/osrg/ OSR General - Horses Lit on Fire Edition

I"ll DM for the first time and I have six hours to prepare everything, any tips?

File: Unnamed OSR game teaser.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Anyone got any advice on my homebrew here?

I've got good responses, bad responses, and have been working on it touch and go for a while now. All I really need is an equipment section and making MU 'feats' and I'll have a good player manual for my game. I'd love any feedback, especially on those two needed elements.

File: tracks in the sand.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51938911
Read the AD&D DMG (by Gygax)
Make sure you and your players are on the same page (have the same expectations, etc.)
Try to settle player disputes out-of-game.
If you have time, read part of Master of the Game (by Gygax)

Don't hesitate to retcon (but run changes by your players first)
If you haven't introduced a setting element yet, your changes to it aren't even retcons

>for the first time
useamoduleuseamoduleuseamodule
>six hours to prepare
useamoduleuseamoduleuseamodule
Read through your module ahead of time

>>51939080
>Read the AD&D DMG (by Gygax)
lol

>>51938911
GM's word is law (but don't be afraid to ask second opinions from your players if they aren't assholes)

Keep options focused: No allowing every BECMI class or AD&D race, although you can make some exceptions to suit your tastes.

Keep any setting ideas concrete enough to convey an image to players (Japan but with psychics and bugmen) but broad enough to expand as play goes on.

Use a module (I like B4). Read it before you run it.

>>51939080
>useamoduleuseamoduleuseamodule
How do I use modules' maps? Should I shown them to my players, or just describe them? Maps like the one in In Search of the Unknown are huge, I'm nore that even reading I will be able to remember over 100 areas, and stopping to check them might slow the game too much.

>>51939345
>Maps like the one in In Search of the Unknown are huge, I'm nore that even reading I will be able to remember over 100 areas, and stopping to check them might slow the game too much.
I mean obviously don't use a huge one then hey
Don't show them the maps, unless they in-game acquire a map. Make them draw their own as they go.

>>51939303
>>Read the AD&D DMG (by Gygax)
>lol
I don't care what system you run. OSR or not, it's a must read.
A dudes who's run shittons of campaigns crammed it full of tips on running campaigns.

>>51939345
Always always always describe it.
AT LEAST one person in your group finds it cathartic to draw patterns of straight lines.

>>51938911
Run Tower of the Stargazer. Easy as heck to read, set up and play.

>>51939424
He has 6 hours to prepare, and you want him to spend that time reading the DMG? He should probably start with the very very basics, that is making sure the session is fun.
>So the dungeon is only partially drawn and I haven't decided the monsters yet, but I know how to use the harlot table and why not wearing helmets will kill you! Let's play!

So I guess this is the best place to ask this:
Why would you ever use a roll under mechanic? I don't see any advantage at all.

My group is using B/X and they want me to homebrew a Bard class for them. Should I just take from AD&D or is there a good B/X Bard brew available?

>>51939673
To settle random shit not covered in the rules explicitly.

"Do I recognize the author of this book?"
*rolls equal/under INT*
"Yes. And you know this book is fiction."

There's a pretty wide chasm ahead of you. You could MAYBE just make the jump with your gear.
*rolls equal/under DEX*
"You make the jump within inches."

"I wanna try to push this big ass statue over"
*rolls equal/under STR*
"You manage to push it over and discover a small hatch underneath."

>>51939673
It makes higher stats or (God forbid) higher skills more meaningful. If you're rolling 3d6 on a roll under system a 12 as opposed to an 11 for a stat is a pretty big deal, even if it doesn't explicitly add a modifier or anything.

File: Unofficial BX - The Complete BX Adventurer.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51939769
pg. 17

>>51939793
>>51939799
But why roll under instead of over? Would counting a 12 in dex as a +12 bonus to a d20 roll just get cumbersome or something?

>>51939826
Thanks. I had this downloaded but never looked inside for some reason.

>>51939851
...because the higher your Stat, the better the success rate. A stat of 12 would have a 60% chance of success. An 18 would have a 90% chance.

Your other method would require a DC (ala 3.pf, DCC etc) which a lot of people don't enjoy using.

>>51939851
As far as I understand it, rolling under lets you know what you need to roll in advance. Equal to or under your stat, whenever you need to do something on the fly. With a d20 + whatever roll, you need to whip up a difficulty, and then you either need to make note of that for consistent future use or improvise every time and run the risk of getting bitched out for being inconsistent.

>>51939851
>Would counting a 12 in dex as a +12 bonus to a d20 roll just get cumbersome or something?
...What? Why would you assume rolling over is some kind of standard to the point where where you think doing it *less* intuitively makes *more* sense?

Look, it's real simple: the most obvious way to check a 3-18 score is to roll d20 (or 3d6, like the other guy said) and see if you roll that value or less. There's no reason to convert it to some roll-over-with-bonus-and-DC thing, so why would you? Why bother?

>>51939851
You can do

>roll + stat > 20

Same math

>>51939851
it's extra steps. roll dice, compare number
as opposed to set difficulty, roll dice, add number, compare.
sure it's not a lot, but over the course of a session or campaign it adds up.

>>51939941
>=20

>>51939926
Rolling under seems extremely unintuitive to me. I would prefer it if everything went in the same direction.
>>51939941
See that makes sense.

>>51939985
Well, you are dumb then.

>>51938821
I miss those old threads where people would post all their charts and tables.

Mostly I miss them because I have none that weren't made for 3.autism. Post random tables and shit pls

File: 100 Spooky, Yet Mundane Dungeon Encounters.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51940001

>>51939985
>Rolling under seems extremely unintuitive to me.
How the fuck is this even possible, are you trolling?
It can't get more intuitive than "look at the number on the die".

File: 08.jpg (169KB, 1280x725px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1280x725px

Does anyone have any good one-shot (or two-shot) dungeon-crawls or hexcrawls?

For people who don't care that much about rules or the variants, just some basic D&D fun.

File: 1282806156474.png (262KB, 336x356px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 336x356px

>>51939985
>unintuitive
>literally one dice roll with no math

ok

>>51940105
It's not intuitive to have rolling high be good sometimes and bad other times. This is really simple guys.
Especially considering that the only example you have of a use for rolling under can be converted very easily.

>>51939634
Six hours is enough time to skim the DMG, read choice sections, skim several modules, pick and fully read one, take a shower, watch half a movie, then reread the chosen module.

File: 0e-BX-1e - Grizzly Graveyard of Grimgortha.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51940188
I inserted this into a hexcrawl I was running. My players loved it.

>>51940210
So by that logic, why are you ok with the Thief's skills being a percentile roll-under? Or basic skills like Search, Force Door, etc all being a d6 roll under?

>>51939985
I understand that you want stuff to work the same way, and I have that same feelings when I read and design games. That said, I think most players grok "roll under stat" faster than "roll, add your stat, check if it's 20 or over".

>>51940298
Never liked percentile rolls, always thought the d20 had enough variation. Also never understood why some of them required a d6 roll while others used percentile.

Really most OSR mechanics are garbage that leave me wondering what the justification for them is.
It's because all you retards only know how to ape the older editions of D&D.

>>51940298
>Herein lies Kelkersal,
>traitor and bastard,
>a wizard quite capable
>but easily bettered.

>Once my apprentice
>he thought himself stronger,
>but with a flick of my finger
>the man was no longer.
>With two dozen daggers,
>his body I skewered,
>then orcs smeared his carcass
>with dung and manure.

>I left his corpse for the maggots and rot,
>after I’d taken the treasure he’d got.
>All graverobbers be well advised,
>there’s absolutely no treasures inside.
>Just make yourself bleed and then add a smear,
>and you’ll have access to see what’s in here

Hah, cute. THanks.

File: 1482106154270.png (201KB, 995x841px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 995x841px

>>51940358
Most aspects were heavily, heavily tested. And while I much prefer LotFPs take on a unified skillset (all d6) it's still just a variation of the old mechanics.

If you want a game with nothing but roll-overs to make you happy, I recommend DCC. It's quite fun.

File: Capture+_2017-02-27-19-22-15.png (157KB, 623x907px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 623x907px

Which of these is easier to grok?
• Add a random number and an arbitrary number, then compare the result another arbitrary number
• Compare a random number to an arbitrary number

>>51939985
That's not unintuitive, that's unfamiliar.

>>51940403
I'm actually just going to kill myself right now, but thanks anyway.

>>51940422
loot dibs

File: OSRG Spells.png (524KB, 1167x1654px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1167x1654px

We used to be creative, guys.

>>51940358
>Also never understood why some of them required a d6 roll
Non-thief skills are (sensibly) d6 because you don't need a high range of variability (it's the other stuff that's weird).
Listening is d6 because (unlike every other thief ability, which is thief-exclusive/supernatural/insurance) the thief is just doing (well trained) mundane listening.

>while others used percentile.
Gygax aped the percentile rolling from a guy who took notes of some else's (the Warlock guy?) shitty homebrew.

>always thought the d20 had enough variation.
Either you missed the question or you're pivoting.
>Never liked percentile rolls,
But why aren't you upset that percentiles are roll under?
Why is 95% a 95% chance of success (roll under)?
Why isn't 20% an 80% chance if success (roll over)?

File: Basic Fantasy Thief Skills in d20 Reversed - Sheet1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51940560
d20 Variant for Roll-Over thief shit.

>>51940591
Why roll over when every other check is roll under?

File: tumblr_inline_nxtnwjOVLe1rsqony_1280.jpg (190KB, 644x864px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 644x864px

I really like how different systems, using the same basic ideas, all manage to capture different vibes when playing.

DCC gives you an over-the-top, gonzo Sword & Sorcery vibe.
LotFP nails it's weird alternate historical vibe.
BFRPG emulates and improves upon B/X perfectly for a 'classic' game.
Mutant Future unifies B/X and GW into one cohesive, simple game.
Into The Odd strips everything down to a strange experience ala LotFP.

File: Untitled.png (36KB, 734x494px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 734x494px

>>51940649

Does anyone have the LotFP gun rules? I can't seem to find them in the trove. Am I just an idiot?

File: 115059.jpg (159KB, 381x542px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 381x542px

>>51940758
They're in the Appendix section of the latest Players Core Book (p. 157)

>>51940533

Those spells are not creative. More then half of them could be covered by prestidigitation and the other half are just toned down versions of regular spells.

>>51940026
thanks bae

>>51940533
We still are, or at least we're trying.
I did some math and thinking on balancing two threads ago, and nobody responded to my post, not even to tell me how stupid it was. If you want to help with that, I'd love to hear feedback. >>51884232

tl;dr
Roll under works well for probabilities.
Roll over works well for degrees of success.

