/osrg/ OSR General - Bad Vibes Edition

First for Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

>>>51279592
These are all valid questions though.
>Why THIS cave specifically? Is there something here that they're looking for?
>If the Goblins really are as terrible as the King says why is he sending murderhobos in to clean house? Is the King in league with the Goblin? Are we being set up?
>We may need food and water, where do the Goblins store theirs? Wait, they've got barrels of wine and crates of food? Where'd they get that stuff?
>Is the cave strangely clean? That might mean that the Goblins just got here. Is the cave dirty? Then either the Goblins are slobs or they're planning on relocating soon.

>>51279697
Seriously. Are there GMs in here who DON'T prepare answers to questions like those, or who are so bad at improvising they can't just throw off an explanation and work with it?

File: shrugs.jpg (104KB, 449x642px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 449x642px

>>51279741

Apparently you can't expect a GM to be able to answer any of those, you have to explicitly give all the answers in the module, or it's a bad module, I guess?

>>51279697
I agree with the sentiment. While the dungeon's logic can and should often override real world's logic, the consistency is there for players to base their decisions on. Consistency feeds into the player's skill because it allows for pattern recognition. That's while I do like random stuff, I mostly use it sparingly to spice up the firm base I cooked up and throw people off a bit.

That's not in any way autistic nitpicking. Also my players usually love to nitpick all kinds of shit except the world's logic. I still strive for it in because even if they don't fixate on the world's logic, they still use it.

>>51279697
>>51279741
The problem isn't really the questions.
The problem is constantly pointing out things without even considering the DM's answers, just to get a sense of satisfaction that you're smarter then the DM.
I wouldn't mind if a player asked me these things if they actually wanted useful information.

>>51279789
Well, I guess if it's a module I'd feel different. It ought to be in the module, because the module was written by (presumably) a GM, who ought to anticipate at least the broad strokes of most of those questions.

I always get nervous running modules because I worry that improvising something is going to create an unforeseen logical inconsistency with something else in the module, though, so it might just be that I personally don't like modules because I don't like running them.

>>51279789
I'd hate it if the module gave all the answers.
I wouldn't like a few of the answers, and would change them.
But I wouldn't make notes, trusting myself to make the same (or similar enough) answer each time I see the question.
But I'd inevitably slip up and use the original answer part of the time, leading to confusion.

>>51279789
Unless you're running a wilderness module you can't just point to a random part of the map mid-game and say "yeah they shit here and store their food there"

I mean "Food Storeroom: Moldy bread and salted meats stored in crude barrels", "Mushroom Caves: Fungi sprout from every surface. Main source of Goblins' food. Non-poisonous but taste bad", "Common Latrine: Unspeakable stench. Pools of filth contain all manner of disease" aren't herculean efforts of writing.

>>51279812
>The problem is constantly pointing out things without even considering the DM's answers, just to get a sense of satisfaction that you're smarter then the DM.
Nice projection.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>51279523

>>51279697
The GM's answer to everything.
>You don't know. ;^)
Or, if they're feeling cheeky
>Yeah, that IS strange, isn't it?

>>51279912
>Unless you're running a wilderness module you can't just point to a random part of the map mid-game and say "yeah they shit here and store their food there"
Well then you're eventually going to forget something sometime in your own dungeons, and if you can't make it up on the fly then the dungeon's going to seem illogical.
>Nice projection.
Just be glad you've never had players like that friend.

>>51279935
>>Yeah, that IS strange, isn't it?
This is the best response, because not only does it prompt the players to investigate, it also gives you a few seconds at least to come up with an explanation.

>>51279697
The answer to all of these is
>because were playing a game. Who cares?

>>51280092
Anon has a child:
>Daddy, why did the cow jump over the moon?
>It's just a stupid song, who gives a shit
>now go to sleep, Daddy has to design some 15x15 rooms with orcs in them

>>51280235
You do realize that you just implied that nitpicking every little thing about everything is a childish thing to do, right?

Because that's what you just did.

>>51280235
Making interesting dungeons and having them be realistic are completely different things.

A dungeon full of nothing but goblins with perfectly logical layout might end up boring as fuck.

Meanwhile a dungeon full of different monsters with zero fucks given to whether they would logically be neighbors might end up much more fun to delve into.

File: fffff.jpg (63KB, 596x628px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 596x628px

>>51280235
That one got me good.

These threads have been a mess recently. And that saddens me, for /osr/ was the best general on the site for a long time.

>>51280280
That's one way to read it, if you're reaching. Another way to look at it is that people who say "it's just an x, who gives a shit?" have lost the sense of wonder and inquisitiveness that is instinctual to most children, as well as the very basic ability known as "suspension of disbelief" integral to enjoyment of most fiction, especially fantasy fiction.

In other words, I'm not calling "nitpickers" childish, I'm calling you an stodgy old faggot for implying that asking questions must be a) irrelevant and/or b) an attempt to show up the GM, as opposed to an essential part of TRPGs.

>>51280316
>A dungeon full of nothing but goblins with perfectly logical layout might end up boring as fuck.
Can you give me an example? Because a dungeon full of goblins is likely to wind up pretty interesting: as somebody else has already illustrated, having a "realistic" dungeon means you're going to have to include more details: a specialized room for storing/preparing food, a latrine, sleeping quarters, etc. If your dungeon is still boring after your players have the options of booby-trapping the toilet or exploiting the presence of a boiling cauldron, then you have bigger problems.

>>51280447
Its not an open camp though.
An actual realistic dungeon with goblins would be one fight at the entrance (realistically theres no way for a party of 6-12 to sneak by a well guarded cave entrance) and the just combing the various places for no treasure at all (realiatically a tribe of govlins would have very little of value) with maybe 1 or 2 primitive traps before reaching the chamber with the women and children and the last battle. Assuming they didnt run away trough the other exit.

File: 1461382442921.jpg (799KB, 1120x1352px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1120x1352px

Can we just talk about OD&D and Chainmail rules instead? I'm trying to get into the old rules and I find them kind of fascinating.

What's your favorite part about OD&D? Your least favorite? What are some good non-official supplements for it?

>>51280447
>a specialized room for storing/preparing food, a latrine, sleeping quarters
>toilet
>boiling cauldron

Your goblins are pretty advanced for a bunch of green vermin living in a hole in the ground. They sound more like people, which would make me hesitate to kill them and take their stuff.

>>51280447
>>51280593
>>51280615
How about you guys go and make another thread about this? This is just bait at this point.

>>51280593
>"realistic"

An actual realistic dungeon with goblins doesn't exist because there are no goblins and no D&D-style dungeons in reality. The only person who's been arguing for realism is you. Everyone else is arguing for internal logic/verisimilitude/consistency.

>>51280440
It's still better than 99% of /tg/ threads. I've only opened three other /tg/ threads today and two had someone calling for the extermination of the mentally handicapped. Another had one calling the OP a "blue-pilled cuck."

4chan was a mistake.

>>51280615
"Toilet" is a euphemism for "a place to shit," derived from French. I believe it originally referred to perfume. I hope you didn't think I meant to refer to a flushing toilet of the sort invented by Mr. Crapper. And a cauldron isn't really that crazy, it's just a big pot.

Polite sage, because >>51280634 has a point: we're not exactly discussing systems, here.

>>51280710

>toilet is a euphemism

How exactly do you trap a hole in the ground they pee into, then? (This is assuming they bother with a hole in the ground, they're goblins after all)

>>51280651
>internal logic
There's no reason for that to get in the way of dungeon design either.
You guys keep trying to strawmen "not having internal logic means boring corridors with a single monster in a square room" but that's not the case.

A monster guarding an idol that is on top a mechanism that triggers a rolling boulder is interesting in actual play. But logically, how did the monster get there? Why is it guarding the treasure? How does the trap still work after all this time?

If we follow this logical consistency meme you can't even have something as basic as traps on places where there are unintelligent monsters because surely they would have triggered the trap already.

>>51280597
My favorite part of OD&D is that it gave birth to B/X and other, better systems.

>>51280758
It's not a binary "gonzo shit without rhyme or reason or plan the movement of every atom since the setting's Big Bang-equivalent" choice, for fuck's sake. Stop fucking strawmanning everything to shit and back. There's room for "here's a dungeon have fun" and "this is why this dungeon makes sense" along the spectrum without going full autismal at either end.

Personally, I want to boobytrap the shit out of the goblins' toilet, with rocks.

File: 1465096801347.jpg (345KB, 986x806px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 986x806px

>>51280761
Could you expand on what you think B/X and other systems do better than OD&D?

>>51280597
my favorite part of OD&D is that it gave no fucks to internal consistency or logic. Yes, every random fighting man on a keep WILL challenge other fighting men to a joust. Every wizard will cast geass and make you go search for random treasure. There are "superheroes" served by griffins, dinosaurs wander the swamps, there are a bunch of evil high priests just chilling out in evil churches and so on.

