OSR General - Nehwon Edition

>>48593055
>not fond character death
Is character death really that big a part of OSR? Character expendability is really high at low levels, sure, but D&D gives you "Raise Dead" or some variant of it accessible by level 7, and it's not beyond possibility of finding (potentially cursed) items and artifacts that do the same.

>>48593902

LotFP doesn't have Raise Dead, and Basic Fantasy RPG does, so it's a matter of whether or not the spell is even included in a particular OSR game. In BFRPG's case, that's a 5th level spell, which requires a Cleric to survive that long. It also reduces the raised character by an entire level, so it's not exactly without cost.

So asked in the old thread how to OSR sci fi right at the end, so I will ask again on the fresh one. While I have fantasy old school gamed before, I have never done sci fi in such a manner, what exactly are the themes one should head for?

>>48593979
I'd say just watch Star Trek: TOS and rip it off shamelessly along with any other ideas you have.
>>48593958
I agree with you in principle, but I'm pretty sure I'll like DCC Lankhmar more than anything I come up with. Also, did you ever post the PDF of your game? I'm curious about it.

>>48593979
Science fiction has a lot of sub-genres. It can range from stuff like Star Wars or sword-and-planet stuff like John Carter, where you've basically got a fantasy story with lasers and spaceships, to other genres like cyberpunk, military sci-fi, or space exploration.

>>48594119
>>48594272
Thanks guys, I am very familiar with TOS and John Carter. So I am quite certain I got this if its as simple as my preferred versions of sci fi.

I'm looking at the S&W SRD and I found a bunch of playable non-human races. I kind of want to do a game with just these races available.

What's a surefire, guaranteed way to kill a player on session one?

I ask not because I want to, but because I feel like having a death early will enforce the OSR gamestyle in the player's heads. Of course if they are smart enough to avoid it then that's great.

>>48594425
These days it's Savage Worlds that has the insane number of settings. I'm really curious about Savage Worlds Lankhmar but it seems like nobody on /tg/ has run it.
>>48594466
Run Tower of the Stargazer. Or do a DCC funnel.

File: 1376289049263.jpg (32KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x300px

>>48593902
>Is character death really that big a part of OSR?

Yes?

I mean when 1 hit can take you out and there is no fate point/action point kind of shit.

Really though if you don't want characters to die, then just don't kill them off. There are better systems out there than an OSR or D&D derivative if you want capital H heroic characters however.

This kind of stuff always confuses me. I feel like people come to OSR threads looking for something not OSR, or that they're somehow missing the point. I guess I just think of the challenge of death at low levels a feature, not a bug and when I don't want that I have a fucking library of other games that do those thing.

File: BoulderDoomsayerObit.jpg (218KB, 1064x615px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1064x615px

Troll Gods now has an official obituary columnist. We'll be running a regular column in each issue of the 'zine dedicated to the memories of OSR characters who have died spectacularly, heroically, or.. pathetically.

Feel free to submit characters for inclusion. If you're feeling froggy, you can write up your own obituary for submission, or you can send us some information on them and how they died. Either tell a story by green text or just give us the rundown. Pic related is what we have in mind. Make sure you give enough names/places/etc we can work with to make it seem legit.

>>48593902

see

>>48594670

File: Wolf Packs and Winter Snow PDF.docx.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48594119
>did you ever post the PDF of your game?
It's up for sale on drivethrurpg, and everything?

Also, reposting to the new thread.
>>48593469
>Why does OSR need such a complicated mishmash of unrelated systems?
why do so many games insist on resolving everything with the same system?
Remember, in an OSR game, you ideally don't use the mechanics that much at all. When they *do* come into it, it's as a 'roll the dice as fast as possible so they don't interupt the game' sort of way. So your different mechanics are what's best for the individual thing they do. For example, saves are just a binary pass/fail. You either roll that 14+ or you don't. Making them more granular adds nothing to the game. Meanwhile, rolling to hit wants to be harder/easier depending on the armour and other defences of your victim. So you get d20+mods compared to armour class. It's a different system, but that's fine because the two don't really overlap.

>>48594829
This system looks legit. Gonna give it a couple plays and if my group has fun, I might buy a physical copy.

Also, I'm working on an MA in anthropology and know a little bit about Neanderthals. One cool thing worth mentioning is that they invented a very strong adhesive that allowed them to attach a spearhead to a shaft VERY effectively. If you ever make a supplement or anything that goes into lore and such for a setting, that might be worth throwing in there.

So I've been reading the Platemail combat rules from the list of retroclones linked in the pastebin, and I think I've fallen in love. The dueling system feels like Song of Swords, tactical with a hint of gambling, without SoS's bajillion and one forms of attack and modifiers for weapon used versus armour type and so on. Does anyone know of any system that uses chainmail/platemail for combat, but something more like S&W or B/X for general rules? If that doesn't exist I might as well hack it together myself, but if I can save the trouble I'd like to.

>>48595354
You basically just described the project I'm working on.

>>48595354
How does Platemail compare to Chainmail?

Also, what if you just took S&W Whitebox and used Platemail for combat in the same way the original White Box used Chainmail?

>>48595393
As far as I can tell Platemail is a sort of update/revision of Chainmail to make it straightforward to understand, but I haven't actually read Chainmail so I can't be sure. I'm not totally enamoured with the Platemail combat, because it feels too much like a wargame, I want to rip out the duelling system specifically.

>>48595389
How are you going about it? I just started thinking about it tonight, and had some vague idea that anthing that would normally add/subtract from your to-hit number for S&W would add/subtract one from your combat pool for Platemail.

>>48595449
> add/subtract from your to-hit number for S&W would add/subtract one from your combat pool for Platemail.
Very similar approach on my end, though I started the project as an OD&D Sword and Sorcery hack, then it became a chainmail hack. Then platemail stuff got added on.

>>48595562
Idle musings here, how would you handle the "fighters get multiple attacks per round vs 1hd or less monsters" thing? Just off the top of my head I think letting the fighter use their full combat pool against each monster could be amusing, but that just seems a little too unfair. Maybe you get like 1/3rd or 1/4th of your pool per monster?

>>48595638
I'm working off the Chainmail idea of multiple combat systems. If you're fighting multiple 1HD monsters, you're using the troops system because you literally count as multiple combatants. That's technically not just fighters, either. Anyone who has multiple HD fights that way (but like in chainmail/OD&D, not everyone gets an extra HD every level).

>>48595666
So are you mostly using the Chainmail combat systems as they are with some modifications to make stats feed into the combat pools properly?

>>48595767
I've modified the actual tables and such quite a bit, but they started out as chainmail combat systems.

Right now things are handled with
> Troops (the quick skirmish system)
> Dueling (the more advanced man-to-man based system)
> Epic combat (which is basically a modified version of normal D&D combat for use against giant monsters and things)

>>48595849
That seems like a pretty decent way to run things. Personally I'm inclined to use duelling for most everything, but I like a little more crunch in my games.
Also, how are you handling hits/consequences vs the more standard hit die/hit points of pretty much everything else. I like the hits/consequences, but I feel like it makes first level characters even more vulnerable to a single lucky hit.

>>48595905
Dueling is fine for a one-on-one fight, especially between tougher characters.

If you have a half-dozen mercenaries with you, and you're leading a raid against a dozen or more orcs and there are other people in the party though.. The troop system makes that silly easy to handle. Dueling all of them would take ages.

> I like the hits/consequences, but I feel like it makes first level characters even more vulnerable to a single lucky hit.
Current build gives playes HP. Hits deal damage rolled at the end of a round. against 1HD opponents a hit is just a kill. In a duel, against multi-HD opponents or in epic, I use HP as normal. All HD are d6s, all hits are d6s.

>>48595984
That seems like a good way to do HP that's simple and straightforward, but I feel like it loses a lot of the flavour of the consequences table. Does that ever come into play for you or did you scrap it?

>>48595449
Where can I find the rules for Platemail?

>>48596057
I've toyed with it, we're playing a pretty rapid-fire pulp sort of setting. Sword and Sorcery stuff, flashing blades. Rather than fool with the table in combat, we just let them go. If a player is reduced to 0HP we have a table currently entitled "How Fucked Are You?" which is a bunch of stuff that can result in anything from maimings and amputations to death.

>>48596112
http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html

The very first link on the page will take you to an online pdf of Platemail that you can download. I found the link in the useful shit pastebin in the OP.

>>48596151
Thanks. I'd read the OP before but never thought to look for a clone of Chainmail before now.

>>48596133
Sounds like the warhammer roleplay critical hit tables. Those things are a treat.

>>48593902
>Is character death really that big a part of OSR?

Not if the players know what they're doing and use teamwork: Wizards in the back, tanks up front, etc.

Oh, and in OSR, you have this RLY KEWL optional character save that you don't see in later editions. It's called "running away."

>>48594778
>>48594829
>why do so many games insist on resolving everything with the same system?
Because it's simpler. It also feels like each thing is part of the same game.
>Remember, in an OSR game, you ideally don't use the mechanics that much at all.
That just begs the question of why there are several different mechanics instead of one single mechanic
I'm not talking about granularity, I'm talking about simplicity. People keep saying what amounts to "OSR works this way because it works this way". Saves in modern D&D are pass/fail. The Skill system in LotFP is pass fail. Hell, hitting is pass/fail. You could make all of LotFP work off of the same mechanic as the skill system and it would be more elegant than four different systems.

>>48593902
>Is character death really that big a part of OSR?
People seem to tell me it is.

>>48594637
>I feel like people come to OSR threads looking for something not OSR
It doesn't help that every time I've come into these threads, I get like six different impressions of what "OSR" means.
>Literally only dungeon crawling
>Sandbox adventure games
>Archaic D&D clones
>Heavy roleplay exploration games
>light roleplay word puzzle games
>Meatgrinder dungeon crawls
>Exploring (and creating) settings
>Rules light games that aren't necessarily D&D clones
Half the time it sounds like OSR is just a retro pixel art indie game version of Tomb of Horrors and other times it seems like pulp heroes wandering and looking for trouble.
And some people have said OSR is a *way* of playing games while a lot of people also say that it's literally just D&D retroclones using the exact same mechanics as if this was the tail end of the seventies and change was evil and all modern games are dumb and for babies.

Like... I like some of the things I can piece together, but apparently I need to put up with d20s and losing 1d4 Investigators per round.

>>48596713
I mean, I'll admit I haven't read much if any pulp, but I don't think Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were threatened with utter death at every corner, except in that pulpy "tune in next time to see how our heroes escape from certain death!"

>>48596328
You know this is the attitude that makes people find OSR insufferable, right?
"New games are so LAME, back in my day we knew how to play RIGHT!"
Nevermind that the impression I get from these threads is that OSR characters are disposable. Shouldn't even give 'em a name until level 3.

But more than that I find that most of the complaints that OSR acolytes have about modern games tend to miss the mark and be things I haven't ever really experienced. Hell, I've done a tactical retreat in Dogs in the Vineyard, and that's a storygame.

>>48596713
>>48596815
>Half the time it sounds like OSR is just a retro pixel art indie game version of Tomb of Horrors and other times it seems like pulp heroes wandering and looking for trouble.
I keep forgetting to mention that I looked into these threads because I want to play basically something with an old school Final Fantasy feel. The SNES ones. Tactics Advanced at most.
I'm pretty sure the first few are based outright on D&D as much as could be. The third one even basically has Vancian magic, although instead of spell slots, it treats it as different MP for each spell level.

>>48596713
>it's literally just D&D retroclones using the exact same mechanics as if this was the tail end of the seventies and change was evil and all modern games are dumb and for babies.

I'm confused why liking old school D&D means I think all modern games are dumb and for babies.

>>48596815
Really it seems like more of a comment about how modern D&D tends to encourage giving experience for killing enemies, even going so far as to suggest an experience budget and a recommended number of encounters a day. Though if you have even a moderately decent GM he'd give out experience for dealing with or bypassing the monster without murdering it.
Plus it's entirely possible to play in an OSR style in a more rules-heavy game, my paladin in 13th Age ends up running away from encounters more often than not, but that's mostly because the monsters my friend comes up with end up terrifying, from bone horrors to mechanical beetles that spawn from statues singing classical music with their screechy, distorted voiceboxes.

>>48596815
> You know this is the attitude that makes people find OSR insufferable, right?
Are you the same guy who was in the last thread making it a point to tell people you don't want to try OSR because some dude you'll never game with had an opinion you don't like?

Bruh. Why are you still here? Why are you hanging out in a thread of a game you don't want to play with a culture you clearly can't stand?

File: Grimtooth's Traps.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48596866
Because these threads always seem filled with things like >>48596328 and the post from last thread that my ST linked, which was some guy in a totally for real conversation with some modern game neckbeard talking about how LotR was best (but he'd only seen the movies) and how he almost went into a conniption when the cool suave OSR gamer told him how much better LotFP was. I'm editorializing, but that's kind of how it comes off when I see posts like that.

Plus one of the first OSR materials I read was a book positing that modern gamers had lost their way and didn't know the TRUE SPIRIT of gaming. Which is apparently mediocre to poor mechanics and lots of trying to figure out what the DM wants you to know.
And, judging from Grimtooth's Traps, arbitrary death, but I'll assume that's not every OSR game.
(I'd be surprised if anyone used these things)

>>48596923
Don't get me wrong; I don't even like D&D and the closest I get to it was over a year ago I went to Pathfinder Society because my friend is a Venture Lieutenant or whatever. They handle levels in a better fashion of "you level up after three sessions" as opposed to the weird ass "every monster fills your XP meter" shit. I don't even LIKE level based systems to begin with (which is why "OSR is only D&D clones" is disappointing)

(Isn't 13th Age just a D&D clone? I saw it at free RPG day, saw the stats, and passed over it. Apparently that pamphlet also had Night's Black Agents, so fuck me)

I mean, it's not like the old school games are much better, in that loot is your experience, so you're encouraged to steal everything not nailed down. Sure, you don't have to murder, but you're still going to be a greedy little shit (which is how most of the traps in this book work).