>>51940591
You seem to have missed this, maybe I just presented it poorly:
>Why is 95% a 95% chance of success (roll under)?
>Why isn't 20% an 80% chance if success (roll over)?
But what I was trying to get at is that roll under is more intuitive when dealing with probability.


If you need to roll at or under a 3 in a d8, you have a 3-in-8 chance to do it.
If you want to roll at or over a 9 on a d12, you have a 4-in-12 chance to do it.

By the same token, it is always more intuitive to modify the target number when dealing with probabilities.
+3-in-20 chance of success could manifest in several ways, but folding it into to target number (DC-3 for roll over, DC+3 for roll under hey look! one is more intuitive than the other) abstracts it into your probability (because target number IS probability in roll under).


While roll under is good for probability, roll over can be good for degrees if success.
When using a d6 to deal damage you have a 6-in-6 chance of dealing at least one damage, and a 1-in-6 chance if doing at least six.
But the finding the probability (concentration) is faster than finding the degree of success (concentration AND rule memorization), so it makes more sense to pre-map the degrees if success (1 ⇒ 1 damage, 2 ⇒ 2 damage, etc.) than it does to pre-map the probabilities (1 ⇒ 1-in-6 chance, 2 ⇒ 2-in-6 chance, etc.)

>>51940837
I don't really understand your notation or your purpose.

>>51884232
>5 should meet 1d4, 8 should meet 1d6, 5 should meet 1d8, 2 should meet 1d10
What does "meet" mean?

I think you're trying to mathematically set the number of hits it takes for monsters to down people, while providing statistically-predictable variation in the monsters, but if so, that seems a bit... overly controlled. Like, I understand the concept of aiming for a particular range, but quantizing things like this only seems appropriate for some sort of randomly-generated dungeon computer game. In a standard RPG, other considerations are going to cause you to deviate often enough from the carefully-calculated numbers that it seems to me that that level of precision is ultimately pointless.

>>51940837
I honestly didn't know what to make of it then, or now.

>>51940533
It goes in waves. It seems like the people making a fair amount of OC are busy or otherwise not doing so. Could be because the last few months sucked, could be other things.

OSR blogs are a mainstay, here is more of a testing ground for people who don't have blogs yet. Maybe new people will learn to play and start making things. That takes time. Also helps having enough people at the same time who are making things, playing enough to have shit to talk about, and are interested in enough similar things to comment.

That being said, currently there's a few people making their own homebrew tests, The Rouges March, Garden, the as of yet unnamed one, Terrors & Wonders. Those need people to try them. Its easier to crank out random tables. The zine needs someone to organize it, no one's stepped up. Happens. Might come back, might not.

Just bitching doesn't help much though. Play a few games, make a few things, come back with them.

>>51941080
>>51941089
I'll admit that I made it in a sleep-deprived stupor (which I happen to be in right now as well, so I'll probably go to sleep after writing this), but basically I got so fascinated by that anon's idea that I tried to find out if it actually would make sense in the game and not just as a guideline.

The idea was to figure out which damage die would be enough to kill a PC at different hit dice and levels within the indicated "hits allowed" as fast as possible.
So a cleric at level 1 has an average of 3-4 hp and should die after 1-3 hits, which means that on average, a hit with a weapon doing 1d4 damage can potentially kill them immediately. That one is pretty obvious, but it might not be as obvious that a level 8 fighter with average hp should assume that there's a possibility that they can die after 4 hits when fighting an enemy that does 1d10 damage.

So basically I just kept going with that math, and I started seeing a pattern in the damage dice which I thought was cool. And then I got a silly idea of how dungeons could be balanced after that.

>>51941274
Which OSR system nails each genre best?

>Hi-Fantasy
>Lo-Fantasy
>Post-Apocalyptic
>Sci-Fi
>Misc (Modern Day, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, etc)

>>51941395
>Hi-Fantasy
You've come to the wrong thread.
>Lo-Fantasy
The little brown books.
>Post-Apocalyptic
The little brown books, using it's own world generation rules.
>Sci-Fi
The little brown books, using tables from Stars Without Numbers.
>Misc (Modern Day, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, etc)
The little brown books.

>>51941458

>>51940403
>>51940560
>replying to a troll
For real, when he revealed himself to be the
>OSR mechanics are garbage
guy, you should've just cut the wire.

>>51941274
I mean, it's kind of neat in an autistic way, but I don't really know that there's much of a way for other folks to interface with it other than just nodding and going: "neat". If you want it to be more accessible / useful to people, you might want to use it as the basis of a random dungeon generator of some sort. Come up with random tables of monsters that fit the stats (probably just tweaking existing monsters in most cases). Do that for maybe a half dozen different levels and pair it with random treasure tables and dungeons will basically run themselves. Hell, you could probably even go DM-less for the most part, and just let reaction rolls and morale checks govern monster behavior. If you wanted to get fancy, you could include random room traits (filled with water, full of cobwebs, very dusty, used as a garbage dump and/or bathroom, brightly lit by some light source like wall lamps, littered with bodies/carcasses, etc.).

Anyway, that's all an incredible amount of work, but I'm just musing about what a user-end application of your math would look like.

>>51940778
>Those spells are not creative.
Show us your homebrewed spells

>More then half of them could be covered by prestidigitation
Pretty sure literally none of those things are doable with Prestidigitation BTB

>>51941458
You don't think djinn, dragons and level 5 spells are high fantasy?

Seriously, just use the little brown books, starting all PCs on level 8

>>51941593
>You don't think djinn, dragons and level 5 spells are high fantasy?
That's high magic, not high (epic) fantasy,

>>51941621

ur wrong my dude

File: maxresdefault.jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

>>51941593
>starting all PCs on level 8
start them level 3, but hand out lots of high end scrolls n'shit

>>51941715
pics or ur wrong my dude

>>51941549
I think I'll do what you suggested, and I'll come back with it if I actually manage to get anything done. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to do a bit more work on stuff before I present it in the generals in the future so people don't have to scratch their heads and be confused over what I'm doing.

>>51941749
>I'll try to do a bit more work on stuff before I present it in the generals in the future so people don't have to scratch their heads and be confused over what I'm doing.
It's not like you're hurting anything as it is; you just may not get much feedback. Pure math, in particular, can be a bit hard for people to plug into, even folks who might do similar calculations on their own (though, depending on the subject matter, sometimes a graph can help).

>>51941834
This. I just want to add to the chorus of anons saying they read the post, thought "yeah, that's pretty neat I guess, don't know what to do with it, though" and so didn't respond. You definitely weren't shitting up the thread or anything like that, though.

Thread suggestion for Anons who want to do something creative: a couple threads back that Prison of the Hated Pretender short module got a lot of positive attention. How about spitballing some similar small, essentially or mainly non-lethal/combat scenarios or locations? I know for my part I find it much easier to fall back on fighty shit that the players then need to overcome by nonfighty cleverness and/or sneaky ways to get the upper hand in battle, I'd love to be able to run a pile of things of that nature, where it's an adventure but not necessarily lethal at all. (I figure as long as you still HAVE lethal encounters the tension will still be kept up of something that could be potentially dangerous, even if it turns out to be just creepy or whatever. Ah, now I'm just getting too wordy, I think.)

what are some games that dont have the mechanics of OSR but have the spirit?

>>51941999
DCC

File: FF.png (166KB, 827x1100px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 827x1100px

Final Fantasy classes for OSR gameplay? I wanna make all the FFV classes like this but probably wont.

>>51942048
>>51941999

see retro phaze

File: FF1_Job_Classes_Nintendo_Power.jpg (66KB, 572x359px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 572x359px

>>51941999
Torchbearer (borderline board-game with a narrative bent)
Dungeon World (i.e. shitty Torchbearer)
DCC (but it's "OSR" as content converts easily enough)
4e (if you lay of the social elements)

>>51942048
Fighter ⇒ Fighting-Man
Thief ⇒ Thief
Black Mage ⇒ Magic-User
White Mage ⇒ Cleric
Red Mage ⇒ Bard
Black Belt ⇒ Mystic
...that's 6-out-of-22 straight out the gate.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck with Blue Mage.

>>51942048
Holy fuckerel, those are good saves the Hunter gets. Did you think that through in terms of gameplay or is it meant to represent some sort of ability the class gets in FFV?

>>51941999
DCC, Mazes & Minotaurs, Gamma World 7E, and Microlite 74 all come to mind

>>51941395
>Hi-Fantasy
AD&D 2e with Arcane Age splats.

>Post-Apocalyptic
Gamma World

>>51941999
Dungeon World
World of Dungeons

>>51942138
>Red Mage ⇒ Bard
Elf, innit?

>>51942150
Stole them straight from the Halfling in LotFP.

>>51942168
Final Fantasy (NES) was riffing Advanced D&D, not Basic.

File: amano-yoshitaka-240-77256.jpg (284KB, 656x957px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 656x957px

>>51942138
>Blue Mage

One of the very few things that 3.5 got right was the Totemist class, which was basically a Blue Mage.

>>51941395
before I answer that question, mind telling us what your personal definitions for High & Low Fantasy are?

>>51942318
Hi: LotR, Elder Scrolls
Lo: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Conan

>>51941995
Aside from situations where lethal force isn't socially or legally acceptable, monster imperviousness tends to be the scenario that I most use to force people to be clever--a robot or golem that's immune or nearly immune to standard weapons, for instance.

I'm not a big fan of FATE's narrative style (not that there's anything inherently wrong with it, in and of itself, but it tends to conflict with my sense of immersion), but I do think that the idea that the scene itself has aspects you can invoke is interesting. Without literally borrowing the mechanic, I think you could still run with the idea that there's something special about each fight. Basically, you could upgrade monster toughness by a bit, but have there be some exploitable thing in almost every encounter. This can range from something like stressing that goblins are sensitive to bright light (getting maybe -2 in broad daylight, but also -1 in the face of bright torchlight) to slippery, sloping ground that can be exploited (using missile weapons and forcing the enemy to scrabble up a pebble-covered slope to get at you) to recognizing that a particularly fierce orc is the only thing inspiring the rest of his peers to keep fighting. Now, all of this is the kind of shit that happens naturally, but if you were to specifically assign a special circumstance to each encounter, these scenarios would likely be stressed more and would come up more often.

Anyway, I'm just babbling now, and none of that really has anything to do with non-lethal combat, but it does have to do with making combat more varied and tactical.