>>51280815
My favorite part of OD&D is that you can pinpoint the exact blog posts people get their 'personal' opinions from.

http://initiativeone.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/od-setting-posts-in-pdf.html

>>51280758
>If we follow this logical consistency meme you can't even have something as basic as traps on places where there are unintelligent monsters because surely they would have triggered the trap already.
Yes, and? Just make the traps fashioned in such a way that whatever monsters there are wouldn't set them off.
>pit traps in a room full of giant bats
>traps that light you on fire in a room of elementals or other fire-resistant creatures
>arrow traps in a room full of skeletons with arrows sticking out of their ribcages
You can even do this to cool effect, e.g., a room involving a remarkable lethal trap is suspiciously empty of monsters.

I honestly don't understand how you wouldn't do this. Do you generate your dungeons exclusively by rolling on tables, with no modification?

>>51280730
Not exactly a trap, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ironside#Death allegedly died because an assassin hiding in hiding stabbed him in the ass.

>>51280797
>It's not a binary "gonzo shit without rhyme or reason or plan the movement of every atom since the setting's Big Bang-equivalent" choice
No? Then why do you guys keep doing the "15 by 15 guarded by an orc" and "long corridor with a dragon in a closed room at the end" as the examples of not-having internal logic?

This argument started because someone said that b2 has no internal logic and thus is bad. Bullshit, it states a reason as to why the monster are there, that is more than enough. Anything extra is pointless nitpicking.

>>51280815
I see, so you see this internal inconsistency and illogicality as a benefit to the game?

>>51280853
So did one of the most famous Sengoku period warlords in Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uesugi_Kenshin#Death

If fucking ninja can lie in wait in cesspools to stab a motherfucker I don't see why PCs should be kept from having the chance.

>>51280882
>"15 by 15 guarded by an orc"
I did that one by way of a joke, for the record.
>>51280815
That's all internally consistent, though. "Internally consistent" doesn't mean "realistic."

>>51280841
you do realize that just last thread someone posted a pdf about it?
It's why I even bothered making that reply.

Still if that guy is wrong, go ahead and correct him. Saying "oh you got your opinion from someone else" as if that was automatically a bad thing is rather petty.

>>51280853
>Yes, and?
And I'm not complain about great modules or limit my own dungeon creation just because of a meme.

>>51280906
OSR in general has the issue of people yelling at each other solely because they draw their opinions from elsewhere instead of actually reasoning things on their own. Some threads ago people were actually arguing that Gygax ran Raggi-style pseudo-Lovecraftian games full of tentacles and monsters and sanity-blasting magic instead of what's actually written on OD&D. So yeah, it is worth calling out when people present the opinions of others as their own.

>>51280902
>That's all internally consistent, though
how do the dinosaurs survive? Why aren't the lawful clerics (who outnumber the chaotic clerics and are all united under a single church unlike the chaotic clerics) destroy their enemy clerics? How can any sort of commerce or farming happen in such a dangerous land? How did they even manage to build castles in the middle of a monster-infested wilderness?

It's not consistent as soon as you nipick it apart.

>>51280841

This: >>51280906

Disagreeing about dungeon design philosophies is cool, but being a douchebag about it is not.
There's plenty of room in the thread for differing opinions, let's just keep 'em civil.

>>51280973
>Some threads ago people were actually arguing that Gygax ran Raggi-style pseudo-Lovecraftian games full of tentacles and monsters and sanity-blasting magic

Weird, I don't remember that at all. Are you sure you're not mischaracterizing someone else's opinion, because there's been a lot of that going around lately, and it needs to stop.

>>51280973
>, it is worth calling out when people present the opinions of others as their own.

only if you point out when those opinions are wrong.
Otherwise you did nothing about actually changing their opinions.

>>51280977
>How do the dinosaur survive?
I don't know, what's threatening them? I'm sure if there are dinosaurs there are things for them to eat.
>Why aren't the lawful clerics (who outnumber the chaotic clerics and are all united under a single church unlike the chaotic clerics) destroy their enemy clerics?
Perhaps it has something to do with the danger of the wilderness, which, it's worth mentioning, has things like dinosaurs in it.
>How can any sort of commerce or farming happen in such a dangerous land?
>How did they even manage to build castles in the middle of a monster-infested wilderness?
Very carefully. Or, re: castles, the castles were already built before the area was as infested with monsters as it is now. Or, an ancient magic-user used magic to build the castle very quickly.

Even without those answers, the setting remains internally consistent. There are dangerous beasts and hostile humans. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore about "realism."

>>51280977
>how do the dinosaurs survive?
By eating other dinosaurs. Or by the sheer will of the dinosaur god.

>Why aren't the lawful clerics (who outnumber the chaotic clerics and are all united under a single church unlike the chaotic clerics) destroy their enemy clerics?
It's an interlude after their last big war 50 years ago.

>How can any sort of commerce or farming happen in such a dangerous land?
cf. Medieval England

>How did they even manage to build castles in the middle of a monster-infested wilderness?
Maybe the monsters built them.

>>51281103
>Very carefully.
bullshit. That's the same sort of non-answer as going "how do the dungeon monsters get food? They eat each other" that doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. The number and power of the monsters in the area would quickly render any sort of human habitation uninhabitable.

Every farm would have to be walled, and even then with the flying monsters it wouldn't be enough.

The only race that would be capable of living there would be dwarves with their underground bunkers.

>>51280990
No, and fuck you for arguing in this poor faith. I can't find the post right now but it was in the context of magic and where on the spectrum of Final Fantasy commonplace vs Summon Cthulhu (another spectrum discussion, funny that) should be.

>>51281168
What kind of response are you trying to get out of this in a thread about old school systems about weirdos going into dungeons and fighting dragons?
Please just make another thread.

>>51281168

Welcome to the Keep on the Borderlands, where you don't go outside those walls if you know what's good for you, peasant.

>>51281202
>What kind of response
That internal consistency is superfluous and necessary for a fun dungeon/setting.

>>51281198

I'm the one arguing in poor faith, because I don't recall that discussion of how Gygax ran things as remotely resembling that shit you typed?
I'm not the one implying that that guy upthread is somehow wrong just because he shares an opinion with a blog somewhere.

>>51281168
At one point you have to check if your setting passes the Madlands test.

For reference, Madlands is a GURPS gonzo as fuck setting where, among other things, seals talk, you can reason yourself into a shade of a being by thinking on how gonzo stuff is, or gods can smash you up the head so hard that now you have no head and your face is in your torso. As it turns out, Madlanders (the local, mostly unmutated humans) barely eke out a Bronze Age living, have some brutal customs just to survive (if a newborn baby even looks like it will grow into becoming an elf, smash it against a rock and kill it - elves are fucking dicks) and would gladly move elsewhere but all the good, non-gonzo land has already been taken by other people. Madlands is still a playable setting, but it's not a place where towns and cities where PCs can easily unload loot will

>>51281234
>hat internal consistency is superfluous and necessary
*unnecessary

>>51281247
*will appear. Forgot the last word.

>>51281234
Well you probably won't get it, and if you do you still would have clogged the thread with a completely uninteresting argument.
Make another thread.

>>51281237
No, you're arguing in poor faith because you're saying the choice is between fun and "pointless nitpicking", where any question about how things are or came to be is moot because that's how the module was written and it cannot be argued against.

File: Here you go, don't spend it all in one place.gif (443KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 480x238px

>>51281294

>implying I said any of that

>>51281168
>That's the same sort of non-answer as going "how do the dungeon monsters get food? They eat each other" that doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny.
No, it's a joke answer with a grain of truth. It's not realistic, no, but it's still internally consistent: monsters are encountered outside civilization. Walls would probably be present, but it's very much of a handwave to say that, for example, pterodactyls aren't interested in whatever mediocre food could be found in the tiny hamlets of civilization.

It also means that a village could come under attack by a monster they can't deal with, because monsters are unpredictable, and the PCs could be tasked with defense. Or, on that note, a powerful PC-class character protects the general area, as all classes of higher levels were capable of doing in older editions (by establishing a stronghold of fighters, for example).

>>51281304
>meme arrows

>>51281294
>the choice is between fun and "pointless nitpicking"

>this module is shit because of internal consistency
>bullshit, you don't need that shit for a fun module

your questions are in fact, pointless nitpicking.

>>51281332

>calling greentext meme arrows

File: 1470248789421.jpg (116KB, 350x365px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 350x365px

Several threads ago someone posted some things for fighters tentatively called feats wherein every level the fighter would get something such as a special combat maneuver, +s to hit or HP or AC, etc. I remember it was posted with a picture of a tengu if that helps. Does anyone have those feats written down somewhere?

>>51281395
no
it was shit and not old school
go play pathfinder

>>51281395

Was this it?
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/51089321/#q51097915

>>51281395
Eh, they were pretty bad.
>get +1 damage to all weapons OR heal 1 hp if you gamble/fuck/pray

>>51281480

Also this, it's catpeople, not tengus, though.

http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/51012685/#q51015230

>>51281480
Thank you! Yes it is. Wonder where I got the tengu pic idea...

>>51281540
Some anon shared his Tengu class for LotFP but that was another anon.

Just read on some blog maze_of blue_medusa is cool dungeon with awesome ideas.