>>48596975
That's not what I said at all. I even explained what I meant, but you didn't understand me regardless, so I didn't bother trying again.
I said that getting into this community is not very easy if the people in it are shitty.

>>48597146
1. That anon didn't tell him LotFP was better than LotR. LotFP is a game and LotR is a book/movie series.

2. That anon didn't even say OSR was better than new games. He just defended D&D (in the abstract, which means he could have been talking about 5e) from someone who seemed to think "narrativist" games were the best and anything else is badwrongfun. This is unfortunately an attitude as common as (or more common than) the one you're worried about.

As far as >>48596328, I will say that OSR tends to be more about struggling to survive in dangerous situations than being der uberbadass, but there's no reason you can't enjoy both.

If you want something closer to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or Conan, play with the Scarlet Heroes rules. Basically it makes it so you can play with two PCs or even one and still handle everything if you're careful. So suddenly, while combat is still dangerous, when you do fight, instead of four party members plus hirelings taking on the four orcs, it's one or two, and it's still roughly equal. Feels more like being a pulp hero, definitely.

If you don't want to play a game focused on overcoming challenges by being careful and strategic, then I will say OSR probably isn't your best bet, but that isn't meant to be dismissive or shitty. I love plenty of games that are absolutely nothing like D&D.

>>48596851
>and other times it seems like pulp heroes wandering and looking for trouble

More like this, only they have their own goals and interactions with each other & NPCs, etc.

It's organic. Instead of the DM cooking up a story for the players, the players look for trouble and it inspires the DM, "Okay, here's what happens as a result. . ."

As the campaign goes on, their storyline expands "organically," because they own it. The DM doesn't have to add much to it. The story grows itself. The player's group collaboration does most of the work. Lazy DMing? Sure, but my characters don't have to be forced to immerse into my milieu. I don't have to entertain them. They entertain each other, and I do the work of "judge" and "NPCs." And when the players are involved, yes, it's really work and I'm very engaged in it. At the end of the game, I'm mentally exhausted.

>>48596815
>You know this is the attitude that makes people find OSR insufferable, right?

Maybe because you were reading too much into the actual statement?

>Nevermind that the [purely subjective and potentially triggered] impression I get from these threads is that OSR characters are disposable. Shouldn't even give 'em a name until level 3.

^Fixed

It's not like that. It starts out where they're all exploring very carefully. Everything's dangerous, so they're more cautious. My current campaign has been running a very long time, and only 2/8 characters died.

The sense of immersion and realism comes from a genuine sense of consequences for foolish actions, instead of feeling like one is the main protagonist in a novel, and will never face anything truly fatal.

File: 1-you-didn-build-that.jpg (56KB, 620x451px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 620x451px

>>48597277
>I will say that OSR tends to be more about struggling to survive in dangerous situations than being der uberbadass

Yes. At first. But then, after awhile, you actually earn being an uberbadass.

That's why grognards hate. Pathfinder and the like are all handed to players on a silk pillow. I read on a blog somewhere, "Yannos, it's best to start everyone out at 5th, so they feel cool." Why? It ruins the true heroes' journey to success.

Don't you ever wonder why they flit from character-to-character, always bored; looking for the next thing? Well, there you go.

>>48594119
>I'd say just watch Star Trek: TOS and rip it off shamelessly along with any other ideas you have.

And use Starships and Spacemen if you're doing that. It's a pretty good OSR-ish totally-not-Star-Trek game.

>>48597277
>1. That anon didn't tell him LotFP was better than LotR
I meant "LotFP is better [than thing neckbeard likes]".
Also, I don't think D&D is good, but that has nothing to do with narrativist games. I'm still not even sure what that would entail.

>If you don't want to play a game focused on overcoming challenges by being careful and strategic, then I will say OSR probably isn't your best bet, but that isn't meant to be dismissive or shitty. I love plenty of games that are absolutely nothing like D&D.
It's not that I don't want my players to be careful or strategic, it's just that I'm not fond of the 20 questions style of game or skills that don't really have anything to do with my character's abilities (or worse, everything is an average roll).

I mean, I tend to play nWoD/CofD and all my plans for games tend to not be the kind of thing OSR seems intended to "fix". Getting into a shootout is rarely if ever a good idea. You don't have a lot of health, you'll stay injured for a long time, and chances are if you do kill someone, it'll leave you with both emotional scars and a body.

At this point I'm tempted to just play an OSR inspired fantasy walkabout in CofD instead of dealing with systems I don't like.

>>48597335
The only "inorganic" game I've ever been in was Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which was intentionally designed to be pick-up-and-play one shot missions with random people (so there's rarely any opportunity for intercharacter interaction in the long term). Of the games I've run, the only time I've dropped something (as opposed to let it go on hiatus and die an ignominous and withering death, like all online games) is when the players did something to turn the game into something I didn't want to run. No plot survives the players, as they say.

Again, maybe I've just never played games that OSR is intended to "fix".

>>48597409
>The sense of immersion and realism comes from a genuine sense of consequences for foolish actions, instead of feeling like one is the main protagonist in a novel, and will never face anything truly fatal.
I honestly can't stand this belief that "genuine sense of consequences" has to mean fatality. That's exactly why these characters feel disposable to me. No one gets scars, they just die. As a challenge to you, next time one of your player's characters dies, don't make them roll up a new character. Have them get healed, maybe by some pretty lass. Trim off some of their HP, reduce their Con, give them a -2 whenever it rains, whatever you feel like. Just don't jump to "death is the only consequence".

Or, have a situation that doesn't threaten them at all. Threaten their followers, their friends, their families. Threaten their property and whatever lands they have. Hell, threaten their intangibles. Face. Honour. Social status. Privilege. Reputation.

>>48597514
Generally people want to start at 5th level because lower than that and they barely have the things that make their classes interesting, and characters tend to be incompetent at everything.
Although frankly I'd start at level 3, since by level 7 the game starts to break down. But then again I spent time thinking of how to make a Pathfinder E6 hack that's not level or class based before realizing that dealing with M&M would work better.

>>48597514
>That's why grognards hate. Pathfinder and the like are all handed to players on a silk pillow. I read on a blog somewhere, "Yannos, it's best to start everyone out at 5th, so they feel cool." Why? It ruins the true heroes' journey to success.
>Don't you ever wonder why they flit from character-to-character, always bored; looking for the next thing? Well, there you go.
eh sometimes people don't want to go through the grind and want to get right to being badasses, nothing wrong with that(heck Dark Sun had players start at Level 3 by default)

>>48597594
That anon didn't even talk about LotFP. At all. At no point in that post did LotFP even come up. And I wasn't saying that you are one of those people who shits on everything that isn't a narrativist game. I said that anon was just saying that it isn't wrong to like D&D.

>20 questions style of game
You're going to have to explain to me what that means, because I'm lost.

>skills that don't really have anything to do with my character's abilities
Skills weren't even in D&D for a long time.

>or worse, everything is an average roll
Ideally you wouldn't roll all that often. Most stuff is about making good decisions so you either don't have to roll, or are in a good position when you do, such that the DM is willing to give you a better chance to succeed.

>>48597648
As far as things like scarring characters rather than killing them, an anon was talking near the end of the last thread about a chart that s/he uses which, when a character reaches 0 HP, randomly determines whether they died or lost a limb or are scarred or fine or what.

But given that, 0e, which I would say 75% or more of OSR is designed to emulate, was about traveling through the wilderness to scary holes full of monsters in order to steal their shit, it's difficult to be like, "If you don't make the right choices while you're here, you and your wife might have a falling out."

In some cases you could have things like, "You've been called upon to protect your town. Should you fail, or perform less than admirably, you will be shamed." But then you have the issue of the DM creating a story for the players.

Easiest way to sum up OSR from an OSR enthusiast's POV. Take Batman as an example.

- We're playing Batman: Year One. We like the character development and building the history from the day we 1st roll up the character. They think strategically. They form (not invent) deeper bonds with the other PCs/players, "We've been through the shit and came back again." Every item they have tells a story.

- They're playing Dark Knight Returns. Players are passively entertained as-if in a movie theater. And the DM will protect them if they get into any real trouble. In this case, "DM" should stand for "deus [ex] machina." The end.

>>48597648
>I honestly can't stand this belief that "genuine sense of consequences" has to mean fatality.

It doesn't always have to mean fatal. You're confusing OSR with CoC.

>No one gets scars, they just die.

Sorry, no Advanced Trauma Unit in my dungeons. It's hazardous, filthy, and infected. And if the cleric is doing their job, it's really not a problem (really). The party ends up with a running sense of healthy danger.

>eh sometimes people don't want to go through the grind and want to get right to being badasses

Exactly. It's lazy, and I'm not apologizing for it. Yeah, Dark Sun was where it was beyond going downhill.

>>48597648
>Just don't jump to "death is the only consequence".

Wow.

The argument is not for "death is the only consequence." Usually, the grognard goalpost is way *waving* over there, instead.

It's more, "Actual death can be a real consequence." And not because the DM arbitrarily says so. They just don't want the players thinking they're going to have a nice lazy choo-choo ride where they always end up better than when they started.

>>48597729
>You're going to have to explain to me what that means, because I'm lost.
"How big is it?"
"Does it look like there are any strings I can cut?"
"I move the pieces carefully, does anything happen?"
"So are the pieces interlocking or what?"
"What shape are the pieces?"
"Can I pick it up?"
"Is it connected to anything?"
I'd much rather make a perception check and have the ST tell me what I see, rather than "it's a thing" and then I have to piece out what they mean by that. I'd rather get told what I'm looking at and work with that.

>Most stuff is about making good decisions so you either don't have to roll, or are in a good position when you do, such that the DM is willing to give you a better chance to succeed.
I'm on the fence about this, but I prefer to have skills, and I don't really like the "everyone has 1 in 6 chance" skills of LotFP. I want my character's traits to matter. That doesn't mean I want to rollplay, but it does mean I want some sort of meaningful mechanical system. And failing 5/6 of the time unless I'm a Thief just doesn't feel good. Especially when that means there's a whole class dedicated to "you aren't useless at life". But then again, that gets into my dislike of level/class based systems, and the inability to be decent at things or good at others without having to force your character into a strict archetype.

>Scars
I don't like charts, but that seems fine. I just hate "death is the only consequence", which feels hollow and video gamey, if anything. I play roleplaying games because I want to roleplay. It's hard to roleplay when my warrior dies to a housecat.
>Dungeon crawling, stories
See, again, I can never figure out just what OSR is *for* because everything conflicts. Someone in the last thread was talking about how they don't have stories because "interacting with the NPCs" is what creates stories, but here you're saying its just... dungeon crawling and no other people around so you don't care about a reputation or anything.

>>48598125
>no other people around

Hey, monsters are people too. Especially if you roll well on reaction tables.

>>48597836
>You're confusing OSR with CoC.
The rest of your post is about how deadly dungeons are.
There aren't even rules for infections, and this is clearly a world with magical healing, so the only thing necessary is for the character to get out. How are you talking about working towards being a badass but you have a problem with characters pushing on while injured? That's a thing that literal real people have done. Hell, they made it into a Leonardo DiCaprio movie.

>Exactly. It's lazy, and I'm not apologizing for it. Yeah, Dark Sun was where it was beyond going downhill.
Or maybe people just don't want to play the same kind of games you do. Level 5 is hardly badass from what I've seen of Pathfinder (which I presume modern D&D is simular enough to), but you're competent and have more options than "I hit it with my sword" and you're threatened by threatening things instead of housecats.
Do you think Exalted players are lazy for playing Exalts? Are you trying to tell me that the only "real" game is crawling through the mud while playing Dante Must Die mode? Also, isn't Dark Sun notoriously deadly and bleak?

>>48597891
I've literally never heard a "grognard" argue in favour of non-death consequences. In fact, that D&D players often seem to think -10HP is the only consequence that matters is one of the reasons I'm not fond of it.
>They just don't want the players thinking they're going to have a nice lazy choo-choo ride where they always end up better than when they started
Is it really fair to accuse people of moving the goalpost when you're shoving all this straw around?
This is what I mean: People in these threads treat OSR as the only REAL gaming, and everything else is for babies and railroading

"You aren't going to die" does not mean railroading. It means that they're going to have to actually *live* with any consequences, and won't be able to just brush off problems with character death.

>>48597891
Also, what do you think "grognard" means? Do you think it's just "a third edition Dungeons & Dragons fan"?

It's an old French word for Grumbler, used in Napoleonic times for the old soldiers. It eventually got picked up by wargaming and hobbygaming for people who prefer the older original wargames and tabletops, often refusing to play newer editions.
You know, like an OSR fanatic. This thread is full of grognards.

>>48598196
Is there a LotFP class that lets me seduce the monsters?
All those half-races in D&D have to come from somewhere.

>>48598125
As far as that last part, I don't mean that you're never around people enough to care. I mean that you spend enough of your time in the wilderness or otherwise off adventuring that much of the time, it doesn't make sense that your relationships and reputation and such CAN be under attack.

That doesn't mean they never can be, or that it wouldn't be inconvenient to be seen as a coward or something. I just mean that a good chunk of the time physical harm is going to be the biggest concern.

Like let's say I decide to go explore. I come across a small town where an elderly farmer's adult daughter has been kidnapped by orcs or something. We go rescue her, and I get injured. I spend several weeks at their farm recovering, and the farmer's daughter and I start to become closer. But he doesn't want her marrying some ragtag adventurer. So now my goal in life is to save enough money in his travels to settle down and keep her comfortable for the rest of her days, in hopes it will change his mind.

But then I travel on. Now I'm this lovestruck traveler, and when I'm in my worst moments, not sure I'll make it out, the hope of returning to her. Story via interaction with NPCs, but while I'm off on this other adventure, the threat to my relationship and the threat to my life are one and the same.

So definitely there are NPCs and you interact with them, and story comes from that, but it also comes from your character reacting to challenges of the more "sword and sorcery" variety, which often means scary monsters and deadly traps.

