/osrg/ OSR General - Cipher Edition

File: [Laughter Stops].png (200KB, 356x256px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 356x256px

Make requests for my next Encounter list or 50 things list.

I'm already working on the kitchen level of the megadungeon one, so if you requested that one just hand tight.

>>51303373
>>How often do puzzles show up in your games?
Almost every dungeon.
Most are not very complicated, but when the dice falls on "special" I don't have anything better to put in a room anyway.

Recently I had a magic wall being projected out of a holy symbol. on the wall behind it said "only the faithful may enter".
The solution is to simply bear a holy symbol of the correct religion. Or blow up the mundane walls on the side. My players have access to gunpowder, so either solution is likely.

File: 50 strange peddlers.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

And here's 50 peddlers.

>>51303419
50 puzzles!

File: 1850 - Goodwin - Leaving the City of Destruction.jpg (86KB, 960x755px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 960x755px

>>51299030
>Which [LotFP Modules] have major Apocalypse Triggers other than DFD?
>..If they are world crippling.. it may be interesting to try and clean up after.
This is gonna be a long one. There are a LOT of them.

The God that Crawls:
Spellbook that induces a compulsion to find the remaining pieces. As the number of pieces combined increases, the power of the spells inside also increase. Induces creeping data corruption; if the book is completed, the universe falls apart.


Scenic Dunnsmouth - ties into Death Frost Doom, lists two other possible apocalypses.

Better than Any Man
Picking up the Insect Sword, or releasing the Insect God in another way.

Towers Two:
Tentacle rape monster at the center of the Earth. Will eventually hatch and destroy the planet

Forgive Us:
The Thing gets loose and starts converting the Earth's population. More of a CK-class Dominance Shift than a classic Apocalypse.

Broodmother:
Localized Apocalypse can become global if you let Odin/Zeus/Galactus loose.

No Salvation for Witches:
Unleashes a CK-class shift, seals off most Magic and reverses patriarchy.

Thulian Echoes
Machinery and notes for driving an Elder God mad and eating his power.

World of the Lost:
Orbital strike array can be lit off by characters.


Lesser/Local apocalypses

A Single Small Cut:
Properly primed, the Corrector of Sins can be made into a Tarrasque-like kaiju.

Tales of the Scarecrow
Unleashes an anti-meme that corrupts and destroys Clerical magic.

Vornheim/Maze of the Blue Medusa:
Killing the Twelve unleashes an appallingly powerful demon and may or may not destroy the entire planet. Three of the Twelve have been named: Quelong may or may not be a fourth.

>>51303419
Encounters in the lawless megacity? (space/modern)

File: 1483813176082.jpg (397KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1200x900px

>>51303434

England Upturn'd
The entire Fens district flips over and everyone in it is sent to the Underdark. Unleashes Deep Elves and a number of nasty critters on England. May result in the revival of the Norse pantheon. Or possibly not.
Also, King John is an arch-lich and out for blood/power/hegemony and generally Worse Than Hitler.

Qelong:
If Qelong gets out, Bad Things are gonna happen. Aakom poisoning is also a major potential threat to the outside world. Plus there's that whole Apocalyptic war next door thing. None of these are really spoilers, but.. watch out for the Lotus.

Caracosa:
Do I really have to explain?

>>51303373
>How often do puzzles show up in your games?
Minimum of once per floor.

>>51303419
Encounters of the Elemental Plane of Chairs.

>>51303434
I don't get the point of having these.
Ending the campaign isn't something I need any help as it is. So having apocalypse events happen because someone picked the wrong magic weapon is very unhelpful.

And if they're really hard to happen because it requires a lot of complicated steps, then why are they even there at all? Brownie points? Just to say "heh, watch out kids, this dungeon crawl is so hardcore it can cause the apocalypse!"

>>51303487
I think I might have sounded too hostile on this post. Let me correct that my tone is more "confusion" than "anger".

>>51303471
>Carcosa
Well, yeah. Because what is going to fuck Carcosa over harder than it already is?

File: sheetd12.png (395KB, 1275x1650px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1275x1650px

Posted a bit in the last thread, but I've realized how much my players love skills.

They're not even gamers. Only one knows of anything outside of the name "Dungeons & Dragons." Never played a tabletop before I sat them down for LotFP. It's kind of incredible to me how much they have a modern D&D mindset when it comes to referencing skills, but you know...alas and shit. Anyways, I tried to suss out a way to combine the vast skill options of 4e/5e with LotFP without reeeeeeeally breaking the OSR spirit too much. This is what I've come up with. I'd love some feedback:

CONDENSED MODERN D&D SKILLZ for LotFP featuring THE POOR FORGOTTEN d12.

[DEX] Acrobatics [Balance, Climb, Jump, Tumble]
[WIS] Bushcraft [Survival, Handle Animal]
[INT] Knowledge [Appraisal, History, Religion, Lore]
[INT] Language [Forgery, Decipher]
[WIS] Medicine [Heal]
[STR] Open Doors
[WIS] Search [Find Traps, Investigate, Spot]
[DEX] Sleight-of-Hand [Pick-Pocket, Hide Item]
[CHA] Speechcraft [Bluff, Intimidate, Perform]
[DEX] Stealth [Hide, Move Silently]
[DEX] Tinkering [Lockpicking, Remove Traps]
Sneak Attack [d6 damage multiplier]

- Replace the d6 with a d12.
- Skills start at 2.
- Let everyone add their relevant ability modifier to the skill (minimum score of 1). Viola! A more aptly diverse group of non-Specialists.
- Only let the Specialist freely upgrade skills; 4 Points per level (8 at Level 1.)
- Success is a d12 roll equal-or-under your total Skill+Modifier.
- a 12 in 12 skill fails on 2d12 rolling SNAKE EYES or DOUBLE TWELVES.

- Keep Sneak Attack a "d6", but require 2 points per pip.
- Make Open Doors non increasing and strictly Ability Score based.
(Both these start at 1 pip, as per usual.)

As for Demihuman class bonuses, just double the numbers. A Halflings 3-in-6 Bushcraft becomes 6-in-12. Replace the Dwarves' Architecture with Search and the Elves' Search with Knowledge.

>>51303419
Encounters along a shoreline full of shipwrecks.

>>51303487
its just the lotfp thing, sort of like how dying in droves for the honor to become a mutilated (melee) or mutated (magic) husk is the dcc thing

File: Bosch - Temptation of St. Anthony.png (4MB, 1444x1600px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1444x1600px

>>51303487
>I don't get the point of having these.
>Ending the campaign isn't something I need any help as it is

That's the thing, though. All of those "Apocalypses" set in motion a chain of events with massive, unpleasant consequences.. but don't actually >end< the campaign. At least, not initially. There's ways to reverse them, or ameliorate them, and they leave the PCs (or, depending on the event, at least the ones smart enough to run) alive to deal with them.

Better than Any Man is one of the weakest overall, for this and other reasons (and falls firmly into the
>"watch out kids, this dungeon crawl is so hardcore it can cause the apocalypse!"
category.

But the one in Scarecrow (for instance) makes the PC Magic-user involved incredibly powerful, and induces a brutal and massive witch-hunt for him as soon as someone figures out what's happening. Same goes for God that Crawls.

England Upturn'd and NSFW are both an "Apocalypse-in-progress" that the PCs may or may not prevent, divert, or alter to their own ends. NSFW is even intended to keep the world intact and livable, but change its power structure. Forgive Us, as-written, will peter out after a short and horribly-bloody holocaust if the players fail. Towers Two is the only "game-ending" one, and that's because it presents the players with the possibility of preventing a horror far in the future by sacrificing themselves now

So overall they're things that cause Interesting (but frequently deeply awful) shit to happen if the players fuck up or let the bad guys get away. They present real, lasting, and ugly consequences to your actions, but don't arbitrarily end the game.


>>51303507
No worries. I figured that was it.

>>51303637
I see. I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

Speaking of, I wish there was a version of the DCC spell casting rules without all the mutation stuff. That shit just doesn't fit a regular D&D campaign setting.

>>51303637
Do you have to roll between each adventure to see if some *other* party caused the apocalypse while you were gone?

>>51303722
Now I wonder how LotFP adventures play out with that Snails shared game worlds thing people mentioned in the other thread.

"Well, in my original world things got kinda fucked when we unleashed the Soap Bubble God. Glad to see you guys didn't--- oh wait, you took the Infested Pod Thrower out of its containment field, didn't you. Fuck."

>>51303677
>That shit just doesn't fit a regular D&D campaign setting

wut.

>>51303850
Mages universally becoming weak, retarded, pathetic piles of tumors isn't really a D&D thing and isn't an element in most S&S, not even Moorcock or HPL.

>>51303850
I mean no offense but
>every time you cast a spell, you have a chance of being horribly mutated
>every high level wizard looks like a tzeench sorcerer from warhammer fantasy

Doesn't really fit in with the assumed D&D setting. I know everybody loves gonzo but I like my gonzo to be more subtle.

>>51303885
Hey now, Warhammer mutations on average INCREASE your power while DCC mutations are solely meant to be punishing.

File: asd1314124.jpg (364KB, 728x1035px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 728x1035px

>>51303885
>>51303875
>>51303850
What, you mean Mordenkainen doesn't look like a disgusting abomination?

>>51303917

No and that's a good thing. Muh magic corruption and mutation is shit game design and shit worldbuilding to boot.

>>51303885
Ah, see that is where we differ.

I like my gonzo to punch you in the face.

>>51303917
>>51303931

It would be acceptable if it was something like Realms of Chaos and it made you better, instead of strictly making you worse. But its not in-genre for S&S. Its just shit tier Warhammer wannabeism.

>>51303936
Well, I like my gonzo like I like my women
not punishing spellcasters for casting spells

>>51303968
>>51303917
>>51303875
It is a shame they choose that dumb mechanic, because I like the whole "you can cast a spell by making a spell check, and if you fail, you can't cast the spell anymore for the day".

But the whole thing being balanced by "and if you roll too low, you get corruption!" is just not my cup of tea.

Ah yes, we're finally back to the old days of /osrg/ and hating on DCC for trying something new.

>>51304014
Shitting on DCC for being needlessly malicious to PCs, above and beyond the way the 0 level funnel and the modules themselves do so.

Never see any cosmology discussions here.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>51303373

>>51304014
>for trying something new

Er, ripping off Warhammer (but only the bad parts) isn't "something new"

>civilization is beset on all sides by CHAOS CRIPPLES, a bunch of fuckups who used their class abilities and are now slowly crawling into our lands, oozing all over everything and making us feel uncomfortable as they shit themselves and moan in agony

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

1B, 486x500px

>>51304052

>>51304014
>for trying something new.
Man I love several of the new mechanics on DCC

I use mighty deed of arms and thieves getting luck dice on my own games. I'm shitting on their dumb wizard corruption rules.

Just because something is new doesn't make it better.

>>51304049
>cosmology
because everybody is running different settings.
I myself am running mystara circa the 2e version (so dukedom of karameikos is now kingdom of karameikos and the elven nation got fucked), including immortals instead of gods an all.

>>51304049

That's more of a worldbuilding thing. Though I do wonder how much OSR would like to discuss worldbuilding sometimes. At least in the function of OSR games.