File: burd.jpg (723KB, 1107x4521px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1107x4521px

>>51942307
Totemist was nice and flavorful, but it wasn't a Blue Mage.

>>51942168
>

>>51942349
>LotR
That is Epic Fantasy.

>Elder Scrolls
This is somehow in the right place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Conan
Those are Swords and Sorcery.

>>51941995
I just found this today. Its a huge list of weird/interesting/challenging things to use that aren't just combat encounters.

>http://goblinpunch.blogspot.ca/2016/03/1d135-osr-style-challenges.html

>>51942476
Ok.

>>51942452
>All bard hit dice (and additioanl hit poiunts) are additions to existing hit dice -- none are lost for becoming a bard.
...what in the fucking what? Whhhhhhy. An 18 Con Superhero/Thief/M. Bard 23rd gets like 147hp (8d10+11d6+66)

>>51942168
Red mage would be the fighter/magic-user, so elf yeah.

>>51942881 c >>51942194

>>51942898
You can play a fighter/magic-user, don't be dense.

>>51940778
>prestidigitation
so remind me when that spell was added? IIRC at least one of the ad&ds had a whole bunch of minor cantrips that got rolled up into one spell in a later rulebook, but your bog standard 3e Least Wish didn't exist in the good editions of d&d.

>>51941458
>Hi-Fantasy
Godbound.

For everything else, LBB.

>>51940298

>Grizzly Graveyard of Grimgortha

>Grizzly

I'm still mad there's no bears in that.

File: gygax.jpg (3MB, 2047x8028px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2047x8028px

>>51942976
>so remind me when that spell was added?
2e
>IIRC at least one of the ad&ds had a whole bunch of minor cantrip
Three articles in the Dragon.

>>51942510
>Morlock books ignite when exposed to light.
>You must find a way to read them.
Jeez.

>>51943525
i think those were what became the list of cantrips published in the 1E unearthed arcana.

File: shrinegoddess3.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

So I've been working on a module lately. I found a dude to draw a view of the dungeon for me. What do you guys think of it?

File: goodnight.png (13KB, 426x364px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 426x364px

>>51944310
I'm about to nod off, but I will take a close look in the morning.
If nothing else, the layout has improved tremendously.

>>51944351
Cool. I'm thinking I'll release it after I get the artwork done. I'm wanting to get it done quick at this point so I can start work on the next module that I have ideas for.

>>51944310
>We were proud people once (F)

i got a chuckle out of this

I'm at my limit. I've decided thta from now on when i hear my demons calling instead I'll roll up a few chars and play a dungeon solo.
Wish me luck.

>>51944421
Good luck, and don't forget to use B/X!

>>51944421
Solo dungeons can be good to relax. I like to drink tea and design stuff for RPG.
Good luck friend.

>>51944421
>>51945662
>>51945854

Is there a system for doing this? Random tables? Software? Black paper over parts of the map/key?

>>51940298
>>51943422
Yeah, should be "grisly".

>>51942510
Neato. But how do I roll 1d124 without using a digital dice roller?

>>51947606
Roll 1d62 and 1d6, if the d6 reads 4-6 then add 62 to the d62.

File: elf ears surprise on 4 5 6.gif (777KB, 390x400px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 390x400px

>>51947767
Thanks. I think.

>>51944310
This is really cool. The activated rooms set up is dope and I really like the skeleton funeral procession that fights to get that done. There aren't any hallways between rooms which seems unusual. A bit more explanation of how the geography change is/happens might help. Its obviously some spooky shit, but does it bend space/time seamlessly, is there evidence of teleportation, lights, sounds, etc.

>>51947606
>Neato. But how do I roll 1d124 without using a digital dice roller?

Easy.

Roll a d30. If you roll a one, your result is 119. Roll a d10/2 and add it to 119.

If you rolled anything other than a 1 on 1d30:
Roll a d12. Subtract one. Use that result for tens/hundreds column. Roll a d10 as normal for the ones column.

>>51947606
(1d12-1)*12 + (1d12)
Re-roll 125 through 144

In LotFP, am I correct in thinking that all saving throws are made with Wisdom, unless it's against a Magic-User spell, in which case it's Int?

Anybody can recommend me some decent* publishers that work often with illustrators?
* I switched recently from drawing for vidja (nasty market) to small indie publishers (warm, niche, friendly market). But no matter what, I end up with shitty deals and abusive / borderline illegal contracts. Commissions for individuals have been super nice so far, tho.

>>51948902
>unless it's against a Magic-User spell,
*unless it's a against magic (from any source)

Otherwise yes.

>>51948979
Sine Nomine maybe?
If nothing else you can sell "stock art" on rpgnow.

>>51948979
Start a Patreon and do porn to get name recognition, then switch to fantasy commissions.

>>51947767
>>51948294
>>51948524
Fuck, you people are crazy.

Next time, just release your goddamn lists in multiples of 100.

>>51948979
Being a freelancer is rough.
I have no advice. Good luck though.

>>51949472
Problem?
Just use a digital diceroller if you hate dice so much.

>>51949182
Ty! I'll give it a go.

>>51949440
Sounds like a very long term thing. Patreon only works (a) for porn (b) if you already have a fanbase _starved_ for said porn.

>>51947606 >>51949472
If they weren't important enough to be in the first 100, then they're not important enough to roll for.

>>51945959

There are some random dungeon generators out there. Notable OSR ones are in The Ruins of Undercity and Mad Monks of Kwantoom.
You can also use a GM emulator to introduce surprises along the way.

Some guy ran a solo general for a bit, and gathered some resources for solo gaming:

http://pastebin.com/F8teW7rr - Solo links
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1ecybp6dp8rix/SoloTG

>>51948979
Send Raggi an email? Raging Swan maybe?

I fear I'm approaching heretical status for desiring to shake up the rules so much that the product might not even be osr, but you know I just never have found rules quite as good as WHFRP/Dark Heresy combat. When somebody simplifies the rules a little, it's just how I like combat. Just barely long and tactically in-depth enough to be interesting, but overall a quick and brutal affair.

Has anybody attempted to merge the rules of WHFRP and old school systems? The idea occurred to me at some point that I ought to take a shot at it if nobody else has, and if they have I want to read their rules.

As a side note: The tone of WHF really suits me and seems Old School in places, I just don't really like the setting much past the Germanic cities.

>>51951283
I'm working on a project to merge Song of Swords combat with OSR style games. I can put it up in a pastebin if you want to take a peek and tell me how shit it is.

>>51951283
DCC has mechanics that are distinctly unrelated to OSR, but we consider it OSR because content adapts easily enough.
What you suggested would not lend itself to adapting content. So "no," you probably couldn't do that as OSR.

You're welcome to play it in the style of an OSR, but you'll have to do some legwork to use modules (etc.)
No harm discussing it here, we *do* talk about stuff like Torchbearer.

>>51942510
>Gold dust is mixed in with flour or corn or something - lots of it. The total amount of gold is actually pretty high, but nobody will take it mixed with other stuff.
Literally fire. It's a tried and true tomb robbing tool.

t. Ancient Egypt

How do you do paramagical (as in paranormal) stuff in your games? You know, the stuff that behaves like magic but it's not a spell, just mindbending fuckery or faulty physics / logic.

Say: a bottomless, open grave. Literally bottomless.

How do you present it? Do you let your players detect that as 'magic'? Displel it?
Do your players ever ask about stuff like this, or it's just an assumed thing?

>>51952358
>Do you let your players detect that as 'magic'?
Generally yes, unless it has a good reason not to (the god of death made it undetectable by magic)

>Displel it?
They can try but unless it was created by a weak or deceased caster very recently it won't work.

>>51952358
Don't use detect magic in your campaign.
It breaks immersion at weird times and gouges into discovery.
Even "subtle" magic is pretty fucking obvious.

As to dispel magic, probably not.
"Natural" phenomena cannot be dispelled.


Side-thought:
Is the clone bay in the abandoned space station magic?
Can you dispel it?

>>51952569
>Is the clone bay in the abandoned space station magic?
If it can make souls yes, if it just grows meat then no.

>Can you dispel it?
Only the part that makes souls.

>>51952105
Nothing like billowing clouds of black smoke in an unventilated, underground tomb.

>>51951517
That actually sounds really cool if you wanna share it. I'd be a little interested in looking at it, but a friend of mine would die to see it.
>>51951527
Fair enough--I don't mind doing conversions

File: Dungeon_Siege_Road.png (833KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 854x480px

I'll post this here, because I brought it up in the Discord, and I think you guys can point me to the right system.

There's a very simple and actually somewhat mundane idea for a game that's been on my mind. Simply put, the party is traveling to a place far away (with the appropriate amount of hurdles and forks on the road there) but towns are spread really really far apart. Highlighting the struggles of simply traveling. Hitting on things like preparation, surviving rough conditions, carrying survival gear vs valuable loot, learning from previous mismanagement.

Turning choices that would otherwise not be a big deal into a tough call. "Do we drop our surplus food for this valuable barrel of oil,""Do we travel over the mountain bearing the elements or travel through the mountain in the dwarven ruins?" "Do we hire a local guy who knows the route because this next stretch of road is more dangerous than the least, or do we buy that second mule we've been talking about?"
Maybe B/X would work (starting at level >1)? I know Ryuutama has a focus on a travel-based campaign however it's tone seems a bit too light, just need a little more edge. Burning Wheel isn't so reliant of combat to maintain interest, so that's an option but doesn't have very strict rules on carrying things so I'd have to find/make some. Torchbearer (a fork of Burning Wheel) has an inventory system that's a bit too specific (measuring things like what pocket or hand an item is in), a level of detail I'm not interested in, I also don't know how well it handles overland travel and it's also the opposite problem of Ryuutama being *too* harsh.

>>51953386
Use the Red Dragon (focus on battle) or Black Dragon (edgiest one). Torchbearer has focus on dungeons, not good for travels, you would be better modifying MouseGuard.

>>51953339
http://pastebin.com/10ZdZhf3
This is just the combat section. It's probably worth mentioning that I'm working on this for a more modern campaign, so there's a lot more focus on ranged combat rules.

>>51951283

May want to check out grimandperilous.com - they're making a WHFB Retroclone.

>>51953386
LotFP. It's simple encumbrance system and reference to travel on the character sheet will give you ease. It provides enough rules for land travel, rations, sleep etc.

The referee secretly* rerolls each players HD each session/adventure.
Players know how much damage they have taken, but not their hp.

*as a symbolic gesture of fairness, the roll is hidden under a cup (or whatever) and revealed at death


Thoughts?