(part 1/2)

>>48598259
(cont'd)

One of my favorite examples is a story where Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are haunted by the ghosts of their lovers they aren't over. They go to these two wizards who tell them to steal Death's mask and in exchange, they'll either return their lovers to life or make them forget they ever existed. On the way, they travel through the land of the dead and come face to face with their loves who tell them to go home and forget them. Still they press onward. Ultimately the mask is broken in half, so the ghosts are exorcised but they don't forget them.

But now that the mask is gone, the two ghosts, who had been terrified every day in the afterlife, can look on Death without fear.

This is adventure and daring and going out into the dangerous wilds, but it has a great deal of heart and comes from the characters' relationships to NPCs.

>>48598222
>People in these threads treat OSR as the only REAL gaming, and everything else is for babies and railroading
I love OSR, and am also the OP in >>48592673

(part 2/2)

>>48598259
>As far as that last part, I don't mean that you're never around people enough to care. I mean that you spend enough of your time in the wilderness or otherwise off adventuring that much of the time, it doesn't make sense that your relationships and reputation and such CAN be under attack.
I'm just saying that it's another aspect of getting mixed messages from the thread. Some people seem to run tense political thrillers in fantasy worlds or whatever. Other people run straight up stereotypical fantasy dungeon crawls.

>I just mean that a good chunk of the time physical harm is going to be the biggest concern.
See, that feels like a playstyle, not even anything inherent to the system. Why do you need to adventure? Why can't you stay in a city? Why can't you do social things? Why can't you form a gang and be the second biggest organized crime boss next to the king himself?

>>48598268
>I love OSR, and am also the OP in >>48592673 →
I'm not saying it's everyone, but man, it's present. Like the guy calling other people grognards.

I want an OSR magic system that's like Harry Potter, but you can make weird shit like a vase or scarf a magical focus.

How do?

>>48598368
>Some people seem to run tense political thrillers in fantasy worlds or whatever.
You CAN do that in OSR, because the system tends to be fairly light so you can do whatever you want with it. But it definitely isn't what Gygax/Arneson had in mind, since they awarded XP on the basis of "treasure recovered from dangerous locations and brought back to civilization." Which isn't to say that it's wrong or anything. Just that OSR -tends- to (as in, amount of time/attention) be focused more on the adventure stuff.

>Like the guy calling other people grognards.
Yeah, that guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, since grognards would be like, the people who refuse to play any RPG made after 1982.

>>48598386
>magic system that's like Harry Potter
Why would you ever.
Also, Harry Potter's magic is literally just "you wave your wand and say the words and it happens".

>>48598403
Like I said, the problem is that no two people seem to agree on what "OSR" even means.

>>48597146

So, you don't like D&D. Guess what? OSR is basically D&D. However, you get XP from treasure recovered from dungeons. Monsters give you very little XP for the danger of fighting them. It's often better to bypass them, negotiate with them, trick them, or do anything else except fight them. Occasionally you'll be forced into a decision to fight or retreat, and generally you want the odds overwhelmingly in your favor.

>>48597594

I would check out the oWoD Dark Ages line, or see if there's anything for nWoD that fits the bill. You could easily run an OSR-like game in a setting with the serial numbers filed off. I've done it before (using the oWoD).

>skills

The less skills there are, the better. If you want your character to be good at weaponsmithing, my response as DM would be "Okay. You can make weapons in a reasonable amount of time given access to the tools and materials."

There are no social skills beyond the NPC reaction roll, because in OSR, you're supposed to tell the DM what you're saying to the NPC (or even better, say it in character).

Personally, I despise Diplomacy/Bluff/Persuasion ala 3.pf. As written, it essentially "wins" social encounters, and even with a liberal dose of common-sense, you still get buttmad players who don't like being told that no, in fact, the king does not let you marry his daughter just because you're charming.

>>48598125
>>48598222

You know what I gather from all your posts, both this thread and the last? You need a competent DM to run an OSR game for you, so you can understand what its like to play.

All of this theorycraft isn't going to do you any good. You're mostly just derailing the OSR thread with "why isn't OSR like [game] I like?"

Look, if you don't like the games we play, and don't like the style we play them in, why not contribute to the threads involving games you do like? There's a CofD/nWod thread up, and maybe that's more your style.

>>48598477
>I would check out the oWoD Dark Ages line, or see if there's anything for nWoD that fits the bill.
I hate oWoD; there is a Dark Eras book that just came out for CofD, though. I might have the players be Proximi from Mage 2e (like knock off Mages) and run something that's basically Final Fantasy 1 ("My daughter has been kidnapped, I need to hire morally ambiguous vagrants to get her back!")

Also, I like there to be enough skills. That's a very vague way of putting it, but I don't like too few because everyone is samey, but I don't like a fucking billion skills, like GURPS or whatever does. I'm also liking that more systems are making non-combat mechanics more interesting and meaningful.

>You know what I gather from all your posts, both this thread and the last? You need a competent DM to run an OSR game for you, so you can understand what its like to play.
I'm in a game run by the creator of Wolfpacks & Winter Snow. I'm giving it a try.

I'm also explicitly trying to find something new. I don't *want* to run the same game all the time.
But at the same time while this is closest to what I want, apparently what I want is doing it wrong.

Cavegirl might have been right: The best system is the one I make myself.

>>48598447

No one is going to agree on what OSR means, beyond a clear descent from D&D, specifically OD&D and B/X.

Did you know that OD&D has rules for running domains, armies, siege weapons, and the like? The Rules Compendium has all of that in it, and more. ACKS (Adventurer, Conqueror, King System) focuses more on that domain aspect than other OSR games do.

The game is, in its "basic" form, so easily modded (or hacked) that it can be contorted to run anything you'd like it to. If you like skills, you can add them (I personally don't, as I feel I made abundantly clear >>48598477).

If you don't like classes, I direct you to Mutant Future, which you may pillage to your heart's content. Based off of Gamma World, D&D's mutant cousin.

Ultimately, different people get different things out of the game. They play differently than me, and I can only offer you my particular experience with it. The same goes for the other anons who haunt this thread.

>>48598559
>Ultimately, different people get different things out of the game. They play differently than me, and I can only offer you my particular experience with it. The same goes for the other anons who haunt this thread.
I'm going to be honest that really makes it hard to understand the point of these threads other than arguing with people like me and asking for this or that hack.
But at this point I'm just talking to talk. I'll check out Mutant Future.

>>48598523

>hating oWoD

I don't know what to tell you on that. I'm not even sure I care why, since this is an OSR thread, and that would just derail it further. My recommendation was mostly for gear and setting information that could be ported over to nWoD rules set. The Dark Ages Companion in particular was good because it contained a lot of historical information that could be used to add detail to the setting.

>skills

We'll just have to agree to disagree. There was a time when I wanted skills for everything, but I've found it to be unsatisfying.

>game you make yourself

This is very true. Give the OSR game you're in a good run, and learn and read a bit from other OSR games. Basic Fantasy RPG, S&W Complete, and Labyrinth Lord all have free PDFs, and you can take a look at what makes them tick and compare the numbers.

My personal exploration was finding out that after a decade of 3.5... I didn't like it anymore. I still wanted to play D&D, but not that particular iteration, so I started to dig backwards.

Ultimately, that led me to the Rules Cyclopedia, which is OD&D. And eventually that led me to OSR. I cherry pick from various systems to run the games I want to run. Domain management from the RC. Suggestions and tables from the 1e AD&D DMG. The Wilderness Survival Guide. LotFP as a base. Races and multiclassing from BFRPG.

My personal game is not the same game that others in this thread are playing. But the common lineage is OD&D and B/X, and that's the lingua franca that we share.

>>48598222
>There aren't even rules for infections,

1st ed. AD&D DMG says there are.

>so the only thing necessary is for the character to get out.

No. Many OSR groups make multiple trips back and forth; clearing out one section at a time.

>How are you talking about working towards being a badass but you have a problem with characters pushing on while injured?

The DM doesn't have a problem with anything they choose to do. They can either push on, or go back to town. My group has done both lots of times. Quite often they debate (in character) whether or not to push on, and it adds another layer of drama to the session.

>Or maybe people just don't want to play the same kind of games you do.

I've played both.

>Level 5 is hardly badass from what I've seen of Pathfinder

That's because power creep.

>but you're competent and have more options than "I hit it with my sword" and you're threatened by threatening things instead of housecats.

I see you've never been kicked by a wild horse. I have. That is a threatening thing.

I see you've never been chased by a pack of wild dogs. I have. That is a threatening thing.

I see you've never been surrounded by 3 normal sized men, beat to the sidewalk, and then kicked in the ribs and stomach. I have. That is a threatening thing.

Sometimes people actually die after a single punch to the head. That's how we play.

And you only think you have "more options." In the older games, you really could do anything you want. The rule is, "Don't say no, but rather determine difficulty." After 2nd Edition, the DM has to say, "No, you have to be 5th level to do that." I played a gunslinger in Pathfinder. I tried to cauterize a wound with my pistol, and the DM was like, "You haven't earned that feat yet." Seriously, wtf? That's limiting the player.

>>48598222
>Do you think Exalted players are lazy for playing Exalts?

My question would be, "WTF are you even working towards?" There's so much story fodder they've ignored for what amounts to a divine soap opera. At least from what I've seen.

>Are you trying to tell me that the only "real" game is crawling through the mud while playing Dante Must Die mode?

No, you're reading your own biases into what I'm writing (again). I'll just refer you to my previous posts.

>Also, isn't Dark Sun notoriously deadly and bleak?

Only the aesthetics. Seriously.

>I've literally never heard a "grognard" argue in favour of non-death consequences.

Well, now you have. Only the consequences are much the same as failing to wear a hardhat in a construction zone, etc.

>Is it really fair to accuse people of moving the goalpost when you're shoving all this straw around?

Loaded question. I've played a lot of Pathfinder too. It's designed to railroad, and you know it. And not just Society or the demos either. All of it, man.

And if you are a self-aware DM, you can run Pathfinder to work-around all the railroady bits, but it takes a lot more work. That, and you can't do anything imaginative unless you actually earn the skill/feat. "Well, you can (sometimes) try it unskilled." But then why not all of them then?

>You aren't going to die" does not mean railroading.

It does mean "predestined to succeed or at least break even if you warm a seat for a few hours," which actually is a railroad. Yes. You might as well have a tabletop board out on the table showing everyone where they will end up.

>>48598247
>You know, like an OSR fanatic. This thread is full of grognards.

Right. Because, "If it ain't broke. . ."

Since you're giving me history lessons, then you know the real reason why new editions are released? It all started with Lorraine Williams. You don't have to take my word for it. Then when MTG turned into a cash cow, they had to do the same with published RPG books.

Completely unnecessary, and cuts into your miniatures budget. ;)

>>48598368
>Like the guy calling other people grognards.

I wear the label with a badge of pride.

>>48598477
>So, you don't like D&D. Guess what? OSR is basically D&D. However, you get XP from treasure recovered from dungeons. Monsters give you very little XP for the danger of fighting them. It's often better to bypass them, negotiate with them, trick them, or do anything else except fight them. Occasionally you'll be forced into a decision to fight or retreat, and generally you want the odds overwhelmingly in your favor.

I forgot this part. This is a very good point to make, since subsequent editions kind of forced you into thinking that you had to slay monsters all the time.

>>48598639
>There was a time when I wanted skills for everything, but I've found it to be unsatisfying.
I said I don't want skills for everything.
Also, that's basically what Dark Eras is, albeit I don't think there's one for specifically the Dark Ages. Which seems like an oversight. Still, there's Neolithic Mage/Werewolf and other eras that really make it seem like one of those books that'd go along side all those GURPS books that people who don't actually play GURPS have because of the setting and info.

>But the common lineage is OD&D and B/X, and that's the lingua franca that we share.
See, the thing is that I keep seeing people say that OSR doesn't have to be OD&D. But at the same time I rarely see any examples of that. Can you give me some? Games that are OSR, but not OD&D based. That's what I'm looking for.

>>48598640
>No. Many OSR groups make multiple trips back and forth; clearing out one section at a time.
Well, that may be, but if your leg is broken your primary concern isn't when you're coming back, it's how to get out. And none of those threatening things are a housecat. Sometimes people die after a punch to the head, yes. But trained fighters and scoundrels shouldn't.

>And you only think you have "more options." In the older games, you really could do anything you want
Anon, just because you've had shitty D&D experiences doesn't mean that's how everyone's gaming goes. When I say "more options", I mean mechanical framework for doing interesting things. In many cases, things that it wouldn't be physically possible to do without some sort of magical thing or training. Using the OSR game I'm playing as an example, a Wendigo doesn't get spells until 2nd Level.

>>48598477
>You know what I gather from all your posts, both this thread and the last? You need a competent DM to run an OSR game for you, so you can understand what its like to play.

Seconded.

>All of this theorycraft isn't going to do you any good. You're mostly just derailing the OSR thread with "why isn't OSR like [game] I like?"

I get the same impression. I will try to be patient though. Maybe he's trolling. Or maybe he's trying to figure it out. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. For a little while, at least.

>>48598773

Really, it's 2nd edition's fault.

>>48598774

>Non D&D OSR game suggestion

I actually did. Mutant Future.

>>48598706
>My question would be, "WTF are you even working towards?" There's so much story fodder they've ignored for what amounts to a divine soap opera. At least from what I've seen.
And? Again, you sound like you're saying that the only valid type of game is a gritty brutal game where you're always on the edge of death and common animals can kill you.
I mean, you're asking why people would want to play a game where you get to be Conan and Hercules and heroes of myth. Hell, "a divine soap opera" sounds appealing. What previous post am I supposed to read when you're literally expressing confusion at why people would want to play high powered games?

