/osr/ - Old School Renaissance

>>55386716
>No I didn't,
You clearly did. He just cast a magic spell, which seems to be a Magic-User spell. Meaning you found a way to cross that over, right? I mean, surely you didn't just write down "super powerful not!MarySue dwarf mage" on the sheet and have rules for what happens if we talk him into coming with us. So why can't I use those same rules.
>If he were, he'd be pushing the limits of a dwarf's natural lifespan and far too old to take up the path of a warrior.
That's fine, I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie.
>You've been talking about a hypothetical bad DM that doesn't let you use race-and-class for an hour
Incorrect. I'm talking about the shitty DM that uses Race as Class (which I've stated multiple times is perfectly fine) who suddenly uses Race AND Class for an NPC with no justification for it. This is inherently bad DMing, bad game design, and all around just being a shitty person to be frank, for the multitude of reasons I've listed.
>There are no elven clerics and no elves can use the cleric spell list
Absolutely fine and dandy so long as I don't see an Elf cast bless, we're gold.
>dwarf mages have no actual magic-user class levels
Not fine. If there are dwarf mages, I should be able to play a dwarf that has those capabilities so long as dwarf is an option.

>>55386765
>He cannot go there as a PC, because there is no PC Dwarf Mage since Dwarf Mage is not a character class a PC can select.
So classic "That Guy" response of "muh spechul NPC class only" which is the shitty thing to do that I've been arguing about the whole time?

Well, when Billy at your table comes to a local That Guy thread to talk about how his DM put in his shitty DMPC that could learn magic when the DM was using rules that said they couldn't learn magic, well I'll just have no real sympathy for you when he tells us your table fell apart.

File: 1504750694223.jpg (5KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x184px

>game has descending AC

>>55386851
>shitty DMPC that could learn magic when the DM was using rules that said they couldn't learn magic
NPC != DMPC, anon, how many times does it need to be said?
A duke has a souped up Fighter class feature as a part of being a 0th-level NPC, a learned sage can identify magic items without casting Detect Magic, a human witch is a 3d8 HD NPC who can cast spells X, Y, Z each once per day as a 1st level Magic-User, a sorcerer is a 5th level Magic-User who is built like a PC, a dwarven loremaster is a 4d10 HD NPC who can identify magic items and cast spell X once per day as a 2nd level Magic-User and keeps a spellbook full of strange signs in a drawer. PC can be like a sorcerer, but they cannot be like a duke, or a learned sage, or a witch, or a loremaster - those are all NPC character types.

>>55386851
I'd much rather not bring it to the new thread.

>>55386851
Oh my fucking god. Autistic people are telling you that you need to relax.

Look, deities exist in most settings, but that doesn't mean that that you play can make your PC a god. Dragons and trolls also exist, and again, you can't necessarily play them as PCs. Do you think that the sum totality of what any of the player races can do is properly represented by the 7 classes in B/X? That's ridiculous. Why can't you play a dwarf magic-user? Maybe if you talk to the DM, he'll let you. But maybe not. The scope of the game is necessarily limited. There are many more things than are represented in the rule books. There can be more spells out there that aren't freely available to PCs, at least as a base-level thing. Stop being a spazz.

>That's fine, I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie.
Okay, but they don't get any spells until they reach level 2, and that takes 900,000 XP.

>>55387152
>NPC != DMPC, anon, how many times does it need to be said?
It's not a matter of what's being said, it's a matter of how it's coming off. You present the players with rules, then you throw out a character that breaks those rules. And when questioned, you then try to railroad and force character motivations unjustly to prevent them from just wanting the game to be fair, which is damaging to your player-DM trust relationship, until when you've cornered and trapped yourself, you finally just say "Rule 0 fuck you"?

For what? You've done all of these negative things for what exactly? So you could throw out a shitty gimmick of an idea without thinking about how it affects your game world, ruling, the tables trust in you as DM, or your narrative? Sorry, but this is a textbook case of That Guy DM, and like I said, when your table falls apart because your answers to rational questions are "fuck you get back on the railroad", I'll have no sympathy for your side of the case when reading about it in the local green text thread.

>>55387173
>Do you think that the sum totality of what any of the player races can do is properly represented by the 7 classes in B/X?
Well, frankly, yes. Why shouldn't they be? A Magic-User represents everything that a spell-caster can be, a fighter represents everything a fighter should be, why should Dwarfs suddenly and magically be immune to this? The Dwarf class is loaded with things that are specific to dwarfs, such as infravision, ability to detect slopes and recent stone construction, and are representative of the race. If they can physically, within your universe, learn magic, then if you allow a PC to play a dwarf, they should be able to learn magic. This is really basic stuff mate.

>Why can't you play a dwarf magic-user?[...]
You're getting off track here. Again, as I've stated before, I am absolutely NOT above limiting my players from certain things, and never have been. What I AM above is limiting my players in a way that is unfair to them, which damages our player-DM trust relationship for little benefit.

>Okay, but they don't get any spells until they reach level 2, and that takes 900,000 XP.
I mean, if you think your players can't detect when you're being an asshole to them, you'll be surely shocked when all of them "suddenly" have schedule changes and can't make it.

>>55387433
My players can detect when I'm being an asshole to them but can you detect when you're sounding like a total dip?

Have you guys ever run a Diablo-esque game where the PCs venture through a literal hell? How did it go?

File: Warrior of Justice.png (38KB, 955x575px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 955x575px

>>55387504
If "being someone who is trying to demonstrate your flaws and why they're wrong so you can fix them" is a dip to you, I'll gladly be your dip forever, anon. I will not rest until you die or see the light of reason.

>>55386851
I get where you're coming from, and I don't usually like to restrict player freedom with a reason to do so either, but honestly, the basic tenets of the game are that you will play a character in the world that I as DM am creating for us.

If that means you can't play a dwarf mage because they don't exist in the world, then that's the rules. If that means that you can't play a lawful good character because "GOOD" isn't a thing in my world, then that's the rule. If that means you can't play a character who is from another planet, even though other planets exist in the game, then that's the rule. If that means you can't play an orc, even if orcs aren't actually evil or stupid in my setting, then that's the rule.

You're drawing a distinction between world building and framing for and saying, "The DM is allowed to make rules about what exists in his world, but not about what characters players can make within it." but that's not actually a good way of running a game.

If I want to run a game made of only of foreigners who crashed in a lost archipelago then it's ok to say that all the characters need to have been sailors together. That doesn't mean they will never meet any NPCs who aren't sailors, it just means that the DM has put a restriction in play on what the Player Characters can be.

That's totally fine, but pretending that limiting the PC's in any way other than through the world logic is awful isn't gonna accomplish much. After all, I doubt you're gonna let my PC's start as emperors, dragons or gods, but all those things may exist in your setting and may even be achievable for NPCs whether or not you actually want them to be achievable for the PCs.

>>55387979
>You're drawing a distinction between world building and framing for and saying, "The DM is allowed to make rules about what exists in his world, but not about what characters players can make within it." but that's not actually a good way of running a game.
No, that's not what I'm saying.

Here, let me frame this in a completely different way to help dispell some confusion.

If you as DM said that we were not allowed to pick the dwarf class, that NO player whatsoever could be a dwarf, and THEN you threw out a dwarf mage, I literally would not even think of starting an argument about this and I would even think that would be clever and a good reason why you barred the dwarf class to begin with.

The problem is this: If you as DM present to me an option, then I as player should have the full functionality of that option. That is good game design 101. There should never be a time when you present me an option and then deny me functionality of that option which is available to others, or even worse, give others special privileges of that option without an inherent reason why it's physically impossible to access that privilege.

To paint another example, one of the consistent complaints people have with video game design is when an NPC has infinite items/MP/bullets/resources as an NPC, but then if they ever become a PC, they lose those resources or even extra power. It doesn't make sense, it's not fair to the players and drastically limits their potential strategies and tactics, and ultimately is a sour note in whatever game its in and seen as a hallmark of lazy game design. I know people who refuse to play JRPGs specifically for this reason, and I know a reason why people play Tabletop RPGs is because this type of double-standard shit doesn't happen except with bad DMs.

>>55388130
I'm pretty sure that what you're basically getting at is that one of the core tenets of the OSR is to dispense with rules for the sake of rules and to have the players play the situation and/or world rather than play the rules of the game, is that correct?

So I assume you're saying that the main problem with restricting players in that way is that it becomes an arbitrary rules distinction that is different in kind from "You can't start a player who is an emperor" because you are saying, "through play you can't ever try out something that should logically be available to you."

However, in practice, I think you'll find both that those arbitrary distinctions are made all the time in the assumptions of the game, and that players are usually less upset about them then DM's.
For example, there is absolutely no logical reason you shouldn't be able to start learning some amount of magic as a fighter, but DM's tend to disallow it either outright or with a justification or "Blah blah, too much study and focus blah blah."

You are correct in pointing out that where this starts to break down is when players start seeing other people in the world doing that thing after they've been given a pretext. The thing of it though is that you are comparing different DM's.

Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing" and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic, but other DM's might say "Only the elder councils of dwarves can use magic through both law and most ancient custom, so if you're playing a dwarf you can't use magic, although there may still be dwarven renegades out there who do."

I don't think its an issue even to say, "as a DM I am saying with DM fiat that this game is not about business management so you are not allowed to invest money into business." Even though I would never do it.

I think that as long as the DM is upfront with players, it's not really an issue.

>>55386753
Oh, so you are up

Guys, listen me up
How the FUCK I'm supposed to run oldschool game that doesn't feel like waste of time for my players and me myself

To elaborate. We spend last year or so doing collectively reading, talking and what not, to prepare our asses for the past summer break to run "old school". But the conclusion after most of July and entire August was simple: either we suck at running/playing this, we are doing something terribly wrong (and everyone, not just one person in a group) or this is simply not for us

My players end up bored to tears in games, mostly because everyone is aware we are basically wasting time on a boring dungeon crawls, instead of roleplaying anything at all. Instead the game feels like group use of a 3-yard stick
Then comes the lethality of traps. If there are traps, people just keep dying in an almost absurd pace, despite taking precautions and being really careful, while traps themselves aren't anything special. If there are no/only one trap in entire dungeon, the game still crawls into a stand-still, because everyone is paranoid to the point of inaction
And after dealing with dungeon crawl as such and then traps, with the n-th group of characters finally going through first 2 rooms and single short corridor...
... they die in combat, despite enemies being literal rats most of the time

What the FUCK we are doing wrong? Everyone is still eager to try oldschool, but it feels like increasing waste of time. I mean we spent entire summer break on NOT playing games we could have, because we were trying to figure out why it just doesn't work for us. We tried playing Tunnels & Trolls, 0D&D and Metamorphosis Alpha. Neither of them worked out for us

And do add something that probably should be mentioned earlier - we have absolutely zero problems with narrative games or role-playing as such. And yet oldschool feels dull.

Ironically, when I picked a scenario we had as oldschool and run it "newschool", everyone was engaged

>>55388294
>I'm pretty sure that what you're basically getting at is that one of the core tenets of the OSR is to dispense with rules for the sake of rules and to have the players play the situation and/or world rather than play the rules of the game, is that correct?
No, actually. While a core tenet of OSR play is "rulings before rules", and of course I agree with this, you still have to set down rules and adhere to them in a fair manner and be consistent about them. That's very basic good DMing 101.

>For example, there is absolutely no logical reason you shouldn't be able to start learning some amount of magic as a fighter, but DM's tend to disallow it either outright or with a justification or "Blah blah, too much study and focus blah blah."
Also not what I'm stating. Again, Dwarf as class is fine. I have no problem when you run a game and say "this person is a magic-user and these are their skills" because your world is consistent with the rules and narrative you have set up for your world. The problem comes in when you break these rules you have laid down for your own sake without consideration of what it means to the players, your narrative, or the player-DM trust relationship involved with consistent rulings as DM.

The problem is NOT "I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages", the problem IS "I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages...and then included a dwarf mage". Again, it's setting up rules of how the world and it's characters function, and then being inconsistent about it.

>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing"[...]
See, I find this argument to not hold up to scrutiny either. Because you're essentially making contrived rulings just to keep up the rules of the game on their face value. There's no reason why one of those dwarves that DO know magic can't just go out on adventure. Laws and tradition are the LEAST likely suspects to stop someone from doing what they want.

cont

>>55388433
There's a lot of advice I could give you, but honestly, I think the best I'm gonna do here is stop playing OSR games if you don't like them.

Why are you and your p[layers so eager to try old school? What aspects of it appeal to you? A major part of old school play is the creativeness and roleplaying that comes along with having fewer rules. have you made sure to roll monster reactions rolls and morale for enemies whenever they're encountered?


Are you running prepared modules? Have you been making your own adventures? It sounds like you as a DM may not have a knack for dungeon descriptions and making dungeon play dynamic, but If you don't like dungeon crawls, then you can still use the OSR rules to play games outside of dungeons (especially OD&D.) Have you tried anything else?

As for traps, you mentioned playing OD&D for example. The way traps work in OD&D is entirely descriptive. How did that go?

What aspects of the game ran better when you played old school dungeons as newschool? Was it more interesting because there were more rules and crunch for the players to interact with? If so I suspect one of two things happened:
1. You removed aspects of the game (crunch) without adding anything else back in to make up for it. This led to a static boring game of, "We move to the next room. There's a poison dart in the door, save vs poison or die." instead of fun dynamic situations governed by the DM like negotiating with monsters for passage etc.
Typically DM's create interesting situations to replace the interesting rules of newschool play.
2. You're players prefer crunchy games or games with tangible game mechanics, in which case, don't play OSR games.

>>55388657
>>55388294
cont

>I don't think its an issue even to say, "as a DM I am saying with DM fiat that this game is not about business management so you are not allowed to invest money into business." Even though I would never do it.
I actually completely agree with this, and in regards to this statement and this one
>I think that as long as the DM is upfront with players, it's not really an issue.
I also think that's mostly fine. The first one is the DM setting the tone, and I don't think that's nonequivalent to, say, setting up the genre of the world. "This is the tone of the adventure and this is where we're going" is fine and I myself use that.

In regards to what I would think of a DM who said "Look, guys, you can pick this Dwarf as a class and they can't learn magic, but there ARE magic-using dwarfs in this world, they're not available for play", well, frankly, I still think that would be a strange move and one that is born of bad game design, HOWEVER, I would find far, far less fault in this DM because at the very least he is self-aware that this isn't good game design and is giving players a heads up. I actually would applaud this DM, even though I would probably subtly recommend him after session to switch to OSRIC or AD&D.