>>51953386
You just watched that episode of Ross' Game Dungeon, didn't you? It's a good idea, however you got it, do it and post it.
>>51953573
Thanks friend, I'll take a look at it, but I'll be a while getting back to you. Maybe my bud will be quicker.
>>51953745
Thanks, I will check it out. I also just googled a thing called Small but Vicious Dog http://vaultsofnagoh.blogspot.com/2011/07/small-but-vicious-dog-steals-hearts.html

>>51953973
That could end up being a lot of cups (or whatever) depending if the party is large.

>>51948979
As other suggested Kevin Crawford at Sine Nomine ([email protected]), and James Raggi from Lamentations of the Flame Princess ([email protected]) are good suggests. I'll also throw in Joseph Goodman from Dungeon Crawl Classics ([email protected])

>>51954571
>a lot of cups
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Write it with their name and stick it facedown on a pile/spike?
More potential for ass-mad, but still impresses that you can't change it mid-session.

>>51953973

Eh, the total should be known so that a character can know how beat up they are, i.e. at half health, one quarter, etc.

>>51955414
They know how beat up they are and have a general sense of how much more they can take, but don't know exactly how close they are.

Are feats inherent anti-OSR?

>>51955639
Not necessarily. I'd say that when your players can talk about "builds" and "tier" then you've crossed an event horizon

>>51955639
I would say that kinda depends on your situation, why do you need them in this case?

>>51955639
Not necessarily but many OSR players are tired of them.

>>51955639
>Many old school renaissance players ask the question: are feats inherently not OSR?
No, they aren't

>>51955688
Well, I don't want skills. Here's the way I look at RPGs: if your character can do something, he can do it. He shouldn't need to roll to craft a sword, for example. And while I don't mind rolling for lockpicking, I'd rather just say something like "this lock requires a 7th level rogue to pick it." because otherwise people just try over and over. I'm back and forth on that one, though.

Rolling perception for ambushes, or stealth, can be covered by dexterity. IF you even do that at all. And if you're a ranger, well, you can survive outdoors. If you're a rogue, you can pickpocket. if you're a cleric, you can bandage someone's wounds and make herbal tea to help a cold. You shouldn't need to roll for that shit. Even rolling to climb or jump...I mean, maybe once in a while.

So for one thing I want feats to give characters things they can *do*, like knowing how to do X or Y that isn't really covered by any class.

For another, I liked the feats in 3.5 like Power Attack or Combat Expertise that let you make little choices of how you fight. Now, in OSR games something like Power Attack would be broken as fuck, but my friend and I experimented with a -1 to attack giving +1 damage (or maybe even a -2 to attack). Still *very* powerful in some ways seeing how big a damage bonus is in these games. But I liked it. Same with Combat Expertise.

I certainly wouldn't have shit like Weapon Focus and Specialization. But I would like it if characters could customize just a little bit. Almost like the Warrior Rogue & Mage traits.

I like the idea of feats instead of skills because they add much less complexity to the game and can do both feat and skill jobs, whereas skills can really only be skills.

So, perhaps ignore the skills. Maybe just feats as very weak, mostly useless options that give you a tiny bit of char customization.

What do you think?

>>51955639
Magic-Users dice for their starting spells and find all others as treasure.
That is to say, "complex" character building is the referee's semi-random purview.

Something in the vein of [name related] could work well.

>>51955896
>So, perhaps ignore the skills. Maybe just feats as very weak, mostly useless options that give you a tiny bit of char customization.
Sounds neat, go for it.

>>51956314
Alright I will have to try it. I am planning to write my own little OSR system soon, something in 20 pages or less. What should I include? What mechanics are VITAL to an OSR game, in your opinion? trying to cut it down as much as I can to the important essence of it.

Does anyone have some map keys? There was a really elegantly simple one that I found for a japanese osr game the other day that I didn't save to my dissapointment.

>>51955896
>Rolling perception for ambushes, or stealth, can be covered by dexterity.
Wait. Dexterity would cover how perceptive you are? Aside from increasing the power of an already powerful stat, how does that make any sense? Granted, none of the stats work very well for alertness (should your cleric really be the most eagle-eyed sentry on your team just because he's sagacious?), but I wouldn't even put dexterity in the top half.

>my friend and I experimented with a -1 to attack giving +1 damage (or maybe even a -2 to attack)
If you crunch the numbers, a +1 damage is generally worth about +2 to your attack in OSR. As far as power attacks go, however, I don't see why you should need a feat for something like this. If somebody wants to hit an enemy "as hard as I can" or if he wants to strike for a vital area, that's -2 to hit and +1 damage. If he wants to "just hit him any way I can" or take any opening, that's +2 to hit and -1 damage (as he's willing to strike at nonvital areas and score lesser hits as long as he actually makes contact).

>I certainly wouldn't have shit like Weapon Focus and Specialization.
If you're going to have something like feats, I actually approve of one that gives you some form of favored weapon, if only so a character has a reason to prefer a particular weapon that his player wants him to be identified with. Like, if you want your character to be an axe guy, but then he finds a magical sword that's better than his axe, a favored weapon feat could make it so it's still at least somewhat competitive to use the axe. Maybe you get a +1 to hit with your favored weapon and a -1 to hit with all other weapons, if you want to make it relatively neutral (so maybe any fighter can get a favored weapon for free, if he wants to specialize). (Though I actually like the idea of people getting 2 favored weapons, so they have a little flexibility and can maybe choose one melee weapon and one ranged weapon.)

>>51956542
>If you crunch the numbers, a +1 damage is generally worth about +2 to your attack in OSR.
Curious as to how you determine that?

>>51956542
Sorry, I meant dexterity could be covered by stealth, Preception by wisdom. A sure strike / power attack feat would be good. And perhaps a favored weapon feat would grant an extra attack, or let you reroll a miss if it's a natural 5 or less using your favored weapon. Straight bonuses just bore me.

>>51956368
I'm presuming you won't include monsters. But obviously stats, class tables, weapons and equipment, how spells work and spell descriptions, reaction rolls and at least a brief bit about hirelings, combat tables and at least a quick overview of how combat works, movement and encumbrance, treasure and magic items (at least a short list), and then some odds and ends and necessary details (how long is a round, resting and recuperating and regaining spells, etc.). If you're trying to keep things short, some of these details could be handle with just a line or two of text. The magical items could mostly just be random tables, with a short, one sentence description for some key items that need clarifying.

>>51956542
>Dexterity would cover how perceptive you are?
I usually tie perception (or anything that degrades under stress) to morale.
But D&D "Dexterity" isn't actually dexterity, it's "aptitude for things thieves would be good at."


>>51956563
>Curious as to how you determine that?
It depends on whatever other bonuses are relevant, but
• +1 on-hit increases average damage by 1*%to-hit
• +2 to-hit (+10% to-hit chance) increases average damage by [old average damage]*0.10

Assuming average damage 3.5 (damage is 1d6),
a +1 on-hit is better than a +2 to-hit if you have >35% chance to-hit
if you have <34% the +2 to-hit is better. At 35% they're equally good.


>>51956692
>I'm presuming you won't include monsters.
Please don't presume that.
>>51956368
Please include monsters. Lite-OSRs never include monsters.
Adapting content is hard without a baseline to compare to.
>What mechanics are VITAL to an OSR game, in your opinion?
Formal rules for Dungeon Delving and Wilderness Crawling are more important than rules for Combat.

>>51956563
>Curious as to how you determine that?
You look at possible to-hit scores and at damages, and calculate average damage per round once you modify them. It's a general sort of thing, as the impact of increasing your to-hit or your damage is going to vary according to how easy it is for you to hit and how much damage you do on average. The higher your damage is, the less impact a +1 is going to have. The greater your probability of hitting, the less impact a plus to your chance to hit is going to have. (If you only hit on a 20, a +1 will double your chance of hitting, and therefore double your damage per round. Meanwhile, if you have to roll an 11 or higher to hit, your chance to hit only goes from 50% to 55%, which isn't a huge increase.)

Let's say you're a starting fighter with a long/normal sword that does d8 damage, and you're striking at a monster with a 5 AC. With your starting THAC0 of 19, that means you have to roll a 14 or over to hit, which is a 35% chance. That means your damage per round is:

>Normally: .35 * 4.5 = 1.575
>With +1 to hit: .4 * 4.5 = 1.8
>With +2 to hit: .45 * 4.5 = 2.025
>With +1 damage: .35 * 5.5 = 19.25

So right there, the damage per round with +1 damage is a bit closer to +2 to hit than +1 to hit. Really, in this situation, +1 damage is worth about +1 1/2 to hit (which would give you 1.9125 damage per round, if it were possible). But as THAC0s get better, things begin to shift a bit such that bonuses to your chance to hit matter a bit less.

Things are a bit different with magic-users, who are restricted to d4 weapons. There, a +1 to damage is more valuable, because it increases damage by a larger percentage. This is somewhat counterbalanced by a THAC0 that rises more slowly (meaning that bonuses to hit stay more valuable than they do for classes with a better chance of hitting), but while I haven't crunched the numbers on it, I suspect that for magic-users, it's more like +3 to hit is equivalent to +1 damage.

>>51957187
>I suspect that for magic-users, it's more like +3 to hit is equivalent to +1 damage.
But you don't really want to base your system on magic-users in any case. It's easier just to do a 1 for 2 arrangement with damage and to hit.

>With +1 damage: .35 * 5.5 = 19.25
1.925, obviously.

>>51956812
>Please don't presume that.
I have nothing against monsters, but I don't think they'd properly fit into a game that's less than 20 pages long.

File: 1559500_10153209301628072_6711461167783254174_o.jpg (229KB, 742x960px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 742x960px

I lost my OSR games folder recently, and there was one that I had just skimmed and looked good but I can't find it now.

It had an airship moored to a mountain or something on the cover?

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Also does anyone have pic related?

What kind of initiative do you prefer? Static, roll for group, individual roll or something else entirely?

I really like the way BtW does it

>>51957502
I like group roll but my players don't, so we use individual. Sometimes we start using group roll mid-battle though if things are going too slow.

File: Wizard with wand excited.gif (10KB, 521x697px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 521x697px

How would you feel about replacing Magic User spells with magic items, of which the Magic User class is best at using?

For example; instead of a magic missile spell, there is a magic missile wand anyone could buy from a magic item store. However magic users get the most power and longevity from such an item compared to other classes.

>>51957556
You roll each round? Wow, in my group we roll once and that's it for the rest of the combat

>>51957647
I mean, I've debated stealing the idea for a game I'm working on. I feel like you've asked this in the last few threads, so why not just throw down the gauntlet and write up some actual rules for it and then we could have a more substantial conversation.