>It's designed to railroad, and you know it.
No it isn't, and this is a terrible argument.
>It does mean "predestined to succeed or at least break even if you warm a seat for a few hours,"
When you read a book do you honestly think "this character isn't going to make it"? When you play a video game--no matter how linear or open ended it is--do you think "I'm not going to succeed"?
No one I know plays games to learn whether they'll pass or fail. They aren't playing because of Point A and Point B. They're playing because of everything in between. Also, my entire fucking point was that "failure" is not synonymous with "death".
For fucks sake I'm far from the best GM in the world and I could make a game of playing unkillable immortals have interesting and meaningful consequences, yet for every other GM you've got to go to Death or it's just railroading bunnyfarming kid gloves.

>>48598745
They release new editions because it is broke.

>>48598795
>Or maybe he's trying to figure it out
I am trying to figure it out. I mean, at least on the face of it this is what I want. But, again, doing what I want (Final Fantasy I inspired rescuing of absconded heirs and traveling through haunted woods aimlessly until you get to a town and it turns out to be the one you were looking for) seems to be badwrong because...

File: mfcharsheet.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48598810
Ah. Downloaded it, but haven't looked at it yet. I'd definitely just be pilfering mechanics, instead of using this weird post apoc thing.

>Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma
>Level
>Armour Class
>Saving Throws
Anon did you lie to me? This looks an awful lot like D&D...

>>48598774
>Well, that may be, but if your leg is broken your primary concern isn't when you're coming back, it's how to get out.

Not all the time. You've got a real two-dimensional assumption of what goes on in other people's games. Some dungeon encounters are with other good guys (whoa!!!), and they can give aid where necessary. . .

"You encounter a group of lawful good dwarven miners."

OR. . .

DM: "The wall collapses inward, leading to a well with a bucket left floating at the end of a rope."

Players: "We decide to climb the rope."

DM: "When you reach the top of the well, you find that it's in the backyard of a nunnery."

My group then decides to "pin" those locations for future reference.

>And none of those threatening things are a housecat.

That's because you were forcing an exaggeration. All the examples I gave are "mundane" 0 - 1st level encounters.

>Sometimes people die after a punch to the head, yes. But trained fighters and scoundrels shouldn't.

Trained fighters and scoundrels die from punches to the back of the head a lot.

https://www.quora.com/Martial-Arts-Can-a-human-be-killed-by-a-single-punch-or-kick

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1105310/man-killed-pal-with-single-punch-to-the-head-after-drunken-horseplay-went-tragically-wrong/

Note the date on that last one.

You sir, have an underdeveloped sense of your own mortality.

>When I say "more options", I mean mechanical framework for doing interesting things.

Which are limited by the skills and feats section of the book. Please do try to keep up.

>Using the OSR game I'm playing as an example, a Wendigo doesn't get spells until 2nd Level.

What system claims to be "OSR" and still allow you to play a Wendigo with level advancement?

>>48598845

>divine soap opera

I'm not saying it was good, but OD&D had the Immortals line...

>new editions

2nd edition AD&D was released specifically so that they didn't have to pay Gygax royalties after they'd edged him out of his own company.

>Final Fantasy

Run it. Use phoenix down and easily accessible healing potions. I don't care. I doubt anyone in this thread actually cares that much. You could even convert the vancian spell system to an MP powered one.

Make OSR into the game you want to play. That's the beauty of it.

>captcha

Getting real sick of storefronts...

File: O_Ya_rly.jpg (33KB, 313x561px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 313x561px

>>48598802
Yah. Really. Pretty much. . .

>Lorraine Williams

. . .all her fault.

>>48598869

It has levels, but no classes. Read it. You'll see what I mean.

>captcha

Real, REAL sick of storefronts.

>>48598802
Hey, 2e still has XP for gold (as an optional rule), and you still don't get shit in the way of XP for monsters.

I blame 3e.

>>48598894
>OD&D
You mean BD&D 3e and 4e.

>>48598905

It's only an option for Thieves. Trust me, I've looked it up recently.

>>48598928

You might be right. I've never looked at Immortals (only by reputation), and I'm really unclear on some of the early D&D editions. It was... a mess.

>>48598845
>And? Again, you sound like you're saying that the only valid type of game is a gritty brutal game where you're always on the edge of death and common animals can kill you.

No-no. You're forcing an assumption on your part.

All forms of theatre and/or fictional storytelling run on the same raw fuel: Conflict. This doesn't always have to be deadly conflict, or even violent conflict. The goal is to keep as many avenues of potential conflict open. That's your fodder for storytelling.

A campaign where you're playing gods is probably fun for a few sesions, but it would get old quickly, because every challenge has to be at the highest cosmic level.

It's easier to find fuel for say, Spider-Man or Daredevil, but alot more difficult to keep it interesting if you're playing Eternity or Dark Phoenix.

>>48598884
>You've got a real two-dimensional assumption of what goes on in other people's games.
This started with someone saying that die in the dungeon because there's no healing. I'm not sure what his digression about going in and out of the dungeon was all about, to be honest. My point was about how there are consequences that are more interesting than death.

>You sir, have an underdeveloped sense of your own mortality.
And you want to play in a game where everyone is made of fragile plastic and are using rare mishaps to justify it. A skydiver recently landed without his shoot and survived.

>What system claims to be "OSR" and still allow you to play a Wendigo with level advancement?
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/181454/Wolfpacks-and-Winter-Snow
I spent the first session poking around in a cave while everyone else gathered up flying snow scorpions for dinner after the Mystic botched a magic roll.

>>48598894
>2nd edition AD&D was released specifically so that they didn't have to pay Gygax royalties after they'd edged him out of his own company.
Wasn't he involved with both 3e and 4e?
Either way, there were editions before 2e, and D&D is far from the only game with multiple editions.

>>48598953
>A campaign where you're playing gods is probably fun for a few sesions, but it would get old quickly, because every challenge has to be at the highest cosmic level.
Maybe you should actually look at Exalted.
Although there are games of even higher power level than Exalted. And people have quite a bit of fun playing it.
In many ways, Exalts have more avenues of conflict than LotFP characters, because they have more agency in the world.

>>48598943
>It's only an option for Thieves. Trust me, I've looked it up recently.
Check page 47, bottom of the third column ('89 version), or page 69, bottom of the first column ('95 version).

Immortals is the 5th box set of BECMI (Basic '83), and has a Rules Cyclopedia equivalent in the Wrath of the Immortals box set.

>>48598845
>I mean, you're asking why people would want to play a game where you get to be Conan and Hercules and heroes of myth.

I'm not asking that at all. Were you abused by a grognard as a child?

We play Conan when he's just starting out. Like, the first 30 minutes of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Then we take it from there.

>No it isn't, and this is a terrible argument.

You're merely asserting, wereas I've seen evidence from the actual rules.

>When you read a book do you honestly think "this character isn't going to make it"?

If I wanted to read a book, I wouldn't be playing OSR. Do you understand now?

>They aren't playing because of Point A and Point B. They're playing because of everything in between.

In a warm blanket of assumed safety, yes.

>>48598986
>Check page 47, bottom of the third column ('89 version), or page 69, bottom of the first column ('95 version).
These page numbers are for the DMG, I should clarify.

>>48598894
>I'm not saying it was good, but OD&D had the Immortals line...

True, which IIRC, Gygax and Tim Kask both criticized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vECzikqpY>>48598894

>>48598894
>2nd edition AD&D was released specifically so that they didn't have to pay Gygax royalties after they'd edged him out of his own company.

Exactly. It was about money, and nothing else. Not because "Da system must've been broke."

It was always evolving from day 1.

>>48598905
Okay, that's a fair argument.

>>48599037
>It was about money, and nothing else.
I imagine Dave Cook thought it was about cleaning up 1e, to make it easier to use.

>>48598985

He was not.

3e and 4e were developed under WotC after TSR was acquired.

>>48598986

I have the '95 version, and I'm not seeing it. There's only Table 31 and 32 (Creature Experience Point Values, which lists XP per HD, and Hit Dice Value Modifiers, which doesn't say anything about treasure).

But, on pg. 70, under Rogue on the Individual Class Awards it lists:

Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 2 xp

>Immortals

I see. I knew that Immortals was pre-RC and that Wrath was the Immortals for the RC.

>>48598905
Oh, and
>>48598587 is what I see happening in later editions. I go to cons and have more than one FLGS in my town. That's why they're laughing so hard at the absurdity of it all. That's why they're not immersed. That's why they get bored with it so easily.

Sure, you could chalk it up to, "All those DMs are just retarded." But I think the systems facilitate the behavior. The rules become the enabler.

>>48598447
>Harry Potter's magic is literally just "you wave your wand and say the words and it happens".

That's true, but the type of spells and general power level is really good for dnd, minus the killing curse and shit like that.

I would use something highly utility based, spells are more disabling then offensive in combat. Plus change up the magic system so it is tied to the objects, destroying the objects or something will lose that wizard his spells until he can repair them.

The only problem I have with this system is I find it hard to justify magic items and equipment in dungeons if Wizards make their own. Maybe tie it to a crafting system.

File: 2e dmg revised xp for gold.png (321KB, 1029x603px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1029x603px

>>48599073
It's the very last paragraph of text on that page, next to the 'AC0 or lower' and 'Blood Drain' bits of Table 32. I've circled it in red.

In the original 2e DMG it was in its own blue box, so people would actually notice it was there.

>>48599108

Ah. Okay. I'm just blind (tired, should be sleeping, but.. insomnia).

I'm glad to know it's in there though.

>>48598998
Anon, you were literally expressing confusion at why people would want to play such games.
>My question would be, "WTF are you even working towards?" There's so much story fodder they've ignored for what amounts to a divine soap opera. At least from what I've seen.
Not everyone wants to play Conan just starting out, and not everyone wants to play him from the Ahnuld movie. Some people would rather have a story about a competent hero than yet another coming of age story about a neophyte. You said yourself that stories are about conflict, well, not everyone wants the same conflict over and over.

What rules railroad you.

>If I wanted to read a book, I wouldn't be playing OSR. Do you understand now?
Do you understand what metaphors are? For someone who keeps telling me I'm projecting or reading too much into things you've said or this or that, you sure are one strawman building motherfucker. I have literally listed off several examples of how to make a game interesting and have consequences beyond the loss of life, but you're still making the argument that my games are taking place "in a warm blanket of assumed safety". And you're also still making the argument that danger needs to be inherent, even as you said not all conflict needs to be physical!
How about a better analogy: When you go into a haunted house, do you actually expect that you're going to die? No, you go in knowing that nothing can actually hurt you, but that doesn't mean that it isn't thrilling and frightening all the same. The question you should be asking yourself is not "will I be able to walk through without dying", it's "what will I experience as I do".

>>48598985
>This started with someone saying that die in the dungeon because there's no healing.

It really doesn't have to be that way. And OSR isn't limited to that.

>I'm not sure what his digression about going in and out of the dungeon was all about, to be honest.

It means you aren't stuck in there forever. Unless your DM is a sadistic bastard.

>And you want to play in a game where everyone is made of fragile plastic and are using rare mishaps to justify it.

No. I want to play in a game where people are more realistically human than your typical Dragon ball Z character.

>A skydiver recently landed without his shoot and survived.

^ Is anyone else reading this shit? Here's here I'm starting to lose it. Note how anon deliberately omits THE NET the skydiver landed into in his example. Also, the pre-planning, math, and the fact that the diver nearly missed.

>I spent the first session poking around in a cave while everyone else gathered up flying snow scorpions for dinner after the Mystic botched a magic roll.

You were fished in by advertising. Playing a monster is clearly not OSR. It may have stripped down "OSR-style" rules, but the spirit of the game is humanocentric, according to Gygax.

>Wasn't he involved with both 3e and 4e?

No. He wasn't. Nice try.

>Either way, there were editions before 2e, and D&D is far from the only game with multiple editions.

You're confusing different versions of OD&D with "editions." The Mentzer boxed set is a different version of OD&D.

Can someone give me a good example of play?

>>48598985
>Maybe you should actually look at Exalted.

Why are you spamming that particular title on the OSR thread?

>>48598998
>We play Conan when he's just starting out. Like, the first 30 minutes of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Then we take it from there.

Think of this like you're eating only the "choicest cuts of meat" of fantasy fiction. And you're spoiled like that.

We utilize the entire animal. It extends our game vastly; as well as our fun.

>>48598998
Whether or not there is or isn't assumed safety--and, again, I've pointed out repeatedly that death is an uncreative failure state--is entirely beside the point, because for me and most of the people that I've played with, the fun of a roleplaying game is the roleplaying. It's the experiences. It's not even about losses or successes, it's about what happens. It's about what you do, not the outcome.
And you know what? I bet that's probably true in your games as well.

>>48599037
>It was always evolving from day 1.
You're kind of shooting your argument in the foot there. 2e wasn't even the first edition change. So clearly "the concept of new editions" wasn't simply to con Gygax.

>>48599090
>is what I see happening in later editions. I go to cons and have more than one FLGS in my town. That's why they're laughing so hard at the absurdity of it all. That's why they're not immersed. That's why they get bored with it so easily.
You know, you really do come off as "everyone else is having fun wrong". I've seen plenty of people enjoy 4e.

>>48599106
Most of the spells are ridiculously powerful, though.

>>48599154
>No. I want to play in a game where people are more realistically human than your typical Dragon ball Z character.
You honestly seem like you're arguing for it to go the opposite.

>Note how anon deliberately omits THE NET the skydiver landed into in his example. Also, the pre-planning, math, and the fact that the diver nearly missed.
I actually didn't know that; I hadn't found the story interesting enough to click on the headline. It's not actually that uncommon for people to survive huge falls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Murray_(skydiver)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/skydiver-survives-14000-foot-fall-3699030
People have also survived getting stabbed in the head.
Just as valid as you going on about people dying from a lucky punch to the head.

>>48599054
>I imagine Dave Cook thought it was about cleaning up 1e, to make it easier to use.

Right, but the cause was purely financial.

The final result of 2nd ed. resulted in mostly re-formatting and editing, as opposed to any real innovation in the game mechanics.

And the game needed it. The 1st ed. AD&D hardbacks are very poorly formatted by comparison.

