon that you're not proficient in. But, aren't you able to use multiple proficiency slots on one weapon? My only experience with the 2E system is the Baldur's Gate games, and that's how it worked there. If that's how it works, then what is the benefit in putting more than one slot on a weapon? Or is that just a rule introduced in other supplements that I can disregard if I'm just using core rules?

ALSO, how do I handle a character trying to use a weapon that's restricted from their class? I certainly would like to let them try if they really want to, but I don't see any rules covering how that works.

>>45958020
Single classed fighters can weapon specialize by putting 2 slots into one weapon.
If they want to use a weapon barred from class just treat it as one they cannot become proficient with.

>>45958020
>If that's how it works, then what is the benefit in putting more than one slot on a weapon?
Weapon specialization, which only fighters can get.

>>45958029
>2 slots into one weapon.
Unless it's bows (not crossbows), then it costs 3.

>>45956890
I play mine like an inquisitor. I shout "Heresy!" all over the place because it seems that every last monster race in the campaign worships a different demon lord.

I'm also a boring person and I heard that overplaying a particular characteristic of your character makes for better RP

In the game I run they're homebrewed. They're still fighty (but not as strong as a fighter) and can cast spells (but they're not as powerful as the MU's). What's different is: They have a fixed spell-list progression based on the god they worship. I upped the cleric spells and gave them the opportunity to sometimes get MU spells like Lightning Bolt. The trick is that they get LB at 8th level while a MU can get it at 5th if he wants.

Maybe I cannot really explain it here, but I will post more if requested.

>>45958029
>>45958047
Thanks for the quick responses. I just checked again and noticed the specialization part and it's obvious to me now...Not sure how I was missing that before.

As far as the weapon class restriction thing...So, I would just use the penalty for the class from the proficiency slot chart?

>>45958054
I'm looking at the PHB right now, and it says three for bows and two for everything else.

>>45958124
>it says three for bows and two for everything else.
That's what I was getting at.

Out of interest, what printing is your PHB? If it's the first printing of TSR2101 (with the horseman on the cover), then one of the tables has all the modifiers reversed. That won't come up if you're not using the weapon vs armour type rules, though.

>>45958124
Yes. I would just treat out of class weapons as non proficient ones.

>>45958151

It's the first printing...Not the revised verstion. Which table is that?

>>45958202
Well, I was meaning the first printing of the unrevised version.

Table 52, page 90. The modifiers for Slash should all be positive, that's the easiest way to check. Note that this makes slashing weapons (such as most swords) really fucking useless compared to piercing and especially bludgeoning weapons.

File: weapon type vs. AC, simple.png (11KB, 834x251px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 834x251px

>>45958231
>The modifiers for Slash should all be positive
By which you mean: if they're all positive, that's the inverted table, which is wrong. Though honestly, it makes more sense to use the modifiers that way as bonuses for the attacker. After all, when you get +2 strength bonus to hit, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

>Note that this makes slashing weapons (such as most swords) really fucking useless compared to piercing and especially bludgeoning weapons.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they didn't preserve the relative power of the weapons.

>>45958231

Okay...Thanks for the heads up. Mine's not a first printing copy and they're all positive...I probably won't use those rules, anyway. My DMG is a first printing copy, though...There's nothing like that in there, is there?

>>45958266
>if they're all positive, that's the inverted table, which is wrong
No, the positive table is right. That's the one that got carried over into to revised version, which has all the errata folded in.

>use the modifiers that way as bonuses for the attacker.
You're meant to apply the mod to the attacker's THAC0, it says that in the block above the table.

>>45958281
I don't think so.

>>45958293
>No, the positive table is right.
It says to apply the modifier to your THAC0. If you raise your THAC0, it makes it harder for you to hit (a 15 THAC0 is better than a 16 THAC0). Or did they just word it very poorly? Because like I said, it makes more sense to apply it like you would a normal bonus.

>>45958350
>If you raise your THAC0, it makes it harder for you to hit
Yes, which is why Slashing weapons are shit under these rules. Look at the mods for the Plate family. They're really high, which is because Plate is resistant to slashing weapons. This is why you use the mordhau or a hammer to deal with a plated knight.

>>45958371
Ah. Never mind me. I'm stupid from sleep deprivation. It doesn't help that THAC0 is inverted so that high is bad and this table further inverts things so that you're applying the modifier to your THAC0 instead of the way you normally do, to your attack roll.

>>45958266
>>45958231
Slashing weapons have an overwhelming tendency to be superior to the other category, so I don't see why being weak against tougher armors would be bad. It also gives an added perk when chopping up thieves.

>>45958388
I think the original table is a remnant from a time where the modifier was meant to be applied to the roll, not to the THAC0.

>>45958389
I decrease the negative mods by 1 for two-handed swords, just to give them a reason to exist.

>>45958389
It's stupid to have an optional rule that rather dramatically changes the balance of things unless that's its specific point (and for this, it shouldn't be). You get an average modifier of almost -2 (okay, +2 they stupid way they do that table), which is huge--and it's actually a bigger penalty than that if you look at the more common/optimal armor types.

>>45958427
Eh, I don't agree. 2e grossly broke weapon balance due to omitting weapon vs armor mods, which is older than variable weapon dice damage itself, this corrects it.

>>45958266
>leather=fur
>mail=scales
>shell=plate

This is actually kinda cool and I never saw that idea

File: e74e59ecfaa24075785cda6714c41454_original.jpg (138KB, 600x388px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 600x388px

Have you guys seen this kickstarter? Goodman Games has restored a bunch of the old Judges Guild material and is republishing it.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1409961192/judges-guild-deluxe-collectors-edition

I'm in for the 13 x 18 inch book.

>>45960496
No but it looks cool.

>>45960496
It's a shame they aren't reprinting Caverns of Thracia.

>>45960496
This looks like a sweet product but holy shit are they ever overselling it.
>critical hit tables, hex crawls, and the random encounter table: we owe those to Judges Guild.
Really? Random encounters, you owe those to JG? Not to OD&D? U&WA doesn't contain a hexcrawl? COME OOOONNNN FAGGOTS

Again this looks like a great product, I don't see why they couldn't sell it on its own merits.

How do you heal in Rules Cyclopedia? I swear I've looked but I can't find the rule for it. Non magic healing, like how in later editions sleeping eight hours brings you to full hit points.

>>45962837
I'll second this question.

>>45962837
>>45962941

I just searched a few times for you guys and can't find squat. A partially damaged Beholder eye stalk recovers at 1 hp per day, though!