Does thi general support the idea? Is it worth the read to if i want traps inspiration?

>>51281662
>>51281662
>Tengu class
can you share the pdf?

>>51281695
I definitely support the idea. It's one of the best dungeons I've ever seen. It's even fun to pick up and read casually. It's a great source for inspiration, and if you don't plan on running the dungeon you can just pick and choose what you like and put it in your own adventures.

>>51279846
>I always get nervous running modules
My advice is to treat them the exact way the OSR treats rules: as a base to homebrew on.

>>51282001
But, Chesterton's!

How would classless (Or just a sort of Adventurer/Wizard split) character creation that doesn't make players pick from a list, and keeps it fast and loose instead, while being still in the spirit of OSR work?

>>51280597
>Can we just talk about OD&D and Chainmail rules instead?
T b h I think we should just kill this thread and start over, it started out shit up and it seems unlikely to get better from there, but yes, I would gladly do this, here or in a new thread.

My favorite part of OD&D is probably that it covers exactly what you need and only what you need, adds some evocative stuff like monsters and castle inhabitants to give you ideas, and then lets you get on with it. (If you mean specific rules, then probably the use of Chainmail combat, I like that more and more.)

My least favorite thing is probably the insane unclarity in the LBB, or again if I have to choose a specific rule, the equipment, especially the weight of coins and the insane cost of some things. (1/10 lb. of gold for one bulb of garlic? You can buy a suit of plate for 60 bulbs of garlic?!) I would've liked it better if Gygax had done his research better, or if better books had been available to him or whatever the problem was.

File: latest-1.jpg (148KB, 640x592px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 640x592px

>>51281395
>>51281540

The first time I posted the idea it was with a Tengu bird man thing. That was the second time.

I've since parsed the list down to a most succulent and useful list, which I am currently using.

FIGHTER FEATS
>Add +1 to hit and get a free combat move like a trip or disarm on an attack roll of 19 or 20. Extend the range by +1 (ie, 18, then 17) and get another +1 to hit each time taken
>Add +1 to hit and damage with a specific type of weapon. Axes, swords, greatswords, spears, etc. Maximum bonus is limited by the quality of the weapon.
>Add +1 AC, up to maximum AC. You can take off some armor and keep the same Armor Class. You could eventually fight as though max AC even when unencumbered and without a shield, etc.
>Gain Parry move- sacrifice your attack to increase one targets AC by +1d6 for this round. Each time taken you can cover another person with this
>Gain Cleave move- Whenever you kill an enemy make another attack on an enemy. You can chain deaths +1 times each time you take this

This is the complete feat list I've got in my rulebook right now, I hope I haven't missed anything obvious.

>>51282230
>parry
>cleave
>combat move

all of these should just be things any fighting man can do from the start.

>>51280841
speaking of blogs where I get my "personal" opinions from
here's one that's very relevant to this thread

> I am against the idea of rationality in dungeons.
>People often misinterpret this statement to mean that 'funhouse' design is the only design. That is incorrect. What it really means is that for the purposes of actual gameplay, dungeons should make thematic sense, not literal sense.
>There's this idea that every corner of every adventure should be exhaustively unearthed from 3.5. If that's the case, then you end up with this 'fridge logic' moment where you're like, "Wait, what the hell do the Owlbears drink, and how do the ogres ever make it past the Sphinx?"
>But that's not what a dungeon is, see? A dungeon is what's past our realm of static steadfast sanity. It's on the other side, made of dreams, nightmares and horrors. You cross a threshold to enter and beyond, nothing remains the same.
>But that doesn't mean it can't have resonance. Things can still have reasons for existing. They can still follow logic, twisted and dreamlike as though it may be. But the logic and the dungeon never ends. It can't be explored, fixed or finished.
>So, really, worry less about it. (...)

"worry less about it."

>>51282606

I support this post. I also support people who like to figure these things out, so long as they're cool with people who don't.

>>51282310

Well anyone, including non fighters can do combat moves by just giving up their attack. It automatically works, enemies just get a small save chance. Fighters with that move just get a free one whenever they roll the big numbers.

>Cleave
>Parry

You're absolutely right, which is why you can start with one at first level if you want, then next level you can round yourself out or specalize. Fighters with lots of special moves are high level fighters, in my opinion.

I do want to find something to replace weapon specialization, but I kind of like having two options to increase to hit so it's common, and giving players the option of just getting +1 damage on its own might be too good. Hmm.

>>51282698
my suggestion

remove all the static bonuses.
Instead work on a "weapon skill" system where you put all your static bonuses into.
>x weapon gives bonus to attack and damage over time, other x weapon gives bonus to ac and attack, and so on

and then have the "feats" just be the cool maneuvers. This way you don't have to choose between mechanical bonuses and cool stuff

>>51282637
This. If you want to be a Maliszewskian Naturalist, go for it. Not my jam, but have fun.

>>51282780

Interesting idea. I just remember hearing a long time ago how weapon specialization is bad for Fighters, but having weapon style like that is kind of interesting. Thanks.

>>51282892
If choosing a single weapon is bad, then make the "specialization" points go towards a fighting style.

Like two-handed weapons, sword and board, flying daggers, 2-cool4-1-weapon and so on

1d100 table guy here, gonna do one tonight. First response to this post gets to pick tonight's theme.

>>51283029
Things the local heavy metal fan keeps putting in his games.

Is there a Chainmail OGL? Could one make a Chainmail retroclone without risking a lawsuit?

>>51283051
Heavy Metal-inspired.. Things it is.

>>51281395
No, but here's a neat fighter advancement thing:
http://dndwithpornstars dot blogspot.com/2012/06/alternate-fighter-for-like-d-and-stuff.html

>>51280440
I agree, /osr/ is the only reason I still come here. No point in even lurking if threads will just devolve into pedantic arguments and shitposting.

>>51281497
Oh yeah, I remember that.

The vice healing one was broken as shit.
You got infinite full-heals between fights.

>>51282227
Garlic is a rare and expensive import.

>When you hit a creature with an attack, you can mark it, whenever the creature attacks anyone but the you, it receives -2 to hit bonus on attack rolls. You can only have one mark at a time.

Thoughts on this fighter ability? I may drop the -2 and use the Adv/Disadv system from 5e

>>51283360
But garlic is an invasive weed that grows in even the shittiest soil provided sufficient water

>>51283383
Isn't that the fighter mark from 4e?

>>51283061
>Could one make a Chainmail retroclone without risking a lawsuit?
Nobody cares. TSR is dead and CHAINMAIL is out of print.
WotC owns the rights, IIRC. But I doubt even they remember.

To generalize your question a bit,
>Could one make a [...] retroclone without risking a lawsuit?
People get away with it all the time.

>>51283403
Maybe a wizard killed them all off? Rare and expensive

>>51283409
Yes, but you shouldn't have said this, now everyone will shit on it saying it isn't OSR

>>51283409

I think 5e has something like that too. It's a decent way to represent a skilled fighter's ability to control the battlefield, IMO.

>>51283061
You can't actually copyright game rules, so it'd be fine.

>>51283432
The ONE (1) thing 4e did well was combat.

>>51279592

>WHY ARE THESE GOBLINS EVEN LIVING IN THIS CAVE? WHY DON'T THEY JUST GET A JOB FARMING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?
Goblin farming consists of burying whatever they like, watering it, hoping it grows. This includes rocks, boots, pies, and babies. Also they're lazy, so they'd rather raid caravans.

>WHY DOESN'T THE KING JUST SEND HIS ARMY TO KILL ALL THE GOBLINS.
Because they're goblins, a stupid nuisance for sellswords and schmucks like yourselves to take care of.

>WHAT DO THESE GOBLINS EVEN EAT? I HAVEN'T SEEN A FOOD STORAGE.
Bats, bugs rats, rocks, boots, babies, and even other dead goblins.

>WHERE DO THEY POOP? I HAVEN'T SEEN A TOILET.
They poop wherever they want. Oh, they eat their own poop too.

>>51283428
>But I doubt even they remember.
They put out a version of it for 3.X.

>>51283455
If I wasn't so lazy and knew how to properly write a rpg book, I would make a B/X + 4e game

>>51283383
Instead of marking what if it was harrying? I'm not sure what marking would actually mean in the fiction. Then maybe you gain a bonus to attack them if they choose to attack someone else.

>>51283487
If you're not taking AEDU from 4e, you can just nail Combat and Tactics onto B/X.

>>51283068
>>51283051
How's this sort of stuff sound?

1. Gruesome murders grow more complicated when the slain bodies begin to gasp out names.
2. Standing tall in the center of the great city is an ancient cathedral; the restless dead are amassing beneath it.
3. At the summit of the great mountain rests an ancient axe, possessed with a powerful warrior spirit.
4. The leather-clad barbarian horde has arrived to slay a great beast.
5. A asylum for the mentally disturbed is ruptured by a great explosion.
6. A masked wizard descends from the sky, bringing with him a rain of meteorites and living flame.
7. A cursed ring, still attached to the withered finger of its previous owner.
8. Hundreds of corpses leave their grave to sojourn to an unholy site.
9. Blood-sucking creatures with pale skin and sunken eyes travel on a cold northern wind.
10. Cloaked figures hand out fliers for a solstice party.