We use the 2nd edition books a lot (gasp, heresy!) if we know a rule is already previously covered in say, the Wilderness Handbook or Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

>>48599154
>You were fished in by advertising. Playing a monster is clearly not OSR. It may have stripped down "OSR-style" rules, but the spirit of the game is humanocentric, according to Gygax.
A) I'm a human. I just eat flesh. It's a religious thing. And also because it heals me and grants me ambiguously dark power.
B) Fuck you. D&D has Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits. Whether it's the game for me or not, don't insult my friend's game.

>You're confusing different versions of OD&D with "editions."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/quibble

>>48599168
>>48599183
>Why are you spamming that particular title on the OSR thread?
Because you're whining that anyone who plays differently from you is badwrong and spoiled and playing a railroady game or all these other things you've said that amount to "my way is the One True Way to play".
You--you personally--are not using the entire animal. You are literally arguing against using parts of the animal. Exalted is not OSR, no, but my point was questioning whether you feel that a game explicitly set at a higher power level is just as badwrong cheating as starting modern D&D (or even OSR) at 5th level. Which it honestly seems like you do.

>>48599108
We tried that in our group, and we agreed to suspend the rule until we could figure out exactly how the XP is obtained. For example, if the thief opened the lock on the huge chest, does he/she get all the XP for every GP worth of content in the chest? If the DM rules that the treasure must be "removed from the site safely," then is the XP derived from the removal only? Etc. It creates more questions than it answers. Still, it's a great topic worth discussing.

>>48599243

In the 1e AD&D PHB there's an appendix for how XP (and treasure) should be split. Basically, everyone gets a share. Hirelings get 1/2 share. Anyone who disrupts the mission by being a That Guy forfeits all or some of their share. Dead character's shares go to their family.

>>48599144
>Do you understand what metaphors are?

A book or a novel is a poor metaphor in this case. If the fate of the character is already predetermined, then you're not really playing an RPG, but rather enlisting slave-labor to help write your Great American Fantasy novel. At least pay them in beer!

>>48599243
>>48599266


I should just go to bed. Anyway, what I meant by that is that, is that in general, you get the XP when you bring it back to civilization and the XP is shared then.

>>48599266
I've always run AD&D as a sort of '1.9X'. By that I mean, start with 2e and migrate stuff in from 1e as needed.

>>48599144

Notice the doublespeak here. . .

>When you go into a haunted house, do you actually expect that you're going to die?

First the house is haunted.

>No, you go in knowing that nothing can actually hurt you,

Now it isn't.

>but that doesn't mean that it isn't thrilling and frightening all the same.

Leaving his "metaphor" deliberately ambiguous to mislead others.

>>48599285

I'm going to bed. You should stop engaging with him. He just wants to argue in circles and get nowhere.

Have a good night.

>>48599285
I think he means the real-world carnival haunted house, not the in-game 'infested with malevolent spirits' haunted house.

>>48599271
The problem is that it's not predetermined. You take "they won't die" to mean "literally everything is written in stone". This is entirely on your end, and I'm trying to explain to you that the journey is more important than the destination.

>>48599285
Anon, I'll admit it can be ambiguous, but use your fucking head
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_attraction_(simulated)

>>48599301
I feel like Pops Fartberger over there is also fond of arguing in circles, and possibly not a native English speaker. At this point I feel like I'm trying to explain to him "different people like different things". But, again, apparently if you don't play games by the OSR playbook, you're in badwrongfun territory... even if you're playing OSR games!

File: Scanned Image 16.jpg (346KB, 1237x1600px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1237x1600px

Which kinds of magic items do you enjoy giving to your players?

>>48599359
>Magic teeth

>>48599157
http://archmagev.com/1st_Ed/Rulebooks/TSR02011A%20-%20Dungeon%20Master's%20Guide%20(Original%20Cover).pdf

^ Read page 96 - 100. That's basically how it works.

>>48599193
>Whether or not there is or isn't assumed safety--and, again, I've pointed out repeatedly that death is an uncreative failure state--is entirely beside the point, because for me and most of the people that I've played with, the fun of a roleplaying game is the roleplaying. It's the experiences. It's not even about losses or successes, it's about what happens. It's about what you do, not the outcome.
And you know what? I bet that's probably true in your games as well.

What you're essentially saying here, in so many words, is there is no real risk in your game. You're "playing Off-Broadway theatre" with the added pretense of dice.

>You're kind of shooting your argument in the foot there.

You obviously haven't read Playing At The World by Jon Peterson.

What I mean by that, is the game was always developing with every game played. No one up and decided to make any new official "next-edition" rules revision until "Advanced" D&D, but it went in so many different directions, you can't say, "This is the real first edition." It doesn't work like that. You don't know how any of it worked, and you're just pretending that you do.

>You know, you really do come off as "everyone else is having fun wrong". I've seen plenty of people enjoy 4e.

Not wrong. Just superficial. You're thinking in binary terms, where it's more of a "fun spectrum."

>You honestly seem like you're arguing for it to go the opposite.

That's because you're projecting. Please read my statements as-written, instead of "reading into" them.

>I actually didn't know that; I hadn't found the story interesting enough to click on the headline.

I appreciate your saying this. It took a lot of courage to admit your own ignorance here.

>>48599193
>It's not actually that uncommon for people to survive huge falls.

While your citations are correct, and most welcome, you're forgetting to compare it with the total world population, as well as the number of deaths due to fall per year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

In my game this doesn't translate to "certain death," but a very-very rare chance of living through it. So no, it's not, "Just as valid as you going on about people dying from a lucky punch to the head." Far from it.

Seeing as people here are discussing gold for XP, would anyone happen to know how to make that system work for DCC? I'm pretty sure that levels scale different in that game from other clones so I don't think I can just import another set of numbers.

>>48599470
>What you're essentially saying here, in so many words, is there is no real risk in your game.
What I'm saying is that you don't understand the concept of risk and think there's only one type of risk.

>You're thinking in binary terms, where it's more of a "fun spectrum."
Yes, and you think that anyone outside your area of the fun spectrum is having fun wrong. You've also got a major case of confirmation bias. I have no idea how you can accuse me of reading into your statements while you started that post with a strawman attacking an argument I never made.

>>48599499
>how to make that system work for DCC?
Change the amount of money you give them.

>>48599499
>>48599520
I want to make a game set in a bizarre video game inspired fantasy world where gold is your XP because you literally buy level ups from a vending machine.

File: 3c09d14adcdd6626599b630020298af374a0fd836295a829a62c17c45770fd64.jpg (64KB, 625x483px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 625x483px

>>48599233
>A) I'm a human. I just eat flesh. It's a religious thing. And also because it heals me and grants me ambiguously dark power.

Then "wendigo" was also deliberately ambiguous. But kind of not, because everyone in Exalted is epic monster-level, which just brings my original point home.

>B) Fuck you. D&D has Elves and Dwarves and Hobbits. Whether it's the game for me or not, don't insult my friend's game.

We're gamist/simulationist. You're more narrativist munchkin. . .

. . .and a goddamn hypocrite.

>>48599266
But the thief would argue that the thief was the actual cause of obtaining the treasure. They're arguing before it's divvied up. Like "thief-as-the-banker," lol.

It was causing arguments. We had to let it go for awhile.

>>48599276
>Anyway, what I meant by that is that, is that in general, you get the XP when you bring it back to civilization and the XP is shared then.

That's fine. But what if they have a portable hole and decide to divvy it up right there in the dungeon?

>>48599541
>But the thief would argue that the thief was the actual cause of obtaining the treasure.
Doesn't matter. They agreed to an equal split before they went in.

Your players do actually sort basic shit like this out before going dungeon-delving, right?

Giving experience for survival is a good idea?

>>48599282
That's a great way to approach it. We're similar in that we "mirror" the content from both. This would of course exclude much of the Player's Option stuff that came later.

>>48599282
How do you handle barbarians? Do you go with Unearthed Arcana, or The Complete Fighter's Handbook?

>>48599332
Then his communication skills are piss poor. he should have at least clarified game setting or IRL.

>>48599546
They still haven't got it to safety. They could all die in the next room, and then the next lot of adventurers coming down gets a portable hole full of stuff.

That is a thing, the bags of holding and portable holes that show up in a lot of modules and random treasure tables always seem to be empty, don't they?

>>48599551
A little quote from the 2e DMG on the concept:

Finally, you can award points on the basis of survival. The
amount awarded is entirely up to you. However, such awards
should be kept small and reserved for truly momentous occasions.
Survival is its own reward. Since story and survival awards
go hand in hand, you may be able to factor the survival bonus
into the amount you give for completing the adventure.

anyone else here who likes the OSR rules structures(since it's very solid, has pretty much all known issues solved in one form or another, and is very easily modified), but isn't necessarily all that beholden to all the cultural aspects of the movement?

like for example I despise the overly humanocentric aspect that a lot of OSR content follows, it's probably the thing I disagree with Gygax on the most(but then my perspective on race is probably heavily skewed compared to the average person in these threads, as 3rd Edition was my first edition period, and 4th Edition was the edition I had my first full campaign in so racial diversity has always felt important to me, hell I'd have to do some double checking but I don't think I've ever run a Human character that wasn't a premade)

>>48599561
>Do you go with Unearthed Arcana, or The Complete Fighter's Handbook?
Complete Barbarian's Handbook, usually. CFHB and UA versions are always available for those who want them, though.

>>48599349
>The problem is that it's not predetermined. You take "they won't die" to mean "literally everything is written in stone".

No. "They won't die," refers exclusively to mortality only. Not everything. Your desperation is showing.

>This is entirely on your end, and I'm trying to explain to you that the journey is more important than the destination.

Your circular arguments are just as clear on this as are the circular RPGs you choose.

>Anon, I'll admit it can be ambiguous, but use your fucking head

I was simply on-topic, and well-within the general subject of simulated game environments. You, however, were off the reservation. See my previous post.

>>48594119
>DCC Lankhmar
Is that out already, and if yes, is there a pdf shared?

>>48599515
>What I'm saying is that you don't understand the concept of risk and think there's only one type of risk.

And I already clarified that such risk is not always fatal. But you're obsessed with making me believe that it is and then accusing me of it.

IOW, you don't even believe my opinion even when I try to clarify it.

>Yes, and you think that anyone outside your area of the fun spectrum is having fun wrong.

I literally said, "Not wrong. Just superficial." I don't believe you're actually reading what I write. Kind of like you draw conclusions from news reports that you don't actually read either.

Which is entirely your problem.

>>48599549
LOL. No.

Me: Shouldn't you guys uh, sort this basic shit out?

Them: We don't need no stinking contracts!

That, and I assumed early on what "obtained treasure" meant. Yes, that was bad of me to do. The party thief sort of forced the issue. I will eventually have to deal w/it sooner rather than later.

>>48599535
I don't even know what you're going on about. Nothing there has to do with Exalted, or munchkining. It's literally from an OSR game my friend made. For all your "read what I'm saying and don't read into it what you want", you have an incredibly difficult time reading what I'm saying and not reading into it what you want.

>>48599592
Anon are you mentally impaired in some fashion?
My only desperation is to get you to understand simple English.
You seem to take me saying that I don't like death as some sign that I hold my player's hands through a completely predetermined and challengeless railroad. That is untrue. I have repeatedly elaborated on how that is untrue. I have repeatedly explained to you that even if within the fiction of the game world the characters were immortal and indestructible, there a) would not be a defined end that isn't guided by their actions, and b) would still be challenges and danger and drama.

>>48599623
>And I already clarified that such risk is not always fatal. But you're obsessed with making me believe that it is and then accusing me of it.
You are going in circles. You tell me I'm railroading my players by not having death be the end all be all, but then you tell me fatality isn't everything, but then you tell me I'm railroading by not having death, but then you tell me...

And your fun is superficial to me. Saying that other people's enjoyment is "superficial" is saying that it's badwrongfun. You think your way is the only way. That's fucking bullshit.

And you communicate as well as you read. Which is to say not very well.

What I'd this argument even about?

>>48599578
They still haven't got it to safety. They could all die in the next room, and then the next lot of adventurers coming down gets a portable hole full of stuff.

Excellent point!

>That is a thing, the bags of holding and portable holes that show up in a lot of modules and random treasure tables always seem to be empty, don't they?

>Wow. I'd never thought of this either. Another great point.

>>48599551
>Finally, you can award points on the basis of survival. The
amount awarded is entirely up to you. However, such awards
should be kept small and reserved for truly momentous occasions.
Survival is its own reward. Since story and survival awards
go hand in hand, you may be able to factor the survival bonus
into the amount you give for completing the adventure.

Agreed. I'm glad I didn't come to the OSR thread in vain. You've been very helpful tonight. Thank you.

>>48595354
Spellcraft and Swordplay is the closest you can get to how DnD+Chainmail was supposed to be played. It's relatively unknown though
How does platemail do duels?

>>48599587
LOL! I had no idea! That's wonderful and I will look into it further.

>>48599646
>Anon are you mentally impaired in some fashion?

No. Other anons see you have the same problem.

>You tell me I'm railroading my players by not having death be the end all be all

Quote me. Again, you're reading into your own imagined assumptions of what I said. I was never arguing for "having death be the end all be all."

Having death at all, is FAR different from "the end all be all." And that is where you're confused.

>You think your way is the only way. That's fucking bullshit.

No. It's clearly not the only way. But it is what more mature and experience gamers like myself prefer. How's that?

>>48599653
I have no idea, but personally I'm sick of it clogging up the thread, don't really care who is right or wrong at this point

>>48599653
Anon is obsessed with me and putting words in my mouth. Very defensive about his non-OSR "OSR" games. Swears I'm obsessed with killing my player's characters as the highest priority in gaming or something.

>>48599710
Maybe if I left, he will stop trolling. It's okay, I have minis to paint. Still, I learned a lot and had a good time with the other anons. Take care.

>>48599520
No, I mean like how much xp there should be for each level if gold=xp.

>>48599531
That's a neat idea.