Well, I can't find anything in RC, so here's the Moldvay rule:

HEALING WOUNDS: Wounds may be cured in two ways: by resting or by magic. To cure wounds by resting, the wounded creature must relax in a safe place, and may do nothing but rest. Each full day of complete rest will restore 1-3 hit points. If a day's rest is interrupted for any reason, no healing will take place.

>>45963210
Something important that's not actually in the RC?
I never thought I'd see the day.

>>45963554
So if its not in the RC, fine, but how do you guys do it with editions similar, >>45963210 gave info on how Moldvay does it, but what about the other ones?

>>45963713
I mean... All of Basic is compatible.
All of Advanced is largely compatible.
Most of the time you can even cross contaminate with little to no issues.

If there's a rule you can't find, you either make it up yourself on the spot (which has always been part of the old school D&D experience) or you can just look for it in any other old D&D rulebook.
Nowadays there's also google.

>>45963989
You make a lot of sense anon, thanks.

>>45963554
Hey, the Rules Cyclopedia is missing the entire action declaration phase in combat. As is BECMI and IIRC B/X.

Apparently Mentzer was legitimately surprised that the rule wasn't in there, since he thought for sure that it was. It's even referenced in Immortals!


The Rules Cyclopedia is also missing the entire tournament subsystem from Companion, which should be in the domain chapter but isn't (presumably for space reasons). It also makes a bunch of smaller changes all over the place and even has some new material (of note being Weapon Mastery for grappling and boxing).
One of the biggest changes it made, IMHO, is changing hirelings from being per PLAYER to being per PARTY - I still don't quite get that.
It also introduced getting XP from plot achievements and roleplaying, for what it's worth - I'm guessing they took it from 2E?

IMHO B/X>BE and BECMI>RC, but that's just my opinion.

>>45963713
In OD&D you heal 1hp for every two days spent resting, IIRC. It's really strict, but I kind of get the impression that it's meant for hexcrawls.

It might also just be 0hp for day 1 and 1hp for every day thereafter, but the way it's written is ambigous.
>On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time.
>every other

Hey, maybe you can find a player playing a Cleric and pay them for healing your character. That sounds like a decent enough idea.

>>45964576
You can't deny that paying NPC clerics to cast healing spells on you is a good way to lighten the burden of all that heavy heavy treasure.

>>45964856
Nah, I'm talking about paying other players.

No fixed parties back then, remember? I think Mornard said something about playing for fifteen years in various four-person parties and never having the same party composition twice.

Incidentally, this seems like a good answer to the whole "buy and sell magical items" thing - there's definitely people out there who are both rich enough and want them, you know. They're the other players.

>>45960496
Just donated, thanks for the heads up!

So, most OSR films and series out there?

>>45966125
Dark Dungeons is a "faithful" reenactment of the Jack Chick track of the same name.
The original D&D cartoon can offer some odd insight.

>>45966125
Record of Lodoss War
Conan the Barbarian
Wizards

Question for anyone who plays Whitebox-style OD&D-
What's a hit die if you're not using variable hit dice? I assume it's a d6, since all weapons do the same amount of damage, but as usual, the booklets are very little help, here.

>>45966935
>The original D&D cartoon can offer some odd insight.

Is it really worth watching?

I loved it when I was younger, but I watched I think the first two episodes a couple months back, and it was kinda, I don't know... too silly, I guess? I remember it being more heroic and adventurous than that, but didn't bother to keep watching.

>>45967554
It's unique in that it can present some very odd ways of solving their issues, like when they occasionally pitted Tiamat vs Venger, or drove Tiamat into the dungeons of a mysterious tower and shit. Very little combat, mostly solving their issues.

>>45967502
Yep, it's a d6.

>>45951528
Nice

>>45935152
Yeah, to anyone who hasn't played this yet, I highly recommend it. I just ran a couple sessions of it this week, and my players responded really well to it. They're veteran players, too. But if it's done well, your players will come out at the end feeling like they accomplished somehting.

>QUESTION

I'm my friends and I are compiling a list of all of our Homebrew rules that we've developed over the years, and we want something cool to put on the front. What is something we could draw on the cover? I'm thinking an epic battle or a barbarian saving a scantly clad lady from some terrible monster.

>>45968388
>I'm thinking an epic battle or a barbarian saving a scantly clad lady from some terrible monster.
Have them saving her from a dragon to make it truly iconic.

>>45968525
You think so? I think that would actually be best.

I'm not a very good artist, but I think I will draw a scantily clad, big boobed princess tied to a rune covered stone, a rogue with a bandana is cutting her free while a ripped barbarian and a sorceress fight of a group of cannibal beastmen, just as a Massive green dragon is breaking through a wall in the background.

>>45968799
Just have her chained to the runestone by the ankle and clinging to the barbarian's leg. That's the most classic.

>>45968799

This sounds fucking epic. However, unless you've tackled projects of this scale before, I think

>>45969185

is a much better proposal.

>>45969185
>>45969355
I've written little splatbooks and things like that before, but I've never made a full rulebook.

We felt so good about almost getting this done that we thought, "Hey, might as well put some art in it, too". We're just doing some basic doodles throughout the book, but we wanted the cover to be a little more detailed.

I'm not a very good artist. Back in highschool, I used to draw all the time and be in art club, but it's one of those things where you don't keep up with it and eventually it goes away. I'll take my time and try to at least make it look nice. Want me to post the results here, when I'm done?

>>45970455

I would love to see ; w ;

>>45967599
I'll second that; if you don't mind the goofiness of it, some of the noncombat problem solving stuff they do is really top notch inspiration

How do you guys feel about starting at higher levels in old school games?

I was thinking of starting out a Rules Cyclopedia campaign with the characters a bit beyond first level.

Should I start them out with a fixed XP number since classes level at different XP numbers, or level?

Like for example start everyone at level 3, or give each of them 4000xp?

Does anyone else not use Demihuman races anymore or find them sort've superfluous?

I'm having trouble putting it in to words but there's something charming about a fantasy world in which humans are the only playable race.

>>45971294
I'm definitely finding I favour a human centric world. I don't like having more than a handful of humanoid enemies races either. I prefer sinister fae, and cruel goblins. I don't care for Lamentations though.

>>45971811
I'm not a big fan of Lamentations either. (Specifically, the tone steps over the bounderies of grimdark and into edgelord territory.)