Rolled 2 (1d10)

>>51283499

>>51283496
>If you're not taking AEDU from 4e
I want that though

>you can just nail Combat and Tactics onto B/X
Are you talking about the Player's Option book?

>>51283499
Sounds good. Especially that 10th one.

I'm using this shit for SenZar, feel free to be as cheesy as you like.

File: ShutUpAndTakeMyMoney!.jpg (32KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x337px

>>51283499

It sounds like I have a new setting!

Rolled 62 (1d100)

>>51283499
Wait, you (>>51283029) do d100s?
Whoops.

File: Bard.png (156KB, 491x394px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 491x394px

>>51283557
>>51283560
Sweet, thanks.

>>51283568
Yeah, I've done 5 of these for /osrg/ before and I'll finish this one tonight. I'm also totally gonna shill my shitty, barebones blog.

http://www.occultesque.com/

It's just gonna be weird tables, events, places and the occasional mini-adventure. Don't expect a whole lot, but it's only gonna be creative content.

>>51283774
Make 62 a good one.

>>51283383
Sure
The mark ability was always one of the more ingenious moves from 4e, specifically the fighters combat challenge
>if you try to ignore the fighter and go for his friends he boinks you in the head.

Great way to reinforce the idea of "don't ignore the heavily armored and armed dude in front of you". People shat on it for being similar to aggro from mmos but who the fuck said that everything taken from mmos is automatically bad? If a vydia comes up with a cool idea in a game that can be applied to a tabletop RPG what's wrong with stealing it? Nothing except the strange nerd elitism that permeates the hobby.

File: screenshot_03.jpg (139KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1280x720px

>>51283560
>OSR game set in the brutal legend setting

>>51284019
I'd play it. That game was great until it became an RTS.

>>51283967
D I S A S S O C I A T E D
M E C H A N I C S

>>51283428
>But I doubt even they remember.
Anon, they just posted Chainmail for sale as a PDF on RPGNow last week.

That being said, a Chainmail retroclone would just be in the same exact murky legal water as every single D&D retroclone. Oh, and doesn't Platemail exist already?

>>51284221
>Platemail
What's that?

>>51284061
just googled that term

And from the definition give by the most popular result, marking isn't a disassociated mechanic in any way

it's meant to represent the fact that the fighter is actively hindering an enemy. Literally every class that marked had an in-game way of manifesting.
The paladins challenge is a literall spell, as is the swordmage, and the warden uses nature magic. The fighters mark required the fighter to be close to the enemy, so it's physically stopping the enemy.

>>51284304
A Chainmail retroclone, obviously.
At least, I think it is.

>>51280977
You build a castle BECAUSE you live in a monster-infested wilderness. The people who don't manage to build one in spite of the risks don't survive.

File: th[1].jpg (13KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x300px

>>51284304

>>51284349

Skimming over it, it looks like a game that is sort of a Chainmail/OD&D mashup. Heavier on the Chainmail half, but adding stuff like reaction rolls and so forth from OD&D.

So, I'm using roll20 to run a smal game.
My question is, since I have a premade map, and I'm using the fog of war feature to hide the rooms that haven't been seen yet, when I decribe the rooms, I don't need to say "this is an X by X square room" right? I can just skip to the actual contents since the players can already see the shape on the map.

I'm aware that doing it this way prevents player mapping since the players will automatically have a map based on where they have been trough, but I'd rather do that than have my friends show their mspaint skills. The amount of time it takes to manually map anything on roll20 is way too long.

>>51284473
>I don't need to say "this is an X by X square room" right?
I shouldn't have thought so. Unless you turn the grid off or something, and don't include some sort of scale bar.

>>51284473

Sure, if your group is not into mapping, then do it that way.

>>51284514
>>51284552
Yeah cool. I was wondering because every single description of rooms I see only has the "x by x" at the start.

File: 1390151239437.png (19KB, 241x274px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 241x274px

>>51284386

Since DCC Lankhmar isn't out yet, what system should I use if I want a Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser vibe?

File: Witcher 3 Bear Armor.jpg (209KB, 2100x998px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 2100x998px

>Using Plate
>When Brigandines exist

>>51284957
style isn't going to save you from a goblin sword

>>51284947
There are some AD&D Lankhmar products, and some Savage Worlds ones, but I don't know what sort of quality they are.

We talked a bit about FLAILSNAILS games last thread.

Maybe we should try something like it for /osrg/?

So...how do the treasure tables in ACKS work exactly? It seems cluttered.

>>51285507
use this
http://www.autarch.co/treasure

select the kind of treasure you want and boom all the rolling automatically done for you

>>51285444
>implying any of us play

File: Reading a monster manual.gif (2MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x203px

>>51285444

I don't like flailsnails because I don't like genre mixing.

I'm sure my 10,000,000th fantasy setting is roughly compatible with the other 9,999,999 fantasy settings other people have cooked up, but the slight differences in cosmologies and class/character types, plus anything to do with how fighters and shit advance seem too difficult to work out.

>>51285558
Funposting in /osrg/ is the ultimate dungeon experience if you think about it

>>51285535
Thank goodness. Much appreciated Anon.

>>51285623
All that's needed is one agreed upon system, and whenever differences pop up you just go "oh, that's so much different than how it is in my dimension!" and handwave it. That doesn't seem so hard?

>>51285638
I dunno, I don't think they liked That Guys back then either.

I haven't ever dropped cursed items in my dungeons before. How do I introduce the concept without it seeing like an out of nowhere dick move to my newbie players?

Specifically, cursed scrolls. Every scroll I dropped so far has been already identified. If I suddenly drop an unidentified one it'll be like when cursed scrolls drop in baldurs gate 2, you instantly know they're cursed because they're the only scrolls that are unidentified.

>>51285767
Give them a scroll of Remove Curse a few sessions in advance.
That alone should introduce the concept, and it also makes the later cursed scrolls sting a bit less.

Which game should I use if I want to capture a Conan vibe with my OSR games?

How should I go about it.

>>51282780
>>51282968

Why do you want to change things for the sake of changing things?

Let Fighters have their feats, and not worry about picking the most OP weapon combos.

>>51279674
I would love to read these, but they never have it at the used book store.

>>51285918
I'm not saying they shouldn't have feats, I'm saying feats like "weapon focus" (+1 to hit) or "dodge" (+1 ac) or "toughness" (+3hp) are lame. Separating mechanical bonuses from the "do cool shit" feats is better.

>>51285808
ooh great idea thanks!

>>51285825
Crypts and Things. The better option is to go play RuneQuest 6 / Mythras instead.

>>51286060
What about ZEFRS?

File: krystian-biskup-untitled222fa.jpg (374KB, 1920x875px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1920x875px

>>51285992
Literally just steal Mighty Deeds from DCC if you need a mechanic to justify Fighters doing cool shit.

>>51286080
Never fucked with it, so I can't give an opinion. There's also Astonishing Sorcerers and Swordsmen of Hyperborea which is pretty decent. ACKs is fairly good if you want to do the whole "barbarian-to-king" thing. But at the risk of starting an argument, I still say that specifically Conan-esque / Sword and Sorcery things are better served with RQ6/Mythras.

>>51285679
I sat LotFP or b/x

>rules cyclopedia mystics only get 9 HD
WHY

>>51286233
Because all the other classes only get 9 HD. Or fewer!

>>51286243
BECMI mystics getting 16 HD was the only reason to even consider playing a mystic

>>51286150
>Literally just steal Mighty Deeds from DCC if you need a mechanic to justify Fighters doing cool shit.

I agree but the other anon really wants feats for some reason, and has continuously dismissed any suggestions about the mighty deeds stuff from DCC

File: barbarians of lemuria spiel.png (96KB, 869x425px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 869x425px

>>51285825
You might want to look at Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea, which is influenced in no small part by Conan. The downside is that it's based on 1e, and is heavier than I care for it to be, at least from what I remember.

Outside the D&D family, Barbarians of Lemuria is a nice rules-light game that might work for you (see pic).

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

>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, shorter but not as refined) --http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf

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

>>51283774
>>51283568
>>51283560
>>51283557
>>51283517
>>51283051
Finished. Enjoy.

http://www.occultesque.com/2017/01/1d100-heavy-metal-inspired-events.html

What are some good fighter abilities that aren't just cleave and parrying?

>>51286438
Throwing benches and tables.

>>51286449
And shields. And goblins.

>>51286438
Busting through walls, Kool-Aid Man style!

>>51286438
they're usually pretty good with bblg

>>51286438
Mighty Deed of Arms

>>51286562
In Exemplars and Eidolons you can build the Kool-Aid Man.

>>51286438
Wielding mundane objects just as well as other people can wield proper weapons.

>>51285825
>>51286327

Second for Barbarians of Lemuria if you're willing to try lightweight indie. It's pretty specifically designed for playing Howard-esque characters.