I've built all 3 (THREE) of my settings to basically help along the OSR playstyle more or less, which I really enjoy.

>>51304049

Cosmology tends to make me uncomfortable, since we tend to wind up with a bunch of mostly empty or samey planes antithetical to the usual OSR experience.

I wonder how one could do other planes so that they are at least as interesting and useful as the dungeon or the wilderness, which so far has not been done.

>>51304089
>antithetical to the usual OSR experience.
I use the Rules Cyclopedia cosmology, and it tends to not deviate from "typical" play.

>>51304081
Describe them briefly maybe? Why 3? Do they facilitate the playstyle in a different way?

>>51303900
>>51303931
>>51303970
Continuing to stack the deck in favor of quadratic wizards, I see!

>>51304112
The Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI experience is largely what I had in mind when I said that, although the Planescape/MotP cosmology is fairly similar.

They are largely big undifferentiated planes of nothingness inhabited by uniform blobs and a couple of nifty critters. There really isn't much to do with the planes.

I am sorry to be excessively negative but its like the town, wilderness and dungeon are well tuned and well analyzed for every angle of the play experience, but there is no real planar experience to speak of.

>>51304182

>If you don't punish Wizard PCs for using their basic class abilities which they already paid for by having the worst saves, worst HP, worst AC and generally having the most limited power in the entire game with spell slots; you support OP quadratic 3.5 wizards!

Kill yourself asshole.

>>51304182
Have you tried just not playing 3.x?

>>51304182
Show me on the ball where Monte Cook touched you.

>>51304182
>never actually played b/x in his life

>>51304182
>Defecator, may everything turn out okay so that you can leave this place
~just outside the Vesuvius gate

>>51304187
>big undifferentiated planes of nothingness inhabited by uniform blobs
Not sure about BECMI off the top of my head, but that's decidedly NOT how Rules Cyclopedia does it. At least for the inner planes.
They're "run of the mill" Swords and Sorcery settings, same as the Prime Plane. Expect everyone's made of clouds, or whatever.

And vortexes/wormholes are pretty handy.
You can stick one anywhere without too much fuss. Boom! Naturally occurring dungeon.

File: Unironic ray guns 2.jpg (110KB, 559x576px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 559x576px

>>51304166

Sure, why not.

>High Fantasy
In this setting there is a divine bureaucracy that runs everything. When people die they go to heaven; the idea being that a PC can freely give a large portion of their wealth and loot to a new character to help them level up easier because they can literally get permission from their ghost.

Also I've built this setting with the whole law v chaos thing inside of it, which supports traditional DnD alignments and races and such. I think a Chinese style heavenly bureaucracy really fits well with a Lawful society.

>Modern Fantasy
This setting isn't really 'modern' it's mostly just gonzo bullshit set in another dimension. It's always night time, set in a single scrap-metal city, 'lost' people from other dimensions end up here. Mostly though its focused on the scrap metal guns and neighborhood crawling stuff going on. This setting's cosmology is mostly about the world, how once you end up in the City beyond spaces you can never return? Plus the weird entities explain where monsters and the mysterious magic items in the service tunnels come from. The idea being to encourage players to explore dangerous place for artifacts from home or from strange new magic objects to collect, since magic is not normally available to players.

>Science Fiction setting
This one is really supportive of the OSR playstyle based on its structure. It's a gonzo as shit sci-fi world where the rules state in the first session players have to get their own spaceship. Everyone has a role both on the spaceship and off it, aiding exploration and combat missions. The idea behind the actual 'cosmology' supports the endless war between the BICOs (biological intelligent communicating organisms, which are you) versus the SICOs (solar intelligent communicating organisms, who are the 'bad guys'. Also pronounced like 'psychos')

While not technically cosmological in all of these, the idea of the actual worldbuilding supporting an OSR playstyle.

>>51304231
Mostly I'm referring to the fact that the planes are pretty superfluous and almost totally DIY, in comparison to strongholds, cities, dungeons, and wilderness. The very most people have done that I am aware of is come up with planes as "flavored" versions of the material plane, which is decent I suppose.

File: [Sunlight Intensifies].gif (839KB, 450x402px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 450x402px

Anyone here have any actual stories or sessions of OSR gameplay?

I'm heading into a group blind and I'm really worried that I'm going to fuck it up.

File: Thief, Fighter, Mage.jpg (75KB, 700x382px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 700x382px

Why not just remove the Cleric if its such an issue?

Fighter, Thief, Mage is a great class triangle.

>>51304900
>Why not just remove the Cleric if its such an issue?

Its not. Plus it has more history with the game and is a discrete archetype, while thief is not.

>>51304938
Uh....no. Clerics were specifically made as an anti-vampire class at the request of one of the players. Thief existed before that in the chainmail games - they were sabotuers and well poisoners in the game.

Is AD&D really that miserable of an experience as some here claim?

>>51304980
not necessarily, but it requires more work than BX/BECMI/RC D&D does if you want to have a smooth experience

>>51304976
>Thief existed before that in the chainmail games - they were sabotuers and well poisoners in the game.

You got that backwards. Clerics were in First Fantasy Campaign, thieves were not.

File: Fighter, Mage, Thief.jpg (30KB, 396x267px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 396x267px

>>51304938
>>51304976
>>51305239

Irrelevant. Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is the quintessential archetypes in fantasy, myth and gameplay. Each one represents something anyone can do (fight, sneak, use magic) but that class alone excels at that task. Clerics do not fit in this triangle. There is a reason almost every RPG video game offers these three as their choices, not four like 'fighter, thief, mage, cleric' or 'fighter, cleric, mage', but Fighter, Thief and Mage.

You are wrong. Stop shitposting.

>>51305281
>Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is the quintessential archetypes in fantasy, myth and gameplay.

Let me correct you.
>Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is my personal favorite trinity of archetypes. My tastes = God tier, your tastes = shit tier.

>Each one represents something anyone can do (fight, sneak, use magic)

Two out of three aint bad, not unlike your triumvirate.

> Clerics do not fit in this triangle.

Pray or heal fits better. By your logic, it should be fighter, thief, cleric.

>There is a reason almost every RPG video game offers these three as their choices

They really don't, and an appeal to popularity is useless.

>Stop shitposting.

You are the shitposter, and worse, you didn't even know basic facts about the origins of D&D. Completely fucking pathetic.

And yes I am fully aware that you are trollplaying and are merely pretending to be retarded because I saw the thread this shit is from, but I have nothing better to do.

>>51305281

Anyone can use magic?

>>51303419
50 secret doors.

File: Oblivion Fighter, Thief, Mage.jpg (38KB, 520x242px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 520x242px

>>51305324

Prayer or heal does not fit the archetype. Making a dedicated healing class is cancerous, and the cleric got a bunch of extra shit bolted on just because.

Why do Clerics have supportive spellcasting, a turning ability AND good armor and weapons? They aren't part of the squishy but magical or strong but mundane archetype. It fucks everything up.

>They really don't
Wrong. Play literally any video game, what classes can be play? Unless it's DnD, there is usually a magic, strength and dexterity style triangle for what you can specialize into. While it is true that appealing to the popularity of the archetype isn't a good argument, there are mythological reasons as to why.

There are thousands of mythological characters that are excellent fighters, up to and including hurling mountains and Killing Gods with swordplay.

There are tons of mythological thieves, some of which are able to steal songs, stories, or even more obscure and abstract things.

There are loads of witches in mythology as well, being able to control or create magical items and shape shift.

How many great clerics are there are in fantasy? How many mythological exploits of the mace wielding not!Christian cleric are there? I rest my case.

>>51305336

Using things like minor magic items like scrolls and potions, manipulating magical creatures and magic equipment, etc.

Anyone can be a tricky shitter like a Wizard, but not everyone can mystically heal wounds as appointed by a deity like a Cleric. Clerics do not fit the archetype.

Where's that bingo image? We can already start crossing some squares.

>>51305406

>Using things like minor magic items like scrolls and potions, manipulating magical creatures and magic equipment, etc.
>Anyone can be a tricky shitter like a Wizard, but not everyone can mystically heal wounds as appointed by a deity like a Cleric. Clerics do not fit the archetype.

But everyone can use cleric scrolls/potions as much as everyone can use arcane ones.

I mean, the single most iconic potion in the game is 'Healing Potions' and those are made by clerics.

>>51305406
>How many mythological exploits of the mace wielding not!Christian cleric are there? I rest my case.

...I believe we call those 'Saints'. There are rather a lot of them.

File: I don't want that..gif (2MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x169px

>>51305439
>I mean, the single most iconic potion in the game is 'Healing Potions' and those are made by clerics.
>Potions
>Made by Clerics

>>51305453

Yes, Healing Potions are made by clerics. So is Holy Water. Wizards tend not to be able to heal.

File: Khajiit female thief.png (710KB, 1280x1565px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1280x1565px

Well fuck this thread already.

What is your favorite method of advancement for the Thief class (if you so choose to implement them in your games?)

>>51305453

So who does make healing potions if not clerics?

>>51305462
>>51305468

Wizards should!

I prefer characters like alchemists and old wise men being the types who make magic potions. Mixing together weird ingredients, low chanting and murmurs of mystic powers, and so on. Clerics creating and selling holy water/potions of healing seems lame. Too commercialized for a religious order. Same with any clerical healing.

>>51305464
Doors, traps, sneaking, backstabbing/assassinating creatures
What we tend to do is give the party some exp when anyone does their class goal, to encourage teamwork (warriors don't rush in to kill more if the thief can sneak by and open another route, encourages being sensible rather than grindy)

>>51305406
>Prayer or heal does not fit the archetype.

It does. Divinity plays a far bigger role in terms of myth/archetypes than... whatever the fuck a magic user is. In S&S literature clerics are rare, but thief is not an archetype at all and refers to all S&S chars other than strictly knightly types.

>They aren't part of the squishy but magical

Not an archetype. The only squishy but magical dude I can personally think of from Appendix N is Elric, but he's also EXTREMELY choppy. Maybe Professor Armitage, not like anyone isn't squishy in HPL stories.
>Unless it's DnD, there is usually a magic, strength and dexterity style triangle for what you can specialize into.

If there is magic, there is usually fight, magic and fight + magic.

>there are mythological reasons as to why.

If you're going to argue mythology, the magic user is omitted (finding heroic stuff that isn't divine in mythology is difficult). If you're going to argue S&S, the thief is omitted.

>There are loads of witches in mythology as well, being able to control or create magical items and shape shift.

The amount of magical figures not deity related are wholly eclipsed by those who are.

>How many mythological exploits of the mace wielding not!Christian cleric are there?

How many mythological exploits of the wax boiled leather dude with lockpicks that can't find traps are there?

File: skill system, d12.png (58KB, 1030x1016px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1030x1016px

>>51303514
Well, I approve of using a d12 scale with attribute modifiers, and from a quick glance over, I approve of your skill list, but I really don't understand skills starting at 2 out of 12 (or 1 out of 6 for that matter). A 16.67% chance to succeed is just ridiculous. Granted, if you're got a high attribute modifier (+2), you can pull that up to 33.3%, but that's still godawful. What's the point in having skills if they're all next to useless?