But my campaigns in the past year have focused heavily on settings where humans are the only playable race, and the few monstrous races all branch off from human ancestory as well, like "mutants" or "beastmen" or "cannibals". I guess that's the product to overexposure to fantasy races for too long. After a while, you just want something Hyboria-ish. (Or more medieval)

File: ALERT.jpg (131KB, 878x495px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 878x495px

>>45971294
hm, I'm more the opposite, I don't see any need for humans at all except mechanically

>>45971217
The game works better if you start at level 3ish, period.

But I'm a hopeless grognard so I still force people to start at level 1

>>45971217
Fixed XP. Starting at level 3 basically means giving the Elf a free ton of experience, and also shits hard on the M-U. The Thief gets badly disadvantaged as well.

>>45972572

Alright, but Elves for example reach level 3 with 8k XP, while fighters only need 4k.

How do you balance this? Start everyone with the same XP, meaning some players will be higher level than others, or start them all at the same level?

>>45972669
Good point. I'd base it off XP.

>>45972653
>>45972742

Alright, thanks.

File: 1456275112613-2.jpg (566KB, 1000x1224px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1000x1224px

>>45971294
I tend to keep demihumans but I always replace halflings with rabbitfolk.
I end up with mostly humans and rabbits with an elf or a dwarf in the party.

>>45972823

Nice.

I'm doing something similar, but the demihumans are just gone completly. The only other playable races are Hares (rabbits), Hogs and Monkey men. Then there are supposed to be many mythical races of men.

It's meant to be a mytholgical setting with all the animal people being failed attempts at making humans, basically. But they are still around. I think rabbit people are really good, more interesting then a generic halfling.

Is Barbarians of Lemuria in the Trove?
If so, where?
I'm a huge Conan fan, so I really want to check it out.

>>45974804
I don't know about the trove, but these were posted elsewhere.

>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition

>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, fewer details & more minimalist presentation makes it even easier to learn, but the rules aren't as refined) -- http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf

>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want the bare bones minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up a bit) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A

B/X or BECMI?

And why?

File: JirelofJoiry_AldoOjeda.jpg (273KB, 1062x1600px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1062x1600px

>>45975864
Thanks, Anon!

Also, bumping with a question:
How fucking rad is Jirel of Joiry?

>>45976113
Even leaving aside the fact that I detest the layout of BECMI (it takes me forever to find anything), B/X is short and sweet (128 pages split between 2 books) while BECMI is needlessly drawn out (448 pages divided between 9 books).

>>45976824
B/X also stops at level 14 whereas BECMI allows for nigh-unlimited play. I also think BECMI, while the layout isn't as nice, acts better as an 'introductory' text.

>>45976925
>B/X also stops at level 14
I see this as a feature, not a drawback.

>I also think BECMI, while the layout isn't as nice, acts better as an 'introductory' text.
Not for the way I learn, anyway. When you introduce me to something, you need to either put it into full context in short order, or it needs to be easy to flip ahead and figure out shit for myself. It's really hard to do that with BECMI, because in babying you through the process, information is piecemeal and scattered. Also, the Basic set is almost twice as long as B/X's. At a certain point, you're just putting more shit in the way.

>>45976113
Holmes. 'Nuff said.

>>45977138
>I see this as a feature, not a drawback.
Why is that? My thoughts on leveling are a bit unorthodox, and I enjoy hearing other people's thought processes!

>>45976123

Super rad, anon. (So was Northwest Smith.)

>>45977536
High level play in D&D is kind of bullshit. When it takes 10 sword hits to bring down your typical enemy and casters have so many spells that they can throw them around willy-nilly, things get less fun.

>>45976113
BECMI, no contest. BECMI does minimalism exactly as good (you're not required to use more than B/E) but if you want to use more than that there's CMI and a wealth of other stuff.

Before I started going to these threads I would have genuinely never guessed there were grognards groggy enough to ditch CMI and a wealth of content over....... a slightly different spell system.

>>45978850

Are there DMs that are just plain bad enough at their job that high level D&D isn't as fun as low level D&D? Seems high level D&D has little but advantages over low level D&D.

File: your kid brother wants to dm.jpg (205KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1024x757px

>>45979103
I've played in a number of editions and I've never had that much of an issue. It gets a tad wonky, but nothing that has stopped my group.

Has anyone tried using a more modern setting with their OSR game? Like 4E's Nentir Vale. I personally did not like 4E, but damn all of the Nentir Vale didn't scream "explore me" that stirred my grognard soul.

>>45971294
I like having non-Human races around, although I'll admit I prefer the Monstrous Humanoid races to the Demi-Human ones for the most part

File: dnd vs chainmail vs wh vs mine.jpg (124KB, 1189x659px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1189x659px

So there's a lot of debates on many mechanics like stats and stat gen, hit chances and damage vs damage reduction, etc., that we've had in great detail here.

But while there have been debates on which saving throw system is superior (OD&D + B/x, AD&D, 3e-lite, 5e-lite, etc), have there been any debates or analyses about how often a disabling spell should disable a target, and how often a poisonous attack should kill/paralyze a target?

>>45981028
And I mean this from the perspective of what is good for the game, not just what is aesthetically pleasing.

>>45981028
>how often a disabling spell should disable a target, and how often a poisonous attack should kill/paralyze a target?
For effects that don't entirely disable, it's really tricky to figure out the right balance. For effects that do entirely disable, it's a bit easier, but varies according to how long it would take to drop somebody from straight-out damage. Assuming the disabling effect is all or nothing, let's take an admittedly simplified test case and say that it will always require 2 strikes to drop the target through damage.

So how do you balance that out? Well, a 50/50 chance to save vs. a disabling effect seems appropriate, right? Because the average number of rounds it will take to take somebody out is 2, so you've effectively preserved the balance.

Of course, if there's a chance somebody can recover from the disabling effect while combat is still going on (or can un-disabled by somebody else -- shaken awake from a sleep spell, for instance -- more easily than he can be un-dropped after being done in by damage), that's something that needs to be factored in. And all other things being equal, I'd lean towards making deadly effects slightly easier to save against than non-deadly ones, even if they're both just as likely to knock somebody out of combat for good.

>>45935152
>>45935095
Can anyone recommend a really short adventure? To run in one evening as an one-shot for new players.

>>45981503
Cleric's Challenge II for AD&D 2e. It's really bad and intended for 1 PC, but it's short so there you go!

So one of my players desperately wants the BECMI weapon mastery stuff or something similar. I have decided I may as well as use some houserules.