>>55388433
>What the FUCK we are doing wrong? Everyone is still eager to try oldschool, but it feels like increasing waste of time[...]
>Ironically, when I picked a scenario we had as oldschool and run it "newschool", everyone was engaged
>... they die in combat, despite enemies being literal rats most of the time
I think the problem here is you and your friends are still somewhat bound by the rules and traditions of modern games and have yet to "free" yourselves. I'm gonna close this post and then tell you of a story I had of some recent beginners I had to a game of mine.

>>55388433
Traps are, for the most part, bullshit. I tend not to put many, and when I do, I either give pretty decent hints in my room / corridor description, or I give folks a passive sixth-sense check to discern that there's probably a trap somewhere in the area, because it just makes sense (but then they have to search for it the old fashioned way, by poking and prodding and asking questions).

>mostly because everyone is aware we are basically wasting time on a boring dungeon crawls, instead of roleplaying anything at all.
I've been gaming since the early '80s, and I've never, ever excluded role-play elements. The only difference with dungeon crawls is that the focus of everything is, you know, dungeon crawling, and that includes role-playing. So, if somebody has a cool idea about becoming an investment banker, they put that aside and don't do that. But we absolutely role-play in the dungeon, even if shit is a bit more business-like than later-style role-gaming, and characters tend to be a little closer to the players' personalities because it's more player-vs-dungeon and less "that's not what my character would do", because the latter will get you killed.

Aside from the issue with traps, what seems to be gumming up your games?

>>55388433
So my players were playing in morgansfort. One was a modern gamer, the other was someone completely new to TRPGs in general, and they had NO experience in OSR whatsoever. They had been attempting to get through this dungeon and were having the same problems your team were. Their PCs were dying at an alarming rate, they were failing to every trap, and were being susceptible to paranoia.

At one point, they got into a fight with some carrion crawler babies, and wound up successfully killing them. However, their large bodies were blocking the west corridor which was the path a pack of wolves used to go in and out of this dungeon to hunt for food. They left for the week to resupply and heal. However, when I looked over this and noticed the blockade, I wondered what happened to the wolves.

Well, I decided that the wolves had a nice new supply of food right there, and fuck it. If they can't make it home, they'll just HAVE a new home and took camp right there in the middle of the entrance. Which was trouble to some goblins outside who were also out hunting for their tribe that took up residence in the dungeon.

So after the party hears the details of this travesty from the group of goblins, they ask the goblins to bring back some fresh hunted rabbit, and then started sprinkling oil all over the ground right outside of the entrance. Once they got the rabbit, they smeared the blood of the rabbit by the stair case, tossed it in the center of their oil spill, then they hid with lit molotovs nearby. When all 6 of the pack of wolves came out to inspect the rabbit for a meal, they tossed the molotovs and lit up all 6 of them and did massive damage, killing 4 of them and putting 2 of them so near death that they couldn't fight back and had to be put down.

Mind you, this was just two level-1 PCs, and they managed to take out 6 wolves with 2HD each, because they thought of a tactic, and it worked out pretty fucking well.

>>55388676
What I've noticed in general in my group is panic-inducted inaction every time they are in danger.
And the less rules and more things are descriptive, the easier it is to get in harms way, as you can't exactly make a roll for something that doesn't have mechanics. And this grinds them to a halt.
What's funny that if we are playing purely narrative games, with no rolls whatsoever, there are zero issues like that, because they know EVERYTHING is descriptive.

Creativity and roleplaying aren't an issue, really. It's more of reverse. When we tried old modules, we quickly concluded they are railroady as fuck and ended up first using their premise and then dropping them entirely.

And neither of described situations happend. My players absolutely hate crunchfest, and that's how oldschool feels most of the time for us - everything is governed by stacked odds and random rolls for EVERYTHING.

And why we want to play them? Honestly, I don't really know, everyone was selling us OSR as a way to get into "more narrative". It's less. And there is zero fun in dying on random. I feel bad about killing my players every five steps and it generally feels BORING when they have to make new characters time and again, often few times in a row. Lethality is fun, when it's not entirely random.

And my biggest grief as GM is how so many helpbooks for OS games are about what OS games are, but not how to run one without it turning into proding everything with a stick from a safe distance.

I've got 12 years of GMing and can't handle this. My players, not counting single new guy, are all in similar range of experience. We were even taking turns in who is going to GM another scenario and it also didn't work out in any sensible fashion.

>>55388657
>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing"[...]
>See, I find this argument to not hold up to scrutiny either. Because you're essentially making contrived rulings just to keep up the rules of the game on their face value. There's no reason why one of those dwarves that DO know magic can't just go out on adventure. Laws and tradition are the LEAST likely suspects to stop someone from doing what they want.
I think you [...]ed over the relevant part of that sentence.
>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing" and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic.

I actually think we are pretty much in agreement at this point, the main thing is just that I don't think there are that many DMs out there doing this
>"I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages...and then included a dwarf mage"
without either being upfront with the players about it being a game boundary or having some kind of mitigating factors going on in their game world that make sense internally and are probably unique circumstances.
And I strongly suspect the vast majority of DMs who use race-as-class aren't doing it at all, but are doing "No dwarven magic-users. None for players, none for NPCs, they just don't exist."

I really hate "no damage on a missed attack roll." It's really boring to whiff round after round. Thinking combatants engaged in melee should inflict half damage on a miss. BE CAREFUL FIGHTERS.

Second game of Caverns of Thracia is finished. Lessons learned:

* Combat is really boring. Do everything in your power to escape the "I attack with my sword"-slog. Make sure that the enemies are intelligent. They should attack with overwhelming force if they are favored and retreats if unfavored.

*The PC:s are really strong. 10 Stirges are nothing. 5 cultists are nothing. Once again, make the enemies smarter and meaner. Tuckers kobolds.

*Read the rooms beforehand. There's a difference between 2 lvl4 fighter and 4 lvl2 fighters.

*Don't tell the players what their characters do, especially if it is a really obvious thing. Let them figure it out for themselves. The feel smart and stay in control.

*Short-rest healing is too effective. I should change it up to two random encounter rolls per short rest.

*4 players is a lot. It's a lot easier to play with three or two players. And I think I enjoy it more. Player get more room to strategize without taking up too much space. Maybe I should scale down my games? Anyone have experience with non-standard party sizes?

>>55388829
>>55388433
The reason I told you this story is because this was probably the key moment for them in realizing what they had been doing wrong before. They had been running head first into combat to just hack-n-slash without thinking, treating this like a video game when it's the furthest thing possible. Once they figured out that "impossible" things game-wise were easily doable with quick thinking and use of their skills, it started to change the way they played.

Encourage this mentality. Let them just DO shit and think up ways to solve puzzles. Fuck, let them have a NPC follower who can teach them how to find traps. Just get them to start actively trying to engage in finding solutions to situations.

Oh, auto-update
>>55388830
Yeah, you definitely have a problem where you are trying to make more rules and focus on the crunch aspect instead of just going with what sounds logical. Tell you what, here's what you do next time you try OSR.

Lock up your books. All of them. You can have the map of the dungeon of course, and you can read the books before or after the session, but all your rule books go into a cupboard and get locked until everyone leaves once a session starts.

When someone tries to do something, YOU come up with how they resolve it. Protip: Avoid reaching for the dice. Forget a rule? Nobody else knows it? Okay, make up the new rule. That's the rule now, just go with it.

>>55388876

Doesn't Into The Odd have a nice take on this were you always hit and only have to roll damage? Might be Maze Rats. Worth checking out.

I also find that combat has to many misses. Anyone here that runs LotFP? How do you handle AC12, it must make things even worse?

>>55388657
Sorry, I just realized you were responding to the second half of the sentence. My bad.

I mean, in my game world, all dwarves the characters can make respect this taboo. There may be crazed evil chaos cultists dwarves who have traveled into the lowlands and become corrupted who don't, but any PC dwarf will start from with having just come down from the mountains. I think that's a fine example of a way to do things, but honestly, in my game dwarven magic-user are called gnomes, are born that way, are super rare and are one of a couple consolation classes that I have for players who roll shitty characters (along with goblins. There are no halfings.)

>>55388878
>4 players is a lot. It's a lot easier to play with three or two players. And I think I enjoy it more. Player get more room to strategize without taking up too much space. Maybe I should scale down my games? Anyone have experience with non-standard party sizes?
Have you tried using a caller? You know, single person in the party collects the decisions from all players, sum them up to DM and DM reacts?
Sounds like a hassle, but really speed things up and keeps everyone really engaged.

>>55388848
>and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic.
You are absolutely right, I actually read that "are" likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic, which I ignored for your benefit. But the mistake was on my end. I apologize.

>And I strongly suspect the vast majority of DMs who use race-as-class aren't doing it at all, but are doing "No dwarven magic-users. None for players, none for NPCs, they just don't exist."
You're right, but the whole argument came up because someone said they were going to and people were trying to justify it, so I had to inform them "no, I believe this is a bad idea that will reflect on your poorly".

But yes, I think we are in agreement at this point. It was a pleasure.

>>55388924
>Sorry, I just realized you were responding to the second half of the sentence. My bad.
Nah, it's fine. We both made mistakes.

>>55388771
Traps are great! If done well. I had a lot of fun playing Tomb of the Serpent King. (Yes, my palyers enjoyed it too) It has a lot of traps and does them right. You just have to be nice with them. Tell the players "You notice that the floor looks kind of weird here" when they approach the 5d6 no-save lightingbolt-from-hell. They will have fun with it, and they might even manage to die regardles of your warning.

>>55388903
But it's not about any of this at all. The issue comes from
>"Here is a table for random encounter, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for random effect, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for random loot, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for next tile on the map, roll for it"
It's annoying at best, disruptive at worst.

Considering how there are barely any rules, it's hard to forget them. But there is a lot of "random" elements and most of them can derail any sort of game into boring "oh look, you yet again ended up marooned in shallow river", which happend to me when running a river expedition quasi-module. Literally 1/3 of the game was spend on the boat constantly getting stuck in sand.

>>55388925
A Caller sounds like a good idea. I will try it next game. Do you rotate callers? How often? I figure I would go with 1 hour per player, anyone have experience with that rate?

>>55388876
>>55388913

See, I like the Old Skool Gaming take on this. Don't just let your hits be hit or miss. If the players roll low, throw their weapon out of their hand. Have them knock the enemy flat on their ass after a 17 on their dice roll. Toss the furniture around. Have the orc take a stool and chuck it at the PC to give the PC a negative modifier on their attack roll. Let the PC do a shove if they roll high. Give them a modifier for standing behind the couch as they attack. Do SOMETHING. I mean, I know most fights take place in caves, but still have them do SOMETHING. Shove them against the wall. Wrestle them to the ground and shove their face into water. Get fucking dirty about it.

>>55388970
And there is also lethality in sense of randomly dying. No matter how hard players plan around - and the more, the bigger annoyance in the end - single roll and entire party is dead.
Dying can be fun, if it's, say, Paranoia. But we aren't playing Paranoia.

>>55388979
You don't have to change caller duing single game, but what's important is to make sure that the "natural leader" of your players is the last one to be a caller. This way players won't just consider him or her being a caller "for life".
I make breaks to fresh out during my games and when certain player is in my group - for smoking. After each break, new person is the caller.

>>"Here is a table for random encounter, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for random effect, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for random loot, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for next tile on the map, roll for it"
What the fuck? What game are you playing?

Look, if that's a problem, why don't you just roll up all that shit in advance? What I do with my random encounters even. I roll them up ahead of time, and make a singular list to go down. When a wandering encounter happens, I go to the next item on the list.

But I NEVER roll for loot or map spaces while in the middle of the game. That's just bad prep work.

>>55389001
Dying should be teaching them a lesson. Sometimes they get fucked, and that's just the natural dangers of the job which should be keeping them tense. If they're dying too often, either they aren't learning how to avoid danger, you're being too aggressive with creatures, or you're players are frankly, well, dumb.

I mean, lets not mince words here. If your players just simply don't think of how to improve or where they went wrong, or even how to engage each situation safely and quickly, then there's not much else to it. You might just have dumb players. And frankly, if you find a solution for that, tell me, because oooh boy have I run into those.

>>55389040
Thanks for the tip! A Caller is a really good idea, I can't believe I couldn't figure it out on my own. We take breaks every hour, so we'll switch each break (or maybe each second break). Thanks again!

>>55389057
Why are you so passive-aggressive?

The players are fine. The randomisation of everything isn't. The Killer DM mindset annoys me, and yet ALL oldschool games put it front and clear as how it "should be done".

Guess I'll be better just convcincing my players we are wasting time.

>>55389113
Lol nigga what the fuck? I just gave you a LIST of ideas and you're just like "eeewww, you're being mean and 'passive-aggressive', I hate you guys and I'm going to run away"? I JUST gave you solutions to the randomization and killer DM mindset. If you aren't open to suggestions, then nigga get the fuck outta here.

>>55389057
>>55389113
>>55389156

Given that they've been playing together for years, I think it's more likely that they're all playing strangely or something as he suspects, rather than that his players are DUMB AS FUCK.

Honestly, you're players characters should be dying occasionally, but not all of them every game. That's indicative of something going wrong with your game.

I actually do think that this guy is making a good point though. It's important to distinguish between random aspects meant to be used in play and random aspects that are there to spur DM creativity and meant to be used before the game and modified at your leisure.


Have you read this before?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

And I know some people around here don't like it, but I suspect you may be the exact kind of players that it was written for, try checking out Matt Finch's OSR primer.
http://files.meetup.com/1571284/A%20Quick%20Primer%20to%20Old%20Skool%20Gaming.pdf

>>55389156
Not him, but calling players you never met and routinely described as well-handling heavy narrative "dump" is fucking rude, man.
And since that anon clearly came here to find validation to drop old-school, you've just provided him with all he ever needed. Congrats, you wanker.

>>55389219
Fucking autocorrect. Dumb, obviously

>>55389156
How about constantly putting the blame on unfit players or bad GMing, but in the same time not providing any REAL solutions, just "maybe ya guyz too stupit for dis" bullshit.
"Thanks", I guess.

>>55389217
The Primer is where the idea to even try oldschool came from. Been there, read that, one of those "Oldschool is cool, but we are not going to explain shit, just figure it out by yourself" texts I've mentioned earlier.

Let's just drop the subject, it's almost 4 AM anyway

File: Frank.png (423KB, 1239x729px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1239x729px

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1874051#p1874051
Looks like Frank Mentzer has reached his final form...
Attached is a PM he sent to one of the "trolls".

>>55387671
You really are an idiot, though. You're not playing a perfect simulation of reality. Not if you're in the DIY gonzo camp, and not if you're in the Grognard True AD&D camp. If that's your goal, I hear GURPS will let you do quadratic equations to calculate the to-hit value for a boat.