>>51305464
In MY world, clerics and thieves advance by autistically screeching at each other and fighting to the death.

>>51305514

So basically 'This isn't actually how RPGs work but I think they should'. As that's not how they've worked before.

>>51305514
>selling
>healing potions
>OSR

How often does this even happen? I mean, just about the one productive thing to spend money on for mid level and up would then be healing potions.

>>51305514
>old wise men

like guys who specialize in wisdom

File: MAGIC MISSLE.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>51305542

>Using Clerics & Thieves
>Not just using Fighters and MUs

>>51305596
in all seriousness having clerics as separate from magic users and thieves separate from fighters does seem to make a lot of homebrew ideas I have needlessly hard

Depends on how you look at things really. If you are looking at just a binary scale with might <--> magic, having fighter on one end, wizard on the other, and cleric in the middle makes sense.

If you are looking at the game as a fighting -adventuring skills - utility triangle, the fighter-rogue-wizard are on the end points, and cleric could be considered to be the jack of all trades; can fight, but not as well as the fighter, can cast, but not as well as the wizard, has some skills because of deity, but not as many as rogue.

Dedicated healing, and requiring dedicated healing to be a thing is cancer though.

>>51305654
The distinctive thing about the cleric to me is this:

He has the defensive potency of a fighter, nearly the same melee potency, and pretty poor ranged effectiveness.

In many ways his spells are as good as those of a magic user, typically single target, better reactive spells (though these are of questionable use), and touch spells. He is pretty bad for control and area effect.

He essentially always has good reason to always have melee weapons ready and is a great 'hardpoint.' I like the idea of a party having a cleric in front and in back in tunnels, and the fighter with a bow, ready to dart behind the cleric and switch to melee. Presumably in that setup, the magic user has the light. Similarly, a polearm or spear fighter works well behind the cleric.

His heavy armor makes him unsuitable for retreating, for scouting, or for sneaking. So he is very versatile, but he has to commit all-out and has few tools for whittling crowds down to size, other than of undead.

All in all its a pretty interesting role, IMO.

I think our views align on this. Basically, the cleric can do something in each area of expertise of the other 3; OD&D enforced this by limiting weapon, armor and spell choices, leading to some interesting gameplay using emergent mechanics, but I'm looking at a more meta level. The reason is, this makes breaking the classes down to their component parts simpler, which in turn makes reimagining and rearranging them and their abilities easier.

Basically, this is my breakdown currently:

Fighters fight. They are simple, but that means they don't really have any weaknesses. They should be at home when shit hits the fan and the weapons get drawn. Even if they fail at something because it is beyond their skills, they should be able to fall back on being tough and being able to kill whatever comes their way in a fight.

Rogues are best at stacking the deck in their favor, tipping the scales in their favor so heavily that even their meager skill at arms is enough to win. Rogues should be the best when they have prep time, being able to create temporary advantages through scouting, setting traps, gathering and creating consumable items, figuring out an enemy's weak spot. Rogues should be able to fall back on being able to run away from fights to fight another day, or just avoiding them altogether.

Wizards can use magic which can deal with basically everything, but this comes at the price of having to be supported when not using magic by other classes. He needs the fighter in a fight to defend him, and the rogue out of fights to get what he needs for the spell he wishes to cast; be it information or rare ingredients. Wizards without magic don't have a fall back; they _are_ the fall back for everyone else.

>>51306071
>cont
The 4th class then would be for those who want some mix of the above. Be it a Bard who has expertise with ranged fighting, his knowledge of monsters and legends, and some amount of illusion magic, a Cleric who can wear heavy armor to bash in head, is a master of the art healing and banishing undead with prayers, and has divine magic to protect allies, or some other combination of features from the 3 "base" classes, which results in a character that always has something to do, be the task at hand fighting, preparations and adventuring, or magic-utility, but that something is more limited in scope.

>>51305281
>is the quintessential archetypes in fantasy, myth and gameplay
Not when it comes to D&D. Especially in gameplay.

>>51306071

The bit on rogues definitely applies FAR more to wizards.

Fighters also have huge weaknesses. They either have thief tier AC or they generally can't escape, while clerics and mages both have escape spells, and mages and thieves both have "can run the fuck away."

Another huge fighter weakness is they don't have auto successful actions like the cleric and mage do. They have to hope they're in luck to do damage, clerics and mages can create effects that are near automatically successful.

Finally, the cleric has the distinction of spells that can be used to repair a bad situation.

Stuff like prep time and creating consumables is definitely far more a mage/cleric thing, though, and most of the other stuff isn't particularly rogue related.

So I have a question about stealth.

What's a good method to determine how easy it is to sneak past/sneak up on enemies? I've never been a huge fan of the generic X in chance. What about something like rolling OVER the enemy's morale? More organized fighting forces would therefore be implied to be more on high alert. Perhaps enemies without morale, like mindless undead, are really fucking easy to sneak past as long as you don't directly get into their line of vision. Sound like an interesting concept?

>>51306320
Use of morale as perception sounds like a REALLY interesting mechanic.

You could also use 1d12 rollunder vs UNMODIFIED armor class.

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

39KB, 592x435px

This is my current Fighter advancement (minus HD growth)

How does it look? Good, bad? Balanced?

>>51306441
just make it cleave-> great cleave, taking any more than one cleave in your scheme is a tremendous waste

>>51306441
You may wish to look at superiority a bit closer, dude.

>>51306523

I think you don't know what a combat move is.

It's like a trip, blind, or disarm. Not an attack.

>>51306320
That sounds really neat, give it a try! IIRC morale in OD&D was in the 2-12 scale, so rolling d20 might be bit too good. Maybe 10+morale vs d20+thief levels?

>>51306535
Sorry, I don't know game terms defined in the documents of your homebrew I have never seen and you probably have never posted.

What's the /osrg/ consensus on Godbound?

And on Nightmare Underneath, if any?

>>51306877
>What's the /osrg/ consensus on Godbound?
It has its own thread and shouldn't be posted about here.

>All this talk about Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, Clerics and Thieves
>Nothing about Elves, Dwarves & Halflings
For shame!

>>51307158
Race-as-single-class was a mistake.

I want to run a simple combat scenario for 20 players, what is the most simple osr like game?

>>51307246
Not at all.

>>51307274
Basic D&D

>>51307246
Fuck
You
Race as class is the best

>>51307343
Race-with-Specific-Classes is best (think ACKS).

>>51303419
50 seemingly mundane objects with the potential to change the course of history

>>51303419
50 non-magic items made with adventurers in mind. I'm thinking the alchemical gear that showed up in 3E like sunrods or thunderclap stones.

>>51303419
50 racial classes!

>>51303419
50 planetary romance/science fiction themed encounters to plop in the middle of an otherwise fantasy region.

>>51303432
I said this already but these are super good.

>>51307349
Well ACKS™ is, in fact, the best, so ill concede that argument.

>>51307595
ACKS is pretty cool, but I think some of its kingdom creation rules could be better explained.

>>51307651
In order to figure them out, it's usually best to make a small example domain yourself while you go trough the rules. Same for the spell creation rules and the tinkerer gadget rules from players companion.

>>51303970
>spoiler
>>51304062
>CHAOS CRIPPLES
>>51304199
>Show me on the ball
These all cracked me up more than might be reasonable, but either way I'm glad to see /osrg/ back to actually funny dismissals rather than swallowing bait whole.

>>51307871
Alright, I'll try that.

>>51304305
I don't deny this is a sensible thing to want, the thing is just that it's pretty fuckin hard. "Functional in play but not just a flavored material plane" is a tall order.

My best suggestion is to try to get Arnold Punch to write them for you somehow. That guy's good.

So while you guys want to remove classes, I want to add one.
Specifically, I want a class that is 25% caster, 75% fighter.

Like a class that uses minor magic to give itself an advantage. Gameplay-wise it would have cleric stats, but using a different system than vancian magic, that recharges quicker (on a per turn instead of per day basis) but that has weaker spells.

>>51304242
Your first setting here makes me want to try to make an inheritance mechanic (and cosmology I guess) that incorporates Hell Money somehow for XP gain.

Hmmm... "fantasy 19th century Hong Kong" might be a cool CSIO-esque setting?

>>51306320
That's the most interesting idea I've seen in /osrg/ for weeks now.

>>51304980
No, AD&D is one of the two main streams of OSR play. It's just a much, much crunchier system, which also means it sees fewer retroclones because it's a much bigger job to clone. Plus, Gygax's voice is a lot of the value of AD&D and a lot of that shit can't really be cloned.

However, the OSR started out as an AD&D revival, kicked off by a sort of bogus AD&D retroclone called OSRIC that nobody was really meant to use the rulebooks for and which was created only so that people could create new adventures for AD&D. So, it's all there, it's just that it has less presence online as a lot of the players are old grogs who've been running AD&D non-stop since it came out. (Last I saw there *were* piles of them on Dragonsfoot, though, who seemed to not go anywhere else online.)

when you roll "sword, magic or Ax, magic" on your treasure roll, how do you decide if it's a short sword/hand ax, a 2 hander, a regular sword/ax or whatever?

Assuming you're playing a game where it makes a difference, of course (though I think even in OD&D it makes a difference if you're using the man-to-man tables, not that I know how those interact with magic weapons)

>>51308208
>how do you decide if it's a short sword/hand ax, a 2 hander, a regular sword/ax or whatever?
If only there was a way to get randomized results...

File: 1ayu33.jpg (42KB, 500x324px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x324px

>>51305281
>fighter, cleric, mage
This works fine. The general expectation is that you play tomb robbers, and tomb robber are thieves.

>>51305406
>There are tons of mythological thieves,
I can think of *maybe* 10 from fairy tales, all of which used magic.
An I really, really can't think of any others. Start listing names.
>How many mythological exploits of the mace wielding not!Christian cleric are there?
A quick google search tells me there are 810 canonized saints and over 10,000 uncanonized saints.
>I rest my case.
Saying "I rest my case" in court means, "we give up."


...I'v just scrolled down thread, and you made an obnoxious amount of posts.
I've only skimmed it, but I can generally tell that no one is actually making points.
So here's an actual case against thieves:


They were the original "Chandelier Swinger prestige class."
Regardless of the rules' intentions, their mere presence implies that people can't do things.
This impression is undesirable in new players, but outright toxic in new referees.

They also have mucky flavor. Are the supposed to be supernatural? Are they just talented?
Gets even worse when you let non-thieves do thief stuff.

>>51306320
>What about something like rolling OVER the enemy's morale?
Gonna join in the chorus here, this is a fucking great idea, nice use of existing mechanics. All the knock-on effects I can think of are great and fitting too, like how you can't sneak past undead (who never check morale, and yeah, I prefer that to them being super easy to sneak past -- after all, they're dead, they don't have normal sensory organs, they're clearly guided to their victims by pure evil sorcery), and in the case there would ever be a clash (I'm thinking mainly the "cleanup crew" monsters should have lower perception chances here), giving a particular creature a specific modifier to perception rolls is trivial, so why not. It would be rare anyway.