I just got home and felt like talking about OSR with some fa/tg/uys, but I feel like I just walked in on three of my best friends ass-fucking each other dressed up as Sponge Bob characters.

>>48599718
>>48599712
I'm not trying to be mean, just noting that the argument went on too, long, feel free to come back(just try not to derail the thread so much in the future)

this applies to the other guy too

>>48599583
I don't know that I'm "beholden" to any of them. I basically make every game from scratch to do what I want it to do. As it happens, I like anthropocentrism because I vastly prefer pulp sword & sorcery to high fantasy. It has nothing to do with OSR, really.

There are plenty of other common OSR things that I happily toss. I like putting my games in places that aren't medieval fantasy. I like black powder. I hate vancian magic. I generally hate alignment. I enjoy character deaths, but my games are set up with plenty of ways to mitigate them.

You'd really have to be more specific in what kind of cultural aspects you're talking about.

>>48599653
Two anons are accusing each other of being their personal gaming antichrist while flinging insults instead of attempting to have any sort of reasoned and open discussion, making them both look like idiots.

Is this /osr/s very own edition war? Or is that "Is X OSR"?

>>48599977

Yep, that's about our version of edition war.

Though we have actual edition wars too.

S&W > all

>>48600054
I'll fight you.
LotFP > all*
At least for weird horror B-movie slasher film adventures. If that's not your jam then another edition might be more your speed, though it does have a solid mechanical base. S&W is actually pretty good. I find myself gravitating towards the single-save system lately.
1v1 me IRL

>>48594670
This is awesome. I'll write a couple to submit.

>>48600054
>>48600081

I'm new to the scene and I honestly can't tell the difference between any of them. They all seem to be exactly the same. Same classes, same magic and combat stuff. The exception being DCC of course.

>>48600131
That's because most of them are just some guy's houseruled B/X. Sometimes it's some guy's houseruled OD&D or AD&D, but it's usually B/X.

>>48599977
>Is X OSR
This one actually pops repeatedly, so I think I'd probably give it the trophy.

Technically "I don't like how X edition of D&D plays, and prefer Y edition of D&D" would be the only "edition war", but "is X OSR" is close enough as far as vitriol goes.

I mean, there's also "I dislike how X edition of D&D plays, and prefer a non-D&D game" is also a thing, but that's not exactly an edition war. That's more inter-RPG conflict rather than the weird-ass civil war of edition wars, and thus doesn't come up as much since there's less blending of the subjects - you don't talk about Vampire in a Pathfinder thread, but you might conceivably talk about 4E or 5E. (Or talk about oWOD in a nWOD thread.) Or you could have a general D&D thread, in which case whew lad slow down a bit there.

>>48600485
>I don't like how X edition plays and prefer Y edition
To be honest that's a pretty resonable stance. I mean I don't enjoy playing 3./PF as much as OSR but I agree its good for some things and recognise that its just personal preference.
Its when people say "X edition is objectively shit because this and that" or leave ambiguous greentexts that the limbs start flying.

>>48600563
True. Real edition wars are more, well, Skub.

Or, more accurately:
>Liking skub
KYS

Is there anyone who prefers multiple attacks over improved to-hit?

>>48600679

Why not both?

>>48600679
Multiple attacks speeds up combat in that you can do more damage per round, but it also slows down each players turn by a lot with all the rolling and can lead to more rocket-tag-ish situations where characters are killed in a single round and have no chance to run away whatsoever.

File: to hit progression, alt multiple attacks 4b.png (16KB, 433x462px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 433x462px

>>48600679
As >>48600761 said, there really is no need to choose. But I will say that I've scrapped to-hit advancement before and I think a game can work perfectly fine without it. In fact, you could make a good argument that damage is the thing you want to increase, not to-hit. That way, the number of blows it takes to kill a creature of your level/hit dice doesn't balloon quite so much.

I've spent the last 4 months or so working on my homebrew system, but the longer I've been working on it and the closer I get to game time and getting a group together, the more I just want to throw the whole thing to the side and just run something straight out of an official OSR document.

I don't think my homebrew is bad or anything, it's just a weird thing I have. Anyone else feel this way?

>>48600913
Something like "I like how my homebrew works but I don't think anyone else will"? Yes.

>>48600913
I get that feeling too. Sometimes I feel like I have too many houserules and that I would be happier running the rules as they are, but I like tinkering too much to stop.

>>48600913
You're allowed to keep your homebrew hobby and your gaming hobby separate, Anon.

Just run B/X

I'm thinking of running a OSR campaign (using a mix of B/X and Stars Without Number) inspired by Nazis in Fantasyland, GATE and similar media. One thing I like is the inherent asymmetry combat could have, and how a fantasy society could be woefully less advanced than a modern (1890s+) society yet far more advanced in other areas. I want magic to be relatively common and have an actual impact on the world.

How would various first to fourth level spells effect say, a kingdom from every day life to warfare?

How common can I make magical items in the setting? What magical items would be the most useful?

What about Druid & Cleric spells?

I don't know if I”ll have Druids and Clerics, but I'm thinking Magic-Users would be 1% of the population. If only 1-2% of the population is made up of leveled individuals, I'm thinking there would only be a handful at 9th level and there would be no one at higher levels. I'm thinking 11% of Magic-Users would be capable of using 4th Level Spells, but they'd still have only one to three hit dice if they're not part of that 2% of leveled individuals (like adventurers). 45% would be capable of 3rd Level Spells, 26% with 2nd, and 18% with 1st.

>>48599531
Dark souls?

>>48599541
Splitting treasure is a premise of that kind of play style. Shouldn't be budged, all players must agree to always split treasure no matter what to make sure you actually get things run smoothly.

Looking for a good Post-Apocalyptic OSR module to run. Or alternatively, a module that can be made P-A without much work. The few I've seen for Mutant Future are...lacking.

>>48599638
Make the players sign a contract then. Its like having a pal that picks up the football when playing soccer and running around with it, its breaching the very premise of the activity.

>>48601605
Anomalous Subsurface Environment.

>>48598754

This. The Napoleonic era term was something of a badge of honor. It means "grumbler" or "complainer."
You know what usually happens to a soldier who complains? He gets taught not to, real quick, by getting handed extra duties until he shuts his damn mouth.
The grognards, however, were old veterans, the most experienced soldiers around, and had earned the right to gripe about stuff. When they complained, officers didn't punish them, they sat up and listened, because it was a bad sign. Napoleon himself changed battle plans on more than one occasion because his old soldiers started to grumble that his previous plan involved some details they'd seen turn bad before.
In our local wargame community, a grognard was the guy you went to when two players had a dispute about how the rules were to be interpreted, because the grognard was the acknowledged expert on wargame rules. Whatever he said, went, and that was how you settled things. (That was decades back, though, I suppose the term has had definition creep and now the kids use it as an insult, even when they're not the guy the grognard said was wrong.)

Fucking hell, I really like DCC but I have such an issue with the attributes. On one hand I like the luck stat but grouping wisdom and personality together not only makes intelligence the dump stat for almost all classes, it also makes it noticably harder to run other OSR modules with this system. How to fix?

In your opinion, what is the fastest, most streamlined OSR? Which has the most interesting or novel mechanics?

>>48599977
>Or is that "Is X OSR"?

Actually this seems to be a continuation/outgrowth. Note how the one guy above said he was disappointed to be told that OSR is only old-school D&D. I think it's the same guy.
I've moved past thinking he's trolling to thinking he's got autism for real. Like not internet meme "lol u got autism" but an actual undiagnosed disorder.

>>48602207
Wisdom and Charisma aren't grouped together. It's just that all the things that Wisdom does are now handled by Luck

>>48602212
That's a difficult question! The fastest, most streamlined OSR is probably going to be some B/X variant that strips away even more stuff - so something like those one-page RPGs floating around (what was it, D&D '74 Style?) or, I dunno, The Black Hack. That one seems pretty simple from the little I've skimmed.

I can't really say anything about interesting or novel mechanics, though, since I'm more into the actual old-school bit of OSR rather than the retroclones and whatnot. I really like how Scarlet Heroes handles damage, though, so that's a thing - not something terribly appropriate for larger non-heroic groups, but a thing.

Oh yeah, and I'm also intrigued by the whole "drop table" thing, where you roll the dice on the table and where it lands is what happens and the die simply randomizes some further specifics.

>>48602411
I'm not that good at old D&D rules and such, but didn't wisdom give bonus to cleric magic back then?

>>48602794
In AD&D - in OD&D it just gives a bonus to Cleric XP if it's high (and a penalty if it's low), and in Basic it does that and also gives you a bonus/penalty to saves vs. magic.

In AD&D it effects what the maximum level of spells you can cast is, though, and gives you some bonus low-level spell slots.

>>48602872
Oh yeah, and in AD&D if you have low enough Wisdom Clerics have a spell failure chance.

>>48599620
It isn't AFAIK. But it's the first RPG stuff I'm going to buy in physical copy in years. I think I'll get a LOT of fun out of this.

Nehwon feels like a second home to me.

>>48600054
Wait, wait. Which S&W. You better be talkin' about Complete.

>>48602794

Not until AD&D. Before that, high ability scores granted bonuses on saves and XP (if they were the classe's prime requisite).

>>48602212
Fastest most streamlined is definitely Black Hack. It's TOO simple for my tastes, but would make a great RPG introduction.

Most interesting: DCC by far.

>>48603026
White Box is the best in terms of cover art and minimalism. I do want to run a game of Complete, though.

>>48601541
I was thinking of Dark Souls when I wrote that, yeah, but instead of Souls you'd get actual money. You'd find money in boxes and money would fall out of enemies like in Scott Pilgrim, and if you overcome challenges, you get money out of nowhere.

This wasn't actually just something I came up with for a joke post, either. The set up was that it was a eternally deep dungeon and you were a group of adventurers who explores it because fuck it, that's what you do. High score and all that shit. Every few levels (as in, levels of the megadungeon) you'd find Save Points that are little towns with vending machines and people to talk to and magic interconnected boxes to stash your shit. When you die, Death comes and drags you back to the most recent Save Point and you wake up naked in a closet. This is what the Magic Boxes are useful for, since you can now put some pants on.

Vending Machines would dispense little gachapon balls with the Feats or Magic you purchased. There'd also be slot machines, where it would be cheaper, but you don't choose your level up (and essentially roll it on a table). Possibly with mutations or not-negative-but-certainly-not-desireable results.
There would also be a Diablo style weapon adjective system, where you'd randomly roll to determine what if any adjectives your equipment has (or, possibly, more like Dungeon Runners than Diablo, where you can have a Large Cardboard Bastard Sword of the Bunnny). Some sort of Luck stat would likely be useful with all these random rolls.

You know I hadn't really explained it all at once before. That sounds really stupid.
I kind of want to make it more now.
Although so many of those aspects feel like they probably wouldn't work as well in a pen and paper. Especially if the party splits every time someone croaks.

>>48602168
You are most definitely making excuses to make yourself sound better.

>>48602396
If you assume people on the internet have autism for things like this, you probably have... well, not autism, because that is literally not how autism works in any capacity.

>>48602872
>>48603091
Alright, I understand. On the flip side though, what has charisma to do with cleric magic in old D&D?

>>48603795

It generally only affects Turn Undead.

>>48599531
So AD&D's training costs, except reduced to a parody of itself where you literally just insert time and money to get levels?

Well, it certainly wouldn't change much in actual gameplay.

>>48603795
Nothing at all. Charisma just governs the number of henchmen you get, their morale, and any reaction checks you need to make.

File: 1460632386022.jpg (171KB, 600x1051px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 600x1051px

I'm going to try DMing for the first time. My friends and I are familiar with dnd 3.x and 5e, but we want to try something different and I've long been fascinated by Adventurer Conqueror King, especially the reaction roll mechanic.


1. I want to hear any advice and tips you have for running ACK or similar games. I will also appreciate any recommended houserules, cheat-sheets, common pitfalls, or other stuff.

2. I intend to convert the proficiency and attack throws into the "d20+modifiers vs target number" format because it's mathematically identical and I don't want to give my players too much work. I've already found numbers for converting it, but I want to know if there's good-looking table I can hand my players.

>>48603560
>You are most definitely making excuses to make yourself sound better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Guard#Les_Grognards

I guess this is the real damage done by D&D; kids these days play fantasy games instead of their Napoleonics as is due and proper, and so they don't know anything. I'm not the other guy, by the way. I'm just a bit grossed out by your confident ignorance.

>>48603831

Scratch that.

>>48603833

Is right. I'm getting mixed up with "newer" editions.

>>48602973
I'd love to grab it too, they have such pretty products.
Sadly living in a shithole where online ordering is near-impossible.
One day, one day.

>>48603905
Confident ignorance is a great term. I'm stealing it.

>>48603833
The parody is the whole point!
>Well, it certainly wouldn't change much in actual gameplay.
Yeah, making it feel meaningfully distinct would be the tough part.

>>48603905
... Anon, that's not the part I was calling an excuse.
The part about everyone trusting the wargaming grognards on all their issues is an excuse to make being a grognard sound better. It means someone who refuses to change to a newer system and all that entails. "You kids get off my lawn with your newfangled 'sourcebooks'!"

>>48604153
>Yeah, making it feel meaningfully distinct would be the tough part.
Make the machines slot machines where they also get some random thing in return, from money (that can't be used for EXP but can be spent) to magical items, based on how well they spin.

You can just use dice and have a chart that's like "three cherries! A big paper mache egg drops out of the machine." And then inside there's an item determined by what you roll on a second chart.

>>48604236

You could also have them roll for class abilities. Zak S. had something for that.

>>48603831
>>48603833
Alright, so charisma/personality/whatever dictating cleric bonus is strictly a DCC thing then?

>>48604153
>Yeah, making it feel meaningfully distinct would be the tough part.
Wouldn't it fit the parody better if despite all the changes it still doesn't change anything?

Because what are NPC trainers, after all, if not vending machines that you put money and time into to get levels - what are shopkeepers if not faceless dispensers with infinite stock of a weirdly specific set of items?