File: Pstf8qG.jpg (878KB, 3362x2241px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 3362x2241px

>>51957502
Currently trying out "Individually, players roll under their Wisdom stat. If you roll equal or less, you go before the monster(s) this round. If over, you go afterwards. Some monsters impose a penalty, some always go first, some go first /and/ last, and some go once every time a PC has a turn."

It works... reasonably well?

>>51957684

That's the problem! Universal rulesets for this thing will change based on what actual retroclone you are playing, and it only gets worse if you're a special snowflake like me with a homebrew game. It also greatly depends on many people's idea for how magic should be treated in a fantasy setting; many people hate the idea of any kind of magic item shop when I personally think it works well for a more high magic/high fantasy kind of game world, especially if the magic items being sold are like little things.

But yes it's a good idea to try and codify some rules. I'm also trying to fish for rule suggestions from the replies I get to the idea as well, but no luck there

>>51957502
>something else entirely?
The referee starts the round by flipping over a 60-second* timer. small group
The referee dictates the monsters actions during this, but pauses while interrupted.
The players dictate actions before the timer runs out, the monsters take as long as they'd like.
The magic-users all get 60-second timers too, to check if they're spells get interrupted.

>>51957647
I dig it.

>anyone could buy from a magic item store
Except for this part.
Magic item stores can be funny inside really gonzo dungeon segments, but otherwise eww.

>>51957737
Why Wis intead of Dex? I like it btw, isn't this the way the Black Hack does it?

File: Opening_of_the_first_parliament.jpg (1MB, 2500x1571px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x1571px

>>51957737
Oh, and you roll each round. Berzerkers have to declare their actions first.

Example. Barbarian (Wisdom 10), Rogue (Wisdom 12), and Paladin (Wisdom 15) are facing a dangerous Swaj (a vegetarian swamp catfish that barfs up temporary dopplegangers made of algae).

GM: "Ok, top of the round."
Barbarian: "I'm so angry I chase after the Swaj immediately. Fuck you guys, I'm going after him."
GM: "Initiatives please?"
Rogue: [rolls a d20, gets a 2] "First!"
Barbarian: [rolls a d20, gets a 8] "First!"
Paladin: [rolls a d20, gets a 18] "Aww fuck, last."
GM: Right, so the Barbarian lumbers after the Swaj, raving like a lunatic. Rogue, what to you do?
Rogue: Fuck that, I'm staying in the boat. Can I hit the doppleganger with a dagger?
GM: Sure, roll it.
Rogue: Miss. Ah well.
GM: Ok, the Swaj swims ahead of the Barbarian, but you're catching up. The doppleganger is going to grab and start to choke the Rogue though. It feels like you're being smothered in seaweed.
Paladin: "Right, I'll spend my turn prying the doppleganger off the Rogue."

etc.

File: N8Fd0R5.jpg (4MB, 3609x2208px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3609x2208px

>>51957860
1. Wis doesn't get a lot of use otherwise. Dex is tied to movement and AC in this hack.
2. Possibly? I stole the idea from goblinpunch, so it's possible he stole the idea from someone else.

>>51957739
Magic-item shops work in settings like Eberron. Not so much anywhere else.
There's also the implication that everyone you'll fight has several minor magic items.

>>51957739
I feel like it will rustle feathers, but I don't see why you couldn't make wands operate like guns. You have x charges per magic crystal or whatever. Then you lump similar spells together, so all the fire related spells go into the fire wand. It costs one charge per spell level to use the spell. Magic Users can use any wand and cast spells of their level as normal, clerics cast as MU-1, Thieves as MU-3, Fighting man as MU-5.

>>51957913
I don't know if a magic item shop really entails magical baubles everywhere. Look at it like guns in the old west. Everyone who wants one can't get one. You'd need to be in the right place to really find a magic item emporium, other than that it would be people selling excess they bought specifically to trade or selling old/unwanted magic items. Not being agonisingly rare doesn't turn them into pocket change.

File: Toadslingers.png (25KB, 1215x188px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1215x188px

>>51957647
What about toadslingers instead?

>>51957971
>Not being agonisingly rare doesn't turn them into pocket change.
It does when you're in the business of killing people and nicking their stuff.

>>51958011
Why and how would every wandering monster you encounter have these magical items? I mean, sure, if you've established that the crypt has been assaulted by previous adventuring parties it makes sense that they died and monsters took their stuff. But when you encounter 30-300 orcs, how did they get the magical items? Aside from the referee just showering everyone in magical shit there's not an infinite supply of magical doodads in the game world.

>>51958073
When you encounter 30-300 orcs, how did they get their weapons and armor?
Aside from the referee just showering everyone in mundane shit there's not an infinite supply of arms and armor in the game world.

File: 9ux1vvM.jpg (247KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 2197x1463px

>>51958073
They fall from the sky, because the are the partially spent weapons of the gods/detritus from the flying cities of Loang/shells of magic snails

Dwarfs. Oglaf Dwarfs.

The items are trivial to make but produce heaps of toxic waste (sentient sawdust, irradiated scents, etc.), so civilized places make them in small quantities.

A race of amoral capitalist gnomes hold a monopoly on production but will sell to anyone.

Every time a magic item's charge is spent it jumps 1d10 years into the past, fully refuelled. History is slowly getting weirder.

>>51958136
>Every time a magic item's charge is spent it jumps 1d10 years into the past, fully refuelled.
Is that when the last charge is drained? Or is history rapidly getting more magical?

>>51958114
While I see your point, it seems to me that it's much easier to explain mundane equipment (orc blaksmiths forged it, orc miners dug the ore, etc) than magical equipment. Thought that's mostly because of the assumption I have that orcs aren't often magic users.
>>51958136
I honestly like all but the dwarves and gnomes explanations.

File: really cool wand.jpg (48KB, 740x432px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 740x432px

>>51957913
>There's also the implication that...

Well yeah, if they are MUs of course they'd have some. That's how MUs fight in this setting of course.

>>51957924
This was my original idea actually, I was just debating if every magic wand or rod or whatever should just be able to do one attack, a few different attacks, or if it should do general purpose magic too. Like if a fireball wand can boil water or dry off some clothing or something. I like the concept, but you'd have to build the setting a little more around it.

>>51957971
>Like Guns in the old west
>Everyone who wants one can't get one
I thought the whole point of the old west is everyone had a gun already? Yeah it's the same for my idea too. Magic items are not unlimited and take time/money/training to make, but they aren't ultra rare.

It's important to note here that an arrow or sword is literally as good of a weapon, if not more effective due to lack of charges, as any of the magic items are. I'm not seriously debating putting in regular Xd6 damage fireball wands as common. I'm talking about like 1d4 damage magic missile wands that shoot out little candles instead of purple orbs as the magic weapons here. I should have made that more clear.

The other advantage of this system is it allows magic users to find better spells literally like items. This forces them to actually go out and find, maintain, and keep hold of powerful magic instead of just learning it from leveling and knowing it forever basically.

>>51958181
>While I see your point, it seems to me that it's much easier to explain mundane equipment (orc blaksmiths forged it, orc miners dug the ore, etc) than magical equipment.
You don't see my point. My point is that you DON'T explain equipment.
When was the last time you said, "there are 12 bec de corbin for sale" rather than just including "bec de corbin" on a store's list?

>>51958216
>I thought the whole point of the old west is everyone had a gun already?
The sheriff, the thugs, and the drifter have guns.
Right before the shootout the whole town runs and hides.

>>51958250
You didn't really make it clear that's what you were getting at, but that's a good point too. Usually the only time specific numbers matter are when outfitting large groups, otherwise it's just a yes/no do they have it question.

Hey guys, is BX Companion and BX Complete Adventurer worthwhile? I am nub and can't really tell just from reading them. Its a matter on if I support the creator and use them when I am actually experienced enough or not

File: Da6HlU6.jpg (532KB, 2048x1347px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 2048x1347px

>>51958179
The last charge. But history is getting more magical, because better magic items from the future are filtering farther and father back. All sorts of weird stuff is showing up these days.

>>51958216
>instead of just learning it from leveling
...um. Are you one of those 5e players who drifts in here for advice?
In OSR, Magic-Users only get new spells by finding them in dungeons.

>>51958447
Bear in mind, undiscovered items cycle back to the future by waiting.
You can have a psychic duel with someone using the same Scrying Orb as you, etc.

File: comus7_1.jpg (301KB, 768x1100px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 768x1100px

>>51958503
>In OSR*

I mean, there's a pretty huge
>*your mileage may vary
note there, but in general... yeah, you find spells by chance or GM fiat in most systems.

It provides a certain kind of feel, and it's not something I find that appealing, but it's certainly traditional.

File: tohit vs damage bonuses in OSR.png (59KB, 1067x680px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1067x680px

>>51956563
>>51957187
>>51956812
I made a graphic. Clearly, 2 to-hit for 1 damage is a better fit than 1 for 1. In games where you expect to have significant bonuses to damage (+2 or more *on average*), a 2 for 3 formula might be better. This would probably include most games that start at high levels (though not necessarily ones that started low and eventually got to high, because there you'd have to average the effect at high and low levels).

This all assumes a d8 damage weapon. With lighter weapons, the bonus to damage becomes a bigger deal, meaning you need a higher bonus to your chance to hit to compensate. This probably just keeps things a bit more firmly in the realm of 1 for 2, drifting towards 2 for 3 more slowly. (Taken by themselves, d4 weapons might even begin in the 1 for 3 range, but as I said before, you don't really want to base combat bonuses off of the weakest outlier.)

File: 989a9dc6210adaa7d05eb5d5fb85238f.jpg (17KB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x264px

>>51958073
30-300 orcs have leveled leaders and subleaders, all of which have 5% per level cumulatively, of having a magical weapon, armour, and accessory. All three diced for individually.

I'm playing with a new group. All experienced rollplayers, but new to this style of game. I'm trying to give them lots of hooks, but they're so used to DM's writing 'muh plot' and railroady adventures that they literally just go for the first hook I give them. How do I set up multiple hooks and let them make their own adventures?

>>51958416
>Hey guys, is BX Companion and BX Complete Adventurer worthwhile?
I don't really see any reason to play past 14th level ever, so that renders the BX Companion mostly useless to me. From what I remember from just glancing through it though, it looked fine if you were into very high level play.

>BX Complete Adventurer
I've never played with it or anything, but it looked like an interesting toolbox of ideas. I wouldn't drop the whole thing into the game in one fell swoop, but it seems pretty useful if you want to selectively take stuff that appeals to you, or slowly broaden the options available as you read through stuff and approve them on a piece by piece basis.