The players are playing as character archetypes. That's why the Fighter and Magic-User can be so generic and flavorless -- it's just a skeleton that your character is built around. More generic is better.

Monsters aren't character archetypes. They're specific challenges to be overcome by the players. Now sure. You can try to stretch those challenges to fit onto a framework. Maybe, if you like, it can be a framework where it helps to create a consistent milieu.

But if I'm running a game where dungeons are literally an extension of Hell, then the things that live there don't have to follow the rules of the mundane world.

Even when we're talking about Lamentations, with its defined setting of Real World Europe, there are dozens of examples of enemies who have powers the players literally cannot ever have access to, without asking me the GM, like 'pretty please can I sacrifice my mom to Satan in exchange for unfathomable sorcery?'

So I don't need to JUSTIFY my NPCs or my enemies. I don't need to sit there and roll for them like I'm playing some kind of solo board game every time the players make a move.

The players have rules because they're playing a game, and it's interesting and fun to see how they can solve the problems that those rules present to them.

The GM doesn't have to abide by those rules, because it's not interesting or fun. Not for him, not the for the players.

>>55389289
There's 3 possibilities here, though.

1) You're doing it wrong as the DM. For example, you're running absolute death-traps like ToH, or you're not telegraphing danger well enough, so your players are being hit with stuff with no warning.
2) You're doing it great, but the players are interacting with it wrong. For example, getting really attached to characters. In FATE, they're a narrative agent who does cool stuff to forward the story. In OD&D they're a figurine on a board game. Or, for example, they're charging in without thinking.
3) The style of gaming isn't for you.

None of those are personal critiques. I've been playing in a GURPS game for like 2 weeks, and I really am not jiving with it. It feels so fiddly, and character generation was a huge clusterfuck, and I mean... I'm willing to give it a shot but I don't like it so far.

That doesn't mean I'm a bad player; it just means that I should, you know, maybe try something else next time. But if someone said, oh, Anon, you're just doing it wrong, here, try this? Well, that's still not personal. Maybe I try it and still don't like it. That's fine, I gave it the old college try.

Ultimately it's a different game, and some people are going to like that, and some people aren't, and there's nothing wrong with it either way as long as you can get comfortable with it.

But it seems like you're taking all these comments super personal and I don't think anyone's trying to be that way towards you or your players.

>>55389842
Who are you responding to?

>>55386851
NPCs run on different rules than PCs. You can play your dwarf magic-user if I roll your character's morale every combat and his reaction every time he meets someone.

File: TN-Forging_the_One.jpg (342KB, 892x1359px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 892x1359px

Opinion on requiring an XP cost for crafting magic items? I hated in back in 3.X, but the more I think of it the more I like it. Makes magic items more special and the idea of paying what's effectively your life force into your craft gives a very cool "Sauron and the One Ring" vibe.

>>55390382
It shouldn't be the only option, but it's definitely a nice method.

File: 9eb273d4-848a-4cb8-ba71-670ea5c52761.png (944KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1280x720px

>>55389558
>I'm gonna put your site in my game and say it smells like BUTTS 'cause everyone was mean to me, The Game Design Prince!

File: 1444558807744.gif (94KB, 441x648px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 441x648px

>>55390451
>>55390382
I think it also gives a nice way for higher level characters to spend money and XP, and motivates them to get out there and explore to get more.

>>55389558
>>55390660
>Fellow Dragonsfooters, it is with great sadness that I must inform you that we have been compelled to end our relationship with TSR luminary Frank Mentzer. We thank him for everything that he has done in the past for this website and our hobby, but it has become clear over the course of the last year that there are growing irreconcilable differences between him and the ideology of this website. This has been divisive and problematic for us, but we have concluded that it is in the best interests of Dragonsfoot not to play host to such acrimony. Naturally, we wish him no ill will, and encourage those of you who wish to interact with him to do so at the many other websites he frequents.

wew

>>55389558
>>55390660
>>55390835
Once upon a time

(in a little village in the realm of Empyrea on the continent of Aquaria, on the eastern shore of the great sea called the Solnor, in the constellation of the Whale on planet #4 of the star some call "Tau", about 5 millennia after the birth of a famous Terran religious figure and a few centuries after the Interregnum)

...the mayor of Dragonsfoot village held a referendum. The people then decided that Freedom and Truth were more important that Unity or Friendship. Thus they began a great experiment with profound philosophical implications. As long as they didn't attack one another, they could say anything, to anyone.

Over a decade, the people of Dragonsfoot were conquered by the dominant among them, some of them half-Trolls. These half-breeds were almost identical to the good, faithful local folk. But they placed Freedom above all else, at the cost of Community. (Trolls are always suspicious and hostile, and are really quite easy to spot.) And so Truth reigned, and hospitality and respect nearly vanished.

One day, a minor Prince came to visit the village. He didn't bring his Aides or his Guards; he came himself, wanting to truly meet and learn of the people. The Prince thought they would be like normal citizens of the realm -- cautious but welcoming, self-interested but offering friendship. Instead, the Trolls pressed him with personal questions, and pelted him with garbage. They were not interested in the welfare of the Town, nor the Realm itself; they were only interested in themselves, and keeping control of others.

And so the Prince rode back to his castle and pondered the situation. Truth was a good thing, as was Honesty. But when they combine to destroy Community, they become a Problem.

>>55390943
The People of the Village of Dragonsfoot have a Decision to make:

If their village continues to be inhospitable, suspicious, and unwelcoming, then they will be cut off. They cannot interact with the Realm, lest they undermine its huge and magnificent community. But they cannot be destroyed, for they are living beings, worthy of the universal pursuit of happiness. So they will be left alone, to wither or rise, as they see fit... but Alone.

The town of Dragonsfoot, on the Dragontail peninsula of the continent of Aquaria in the Realm of Empyrea, is about to rise or fall. Their fate is yours to choose.

The appearance and description of the village of Dragonsfoot in the Empyrea campaign set (release Summer 2018, featuring a dozen of the biggest names in RPG history) is up to you, local residents. Will you remain overrun by Trolls (and their leader Bote), or will you rise up and place Community first?

The Empyrea design team will watch, wait, and write up the result by February 2018. The future of the village is in your hands. We will not interfere; this is YOUR problem, not ours. :)

>what did Frank Mentzer mean by this?

File: Franko.jpg (18KB, 220x309px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x309px

>>55390835
The silly old tart is saying he was now hacked and that private message was not from him. Total bullshit as confirmed by the forums administrators who say all posts and PMs came from Franks IP.

>>55389558
Forum culture is crap.

File: Happytimes.jpg (27KB, 341x462px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 341x462px

>>55391035
It is but this is juicy stuff.
Watching these idiots devour themselves is great.

File: Tophet.pdf (372KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1x1px

Curses! Mutations! Hideous Table Formatting! Me Shirtless and Flexing!
http://melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html

>>55387631
I ran pic related and it went pretty well. People returned back to the living world alive

>>55390382
I don't like PC's making their own magic items even like potions, but I do think it would be a good balance if I do ever decide to let them do that.

>>55391035
I'll take it over twitter, tumblr or facebook.
Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic for the old days.

Alright M'lads, I am about to embark on my journey into OSR gaming. Scoured amazon and lulu and picked up:

Basic Rantasy Role-playing Game
Basic Fantasy Field Guide
CC1 Creature Compendium
Lamentations of the Flame Princss
White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game
Deep Carbon Observatory
Fire on the Velvet Horizon
Yoon-Suin

And also got that Drivethru bundle with a bunch of reputable OSR adventures.
Wish me luck in getting my groups to stop being pathfinder shitters and have fun with agonizing save or die rolls.

>>55390382
It has its upsides and its downsides. Flavour-wise I like the idea of putting your life force into it (and in fact I saw an article on 3E with a variant rule where you can put extra XP into making a ring to decrease money cost, I liked that). But in 3E it doesn't really feel like it's thematically used --- when my character brews potions for the party, or when another party member enchants his own weapons and armour, it's kind of more like a tax. Particularly since 3E had the magic item economy that it did.

It has potential, definitely. But the rest of the system needs to match it. (Which is mostly a given in OSR from what I can tell.)

File: 80a86b044c1644516c1ebbff77aa714b--walter-crane-walter-obrien.jpg (199KB, 736x1034px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 736x1034px

bump

What's a good initiative method?

I kind of thought to use a simplified method where melee weapons go first, small guns like pistols go second, and then rifles go last. Enemies and characters with the same type of weapon resolve their actions at the same time, meaning you could both shoot and kill each other in a gunfire standoff, but the guy with a knife could run in real quick and slash someone before they had time to draw their pistol.

Does this make sense or is it stupid? Obviously I'm letting melee weapons go first to try and balance them, though I could see the argument of making them go last just to make gunplay even more important.

>>55392092
>ranged weapons going after melee weapons
t. Dex 3 fighter

You know, I used to be unequivocally in favor of new blood in this general, being helpful to anons just starting out and so on, but after three threads in a row getting shit up by a sperglord (or god forbid multiple sperglords) who has so much new-edition brain damage he can't stand the thought of referee adjudications and thinks it's his human right or some shit to play whatever he wants, I'm starting to reconsider whether it's a good idea.

"I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie", what the fuck. I guess it's a consolation that no sane referee would let him join the table.

>>55392129
You don't have to be insulting to him. After the whole round of discussion it seemed to me like there was a lot of miscommunication and misunderstood assumptions there.

Anyway, this isn't really a new school/old school problem as it was a DM saying explicitly "I think it's wrong to DM a game this way for these reasons." not a player saying "I want to be able to play whatever kind of special snowflake character I can imagine."

And on top of that his reasons were pretty good. "I think it messes up the social contract of the game to say arbitrarily Player Characters can't do x, but them immediately have them run into NPCs that can do that thing."

I mean personally I disagree with his assessment, think that as long as DMs are upfront it's okay and I can think of a lot of ways DMs might want to implement restrictions on PC's while not having them on NPCs that make sense within the fiction of the game.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna call him a sperglord for having the opinion that if PC's can't play a dwarf mage, then there shouldn't be dwarven mages running around. (Although he should probably be a little bit less flippant about the whole "I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie" thing, but considering all the shit that gets flung around here, I still consider that well with respectful behavior lines.)

>>55392129

Not only are you restarting the argument by posting this, but you are actually so arrogant as to think anyone cares that you're "starting to reconsider" letting in new people, as though you or anyone here has the authority or power to stop people from entering at their own free will.

Then, to top it off, you seem to think your opinion is somehow better then everyone elses opinion, or more correct. If the referee says the guy can play a dwarf mage, then he can play a dwarf mage. If he plays with you and you're the ref, then you can just say no. Does it really offend you people have fun in a different way?

Fuck off shitposter.

>>55392321
>>55392355
t. assblasted 3.pf kiddies trying to remake the OSR

>>55392321
>That doesn't mean I'm gonna call him a sperglord for having the opinion
Honestly I agree with you on this part, it's not the opinion but the multi-thread het-up shitposting that brings me to call him a sperglord.

>>55392355
>you are actually so arrogant as to think anyone cares that you're "starting to reconsider" letting in new people
It's not arrogance, it's a comment on the discussion. How are you constructed that you think three threads' worth of shitposts are fine but one post of "down with this sort of thing" in response is arrogant and bad?

>Then, to top it off, you seem to think your opinion is somehow better then everyone elses opinion, or more correct. If the referee says the guy can play a dwarf mage, then he can play a dwarf mage. If he plays with you and you're the ref, then you can just say no. Does it really offend you people have fun in a different way?
Bruh, this is pretty >reading comprehension. I agree with everything you just said, but that's not what the dude was talking about, he was saying that if there are Dwarfs who use magic, and you can play a Dwarf but not a Dwarf Magic-User, that makes the referee a bad referee who has to "see reason". That's dumb as fuck.

>>55392092
I wouldn't go so far as to call this stupid, but I wouldn't use it. Shots should go first in the round, both because if you both have readied weapons and are at some distance it's clear a guy can shoot at you before you reach him but also because you can't safely fire into a melee. Drawing a weapon is different, but any readied firearm should shoot first.

Plus, unless you're using some odd setting like Weird Adventures where the firearms are basically modern, you're looking at single-shot pieces that take a long-ass time to reload. In practice it'll probably be one shot per fight in the typical case; I don't think the guns need balancing beyond that fact. (Especially if you still have Magic-Users with fireballs and lightning bolts, which will easily upstage any gun for pocket artillery effect, especially in wand form.)

File: [Worried Laughter].jpg (69KB, 520x678px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 520x678px

>mfw Jeff Rients has let people play whatever the fuck they want in his B/X games for at least 10 years and nobody has given a fuck and then suddenly it's revisionist

>>55390382
I agree with you that in flavor terms it's very nice, but in practice (like energy drain, I might add) the effect will be trivial; since XP required to gain a level doubles with each level, even if making a magic item dropped you right the fuck down to level 1 you'd be back up to just one level behind your buddies by the time they level up next.

I actually prefer the Rules Cyclopedia variant where you *gain* XP from making magic items, for game purposes. At the point where M-Us can make them, Fighters are ruling domains and pulling in XP from that, so it's reasonable that M-Us (and Clerics I guess) should have a parallel.

>>55389558
>>55390835
Jesus Christ, what even is this. That's fucking sad. How did Mentzer come to this? Does anyone know what made him flip out so hard?

>>55392573
A, everybody loves Jeff and 2, nobody's saying that the referee arranging his own game according to his own preference is revisionist. Well, the dwarfsperg was saying that, but nobody else.

It's really simple: if you want to let players play dwarf magicians, do it, that's fucking great, nobody opposes it. If you don't want to do that, but still want to have dwarf magician NPCs, that's fucking great too. You're the referee and it's your call.

>>55392573
That's not what the argument was, though

>>55392632
>How did Mentzer come to this? Does anyone know what made him flip out so hard?
Well I know this might cause a stir here, but here's what I've gathered:
He's recently gotten pretty heavily into politics, writing on g+ and other places about how the industry needs to be more diverse and how he is just an old man who needs to learn his place. Since a part of that side of the OSR community has been clamping down very hard on trolls or "toxic people", I assume he took it upon himself to do that to some rando he didn't like.

>>55392690
>>55392716
Well in that case I misunderstood what this was about. Still, who cares what that guy thinks? He'll probably never play with you anyway and he'll probably find some group that'll let him play a dwarf wizard.

>>55392782
That guy has been absolutely losing his shit over several miscellaneous issues since last thread

File: 1444763154130.png (690KB, 717x539px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 717x539px

>>55392868
Then don't respond.

File: 1503497187402.jpg (95KB, 736x497px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 736x497px

There are only 21 unique posters in this thread.

>>55391245
That seems like a very good start. Read everything with a stack of post-it notes. Write down stuff, stick it in the book, move on, come back later or cross-reference.