I think it really depends on what you mean by Conan. You can easily just use OD&D or B/X or whatever, and put all the Conan stuff in worldbuilding and adventures. Running Red Nails as an adventure would work as well in D&D as in anything else.

File: 1d100 heavy metal shit.png (407KB, 1392x2208px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1392x2208px

>>51286357
And for those that don't want to bother clicking that link, I mspainted it into an image.

>>51286926
>99
That's just Discworld, not metal.

>>51287036
Not d100Anon, but I'll do you one better:
>99. Death manifests, seeking death through glorious combat.

File: pentagram[1].jpg (68KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x600px

>>51287036
But honestly, there's so many metal album covers of the reaper just doing mundane things that it kinda fits.

>>51287070
>Death manifests, seeking himself
Whoah, that's metaphysical.

>>51287070
>not Death seeking life in glorious combat

File: Fighter descrption write up teaser.png (39KB, 592x435px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 592x435px

Based on feedback ITT, been revamping my feat and fighter system.

File: perdition cover.png (4MB, 978x1350px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 978x1350px

>>51279523
Reading Perdition now. I was excited about it based on the concept but so far it's a bit of a disappointment. The character generation process is really convoluted and there doesn't appear to be a character sheet anywhere in the book to give an idea of what the finished product is supposed to look like. I had to read it three times before I realized you actually had two HP scores, one for physical HP and one for mental HP. The whole process took a lot of flipping back and forth between references and rules scattered across the book.

The whole thing feels way too complicated and granular to count as OSR, despite what the designer claims. There are lists and lists of feats and skills that would be right at home in 3.5, along with complicated armor class calculations and elaborate distinctions between spell schools.

Has anyone tried running or playing it?

>>51280053
This really. Players aren't entitled to having detailed information about everything.

>>51287320
P good.

>>51280440
Unfortunately with popularity comes cancer.

>>51287320
I like special attack- very flavourful. The other feats are pretty neat too.
Not the biggest fan of fighting styles- I think what you've got would work perfectly well without them, and they look a bit too convoluted.

>>51287817

Well I want to know how to give the fighting man's linear advancement (ie the +1s to hit and damage and AC and such) that doesn't get in the way of feats.

Tying them to weapons that way makes them somewhat self limiting and I hope that players may create combat styles out of doing it. As in when they bust out the flail you know their going to go to work because they just put all 4 flail style points into damage so they can smash shit. But maybe they switch to a rapier because they gave themselves +3 AC with that as a defensive style and so on.

I think it's a cool system though fighters are still pretty linear.

>>51285444
Might be a fun idea. I think I should be able to run games for European time zone players if there are any.

>>51285623
Obviously the games should be ran at least approximately by the book. That leaves all the 3.pf homebrews out and then there's no problem.

>>51285767
Making an item cursed is NOT a dick move. Cursed items are integral to the D&D experience. The players will learn to be careful as soon as encounter a cursed item for the first time. If they don't learn, it's their own problem.

Let the first cursed item be a lesson for the players. Don't make it too deadly, but do make it a nuisance.

Remember: Player skill, not character skill.

File: 1st.08.pages.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

True AD&D™

>>51285679
>whenever differences pop up you just go "oh, that's so much different than how it is in my dimension!" and handwave it.

Story goes a guy went to a con and joined a game being run by Dave Arneson. Arneson pointed at a bunch of sheets and said to "help yourself." Guy picks up the sheets and looks at them, and is confused. There are 1e sheets, 3e sheets, 4e sheets, basic sheets. Guy says "Hey, these are all different. What edition are we going to be playing?" and Arneson just smiles, extends a hand to shake, and says "Hi, I'm Dave Arneson."

File: Mage.jpg (635KB, 850x1100px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 850x1100px

I've been considering removing the cleric and letting the MU use new supportive spells and magic.

How many others have done this? This seems like a common system thing many people have done, but I want to know exactly how it changes a game and the players within it. Does it make the game easier or harder? Do people enjoy the change? Etc.

>>51288632
I don't think it would change the game too much. Seven Voyages of Zylarthen does this. It's in the trove so check it out.

>>51288632
but are you going to have thieves?

>>51288198
... I feel dumb but I don't get it.

>>51289352

Why is this question always asked?

It's not like it matters, if somebody wants to exclude the thief OR the cleric, the inclusion of one does not automatically mean you have to cut out the other.

>>51289451
You didn't answer the question...

>>51288632
Off the top of my head, some complications that may arise:

It'll make magic users much more important and viable, of course.

It would make it so fighting men would be the only class to check around for and buy armor and weapons, and the only one to really get close and personal in a fight.

It would make undead more powerful, in case the MU doesn't get the turn undead skill. Or the undead needs to be rebalanced.

Magic user players might be forced to pick healing and boost spells by other players and therefor not getting a lot of fun things to play with (since they can't wear armor or really help in combat).

That's what I can think of now. Just to make sure you've examined your own design choice, how do you think removing the cleric and changing the MU will help the game you're making?

>>51288632
I've considered the same thing, and I don't think most OSR systems are so finely balanced that you'll break the game by shifting things around like that.

Right now though, I'm thinking of homebrewing the cleric's spell casting a little to make something that more easily fits my idea of a mystic or cultist--basically anybody who gets power from ritual, religious mysteries, or folk tradition instead of quasiscientific study, rather than a cleric who always feels a bit like a catholic crusader.

I feel my gripe with the cleric is that he sticks out as being a very specific archetype (especially because of turning undead) while the others feel very broad and open to interpretation.

>>51289880
>Or the undead needs to be rebalanced
Or they just become fearsome and implacable foes. You could also open up the turning skill to the whole party--maybe you can hold undead by chanting from scripture and presenting a holy symbol (perhaps with a charisma check modified by the monster's HD?). One party member must be occupied with nothing but fervent chanting to maintain the effect.

However, I agree that his idea puts too much utility on the MU. I feel part of the tradeoff with being the weedy MU is that you get to enjoy playing around with the weird and impressive spells.

To balance it a bit more, I'd instead go the route of allowing the specialist to take a first aid skill, and also perhaps allow the MU to make weak healing potions or antidotes with a modest lab. Saves the MU's precious spell slots, and fits his theme of preparing limited use resources in advance.

Not sure how to handle the higher level healing magic. Perhaps they are rituals that must be played out, rather than spells one can write in a book?

File: TheZealot gifts.png (27KB, 295x498px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 295x498px

Working on Zealots next.

>>51289410
I think the point was simply that Arneson, being on top of things with regards to the game he co-created, didn't worry over little differences, and was willing to handwave away the discrepancies between editions. Or at least that's what I took it to be.

>>51285767
>Specifically, cursed scrolls. Every scroll I dropped so far has been already identified. If I suddenly drop an unidentified one it'll be like when cursed scrolls drop in baldurs gate 2, you instantly know they're cursed because they're the only scrolls that are unidentified.
"Cursed scroll" entries on the treasure tables normally specify that they look like a scroll of a different type, and to roll again to see what it is.

Personally, the way I run it is that you have to read the scroll to ID it, and since cursed scrolls take effect immediately upon reading, there you go. But it's too late for you to start doing that, I guess.

Has anyone gotten Blood in the Chocolate?

File: Kenku.png (1MB, 1167x1654px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1167x1654px

>>51281720

>>51291028
thanks.

>>51287416
I haven't played it, but I agree. It's not what I was hoping for.

>>51289352
Yes.
They have a 4 in 6 chance of opening locked or stuck doors.
At first level.

>>51291483
Don't forget to let them use that on held portals and wizard locks.

>>51288632
Not this shit again

>>51288632
Dragon Warriors does this for its Sorceror Class, but then again the class makeup is different (the basic four classes are Knight, Barbarian, Sorcerer and Mystic, and the latter is more of a self-buffing type) IME the Sorceror is more useful with healing spells but also more limited in action - the MP you spend in blasting a goblin to ashes is MP you don't have when the Knight in front of you takes a bad hit and needs to get back into the fray.

>>51288632
>This seems like a common system thing many people have done, but I want to know exactly how it changes a game and the players within it. Does it make the game easier or harder? Do people enjoy the change?
Like someone else pointed out, it tends to choke out the MU's options to some extent because the fighty players want healing. One thing that might happen is a tendency for mages to become divided into blasty-wizards and healy-wizards, and at that point it seems like there's not much difference between that and a M-U/Cleric division.

I'd advise something more along the lines of >>51290433's suggestion, where magical healing is just removed from the spell slot system, or possibly out of the party's hands entirely.

>>51292657
At this point we need an /osrg/ bingo sheet to check the shit popping up every thread.

File: OSR bingo.jpg (50KB, 1013x609px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1013x609px

>>51293125
I got you covered senpai

>>51293314
Needs
>Magic should always corrupt/mutate
>Magic should always be whimsical
>Traveler
>bitching about story games
>why play OD&D?

>>51293749
Will add them, I posted this just to get new ideas

>>51293314
3.PF tier homebrews.

File: OSR bingo.jpg (115KB, 1413x765px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1413x765px

I hope this is better

>>51293314
>>51293920
Oooooor we could not do any of this.