>>51957502
OSRIC did initiative right

>>51958503
>Are you one of those 5e players who drifts in here for advice?

No actually, I just fucked up my argument is all.

>>51958181
The orcs would just have a shaman who made a blasting wand for him and his apprentice. Doesn't necessarily break the setting, especially if you argue you can charge up a magic item through animal or human sacrifice.

File: middle school geometery.jpg (31KB, 864x564px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 864x564px

>>51958714
https://youtu.be/4LGu1sOvxYs

File: momanews_franklloydwrightacquisition_crescentoperahouseplanforgreaterbaghdadproject.jpg (2MB, 2000x2334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2334px

>>51958714
You seem like the kind of person who could help me with a question.

I have a roll that's Absolute Value ([d12] - [d12]). Values can range from 0 to 11.

What is the probability of rolling equal or under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6?

>>51958787
I wouldn't worry about it too much at first. They want adventure and you've got it. Once their characters live a bit and develop you can ask them what they want to do any they'll have a better idea.

At that point you could put together a hex crawl and tell them rumours about different locations, ask them where they want to go and how they go about it. Or put together a city and do the same. Really depends on the scale you and your group wants to work with.

Sometimes getting the players involved in world making helps give them more ideas of stuff for their characters to be interested in. Check out Beyond The Wall's Further Afield campaign map generation.

File: anydice.jpg (68KB, 1720x667px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1720x667px

>>51959061
>equal or under 1?
17-in-72
>equal or under 2?
3-in-8
>equal or under 3?
1-in-2
>equal or under 4?
11-in-18
>equal or under 5?
17-in-24
>equal or under 6?
19-in-24

http://anydice.com/program/ae10

>>51959061
Anydice is your friend. Go to http://anydice.com/program/2d1d and click the "at most" button.

If you want your chance of getting 6 or under, then it's your chance of getting 6 at most: 79.17%. If you want your chance of getting a number from 1 to 6 (not including 0), then it's your chance of getting 6 at most minus your chance of getting 0 at most: 79.17% - 8.33% = 70.84%

File: 1379746653627.jpg (884KB, 1219x1774px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 1219x1774px

>>51959223
>>51959222
Thanks!

>>51959284
Just to be clear on those X-in-Y's:
There are 144 combinations of two d12s
So every probability will be something-in-144

So multiply anydice's %s by 144, then sort out anydice's rounding error
Finally, reduce both sides until the X of the X-in-Y is prime

>>51951283
WHFRP 1e is the most OSR game that isn't D&D. You can play the equivalent of low-level dungeon crawling in it with ease, you just can't advance past that low-level region. (Some people like that.)

I wouldn't really try to merge them. I'd just draw a dungeon and stock it with the WHFRP book.

>>51957848
>but otherwiseeww

What's wrong with having magical shop that sells crafted magic items in major towns like would a blacksmith selling regular weapons in the same town?

I understand why some people dislike magic item stores in regular DnD settings, but in this one not only is magic able to be used by anyone but also magic users actually need them to do magic.

But I'll ask your opinion, how would the proper system work without easier access to magic item stores? Would MUs just have to make all their own items or?

>>51960603
>What's wrong with magic items being as commonplace and uninspiring as mundane items?

gee man I dunno

>>51958776
Don't forget that they may have trolls, or a dragon, and if they're in their village then they may have artillery.

>>51960603
>But I'll ask your opinion, how would the proper system work without easier access to magic item stores? Would MUs just have to make all their own items or?
This is pretty much exactly how it appears to have worked in Blackmoor. A wizard would make a spell, then be able to use it later. (AFAIK there's some fairly serious unclarity about whether one could reuse a spell once made, as well as other aspects of the magic system, although I imagine somebody could just ask Greg Svenson or one of the other long-term players how it worked and most likely someone has.)

File: define.jpg (35KB, 634x351px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 634x351px

>>51960874
>>51960603

>>51960917
Exactly. Don't fuck with orcses willy-nilly.

>>51960917
And the leader may be a balrog or wizard. (Do balrogs get a chance of magical treasure? Wizards definitely ought to.)

>>51960940
spell balls!

But yeah IIRC one of the wizards had a factory going pumping out first level spells? there's some data floating around showing the spell manufacturing capabilities of the various blackmoor factions.

>>51960961
Yeah, but if they're out and about they may be with a wagon train of d8 wagons with d6x200gp each.

They don't get balrogs, though. a dragon, ogres or trolls if they're based in a cave complex, just ogres and catapults if they're in a village.

>>51960974
>IIRC one of the wizards had a factory going pumping out first level spells?
The Egg of Coot and Ran of Ah Foo are both noted in FFC as having spell factories, I believe (and at least the Ran's factory makes higher level spells as well), but neither of them is just "a wizard" -- they're two of the main evil powers of the setting. I don't think it's accurate to read the spell factories as within the capacities of a typical wizard.

>>51961013
No no, I'm pretty sure that in the balrog printings the *orc leader* can be a balrog, the same way he can be a wizard. Balrog goons are definitely reserved to wizards (and EHPs?), though.

>>51961051
Drat, I opened the wrong file to check and convinced myself you were wrong. You're quite right, and they're more likely to have a balrog than a dragon.

>>51960961
>Do balrogs get a chance of magical treasure?
Their sword and whip? Pretty sure they get other crap too.

>>51961051
I've heard that too, but not in AD&D's Monster Manual they can't.
And not even in the Trove's copy of Monsters and Treasure. (does it even have Balrogs?)
Maybe in the original printings of Monsters and Treasure?

The balrog's probably running the show, in that case. Only thing that out-ranks a balrog is an EHP, and orcs don't have those.

Balrogs get +1 swords, for what it's worth, and their whips are just whips - they use them to drag you in and give you a bear hug with their "flaming body."

You guys OK if I ask a question here?
2nd level wizard, AD&D 2e.
If I cast Burning hands on something to burn it, can I use Fire burst from that?
Not that it's particularly useful, just i don't know if it counts as "Non-Magical" flame...

Burning hands:
Players Hand Book page 170

Fire Burst:
Tome of Magic page 17

Both can be found here:
http://regalgoblins.com/spells.php?school=Alteration&caster=Wizard

>>51961167
Well, considering that Burning Hands is a SPELL, which is a form of MAGIC used by WIZARDS I'd say no.
Use some common sense my dude.

>>51961167
I personally would rule that you could cast Fire Burst on fire that was STARTED with burning hands, but not from a burning hands jet of flame itself.

ie: use burning hands to ignite a fuel source, and then cast fire burst upon that fire.

>>51961207
There is such thing as Magical fire, and it is Not the same as buring hands fire,
SO it's not that simple...
The burning hands Flame its self, Yes Magical fire,
The continual burning of monsters and clothings, Not so much...
Thats my problem

>>51961167
OK, first off, 2e isn't OSR.

>If I cast Burning hands on something to burn it, can I use Fire burst from that?
Absolutely. Burning Hands has a duration of Instantaneous, not Permanent.
Starting fires is a consequence of the spell, but not a persistent act of magic.

>Both can be found here:
Dude, we've got like 98.5% of all the books in a Mega in the OP.
And most of us have the physical books within arm-span, so...

>>51961222
This is what I'm thinking

>>51961167
If the burning hands spell sets something on fire and it continues to burn past the immediate effect, then you can use that. But it has to actually continue burning with the object fuelling it and not just peter out once the magic's gone.

Think of it like a lighter. You can't cast fire burst off the lighter (in this case), and you can't just light a block of wood if the fire doesn't catch.

>>51961207
>>51961222
>>51961234
Thanks guys!
>>51961231
Sorry my dude, about posting non OSR, but you were helpful :D

>>51961248
>about posting non OSR,
Honestly, I'm just pulling your leg on that.
Most of the thread (myself included) don't consider 2e OSR, but some people do.
And it's very close relative, Gygaxian AD&D, is indisputably OSR.

>but you were helpful :D
No trouble. Feel free to stick around and shitpost about B/X homebrews, or whatever.

>>51961282
Just started 2e to try it and wanted to die as a wizard...
I survived somehow and now have 2 spells, I'm trying to get some good synergy for if I end up not dieing again

Surprised to not see many Tripfags on this board

>>51961333
You can (sort of) tell who homebrewers are, especially when they make changes then ask for more feedback on the same content, but even they go anonymously.
I've been here for seven months or so, and I think you might be the first tripfag I've seen pop in.

>>51961391
I simply like to have a name so people know they're talking to the same guy from yesterday, or 3 weeks ago(if they really care)

>>51960874
>>51960942

You guys have a bad interpretation of magic IMHO. You're thinking of a 3.PF interpretation where the game world is our reality + magic instead of the setting operating under mystic rules at its core.

>>51961333
If your referee is playing by-the-book, you should have next to no control over your spell list.
But it sounds like he isn't, so I'll tell you the really juicy spells.

The 1st level bread winner is [Sleep], it outright wins most fights you'll be getting into.
A close runner up is [Charm Person], mainly because it has a duration of weeks.
The last spell to keep your eye on is [Color Spray]. It's a poor man's [Sleep], but it scales better for mid-levels.
Far less important, but desirable, is [Armor]. it has an indefinite duration, like [Charm Person] you can cast it days ahead of the adventure and refill the spell slot.
And special mention goes to [Phantasmal Force], read up on the illusion rules some time. Not only can that spell avoid fights, it can knock large groups unconscious.

There are far less outstanding 2nd level spells, but [ESP] is pretty good for checking rooms before you open doors.
Fluff wise [Web] doesn't throw a giant web, it completely packs space with webbing. Very worth while spell, it's basically improved [Sleep].
You should also snap up [Invisibility] it's good for scouting, running away, or avoiding fights. Speaking of running away, [Wizard's Lock] blows [Hold Portal] out of the water.

>>51961508
My spell book is a book of Alteration (only alteration spells) as I picked specialist wizard.
He was very lenient with what spells I got because I had a huge in bonus.

This is a great list and I will make attempts to get these in my spelbook ASAP :D thanks

>>51961529
INT bonus

>>51961407
>You guys have a bad interpretation of magic IMHO.

I'm not the one who wants to give every village a Wiz-mart that sells +1 swords and wands of fireball.

>>51952670
>If it can make souls yes, if it just grows meat then no.
Is pregnancy magic? Can you detect or dispel it?

