Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General, the thread dedicated to TSR D&D, derived systems, and all compatible content.>Trove (Bytee's is more up to date)http://pastebin.com/QWyBuJxd>Tools & Resources:http://pastebin.com/KKeE3etp>Old School Blogs:http://pastebin.com/ZwUBVq8L>Previous thread:>>66198731Battle grid/maps, or theatre of the mind combat: which do you use and why?
>>66249256Two questions for everyone:1) Do you guys have extra resources regarding reaction table, such as sub-table ?2) Is Outdoor Survival in the trove ?
Anybody got any cool hex maps?
>>66249286If you want more specific reactions, wouldn't you just make a table with those yourself? If not, what sort of subtable would you be after? The existing entries do a good job covering the gamut while being generally applicable: getting more specific would, I think, tend to lead to potentially absurd reactions in some scenarios.
>>66249337I'm not sure. I'm asking because sometimes I run out of ways to interpret it during my games, especially the middle results. Maybe something like subtable per types of creature ? Per types of encounter ? Per ... ?
>>66249429Well, you may like the BECMI Reaction Table, rather than the B/X one. It's one of the few notable changes made between the two versions. I personally found it an overly fiddly modification that didn't need to be, but it might be just what you're looking for (Basic, p. 22 of the DMs Rulebook). If that's not the sort of thing that you want, perhaps it will help you be more specific as to what you're looking for.
>>66249256>Battle grid/maps, or theatre of the mind combat?Theatre of the mind, because it frees me to have whatever environment and opponents I wish.As a player, I find that drawing a rectangle on a grid and calling it a table or a coffin makes it less real than just describing it, so I'd rather not use a grid as a GM. Having terrain and minis could make it more real; but then I'd need infinite money to cover all environments and creatures I could think of, or I'd just be going back to the grid situation.
3 am bump before bed.
I'm reposting this from the previous thread. OpossumanRequirements: Minimum CON 9, Maximum CHA 12Prime Requisite: DEXHit Dice: 1d6Maximum Level: 8Allowed Armor: Any appropriate to size, including shieldsAllowed Weapons: Appropriate to sizeLanguage: Alignment language, Common, MarsupialishOpossumem are small bipedal marsupials. They are cowardly and will often attempt to flee or "play possum" when outnumbered or near death.AbilitiesCombat: Opossumen may use any type of armor, though it must be tailored to their small size. Similarly, they may use any weapon which is appropriate to their stature. They cannot use longbows or two-handed weapons.Defensive Bonus: Because they are so small, Opossumen have a lower Armor Class (-2 bonus) when attacked by creatures greater than human sized.Minor addition:Offalovore: Opossumen never go hungry so long as organic material is lying around. Rotting meat, decaying plants, string, paper, and all manner of meals await the Opossuman and his legendary lack of a discerning palate. Opossumen may consume such matter rather than rations and survive in conditions that would fell lesser heroes.Weakness to Constructs: Opossumen must make a save vs. Paralysis at -2 when confronted with any construct, golem, vehicle, or large mechanical object traveling at any speed toward the Opossuman. If the save is successful, the Opossuman resists his natural urge to stand stock still and let the object roll over him. If the save fails, the Opossuman is rigid with fright and hisses ineffectually as he is crushed under the object or golem, and takes a number of damage dice equal to the number of hit dice of the construct, or the structure points of the vehicle (if any). Rolling traps deal their normal damage as indicated. If reduced below -4 hit points, the Opossuman is not simply dead, but has instead been reduced to reddish, foul smelling paste.
>>66251112>Maximum CHA 12You ain't never seen a opossum, has ya boy? They're powerfully cute.
Bumping with OC.
>>66251748Nice. Inspires whoever reads it to create new and really crazy ass spells it fill in the blanks, even if that wasn't the intention.
>>66251768Oh I hope so. The real intent it to provide a general list of spells for GMs to use. I would have made it a table but there wasn't a good way to do it: too many gaps and odd numbers. Oh well.It's also useful for generating wizardly academic arguments. Is "stone to flesh" elemental magic or biomancy?
I'm fully aware DCC is FOE, but does it at least have any good adventures? From the few I've read so far they seem to try too hard with edge and really do not capture the old school TSR feel at all.
Has there not been a /osrg/ group or game?
>>66252402I imagine it would not get past deciding on system and houserules before everyone started screaming at each other
>>66252402Yes, there was a B/X game that had to be cancelled not too long ago
>>66252402>>66252758Fuck arguing about systems. B/X or nothing
AD&D 2E or OSRIC?