>>55387631
Arnold K ran a Meat-Hell setting that's scattered all over his blog. It's pretty great.

When hexcrawling, how do you handle getting lost in a justifiable way? I see the occasional mention of it, and certainly I'd like to have getting lost as a mechanic, but I can't justify people getting lost in the way that some suggest given how easy it is to tell roughly what direction you are travelling.

File: hexnav.png (91KB, 955x868px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 955x868px

>>55394384
Pic related is an example of what I mean.

File: raphael-lubke-enviroment-badlands-twighlight.jpg (485KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1920x960px

>>55394384
> given how easy it is to tell roughly what direction you are travelling.
Roughly, yes, but then you have to go around a mountain or find a river to cross or it's overcast near noon and you're fucked.

People get lost all the time in cities on a grid system. The wilderness is scary as hell.

Lets say you leave your camp and walk 6 miles east. You then walk six miles west and arrive at camp.

But if your path is off by a few degrees, you'll miss your camp... and keep walking. Or go in a circle.

I usually put it as an Intelligence or Wisdom test for the party's leader or guide. If pass, then you're fine. If failed, then you actually end up in hex (d6) (for the 6 faces of the current hex). Elevation, time, and experience negate or add bonuses.

Plus, each hex is HUGE.

>>55394384
Remember, compasses probably don't exist. Navigation is all line of sight and dead reckoning.

>>55394436
Hmm... That has potential. I'll try it out.

>>55394537
Compasses might not exist, but the sun sure does.

File: _75579938_mountainrescuevehicle.jpg (79KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 624x351px

>>55394620
>Compasses might not exist, but the sun sure does.

Done much outdoor hiking/orienteering?

The sun is really handy for telling *sort of* where you need to be going. It's useless near noon and sometimes worse than useless. You can't always see if if you're in the trees, and if the sky is overcast completely, you're right fucked.

Getting lost is easy.https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2017/0914/904841-walkers-rescued-rhododendron/

>>55389219
Good. Dumb people should drop the hobby altogether.

>>55389289
>How about constantly putting the blame on unfit players or bad GMing, but in the same time not providing any REAL solutions, just "maybe ya guyz too stupit for dis" bullshit.
How about fucking reading the posts before dismissing them as being "mean" and then whining that you wanna drop something without putting in any effort to realize your flaws? Fucking shit, you probably are legit too dumb if that's your first response to some criticism.

>>55389842
Shit DM detected.

>>55388433
Pick up LotFP and pick a module out by whatever sounds nicest. Boring dungeons are boring.

>>55392478
>'s not the opinion but the multi-thread het-up shitposting that brings me to call him a sperglord.
Half of a thread and then the opening, what, 10 posts of this thread? I think you should calm down and relook over the facts. People having discussions is not "shitposting", and that mentality is what breeds websites with upvotes.

Also, I have to agree with the other anon, you're being insanely arrogant in your assumptions here. Nobody gives a shit, this is 4chan. If someone wants to state their opinion and other people want to discuss it, they should. That's basically what makes people better, even if they don't improve right away.

>>55395389
Everything he said sounds solid to me. The entire idea that the GM and his NPCs should "play by the rules" that bind the PCs reeks of 3e entitlement. The rules are a tool for the GM to use, not a set of laws given from on high which he must follow.

File: LqN1v.gif (460KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 500x281px

Who is the swolest OSR blogger? It might be Lungfungus: http://melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.ca/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html

>>55395684
>The entire idea that the GM and his NPCs should "play by the rules" that bind the PCs reeks of 3e entitlement.
The fuck? Absolutely not. I know /osr/ likes to jack off over the concept of "rulings not rules", but DMs should always remain consistent and upfront with what rules they are applying and stick to it.

Also don't bother replying, I have no interest in kicking up this shit anymore, so I'm gonna not reply after this.

>>55392690
>nobody's saying that the referee arranging his own game according to his own preference is revisionist. Well, the dwarfsperg was saying that, but nobody else.
Oh I'm still here. And no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you present a ruling, you should stick to that ruling. If you present a race and say race can't do X in your world, then don't present a member of the race doing X. That's just shitty of you.

>>55392868
lolwut? Are you attributing every single argument to a single poster?

>>55395348
>I'm not passive-aggressive!
>I'm just aggressive
This is getting better and better - getting so fucking assblasted, because someone didn't consider your advices valid

File: 146012688.jpg (32KB, 270x230px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 270x230px

>>55395415
>LotFP
Which stands for...?

File: tianhua-xu-03.jpg (645KB, 1307x1904px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1307x1904px

Last thread some guy was asking for a price list and design principles.
>>55360318
>>55360175
Well here's mine.
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.ca/2017/09/osr-medieval-price-list.html

Design principles are:
1. I should be able to eyeball values of things I don't list based on a simple rule and not direct comparison to other stuff on the list
2. The list should contain lots of things to get the PCs thinking about solutions, worldbuilding, estate management, and spending money

>>55396652
Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Art-less rules are free.

>>55396652
Memes of the Hipster Princess.

>>55396616
Just like you, he didn't read anything and just went into defensive mode and saying 'ur mean'. On 4chan. Where do you think we are?

>>55396755
I was a player few times with it some time ago. Was... dunno how to put it. Either way, I can't see how this relates to the issue at hand. Just because it's pulpy doesn't exactly make it oldschool.

>>55396845
Well, unlike him, I did read through his posts and they were bunch of "you might have problems with creativity", "your players might be too stupid", "you must be more imaginative" , "you porbably are into roll-fest games" and pulling more and more things from the ass.
So when I've pointed out he should fucking stop, he went full on REEEEEE, since lo and behold, I stand for people I'm playing with for past decade.

Still didn't learn a thing from his posts, instead got the classic "oldschool sneering", as this is not the first time I've got this attitude in past few weeks. It's like mansplaining, but done by someone feeling superior just because they run 0D&D rather than having a dick.

>>55396932
>Just because it's pulpy doesn't exactly make it oldschool.
LotFP is basically a compilation of Raggi's B/X houserules, so yes, it is old-school

>>55396959
This makes it even weirder then. A game that doesn't feel or run like oldschool - at least not by how oldschool gets defined most of the time - is oldschool and theoretically can solve my problems with running oldschool.
Which would suggest there is something wrong with bare-bones like Tunnels & Trolls (well, my group is too small for it, that's for sure with just 4 players) or Eye of Yrrhedes (where there is almost no crunch beyond 5 stats and rolling for damage if you managed to hit something).
And that despite EoY working perfectly fine if we were not trying to run oldschool with it and just play our average narration-heavy game.

So to say I'm puzzled right now is an understatement.

>>55396959
>>55397017
You played OD&D (which no one plays even within the OSR, because people like having rules), T&T (which is old-school in the same way Traveller is) and Metamorphosis Alpha (which I frankly didn't even know existed until I googled it) instead of B/X or one of its retroclones, which is what everyone actually plays.

If you didn't like LotFP, the other newbie-friendly OSR system is BFRPG which is more "classic" but still modernized in many aspects. It also has a bunch of free supplements for injecting some of the WotC powergaming magic

>>55395992
>I know /osr/ likes to jack off over the concept of "rulings not rules", but DMs should always remain consistent and upfront with what rules they are applying and stick to it
See, without malice, this is the kind of shit that makes people think you'd maybe be happier playing new-school games. It's totally fundamental to the OSR to let the DM make ad-hoc rulings at the table and reuse or discard them as he sees fit. Maybe this situation is subtly different from the last one, or maybe the DM just realized that the ruling he made then wasn't satisfactory. If you don't like that kind of thing, then this type of game may genuinely not be for you. (And that's fine, mind you. A lot of people here don't like Dungeon World. But we don't go into Dungeon World threads to "explain" how much it sucks, at least I hope not.)

>>55396932
>"you might have problems with creativity"
Legit concern.
>"you must be more imaginative"
Legit concern
>"you porbably are into roll-fest games"
Legit concern
>"your players might be too stupid"
Blunt, but also legit concern. Only one I consider really rude in the bunch but ultimately whatever.

Seriously, the guy came in and posted a bunch of problems with his games that were all 100% on him, and every single poster agreed "Yeah you're probably the problem", but one guy says the blunt thing about the poster possibly being retarded, and suddenly it's "REEE" tier? Nah mate, just nah.

>It's like mansplaining
I sincerely hope you're being ironic and don't actually believe that.

>>55397064
It's only fine to make ad-hoc rules if you do it before sessions and are openly transparent about what it is your doing, why, and allow debate about the subject to see if it clicks for all players. Insisting the idea that you should make rulings and go back on them with the implication that you can and should do this mid-session isn't just shitty, it's borderline freeforming and you should just put down the book and dice and tell stories at that point. If you're implying you should NOT do this mid-sessions, that's fine and I agree with you, but you need to clarify that.

I mean seriously your only defense for this the whole thread chain has been "CLEARLY it's 3e mentality to want people to stick to what they said and agreed upon, and if you don't like it, then you're CLEARLY not cut out for this tuff world of games", but this kind of insistence on not sticking to a gentlemanly agreement on proceedings is ultimately what drove the modern gaming crowd away from old school games and why people flock to pathfinder and 5e.

Oh shit, check out this public service:
the-city-of-iron.blogspot.co.nz/2017/09/bx-essentials-core-rules-print-editions.html
From another post about it:
>The B/X Essentials line is a restatement of the classic Basic/Expert fantasy adventure gaming rule set, distilled down to its purest essence and given a fresh, new presentation

>This first book lays out the core rules of the game, including: encounters, combat, dungeon and wilderness exploration, seafaring, spell casting, and magical research.

>>55397040
Assuming this stands for Basic Fantasy RPG I'll read that in free time and see for myself.

>>55397098
It's only legit concern when it applies. Meanwhile it doesn't apply and it was repeated few times that those are not a concern or cause. Instead of finally dropping the subject, the guy keeps going with thi.
And nobody agreed on anything. If you are going to defend your bullshit, at least don't pretend to be another anon.

And I'm not ironic. I'm dealing with mansplaining on almost daily basis, thanks for making me sure you are still the same blunt asshole with zero reading comprehension.

>>55397098
Also, explain me something, because so far you've been unable to do so:
>Problem
How to run old school
>Your soluton
Maybe you can't and your players are too dense for that, while you all lack imagination

Gee, what a great fucking help!

>>55397165
>your only defense for this the whole thread chain
That was my first post in it.

For the rest, I literally mean exactly the thing you hate: the DM should be (actually: is) free to make rulings, on the fly, during the game, autocratically, without explanation, and go back on them according to his own whim or best judgment.

So, like I said, go ahead and flock. Drive away. If that's your preference, you'll probably be happier playing new-school; nobody can or will stop you. But yes, if you're going to lose your shit every time someone in this thread advocates on-the-fly rulings, you'll be ramming your head against a brick wall. That mentality is core to what we do here. The fact that you dislike it doesn't change that, and you can't "reform" us.

>>55397165
>It's only fine to make ad-hoc rules if you do it before sessions
This is the most retarded I've seen posted in /osr/, even more retarded than some of skerp's shitposting. OSR games promote the players doing insane shit that exceeds the confine of tidy rules environment ("How much damage would a chicken on fire deal?") which the GM must the adjudicate.

>and allow debate about the subject
No. I'm the GM, I'm the dictator when it comes to rules. I may solicit an opinion if one of the players have knowledge to aid that decision but if they want to debate they can fuck off to a forum.

>stick to what they said and agreed upon
They agreed to play according to the options presented to them, I agreed to run the game and not be a killer GM. Done.

>the modern gaming crowd
You mean kids born after 1990 who grew up on 3e?

>people flock to pathfinder and 5e
Hmn it's almost as though corporations with outsell small publishers!

>>55397255
Yup, that's it

About LotFP, the only thing really not "old-school" about it is that it pushes you to play a very specific type of game, namely extra-short, Early Modern flavored, weird fiction/horror-influenced adventures rather than normal dungeon crawling. It assumes some stuff like fully statted-out monsters (although all instances have alternate rules for more traditional statblocks), which is pretty much nowhere else in the movement, and several modules for it feel just as home with LotFP as with Dark Heresy or Call of Cthulhu. The mechanics other than the spells are pretty much a tidied-up B/X and there's really no reason why it wouldn't work with a classic module with minimal legwork. Also, the character sheets are neat

>>55397347
>B/X
You keep mentioning that and I have no clue what it stands for

>>55397287
>They agreed to play according to the options presented to them, I agreed to run the game and not be a killer GM. Done.
Yeah, this is a good point (I'm not the guy you're arguing with, naturally). When the players join an OSR game, what they normally sign up for is letting the dice fall where they may, high lethality and a lot of ad-hoc, and the DM trying to be as fair as possible in both design and rulings, according to his own best judgment. If they then get angry about getting those exact things (and I have to say that's a very theoretical concern, I've never seen it come up in real life, just one or two guys maturely deciding this isn't their style of game after trying it out, and leaving the group) they have only themselves to blame.

>>55397347
>The mechanics other than the spells are pretty much a tidied-up B/X and there's really no reason why it wouldn't work with a classic module with minimal legwork.
T b h, I think this is how most people play it in practice: they discard the early-modern trappings and the goreart and just play regular B/X type games with it because they like the house rules. Secretly I even suspect most people don't use his nerfed demihumans.

>>55397367
Basic/Expert D&D. Basic was a sort of introductory system which was meant to be used until level 3, upon which you were supposed to switch to AD&D. However, it turned out it was a perfectly functional foundation for a simplified system (AD&D is unnecessarily ugly in certain spots and rather messily written), so Expert was released to add support for higher levels. It's precisely because it's simplified that it has survived to the modern day. A lot of popular OSR systems are based on it. It should be in the TSR folder of the trove

>>55397367
B/X is the commonly used abbreviation for Moldvay's Basic rules and Cook's Expert rules, an edition of the Basic or Classic D&D game which actually only existed for a couple of years before being superseded by Frank "Shitloss" Mentzer's much more long-lived BECMI edition, but which was rediscovered by the OSR and is widely regarded as one of the best, most compact and complete editions of D&D overall.

>>55397405
Literally never heard of it before and the only D&D everyone mentions for oldschool is 0D&D, everything beyond that being considered "needlessly complex/too modern".
Let's call it country differences and ignore it, will check those two too.

File: 1492920089409.png (83KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 256x256px

Don't you people have somewhere else to be? Other lives to live? Other hobbies to enjoy?

File: here it is.png (33KB, 1020x426px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1020x426px

>>55397428

>>55397428
It's 8 AM and I'm enjoying my breakfast while preparing for a bracing day of doing sweet fuck-all in Old Blighty. I have somewhere else to be once it's a Christian hour and the shops open.