There's a lot of commentary to be had there, about the Gygaxian "timeskip over the time in town" philosophy and the faceless NPCs that aren't ever interacted with.

But yeah, >>48604303's right in that you could just have the players use those random levelup tables that seem so popular these days.

>>48604347
Presumably. I don't actually know DCC.

I guess it's worth noting that 3E had Charisma give bonus Turn Undead uses and made the ability stronger, 4E IIRC used Charisma as well for some subset of powers but I might be confusing it with some other stat, and I think 5E does something with the Cleric and Charisma as well?

Beyond that, of course, there's always been a loose connection between Charisma and priestly magic via the Paladin, who in AD&D needed really high Charisma and got cleric spellcasting.

>>48604303
>>48604236
That was one of the things, yeah. Cheaper upgrades that are randomized instead of chosen.

>>48604373
>Wouldn't it fit the parody better if despite all the changes it still doesn't change anything?
Probably!
>Because what are NPC trainers, after all, if not vending machines that you put money and time into to get levels - what are shopkeepers if not faceless dispensers with infinite stock of a weirdly specific set of items?
If we're looking for social commentary, there's also the idea of trainers really just watching over the machines, like the self-checkouts.

>"Please return the level up to the bagging area"
>"Wait for assistance"

>>48604470
>trainers really just watching over the machines, like the self-checkouts.
The trainers just stand around and barely get paid enough to stay alive, but there are no other jobs available. Meanwhile the training itself is imported from a foreign land, where people work very hard and earn even less.

how is the paradigm of OSR, i come from playing 5e and 3.5, both have different structure on how you play them

>>48604617
That's a complicated question! To boil it down to a pithy soundbite, it's something along the lines of "sneak past monsters, don't get in a fair fight, haul loot to the surface".

>>48604523
Wow, anon, don't make this cartoony fantasy land depressing.

What's a good OSR for playing with few players? Say GM and 2 players. Do you just have the 2 players play multiple characters? Get hirelings? Or are there any OSR that actually accommodate this well?

Currently playing DCC since it starts with every player having multiple PC's. Going pretty well for now, just wondering if there is something more suitable.

>>48604861
Scarlet Heroes basically makes your characters pulp hero tier so one or two can handle shit.

>>48597753
Explain Godbound then.

>>48604981

Okay, Godbound is an OSR system that handles demigods, intended to be an OSR remake/improvement over BECMI's Immortals. HTH.

File: thedude.jpg (48KB, 394x406px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 394x406px

>>48604153
>It means someone who refuses to change to a newer system and all that entails.

>No, use my definition and be insulted when I insult you!

>>48604981
To add on to what that other guy said, it's also Exalted in non-Exalted system, which I understand is important for some people.

Also, that post you're quoting is pretty needlessly reductive and making false dichotomies and strawmanning the hell out of both sides. There's something to be said for the "your backstory is level 1-3" thing, but it's by no means the only way to play OSR games - after all, why else Scarlet Heroes (you literally can't die lol) and Godbound and motherfucking Dark Sun?

It's also worth noting that while OSR often starts you off at barely better than dirtfarmers, you usually progress into a pretty impressive leader of men by name level who rules from a castle and wanders out with a small army. BECMI even takes it further into godhood.

>>48604880
Thanks I couldn't find it in the trove, but I found it elsewhere and am looking through it now.

Are there any modules for it, or can just be run with old TSR modules (AD&D etc)?

Thanks again!

>>48605275
>Scarlet Heroes (you literally can't die lol)

Not true, unless you invoke the optional defeat rule.

>By the usual rules, if a hero runs out of hit points they suffer the same
>grim fate as lesser men and women. Still, some GMs and players
>prefer to run campaigns where the player continues to play their hero
>until they’re finished with them, and random mortality is unwelcome
>in their games. In these cases, a hero who hits zero hit points suffers
>defeat instead of death. While they may be left for dead, hurled into
>an “inescapable” prison or forcibly enlisted in an evil tyrant’s schemes
>they retain their lives. Whatever they were trying to accomplish at the
>time of their fall is almost invariably lost, however.

>>48605621
I was being sarcastic and echoing those who say similar stuff for various games like 4E or Dungeon World or narrative games in general - more of a comment on
>They're playing Dark Knight Returns. Players are passively entertained as-if in a movie theater. And the DM will protect them if they get into any real trouble. In this case, "DM" should stand for "deus [ex] machina." The end.
than anything else, really.

I should probabyl have remembered Poe's Law and that age-old thing about how you can't detect sarcasm on the internet, though. Sorry for making it unclear.

And yeah, that's the rule I was referring to. It's pretty neato and honestly probably more appropriate for the genre than just outright killing the hero.

>>48605857
>It's pretty neato and honestly probably more appropriate for the genre than just outright killing the hero.

True. Scarlet Heroes is about Sword and Sorcery Heroes, and is higher power than your standard Gygaxian murderhobo game. (I like both)

>>48597146
But like. Why you mad though?

File: Otter dislikes watermelon.png (484KB, 468x854px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 468x854px

>>48606022

He reminds me of my nephew with Asperger's, who tends to move from one deep fascination to another. For a while he was obsessed with a video game he wasn't very good at, and was constantly frustrated and angered by, but he wouldn't let go.

Then there's this guy, who seems to not like OSR, not like the old D&D it's based around, and not like the people in this thread, and yet he keeps coming back for more of the stuff he doesn't like.

/osrg/ I'm a bit stuck. I love this hobby and I've been a player for a good amount of time. Recently I decided to give the main GM a break and run a module, Death Frost Doom, for everyone. I used music and sound effects, had the basement set up with candlelight and blackout shades, the whole nine yards.
Everyone loved it, except the player that left early because he got too scared. You hadn't even gotten inside the mountain yet Henry one of the players said it was the most fun he'd ever had playing. I loved it too, I didn't know GMing could be that fun, so I decided that I want to make a setting to run a campaign in.

But I have no idea how to begin. I'm just at a wall with no neat ideas. I've read modules and settings, I've been reading since 4, but I can't seem to get anything onto the paper.

How do you guys do it? What's a good way to start?

>>48606337
You already played Death Frost Doom, that's a great campaign starter even if the players died. The fantasy world is now being attacked by zombies, players roll up new characters tasked with fixing the problem. People where they're from think that there might be helpful stuff in these dungeons over in these three places, but they could always just go over to the other city and fuck around. Maybe there's some other information in the other continent so they'll go there. Bam boom campaign.

>>48606337

I make up some names, doodle a map. Consider the kind of world I want (Do I want firearms? Do I want Sword and Planet? Do I want Sword & Sorcery? Sword & Sandal? TradFan? Sci-fi? Everything (gonzo)?

And then I start either doing broad strokes, or I pick a starting location and develop that.

>>48606337
Are you picking up from DFD or starting over with new characters? If the former, then just look at what they did in DFD and where that leads them. Depending on how that game ended, your campaign could be radically different you know, with the zombie apocalypse and all. If they, you know, did the thing, you have immediate drama in the campaign and a direction to deal with. How do you undo the thing? How does that affect the world?

Otherwise, did they pick up anything interesting in the dungeon? Several of the items themselves have potential plot hooks.

And if none of the above, or you're making brand new characters, pick up any other module and have at. There's no shame in module hopping and playing in an episodic manner, especially when you're first getting started DMing.

>>48606337
Try starting small. Detail a city or town or whatever in some capacity, make a map of the local wilderness - perhaps a day's distance in total? - and then stick down a dungeon somewhere easily accessible. It can be a tomb complex or a set of caves or the literal dungeons under some mad wizard's keep, whatever you want. Just make sure that the dungeon can't be cleared in one go, so that the players need to leave to resupply multiple times before "clearing" it, if that's even possible - and make sure that even in cleared sections they might eventually get uncleared, with new monsters moving in and bringing with them new treasure and challenges.

Later, as the players get to higher levels and start to want exploring further out, get some details on other major towns and expand your wilderness map - make it a little bit at a time. Work from the bottom up, start small and expand as needed. First-level characters don't need to know about geopolitics, or the shitty stuff going on one province over.

That's how I'd do it, at least. If your campaign has less of a dungeon focus you might instead want to detail the cities more, or if you're more into the wilderness do that.

If I use Scarlet Heroes + ACKS, all non-magic human classes, and add sorcery as a thing you can learn that isn't directly useful in combat but is closer to the kind of shit in Lieber's works, how close can I get to "weird sword and sorcery?"

>>48606471
>>48606483
>>48606524
>>48606573
Thanks for the tips. I'm not really a big fan of zombies to be honest, I just ran DFD because it seemed like a neat scenario and I loved the Greater Repugnances, so I'd like to start from scratch.

I'd like to have a world map, so I'll probably spill some coffee to get that out of the way then pick a corner to detail. I mainly feel overwhelmed because I'd like to have a lot of detail in case the players ask about certain areas, but if they're from bumfuck nowhere and level 1 they really don't have a way to learn about that area do they?

>>48606685
If you want to try something interesting, check out Beyond the Wall and how they recommend having both the players and the GM sit down and discuss what kind of things should be around the area they start it. Basically you create a sort of "folklore" with the players and then the GM can write on that stuff by himself.

>>48606623

Sounds pretty darn close.

>>48606623
What's special about scarlet heroes?

>>48606685
You need to get World of the Lost for LotFP. It's got everything: fantasy, horror, gonzo, pulp adventure... You can run a campaign for MONTHS with the one book alone, and that's without dropping random modules into a hex. That's my plan.

>>48607174

Characters in Scarlet Heroes are tough S&S protagonists who can take on a bunch of monsters like a boss, not haggard adventurers running the gauntlet of fantasy vietnam in a desperate bid for survival.

>>48607174
Powers up characters so you can run with 1-3 players and no hirelings, and they still have a fighting chance.

>>48606821
That's a really neat idea, I think i'll do that

What are some neat implementations of cleave?
I'm searching around but cannot find anything truly striking.
Favorite cleaves, /osr/?

>>48607773
Damage above that needed to kill the target transfers to another target within reach; this continues until there's no remaining damage or targets within reach.

Combine with Scarlet Heroes' damage numbers to have it actually matter, of course.

There's also the AD&D/BECMI option of simply getting a bunch of extra attacks against mooks, which works but honestly I'm not really fond of adding rolls to combat. It does make characters pretty beastly against the normals, though, especially in AD&D.

Also, of course, there's the 3E thing of "if you kill an enemy, make an attack against another enemy within reach". That's simple enough, really, but - like I said - it adds rolls. Also, it's swingy as fuck and can vary between doing nothing at all and killing everything within reach - AD&D is more consistent with the kills, in that case. On the other hand, 3E Cleave also works against higher-level monsters... although it probably won't since higher-level monsters are more likely to survive a single hit.

>>48607313
>>48607319
Now that I'm skimming it, this looks disturbingly like something I had already been working on.

If I'd found it earlier, I might have saved myself some effort.

>>48607773

My old houserule: If there's any damage left from an attack, reduce the attack roll by 2. If that hits the next guy in line, continue to apply damage until you either run out of damage, can't hit with the remaining roll, or there's nobody left in line.

My new houserule to handle the fact that I don't use critical systems that pump damage up anymore:
Announce a cleave like any other feat in my system: make two attack rolls. Both hit and you cleave; one hits, it's a normal strike. If both miss, you're in trouble.
On a successful cleave, roll your damage for each guy.

This has the benefit that now you can do a big cleaving sweep that drives enemies back without actually having to kill each guy in succession. It also brings cleave in line mechanically with tripping and disarming and other stuff in my homebrew.

I'm thinking of running a OSR campaign (using a mix of B/X and Stars Without Number) inspired by Nazis in Fantasyland, GATE and similar media. One thing I like is the inherent asymmetry combat could have, and how a fantasy society could be woefully less advanced than a modern (1890s+) society yet far more advanced in other areas. I want magic to be relatively common and have an actual impact on the world.

How would various first to fourth level spells effect say, a kingdom from every day life to warfare?

How common can I make magical items in the setting? What magical items would be the most useful?

What about Druid & Cleric spells?

I don't know if I”ll have Druids and Clerics, but I'm thinking Magic-Users would be 1% of the population. If only 1-2% of the population is made up of leveled individuals, I'm thinking there would only be a handful at 9th level and there would be no one at higher levels. I'm thinking 11% of Magic-Users would be capable of using 4th Level Spells, but they'd still have only one to three hit dice if they're not part of that 2% of leveled individuals (like adventurers). 45% would be capable of 3rd Level Spells, 26% with 2nd, and 18% with 1st.

Irony for the day:
Despite being based on the oldest possible oldschool, a game built around OD&D leaning on Chainmail for its combat system would be more or less incompatible with OSR as a whole.

>>48608325

Counterpoint: pretty much nobody used Chainmail for OD&D combat. The alternate combat system was almost universally used instead.
Using that, there's very little that has to be done to transfer an OD&D Fighting Man into the same party as a B/X Elf and an AD&D Elven Wizard.

>>48608325
Nah, OD&D has quick official hacks for monsters (Attack/Defend like a number of men equal to hit dice), so the big problem is figuring out Fighting Capability for classes. And since we already know the Cleric, Fighting-Man and Magic-User, and the Thief playtest includes Fighting Capability, and THAC0 usually just runs with those four classes... well.

I'm not sure what exactly would break horribly, beyond the obvious math problems with taking a +1 in a d20 context and moving it to a +1 in a 2d6 context, but that's already something that happened in reverse.

What exactly do you think makes it incompatible?

>>48608174
>45% would be capable of 3rd Level Spells, 26% with 2nd, and 18% with 1st.
I think you got that the wrong way around, friend.

Also, the fuck's up with that curve? I could get if you went for 75%/19%/5%/1%, since that kinda-sorta follows the geometric progression of the XP needed to reach those spell levels, but what's up with those percentages you have? Why -42%/-31%/-39%?