>>51961231
>OK, first off, 2e isn't OSR.
You can say that there was a shift in play style during that era away from what it had traditionally been, and that some of 2e's rules encouraged this, but the system is 97.5% the same as 1st edition AD&D's, and it's broadly cross-compatible with all other OSR games, so outright rejecting it as OSR is ludicrous.

It's old. It uses the same core system as all the other OSR games, and would be the only game that did that wasn't included in OSR, if you rejected it. It seems to me that 3e is a clean break and clear dividing line. So maybe you want to qualify 2e, and say that certain aspects of it aren't *really* in line with OSR, but at worst it's like Iron Maiden. *Real* Maiden predated Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (give or take an album, depending on your perspective), but they're still technically the same band (plus an extra guy, but it's not like they hadn't had lineup changes before) and you can't deny that when it comes right down to it, they are, in actuality, Iron Maiden to this very day. They just are somewhat stylistically different and don't reach the same heights of excellence they once did.*

*I mean, would you rather listen to...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71TJitXU8Z0
...or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F7A24f6gNc

>>51961568
Honestly I got no problems with villages having a +1 weapon or armor piece and maybe even a wand for sale, but beyond that it's pushing it. Wizmarts should be limited to major towns that take days-weeks of travel to get back to.

>>51961739
Nice info :3
thanks

File: Eddie Izzard the Lizard Wizard.gif (1003KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 500x500px

>>51961719
Can you put it in a wand? Can you put it in a robe?
Is it's duration instantaneous
and it's target subcutaneous?
Can you cast
A
spell?

Caaaaan yooooou
Cast a spell
Can you learn to cast it well?
Can you cast it underground?
Can you cast it deep in hell?
Does it work with science fiction
Does the tone shift induce friction?
Can you cast
A
spell?

>>51961793
I hate this song, but your filename reminded me of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLBpQHQgURo

While we're at it, have some filk that's actually good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zxi3SClJGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzuoJVr3IAo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbEwUTjKwLU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMcLsQCH9Y

File: 1448834745028.gif (79KB, 500x410px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x410px

>>51961911
Jeeze, and I thought my song was bad.

Do you folks do leitmofits for your campaigns? Do you pick particular tracks for your holy cities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKKvdQPsMz8

Or your clockwork goblin replicas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of7Bk0y2s-E

>>51961568

You imply every village will have a dedicated magic shop- not really what I meant. You might be able to talk the village Wise Man into selling you his health and love potions, levitation beads or chalk of turn undead, maybe even his Flame Rod for a magic weapon, but it's not that ubiquitous. Do you put a master weapon smith in every town too?

Also, by the way, I made it a point to distinguish these magic items from DnD 'magic items'. Not even a +1 sword would be appropriate, this is just for basic MU spell slinging and such.

>>51961750

This is more what I was going for.

File: angel statue.jpg (137KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1080px

Are we having a music war now? Because there's little better mood music for fantasy shit than Dead Can Dance.

https://youtu.be/VPd-MSr19qI
https://youtu.be/Bf00KI2MEGg
https://youtu.be/IaP1KftmZ2s
https://youtu.be/2Uk3sExKtao
https://youtu.be/6BpWoldEx4o

File: Capture+_2017-03-01-01-50-09.png (101KB, 940x241px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 940x241px

Blackmoor monks
N o t e T h e C o r r e c t N u m b e r O f H i t - D I c e

Regarding the dumb "why is everything not roll under" trolling, for the record, 2E had a Ravenloft spinoff that actually did roll-under for thief skills.

Specifically, the thief replacement class (Tradesman, Gothic Earth classes were basically weaker versions of the big 4 AD&D ones) lost thief skills, in return for which it got a ridiculous amount of NWP slots (6 with the 1 per 3 level Arcane caster progression and they were all single point); the old thief skills were now treated as NWP that they could take (they were class proficiency options for the Criminal and Detective kits).

And like all other NWP were in AD&D, that meant thief skills were now roll under.

Of course the main issue with that is that a Thief with Thief NWP loses a lot of the sense of advancement that thief skills did, but I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing.

>>51962182
Good taste.

>>51961969
holy shit, imagine that first song with some Rolling war drums over it just Building the whole time, and stopping for effect

>>51962550

Not to be a troll but I like roll under for thief skills. However I like giving thieves a solid universal starting number for ALL their Thieving rolls, such as roll even or under 8. Then add stat modifiers for relevant actions and per level increases.

File: Thief Skills, Alt (specialty + weakness) 2.png (64KB, 1567x803px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1567x803px

>>51962666
I like the idea of having a specialty/forte and maybe a weakness, but generally speaking, I agree with you.

>>51962571
Took a bit to get these to sync up but here we Go!

http://youtubedoubler.com/ku7C

File: arremere.jpg (301KB, 1455x710px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1455x710px

>>51962666
friggin satan

Explain to a non-native:

Why is Gygax writting "bad"? I've seen lots of people complaining about it, but imho it's balanced between flavor-density. I find it hard to parse, but easy to nick vocab from.

Are Raging Swan's descriptions something you'd use in a game? Why?
Ex:An archway pierces one wall of this corridor. Runes once adorned the archway, but these have been hacked and smashed and are virtually unreadable. A crudely mortared wall of mismatched stone fills the archway. The work is obviously different to the surrounding style.

Tanget - can you recommend me stark, straight to the point modules? In the vein of MotBM when it comes to information delivery.

>>51963682
>I find it hard to parse,
This is why it's bad. The game books are something that's intended to be referenced in-game, why the fuck would you want them to be hard to parse?

>>51961739
Agreed. If we're accepting the definition of OSR that some people like to use as 'broadly compatible with early editions of D&D' you have to accept 2e. Accept it with an asterisk, certainly, and make people aware of the subtle shift, but it definitely fits the commonly accepted definition.

>>51963695
I rarely ref texts turing play except for stats, and like I said it helps me come up with rich descriptions.

>>51963682
Another tangent: is there something like a lite, pre-digested version of Temple of Elemental Evil? So far this is a mess of innocent villagers, their weapons, where they hide treasure and-

>The Canon Terjon (who owns rings of
invisibility and mammal control) recently became the chief cleric of the church

Did I just enter a low key, but very fucked up magical realm?

>>51957667
But that means that one group will have the advantage all throughout the battle, no matter what happens.

What are the weak points of B/X? The things it -can't- do when played strictly btb.

Character builds are one (except for MUs, kinda).
High fantasy could be another, never played at high levels so idk.

>>51962550
>2E had a Ravenloft spinoff that actually did roll-under for thief skills.
>that meant thief skills were now roll under.
But... but Thief skills have always been roll-under?

I'm very confused. When a Thief has 15% Hide in Shadows, that means you roll d% and if you get 15 or less, you succeed.

>>51963682
>Why is Gygax writting "bad"? I've seen lots of people complaining about it
Lots of people really like it. It's true there are plenty of people complaining, but there are also plenty of people who think his writing style is one of the big things that makes the 1E DMG superior. It's just *fun to read*. For my part, for instance, I really enjoyed reading >>51943525, and I even like when he uses that baroque prose in his typewritten correspondence with fanzines -- the contrast is comical. That said, it *is* a very deliberately mannered style, he never quite mastered it to the point of making it chime naturally. I assume this is part of what throws people off.

Anyway, I doubt there's anything like a consensus in the wider OSR that "Gygax's writing sucks", rather the opposite if anything, it's just that here happens to have a higher concentration of people who don't like it and complainers are by nature somewhat more visible. (It's hardly surprising that haters would congregate here, either, as most if not all of the big non-anon forums heavily censure any criticism of Gary and 1E AD&D as trolling. Not without reason, either, since they're very easily trolled by it.)

>>51963836

It's only an advantage on the first round, then you alternate sides.
(Incidentally, if you want to lessen the first round advantage, only allow half of that side to go, and then proceed with normal turn order.)

File: dcc_rpg.png (344KB, 951x529px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 951x529px

Hello there. I don't know if this goes in this thread, but here it goes:

What's you guys' opinion on Dungeon Crawl Classics?

I've been looking through it @ my local store, and I dig the look of it, and the supplement format, looks very old stylish.

What are your experiences with it? Should I buy it? Is it worth it? (Costs 45€)

>>51963682
>Why is Gygax writting "bad"?
His script often segues into a vacuous verbosity that obfuscates the central crux of his writing in such a way as to retard an understanding of what he is trying to convey, and additionally he often dwells for far too long on those items which are transparent while rushing away items that desperately need elaboration.

>Are Raging Swan's descriptions something you'd use in a game?
IIRC it varies tremendously based on the product. Lonely Coast is good though.

>Tanget - can you recommend me stark, straight to the point modules?

>>51965777
>What's you guys' opinion on Dungeon Crawl Classics?
It's one of the best commercial 3.5 homebrews along with Mutants & Masterminds/DC Adventures. The attitude of the grogs behind it can be grating.

Is /osrg/ now the biggest OSR community? These threads have really taken off in the past few months.

File: tohit and damage bonuses in OSR.png (83KB, 1482x647px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1482x647px

>>51958714
Here's one that compares the modified rolls (with an adjustment to damage and a compensating adjustment in the other direction for your chance to hit) to the base damage per round of an unmodified roll.

I'm now thinking that the way to go is +2 to hit and worse of 2 damage rolls, or -2 to hit and the better of 2 damage rolls. This helps compensate for dice size (the adjustment to damage is roughly proportional to dice size) and increases the power of the damage adjustment a bit when using a d8 damage weapon. If I'm bored tomorrow, maybe I'll crunch some numbers on that method.

>>51963836
I've got an easy fix for that. On the first round, each person on the team that acts first rolls a d6. On a 1-3 they don't get to act that round; otherwise they do. From then on, everybody always gets to act (that means everybody on the team that goes 2nd, and everybody on the 1st team in subsequent rounds).

Since half the people, on average, from the 1st team will get to act on the 1st round, they'll have a half team advantage after they've acted. But then all of the second team gets to act, which puts them at a half team advantage by the time they're through going (1 - 1/2 = 1/2). Then the 1st team gets to act again, giving them a half team advantage again (again, 1 - 1/2 = 1/2). And so forth. So everybody's always ahead by the same amount at the end of their group's turn.

>>51963682
>Why is Gygax writting "bad"? I've seen lots of people complaining about it, but imho it's balanced between flavor-density. I find it hard to parse, but easy to nick vocab from.
Once you've read *actual* Vance, it's kind of hard to go back.

>>51965987
A whole bunch of the osr mob are on google plus, I think. fucking google plus is for roleplayers what yahoo groups are for wargame grogs.

>>51964707
>never played at high levels so idk.
Reminder that Lolth only has 15HD, less than The Grandmaster of Flowers!