File: trolling master.png (3MB, 1501x1045px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1501x1045px

>>55397428

What are the defining elements of OSR? It doesn't have to be unique to the OSR, just at least more prominent or essential.
I'm looking for things like:
> rulings, not rules
> xp = gp
> morale
> reaction rolls
> wandering monsters

>>55388878
>Do everything in your power to escape the "I attack with my sword"-slog
Literally how? Players just declare what and how they attacked. It's inevitable

>>55389040
Another anon adding to the caller tip:
It should be DM decision who is a caller, not someone designated by players. This way you can make sure everyone has their time and nobody can hide behind, playing up "but I'm shy" card.

>>55389289
>>55397421
Honest question - do Chinese play tabletops at all?
I'm in mild shock right now

>>55397255
>It's only legit concern when it applies
And it does. You can claim it doesn't all you like, but every single one of your problems you listed were 100% on you and how you were running. People posted with helpful links, telling you to consider dropping the osr entirely if your group wasn't having fun, suggestions and stories on what mindset to get into and how to deal with what you were calling "dull combat" and "bland traps", ideas to drop traps because your party couldn't handle it, and so on. All because the problems you listed out involved you just frankly not getting it. And no I don't intend to drop the subject.
>If you are going to defend your bullshit, at least don't pretend to be another anon.
At least 6 people tried to reply to you to be helpful, but one anon was mean and you went defensive. Don't act like those anons didn't exist.

>I'm dealing with mansplaining on almost daily basis
lol sure you do, babe.

>>55397985
Not him (her?), but are we reading different threads? The only person getting shit was the guy jumping to conclusions based on wild guesses. The discussion meanwhile ended somewhere around suggesting LotFP and B/X, going smooth and pretty tactful.

>>55397283
>the DM should be (actually: is) free to make rulings, on the fly, during the game, autocratically, without explanation
Yes.
>and go back on them according to his own whim or best judgment.
No. I mean, obviously you're free to take this action, but this is objectively shitty on all accounts.

>this thread advocates on-the-fly rulings, you'll be ramming your head against a brick wall. That mentality is core to what we do here.
See, here's the problem and where you're going wrong with this assumption, and this applies to you over here:>>55397287, so you should listen to.

You make rulings because the rules don't exist prior to you making the rulings, and that's why old school gaming is both appealing and works out on good game design theories. If someone wants to throw a boulder down a hill, there are no real rules for that so the DM makes a ruling. But if someone picks up something that is stated outright in the rules, then it's the DM's job and responsibility to decide if there are changes to that before sessions, not in the middle of it. If you change the rule, you're changing the assumption players have when making character decisions. And I really shouldn't have to explain why that's inherently a shit DM move.

You as DMs say "we're going to play BFRPG", then you should state before session "oh but I'm going to play with these rules" because those affect how the players make decisions. If you start changing things mid-session, and your only answer to why is
>and go back on them according to his own whim or best judgment.
>No. I'm the GM, I'm the dictator when it comes to rules
Then, sorry, but you're not creating a fun environment or fostering a good standing with the social-contract you made with the players coming into a game with a unified base set of rules.

I can frankly see why these threads top out at ~60 unique IPs and why OSR has been dying outside of LotFP if this is the shitty attitude that DMs like you two want to foster.

For those of you who don't use thieves, how do you handle locked doors?

>>55398358
Everyone can lockpick, but it takes ~10 minutes and triggers random encounter checks. You can also bash the door or find the key.

File: 1405945046757.png (670KB, 803x803px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 803x803px

>>55397739
Dunno, would have to ask my students about this. But I suspect it's going to be a very niche thing. Then again, in raw numbers it might sound huge, just because there is 1.5 billion Chinese. And for the very same reason staying niche.
From my personal experience I can say that TTRPGs are not just niche, but outright obscure when it comes to Taiwan (so a completely different deal than mainland China). One of lectors when I was still student myself was from Taiwan and despite being pretty much a textbook example of "Asian nerd", he never heard about TTRPG at all. When he asked his friends back home about it, they had to google it to even know what he's asking about.

>>55397985
>Be as rude as possible for no reason at all
>Solve absolutely nothing in the process
>Surprised people get defensive when you insult them and their friends
Somehow other anons managed to really be helpful without resorting to "hurrr you dumb me smart durrr". Also, this >>55398095 , especially the last line of the post.

>>55398358
Depends on the doors and locks. The most obvious solution is to pry it open with brute force. Or totalling it with an axe or something like that. Try to smash the lock/container itself, like picking a cubic box and dropping repeatively with its corner on something hard untill the box itself gives in. This obviously can affect the things stored inside.
There is a saying in my country that everything can be solved by the equation of "Strenght times Violence"

>>55394620
The sun deflects significantly according to the latitude and season. Walking with the sun at your back in the morning seems like it should send you west, but according to latitude and season can send you 45 degrees off-course.

>>55397064
>>55397064
I'm not involved in the dwarf wizard shit but I think this is a matter of taste and not a matter of foundational OSR philosophy.

If you like your RPGs like a wargame then you're going to want to know the rules and to try to make sure those rules are as consistent as they can be. RPG-as-wargame is definitely plenty old school, so I don't think we can say 'that's not OSR'.

That doesn't mean there are no rulings. Plenty of wargames had referees who had to make calls in ambiguous situations (and free kriegspiel made that a driving policy). It's just that you try to only make rulings when the rules are insufficient, and then whenever a similar situation comes up you try to be consistent about the sort of ruling you make.

If people care about being able to make informed decisions (which is what player agency is all about) then you can't be ruling the rug out from under them all the time. At the same time, no rule system is going to be perfect so it's expected that it will be amended improvisationally through rulings.

Now does that mean you need a 3e type AD&D tournament mentality where if you aren't playing it RAW you're not playing the same game? Despite Gygax's shilling of AD&D tournies in the early 1980s, no. There's some kind of middle ground, and it's fine if people lean one way or the other I think.

>>55395796
Skerples = Mind
Lungfungus = Body
Occultesque = Soul

>>55388433
If you're TPKing from every rat, you read the rules wrong or your players read the rules wrong. There's no reason that should happen.

>>55398530

What about The Manse?

>>55395992
>DMs should always remain consistent and upfront with what rules they are applying and stick to it.
DMs are not obligated to do that, actually. The only obligation the DM has is to try his or her best to give the players a fun experience. That's it. Close the book.

>>55398695
>>DMs should always remain consistent and upfront with what rules they are applying and stick to it.
>DMs are not obligated to do that, actuall
This is the easiest way to make it UNfun, because it leads directly to players being always expecting to get ass-raped by ever-changing ruling and having zero consistency or constant values to find any safe haven for themselves.
Saying that you are going to run game using rules presented in specific book and then not doing so is simply a dick move. You could up-front tell players there are going to be NO rules and only your rulling and everyone would be fine(ish). By saying them you are going to use specific rules and then not using them, you've just lied to them.
This is the same shit as telling your kid that you are going to go for movies, only to end up in the dentist. It utterly destroys trust and is a dick move by itself.

>>55398358
kicking sometimes works.
Or a wizard with the Knock spell.
Or... just knock on the door. Maybe someone will answer.

It can take some resourcefulness depending on the situation.
For example: say the key to the locked door is fitted into the door, but on the opposite side. You can slide a piece of paper under the door, stick a knife into the keyhole to poke it out and onto the paper on the other side, then pull the parchment back to your side. Now you have the key.
That's a simple puzzle a DM can use for a new group.

>>55398095
>objectively shitty
No

>going wrong
No

>it's the DM's job and responsibility to decide if there are changes to that before sessions
No

>OSR has been dying outside of LotFP
Kek

>muh shitty attitude, general is ded
Okay, great, then you have no reason to be here and can leave, right? Your frankly bizarre attempt to browbeat people into playing the way you want by shitting up the thread is a tacit admission that you see something of value here, so either shut up or get out.

>>55398732
If the DM does it and the players have fun, then what is the issue?

Sometimes rolling a 1 makes your weapon fly out of your hand, sometimes you injure yourself or your ally accidentally, sometimes you get knocked down, or sometimes you just... miss.

The DM might not have a table. It just happens because the DM believes it will be dramatic or harrowing to do something the PC doesn't expect, which makes their victory, or defeat, all the more fun.

>>55398775
>If the DM does it and the players have fun, then what is the issue?
What if DM does that and people roll their eyes, because they've been fucked AGAIN?

And it's not about juding the outcome of rolling 1, but being simply inconsistent in exactly same situation, bending ruling to see it fit, rather than following what was established earlier. If you once make sure warrior in your group could hold out a beam supporting 500 lbs over his head whole the celling was falling (so everyone can escape and the warrior then run away) and then make him unable to lift another player to climb up, claiming he's too weak for that, it's a shitty DMing.

Bottom line - changing ruling on a fly more often than not boils down to railroading your players. And nobody likes that.

>>55398799
>changing ruling on a fly more often than not boils down to railroading your players. And nobody likes that.
What does railroading have to do with it? You act like a DM changing up minor things must always be negative.
>If you once make sure warrior in your group could hold out a beam supporting 500 lbs over his head whole the celling was falling (so everyone can escape and the warrior then run away) and then make him unable to lift another player to climb up, claiming he's too weak for that
That's called a strength roll. Or a bend bar lift gate roll. Perhaps you're not making your point very clearly.

>>55398764
>Let's completely ignore arguments, refutting them with single "no" and then berate the other side
Like the China chick already pointed out - why do you need to be such an asshole?
Also, the irony is strong in this statement:
>Your frankly bizarre attempt to browbeat people into playing the way you want by shitting up the thread is a tacit admission that you see something of value here, so either shut up or get out.

>>55398817
Perhaps you are openly ignoring the point made, so you can say in the end "lel, you are wrong and I am right", without providing anything at all.
And what it has to do with railroading? Let's thing - locking your players from using options that would make perfect sense with what was already established just so they will do what you want from them to do?

>>55398758
There is also another solution:
Trying to simply open it.
To elaborate, let's imagine a following scene:
>"As you slowly walk down the hall, you eventually reach a solid, wooden gate in front of you. The doors are shut"
Unless your players simply try to open it, it is perfectly fine to work a situation where the doors weren't locked or blocked in any way, but simply closed. Many people when having a closed door in front of them, at least when playing games, first try to unlock it, rather than see if it's open.
Played right, it can be pretty funny all by itself, like players working hard to unlock the doors, only to end up locking it up and performing a group facepalm for not checking if the doors were open in the first place.

>>55398855
Come on, now. At least ONE person in the group says "I try to open the door" or "I check to see if it's locked". I usually use the latter because it doesn't involve actually opening the door and alerting those who might be on the other side to our presence.

>>55398870
Honestly? From my experience, there is roughtly 50/50 chance nobody in a group is going to check if the doors are opened or not.
It also works best if you have locked and unlocked doors close by. I remember when I had once a four-way room in abandoned keep. Doors in front and on the right were locked. The ones on the left were simply closed. Since my players started with the doors in front, they decided to work around each doors as if they were locked.
Cue locking the left doors and getting the impression that they must be blocked from another side.

So despite this being somewhat obvious, it can still happen that nobody in the party will check the doors first if they are open.

>>55398904
If your players are prone to that sort of silliness, do it to them once and they will NEVER forget it. Every time afterward, they'll check to see if it's actually locked on pure reflex.

>>55398950
Like I said, it's mostly situational. I've run the same campaign with different group earlier and they were checking each set of doors separately.

I'm just pointing out things like that can happen at times, even with experienced players.

File: bx boxes and books.jpg (420KB, 866x993px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 866x993px

>>55397367
B/X is shorthand for Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert. It's the first real edition of Basic D&D (the earlier Holmes Basic only going up to level 3 and being more of an OD&D starter set / jumping off point to AD&D). After original D&D, D&D basically split into two parts. AD&D is an evolution of OD&D with all its supplements and rules. Basic D&D is a streamlined version built off of just the core rules (the little brown books) and the first (Greyhawk) supplement (which gave us shit like variable weapon damage, variable hit dice sizes*, and the thief class).

*Previously, all classes rolled d6s for hit dice. They just got them at a different rate. So a cleric had hit dice that progressed from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, while a magic-user had hit dice that progressed from 1 to 1+1 to 2 to 2+1.

>>55397421
For what it's worth, Basic sometimes gets lumped in with OD&D. On the box, Basic D&D is just called "Dungeons & Dragons", just like original D&D was. AD&D, meanwhile, has "Advanced" right in the title. So people see two lines of D&D: "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and lump together the editions sharing the same title. (In reality though, OD&D is a close to AD&D as it is to D&D, it just depends on how many of its supplements you're using.)

So this could be the source of confusion here. Or it could be that Basic D&D, for whatever reason, never really made it to your neck of the woods.

To anyone familiar with the Chronicles of Siala series, what system would likely allow for something like that the best?

To anyone not familiar with it, it's a relatively low fantasy series overall, with most characters being mundane or at least appearing mundane, without overt magic. There's a lot of use of things like crafted trinkets like grenades, smoke bombs, and other simple stuff, alongside somewhat more advanced magical consumables like exploding bolts and stuff similar to The Witcher series. There are full-on Wizard type people, but they're fairly uncommon, but when they do exist, they're terrifying as shit.

http://www.alexeypehov.com/

>>55397679
>Literally how? Players just declare what and how they attacked. It's inevitable
I'm not him, but there should be more colorful and detailed descriptions of how people attack ("I feint high, and when he raises his guard to protect his face, I bury my blade in his stomach") than just "I attack with my sword", and there should be improvised modifiers and rolls based on those descriptions. Just rolling your unmodified attack roll vs their AC every time is mind-numbingly boring. The minimalism of the system should facilitate improvisation.

>>55390306
>NPCs run on different rules than PCs
No, they don't? Why would they? That'd break immersion like fucking crazy.

>>55399347
D&D probably isn't the ideal thing, as even in its earliest days, powerful magic was present (even if you didn't start out with much), and most of the classes were casters. I mean, restricting play to the early levels would reduce the high magic feel of the game, but I still feel the focus would be wrong, at least from what you describe. Maybe something like Barbarians of Lemuria or RuneQuest / Basic Roleplaying with magic-use restricted? You'd have to stat out the magical consumables, but that shouldn't be too hard (if you use BRP, you could just refluff shit like modern grenades).

Barbarians of Lemuria is the more minimalist option, with broad professions serving as the basis of your rolls (you have 2 ranks in thief and are trying to do a thiefy thing, so you get +2 to your roll), while RQ/BRP is more complex, with specific percentile skills for different tasks, so depending on what you're looking for...

Also, Savage Worlds with the Fantasy Companion might work (obviously leaving out the shit that doesn't fit with the setting).