I'm thinking about using the Chainmail converted weapon vs AC tables reduced by -2, while bumping up monster AC by 1. The vast majority of NPCs will be assumed to be Skilled with their weapon of choice, which is why they almost never bother switching weapons like PCs might.

The modifiers are +1/+2/+3/+4 vs secondary targets, +2/+4/+6/+8 vs primary targets.

The first 4 weapons (dagger, hatchet, mace, and sword) will be type H (primary targets = humanoids and hand to hand combatants), and the remaining weapons will be type M (primary targets = monsters and missile combatants).

This will overall result in PCs and NPCs being more powerful, but I intend on adjusting monster stats to some degree. The most obvious example being of course how in Chainmail, a light horse is effectively armed with two maces and a heavy horse is armed with two flails.

File: escape the oubliette.png (399KB, 800x1122px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 800x1122px

>>45981503
From 2015(?)s 1-Page_dungeon contest

Big chance of TPK, but not unfair; therefore perfect for new players

>>45983542

>not unfair
>no weapons except rocks
>caryatid columns
>water elemental

>>45983542
>you start with nothing
>no means of fighting the monsters whatsoever
>'these guys won't attack you if you have a holy symbol' and there is no holy symbol in the dungeon
>fair

The fugg?

>>45983542
Nice bait.

>>45983542
Pretty easy if you use your brain. Maybe a 45 minute dungeon.

>>45983749

>players that use their brain

What dimension do you live in and how can I get there?

>>45983542

Wait wait I got it, wait for the flood waters to bring your gear down to you! Then hope your gear gives you enough of an edge to beat the dungeon before you drown.

>>45935822
Meh, I think it's pretty cool, have for a while. Still love the fighter expy's trophy thing.

>>45983542

This can be solved by just waiting.

'Hey lets wait for the problem to solve itself rather than barge in and get ourselves killed...' said no adventuring party ever.

>>45984086
Waiting just gives you a way to get to #6, though the PCs are almost guaranteed to be destroyed in room #4 if they go through.

The main issue is that while a lucky party may have someone who can climb out, you will have to deal with 4 arrow traps hitting your AC 10 ass simultaneously.

>>45983542
>for level 3 characters
>tomb of horrors style deathtraps
>gimmicky
>author admits he had no idea what he was doing

>somehow appropriate for new players

While the impossible dungeon (unless you have, say, some sort of monk + psion party which would work fine) it is very similar to the prison dungeon I was thinking about.

>>45980600
Not completely relevant, but I would LOVE for Shadowfell, primarily Gloomwrought, to get some love with official 5e content. With innistrad coming, of course it will never happen, but still, Shadowfell was the only thing that made 4e interesting to me.

>>45984772
>Innistrad

God damnit, that's not what I meant at all. And I keep my Strahd miniature in a case.

>>45983581
>>45983616
>>45984258
The holy symbol thing's a *bit* screwy, but I would 100% let a Cleric lash together a cross from some of the bones at [1]. Helps if you use Christianity or not!Christianity as the Lawful religion, I guess.

Also, don't forget that Magic-Users and Clerics will still have their spells memorized. At level 3, M-Us can cast Web, Knock, or Phantasmal Force. Web'll fix the caryatids long enough to pass [4].

The water elemental does need some work since it's stupidly powerful, but I'd just run this as not even bothering with a reaction check and having it be dormant, until players fuck with it. Then reaction check. Alternatively a creative Phantasmal Force ought to manage a distraction for it.

Cube's not a problem; there's a dagger hovering in the air, so a regular surprise roll will cover that. Worst case scenario, BLOOP, one guy might get engulfed. Otherwise just go around it.

Entry chamber: would not roll to have the Thief leap and grab the rope, honestly probably wouldn't roll for any other PC either. This room genuinely seems like not much of a challenge, an OSR thief can just shimmy up the rope and might avoid the arrows even if careless. If they scale the walls, they'll probably think to examine the holes first of all (in fact it seems like the most probable reason), and then they can just plug the holes with some bones. Alternatively the Thief can scale the wall, roll a Climb Walls check to successfully climb the ceiling and into the shaft at [8], and then send the others' gear down with the gantry if he finds it.


Honestly, the main thing wrong with this dungeon are the DCs. Fuckboy stuff that gives the wrong idea of how to run it.

>>45935152
It seems like a very high fantasy adventure, with all sorts of supernatural beings in one pyramid.
(Sprites, magical monsters, gnomes, goblins...)
Would toning it down a little bit damage the feel of the adventure too much?

>>45984853
The thing is that you can't really expect parties to have perfect compositions that are prepared for everything. Even if (and its a yuuuuuge IF) the party composition is perfect the guy who climbs out has a high likelihood of being shot dead by arrow traps. You are also going to have to deal with the fighter and cleric, assuming perfect composition, being almost totally useless, due to being unable to fight.

So one had better hope that the lonely wizard has enough magic, and the right magic, to disable the caryatid columns and be able to kill the gelatinous cube. 4 arrow hits still have a good chance of killing whoever goes up first, probably the thief (presumably 10 or so hp).

>>45983542
I absolutely love 1-page dungeons. I don't particularly mind if they seem like bullshit, I have to restat them entirely for my system anyway, but there's something really nice about short adventures with, frankly, cute maps.

>>45985001
>You are also going to have to deal with the fighter and cleric, assuming perfect composition, being almost totally useless, due to being unable to fight.
No? Let the fighters go first and absorb hits, as usual: if anyone goes in the cube it's a fighter, if anyone gets hit by arrows it's a fighter. (Seriously, in what OSR game to you have to roll to climb a rope? Typical modernfaggotry, first adding a skill system and then justifying it by forcing rolls all over the place.)
As for the Cleric, again, let him make a holy symbol from bones or something. The stuff I said wasn't "how to ace it with perfect play from the perfect group", it was "some ways you might manage this scenario without it becoming a hateful shitfest".


The takeaway should really be that you can't be such a stiff-assed DM if you're going to play old-school games. If you want creative problem solving you have to let creative problem solutions work. I don't know what you think might happen if you don't shoot the player ideas down, they might enjoy the game or something?

Honestly though, I can't even blame you, if there's anything 3E does well it's ingrain this kind of adversarial DM/player relationship. Fucking terrible.

File: 45665287634783.png (60KB, 321x460px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 321x460px

>>45985408
>Typical modernfaggotry, first adding a skill system and then justifying it by forcing rolls all over the place

>>45983542
There need to be hints about the Caryatitties' cross allergy, and when the players ignore those tell them one of them must make up a detailed backstory excuse why their character knows stuff about stone demons so you can explain it anyway. Or let them make an INT check but seeing all those "DC"s makes me hate that concept.