>>48608174

Well, what I'm about to post is from a table in the 2e AD&D DM's Option: High Level Campaigns book, so take it with a nice helping of salt. These are the suggested demographics, which I think are a bit too high, but they're a starting point at least:

Level.....Ratio/Population.....No. in 1,000,000
1............1:10....................100,000
2............1:20.....................50,000
3............1:40.....................25,000
4............1:80.....................12,500
5............1:160....................6,250
6............1:320....................3,125
7............1:640....................1,562.5
8............1:1,380..................724.6
9............1:2,560..................390.6
10..........1:5,120..................195.3
11..........1:10,240.................97.6
12..........1:20,480.................48.8
13..........1:40,960.................24.4
14..........1:81,920.................12.2
15..........1:163,840...............6.1
16..........1:326,680...............3
17..........1:655,360...............1.5
18..........1:1,310,720.............0.7

Which gives us a final tally of 199,942.3 leveled persons in 1 million. The rest (800,057.7) are 0 level individuals.

Note: I modified the table a bit, since the table says "approximate number in 1,000,000", but its actually the number of persons in 1,310,720. There is 1 18th level person in such a population, according to the table.

Personally, I think it's too high, but as I said, it could be a good starting point for formulating your own demographics.

>>48608849
Does 2E AD&D have NPC classes?

Basic D&D doesn't but I'm going to have magic-users exist beyond adventurers. So there could be an elite mook M.U who has access to 1 or 2 4th level spell slots, but only has 3-5 hit dice instead of 8. Or an experienced M.U who knows 3rd level spells, but only has 1-2 hit dice.

As for leveled individuals, those seem a bit high, yeah. Maybe I"ll increase it based on the example encounters Rules Cyclopedia gives.

>>48608917

2e does not by default, but there was a splat released in '96 called Sages & Specialists, which adds them.

Best way to design a dungeon?

>>48608917
>>48608975

I want to point out, however, that they aren't what you'd expect from say, 3rd edition. There's no commoner, no warrior, nothing like that. There's an apothecary, a smith, a guide, an architect, and several others. There's not a whole lot of reason so have them be classes either. They could have just had rules or guidelines for NPC knowledge and the sorts of NPCs that player characters are likely to need.

However... I do find it kind of a nice idea that there could be hirelings who aren't quite as capable as the PCs, but not as fragile as 0 level men. Not sure if I'd ever them though. I really am against NPCs having levels unless they're fellow adventurers.

>>48608143
How do you limit it? How much damage can one cause with cleave, to how many creature, up to which HD?

>>48608687
The true irony here lies in the fact that modern DnD's ability score calculation is mathematically closer to a proper 2d6 to d20 conversion, than the 1:1 transition we got.

>>48609255

It's limited by the double to-hit-roll. If you only hit one of the two rolls, you don't get to do the cleave, just a regular attack. And if you are unlucky and miss both rolls, then you'll get yourself into some kind of trouble, which I'll decide based on the situation at hand. This means it's risky to do this unless you handily outclass your opponents.

(If they have mixed AC then you'll be rolling against the highest AC in the group, BTW. More incentive to bring down the orc captain before you try to cleave his cronies apart)

>>48609180
Wouldn't 3d6 make more sense?

Since stats go up to 18 in most OSR games?

>>48609421

I'm not sure I follow you?

>>48609321
...How so? I'm afraid that you've lost me, there.

The specifics would be the +1 Sword staying +1, the +1 to-hit that commanders get turning into the fighting-man's Man+1 rating... in a d20 system, and (and this is really egregious) the Goblin's -1 on a 1d6 to fight in daylight turning into a -1 on 1d20. In Chainmail that meant that they couldn't fight anything that wasn't Light Foot! Swords & Spells even fixed this by IIRC changing it to a -6 to-hit, but that got wiped away in the transition to AD&D. There's probably some more small bits I'm forgetting, though.

OD&D didn't even give any bonuses to combat from ability scores beyond a +-1 to ranged attacks from Dexterity, either, and I'm pretty sure that had jack shit to do with Chainmail.

So nobody has that souls pdf? It was posted a few threads ago; somebody on /tg/ made it. It had circular pictures and a rat man race as class.

I'd really appreciate if somebody posted it, because I forgot to save it.

>>48609883
>souls pdf
Souls?
Did someone make a Dark Souls game?

Any OSR games with a large number of classes?

>>48610126

No, I don't remember what it was called, I thought it might of have 'souls' in its name somewhere.

I may be totally wrong though, I was just trying to get someone to post it.

>>48610732
Labyrinth Lord, if you take all the homebrews into account. Also, there's a book called The Complete BX Adventurer for D&D Basic that includes a million more classes.

File: Fearsome Gods.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Newly updated; Arcana tables, stat tables, new saves, all kinds of stuff.

I'm hoping to get any more feedback I can before I try to run a game with this.

File: etaineviscerates.jpg (115KB, 690x961px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 690x961px

Start lv. 1's at max HP: yay or nay?

>>48611654
>The Complete BX Adventurer

Is it in the Trove?

>>48612842
I do it. Gives level one characters a modicum of survivability and prevents players from simply throwing their 1 HP character away.

>>48612842

It doesn't make a huge difference, and it makes players happy, so I say sure.

>>48612363
Protip:
> Insert Break
> Page Break
In all seriousness, having everything run together is extremely unpleasant and easy to fix.

>>48612842
Yay, mostly just so we don't have to wait for Jill or Seth to roll new characters all the time since they die so often at such low levels.

>>48612842
Off-topic:
Is this a new Flame Princess girl? I've seen the picture a few times around the threads but never actually looked into it.

>>48612842
I like for people to able to survive stubbing their toe, so something should be done about 1st level hit points, whether you do max HP, +4 hit points, reroll 1s and 2s, minimum of 1/2 maximum roll, or some other clever thing you've come up with. Though depending on what you do with negative hit points, you might be able to skate past this (having 1 hit point in a system where you're dead at -10 is a lot different from having 1 hit point in a system where you're dead at 0).

In your opinion, what are the essential mechanics to make a game OSR? Classes, HP, saving throws, etc.?

>>48613109

What part are you referring to specifically?

>>48594466
Two bandits with crossbows is about all it takes.

File: OSMFullSmall.jpg (810KB, 1600x1486px) Image search: [Google]

810KB, 1600x1486px

Anyone have some wilderness maps akin to those for Keep on the Borderland? Basically a smallish but still decent sized wilderness map with a fort/keep/small village with some points of interest to visit/explore/delve?

>>48613288
low hp

File: Into the Odd(Lost Pages).pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48593796
Does anyone have Into the Odd? According to the store page the game is supposed to be 48 pages long, this PDF is only 16, and it references rules that aren't in the book.

>>48614626
in the trove, under /osr misc/

File: Cyric.jpg (67KB, 400x587px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x587px

>>48614650
Thanks boss

File: 1466551606038.jpg (96KB, 348x750px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 348x750px

>>48614650
>>48614670
Also, it seems like the link to the trove takes you to one of the LotFP modules inside. It's a minor inconvenience but it's something to fix in the pasta for the next thread

how much a prostitute cost?

>>48614971
Depends. What are you wanting from them?

>>48615816
To suck my dwarf dick

>>48609396
What I meant was, does this mean I can attack 20 12HD opponents at the same time if I declare a cleave and make both rolls?

>>48616197
5 copper

File: random_harlot_table.jpg (24KB, 587x385px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 587x385px

>>48614971
>>48615816
>>48616197
I'm going to need a roll.

>>48616390
Looks like you got a haughty courtesan, anon

>>48616438
> haughty courtesan
...My entire love life, summarized by RNG.

It's too early for these reals.

>>48616198
Just to elaborate — I'm not trying to sound douchy. I'm just genuinely curious.

>>48596851
>I keep forgetting to mention that I looked into these threads because I want to play basically something with an old school Final Fantasy feel. The SNES ones. Tactics Advanced at most.

Strike! maybe? It's more or less FFT: the tabletop, just a lot less numbers scaling/equipment tinkering. A generic system however, so you'll need to fluff it appropriate for your needs.

>>48596851
The first game literally has vancian magic, and IIRC is loosely based on Wizardry and thus, I dunno, probably AD&D and Holmes/Moldvay Basic?

Later games gradually become their own thing, though, and by the time the SNES games (FF4, FF5, FF6) come around there's very little that they have in common with D&D.

You could probably hack Basic into doing something, I guess, but you'd need to figure spells and shit out yourself. Those games have a very different attitude to magic and dungeoncrawling than D&D has, mostly in regards to out-of-combat magic and magic items/magitek but also the entire concept of "leaving the dungeon". There's a certain incentive to clearing out the dungeon in one go, camping within it in safe spots when necessary. Also, of course, boss monsters are the only set encounters - the rest are random.

Also, of course, if you want to play something like Final Fantasy Tactics then >>48618800 is right and you'll want either Strike! or just outright 4E.

Does anyone have Crypts and Things? I can't find it in the trove, but it appears to use some sort of lifepath system, and I'm a bit intrigued.

>>48619031
It's under Swords & Wizardry / Swords & Wizardry-Based Games

>>48614711
>Also, it seems like the link to the trove takes you to one of the LotFP modules inside.
Have you been in the trove before? Because I think Mega remembers where you were and starts you out in whatever subfolder you ended on last time.

>>48620065
I owe you one!

>>48620486
I wish you could actually find things using the search function. It's a huge folder with tons of subfolders, and plenty of things aren't going to be where you expect them to be.

>>48621221
Yeah, it's quite the mess. TroveGuy does his best to keep it in order, and for what he has to work with he really does succeed, but I wish Mega offered better tools for such cases.

>>48621221
>>48621427
If someone put the contents of the mega as text in a pastebin it would be easy to search. Just needs someone to update whenever.

>>48609883

Looks like you'll have to archive dive. Let us know if you find it, I'm curious what that was.

>>48616198

If I could somehow fit 20 low-AC 12hd opponents into your weapon's reach, which is very doubtful, then sure, you'd be dumb not to cleave then. You're not going to kill any of them, but you can hurt them and drive them back.

I suppose I should apply a -1 to each successive damage roll or something, but that feels like it'd be a pain, and I don't think I really care.
My feat system is designed to give you the ability to do cool stuff without me having to deal with tracking anything. Wanna trip a dude? Two rolls and you trip and do your damage. Only one hits? Pick either tripping or damage. Cleaving wouldn't allow you to pick because that's an effect on top of your damage, so you have to make both rolls.

What would be the best way, do you think, to get permission/support for a S&W-based PC game inspired by the old Gold Box RPGs but with a better interface/graphics and set in its own world?

>Approach them at the beginning with nothing to show them but also no time/effort invested in something that I may not be legally allowed to finish as-is?
>Approach them once I have a demo and if they disapprove, just switch to some open source OSR system?
>Approach them when it's done and if they disapprove, just switch to some open source OSR system?

>>48622224
>Approach them once I have a demo and if they disapprove, just switch to some open source OSR system?

This one. If I'm a holder of a property and somebody says "Can I have a license to make a game using your property?" I'll be a lot more inclined to talk to them if they have some evidence that they're going to be able to actually put out something of a decent quality.
Without a demo, they could fail to deliver at all, or they could deliver something terrible that drags my brand down.

>>48622224
Seconding this >>48622387

If you don't already have a reputation, I don't even know that it's worth talking to you about this unless you show up with something that proves to me you can do what you claim.

Plus, if S&W refused your license, you can always tweak it very slightly and then approach LL. Heh.

>>48608849
DCC also says something about this. I wonder how their numbers would compare.

>>48609178

Like everything else, dungeons are a composite of mechanics and fluff. The original intent of dungeons was to create an adventuring environment that retained a player's sense of free will, but still restrictive enough to keep the DM sane.

I'm using this for my group. https://donjon.bin.sh/d20/dungeon/

^ This is the "best" way, because most of the hard bits of inspiration are already done for you. Anything you don't like, you can add, subtract, or re-map as you please.

This can be suited to any campaign or storyline. Think of the fluff of a dungeon as merely the sign on the doorpost and the color of curtains hung in the window.

>>48612842
I tend to start at max HP. Although, I occasionally do have a player that actually says, "I want to say that I played a PC where I rolled everything cold, and still managed to make it work. Even if I end up with a human wizard with only 1 hp and low INT, then so be it. I will make it work and make it interesting and entertaining."

Well, what happened? Results varied, but all the characters were interesting in their own way. It's like the old theatre cliche, "There are no small roles, only small actors."

>>48622775
I cant seem to find the entrance to any of the dungeons

>>48613479
You don't have to force it. It'll happen on its own. That way, you won't be blamed by the players.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer this style of D&D, because I'm a DM. You can boil it all down to one word: Blame.

I simply set up the obstacles and let the chips fall where they may. This is also why I do all my rolls out in the open. I mean, hey, why not? Players can't blame me for anything. They always have the option to turn around and take a different corridor, street, etc., or run-away and come up with a strategy that stacks the odds in their favor.

And my group loves it. New players find it refreshing.

>>48622915
See the 2 stairs? the one leading up is the entrance.

>>48614387
The essential mechanics are, "The options are there, but not specified in the rulebook."

The game often gets bogged down by too many rules that try to address every niggling detail for rules lawyers to take advantage of. It's a power-grab from the rulebook. It's a fundamental mistrust of the DM. That's where "power creep" comes from in subsequent editions.

Thus, keeping it minimalist means often having to go back to early-edition rulesets.

>>48622387
>>48622417
Thanks. That's what I was leaning toward anyway.

>>48616390
I love this one. Often in my games, they are always hiding something the PC would rather not deal with, such as a jealous spouse, an STD, a certain level of pure crazy, a knife in the back (because they're often low lvl thieves or fences), or a level drain if they're a succubus.

And my players are painfully aware of this. Thus, whores are generally avoided.

>>48622915
You can also toggle the "peripheral egress" setting.

Again, just because it's a map generator doesn't mean you can't plug in your own doors and such.

>>48623125
My players are well aware of it. Every time they call it out. Every time they complain about how bad of an idea it is.
And someone goes ahead and does it anyway.
Every. Single. Time.
I love them.