>>55399363
Because the GM isn't a player and isn't being challenged by the game. The GM is the guy who makes the universe works. The GM is god. Most of the shit that happens or has happened in the setting doesn't get a single roll, but is willed into existence willy-nilly by the GM.

>>55399446
Alright, so you've got an OOC reason that has zero basis in IC reasons and still shatters immersion entirely.

>>55399469
All rules are OOC. The attack roll vs. AC and the damage roll that removes the target's hit points, which were determined by his hit dice are all abstractions and gross simplifications of the physics involved in an actual fight. So is everybody taking turns and getting the same number of actions.

And like the guy was indicating, monsters make morale and reaction rolls, while PCs do not. NPCs and PCs run according to different rules because they have different roles within the game. The game isn't about the NPCs or challenging their player (the GM).

>>55399291
Considering any D&D prior AD&D 2e wasn't even published in my country at all and it's all about bunch of people experimenting with old books they've dig out via random string of events and net surfing, it could be right on track. That's why I called it country differences.

Tbh, D&D never was big around here, not even the memetic 3.x editions

>>55399510
This.
The rules of the game need not reflect the world, only resolve how the pcs influence it, and how the world influences the pcs. Understanding that game mechanics are not the same as the game setting or the story you are spinning is a crucial step, I believe, in expanding your ability to play a variety of games.

File: IMG_7287.png (2MB, 2208x1242px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2208x1242px

Anyone seen this OSR logo before it's a take off of the Conan The Barbarian movie logo. If I could find a clean version at High enough Rez it would make a sweet t-shirt.

Saw it here first https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/843284272/barrowmaze-the-forbidden-caverns-of-the-archaia

>>55399354
While I'm with you on the same page, it still ends up with "I attack with sword" slog, only slightly different.
My point is not about providing a flowery description and applying buffs (or debuffs) based on that, but how much home ruling it takes and how players, once figuring out your judgement, will try to abuse it. Or how they abuse it in general.
To put some perspective on it:
I've once had a player who was into martial arts himself. Was training jujutsu as a kid, then switched for aikido as a teen and was even winning regional championships on regular basis. Thing is, he was putting all of this into the game, making combat unfun for everyone else, because if I was to seriously apply his descriptions and action into a game, it would end up with his character (which were often suited for that kind of work "rule-wise") mopping floor with enemies, with rest of the party being reduced to "I attack with a sword" stuff, because they simply couldn't follow his pace. On the other hand, ignoring his imput felt not only disrespectful (since he REALLY know what he was doing), but also lead to a lot of confusion for him and the rest of the players, as they've all developed the sentiment that it doesn't really matter what they describe, as it's still roll against AC with minor/no modifiers for description.
A lose-lose situation.

>>55399582
http://www.dafont.com/barbarian.font

>>55399588
>will try to abuse it. Or how they abuse it in general.
You have players that would abuse good faith in such a way?
>because if I was to seriously apply his descriptions and action into a game, it would end up with his character (which were often suited for that kind of work "rule-wise") mopping floor with enemies
Which is why his attack/damage roll denotes what he succeeds at doing, not what he says he is doing.

>>55399363
Could you just understand what old-school is BEFORE posting in the thread, or at least ask?
Literally yes they do. If that shatters your immersion and you even wanted to HAVE immersion in the first place, maybe play something else, but yes, there's no Earthly reason why an RPG ruleset should be a book of physical laws for a game world that eavery creature obeys equally.

The rules are just tools for the DM to run his game. Part of that is to make PCs and NPCs run on different rules, as is expedient -- PCs aren't just anybody but adventurers, as well as being the players' primary tool to explore the setting. NPCs are tools of the DM and parts of the setting, representing tons of things outside the scope of what players can usefully or entertainingly play as dungeon explorers.

>>55399715
I think we are discussing two different things. He provides a spot-on description. The roll is also pretty good. Following the description, I'd have to go on with a total overkill. Following the roll itself, it would still be a highly effective action if it was just "I attack with sword"

>>55399777
If what he is describing is more than what his current attack option would entail, than his roll should have been modified for it.
A player who says they do a basic inside leg kick from muay thai with the intent on knocking the other guy down or applying a movement penalty would get that at a appropriate penalty to their roll, for example, and I've had players do this. Everything from cutting off the giant scorpion's stinger (stinger is disabled for so many rounds, or cut off with repeated blows) to going for the hand ligaments of a swordsman (he takes a penalty depending on the damage dealt), I've had players shoot for such things, but that doesn't mean what they are trying to do is guaranteed or given for free. You pay a price for specifics, and if you pay the price, you get what you want. It's like saying your player is too strong because they say they cut the guy's head off, and you give it to them because they made the roll.

>>55399588
Honestly, I'd just hold the martial arts guy to a higher standard. He'd probably still end up getting an advantage out of it (if a significantly reduced one), but that's okay. People who are good at statistics can have an advantage in RPGs due to being able to better calculate the optimum way to attack enemies, etc. Knowing martial arts is just that guy's advantage.

The more important bit is that combat becomes more interactive and varied, not to mention more colorful and imaginative. Unmodified attack and damage rolls are something you could program a computer to do, while you leave the room to fix yourself a sandwich. There's little point in you even being there.

>>55399590
That's a neat idea, but the font is flawed. The sword width is bigger for the interior letters, making the lines jagged.

>>55399908
Still, it's clearly what Gillespie used. If you're not happy with how it looks, just do a really big and/or vector version of the text and then clean it up by hand.

>>55399908
>>55399363
This is a misunderstanding that IMO is an artifact of 3e. Even the edition with dedicated NPC classes and 2500 word statblocks had a passage in the DMG that said "It's ok to just make something up".

What you do need is consistency within the gameworld, so that players are rewarded for recognizing patterns and seeking out information.

If you decide the blacksmith can suddenly cast level 6 wizard spells just in time to push the players back onto the rails, that is bad. But if you create a unique NPC that casts spells that aren't in the book, and also regenerates like a troll... well, you need to do that kind of thing all the time to keep the game fresh.

>>55399908
Sorry, didn't mean to quote you here >>55400617

>>55398775
>If the DM does it and the players have fun, then what is the issue?
This is a completely goal oriented approach and a fallacy. Just because gambling once worked out for you and you made money does not make gambling a smart move on anyone's part. Doing shitty things and then excusing them with "Well everyone was outwardly having fun, so why not?" is a very quick way to alienate your table to the point of having players "suddenly" have a change in work schedule and drop out.

>>55398819
BTFO

>>55399510
>All rules are OOC.
Incorrect on it's basis. The rules can be considered the physics of the world. If you are hit, you take damage. If you take enough damage, you die. In character, people are aware that this is the way their world works. They are also aware of how magic works even though magic is pure, 100% rulings. There's a difference between OoC rules (like morale checks and reactions, which govern NPC thought process but not PC thought process), and IC rules like how much damage you take from falling.

>And like the guy was indicating, monsters make morale and reaction rolls, while PCs do no
By that admission alone, attempting to mind control a PC with reaction and morale is objectively the wrong thing to do, because if it's in the player's hands, it's a PC. This double-think won't fly here.

>>55399717
>there's no Earthly reason why an RPG ruleset should be a book of physical laws for a game world that eavery creature obeys equally.
There is. It's called "good game design". People hate it when NPCs have special bullshit that applies only to them. There are people, tons of them, who hate JRPGs specifically for this. Such as the fact that monsters in JRPGs are immune to half of the rules in the game, such as needing to use MP, or being affected by status effects.

>>55402101
Listen, you keep saying that it's not you who has been shitposting the general for several threads, but it gets hard to believe when you've been hard at work with this bait for 2 days

File: Data.gif (327KB, 316x231px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 316x231px

>>55402257
>Making decent posts pointing out flaws in your way of thinking is shitposting
>Being paranoid enough to think that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person.

>>55402447
>decent posts
nah
>Being paranoid enough to think that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person.
(You) are definitely the same person who was spazzing out about dwarf wizards yesterday

Anybody have any good weather or terrain tables? Stuff that generates the environment in a hexcrawl generally?

>>55399831
Not him, but if your players goes for cutting head and rolls fucking 20, I'm not going to say "Your sword got chipped while the neck-guard of the bandit's armour protected him".

File: 2.png (186KB, 298x423px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 298x423px

>>55402101
How does it feel to shit up a thread this hard and trying to trigger everyone at once?

>>55402639
I'm just making my own weather tables, for 2d6 roll and values going from 11 to 66.
I then PRE-roll it before the game starts. Otherwise players get paranoid for no reason when you suddenly roll for something in the middle of the game.

>>55402505
>nah
Yah
>(You) are definitely the same person who was spazzing out about dwarf wizards yesterday
I am the "dwarf wizard" guy, yes, but I'm not the only person who has been talking about the subject.

>>55402852
Having opinions != shitting up the thread. If you feel this is shitting up the thread, then post examples and explain why you feel the thread is "shitted up". Otherwise, not an argument.

>>55402101
>Just because gambling once worked out for you and you made money does not make gambling a smart move
What is professional poker/bridge/baccarat/blackjack/any other card game playing.

>JRPGs
Yeah, it's nice you brought up vidya to OSR thread

>>55402639
http://melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.com/2017/07/cartesian-hex-map-notation-hexcrawls.html?m=1
http://melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.com/2017/09/blessings-fall-like-rain-system-for.html?m=1

>>55402929
>What is professional poker/bridge/baccarat/blackjack/any other card game playing.
A game for rich people with expendable cash? There are arguments to be made about professional players, but most of those arguments go down to a psychological based game as opposed to gambling. Black jack is the exception because it relies on card counting which isn't reliable anymore because casinos stack decks.

Either way, this is just addressing the metaphor as opposed to the idea, as is your second reply of complaining talking about JRPGs when the game design elements, those elements of human psychology and how people react to a game/DM bending or outright breaking rules that should apply to them without justification still apply. It's poor behavior, and just because you got away with it once doesn't make it okay or acceptable.

>>55402639
I'm making my own weather tables. Thus far I only have one for spring though.

As for terrain tables I'm using the ones in this random guy's stuff.
http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/DMG.pdf

>>55402871
>Otherwise players get paranoid for no reason when you suddenly roll for something in the middle of the game.
This is a negative?

/osrg/ is less comfy than it is normally.

>>55403002
>A game for rich people with expendable cash
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest, you can already neck yourself.

>>55403090
Then let me put it this way:

This is just addressing the metaphor as opposed to the idea, as is your second reply of complaining talking about JRPGs when the game design elements, those elements of human psychology and how people react to a game/DM bending or outright breaking rules that should apply to them without justification still apply. It's poor behavior, and just because you got away with it once doesn't make it okay or acceptable.

>>55403099
>Still shitting up the thread
>Wants to know why people say so
Can you finally SHUT THE FUCKU UP?!

File: 265_13_34hu.jpg (46KB, 263x312px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 263x312px

>>55403080
As the guy who shitposts about TFT, GLOG, and LotFP, even I think this is beyond the pale.

>>55403099
>The DM must be a servant to the rules
Need we more proof that this is just baseless shitposting?

>>55403169
Not an argument. State what I'm doing that is "shitty" and why it is "shitty".

>>55403190
>Need we more proof that this is just baseless shitposting?
Yes, actually, because even on the grounds that I said that (which I have not, my argument is that a proper DM should stick to the rules he has chosen to use and should not double-back on them, least of all specifically for the reason of "The GM is god" which created the adversarial GM complex that modern gamers wanted to escape from), it would still not be shitposting because "Opinion I personally dislike" is not equivalent to "shitposting".

Do you guys know any skill system to use in OSR like games?

>>55403002
>poker
>game for rich people
>black jack is the only one about card-counting
>not reliable anymore
So you not only know jack shit about RPGs, but also about casino gambling?

>>55403266
You are posting stuff utterly unrelated with the thread, you fucking mongoloid, just so "yours" can be on top, no matter what. That's the argument, you fucking mouth-breather.

>>55403278
I'm not sure a skill is even a concept familiar to OSR. Unless you mean games that have "stats" like Combat, but that's still pretty rare.

>>55403283
>game for rich people
Yes, you need to pony up money to enter into tournaments which you lose, correct? And no, card counting isn't reliable anymore. Even if the 8 decks casinos shuffle together were that susceptible to card counting, they still train their security to watch out for people trying to do it and will throw you out without warning if they THINK you're doing it.

But again, you're attacking the metaphor, not the idea. And you're not even addressing the idea in the metaphor.

>>55403295
>You are posting stuff utterly unrelated with the thread
DMing, game design, are Player-DM social trust contract are not unrelated to the thread or to /tg/ or to OSR. If you feel that my posts have been unrelated, point me out to which posts and what I've stated that is "unrelated". You're basically devolving this discussion into the shitposting that you're accusing me of, except I've been making arguments as to why I believe I'm right, while you've resorted to name calling.

>>55403278
2e's Non-Weapon Proficiencies
5e's Proficiences

>>55403367
>card counting isn't reliable anymore
The fact you are too dense to do card counting doesn't make it any less reliable, since ALL those games are about remembering who has what and what can be drawn.
And guess how you can earn entering fee if you are a fucking professional card player.

Jesus, it's like you are retarded on purpose, like some sort of attention whore.

And not him, but we are just having an argument about your utter idiocy when it comes to gambling as a thing done for main source of income, in a fucking OSR thread. How much do you think this is related with anthing at all?

>>55403426
>How much do you think this is related with anthing at all?
It was a metaphor, and again, you're failing to address the idea behind the metaphor and are attacking the metaphor. This is pretty much textbook strawmanning at this point. Address the points I made behind the metaphor, please.

>>55402925
There are tons of other people talking to you, sure, but everyone thinks you're retarded and literally not have been discussing this if not for your bait shitposting.

>>55403526
>but everyone thinks you're retarded and literally not have been discussing this if not for your bait shitposting.
I actually came to what I thought was a good conclusion on the subject matter at hand several times, but then 1, 2, 4 hours later someone takes a petty potshot at me, and I've been asking what they find wrong. If you think I'm baiting when the people arguing with me post this:
>Jesus, it's like you are retarded on purpose, like some sort of attention whore.
>you fucking mongoloid, just so "yours" can be on top, no matter what. That's the argument, you fucking mouth-breather.
>Can you finally SHUT THE FUCKU UP?!
When all I've asked them to do is to just post what my opinion is, then I think there's an inherent problem with the people in the thread rather than me.

>>55403278
I think it's best to handle it with RP. The "cleanest" approach I've seen is DCC's, where you base your character's skillset on your 0-level occupation

>>55403587
*Their opinion, obviously. Not mine.