If they get backup characters they can just zerg the fuck out of the Cube. The elemental may still TPK them, so I'd use >>45984853 's approach.

The dungeon-as-puzzle is too simple honestly, the players will probably be their own worst obstacle. I like the concept, and the map.

>>45985408
>Let the fighters go first and absorb hits, as usual

Okay, but he's just buying time for the mage's very limited damage stash in all likelihood, as he really can't do anything. That's the fundamental problem with the adventure; if its like a bunch of mages and thieves it might work okay-ish.


>Seriously, in what OSR game to you have to roll to climb a rope
Reaching the rope, on the other hand... the PCs may, I don't know, tie a bunch of sticks together somehow and guide the rope over to their reach. On the other hand, they might try to go into the pit to get the ample spikes there, at which point they'll be almost immediately killed by wights.

>holy symbol

I'll give this hesitantly to the cleric, only because there's a slim chance the cleric may spontaneously make a cross outta nowhere out of bones. The PCs will probably never know the caryatid columns were there. It might happen.

> If you want creative problem solving you have to let creative problem solutions work.

Almost all the "creative problem solving" pertains to things that are decided upon BEFORE the PCs are aware of it. The wights, elemental, cube, and caryatid columns basically attack without the PCs even knowing they were there, can't "real roleplay" your way out of nearly instant death ambushes. And you got one level 3 mage (or whatever)'s offensive power for the whole damn session.

Once you get all the ambushes out of the way (which are avoided solely by blind luck and usually without the PCs ever knowing it was there) the creative problem solving is... how do we reach a rope?

Oh, well, we reached the rope, but the guy who climbed out is dead because of the arrows. Well, I guess we can improv their way past the quadruple arrow traps, I guess, presumably if they somehow figure out the trap mechanism.

And I have no idea what 3e has to do with the discussion regarding my mind set, perhaps you're projecting?

>>45985644
>Reaching the rope, on the other hand... the PCs may, I don't know, tie a bunch of sticks together somehow and guide the rope over to their reach. On the other hand, they might try to go into the pit to get the ample spikes there, at which point they'll be almost immediately killed by wights.
Or they might just jump and grab it? It's hanging fifteen feet from the lip of the pit, FFS. The world long jump record's 29 feet, it's not like we're talking about an impossible leap.

>>45980600
The points of light setting was an interesting take for 4e to have tried. I agree it felt better suited for older editions of the game, but the setting itself isn't half bad. I never read much more about it past the DMG for 4e, but just that little bit was fine.

Using a two handed weapon and losing individual initiative only matters if you aren't using Group Initiative, correct? Sorry if this seems stupid obvious.

>>45985940
Well, the referee *could* rule that you get to go last, after all the others.

But yeah, normally I don't think group initiative cares about two-handed weapons.

>>45985879
Well yeah, but there's a good chance of death resulting instead from trying something retarded like that.

>>45985940
yeah I wouldn't recommend penalizing 2-handers like that unless you're using BECMI mastery rules to get something back.

>>45986004
You do understand that *you* are DM, right? There's a good chance of death resulting if you set the probabilities that way. If, on the other hand, you tell the players upfront it's a strength check to jump far enough, the highest-STR guy can try it and the probability of death will likely be low. Or you can just let it work because seriously why shouldn't an adventurer be able to long-jump fifteen feet, especially if he doesn't have to spike the landing, just grab onto a rope?

File: Trampier Web Spell.png (88KB, 449x429px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 449x429px

When and why were reversible spells removed? It's such a neat idea.

>>45985940
Even in Group Initiative in B/X / BECMI, the intention is that you have a wargame-like separation of phases - all the Magic-Users cast on the same phase, everyone attacks on the same phase, everyone moves on the same phase, it's just that initiative decides who acts first in the phase.

Two-handed weapons, then, mean that you act last in the phase regardless of your group's initiative - although if the opponent also auto-loses initiative initiative starts mattering again.

Compare, if you will, with that fast snake (the viper, I think?) that automatically WINS initiative - if it's part of a mixed group (of, say, Yaun-Ti) it doesn't suddenly NOT automatically win initiative.

>>45987096
Reversible Magic-User spells were gone by 3E, I think, although I haven't read 2E at all.
Reversible Cleric spells stuck around 'til 3E, though, since Good Clerics can't cast [Evil] spells and vice versa. They're fairly vestigial, though.

3E also had the Truenamer who was almost nothing BUT reversible spells, but that class had major issues so isn't talked about much.

In 4E "reversible spells" isn't really a relevant statement, but the Runepriest somehow did it.

5E doesn't have anything of the sort, I don't think.


It's worth noting that reversible Magic-User spells are pretty much getting two spells in the spell book for the price of one, while reversible Cleric spells are more a case of having two separate classes who just happen to share most of a spell list. Anti-Clerics can't Cure Light Wounds, etc.

is OSR good for big groups? 7+ players

>>45987253
>Even in Group Initiative in B/X / BECMI, the intention is that you have a wargame-like separation of phases - all the Magic-Users cast on the same phase, everyone attacks on the same phase, everyone moves on the same phase, it's just that initiative decides who acts first in the phase.
Then reread it. Each side has 5 phases. After the winner goes, the losing side goes through its phases.

>>45987364

Gygax and Arneson used to have groups of 15+.
You'll probably want to use the Caller rules, as they help a lot with keeping play flowing with a big group.

>>45987400
While Gygax had dozens of players, outside of conventions they only had maybe six per session - it was an open table.

>>45983542
it's indeed from 2015

https://www.onepagedungeon.info/2015

>>45985566
Which edition is this? I don't recognize that typography at all, or those rules.

>>45987816
that appears to be the dungeon master section of BECMI

>>45987969
> that appears to be the dungeon master section of BECMI
That seems incredibly lame. As far as I'm concerned as a DM, adventurers can auto-climb anything that's reasonably climbable - ropes, ladders, walls with intentional handholds or rock faces that are at aren't nearing 90-degree angles. The only time I want to make a roll is when there's an extremely high chance that a normal person could fail at it and the consequences of failure are significant (i.e. falling to death). Even then, I generally don't make thieves roll at all unless it's actually a sheer surface. They are just assumed to succeed on anything that a normal person had a chance of attempting.

>>45987969
>>45987816
found it, pg 22 in the expert book or 145 of cyclopedia.

This is somewhat off-topic, but I know somebody here will have the answer. What's the name of the system where one of the playable races is Donald Duck?