The clincher seems to be what to roll, if you want to use this instead of just description-based sneaking (which I think is totally fair, natch). 2d6 modified by armor type, (Basic-type) Dex bonus and Stealth skill? That would make it quite easy for any agile fighter to sneak past low-morale shitters in light armor, but for alert elites, you need the burglar you brought with you. Of course you could also leave Stealth out of the main equation and let that be its own X-in-d6 roll to not even have to give a fuck because you're supernaturally sneaky, I like that too.

>>51308233
so I should just roll for it?
so should I go with 1-2 short sword 3-4 sword 5-6 two-hander?
Or should I give more weight to swords, making it 1= short sword, 2-5 sword, 6 two hander?

>>51308255
>They were the original "Chandelier Swinger prestige class." Regardless of the rules' intentions, their mere presence implies that people can't do things. This impression is undesirable in new players, but outright toxic in new referees.

>They also have mucky flavor. Are the supposed to be supernatural? Are they just talented? Gets even worse when you let non-thieves do thief stuff.

This guy gets it.

>>51306877
Implied setting is pretty interesting, the physical book is said to be gorgeous.

There are useful rules for stuff, both standard and setting-specific. It's a bit Baker-ish in its approach and writing sometimes but it's no Apocalypse World. The art is nice.

>>51306320
Best idea in ages.

>>51308208
I use my whim in the first place, dice for it however I deem suitable in the second place. (In some editions, though, "Sword, magic" and "2H Sword, magic" are separate table entries, I think -- watch out for that. But I assume you're not playing one of those or you wouldn't have asked.)

Like, this is one of the cases where I would strongly recommend the OSR mindset of "eh, rules don't matter that much, rulings time". Nothing terrible is going to happen if you don't get it exactly right, you'll have a bunch of chances to improve it later and that's how you build judgment anyway. The rules aren't the law, just there to help you out.

(If you've already heard this spiel, apologies -- I don't want to be a shitter about this. But I find a LOT of OSR newbies have this trapped relationship to rules, and need some help cracking out of it.)

>>51308334
>The rules aren't the law, just there to help you out.
No, I get it, it's just that I find myself unreasonably favoring the players whenever I decide myself on what magic items to throw around.
If I always decided myself the only magic items that would end up in lairs would be stuff that's useful to the current pc party, which I feel is a bit metagamey

So, OK, I know that Thieves make some issues for old school D&D. We've been talking about it here.

What have you done to keep the Thief and avoid the issues related to it?

"I don't use Thieves" answerers, please abstain. The question is related to keeping Thieves in the game specifically.

>>51308377
Ha ha, I see. At least that's a problem that's unlikely to cause friction with your players.

Still, I get the idea. If it helps, I think two-handed swords are usually much rarer than regular ones on the treasure tables that distinguish them, so you could maybe roll d6 and have 1-4 be Sword, 5-6 2H-Sword, or even just a two-hander on a 6.

>>51308447
Used LotFP Specialist, but it creates niche protection which is a main beef with the Thief.

If the issue is "everyone should a bit thieving", flavor them as explicitly supernatural. Climbing flat walls, hiding in shadows, moving without a sound etc.

What I personally did in the end is gave them one save or ability check re-roll per level, plus the ability to specialize.

But then I use d20 + Mod + your class level if fitting vs DC from 10 (easy but challenging) to 30 (impossible). So my Expert gets to define the skills he can add his level to when checking stuff. Everyone else is assumed to be competent at broad class stuff.

>>51308447
All characters can do Thief stuff.

>>51308255
>They also have mucky flavor. Are the supposed to be supernatural? Are they just talented?
A high level Fighter can run red riot through hordes of normal men and equivalents and resist blows that would fell them without any impairment whatsoever to their fighting capability. And no one else can do so even though everyone should be able to fight. Are they supernatural? Are they just talented?

It's a silly argument.

>>51308447
>What have you done to keep the Thief and avoid the issues related to it?
D6 skills with a reasonable starting chance of success and explicitly expert or quasi-supernatural abilities. I'm okay with most characters not being able to disarm a fiddly clockwork trap trigger or pick a lock, those are specific skills and their unskilled counterpart which everyone can do is noisy bashing (smash the trigger, which may not work; bash a door open) or non-mechanical (figuring out where not to step; finding the key). In this way the Thief is a useful but not crucial addition.

Stealth and Climb Walls I run as extraordinary abilities: surprise rolls cover much of sneaking and anyone can describe themselves hiding, anyone can climb a rope without rolling for it or a rough wall with a Strength check modified by burden. Thieves can roll to become fucking invisible by standing in a shadow and deny enemies even a chance to hear their footfalls; they can climb a vertical glass wall without any tools. The roll is for doing somehting basically preposterous. Again, highly useful, not critical.

Also, not designing dungeons to have any chokepoints or things the party NEEDS to get to behind a locked door/up a sheer wall helps. You want players to feel like Thieves are welcome and useful additions that help them score loot, not just a fragile "Press A to keep playing" button.

>>51308563
Yes, but they are either shitty at that stuff or the thief class is worthless.

What do you do with that?

>>51308604
>Also, not designing dungeons to have any chokepoints or things the party NEEDS to get to behind a locked door/up a sheer wall helps.
This is just another way of scaling encounters to the party and it's the gateway to story-based play. If the party can't get beyond a point, that's it and sucks to be them. Players need to learn to fail and retreat from insurmountable obstacles.

>>51308561
>What I personally did in the end is gave them one save or ability check re-roll per level, plus the ability to specialize.
Hm. That's going to the "things to consider" file.

>>51308604
>You want players to feel like Thieves are welcome and useful additions that help them score loot, not just a fragile "Press A to keep playing" button.
The thing is if you want to achieve this you need to take some of the agency away from non-thief classes to give thieves room to shine. Then comes the question "why?".

>>51308630
>This is just another way of scaling encounters to the party and it's the gateway to story-based play.
Nope! It's an elaboration on one of the most vital OSR writings, Melan's notes on linear vs. non-linear dungeon design to facilitate exploration.

I mean, you can run your game however you want, but for my part I don't think designing a megadungeon so you can't keep playing it at all if you blow a roll just to teach the players a lesson about hardship or whatever has good practical effects.

In fact, I'd call that kind of linearity an example of the very railroad practice that sandbox-style OSR play tries as much as possible to avoid.

>>51308514
Makes sense. Ill probably do that thanks for the advice.

>>51308591
>resist blows
>And no one else can do so
Actually everyone can do that if they roll hp good enough.

Its unlikely but not inpossible for a level 10 wizard to have 30-40 hp. Thats 10 average long sword hits.
Supernatural toughness tight there

>>51308656
>Then comes the question "why?".
Other anon here. Are you asking why would you want to put Thieves in game in the first place, considering the agency stuff you mentioned?

"I want to play a skillmonkey". Done, you need that niche now.

>>51308656
>The thing is if you want to achieve this you need to take some of the agency away from non-thief classes to give thieves room to shine.
...No? I wouldn't have let Fighting-Men turn effectively invisible on a d6 roll anyway so that doesn't follow, that's like claiming Magic-Users rob Fighting-Men of agency by hoarding spellcasting.

There may be a bit of overlap between the Thief's always-available abilities and Magic-User spells such as Silence and Invisibility which are automatic successes but strictly limited in uses, but I don't see a problem with that, just as I don't think Clerics intrude on Magic-Users by also having Hold Person, or that any type of class (Monks, say) with an at-will ability resembling a spell are robbing others of agency.

As for regular skulking and hiding, of course, that's still allowed to anyone. Why wouldn't it be? But, notably, a lot of it is built into the standard surprise roll.

>>51308679
>In fact, I'd call that kind of linearity an example of the very railroad practice that sandbox-style OSR play tries as much as possible to avoid.
You're completely mistaken. You see linearity because you think the party must go beyond the obstacle no matter what, when in true sandbox gameplay they can fuck off and do something else at any time. The whole point is that players choose their level of risk and are able to retreat (at least, attempt to retreat) when they can't proceed any further. The party can always return with the elements they need to get over the obstacle, whether it's a locked door or undead guardians or magic force fields or whatever else, or even abandon the enterprise entirely and seek loot and treasure elsewhere in the wide open game world - but when you start designing encounters with what the party has at hand then you can't call it anything but encounter scaling, and scaling isn't sandbox by any measure.

>>51308679
If you cant keep going in a dungeon due to lock, you go explore a different dungeon m8.

You dont get to fully explore every dungeon every time.

Maybe the next party has a thief (or explosives) and can finish exploring that dungeon.

>>51308762
>>51308775
Eh, roll however you like. I know it works in my game without crashing out disastrously into a White Wolf game about a ghost's homoerotic feelings, and Anon asked how I do it. If you're looking for a shitposting contest about who plays wrong, look elsewhere.

>>51308750
>I want to play a skillmonkey
Tough luck timmy. You're a cleric now.

I mean i dont remove thieves or clerics from my games but your argument is shitty. Players dont get to pick classes that dont exist in the system just because they really really want to.

>>51308725
Nerf wizards imo, +1 HP per four levels should do

>>51308750
> Are you asking why would you want to put Thieves in game in the first place
Yes, this. I was unclear.

>>51308844
You can play however you like but dont get mad when people call you out for using wrong terms (linearity).

I mean no one ever sais scaling is automatically bad, its just not sandbox design.

>>51304049
BECMI did it right.
Planescape and the Great Wheel are garbage.

>>51308878
>"I don't use Thieves" answerers, please abstain. The question is related to keeping Thieves in the game specifically.

>>51303373
what is the most rule lite OSR?

>>51308913
>The question is related to keeping Thieves in the game specifically.
But why have thieves in the first place?

>>51308851
Kek
Imagine rolling 1 on that first hd using that system


Lv 36 wizard
On the cusp of immortality
10hp
Lol

>>51308934
That guy would probably never get to level 36 anyway.

>>51308903
That's exactly it. A fundamental part of sandbox gaming is that players can go anywhere and do anything - and by the same token there's encounters they won't be ready for, that they can leave for later or simply abandon.

>>51308919
Searchers of the Unknown, probably.

>>51308934
And now you know why the wizard never leaves their arcane tower, uses monsters and geased agents to do their bidding, and rules the land around their holdings ruthlessly.

>>51308919
Black Hack and Searchers of the Unknown are about as light as you can get. A step up from there would be stuff like Into the Odd, and Basic. At the high end of rules density would be stuff like AD&D or maybe Dungeon Crawl Classics and Torchbearer.

>>51308921
>>51308921
Because you as a player or as a GM like that archetype and there's a class already done and ready for you waiting to be used.

That's enough, right?

>>51306948
>It has its own thread and shouldn't be posted about here

For damn sure we don't need the cancer in that general spreading to here.

>>51308919
There's several one page RPGs that are arguably compatible with old school content.

>>51308919
Definitely Swords & Wizardry Light.

>>51309006
What's cancerous about Godbound?

>>51309035
It's not the game itself, it's the general.

OSR vampires
they can level drain on a touch.