>>55403587
>>55403607
People have told you their opinions several times since last thread and you eventually just come around and act as if no one has ever made a coherent response to your posts. It gets tiresome arguing with someone that pig-headed

>>55403190
So I've got this image already but where can I get more sweet, sweet frog with a knife pics?

>>55403455
You shitted up the thread with your inability to comprehend basic reality-fiction distinctions. Game mechanics are a pure extraction and completely OOC, but you couldn't even admit to THAT. Your character doesn't roll some dice and then look at the number, and if it's high enough the opponent lays his hand down on the table to be chopped off. Its 100% OOC. There is never an absolute need for IC motivations for game mechanics.

>>55403654
*abstraction, not extraction

>>55403630
>People have told you their opinions several times since last thread and you eventually just come around and act as if no one has ever made a coherent response to your posts
I've listened. I've even posted my opinion in response and have backed it up with arguments. Why is it suddenly shitposting if I find their argument to not hold up and post the reason? Especially when their argument eventually devolves into "I am the GM I am god" when even other people have pointed out that this is a horrible way to think about yourself?

State your reasoning's why you believe I'm wrong. I'm not infallable, if I believe you make a good point, then I will listen. But you're just not making good points when I ask you to directly do something like "Address my ideas directly please" or "State what I've said that is shitty" and I'm met with "ur a troll" and ad hominum? You're at least self-aware enough to realize that those things are wrong to do, right?

>>55403654
>You shitted up the thread with your inability to comprehend basic reality-fiction distinctions
>You shitted up the thread by disagreeing with me
>How dare you?!

>Game mechanics are a pure extraction and completely OOC, but you couldn't even admit to THAT.
I'm not going to "admit" to that because it's inherently wrong. A rule that is fully out of character means that the rule should have no baring on PC decision in game. A PC knows that a Great Sword is better than a Long Sword in game. Even if they don't know that it's because 1d8 is worse than 1d10, they are aware of it, and that rule is therefore in game and affects PC decision. Therefore, the PC has actual IC character motivations for making the character decision to use a great sword over a long sword, or a vial of thrown acid over throwing the dagger. All of those are governed by the rules which represent the inherent physical limits of the world which the PC must be aware of.

>>55403654
>>55403654
>frog with a knife pics
It was from Dragon Mag, hosted by WOTC. Searching for ullywug/grippli rogue/thief art might help.

>>55403781
Okay I'm going to try this again.

Game mechanics are an abstraction of the in-universe reality BUT DIVORCED FROM IT BY ABSTRACTION.

For example, a character does their best to hit the opponent, but he's SO GOOD that he dodges: Roll d20+AB < AAC

A character does their best to hit the opponent, but at the last second a bird flies right in the path of his blade, absorbing the impact of the blow: Roll d20+AB < AAC

Now let's look at the first situation again, and make a completely different game mechanics decision for it, and see how it changes things:

A character does their best to hit the opponent, but he's SO GOOD that he dodges: roll d100 < Blade skill; opponent rolls d100 < dodge skill.

Oh wait it didn't change a fucking thing in-universe.

Because GAME MECHANICS ARE PURELY OOC ABSTRACTIONS.

>>55403964
>Because GAME MECHANICS ARE PURELY OOC ABSTRACTIONS.
If they affect a PC in a direct manner, and have baring on their decisions in game, then by definition they are not PURELY OOC, and the fact that they are hard limitations on what the PCs can or cannot do means by nature they are not abstractions. A fighter with 18 Str and a long sword CANNOT deal more damage than 12 in a single swing of his long sword. I agree with you that the characters do not understand the numbers or the terms we use to dictate how the physics of their world are governed, but they have an innate understanding of it and the fact that it affects their world. In fact, lets actually look at the examples you provided

>For example, a character does their best to hit the opponent, but he's SO GOOD that he dodges:
>A character does their best to hit the opponent, but he's SO GOOD that he dodges: roll d100 < Blade skill; opponent rolls d100 < dodge skill.
While this seemingly looks like the same method, you roll to strike someone and they dodge, there are fundamentally different mechanics at play here. In the first example, you're talking about AC. The only way to make yourself better at dodging in this universe of AC is to be born with high dex and to put on better classification of armor. The only way to get good with the blade is to be a fighter. This affects character decisions.

Now let's look at your other example. In this one, the opponent actually has an active involvement with avoiding a hit. He can put points into a dodge skill and increase his chances at avoiding hits successfully, while the attacker can now adjust his blade skill to become more accurate, or he can decide not to put points into blade and choose a different avenue of attack.

You have just drastically altered the life of these two people because you've changed the way the world's physics work out. How can this be purely OoC at this point when just this tiny change completely changes what is viable?

>>55403423
Honestly, 5e proficiency is very neat but it feeds into how hard it is to make classes not feel samey in 5e in general. The way armor/weapon proficiencies work also makes it extremely easy for a caster to mostly cure his squishiness (a bladesinger wizard can stack AC far better than a fighter could ever dream of), while the fighter can't multiclass to any meaningful extent without missing his theoretical consolation price for why he was worse than everyone else, including the only other martial who doesn't get spellcasting, for half the campaign (the additional extra attacks).

>>55404096
To add, it's even more telling that putting even a single level that could have gone into [caster class] into fighter to get said proficiencies is almost always a pointless waste of a level.

>>55404096
>>55404230
Personally, I rather dislike skill systems. I find that they're just a way to backdoor and bypass actual table roleplaying. It's fine for when you literally just want to pick up and play whatever and have silly results, but when I play something more serious toned or longer, I usually just outright strip out any skill system if I have to play something that isn't OSR.

>>55404092
You're right! They're totally different for the PLAYER! In the first case the PLAYER has a d20 and a book that says "Dungeons and Dragons" in front of him. In the second car, the PLAYER has 2 d10s and a book that says "RUNEQUEST" in front of him.

But for the CHARACTER, the fiction is identical between the two. AC represents how hard it is to hit the character and the dice represent randomness. Blade Skill and Dodge together represent how hard it is to hit the character.

The numbers don't exist in-universe. The little boxes on the character sheet don't exist in-universe. The notion of being "good with a sword" does, but there isn't any in-universe numerical measurement that you compare to a random number generator that exists in-universe.

I know you're baiting, but come on are you really this dense?

>>55404291
>You're right! They're totally different for the PLAYER!
The player has access to the knowledge which he applies through the lens and filter of the character's decisions. The knowledge of the physical world changes the IC decisions of the character.

>But for the CHARACTER, the fiction is identical between the two. AC represents how hard it is to hit the character and the dice represent randomness. Blade Skill and Dodge together represent how hard it is to hit the character.
Incorrect. In one scenario, the D&D scenario, you have a character who has put on armor for the sake of protection to increase their ability to "dodge". In the other scenario, you have a character who specifically trains up their dodge skill.

One guy is practicing putting on his armor
The other guy is practicing how to side step

Again, you have drastically altered the lives of these CHARACTERS because of the change of rules. You have altered the physics between these two scenarios, and it has altered how these two characters lived, trained, and now fight.

Again, how can you say that this is OoC?

>>55404352
Dexterity isn't something you're born with. Have you ever seen a baby? Fuckers utterly lack dexterity. Punch themselves in the face by accident and then get mad about it. AC involves the ability to dodge. This is so obvious on the face of it that I honestly can't even imagine how you could get this far in life.

>>55404352
Wrong. The D&D character is also training his footwork, but in his case, it is abstracted into HP

File: Stare Tophat.jpg (11KB, 588x418px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 588x418px

>>55404380
>Dexterity isn't something you're born with.
In D&D, it is. You roll the dice once, and outside of magical items, there is no in-game way to improve it.

>This is so obvious on the face of it that I honestly can't even imagine how you could get this far in life.
Obviously as a baby I was born with more Dex than you and didn't spend time punching myself in the face.

>>55404352
And besides that, I never clarified an AC for my target. Suppose they're unarmored in both cases. Suppose that one has a 15% chance to dodge while the other has a DEX mod to AC of +3.

>>55404411
Characters aren't born with their stats. They're generated with their stats. Characters in D&D are quite literally not born.

You know what I'm just going to leave the thread. That's the obvious answer.

>>55404404
The HP thing is head canon. There is nothing in the D&D rulebook to suggest that it is a representation of footwork.

Even if I accept that argument for a moment though, as in you're playing a game that explicitly says that line in-game, it's still radically changing In Character decisions, because now if you wanna get better at dodging, you need to find ways increase your Con, not you Dex (yet another point against this head-canon of yours), and you need to just be a fighter and rob places as opposed to putting training into it.

>>55404414
Irrelevant. In the game world of D&D, it is known physics that putting on armor makes it harder for them to hit you and doesn't affect your dodging skill/ability except to technically "make it better".

>>55404427
>Characters aren't born with their stats. They're generated with their stats. Characters in D&D are quite literally not born.
I think you're starting to dive a little too strongly into the metaphor at this point, but again, there are no in-game rules suggesting you can train up a state. Whatever you are at when you reach puberty is where you are.

>You know what I'm just going to leave the thread.
See you in 20 minutes when you reply, friend.

>>55404455
>People who have discussions scare me :(

>>55404455
return to your safespace please

>>55404452
>There is nothing in the D&D rulebook to suggest that it is a representation of footwork.

Nothing suggests that it's meat points either.

>>55404452
>The HP thing is head canon. There is nothing in the D&D rulebook to suggest that it is a representation of footwork.
Do you unironically believe hit points are "meat points", then? I swear with every hour that passes of this argument you keep revealing more and more layers of stupidity, between that and your apparent belief that game mechanics must necessarily represent the game's "physics" with little to no abstraction
>it is known physics that putting on armor makes it harder for them to hit you and doesn't affect your dodging skill/ability except to technically "make it better".
Wearing armor makes you harder to hit because it is harder to hurt a dude in plate armor than an unarmored individual, not because people figured out that putting metal shit in their chest mysteriously increased their ability to dodge besides blocking incoming strikes
>there are no in-game rules suggesting you can train up a state.
There are in Unearthed Arcana. No one uses them because they're shit and stat advancements are shit

>>55404559
Also, just for you
>It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

>>55404469
Calling this shit-lifting competition "discussion" is a massive stretch, mate

>>55404549
Constitution actually suggest it is meat points, and so does the fact that being physically attacked also supports this idea as well.

>>55404559
>Do you unironically believe hit points are "meat points", then?
In most rules as written? Yes, that's the way they're treated within the rules. HP as an abstraction of dodging is popular head-canon. If someone is sleeping in game, most rules do not have any statements of whether or not the character instantly dies if attacked. While I would have the character die, and I think you are in the same boat, it's fallacious to say that this is HP's intention and not just us spicing the game up.

Also, resorting to ad hominum and outright name calling in an attempt to deflect from addressing points won't work with me. In what way is my thinking wrong? That's the only thing I'm concerned with.

>Wearing armor makes you harder to hit because it is harder to hurt a dude in plate armor than an unarmored individual,
You're not even addressing the point, you're just explaining AC now. Like I said before, address the point I made where someone in D&D knows that the only way to make themselves harder to hit is to don armor. Nobody in D&D can train up their ability to dodge or make themselves harder to hit. Nobody can increase their dex, nobody can increase their AC outside of armor, and even accepting the HP argument, that is raised in a radically different way that still affects character decisions in game. Whereas increasing a dodge skill means that someone is actively training at becoming more skilled at dodging in a way that has little to nothing to do with armor.

>>55404651
Again, I'll post the same question I asked the others. What parts are shit posting (on both sides, mind you, I know my opposition has continued to resort to insults and name calling), and why is it wrong? If you can't answer that much, then you shouldn't stick your opinion into this to be frank.

File: 1460920472933.jpg (527KB, 1024x748px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1024x748px

>>55403080
As some who's posted in or at least lurked in almost every /osrg/ thread for about two years, it seems to go in cycles. But there's always someone who's here to start shit.

>>55404723
Anon, first of all, please refer to the paragraph I posted from the 1e DMG's literal section on hit points two posts before yours

Hit points are not meat points...for the PCs. They are more meaty for monsters, I think, which is why big, strong monsters have more HD. But they're not all meat points. They don't play like meat points, and describing them as meat points doesn't work.

Besides, you can get some fun mental images when you separate HP from meat. Imagine a balor whose HP are his supernatural aura turning aside blows and incinerating arrows while his demonflesh sears shut wounds as the fight goes on. I rather like that.

>>55404773
Okay. Here's what my Moldvey edition of Basic
>"Hit points represent the number of "points" of damage a character or monster can take during battle before dying. Any creatures reduced to 0 hit points (or less) is dead. [...] For now, it is enough to realize that the more hit points a character has, the better chance he or she has to survive a battle".
No mention of "dodge" points or sixth sense.

Well maybe let's check 0D&D
>Hit Dice and Hit Points
>This indicates the number of dice which are rolled in
order to determine how many hit points of damage a
character can take before he is killed. Plusses are
merely the number of pips to add to the total of all
dice rolled not to each die. Thus a Super Hero gets 8
dice + 2; they are rolled and score 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6/
totals 26 + 2 = 28, 28 being the number of points of
damage the character could sustain before death.
Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise
affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee.

Well, nope, that doesn't seem to indicate that this is dodge points either. How strange.

All of this aside, you're failing to address the fact that I've already addressed the idea of you playing a game where HP was dodge points anyways, so this is starting to go down a tangent. Desperate as you are for a point, you should probably go back and address that point first as opposed to quoting one of many books that seem to have different ideas of what HP means.

>>55404885
Personally, I like that one /osr/ anon's take on it, the game featured around the stone-age? Where your characters actually had a separate score for meat points that never go up so you're always in danger? I thought that was genius.

>>55404723
>>55404773
>you're just explaining AC now
I was explaining how ARMOR works, both IRL and RAI. If anything you should be nitpicking how the usage of weapon-vs-armor tables isn't more widespread. The answer is that they're overly clunky if you're using a system with any adjustments to AC besides armor type. OD&D didn't have any, not even from dex, yet it stands to reason that Gygax did not envision people motionlessly whacking each other in the head just because the dex stat doesn't modify your AC
>Nobody can increase their dex, nobody can increase their AC outside of armor
Wrong: player characters can't, and they can't because it would defeat the point of using 3d6 chargen. And I already told you there are rules, it's just that nobody uses them. It's a gamist mechanic not meant to represent how the laws of nature work in-universe

This argument has become a slog and I barely could make myself finish this post

>>55404903
Quoting OD&D is stupid because dex doesn't modify your AC in OD&D, and OD&D came in digest-sized booklets

Quoting Basic is stupid because the appeal of Basic was being simplified and shortened from AD&D, removing both Gygaxian prose and mechanics no one bothered with, thus removing a lot of "flavor". Not to mention it wasn't originally meant to be a different product line.