When your players are first creating characters, do you let re-rolls for stats and if so whats the threshold?

File: ducks.png (358KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 640x480px

>>45988392
It's Runequest (more specifically, the RQ setting of Glorantha) and although the ducks look like ol' Donald (and have "donaldii" in their cod Latin name), you shouldn't underestimate them. They worship the god of death and are pretty much single-handedly waging a campaign against undead in their area. RQ ducks are hard as nails.

>>45988525
Awesome. Thanks man.

>>45988525
I chuckled pretty hard when they alluded to the Halfling statblock in RQ6 being for them since they didn't have the setting IP rights.

>>45988453
Usually I'll go with three arrays and you can pick one, for games that aren't meant to be bottom of the barrel gritty.

File: Labyrinth Lords - Ducks.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45988392
Labyrinth Lord?

>>45988453
When the sum of all modifiers is negative, the player can reroll all stats.

>>45988768
Would you mind sharing those arrays?
>>45988811
That's a good rule of thumb to use, thanks

>>45988844
I mean you roll three sets of stats and pick one.

>>45988864
Ah, thanks.

Elves, dwarves, halflings. Whatever.

What are some interesting alternate races or race-as-classes?

>>45989365
Goblins, kobolds, lizardmen

>>45935036
Favorite Modules?

File: TSR 9043 - X1 - The Isle of Dread.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45992095

>>45992095
Death Frost Doom

>>45992392
I was going to post this

>>45992417
Original or Remake?

>>45992602
I use the remake at the table, but mix in some of the stuff from the original for nostalgic flavor

>>45992392
I don't understand why this is spoiled. I'm missing a joke.

>>45992758
lotfp modules are seen as edgelord

despite this some of them are quite good.

i'm partial to better than any man as it feels more "historical"

>>45992095
Caverns of Thracia, B4 The Lost City, Castle of the Mad Archmage, in no particular order.

>>45992809
> seen as edgelord
Never understood that. Is this just a sensitivity thing or what? It's all just old metal covers and tongue and cheek B horror movie stuff, for the most part. There's some overtly provocative stuff (Fuck for Satan) but it's fairly obvious those are meant to be ridiculous.

>>45992878
some people are just sensitive

>>45992878
some of them are pretty juvenile.
one example is the doom cave of the crystal headed children, which has the bbeg literally fucking a spaceship 8 hours a day and has jesus christ as a random encounter.

>>45986366

>You do understand that *you* are DM, right?

Yes, and I don't particularly see why using established figures or some sort of system for how good at jumping PCs might be is anathema. Even OD&D endorsed examining ability scores, for example, to decide certain things.

Fuck this narrativist horseshit.

>>45992994
This entire module looks juvenile.

>>45993024
Calm down, man. It's not anathema. He's just saying you can decide for yourself if you want it to be fuckhard or easy, you don't have to feel beholden to some system like it's a god. And by extension, that means if the scenario's hard, it's because you're *making* it hard, so getting angry at the writer over that doesn't make a ton of sense.

Sure, I think it needs revision. Could be better. (That elemental's grossly unfair.) But acting like it's unwinnable horseshit from end to end is just exaggerating.

Does anyone have the PDF to Torchbearer's The Secret Vault of the Queen of Thieves?

The website isn't accepting my credit card for some reason, and I really want to check this out.

>>45994081
I think I actually might have acquired that, but I can't confirm it from here. I'm on a laptop in a McDonalds working on campaign notes.

OSR games do very poorly on game-finder threads, so I'll try here - would anyone be interested in playing some B/X DnD? Just a couple of the more prominent modules? Would like to see if there is any buzz for this before I start planning.

>>45994154
There's a group on skype from this thread looking to recruit for an OD&D game currently. Of course, you might also be in said group recruiting for them now. Anonymous image boards are a hell of a drug.

>>45994193
I'm not really interested in OD&D, it's more of a historical novelty than anything.

>>45994154
What days do you plan on playing on?

>>45994270
Any day works for me, provided it's late enough. Thursdays are my most flexible.

>>45994233
I dont know about that. The trouble is in the actual writing, but once you figure out what it's trying to play the mechanics are about as playable as any other edition, particularly if youre comparing with how AD&D plays.

>>45994270
They are still debating it. Not sure what they are settling on. I'm not the guy running it.

>>45994547
This is for a separate B/X game, not the OD&D game that someone advertised earlier.

>>45994154

Everything does poorly on gamefinder threads of late. I gather that 4chan's userbase is declining, and /tg/ with it.

>>45994845
Dunno, I have done 5e and VTM games in recent history and got tons of people interested.

>>45994845
I've suspected that 4chan was dwindling for a while now. I remember when these threads would get bumped off within a day or two. Even OSRG which is relatively popular these days can linger for three or four days a thread now.

>>45994337
>>45994547
Thursdays could work for me, how many people are in this game (DM included)?

>>45995056
If you're in, just you and I as of now. I am just now getting this thing off the ground - it was an idea that came to me after flipping through the old rulebooks.

>>45995107
What software will we be using to communicate/play your game with?

>>45935152
Is there actually a map of Cynidicea out there? The module implies one was included.

>>45994153
What are you eating? This is important.

Also any chance of getting the d30 Companions? The Sandbox Companion is in the Trove, but the link is broken. So are all other links I've found.

NBD Games if you're reading this and taking down links, at least put up a longer preview or something. I usually download PDFs then buy them in the print.

>>45993498
>it's because you're *making* it hard

It says the rope can't- be reached from the room, and more importantly there are four arrow traps, which will fucking kill whoever gets out. Similarly, a ton of the encounters are surprise ones, where player skill scarcely applies.

>>45995827
>The Sandbox Companion

anonfiles com /file/8d8f7e337f96a2c08f838ccefef36932

File: Vivec-Get It.gif (17KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 800x600px

>>45996125

Stop, Anon, you're only making it harder.

>>45994153
> What are you eating? This is important.
All day breakfast. I had a egg and cheese biscuit and a hashbrown. I'm on my third coffee, but the girl at the counter is flirty and keeps bringing them by.

> Also any chance of getting the d30 Companions?
I'll take a look around. Is the link broken, or the file just corrupted?

>>45996296
Forgot my tag.

>>45995107
I was actually thinking of running a BECMI campaign set in homebrew setting based heavily on Mystara (stringing adventure modules together into a large campaign, filling in where needed).