>>51941502
I know that several days have passed at this point, but I just thought I would say that I had never posted in this thread before, so there might just happen to be more than one person who thinks OSR mechanics are shit.

What's good about Greyhawk? What's bad (or should be avoided)?
What's the best way to get into it without reading a shitton?

Has a release date for AS&SH 2e been announced?

>>51966517
>What's good about Greyhawk?
Thieves.
>What's bad (or should be avoided)?
The changes to Prime Requisites.

>>51966437

So why be here? If you don't like the OSR, there's loads of other games you could play. It's not like it's 1974 anymore, not even in here.

File: implying DCC isn't a 3.5 homebrew.png (90KB, 922x575px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 922x575px

I got tired of the DCC shills pretending that it's NOTHING like 3.5 so I made a quick comparison image.

As an aside, it's impressive that Moldvay can pack that tactical info in there with a few sentences while others put it another paragraph or don't mention it all.

>>51966550
Originally I wanted to know why you would want roll-under to be a mechanic. I came back to see if anyone had said anything else about it, but they didn't.

>>51966572

Because it's super simple? "Is the number on the die bigger than the one on your sheet?" If it is, you failed, if not, you succeeded. As the number gets bigger, you get better at doing the thing.
As a side effect, having mixed roll over/roll under rules decreases the impact of a biased die if you're worried about such things. (If the die rolls high it will be good at some things and bad at others.)

New DM here. What to do about the 'gotcha' moments in old (and lotfp) modules?

>If you reach this point, you are hopelessly lost.
>There is a trap here, but the party will not notice. Full stop.
>This thing here jumps at you unless you have been explicitly searching while naked, with a 10' pole up your ass.

>>51966630
I've already heard this exact same argument in this very thread.

>>51966663
Recognise that they're shit design and tell Raggi to go fuck himself? Not immediately helpful to you, but I'm about to go watch a play with a dog in so I don't have time to write about how to constructively deal with that stuff.

>>51966437
>I just thought I would say that I had never posted in this thread before, so there might just happen to be more than one person who thinks OSR mechanics are shit.
Supposing that's true, fair enough, but you in your turn ought to realize that if a guy shows up in a thread about something he doesn't like and uses the same exact phrasing to say so as another guy who is already inexplicably in a thread for stuff he hates, people will naturally make some assumptions.

>>51966692

So where's the problem, then?

>>51966707
Well, enjoy the play and the doggo and then come back for that writeup, I'll wait.

And pls stop name dropping, that only raises his google ranking.

>>51966738
I acknowledge that roll under is simple, but I thought it was counter intuitive to have both roll under and roll over when all the examples of a use for roll under could be converted to roll over really easily. Pretty minor complaint either way really.

Is oldschool alignment the only one worth roleplaying? You can be the Good, the Bad, or the Ugly, and that's it.

>>>51966572 but they didn't.
c >>51940406, >>51940878

>>51965777
There's some clunky bits and some stuff that's not for everyone (the 0th level meatgrinder and the spells come to mind), zocchi dice take some getting used to, and a few sections are a bit lacking but pretty easy to homebrew in with minimal effort. There's some good ideas in there if you're willing to look and able to ignore the pretension.

>>51967011
I saw those earlier, just didn't reply. That guy posting the walls of text seemed like he was off in his own little world.

File: jack-kirby-eternals-splash-2-small-233x350.jpg (53KB, 233x350px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 233x350px

So, I kinda want to make my own setting using a pre-existing OSR system, except it's meso american mythology+ancient aliens (especially chanelled through Jack Kirby's cosmic work). While not the most original idea by any stretch, is this a suitable setting concept for an OSR setting?

>>51966774
Roll under is really nice from a number crunching perspective. Want to know your percentage chance of succeeding? Target number / 20. For roll over, it's (21 - target number) / 20, which is significantly more cumbersome.

As far as mixing roll over and roll under, I'd rather just use roll under for everything. Well, almost everything. You'd still be trying to roll high on damage.

>>51939985
>>51940406

>15% chance of something happening
>that guy who works out you need 85 or higher on a d100

For god's sake, just roll a d100, it happens on 1-15.

>>51967065
Maztica and Blackmoor exist.

>>51967133
Also roll under seems a bit more cumbersome if you ever want to change the DC of something, but everyone seemed to be against that notion entirely.

>>51967198
>86
even.

>>51967065
Certainly.

>>51967260

So do what B/X suggests: keep the number the same, but apply a bonus/penalty to the roll itself.

"The ground is slippery, so to jump that gap you'll need to roll under Strength with a +1 to the roll."

Of course it keeps the "problem" of letting the players know what the number they need is, but if the player is rolling then it's because they'll know when they succeed or fail (and this fits in line with rolls like thief abilities).

>>51967260
"d20 Method" = d20 + bonus vs. DC
"Roll Under Method" = d20 + difficulty modifier vs. Target Number

The d20 method is generally superior if you expect to see a large range of different numbers, like if characters dramatically gain power as they level. The d20 method can easily handle bonuses that go as high as you want, but the roll under method gets a bit silly if your score is well over 20 and you're applying, say, a -11 difficulty modifier to bring it down to the point where you have to roll a 13 or over to succeed.

On the other hand, roll under is generally superior if you have a more confined range and are often rolling with little or no difficulty modifier. After all, rolling a d20 vs. 14 with no modifier is quicker and easier than rolling a d20 + 8 vs. a DC of 15, or some such thing.

Are there any kaiju and/or giant robot games that use the OSR framework?

>>51967518

Pretty sure someone on /osrg/ is working on a mecha game.

Stars Without Number has mech rules in the full version that are pretty cool and offer a nice degree of customization.

I don't know what rules kaiju would need since these games already have giant monsters. Something like 5E's legendary/lair actions aimed at destroying buildings, blowing up soldiers en masse, etc. would be neat.

File: 16835840_1902357966662457_6763688127368926814_o.jpg (134KB, 679x960px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 679x960px

>>51938936
Just from a first glance...
- The -2 to +2 modifier range seems a bit odd to me. What is your reason for doing this rather than the -3 to +3 OSR standard?
- The rule for each piece of armour adding +1 AC is fantastic. It naturally encourages players to "layer up" on pieces of armour (especially helmets), rather than just tacking them on for flavour.
- The feats are interesting. alternating between even and odd levels makes a level 5 fighter and a level 6 fighter really feel different for players, which is nice.

>>51967198
>>51967133
I favor roll over for d20 (because I don't want the players to know the exact chance to success)

but roll under for d% (because those are used less often, for rare rolls like critical hits)

>>51967518
>>51967686
You could try using Godbound actually. It would take some hacking, but a good starting point since PCs are already incredibly powerful.

>>51967782
>I don't want the players to know the exact chance to success

Not saying it's badwrongfun, but why is this?

If a character fails at something, they'll know it (they fall into the trap, the death ray zaps them, they don't deal damage to the enemy).

If it's something like a thief trying to be sneaky, then the DM rolls in secret. This avoids some of the problems in newer games, like a player deciding their character takes a different route through the bandit camp because they only got a 5 on their Stealth check. Which isn't playing the game poorly, it's the game system being designed poorly (and failing on purpose isn't "good role-playing" no matter what anyone tells you).

>>51967912
Nothing stopping the DM from rolling stealth checks in newer games too. It's what I do.

>>51967912
I want the players to know the APPROXIMATE chance of success, but I dont' want them quibbling about percentage points. I want them making descisions in character, with a decent approximation of their risk.

>>51967782
>because I don't want the players to know the exact chance to success
You can have them report a roll then say "pass" or "fail."
That's not a priveledge of roll-over, that works either way.

And EITHER WAY they get the same hints at your target number.

>>51967994
but I tell them the numbers so I have less work to do

>>51967970
Or you could have the player roll stealth, but only after they decide what they're gonna do, so if they roll that 5 they just know they're fucked but can't do anything about it..

>>51967970

I think that's a better way of doing it, both for the DM and the players. I can see why they want the players to roll more of the dice for what their characters are doing, but it does lead to these disconnects between what you want to do, what the dice say, and what you actually do.

5E's passive perception system is nice but it still has the flaw of knowing when you're going to fail. Unless you map out your exact sneak route in advance or something, then the DM decides where you get caught somehow. But this feels like they've half-solved a problem that was already solved 30+ years ago.

>>51967981

That's fair, and again it's just a different style of play. I like knowing that there's a 1 in 6 chance of wandering monsters or discovering a secret door (of course, mixing that up can be exciting and/or scary). Moldvay gives an example of a player's character looking into a chasm and estimating they have a 98% of dying if they jump into it. I definitely think players should have that kind of information before they make choices. Pushing your luck in these games is where a lot of the fun comes from.

>>51967260
>bit more cumbersome
>changing the target number is harder than changing the target number
???

c >>51940878
Lets say we're rolling d20s.
Roll Over: To REDUCE chance of success by 3-in-20, we ADD 3 to the target number.
Roll Under: To REDUCE chance of success by 3-in-20, we SUBTRACT 3 from the target number.

Trying that another way:
Roll Over: To INCREASE chance of success by 1-in-20, we SUBTRACT 1 from the target number.
Roll Under: To INCREASE chance of success by 1-in-20, we ADD 1 to the target number.

Which of those is easier to follow?

>>51968003
>so I have less work to do
Is it /really/ that tedious to parse two number and find which is bigger?

>>51968117
Not playing devil's advocate here, I think it could go either way. Phrases like "you get a -3 bonus to your roll" sound awkward sure, but it depends on what you think the roll represents.

If you think of it like odds, roll under is perfectly easy to follow. Your strength score is 12 so your chances of climbing the rope are 12 in 20. You roll a d20, you want a number from 1 to 12. Easy.

In fact, has anyone ever made a system for to-hit rolls like this? Not sure how it would interact with traditional AC values, but it might be fun.

>>51968219
>In fact, has anyone ever made a system for to-hit rolls like this?
Probably? But it'd just be:

Write out new THAC0 progressions by mapping [THAC0<roll-under>] to [21 -THAC0<roll-over>]
And you would add AC instead of subtracting it

>>51968325 (You) #
>And you would add AC instead of subtracting it
*Add AC to the target number.

Now that I think of it, doesn't AC get added to your roll?
I've always done it as subtract AC from THAC0. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>51968117
Roll over: change the DC from 20 to 25
Roll under: each player has a different DC which is their stat -5

>>51968562

>Target number is +5
>Roll is +5

Same difference, anon.

>>51968060
This. Rolls happen after you decide what you do. If you roll badly, you still do what you said.