>>55404723
>Y-you must prove I shitpost!
Anon, this thread is literally you vs everyone else. You are proven time and again that you are wrong by pretty much everyone and yet constantly talk back. Normal person would loooong ago dropped. You instead keep digging deeper

>>55404941
>I was explaining how ARMOR works, both IRL
>IRL
I'm going to stop that thought right there, I'm not particularly interested in reflection of real life, I'm interested in mechanics of game design and how they affect player decision and distinguishing OoC rules from IC ones. If I've said anything that makes it seem like I'm complaining about how armor isn't reflective of real life, somehow, then that wasn't my intention and I apologize for the miscommunication.

>player characters can't, and they can't because it would defeat the point of using 3d6 chargen.
If you're implying that NPCs can increase their stats through natural training and players cannot just because they are NPCs and PCs, there are a plethora of posts above me that state that this is absolutely terrible DMing, going back to fairness and that NPCs are also bound by the rules just the same way PCs are. And I am ready to fight that fight again if need be.

>And I already told you there are rules, it's just that nobody uses them
Sorry, I actually cut this comment out from an earlier post because of word count. I'm discussing this in the context of core only, because there are so many splat books and houserules out there that it's not even funny. But even if we include them, including certain rules affects character decisions in game as well. If you include rules to increase stats, then that changes how characters interface with the game. Instead of robbing dungeons to get better HP, they're now doing strength training. Which is a rule that is IC because the rule affects IC. Do you see the point I'm getting across here?

>This argument has become a slog[...]
That's fine. Go take a shower, maybe log off 4chan for awhile. Get some hot tea. When you're ready, I'll be here and waiting.

>>55405047
I disagree. The discussion is of rulesets and how they affect characters IC and perception of the world. If the rules present HP as meat points, one must consider meat points.

>>55404903
>Personally, I like that one /osr/ anon's take on it, the game featured around the stone-age? Where your characters actually had a separate score for meat points that never go up so you're always in danger? I thought that was genius.
I think that is entirely unnecessary, though I understand the reasoning for the change. Wounds/vitality has been a house rule in 3e since...a long time, so I'm a familiar with the idea. A system like that is not my favorite simply due to the additional layer of complexity, though the benefits in lethality may outweigh that for others.

The beauty of /osrg/ is that it's a "you do you (and your group)" style of gaming. I don't think quibbling over ascending AC vs. descending AC or the meatiness of HP is in the spirit of these threads. What attracts me to the OSR is the volume of interesting rules and subsystems and ideas that people have toward the game.

>>55405055

>You must prove I shitpost!
If you make a claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

>Anon, this thread is literally you vs everyone else.
Argumentum ad populum.

>You are proven time and again that you are wrong by pretty much everyone
Outright lie.

>yet constantly talk back.
Circular logic. It's only "talking back" on the grounds that it's shitposting which hasn't been proven.

>Normal person would loooong ago dropped. You instead keep digging deeper
No true scottsman.

That's pretty impressive that you managed that all on your own, my friend.

I'm so sick of people in this thread posting about homebrew shit. DMs think they're so fucking smart like we get it you can kill the whole party if you want. Write a fucking novel if you wanted to do something original. I read the module I know when you're freeballing.

>>55405112
>I think that is entirely unnecessary, though I understand the reasoning for the change.
One of the things that drew me into OSR was the fact that it's one of the few games where the rules reinforce the fiction. Players are encouraged to run away because they actually have low HP and can lose fights. Players have to be cautious because one failed Save vs. Something means they could die regardless of where they are. Even with little explanation of how people should play, it's very easy to gently lead new players down into the natural ins and outs of OSR, and I absolutely love it.

>>55405154
Wha-what? Do you want to talk about it anon?

File: Bowie DM.png (344KB, 752x800px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 752x800px

Reminder, once again:

If you think that someone is saying dumb shit, then don't respond to them.

>>55405244
Also don't reply to the post 4 hours later thinking that one of the anons you really, really hate has gone home. He hasn't. He will reply.

Just leave it be if you don't like it.

>>55405154
Maybe the reason the DM is freeballing it is because chucklefucks like you read the modules.

>>55405244
>i have no argument so i'll just hide

>>55405201
Talk about what? I just want to play Keep on the Borderlands but my DM keeps giving me shit like 'oh anon I found this cool homebrew class online' or he tries to fuck my group over by fucking taxing us. He just thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else but when I try to hold him accountable it's all "we're just playing a game here" and "I'm the DM so I'm ultimately the final word."

>>55405341
So he doesn't try to cheat! He's a tricky little fuck who thinks he can get away with shit.

>>55405377
You at least waited until the game was over before reading the module, right? I mean, I think I know what you're going to say, and I'm dreading it, but I have to know the truth here.

Don't feed the fucking troll

Like dwarf wizard guy was at least somewhat subtle, please don't fall for THIS bargain bin shit

File: this.jpg (24KB, 500x232px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x232px

>>55405434

>>55405415
Look I just believe in rules. The game has rules, and I'm trying to get immersed by reading the backstory and stuff, and what to expect, so I can get into character better, okay?

I think he's been fucking making fake rolls, too.

He's a fucking cheater, and he thinks he's better than the players. Like he's in charge. But he's not. It's not the players' job to make sure the DM's game goes smoothly, it's the DM's job to keep me and the other players immersed in the game world.

Sick of you guys beating up on Anon above, as well. He's just trying to play fair.

Also where's Skerp did y'all run him off or what

>>55405434
>Like dwarf wizard guy was at least somewhat subtle,
I'm still here, I'm not a troll, and I will continue this fight. Stop trying to take cheap potshots at me like I won't defend myself.

>>55405477
He hangs out with the cool cats at g+ nowadays.

My local game store is selling one of the reprints of the 1e DMG, though based on listening to a podcast about 1e I'm not really interested in the system itself. Two questions:
1) Is there useful stuff in it for someone who's only interested in B/X?
2) Is it worth 30 USD?

>>55405477
He linked a new blogpost yesterday, here
>>55396653

>>55405504
G+ cats are not cool. Unless I've simply been hanging out with the wrong ones, there's only like 2 cool guys there. 2.25 with Skerp there instead of here.

>>55405549
>not 1.75

>>55405567
One of them is Venger Satanis so I mean I'm giving it a pretty wide berth here.

>>55405548
I thought that blog post was very good. I'll definitely use it.

>>55405536
>1) Is there useful stuff in it for someone who's only interested in B/X?
Hmm...I would say yes, but it's not a strong yes. There are things in there that might give you ideas and whatnot, but that's sort of dependent on what type of person you are. For instance, instead of race as class, they put hard limits on which classes which race can be. It sort of diversifies what you can do, and it allows you as DM to say things like "Nah, I think this race can be this class", but other than that, there's not too much terribly different.

I do however recommend reading the DMG at the very least. Gygax had a lot of really good nuggets of wisdom and how to run the world in there. He had a lot of experience between 0D&D and AD&D under his belt.

>2) Is it worth 30 USD?
Hmm, for that I'll say no. OSRIC exists, LL Advanced exists. It's really there if you want to show off something on your shelf, but not much else. I would probably pay about $15-20 for something like that, but I'm interested in AD&D.

>>55405536
There's a lot of little neat things in it for any D&D DM, I'd say. Tips, tricks, tables, ideas etc.
It looks like you might be able to get the original printing for cheaper on ebay though. I've also heard that the reprints aren't as good as the originals.

>>55405536
1e DMG has some nifty tables.

>>55405636
>OSRIC exists
It's also garbage.

>LL Advanced
And it's not very good.

>>55405713
Really? OSRIC and LL Advanced are garbage? I honestly haven't looked into them yet. What's wrong with them?

>>55405767
I never said LL Advanced was garbage, you idiot.

>>55405792
Oh. Well what's wrong with it anyways?

>>55405803
It's trash.

>>55405792
That's a bit agressive considering he was just asking a question and not insulting you or even implying you were wrong

>>55405816
He was putting words into my mouth.

>>55405816
I'm thinking he doesn't really have anything to offer though and might just be memeing his opinions.

>>55405767
OSRIC isn't actually designed to be playable but as an excuse to publish new 1e stuff. You'd be better off using For Gold & Glory and dropping NWPs instead.

LL Advanced is bad because Proctor is a bad writer and organizer.

>>55405792
>>55405808
>pretending to be me
Stop it 3.pf babby

>>55405836
Your welcome to prove me wrong, retard.

Thank you, you random stupid you, for turning this thread into such a clusterfuck, because you felt obligated to defend your post to the death.
Also than you all morons for feeding that daft cunt.

>>55405864
Nah, burden of proof is on you. I don't really have to do anything until you post opinions.

>>55405855
>OSRIC isn't actually designed to be playable but as an excuse to publish new 1e stuff.
But doesn't it wind up being actually playable? It feels like it's just AD&D 1e, just better organized.

>>55405855
>abusing anonymity on an anonymous image board, anonymously
Really? Your going to claim my posts as your own now? For what purpose?

>>55405895
>Nah, burden of proof is on you. I don't really have to do anything until you post opinions.
I did, retard:
>>55405808
>>55405713

File: That's Nice.jpg (30KB, 245x229px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 245x229px

>>55405909
K.

>>55405926
Still no argument then?

>>55405895
>Burden of proof
Found the Dwarf Wizard poster

File: a thread degenerates into contrarian shitposting.jpg (57KB, 380x409px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 380x409px

>muh ascending AC
>muh sacred cows
>muh dwarf wizards
>muh social contract
>now impersonating others

>>55405936
Just ignore him, he's a troll.

>>55405936
>Burden of Proof is a unique concept only brought on by a single individual and no one has ever used it in the history of ever before.
I can see why you're top tier in your own genetic pool, aren't you?

>>55405978
>he's still trying to hide
I can smell the troll sweat from here, fatass.

>>55405989
Then you should take a shower, my amigo.

>>55406025
(You)

>the /osr/ shitposting started picking up right around when Mentzer went batshit on dragonsfoot
hmn

>>55405636
>>55405662
>>55405713
Hm. It would be interesting to read his insights on game design. On the other hand, I'm torn between getting it cheaper online and supporting the last local game store for fifty miles. I'll flip a coin.

>>55406096
>Making claims
>Not knowing about the burden of proof
Haha fucking pleb

>>55406096
I missed that, what's up?

>>55406185
google it you spoonfed retard

>>55406185
Frank Mentzer apparently went full SJW and sent a PM to a forum user basically threatening him. Like a full retard PM too, it was paragraphs long. It also made a legal threat saying "If you post this I'll sue". So the guy posted it and the Dragonsfoot team removed him

>>55406136
Supporting the LFGS is usually the better choice, in my honest opinion.

>>55406136
LGS it is.

>>55406208
No, Mentzie, not here.

>>55389558
>>55390835
>>55390943
>>55390952
>>55391092

Since the thread has devolved, thought I'd put in my 2 copper.
I don't know Mentzer, EOTB, or that a forum called Dragonsfoot even existed. My knowledge of Mentzer was he has his name associated with one of the D&D boxes.
Quick breakdown of relevant points:
Mentzer announces his new kickstarter, tries to generate hype, little information given. Pretty much everyone is interested and asks some questions. EOTB makes a comment that hiring a professional ghostwriter is a good idea, someone else asks about the viability of half elves and BCEMI in the new setting. Mentzer insults the guy with the half elf question, claims his work will be all new and compatible with all editions. He claims to laugh at the idea he needs a ghostwriter the ghostwriter, calls poster out by name. EOTB clarifies that he meant it was a compliment on Mentzers management, not that Mentzer cannot write. References Mentzer being on social media often and says having a dedicated ghostwriter can help keep things in track. Miscommunication seems to be resolved.
Mentzer personally approves of sharing material from the 1990's, claims lots of people are working in his new project, says 'get off my cyberlawn.' Might be joking?
EOTB asks if the people working with Mentzer are fan volunteers or paid pros.
Mentzer shuts down everything, won't answer anyones questions or give information. Keeps saying he is leaving, keeps,coming back to post non-answer replies. Mentzer writes the 'once upon a time' bit.
Moderator comes in, tells Mentzer to stop disrespecting people and expecting support. Mentzer claims he is the victim and he is not the problem. Mods tell him he is in the wrong, wish him well, and then ostensibly ban him.
Most posters were excited about the idea and polite.

Who was in the wrong?

>>55406417
Mentzer should have taken a step back and not fed the troll, which many anons in this general should do as well.

>>55406185
>>55406417
Mentzer also sent EOTB a forum PM threatening legal action against EOTB if they posted the message, breaking down who was working on what for the project. Claims he will 'burn you to the ground' if he does not leave the Dragonfoot forum and that he will make EOTB part of the published setting regardless.

File: header.jpg (59KB, 460x215px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 460x215px

So does anyone have any good mechanics or random tables for insanity or other stress induced behavior ala Darkest Dungeon?

>>55406506
Ravenloft has madness checks (specifically Domains of Dread). You have to decide if they're good though.

>>55406506
DM better roll on that shit for every monster or dwarf wizard guy is going to have an aneurysm.

File: Image.jpg (31KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 223x310px

>>55406547
Fair enough, I wanted to take the pulse of the board first, but I guess I can post mine.

I've been working on a kind of stress system that goes with this, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from just using it as a random table in general.

It's stacked more toward "normal" outcomes, with weird stuff being less likely and further down.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GVznyFMSxmsUeFQRgNsHP49S09WW1ZL2W-Jo7h_CXtM/edit?usp=sharing

>>55406567
Thanks!

>>55406675
Wow, I just realized that was stupid. Gonna take that down and put up a pdf instead.

File: 1490495866699.jpg (49KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x640px

>>55406719
>>55406675
>>55406506

File: Trauma.pdf (56KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1x1px

>>55406547
>>55406719
>>55406675

Here ya go.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>55406744
Yeah, that's about how I feel right now.

>>55406673
>>55406455
Look, guy, you need to stop this. You keep bringing this up completely unprovoked, and it just keeps starting shit. You need to stop referencing it or it's going to come up again. You're basically the worst shitposter in this thread right now, and yes I see you posting every 10 or so replies making a reference to the argument. Stop.

>>55406805
Shut the fuck up, retard. Don't quote me again.

File: Tsun.jpg (596KB, 900x1100px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 900x1100px

>>55406850
Dawww, you're cute. You want me to quote you.

File: Capture.png (6KB, 437x128px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 437x128px

>>55406805

>>55406886
Nice shop.

File: Computer Wizard.png (254KB, 1202x953px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1202x953px

>>55406886
You sure proved ME wrong buddy.

>>55407022
holy shit it really is all one guy

>>55407059
Basic ass shop actually, but when you see someone post one of those they're basically admitting to samefagging in a roundabout way

>>55407022
What do you get out of arguing with yourself?