>>66254084What sort of game do you want to run?
>>662540842e with the 1e DMG
>>66250745is there a key for this
>>66253867Put a warm pοοp in your mouth. You deserve it.
>>66254238'The Dark of Hot Springs island' is what you are looking for, Bytee probably has it
>>66252159Yes. Doom of the Savage Kings, Sailors on the Starless Seas, and Tower of the Black Pearl are all good ones.
>>66254678>Doom of the Savage Kings
>>66249256Being a wargamming buff for all my years I like using a battlemap. I did take me quite some time to break out of just using theater of the mind for role-playing though. Really, both are excellent in their own right. TOTM was wicked easy for combat if ALL of the players stated where they were and who they were attacking. :-)
>>66254708Wow, that looks beautiful.
>>66255660Pretty to look at.Nice to show.But if you run it.Consider it FOE.
>>66255660>boring linear dungeon>BUT THE ARTS IS GOODoof
>>66255790>>66255690>hey, that's a pretty picture.>YEAH BUT IT'S A PIECE OF SHIT DUNGEON AND NOT REAL OSRok
>>66254130What kind of game does each excel at?
A "spell" is something I define as something a spellcaster can cast in 1 "turn" (in or out of combat. A spellcaster's power greatly increases with each spell added to their spell list. Thus, I believe the spell list should be limited to 8 spells per level, chosen randomly from 1d8 for a level 1 mage. You can add more, but these are the "basic" spells; the core of magic. Anything you don't want a magic-user to just be able to "do," should not be on this list. For example: magic missile. It automatically hits but for very little damage and isn't too game breaking. Teleport? If a wizard can teleport 2 or 3 times a day, it completely changes the fabric of the campaign. With that in mind, what spells do you think still belong on the magic-user spell list? What spells do not?
>>66256250Your idea is dumb and shows that you don't actually know how spells work in OSR or what a turn is.
>>66256250>endlessly theorycrafting and never playingTell you what, you have a decent idea of what you want, while we don't. You should playtest this with your group and report back to us in a few weeks.
>>66256250>Anything you don't want a magic-user to just be able to "do," should not be on this list. For example: magic missile. It automatically hits but for very little damage and isn't too game breaking.Are you suggesting that magic-users should be able to freely cast magic missiles? Because that would have a rather dramatic impact on the game, as magic-users would replace fighters as the class best capable of inflicting consistent good damage. In B/X, a low-level fighter (levels 1-3) will inflict an average of 1.8 points of damage per round with a (normal) sword vs. an AC 6 target (like an orc, goblin, hobgoblin, ghoul, white ape, or minotaur), once you factor in his chance to hit (THAC0 19). Against those same targets, a magic missile will inflict 4.5 damage per round, two and a half times more what the fighter is dishing out.And that's before the magic-user starts getting multiple missiles. A 7th level fighter with a +2 sword is going to inflict 4.225 damage per round vs. an AC 6 target. Meanwhile, the magic-user now gets three magic missiles and inflicts 13.5 damage, more than three times what the fighter is doing, even with his +2 sword.
>>66250745>isometric map>flat 2d gridPick one
>>66256648Oops. Nevermind. I misread >>66256250. I read: "Anything you don't want a magic-user to just be able to 'do,' should not be on this list" without the "not", and thought you were saying that magic-users should be able to free cast weak spells (like magic missile), while the strong ones would have to go on the list.
>>66256250So is it just a question of excising the spells you consider too powerful? If so, on what metric do we judge this? The thing you say about Teleport affecting the fabric of the game makes sense (though I should point out that Teleport is actually a pretty dangerous spell to cast due to chance of mishap), but where do we draw the line? Is Fly okay? Levitate? And what of spells that are considerably more powerful than most of the other spells at their same level? Do we get rid of Charm and Sleep? Do we re-level them? What about spells that are gimpier than most of the other spells at their same level?I'm not averse to the sort of thing you're trying to do, but I don't know exactly what you're aiming for and a lot depends on the parameters.