>>51293996
>Oooooor we could not do any of this.
Yeah, I know, but someone WILL do this, so it's better if I do it

>>51293314
This is missing
>100 flavors of skill/attribute checks
>"How can I spice up my fighters?"
>cantrips
>"OSRGeneral used to be civil"
>THE TROVE IS DOWN!
(I'm calling it, it *will* happen again)

>>51293852

Already covered by ___ isn't OSR, Feats mentioned, and Rocks are OP.

File: Blank-Bingo-Cards.jpg (101KB, 837x611px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 837x611px

>>51294180
Mine so far.

>>51294444
>Mine so far.
it's great

also
>4444
those quads

>>51294444
I don't think there's anything obnoxious about dudes wanting others to check out their hexcrawl maps, I don't feel like that belongs on there. And I've never even posted a hexcrawl map.

>>51294856
I actually agree. I like it when people post their campaign maps...plus hexcrawls are fun

File: mental hp.png (159KB, 1333x797px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1333x797px

>>51287416
>The whole thing feels way too complicated and granular to count as OSR
You know, there's a whole lot of crunch spectrum in the OSR and it doesn't start with something like Maze Rats and ends with something like ACKS. Yes, right now you'll more likely to encounter another The Something Hack, just as you were more likely to encounter B/X spinoff couple of years ago. That doesn't exclude stuff that's closer to AD&D in terms of crunch from being OSR. And the author of Perdition loves AD&D, social conflict rules and whatnot. I wouldn't use that much detail in my games either and would actually like to have hella lot more tables, something along the lines of Hubris. But there's still quite a lot of support for the playstyle the guy intended and it's fairly oldschool in terms of intent. Still, gotta warn build-allergic people to stay away.

Also I thought the book was fairly well organized, but then I saw

>had to read it three times before I realized you actually had two HP scores, one for physical HP and one for mental HP

and concluded that based on pic related I'll have to point out that you might be, in fact, retarded. No offense though.

>>51294444
>>51293314
>>51293920
free space should just be the word "gonzo"

>>51295021
>That doesn't exclude stuff that's closer to AD&D in terms of crunch from being OSR
Not the guy you were responding to, but I agree with this. On the other hand, that fact doesn't prevent someone who was hoping for something different from being let down, which was what Anon was saying. So...

>The Something Hack
Now there's something that ought to be on the bingo chart.

>>51293996
>Oooooor we could not do any of this.
I don't see why not.
It's just poking fun at reoccurring arguments. Who would be so thin-skinned as to be offended by that?

>>51295132
Enough people to make the threads unreadable. This particular one started on a wrong foot already, I don't see why people should add to it "for the lulz." And bingos are already passive-aggressive as fuck.

>>51295160
Nah man, lighten up. It's just a joke. Taking arguments too seriously is what's causing all the trouble.

>>51280815
I agree. I'm running one of two games this way atm. Everyone has a blast with the inexplicable run-ins. Randumb is fun with the right people

File: 1484748023541.jpg (70KB, 716x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 716x960px

>>51295160
Relax, we don't need to fixate on what made this thread bad [even though we all know it was the assholes who insist on maintaining strict adherence every rulebook as written]

>>51295501
>even though we all know it was the assholes who
Just stop.

File: Fritz Leiber - FGM 1 - Swords and Deviltry.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51285990
Protip: Add,

filetype:pdf
filetype:gif
filetype:docx
.
.
.
filetype:<extension>

to your google searches.
It filters results by filetype.

>>51291483
>4 in 6
Use 1 in 6, but as many attempts as they'd like. 1 turn per attempt.

>>51295942
too late. Thanks for the (you)

>>51280815
>>51295352
But if every random NPC will challenge or geas PCs then that IS internally consistent and operates on an internal logic, the logic being "everyone turns into an asshole the minute they get power."

True randomness would entail never knowing whether the fighting-man will challenge you, accuse you of a crime, seduce you, or turn purple.

>>51294856
It doesn't have to be obnoxious, just common enough to be memorable.

>>51285990
The two Fantasy Masterworks omnibuses aren't that expensive even new, honestly.

>>51296240
this. Just because it's in the bingo doesn't mean it's bad

it just means it's in every thread

>>51296240
>>51296367
That's not how bingo sheets normally work, though. They collect common claims or arguments the maker thinks are stupid, so you can go FEDORA BINGO! or FEMINAZI BINGO! or whatever your personal butthurt happens to be.

If it were just a question of frequency we could fill the damn thing with "D&D is played" or "hey guys, my in my game..."

>>51284313
By itself it's not disassociated but the way it interacts with other marks is. In 4e you could only be marked once. If the paladin made a divine challenge and then the fighter got in that enemy's business, the divine challenge disappeared because ???

File: 1471525797965.gif (263KB, 480x479px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 480x479px

>>51296367
>Just because it's in the bingo doesn't mean it's bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzdsuCIzvOE

>>51294444
>2E isn't really OSR!

>>51296722
Making 1 concession for game balance doesn't make the entire mechanic disassociated though.

>>51296845
The way the fighter mark worked was also really weird. Flavoring it as a dude in your face is fine and all, except that it worked even if you missed them with your javelin and the mark didn't drop if you were 100 feet away.

>>51296810
Honestly, the whole OSR is a sham. There's all this "roots of the hobby" and "RPG history" bullshit bandied when it's really just people reacting against 3.PF/4e. Not to mention the "oldschool" definition is a load of bullshit. The Fantasy Trip had point-buy attributes in 1977 but this isn't considered "REAL oldschool" by D&Ddrones because T$R didn't publish it. Yet somehow BECMI from 1983 is "REAL oldschool" because of the holy imprimatur of T$R, Inc. Then there are the dozens of "new" OSR games that are just lazy copypastes of B/X with houserules but which the OSR hivemind heralds as though the solution to the problem of how to REALLY play D&D. And that's not even touching the endless bitching about rule X or Y while refusing to look outside of D&D/retroclones for possible solution.

inb4 someone uses that retarded "but the OSR started because people wanted to re-examine D&D" That shit was over 10 years ago, there's nothing left to re-examine, the "philosophers" of the OSR beat every dead horse they could find. Nor should the origins of a movement prohibit its evolution. Instead we get shit like OD&D IN SPACE! OD&D WITH CAPES! B/X WITH HORROR! B/X BUT WITH A MODERN SETTING! B/X BUT IN INDIA! because fanboys can't bear to leave their little D&D pond.

File: RatedB.jpg (23KB, 220x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x300px

>>51297478

Those are some hot opinions you got there, anon.

>>51297478
I can't even argue with you here, as you kinda got a point here and there.

>>51297478
>can't bear to leave their little D&D pond.

Plenty of people here play also other systems though. I myself run D&D 4e, shadowrun, Log Horizon and Only war. But it's silly to want to discuss those systems in the OSR thread. Do you go to the ongoing shadowrun general and complain that they keep discussing shadowrun on their thread?

>>51297478
It's not that other games aren't old school; it's that other old games aren't compatible with D&D, and so don't really fit in the same conversation, at least once you get past generalities. A discussion of the mechanics of, say, B/X is probably going to be relevant to AD&D. A discussion of the rules of Traveller, not so much. Terms take on their own meanings, and you just need to not get autistic about the words that make up "OSR" and accept it as a rubric under which old school D&D falls. It's not a diss on other games, just like it's not a diss on D&D if I start a thread on Savage Worlds, or something.

>>51297614
>I myself run D&D 4e, shadowrun, Log Horizon and Only war.
Good for you.

>But it's silly to want to discuss those systems in the OSR thread.
Was I advocating the discussion of 00s games? The Fantasy Trip is a 70s game and just as oldschool as AD&D. And it has a retroclone with pieces of D&D, Heroes & Other Worlds.

>Do you go to the ongoing shadowrun general and complain that they keep discussing shadowrun on their thread?
Shadowrun is a game system and a setting. I doubt they'd have a problem with me asking if they've a) used the system for a different setting or b) run the setting using a different system.

>>51297622
>it's that other old games aren't compatible with D&D
That's patently false. You can swap sub-systems between all sorts of systems, even GURPS Man-To-Man can be used with OD&D. And you don't even discuss games that are officially compatible with the D&D family like Gamma World, Boot Hill or Metamorphosis Alpha.

>Terms take on their own meanings
That's a set of weasel words if I ever saw one. People create meanings and people change them. Just because OSR is code for "TSR D&D" doesn't mean it should stay that way.

>>51297789
>Just because OSR is code for "TSR D&D" doesn't mean it should stay that way.
Yes it does. Also, I remember you from old, comfier /osrg/ threads (the T$R shit and wanting to talk about The Fantasy Trip are dead giveaways). You were a baiting faggot back then and you're a baiting faggot now.

>>51297977
>Yes it does.
Why? If all material has already been examined and innovation is stagnating, why shouldn't the OSR expand beyond its initial meaning?

>You were a baiting faggot back then and you're a baiting faggot now.
And you're a defensive as ever.

>>51298072
Just leave. Go have your meltdown elsewhere.