I don't like that.
What's the point of having fangs if they can drain people by slapping them silly?
Their level drain should be like an extra attack

So I want to change their stats without diminishing their power level (because vampires should be tough fights). They usually make 1 attack per round that deals 1-10 damage and drains two levels. I was thinking of changing that to

Attacks: Claw*, Claw*
Damage: 2d6/2d6

*if the vampire hits with both claws on the same creature, it can bite the target, draining 2 levels.
You gotta hit twice before you drain levels, so to compensate I increased damage potential from 1-10 to 4-24.

thoughts?

>>51309101
What's the point of eating a steak if you can just scoff oatmeal?

>>51309101
>touch
It's not just a slap. Just as an attack roll is not a swing with a sword.

>>51309101
>What's the point of having fangs if they can drain people by slapping them silly?
I remember that vampire dude from the Spiderman '90s animated series. They probably did it to avoid showing fangs on necks on a children's TV show, but I always thought getting your blood drained by suckers in some guy's palm was gross and creepy.

>>51309101
>What's the point of having fangs if they can drain people by slapping them silly?
The level drain on a touch is meant to represent biting, AFAIK.

>>51309101
I'd say ditch level drain entirely, or make it temporary. It certainly scares the pants off players but it's a kind of lame mechanical fiddling.
>a vampire touched you, now you can't cast your best spells or swing a sword as well

Give them a hold or paralysis ability. After that, they feed on blood for con and HP damage. They're ambush predators. IMO they shouldn't necessarily be able to fend off a big armed party in pitched combat, unless they also have a bunch of character levels (though regeneration and/or immunity to mundane weapons can make them a lot more durable).

>>51309140
Well, I'm aware of that (the reason they don't ignore AC is because the touch has to reach skin, probably) but it's just not an ability I like vampires having. Level drain is fine on ghosts
vampires biting you to drain just feels more righter.

>>51309146
The wraith from stargate atlantis do the same thing
it's pretty creepy, but I just think it's a different kind of monster

>>51309188
>vampires biting you to drain just feels more righter.
That's exactly what it is. You need to realise the level of abstractness of D&D combat.

>>51309246
that works if you're using the 1 minute round
but I'm using acks and acks uses a 10 second round, plus since it has various maneuvers, it's not that abstracted

>>51309266
>it's not that abstracted
I don't think even in the 10 second round games an attack roll is meant to represent a single swing with a sword or claw or whatever. Granted, many games make a horrible mishmash of abstract and simulation by retaining the very abstract nature of hit points but adding "realistic" attack routines like claw/claw/bite etc.

>>51309343
>claw/claw/bite
that routine has been in D&D for ages now
isn't it even in OD&D?

maybe I should just change the vampire attack from
>touch
>1d10 and drain two levels
to
>bite
>1d10 and drain two levels

that will calm my autism

>>51309385
>that routine has been in D&D for ages now
>isn't it even in OD&D?
It's in Greyhawk. That doesn't change the fact that it's not really a good fit to the abstractness of D&D combat. I find it kinda odd that it became the default for later D&D editions.

>>51309101
In A Red & Pleasant Land, level drain happens after the vampire manages to grab a character, or manage to charm them.

I don't really like level drain mechanics though, I feel that it's antithetical to what D&D is about. In my groups latest session many PCs got level drained and I'm planning on just letting them do an unbinding ritual to regain their levels. After the ritual is done, the vampire bite just drains experience points and hp.

>>51309385
>maybe I should just change the vampire attack
Seems like the best fix, yes.

>>51304752
>Be me
>running essentially gygaxian box set dnd as written. I got them printed off lulu for like $5, which is sweet.

>Group immediately asks what races they can play. I think for a second, then say fuck it.

>human, elf, dwarf, drow, orc.

>2 out of 3 players pick drow. Third is a human (male)

Session proceeds as a completely normal dungeon crawl. I'm just never going to have them fight drow. Gonna get me a new mysterious genius level enemy group. Maybe wilderness bandits on roids.

File: 3d6.png (145KB, 1911x649px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1911x649px

>>51304900
Why not just remove thief if its an issue? Fighter and mage make a great duo.

File: different spell progression.png (6KB, 298x226px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 298x226px

Inspired by various suggestions in previous threads, I was thinking of having an alternate elf class with a different way of recovering spells.
Basically, instead of getting the same spell progression as wizards, they'd get pic related (it goes from level 1 to 10), but they could recover spells by communing with nature for 1 turn per spell level they have access to.

So they get less spells, and can't reach the best spells (only reach level 3 spells while wizard goes to level 6), but in exchange they need less xp to level up compared to regular elves, and can recover spells in the middle of an adventure if the party are willing to risk resting for a 10-30 minutes.

Thoughts? Too weak? Too stronk?

>>51309449
I flavor level drain as actually losing experience along with the memories of the fights you've been in and situations you've experienced that allowed you to level up in the first place. Of course, I'm using treasure=xp, but it's an abstraction of all the shit player had to go through to reach the goal yada yada.

That said, I like it better for wights and ghosts, because it works as if they're reaching for your memories and feelings to feed on.

>>51309602
Mysterious genious level group?
Ilithid
duergar
a beholder crime lord

>2 out of 3 players pick drow
ffffffaaaaaaaaags

>>51309613
>Why not just remove thief if its an issue? Just have a bunch of wizards. It works for harry potter!

>>51304752
In what way do you think you'll fuck it up?

>>51307158
Elves are elves.
Halfings are hobbits.
Dwarves are dwarves.
Fighting-Men are men.
Magic-Users are abhuman.
Clerics are a mistake.

>>51309673
didn't mean to greentext

>>51305468
>>51305514
Alchemists, preferably non-player characters with a lifetime of training, are the ones who make potions.

Blacksmiths, preferably non-player characters with a lifetime of training, are the ones who make magic weapons and armor.

Goldsmiths, preferably non-player characters with a lifetime of training, are the ones who make magic rings and amulets.

Wizards can make wands and scrolls at high levels, but those don't really boost power by much, just let you shoot fireballs for longer.

File: OSR BINGO.png (188KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 805x685px

I think now is as good a time as any to reveal the new bingo sheet.

>>51309779
should you have posted that?
it seems to contain someones name, adress, and other contact info...

>>51308447
>What have you done to keep the Thief and avoid the issues related to it?
Every character can do thief stuff with the same* chance of sucess, but thieves always get retries.

So a thief never breaks their lockpick in the lock (or they can finagle it out).
And if a thief gets caught hiding, they only need a moment to try "slipping away" where another character would need a distinct opportunity.
Anybody can scale a cliff (or wall) but if they don't find good footing they won't find good footing. A thief can take their time.
Etc.

*same chance for purely roll based activities. they can explain how they're looking for traps, but only thieves get the insurance of rolling detect traps after missing the referee's verbal cue, etc.

File: bag_0_dice.png (21KB, 589x349px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 589x349px

>>51309795
Yup that was me. Oops.

*ahem*

>>51306545
why not just roll 2d6 over morale, +1 or 2 for dex?

Thieves can have a much better chance than anyone else if you add your level.

>>51309815
I generally feel like I don't need to give thieves much that other people can't do, aside from pick pockets, open locks, and backstab.

Backstab by itself makes a thief something to fear.

>>51309863
Hey Mike, delete the pic on your other post :)
Or I might be tempted to add your email to fun lists.

>>51309182
>or make it temporary.
It *is* temporary, you were probably planning on earning more so either way.

File: osrg bingo edited.png (199KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 805x685px

>>51309761
This thread hasn't been that bad so far.

>>51309936
needs an X on non-vancian spellcasting homebrew

see >>51309616

>>51309673
>>51309690
The Gray Mouser was a Magic-User.

>>51309691
There's lots of different ways to fluff it if you want consumable magical healing in your game.

You could have a great meal or an evening of song and levity provide the same effect as a healing potion. You could add a first aid ability or have NPC physicians who can speed healing and cure mundane poisons.

You could have a fighter make his own weapon magical by bathing it in dragon blood under a full moon, and throwing a raucous victory celebration costing 1d4x1000 GP.

>>51308561
Same here, but I think the skill system does a decent job of avoiding the worst excesses of niche protection (ie, you can't really do anything cool because there's a skill for almost every mundane task).

Anybody can hunt, but they might be unable to do much else of use that day besides forage for the basic necessities. The guy with four dots in bushcraft can pretty reliably bag game while traveling and keep the party fed without losing much speed.

And the sneak attack provides a unique combat niche. Being able to gank lone sentries and weaker underlings makes it possible for the party to set up an ambush for the toughs, and it provides interesting tactical situations when you have one guy who's specialty is head to head battle, and another who's better at opportunistic attacks.

>>51309934
>>51309182

What I do for "lose a level" undead is I implement losing a level for each 4 years over 40 each 2 years over 50, and each 1 year over 60. This is better for aging than losing stats, I feel.

Wizards and elves don't have this problem, as they live forever.

Then, I have monsters with level loss abilities cause you to age 1d6-3d6 years per hit, depending on how bad they are. Its not that threatening, but eventually you have to worry.

Then I give them paralysis, a chance to wither a limb into uselessness, or weakness as additional effects of their attacks.

File: osr bingo edited.png (200KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 805x685px

>>51309974

I don't understand how someone could not want thieves in their game. I would get rid of fighters and magic users before I got rid of thieves, I don't care who came first.

>>51309936, >>51309974 c >>51306441
We've also got "How do I implement feats for fighters?"

File: 81a6c33adb7509fd064c28ac5c90c496.jpg (46KB, 564x752px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x752px

>>51310005
>fighter makes his own magical weapon by bathing it in dragon blood under a full moon

I love stuff like this, but I would still make it so the blacksmith is the one who knows the legends. The player has to quest to find out what he can do to forge a powerful weapon (this means more game time, more reasons to dungeon crawl, and more time wandering the wilderness) and then he has to quest again to succeed at making his magic weapon or armor.

One thing I like in this book here is the 25% chance for magic item loot to be a map.

The map gives directions to find another magic item, or to a shitload of money-treasure. This gives the players more to do in the dungeon.

>>51310057
I'll give you magic users, but you'd have to change thieves if fighters didn't exist.

Like

How would an entire party of backstab-happy hide in the shadows people work?

Who'd go first?

NObody has good HP, nobody has heavy armor, nobody has good attacks.

If you wanna run your thieve's guild game (which sounds sweet) you'd have to give thieves full proficiency with weapons and armor, except when they want to sneak or pick pockets.

I'm using level drain as following:
-1 to all rolls, and lose 1, 2, 3 or 4 hp (depending on your type of hd from d4 to d10). Cumulative. If you get hit by this attack a number of times equal to your level, you die. Become a vampire, wight, wraith, spectre, whatever in 1d4 days.

And then I have that bad juju be reversible by a remove curse spell.

I know some funny guys say "but level drain isn't permanent, you can get more xp later" but it's not the same xp you're getting back. The adventures you suffered trough to get to a higher level suddenly getting undone is only acceptable if you die. Losing xp is a dumb mechanic.

It doesn't make in-setting sense (if you're losing "vitality" you should just lose hp or constitution. If it's making you age there are rules for aging. Just add the years) and it's mechanically flawed.

File: osrg bingo edited.png (201KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 805x685px

>>51310076

>>51310101
>>51310101
I'm just gonna go ahead and declare my firm opinion that in TRUE ADND rocks SHOULD BE OP just like TOLKIEN ALWAYS INTENDED.