It'd be in the late evenings (past 11pm EST on Mondays, so I can guess it'd be hard to find players. Bonus though is anything from BECMI/RC is legal (including the campaign setting books for the Known World, edited some for my homebrew).

File: 1449080087035.jpg (331KB, 796x832px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 796x832px

I've recently discovered that my players find sewer crawling to be "icky".

In the last couple of adventures, there have been areas that beastmen have used as makeshi[f]t restrooms, and both times, my players wanted nothing to do with them. So, this time, I think I'm going to have the adventure take place where I can continuously describe shit-encrusted walls for multiple hours straight.

Anyone got any low level (1-3) adventure modules that take place in sewers or can easily be altered to take place in sewers?

>>45997184
not exactly a sewer but in search of the unknown comes to mind as being big and having a deeper level

>>45997184
scatalogical furry magical realm time

>>45996125
>It says the rope can't- be reached from the room
And... this deactivates your common sense how?

Look, man, you don't have to obey the text or else the Text Police will come to your house and fine you. Especially when it says silly shit like "suddenly players cannot leap fifteen feet". And in general too, what's more productive: getting angry that the scenario sucks or just changing the bits you don't like?

Like, who are you fighting here, in your own mind? What are you trying to defend?

>>45997184
Don't do it, Anon. This adventure's going to be shit.

>>45999282
If you think I'm angry that the scenario sucks, you're projecting. I have mild fondness for the visuals of the map (it looks like a good basis for a similar dungeon I was planning on).

My overall point was to refute the idiot who thought that would be a good into for new players.

>>45999309
IT'S TOO LATE NOW, FOOLISH MORTALS. THE DOODOO IS ABOUT TO COMMENCE...

Found an adventure called "The Rat Lord's Lair" that takes place in a sewer. I'm rewriting one of the foes to be a "sewer elemental".

File: Great_Mighty_Poo.jpg (151KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x600px

>>46000482

>>46000482
So you could say the shit is hitting the fan?

>>45994081
> The Secret Vault of the Queen of Thieves
No luck, sadly.

File: CoverDrawing.jpg (2MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1936x2592px

>>45970625
This is what I have, so far. Forgive the shit cameraphone pic. I have a scanner, which I'll use after I color it and such.

It kind of makes me sad that I didn't keep up with my drawing skills after highschool.

>>45997184
when you finish it, pitch it to James Raggai

why do you play OSR? what they have that newer dnd editions and other rpgs dont?

>>46002330
For me, OSR kind of reflects a time that I was most comfortable in tabletop RPGs.

In highschool, my group used a lot of "Hard and fast" rules to alter 3rd edition. The result being a game with the type of atmosphere that revival games try to capture.

It's simple, it's easy, it's driven by narrative and descriptions rather than skill checks, it's easy to modify and expand upon, and there's tons of free material out there for it.

I also sense a rise in the popularity of OSR stuff because modern role playing games have hit a more mainstream audience. The people that actually grew up in oldschool stuff will stay there, while everyone else tends to try whatever's being pawned to them at their LGS.

>>46002330
I like the playstyle better. Mechanically, I also hate "character builds" and I dislike skill systems in my dungeon crawling.

When 5e came out, I gave it a look over as well, but honestly, it doesn't do anything for me that I am not already getting faster, simpler, and easier out of LotFP or B/x.

As a GM, it's way more fun for me to run as well because I'm not stopping to look things up constantly. As someone who likes tinkering with design, it's much easier for me to add or remove things, hack them, add classes, and so on without worrying about disrupting game balance or breaking some unrelated system.

I spend most of my game-time playing more narrative style games. Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, Apocalypse World, Fate... but if I want a dungeon crawl, I haven't found anything that beats OSR.

>>46002598
Do you like Dungeon World?

>>46002526
how was that hard and fast?

>>46002791

Shh! Not so loud! They'll hear you!

I like it but a fair contingent of fa/tg/uys hate it with a passion.I'd say it's better for high-flying fantasy adventure than tactical dungeon-crawling mudfarmers, though.

>>46002791
It's not a bad game. I'm a big fan of AW, so there's nothing about DW that strikes me as off per se. It's got a lot of good material in it and is a neat game in its own right and would stand on its own merits.

That said, it's something of a white elephant. The thing I like most about old-school D&D is the relationship players have with the fiction. You're engaging directly with the imaginary world around you and trying to come up with creative solutions to the problems in front of you, rather than looking through your sheet for skills or powers you might use to roll a resolution. While DW is a fine game on its own, I feel like the codified moves is actually a step away from what I like most about OSR games.

As a GM, it's also a bit more taxing to run or hack by comparison to B/x-style games which are dead simple.

So while I actually kind of like Dungeon World, I can't think of a situation where I'd really want to use it. If I want to dungeon crawl, the additional complication doesn't offer me much over B/x. If I want to play more story-based or character-driven fantasy, I'd turn to Burning Wheel or TROS.

I've been pouring over chain mail and OD&D trying to understand their forbidden lore. Now I fear the texts may have warped me. I realize now how well the game would run on nothing but d6s and the temptation towards this deviant practice is building, growing stronger over time.


.. Is this heresy? Madness? would you play a d6-based OSR game?

>>46002330
Varies. The Basic fork of the game is relatively comfortable and rules light and very upgradeable, able to be ratcheted up to any level of play. The OD&D fork of the game has 4 or so different combat systems you can choose from. The AD&D fork of the game has much more, well, advanced systems for handling combat and such than the WotC editions -- almost all of the WotC editions complexity is in fancy character optimization, but the playing of the character is much more simplistic in my experience (you're generally best off avoiding any act that isn't within your specialty).

And in all cases you don't have to deal with the utter garbage of character builds. Seriously, I hate character builds so god damn much.

>>46003481

Nah. Maybe Yes,

>>46003481
>would you play a d6-based OSR game?
I play GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, so you already know my answer.

>>46003481

Nah it'd be great, I'd absolutely love to see someone doing something along those lines. One of the few forms of OSR I'd be interested in, in fact.

>>46003481
M2M, 1:20, both, somewhere in the middle, or neither?

>>46004067
I think without too much trouble it could be rigged to handle both. It's just fantasy combat that is kind of off

File: B4 The Lost City.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>45995460
I don't know if that PDF has them, but this attached one has the bottom levels and city map somewhere near the middle IIRC.

>>46004483
I think fantastic combat is a redeemable concept and want to make an overhaul of it but I don't think its necessary for any Chainmail revamping.

>>46005403
uhhh... did you miss >>45935152 when you read the thread?