>>51298072

Go make yourself a Fantasy Trip thread and shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your concern troll bullshit

>>51298072
>innovation is stagnating
Kek, like we haven't had a pile of brilliant innovative material come out in the last couple of years.

>>51297789
>>51298072
You want to talk about any other oldschool games you can make a thread about it. This thread is about a specific set of oldschool games. It was never the intention of anyone to discuss every single game ever released between the dawn of RPGs and the 90s.

>why shouldn't the OSR expand beyond its initial meaning?
Why should it? You're free to try and change the rest of the internet on what it means but here on /tg/ you're always free to discuss whatever old game you want, just go and make your thread.

>>51298186
>brilliant innovative material
Name them, the year of their release, and how they innovated.

>>51298331
>Why should it?
He's just assblasted because OSR D&D has a vital and creative subculture or whatever you want ot call it, whereas he knows full well he'll get five replies to a TFT thread because nobody cares. So he wants to attach to the OSR like a lamprey in the hopes of forcing us to discuss his thing he likes.

Fatbeards think this actually works; compare the horrible fuckups at bad game stores and how they behave.

>>51298332
>catering to a trololol
>ever
Ha, no. If you're really interested in OSR material you can go immerse yourself in the fantastic plethora of blogs and groups available.

>>51298072
Have you examined every 16-page TSR-published Adventurer's Guild module from the late 20th century?

>>51298331
>>51298331
>This thread is about a specific set of oldschool games.
TSR D&D games, of which less than half are even oldschool by your definitions. >

>Why should it?
Because an incestuous environment where everything must be D&D will die.

>>51298423
>If you're really interested in OSR material you can go immerse yourself in the fantastic plethora of blogs and groups available.
Yes, the blogs that are all run by the people who are friends with the authors of that "innovative" material. Surely they won't be biased.

>>51298439
Have you read the Proportional Combat System or the Challenges System from an even earlier period? Both of which are explicitly intended for D&D. Have you read Warlock, which Holmes wrote before the official D&D Basic set? Have you read Tunnels & Trolls 1st Edition, one of the first attempts to make a "fixed" D&D?

Thanks for nothing, bingo anons.

>>51298592
>TSR D&D games, of which less than half are even oldschool by your definitions.

So your only complaint is the name.
Fine go convince the internet to change the osr name to "old school dnd revengeance" or whatever.

It still wont make anyone change what they want to talk about.

>Because an incestuous environment where everything must be D&D will die.
You cant force people to talk about the things you want.

>>51298715
You can't force people to not talk about the things you don't want either.

>>51298659
Im adding "bitching about the bingo" to the bingo

Ill also be posting it on every thread until you like it

>>51298798
Youre right. Which is why youre free to make your own thread or blog and talk about whatever you want there.

>>51298815
I'd tell you to stop funposting but it is what we have.

>>51298845
But then what would i do with my life? Its not like i actually have a group that will tolerate my massive autism for long enough to actually play rpgs

Guys, do you like classes with random tables (like Alice)? I know Zak made some, are there more other than the ones he made?

Has anybody tried plopping LotFP modules in the middle of your otherwise traditional campaign as an occasional metaphorical land mine? I'm running a pretty traditional hex crawl game but I want to hide some odd stuff here and there.

Is this a good idea, or will my players kill me?

>>51298950
>will my players kill me?
depends on your players, mine would love some bullshit/gonzo stuff, even on a traditional game

>>51298950

I say go for it. Most of the modules have an "apocalypse trigger" in them somewhere, but most of them have it fairly difficult to get at. (DFD is an exception, I'd do that as a one-off before the campaign proper, or as a prequel kind of deal where you get to see what happened a while back, and then next session someone comes in to the local tavern talking about news of an undead horde in the east or whatever.

>>51298993
Which ones have major Apocalypse Triggers other than DFD? As it's one of the only two I've read the other being The Monolith one. If they are world crippling rather than world destroying it may be interesting to try and clean up after that sort of thing.

>>51298949
>Guys, do you like classes with random tables (like Alice)?
Yeah, they're pretty cool. I especially like the wizard.
>I know Zak made some, are there more other than the ones he made?
If there are I've never seen them. I don't think it caught on in that way.

>>51298950
>this a good idea, or will my players kill me?
That depends
If they suddenly have to deal with world ending shit they might ge taken out of the game.

If its just a deadly dungeon its not big deal.

>>51298950
Broodmother Skyfortress is designed for this kind of shit, to rampage over and fuck up an existing game world. It's more of an active event than a passive hex location though.

>>51298949
I've used the one for fighters (warrior) as well as the Alice in my campaign. Me and my players didn't like the warrior too much so we stop using the rules, but the one player who's playing the Alice is enjoying it a lot. Although I guess the Alice is also only good in very specific circumstances for the most part. They're good in Red & Pleasant Land but not that good in other settings from my experience.

>>51299113
I recently bought that but have yet to read it. But that sounds amazing.

I'm trying to find out what the best of the DCC line of modules is so I can use them in my game world but they've made a lot of material.

Any solid recommendations?

>Playing acks
>5 sessions in
>only now realize magic missile is 1d6+1 instead of 1d4+1
>and cure light wounds is 1d6+1 instead of 1d8+1
>bless is a level 2 spell


Dammit I just assumed the spells worked like the AD&D 2e versions which I'm familiar with trough the various pc games.
I guess I need to read the entire magic chapter to make sure I didn't miss anything else

>>51298592
Why are you listing all these things when you haven't even examined every piece of material explicitly printed for AD&D

>>51298439
Adventurer's Guild modules will never be released by WotC because they're on the AD&D Reserved List. If they released PDFs for them (other than Dragotha's Lair) then Collectors would have their Investments devalued. WotC can't allow this. Therefore they're on the AD&D Reserved List.

>>51299571
Go to tenfootpole.org
I don't always agree with Bryce but he's generally got a good judgement.

>>51299870
Probably for the same reason that you're beating a horse that died over an hour ago.

Speaking of TFT, does anyone have a pdf of Heroes and Other Worlds?
It seems rather fascinating, and I'd like to check it out for a bit.

>>51299571
Start at 67, the earlier stuff isn't really that interesting compared to everything that comes later.
I'd personally recommend 67, 79, 80, 81, 83 and 84. They're pretty good.

>>51299824
Yeah, this is a classic tripwire when moving between editions. Imagine my surprise when I realized that Sleep *does* allow a magic save in OD&D (the save is implicit and applies to every spell; it's evident from context in e.g. the Dryad description, which specifies a penalty to the Charm save, otherwise never mentioned).

>>51286926
Please always do this, it makes it easy to share and keep in a folder. Would love if you can link the image on your blogpost also, otherwise I just screenshot tables I use myself.

>>51299974
I don't think anyone's pirated the whole thing but here's the official free stuff folder including Cauldron #0 (with quickstart rules):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/kc12z5tbxcbrw/Heroes%20%26%20Other%20Worlds

>>51295106
this

>>51299949
Why don't you post up some AG modules and shut me up. Probably because you're a twink toilet.

>>51299919
why would WOTC care about D&D collectors, they barely care about the D&D brand as it is

>>51300370
It's a MtG joke.

>>51296250
two?

How does one properly blend the style of old-school gaming with still proving set ways for players to mechanically flesh out their characters? And I'm not talking about min/maxing. I mean saying "I want to be a Druid who has an affinity for lying and picking locks."

Simply reskin the cleric, do roll-unders for Bluff and maybe give a 1-in-6 chance to pick a lock?

>>51301666
Why would a hermit living in the woods ever need to know how to pick a lock? Trees don't have locks dude, trees don't have locks.

>>51301707
Reformed burglar who found nature?

>>51301720
Cool, I buy it.

File: Kobold fighter adventurer colored.jpg (76KB, 935x854px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 935x854px

>>51301666

Well Satan, I've actually ran a game or two using the ol' adventure point system, though I renamed it to Quest Points.

Basically everybody starts with 4 or so QP to spend on their character. QP includes things like;
>Starting with a basic skill (lockpicking, fighting skill, etc)
>Starting with a minor magic item
>Starting with magic powers/spells
>Pets or Minions
>Having an unusual ability or unnaturally high attribute in something

Each one of these would cost a QP to have. For instance you could make a standard fighter (+2 AC from starting armor, +2 to hit with fighting skills, maybe a magic blade or pet and boosted strength/dex/con), or you could make a weird character.

For instance your Druid could easily be a 4 QP character too- just have a druid ability like talking to animals, maybe the ability to cast a druid spell or entangle people in vines, maybe healing or herblore, and then the lockpicking ability to go with it.

Obviously this works well with story games and freeform games, but less if you want a more legit OSR experience. I guess you could just let people pick and choose different elements of each character class, or build your own lockpicking druid class for fun.

>>51301666
I use primarily LotFP. If I'm going for more"universal" characters I give everyone a couple skill points and a increasing attack bonus. Sometimes I up the skill list too

>>51301666
Let players argue for it when appropriate. "My character was a blacksmith, he should get more detail on the value of this sword"
or "He's a robot, mind control doesn't work!"

skill checks are stupid.