File: merp.jpg (91KB, 386x499px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 386x499px

>>51310101
Is this OSR?

>>51310089
Just make it clear to the players that combat is something to generally be avoided because they're all shit at it. Or they might be able to pull it off under the right circumstances if they all get a sneak attack or something.
I mean I probably wouldn't get rid of fighters, but I still think thieves are the most fun to play.

File: osrg bingo edited.png (205KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 805x685px

>>51310130
>>51310150
We did it guys!!

>>51303875
>magic doesn't cause you to mutate into something weird in the sword-and-sorcery that inspired D&D
Tell that to Ningauble or Sheelba. Shit, tell it to the Mouser in his first story, when he started to turn sickly and strange-looking because he was doing dark magic in hopes of avenging his teacher.

>>51310186
>something weird
We're not talking about "something weird". We're talking THAT
>>51303917
level of weird.

In those stories, do the casters end up becoming pathetic useless piles of tumor at some point? No?
Than that's not DCC.

>>51310150
MERP is Rolemaster, so no not really. Despite the name, OSR isn't really about "old-school" in general - it's about the old-school TSR D&D play that ceased to be a thing after WotC got the property. (And even earlier than that in 2E, according to some.)


Arguing by age isn't a good idea, by the way - did you know that GURPS was released two years after MERP, which was released the same year as Toon, which was released three years after Call of Cthulhu?

File: art-002.jpg (157KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1600x1200px

>>51310268
GOOD magic doesn't turn you up like that.

EVIL magic does. At best, you end up as a lech.

>>51310268
Ignoring the bit about useless piles of tumors, they probably do become at least as weird as >>51303917 since Sheelba has no eyes and Ningauble has at least 7 on stalks, and neither would let Fafhrd look at them while he was wearing the veil that let him see the truth.

>>51310057
>I don't care who came first.

Nor should anybody, unless the OSR is some sort of weird purity movement. Which it is not, at least not if I have any say. Which I do not
Seems to me most of the people for the Thief are for him on thematic grounds, while most of the people against him base their opposition on mechanical grounds. (With a small side of "he wasn't there first" silliness.) Thus the two sides are kind of talking past each other.
Also the guy calling Gray Mouser a Magic User has triggered me, I need to turn off the thread for a bit before somebody claims Nifft the Lean is a bard or something.

>>51310089
You never did an all thieves game? It's great; I'd use AD&D thieves though so you can all have different specialties.

>>51310169
We win! The prize is eternal shame.

File: full_armored_knight_by_jasson78.jpg (153KB, 735x1086px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 735x1086px

>>51310340
I don't have a problem with an all thieves game, I just would have fighters exist in the rules.

You know, for next game.

>>51310310
>lech
A lecher? So evil magic makes you an anime perverted old man?

>>51310325
>Ignoring the bit about useless piles of tumors,
So ignoring the main problem people have with the mechanics, its totally fine!

>>51310349
Hey, hold up!
>>51310376
>anime

Think we might be shooting for blackout.

File: tumblr_nodqqjgp2h1ts9gtvo3_r2_400.jpg (86KB, 366x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 366x500px

>>51310186
Technically the Patrons are both aliens. But you see mutated and fucked-up Human wizards all over the place in the fiction, from the Mouser going downhill to Khoura (of Golden Voyage of Sinbad fame) becoming a doddering and wrinkled maniac. Hell, Howard's wizards are even more twisted by their powers - by the time the (real, not JEJ) Thulsa Doom goes down he's basically an eternally-burning liche with twisted and ruined bones instead of a body. In Moorecock, even >divine< spellcasters get fucked up by their gods, like the whole thing with Issek of the Jug inhabiting his followers on the rack.

The idea that there's a physical price to pay for the power sorcery grants is literally older than Rome. It's often fluffed as enervation, disease, and unnatural aging - but for S&S fiction it gets a lot nastier. It's one of the key differences between a Sword and Sorcery vibe and "generic" High Fantasy.

File: 7347232122.jpg (248KB, 1174x1600px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1174x1600px

In your mind what are dragons most like? I've see all of the following at least once: very big dangerous beasts. Embodied idea/cosmic force, such as the personification of greed or time. The embodiment of a certain element or worldly force like fire or ice. And also a race, like humans or dwarfs, but bigger and stronger that are called dragons.

>>51310399
I think his point is, if you have curruption for wizards which DOESN'T kill them off, some people would like that.

Especially evil wizards.

File: moar_cock.jpg (5KB, 200x152px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x152px

>>51310538
I like the idea that wizards CAN live a very long time with no ill effects, if they're careful and don't meddle (like gandalf) but obviously Gandalf is not known for casting fireball 3 times a day. In fact, he's more of a swordfighter!

Also
>moorecock

>>51310665
That's fine. The reason for the complaints leveled against DCC is due to the mechanics of corruption being bad.

File: osrg bingo edited.png (206KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 805x685px

>>51310410
Time to take down the trove!

File: 1774 - John June - Dragon of Whatley.jpg (437KB, 667x1112px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 667x1112px

>>51310550
Cunning and deadly beasts, which are incarnations of one or more worldly sins; always Greed, usually Vanity, with a smattering of others based on random rolls. No-one knows where they came from, and everyone knows they lie about it. Including the Dragons. I prefer mine to be more like the classic Medieval dragon (slithy, vicious, and serpentine) than the modern fantasy archetype.
...
Can you tell I'm a philologist yet?

>>51310729
Oh we're talking about dungeon crawl classic. Fuck that magic system. Fuck DCC in general, actually. When it comes to actually playing it, things are more like call of cthulu (unless you're a thief, who can spend luck points every day to avoid getting f'ed in the a.)

Zocchi dice are cool in theory, but just try picking out a d18 and a d14 from a pile of dice on your first try.

and I have never seen a system so completely designed to kill characters. That's why it only goes up to level 5: So you don't get too mad when you lose a character!

cuck the luck stat, and why the fuck do you use agility instead of dexterity?

I like random backgrounds, and I've gained a lot from reading DCC, but actually playing it? FUCK no. Never again.

>>51310340
>Nifft the Lean is a bard or something
Preposterous! Everyone knows the archetypal bard is Cugel.

>>51310903
>and I have never seen a system so completely designed to kill characters

OD&D?

>That's why it only goes up to level 5: So you don't get too mad when you lose a character!

Level 10, anon.

File: John Bateman - King Lear - Come Slack of former service.jpg (368KB, 844x1024px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 844x1024px

>>51310729
>The reason for the complaints leveled against DCC is due to the mechanics of corruption being bad.
Yes, but I maintain that Corruption is nowhere near fatal. Especially since DCC has at least one adventure explicitly about helping a PC wizard slough off Corruption and advises the GM to find other ways to get rid of it. Plus, you can burn a point of Luck to prevent a Corruption AFTER learning what it is. Not only that, you lot keep assuming that Corruption is automatically mechanically worthless/hindering to the wizard.

On the Minor Corruptions table, you can gain Infravision, as well as having one result that is "passes out for 1d6 turns unless someone wakes him up".
Major - Natural attacks (horns and claws), bonus functioning eyes, and snake-scent
Greater - Natural attacks (including a STR-draining poison stinger), bonus eyes, AGL boost, or an additional hand.

Just the first half-dozen special spell corruption results include things like "Permanently understands ALL speech at a basic level, including that of animals" and a breath weapon.

So pretending that it's gonna make you turn into Madam Trash Heap at first level is not only disingenuous, it's literally impossible. A high-level wizard is probably gonna be fucked-up and/or short on Luck, but that's what a veil and gloves are for.

>>51310903
>Zocchi dice are cool in theory, but just try picking out a d18 and a d14 from a pile of dice on your first try.
I do this every session. Just buy two of each, and have each type of die be a certain color. My d16's are green, and my d14's are purple. D18 isn't even used in the game.

>and I have never seen a system so completely designed to kill characters.
There hasn't been a character death for several sessions in my DCC campaign. In fact, there was more death when we used LotFP.

>That's why it only goes up to level 5: So you don't get too mad when you lose a character!
Level 10, kind of like in OD&D. And players generally get kind of mad when they lose a character in any D&D system.

>>51310963
>>and I have never seen a system so completely designed to kill characters
>OD&D?
The heck?

>>51310963
>OD&D?
You're joking right?

>>51311017
>at first level
the problem is not at first level, nobody complained about first level. People are complaining about the idea that every high level wizard gotta be some fucked up mess. It's dumb, and not fun from both a creating a setting perspective and from a playing a character perspective.

>>51311035
>And players generally get kind of mad when they lose a character in any D&D system.
Nah. Get some players who don't assume everything should be like 3.pf and you're fine. If you're gaming with players who know what old school D&D is no one is going to be mad at characters dying.

>>51311112
I definitely agree that players who are grown up and have gotten used to the D&D formula can understand that losing is fun, but this is the case with DCC too. In fact I almost suspect that dying in DCC is more fun than in other retroclones.

>>51311035
>>51310903
>>51311112
>>And players generally get kind of mad when they lose a character in any D&D system.

Let me stop this pointless argument right here
DCC isn't a "killer" because of actual adventuring. Players will get mad at DCC because it has retarded rules that will kill your character trough no fault of your own, or even trough no fault of your enemies or traps.

See the rules for fumbles: If you roll 1 on a d20, and a 16 on a confirmation check you get:
>You accidentally strike yourself for normal damage plus an extra 1 point. In addition, you fall on your back and are unable to right yourself until you make a DC 16 Agility check.

Yeah, everyone using a sword has 5% and then 20% (uhh that's like 1%? Not good at math) of hitting themselves whenever making a regular attack.
That's retarded.

>>51311191
Yeah. Critical fumbles and criticals in general are the most stupid thing ever.

>>51311191
You do realize that you need banded mail or higher to even be able to roll high enough of a fumble die to get that result, right? And that die is a d16, not a d20.
I don't think you've read through all the rules.

>>51311237
>criticals in general
4e criticals worked fine tho (on a vacuum, ignore all the charop fuckery that made them no okay)
if you rolled a 20, you deal max damage, without needing to roll.

>>51311263
That's even worse
so it further punishes the fighter for wearing heavy armor, one of its class features.
and changing the dice to d16 just changes the percentages. It's now 1 in 20 for a fumble, then 1 in 16 to hit self.

Still fucking retarded.
Plus there are other dumb results

>trip badly, taking 1d3 damage
>swing at ALLY
>joints in armor freeze up (how does an attack roll result in that)
>drop weapon

>>51311299
It changes the percentages quite significantly though. You though that there was 20% chance of hitting yourself originally.
And the rules for DCC definitely disincentivizes the use of armor, at least on lower levels. That's just how the rules are designed and that isn't bad in itself. If it's a problem for you then you can always just rebalance it (and take any unbalancing punches that might come from that).

I will admit that I've lowered the check penalty for wearing armor, but I don't see the point in doing it for fumbles. If anything, my players get crazy crits all the time and mostly just fall prone when they fumble.

File: fire_emblem_axe.png (333KB, 462x626px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 462x626px

>>51309863
>>51306320
>>51308269

>morale
I've been going through my chainmail and odnd books for an hour, and I can't actually FIND the rules for how morale works. Can someone help me out?