>>46006054
Nope. >>45935152 is missing the maps for the five lower dungeon levels, the side view of the city, and the birds-eye view of the city; they were loose leafs in the box, so it's kind of understandable that some of the scans floating around don't have them. Hence why >>45995460 was asking about the maps.


>>46005403, on the other hand, has the four pages of maps starting on page 15. You can open both PDFs in separate tabs if you want.

>>46006140
... to quote COL. Jessop: "Don't *I* feel like a fuckin' asshole."

>>45992602
Ho much is the original different anyway?

>>46006255
Eh, it's fine. It took me fuckin' MONTHS to find >>46005403, and then it turned out that it was in the Trove all along.

The other one is the circulating in that "Classic D&D" torrent, IIRC. Decent enough, I suppose, but it's got some issues. Like that one, and including OD&D but leaving out Chainmail. And excluding Wrath of the Immortals, although I'd argue that that's a point in its favor.

>>46006362
>Wrath of the Immortals

I love the 36 level progression and the way the you don't have limits on the amount of immortals (I kinda like the idea of demons or other disliked immortal types rising in number as a threat in some cases).

>>46006394
Oh, and I meant to finish this statement with, "and fuck everything else."

Seriously, unlimited spells per day encourages plain bizarre tactics, even by high level standards, and immunity to fucking everything tampers with game balance and limits a lot of your options.

Oh but most importantly, I think the genuinely most interesting element of the I of BECMI is the host body vs immortal spirit thing.

Hit dice for monsters in b/x and lotfp is it 1d8 or 1d6?

>>46006515
I think 1d6 is just an OD&D core thing.

>>46006394
Yeah, Wrath of the Immortals had some interesting ideas but it got WAY too wrapped up in metaplot.

Not to mention how Immortals actually tried to have a somewhat balanced system for player use, despite secretly just being Dieties, Demigods & Heroes BECMI Edition. Sometimes it feels like Wrath isn't even trying - the "spend 100PP to cast all spells at-will" thing, for instance.

>>46006663
While that's true, it always bugged me how B/X went for 1d6 damage but also kept the buffed 1d8 hit dice of monsters. Those two things really aren't meant to be used together.

I think they even say as much in Greyhawk?

>>46006751
>d8 for monsters
I like that only the strongest warriors (+3 STR) can fell the toughest of the orcs (8HP) or whatever in one round.

>>46006663
So is that a yes

>>46006515
>>46008157
It's 1d8.

Has anyone ran Carcosa using B/X? How deadly is the intro adventure? Did you use the weird dice mechanics?

>>46008386
>How deadly is the intro adventure?
It's not really an adventure as such, it's just a filled hex. How deadly it is depends entirely on what the players encounter and how they act on it, so it's really hard to say. Carcosa in general's fucking lethal though, because it does the Old School Type I thing where shit just is where it is and if you blunder into a hill giant lair on level 1, LOL to you. Most of the randomized enemies get fucking crazy as well. There's generally no concept of level adaptation, although McKinney does imply that he did something pretty close to normal in that regard with his Carcosa megadungeon (Mt. Voormithadreth, I think).

>Did you use the weird dice mechanics?
Only for hit dice. The swinginess is actually decreased if you use it for every roll, plus it's a giant asspain to roll that way all the time. For hit dice it's fine, though, since you generate those only at the start of each encounter. I actually like the healing/HD rules so much that I've thought about importing them to other games without the random die size element.

All weapons in B/X dealing d6 damage doesn't make any sense to me, why would you ever use a two handed weapon if it deals the same amount as a one handed?

>>46009439
I'd go with two-handed weapons giving a +1 to damage, like in Swords & Wizardry Whitebox. I believe there was also something about Chainmail combat matrices where certain weapons were more effective against different kinds of armor, but I don't recall where I saw that.

>>45953075
Kevin Crawford's stuff fits well with his own game of course. With how crazily magitech the backstory of the setting is (seriously, read his posts on it and watch the absolute blending of theology, tech, and magic terms), you can fit everything he's written in a Godbound game.

Just turn things into mobs or follow his conversion rules.

On that note, level 1 Godbound aren't THAT removed from danger. In my solo game (using the rules from Scarlet Heroes), my Sword/Fire/Death PC nearly died against two griffons while fighting them in free fall. So I suspect that sending large numbers of high HD foes from old school D&D should still be threatening.

>>46009439
Because in Chainmail a two-hander would always win initiative on the first round of melee, and always lose it in later rounds. And was way likelier to hit in general. Lighter weapons, meanwhile, strike first on later rounds, get additional attacks against longer weapons, can block, and are generally of lower accuracy. Daggers won't do shit to a guy in plate unless they manage to knock 'em down to the ground, in which case he's getting a Glasgow smile.

B/X has universal d6 damage as the standard system, presumably because A)That's how the LBBs did it, and B)It's "Basic". It's missing most of the stuff that makes two-handers worth using over, say, tossing copper pieces, but that's pretty compliant with how many people played OD&D without Chainmail.
Do note that B/X still has variable weapon damage tucked away in the combat rules, though. B27, if you're interested.

B/X is mostly just rules from the LBBs with some small additions from Greyhawk (the Thief, variable damage, hit dice, some monsters) and some original rules and rulings to clear up stuff that was unclear in OD&D. It follows in Holmes' footsteps in that way.

It's also worth noting, I suppose, how I'm pretty sure that core BECMI eventually ended up with most of the material from OD&D's supplements in some way or anyother - Immortal is DDG&H with smatterings of Psionics, Weapons Mastery has hints of Greyhawk's damage vs. large opponents, the War Machine fills a similar niche to Chainmail/Swords & Spells, etc.

Will CMI rules work with B/X? Not a big fan of the Basic/Expert books from Metzer.

is there a way to calculate what encounters are good for x level players? i dont really want to gangrape them in the first encounter

>>46010156
The only thing I'm aware of that wouldn't work would be that the Thief progression got changed up in Companion onward to slow it down.

Which you honestly don't need to give a shit about.

>>46010339
Don't go over x+3 HD for any monster encountered. If they can use spells of the xth level, don't go higher than x+1 th level for monsters' spells.

>>46010339
There are monsters that are meant to be avoided. You may add one, but make it so that they can run away safely (-> teach them the disengage rules), e.g. in a small corridor, or by closing a heavy gate or portcullis.

File: TheHunterLotFP.png (346KB, 675x1340px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 675x1340px

Threw this up on my blog, but I didn't want to shill. Looking for feedback.

LotFP class.