>>51300685
Yeah, uh, "First Book of Lankhmar" and "Second Book of Lankhmar" IIRC.

Man, I really hope you're Anon from awhile ago who was sad that he had finished all of it. Another half!

>>51301898
not that anon, i am new to the books

>>51301666
since this thread is on thin ice, let me first say that everyone elses responses are perfectly valid. This is just how me and my group think
> mechanically fleshing out characters
We don't think fleshing out the pawns that will likely not even make it to second level is worth it. Characters only get fleshed out if they survive level 1. And I'm a big believer in protecting class niches so letting another class use the thieves skills is a no go.

Also If I'm playing b/x or a retroclone of it, I'm using the classes provided. Pick an existing class and that's it. And be happy uncle gygax even let you be a disgusting subhuman.

>>51301666
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy

>>51302056
As unrelated to OSR as it is, I'd enjoy seeing how the old school playstyle would work in different games.

File: psychedelic_background-min.jpg (506KB, 1320x1199px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1320x1199px

>>51301666
Add more skills to LotFP, and remove some. With a little work, you can have all the basic 5e skills covered:


[DEX] Acrobatics [Balance, Climb, Jump, Tumble]
[WIS] Bushcraft [Survival, Handle Animal]
[INT] Knowledge [Appraisal, History, Religion, Lore]
[INT] Languages [Forgery, Decipher]
[WIS] Medicine [Heal]
[STR] Open Doors [force open doors]
[WIS] Search [Spot, Find Traps]
[DEX] Sleight-of-Hand [Pick-Pocket]
[CHA] Speechcraft [Bluff, Intimidate, Perform]
[DEX] Stealth [Hide, Move Silently]
[DEX] Tinkering [Lockpicking, Remove Traps]
Sneak Attack [damage multiplier]


Replace the d6 rolls with a d12 and let everyone add their modifiers to the skill.
Now only let the Specialist freely upgrade skills; 4 Points per level (8 at Level 1.)
Success a d12 roll equal-or-under your Skill number -or- [d12+Skill Number] equal-or-over 12.

There. Grogs will have a heart attack and modern day gamers can rejoice at familiar ground.

>>51302097
Eh, outside of building the characters it's not much more mechanically complex that AD&D 1e. If I had to run an OSR game with a point-buy system I'd use Terra Primate or All Flesh Must Be Eaten. Less math and they're semi-class-based

>>51302125
You could go with BRP as well. Really, I think any generic system would do hexcrawl sandboxes with some elbow grease. Personally I'd go with Dragon Warriors.

>>51302125
Unisystem in general is neat for stuff. They even have a fantasy supplement.

>>51302107
Keep Sneak Attack at d6, however.

>>51288632
>>51290433
>>51293049

Well I know its late in the thread, but I appreciate the feedback anyway.

Originally I was going to do a meme where spellslots that are used for permanent stuff are basically expended permanently. Your Mystic/Magician can heal wounds but doesn't come back until all the wounds heal naturally, which can take days obviously. So its less healing and more like Temp HP is the idea.

>>51302174
>>51302174
>They even have a fantasy supplement.
And it has a Tomb of Horrors knock-off inside.
Then there's the fan-splat that adds Umber Hulks and other oldschool stuff.

>>51302107
why do they always use this ugly girl? who is she? is it supposed to be some hipster in-joke?

>>51302157
I've been considering introducing the concept via my group's game of choice, Mini Six. Looks like it's mostly a matter of bolting on the D6 Fantasy gear chapter and cribbing a few rules on traveling to fill in the blanks.

>>51301707
Reminder that you can Open Locks against spells that hold doors shut.

>>51302205
>Originally I was going to do a meme
Anon, never do memes. It will do no one any good.

File: female_knight_by_eliz7-d4cldcv.jpg (240KB, 629x819px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 629x819px

>>51302033
My players are all chaotic neutral drow. Umad?

>>51302224
She's most likely a real girl who models for him/his usual artist. Aside from her hair (obviously a dye job if it's not just the artist drawing it however he wants to fit the character) she's got a very typical Finnish appearance.

>>51295021
Yikes, looks like I struck a nerve. Are you one of the devs? Maybe you'd have better luck on >>>r/OSR

>>51302324
>Umad?
Not him, but I mad! Mad that you use nine-point alignment!

Seriously, it's much less good than three-point.

File: ALIGNMENT CHART.jpg (21KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x320px

>>51302346
why's that?

>>51294444
Honestly I think we need to remove clerics, mages and thieves and focus on making fighters complex and deep, so everyone can play one.

Bandits, necromancers and evil high priests are only fit to be enemies. They don't make good player characters.

>>51302337
How is that anon's post anything but calm?

>>51302388
Bandits are Fighting-Men, dingdong.

File: lady_knight_by_mannequin_atelier-d8bkno7.jpg (128KB, 662x1205px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 662x1205px

>>51302205
What I do, and what this guy (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/p/primary-house-rules.html) does, is give some cleric spells to wizards, but deliberately skip the healing ones. Healing is provided as a class ability for everyone through the distribution oof healing potions.

That way, healing is much more limited than 1/day, but no one character is forced to provide it.

Quick before the thread dies;

Good Sci-Fi OSR? I'd prefer something class based.

>>51302420
Wait, shit. My bait was so intelligently phrased now I'm actually considering what a game like that would be like.
don't be silly everyone knows bandits are gender fluid tiefling/halfdragons with sorcerer and rogue levels

>>51302432
Machinations of the Space Princess. If you've seen Heavy Metal 2K, it's got that sort of vibe going on, especially the Neo Calcutta bit.

>>51302425

I like it. Also works for me well since I don't even like the once per day thing, I prefer once per adventure abilites if that. So items work better here.

File: cover_lg.jpg (164KB, 670x900px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 670x900px

>>51302432
Gurps lensman

>>51302388
Friends don't let friends play Searchers of the Unknown, anon.

>>51302383
Because the Law-Chaos axis (You could buy all means use Good-Evil instead if you want, it's not like there's any actual difference between being saintly and beatific, or between diabolic and demoniac) is simple, unambiguous, presents a clear conflict, which you can make as simple as good guys vs. baddies or as complex as [deep metaphysical folderol] according to your own preference. It's also well adapted to actual play.

Nine-point makes a confused muddle of the whole thing, and it especially would if you took it as read, that the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axes are equally important. (In practice the way it works out is Good-Evil almost entirely subsumes Law-Chaos; you never, for instance, see an LG deity or person treating a CG peer as an equal enemy to an LG one, or regarding CG as definitely twice as bad. Which means that practically speaking, nine-point alignment is just three-point with added quibbling distinctions and hair-splitting, gaining nothing from just using clear three-point alignment.)

>>51302441
>spoiler
No, those are assbandits. That's not the same thing. Same as how a chocolate thief doesn't need to have Thief levels, and it's actually better if he doesn't have Remove Trap. Knobgoblins, same thing again! *Not necessarily a goblin.*

>>51302432
Star Frontiers

>>51279741
The PCs can investigate, wasting valuable time and resulting in a TPK if they waste too much time.

If the players consider themselves untalented murderhobos and not the best of the best though I will have the king pay them in coppers since afterall I had intended the PCs to be crack mercenaries.

>>51279912
well no, the guy who posted these did it to be a cunt, not to provoke interesting thought.

I think most players like that are automatically addicted to the idea that monster humanoids have to be EXACTLY like humans. Heaven forbid orcs be saprovore-like scavengers for example.

>>51302497
Exactly.

L nicely corresponds to civilization, N to the wilderness and C to the underworld, as well.

>>51302324
>using anything beyond "law-neutral-chaos"

shame on you

File: alignments.jpg (74KB, 821x524px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 821x524px

>>51302497
I certainly think that you can frame alignment in such a way that both axes are, if not equally important, at least individually significant. Take the pic, for example. The Lawful Good character makes an oath that nobody will be harmed and that negotiations will be carried out in good faith if the enemies come under a flag of truce to parley. The Chaotic Good character sees this as a great opportunity to lure the enemy into an ambush and slaughter them. That's highly dishonorable, and anybody playing a Lawful character under this scheme should have a huge problem with it. But as long as the enemy to be slaughtered is Evil (or maybe Neutral and hostile), the betrayal isn't Evil but Chaotic / Dishonorable. And under those circumstances, you could easily have a Lawful Evil character and a Chaotic Good one ready to come to blows over whether to betray the enemy (with the Chaotic Good one being "for" and the Lawful Evil "against").

But that requires you to put a decent bit of focus on alignment, and in reality, it seldom plays out with that sort of intricacy. I kind of think if you're going to include alignment at all, you should consider what sort of spin you're going to put on it, even if you retain the simple Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic three-alignment system. You could, for instance, stress it as a conflict between civilization (Law) and barbarity/nature (Chaos), and even there have a bit of nuance (the druid or ranger might shun what they see as the oppressive strictures of civilization and therefore fall under Chaos even while acting in ways that most people would consider good). But I'm also quite comfortable dropping alignment entirely and having alignment-dependent magic relate to holy vs. unholy (with undead, demons and shit being unholy).