>>51309385
Chiming in, but a bite requires a touch as well. Grabbing your enemy and pulling yourself to their neck. I always rationalized it that way.

>>51311383
>It changes the percentages quite significantly though.
It still means that a fighter or cleric daring to wear heavy armor has a small chance of hitting himself with every single attack he makes.

As the levels increase, you get more attacks, which means more chances to fuck yourself over. And I looked on their class descriptions, and other than being able to burn luck (which is a permanent resource) to avoid a fumble, there is no other means of avoiding fumbles, which means that even at high levels, wearing armor makes you into one of the three stooges

>and mostly just fall prone when they fumble.
even if you don't take any damage, 5% of *wacky hijinks* happening when you make an attack roll is absolutely retarded

>>51311035
also worth mentioning that a level 10 DCC character is in many respects more like a level 20 character would be in more normal OSR games(and similarly a level one character in DCC is basically a level 3-5 character in other systems)

>>51311397
Alright, so Chainmail has two types of morale.

There's Post-Melee Morale, which you roll after every round of melee to see whether the melee continues or if one of the parties decides to disengage/retreat/rout. Page 13 in 2E has the details, although you'll have to either look at the example or 3E to find the missing item in the list.
This is what AD&D reworked into its morale system.

And then there's Morale, on page 15 of 2E. (It's in the table of contents, so isn't too hard to find.)
When you get below a certain percentage of casualties, you need to roll 2d6 over a number to not get removed from play. And then the next time you hit that percentage you're automatically removed without a roll.
There's also a separate morale roll for resisting charges on the next page.
This entire system is what Basic adapted for its morale system.

>>51311540
>It still means that a fighter or cleric daring to wear heavy armor has a small chance of hitting himself with every single attack he makes.
They also have a much higher chance of completely decimating the enemy with every attack.

>As the levels increase, you get more attacks, which means more chances to fuck yourself over.
And more chances to completely destroy the opposition.

>there is no other means of avoiding fumbles, which means that even at high levels, wearing armor makes you into one of the three stooges
Or it makes you into an unstoppable warmachine. It's all in the roll of the die.

>even if you don't take any damage, 5% of *wacky hijinks* happening when you make an attack roll is absolutely retarded
Retarded for you maybe, but me and my players enjoy it. I'd like to discuss this further if we can keep an objective outlook, but maybe you just want to call it retarded and hey, I won't bother trying to stop you.

>>51311579
It's true, DCC characters are generally much stronger than characters of the same level in most other retroclones.

>>51311644
yeah DCC frontloads most of the early level sucking that is in other systems into it's level 0 characters

>>51311615
From a mechanical standpoint, it's not good game design, it reinforces nothing, and serves no practical purpose besides randomly fucking over the players.
From an in-game standpoint, most of the results make no sense. (yeah this highly trained warrior capable of decimating an army? 5% chance of tripping or whatever with every attack).

The only standpoint where 5% chance of dumb shit is good is from a "we're so stoned and playind D&D isn't it WACKY".

>>51310006
>Wizards and elves don't have this problem, as they live forever.
Wizards live forever?

>>51311733
It reinforces and serves the purpose of making every session and encounter somewhat memorable. It's firmly rooted in tournament and convention style games, where a couple players who might never have met can meet up and have a couple of hours of fun with lots of crazy and gonzo stuff happening. It's flowing rather than rigid, and it's better suited for games and campaigns where players would rather have everything be about traversing through weird dungeons and experience odd things rather than hoarding money and base build. If you and your players want to do that, then I don't really see any problems with DCC.

Or I dunno, you're making strawmen about how people apparently play the game so you might just want to take out your aggression on it. In that case I'm just wasting my time.

>>51311860
Yup. The max level in my rules is 12, but true power comes from building a stronghold and attracting followers. Most of the mysterious towers with vast dungeons beneath were established by wizards.

Even a 12th level wizard isn't THAT hard to kill, though, so often they kick the bucket after a few hundred years.

>>51311867
I prefer more abstract fumbles, so when a high level fighter gets *miss one turn* you can say he just overbalanced, whereas when a low level dude does you can say he fell on his ass.

Instant death on 1s and 20s, anything else is for pussies.

>>51311860
If you don't live forever as a wizard, then either you are a shitty wizard or live in a world that uses DCC rules.

File: GRENDR~1.jpg (61KB, 600x481px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x481px

>>51311733
>it reinforces nothing,
Except it does.
DCC is built on the idea that adventurers are living on borrowed time. Eventually, you will >literally< run out of luck, alone in some shithole under the Earth, and you will die.
We're talking about a game where wizards vomit bees as a means of casting magic missile (one of the Mercurial Magic results), where the Cleric's gods are capricious and vile, where literally >anyone< can pick up a "Patron" who might actually help when you call on him but demand service for the favor. It's Weird of the White Wolf territory, not fucking Narnia.

I don't use DCC*, but it's really damned easy to see what it's trying to do if you're at all familiar with the literature that led into D&D in the first place. Hell, its tagline should make that obvious.

*I personally use another system, for a couple reasons. My campaign is a low-magic mid-fantasy one, which doesn't fit the assumed-world and flavor of DCC. While I appreciate the roles of the mechanics in DCC, I also prefer a simpler, cleaner system since I usually have to run games with minimal prep. In addition, many of my players are new to RPGs and unfamiliar with S&S fiction, so a simpler system that supports a different thematic playstyle makes sense. In fact, I kind of want to run a game of dcc with pic related as the inspiration..

>>51311933
>I prefer more abstract fumbles, so when a high level fighter gets *miss one turn* you can say he just overbalanced, whereas when a low level dude does you can say he fell on his ass.
DCC has several different tables from criticals, for many different levels, classes and even monster types. I don't see why they couldn't make some more fumble tables for different levels and classes to be honest.

>>51311948
Now we've got a real /osrg/ shitfest brewing!

>>51311948
>Natural. Fucking. 20
>You kill orc so hard that all orcs die forever
>Your half-orc teammate is now missing limbs

>>51311973
They only live forever if they are wise enough to keep a low profile, and not meddle much with the affairs of destiny.

>>51311989
>>51311948
add it to the bingo

>>51311976
Fucking hell. You make me wanna try to actually use DCC.
If only rules were less of a mess.

>>51311997
>wizard
>not meddling with the affairs of destiny and metaphysics
You're not a wizard, you're just a magician

>>51312044
I'm just a simple man who wants to smoke my pipe in the evenings and live a peaceful life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBGEG21CGo0

>>51312044
Yo, Birthright is 2E.

>>51311397
Other anon gave you a complete answer for Chainmail, so I'll just mention that in Men & Magic the few notes on Morale that aren't just references to Chainmail are in the explanation of Charisma (specifically, how to determine your own troops' morale and loyalty).

>>51312121
It might also be worth noting that there's a few alternate resolution methods for morale that pop up here and there in the LBBs - the one that comes to mind is the Drums of Panic: "will cause men and fantastic creatures who fail to make their morale throw to flee in rout (for morale throw use saving throw vs. magic)."

>>51311591
>>51312121
Not the same anon as the one who originally asked, but what number is actually being rolled against? In Chainmail there's morale scores for different soldiers, but I can't find anything when it comes to monster or retainer morale.

>>51312223
Chainmail obviously isn't going to have anything D&D-specific on account of being released before it and being an almost completely separate game, but a workable solution is to combine the charts on Chainmail p.15 (LOSS TABLE) with the Loyalty table on Men & magic p.13.

You could also try to integrate Post Melee Morale to make battles a bit less lethal, but you'll probably want to make a computer program to do the bookkeeping for you in that case. And adjust the numbers to make 'em work.

Really, I'd consider just nicking the morale systems from AD&D or Basic - why reinvent the wheel?

As with many things in OD&D, you need to do some legwork. The game expects the DM to be a part-time game designer, really, and experienced enough in wargames to just grab their favorite combat system.

>>51312223
Men & Magic page 13:
>Non-player characters and men-at-arms will have to make morale checks (using the above reaction table or "Chainmail") whenever a highly dangerous or un-nerving situation arises. Poor morale will mean that those in question will not perform as expected.
The "above reaction table" is apparently the 2d6 hiring attempt one on the preceding page, where the reaction ranges from "Attempts to attack" to "Enthusiast, Loyalty +3". It's not completely straightforward, but also not that ambiguous how this is meant to be adapted, especially since a more generic version is used in other editions.

As for Chainmail, and in general, morale there depends essentially on troop type, and monsters in the Fantasy Supplement invariably "fight as" one troop type or another, sometimes with morale adjustments (such as "need never check for morale" in the case of the undead, I believe). As for the Monsters & Treasure-only monsters, that's a case where (as with the Fantastic Combat Table) you're apparently expected to understand that various monsters "count as" other monsters that *are* in Chainmail, and Gygax seems to have thought it was obvious what would count as what whenever it isn't explicitly stated -- one of his many usability mistakes in the LBBs.

>>51312382
>>51312338
>>51312223
Well how do we adapt this and get a single number, which must then be rolled equal to or higher than on 2d6 (+1 or 2 from dex) to determine if my thief sneaks past a sentry?

>>51312382
>Men & Magic page 13:
To complicate things further, that parenthesis is from one of the later printings of the game - the first print lacks it. (Along with a bunch of other somewhat important shit and some less-important ones. The first few prints really need that sheet of errata that got included.)

Also, that table is probably where Holmes got his morale table from - after all, the "Enthusiast, Loyalty +3" thing maps pretty well to going berzerk on a 12 in Holmes Basic.

>>51312449
That's got jack shit to do with morale. Or a 2d6, really.

That'd be, what, either a 2-in-6 opposed surprise check or a percentile Move Silently roll? Or 1d20 under Dex, maybe, if you're running B/X?

Morale is just for finding out if a monster or retainer has the balls to keep fighting or if they would rather give up/run for the hills.

>>51312449
Well, if you're not using OD&D/Chainmail specifically, it's much more straightforward as all creatures are just supplied with a 2-12 morale score.

If you DO want to use it with OD&D, either steal the scores from Basic, or reverse engineer the morale checks-for-losses table in Chainmail. For instance, Armored Foot need to roll a 6 or better to remain in battle after losing 1/3 of troops; this is the same as rolling 8 or less, statistically speaking, so we can say they have a base morale of 8 (or, just say it's 6 and use a roll-under-morale system instead of a roll-over for sneaking; those are mathematically equivalent).

>>51312544
That anon was referencing a rule suggestion from earlier in the thread >>51306320

>>51312544
>To complicate things further, that parenthesis is from one of the later printings of the game - the first print lacks it.
Yeah, I'm going off the digest on Lulu, which is sadly a post-Balrog printing -- but on the other hand, as you say, piles of clarifications incorporated, so you take the good with the bad.

>That's got jack shit to do with morale. Or a 2d6, really.
Bro, you need to follow the conversation tree up a bit. It started with Anon's suggestion here: >>51306320 which is very straightforward to implement in Basic, for instance.

Other Anon wanted to adapt it for OD&D use, hence this discursion.

>>51312449
>>51312563
Oh, in that case you should probably just grab B/X's morale. B/X is roll-under while Chainmail is roll-over, after all. (And B/X has some enemies with really high morale.)

>>51312558
WHere do I find the 2-12 morale stores? Is it in...THE TROOVE

:D

>>51312679
As for a concrete number: Chainmail has 8+(6-) for light foot, 7+(7-) for heavy foot/medium horse, and 6+(8-) for armored foot/elite heavy foot/heavy horse. Just treat that as your typical bad/average/good target numbers.

>>51312722
Any Basic book will contain the monsters for that level range, or you can just find an RC scan (if the Trove has one) and go with that. Or Labyrinth Lord probably has the same exact values for everything, I suspect.

File: osrg bingo edited.png (207KB, 805x685px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 805x685px

>>51312722
Oooh!

File: Traps Illustrated.png (201KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 500x281px

I'll start the saving throw argument.

Personally I'm really digging the universal number + modifier based on stats and are class.

I like this because, at least in my opinion, it's the type of saving throw mechanic you can use to implement pretty much any kind of hazard you want.

An example would be Fighters get +1/2 their level to saving throws featuring combat as an element. So if you get constricted by a giant snake that would count. But having a high strength would help here too, so add your Fighter + Strength modifier to struggle out of the snake's coils.

Anyone use something like this?

>>51312752
Probably nothing anybody in this thread needs to be told, really, but worth noting about this is that even increments of 1 are fairly big steps in the middle of 2d6. 6+ is 11/36 (30.6%) better than 8+. So for sneaking purposes also, these are a perfectly functional range of values.

>>51303419
50 megadungeon rationalizations

>>51312955
It's 72.22%/58.33%/41.67%, yeah.

Or, to roughly convert it to a d20 'cause people have a rough grasp of that, 7+/9+/13+.

+1 is not always +1, yeah.

Incidentally, this is why goblins getting -1 to hit in sunlight is so annoying. That was on a single fucking d6, you goddamn imbeciles!

Hey, Anon who was showing off his Chainmail and OD&D booklets he'd printed off Lulu a few threads back, are you there? And if you are, can you post the links to the Lulu products you used? I saw your picture and I crave that shit.

Feel free to use advanced cryptography and/or intermediate, expiring pastebins if you're worried about throwing them up in plain sight and getting kill by roving IP enforcers.

>>51313095
>Incidentally, this is why goblins getting -1 to hit in sunlight is so annoying.
Yeah, that's the same problem as porting the Man-To-Man weapon vs. armor mods wholesale to d20 (and why the anon who did a great job on fixing those needed to do so).

>>51313095
Or look at the flanking modifiers that were kept as late as 3E.

>>51313095
>>51313125
>>51313155
Or the magic sword bonus, +1 to all attack rolls!

>>51313125
You know what the worst thing is? They fixed it. They actually fixed goblins getting -1 to hit in sunlight. Crack open your completely legitimate copy of Swords & Spells to page 24, and look at the MELEE BONUSES AND PENALTIES:
>Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs in full daylight -30%

-6, huh. Suddenly they can't hit over AC6. Fighting the bastards in the sun actually means something.

And then AD&D fucks it all up again when the Monster Manual is released and has Kobolds back at -1 to hit in sunlight. Goddammit, TSR. You guys fixed it already, just let the left hand talk to the right one.

>>51313155
It's a +1 modifier in Chainmail (to both flank and rear, on a d6) - although really it's a bit more complicated than that, since it really just up your classification by one and the +1 is just for the highest class (i.e. Heavy Horse).

3E has flanking be a +2, though, so this isn't quite as egregious as kobolds having a useless fiddly little -1 all the way up until 3E, goddamn.

Seriously, they made an entire condition just because of this shit:
>Dazzled
>The creature is unable to see well because of overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks.

It's a -1. What the actual fuck, who even cares.

>>51313229
Up to +3 for the best weapons in both Chainmail and the LBBs! Arguably fixed with +5 weapons, I suppose.

Also, it's +1D in mass combat because it's weird like that.

>>51313341
>Up to +3 for the best weapons in both Chainmail and the LBBs!
Isn't it just a vague suggestion in Chainmail, about "a magic sword of triple power" to represent something amazing like Excalibur?

Still though, true enough.

>>51312937
I've thought about this too but it's hard to pin down the categories. Maybe something like:
Fighter: save vs combat (grappling, tripping, disarming)
Cleric: save vs evil (curses, mind-control, level drain)
Magic-User: save vs magic (spells, wands, enchantments)
Thief: save vs device (traps, nets, explosives)
Elf: save vs nature (harsh terrain, weather)
Dwarf: save vs poison (paralysis effects, venomous attacks)

Probably too ambiguous, and some are too broad and some are too narrow. but hey

>>51313378
>Excaliber and other "Super Swords" would give a plus two or three!

What they do, by the way, is give +1D in normal combat, +1 on the Fantasy Combat Table, let Elves fight good, and give a 12" circle that dispels darkness (but does not equal full light, so no instant anti-goblin defense).

They cost 10pts and have a morale rating of 10. An Elf with a magic sword is a bit of a glass cannon, but at 14 points they're a slight bit cheaper than Heroes while being better against goblins and similar-ish on the FCT. (And Elves are neutral, so you can get them in Chaos armies if you win the die roll.)


Also interesting to note: magic armor is a -1 to the opponents rolls on the FCT, but a minus THREE on man-to-man. And Enchanted Arrows auto-hit normal targets and let you attack on the FCT at range - the only time they actually give a bonus to hit is when fired by (super)heroes at flying dragons, in which case it's a +1 for that Bard headshot.
While Chainmail's superficially similar to OD&D, there's a bunch of small changes they made that you notice if you look hard enough.
And then there's changes they didn't - look at the Superhero on the Fantasy Reference Table and then read through Monsters & Treasure's Pixie (p.16).

>>51313625
>They cost 10pts and have a morale rating of 10. An Elf with a magic sword is a bit of a glass cannon, but at 14 points they're a slight bit cheaper than Heroes
Points? This is where everything goes wrong and from just gamers wanting to have fun you end up with WAAC neckbeard assholes optimizing lists and removing the fun of playing instead of forging a narrative.

>>51313655
Chainmail's a wargame, man. One without suggested point totals, mind, as that's completely up to the umpire.

It's not a game for newcomers to the hobby, it's made for people who were already grogs prior to its release.

>>51313625
>while being better against goblins and similar-ish on the FCT
What? The version of the Fantasy Combat Table I have in front of me right now includes neither Elf nor Goblin (and I don't see why it would, either; those are man-type troops, the kind Heroes and Superheroes go through like threshing machines).

>>51312937
I do. Our saving throw is just called Luck, and is modified by an ability modifier that depends on the way the danger is engaged. There's also an additional class-dependant bonus.
You can also "Push your Luck" by burning d4 off it. It gets restored to the new full value on each level up.
Worked rather wall in practice so far.

>>51313102
Run it through twice and the message will show
VTI5eWNua3NJRWtuYlNCdWIzUWdkR2hsSUdGdWIyNGdlVzkxSjNKbElHeHZiMnRwYm1jZ1ptOXk=

>>51313125
Can anyone link me to that anon's work? This seems highly intriguing.

>>51313689
Exactly, grogs are the worst because they want to win instead of having fun.

File: funposting.gif (32KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 250x250px

>>51313894

>Sorry, I'm not the anon you're looking for

File: man-to-man d20.jpg (108KB, 863x599px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 863x599px

>>51313913
Quoted and reposted two threads back: >>51271562

Pic related is the table itself, reposting for convenience.

>>51312888
kek

>>51313655
You're lacking reading comprehension, buddy

>>51314157
I should've known people wouldn't know Games Workshop/Age of Sigmar jokes in this place.

>>51314182
It's ok, anon, we all make mistakes

I really feel that the OD&D/Chainmail man-to-man system really has some untapped potential. I've always thought that weapons chosen should have some effect on how easy it is to hit different armors, and I've seen so many homebrew systems about it, but then it turns out the problem was already solved right from the start.
It's too bad that they didn't go further with the system, I think that adding certain "monster types" or something to the table could've potentially made it pretty interesting. I might try to do something but since I don't know how they figured out how to balance everything, I'm bound to get it wrong.

>>51314373
>I might try to do something but since I don't know how they figured out how to balance everything, I'm bound to get it wrong.
Anon, do NOT sweat about that. They balanced it based on Gygax and Perren's reading of layman's medieval history books that were already inaccurate in the 1970s, in precision terms they're probably about as good as the equipment weights. E.g. one thing that stands out at a glance is that maces and morningstars are treated significantly differently and flails even exist, let alone as their own entry (flails as seen in popular culture are probably a myth like horned viking helmets). "Smacked with an edgy iron ball" isn't as variable as that.

Just do your best, playtest, ask /osrg/, don't worry much if at all.

>>51314373
You do you, but personally if I felt like differentiating weapon effects on armor I would not be using any D&D-derived system in the first place. There's other games that already do that, and I like the plainness of AC.

>>51313102
Idk if this is the one you're looking for, it's 3LBB in one volume. Nice to have but I wish it was separate booklets
http://www.lulu.com/shop/gary-gygax-and-dave-arneson/original-dungeons-dragons-digest/paperback/product-18866052.html

>>51314683
Thanks a lot anon, but I think that's the one that was posted before in /osrg/? Good stuff, but what I'm looking for is a version with separate booklets (including all the supplements and the reference sheets, although I don't really need the sheets) that an anon showed a photo of, including a spiral-bound Chainmail. What I'd like to do is make my own version of a box set.

>>51309602
>2 out of 3 players pick drow. Third is a human (male)

Enjoy your impending ERP.

>>51314889
Like OSR is any good for ERP.

This is heretical and something I myself have been fighting against, but my head has recently been filling with a system that ditches ability scores and classes, and just replaces them with skills and spells. Basically, as you gain experience, you get a choice between improving one or the other, with the spell side acting as a combination of M-U and Cleric, and the skill side being fighters and thieves.
I just don't want the skill system to devolve into pointless rolling for everything

>>51315279
>implying people won't find a way

>>51315315
IME freeforming it is the only way. Once you get systems involved things grind to a halt, fast.

>>51315295
Have you heard the good word of BRP?

the rolling isn't pointless shut up

>>51315295
Optimally, chargen would be a quick little lifepath-based booklet to roll on, so the starting character still ends up randomized enough and to avoid munchkins.

>>51315295
>>51315407
>Anon reinvents Wanderer ex nihilo

>>51315480
This thread does have a way of feeling like a fast-forwarded view of RPG design history until like 1983, then rewound back to the beginning.

File: wanderer.jpg (206KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1280x960px

>>51315480
>>51315513

Wanderer never existed, though, it was just a mockup of a fantasy version of Traveller.
(Adventurer exists, though, and is up on Doc Grognard's blog)

I need a list of thief skills.

>>51315513
I've noticed that exact same thing but in this case I was referring to that mockup of a box set with a Conan-based fantasy version of Traveller (which would presumably not use classes, just skills, and have a lifepath chargen system).

>>51315569
I know, but as noted it still gives a pretty clear picture of what it would be like, which is why people slavered over it when they first saw the pic.