>>66256304>what a turn isYou mean a dungeon turn? That's not what I am talking about here. I'm talking about something a magic-user can do.>shows that you don't actually know how spells work in OSR or what a turn is.How? Actually post what's wrong with it not just "lol ur dumb ur idea bad">>66256463kys>>66256534>endless theorycraftingI've played B/X up to level 3. However, I've run other games much more. Even with very limited magic, the fact remains that at level 9, the campaign is basically over because the PCs can go wherever they want. They risk going off-target and dying from fall damage or suffocation, but still.>>66256648>Are you suggesting that magic-users should be able to freely cast magic missiles?No. That's not what I am saying. But the fact remains they can still do it, even if it's just once per day. >>66256883Teleport's a bad example because of the chance of mishap. Quite pisses me off that they nerfed it in later editions so now it's just "go wherever you want whenever you want." But I'd rather see it removed entirely and replaced with rituals to create teleport circles.The smaller the base list of spells is, the less "defined" magic is and the more mystical it becomes. I finally had to quit DMing modern editions because the players needed to know what spell was powering every little item they found and got angry if it wasn't a spell from the book. I'd be fine with a rules set that only gives 1st level spells and forces the GM to invent the others as the characters find scrolls.
>>66258133>You mean a dungeon turn? That's not what I am talking about here.This is the OSR thread. "Turn" has a specific meaning. If you're proposing a new shitbrew you need to use the correct terminology.>Actually post what's wrongA turn is 10 rounds (or sometimes 6) and a caster struck while casting a spell loses it. Depending on what you were actually trying to say you've either changed nothing at all or made casters useless.>I've played B/X up to level 3.>the fact remains that at level 9, the campaign is basically overYeah, you have no clue what you're talking about. >The smaller the base list of spells is, the less "defined" magic is and the more mystical it becomes.D&D magic isn't supposed to be mystical, it's quasi-scientific.
>>66258429>Yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about.Cool. Either explain it or fuck you stupid fucking faggot. No wonder this hobby is dying it's full of pendantic little cunts like you.
>>66258642You've only played 3 levels of B/X so you don't actually know how high-level spells in OSR work because you've never experienced high-level play and are instead pretending your issues with WOTC D&D are relevant to OSR games. They aren't. You're also unnecessarily defensive and clearly seeking approval rather than discussion.
>>66258696You're not discussing, you're being a pedantic fag cause I said turn instead of round. Please regale me as to how high level OSR spells work, providing examples from campaigns you've actually run. And yeah the fact that you can teleport across the world with a single spell is an issue, risk of failure or not. >You're also unnecessarily defensive and clearly seeking approval rather than discussion.Yeah and you're virtue-signalling your "expertise" by being a little grammar nazi, so that you can be wanked off by your friends.Kill yourself.
>>66258429>This is the OSR thread. "Turn" has a specific meaning.The problem is that "turn" already has a meaning in games in general, meaning one player's "go". As in: "whose turn is it?" or "what should I do on my turn." And regardless of OSR's definitions, it still gets used that way by the people at the table, at least in my experience. And this was true even back in the day.
>>66258878Don't bother responding to him, he's too busy purity-spiraling to make sure no "normies" join his subculture, and apparently being a disaffected refugee from modern editions disqualifies you, so he's left to circlejerk with his few surviving boomer friends as they drop dead of heart attacks one by one. Actually, I'd have respect for him if that were the case, but it's not. He's actually a 18-34-year-old hipster who gets off on being a twat online because he thinks he's really cool for rediscovering old-school D&D. The best part is he confirms he's a FOE himself with "magic in D&D is quasi-scientific"
>>66258737>you're being a pedantic fag cause I said turn instead of round.Yeah, because having casters take a turn to cast spells is retarded and your misuse of turn shows you're another clueless WOTCuck.>Please regale me as to how high level OSR spells workWhy? You obviously don't care since you started shitbrewing before you even knew how they play.>the fact that you can teleport across the world with a single spell is an issueWhy is it an issue? Explain your logic, oh maligned shitbrewer.>virtue-signalling>naziTalk about buzzwords. Yikes!>>66258936>this projectionDouble yikes!>can't even prove that D&D magic isn't quasi-scientificTriple yikes!
>>66255870It’s a nice drawing, but not a very good map.
>>66258970>game full of mechanics for exploration and hexcrawling, random encounters, etc.>"lol fuck that once you reach level 9"Any spell that lets you just skip over gameplay is meaningless and boring. It's not interesting at all. It requires no resources to cast, if you even bother because "lol u die instantly when you teleport into a rock lol">divorcing "nazi" from "grammar nazi" just to try as hard as possible to make me look like a buzzword-spewing faggot>while using "WOTCuck" and "shitbrewer" because he's mad someone thinks a few spells are stupid>yikesYeah you tipped your hand with that last part, now I know you're shitposting, as opposed to being pretty sure. Go fuck yourself cocksucker.
>>66258970>can't even prove that D&D magic isn't quasi-scientificYou've got your whole "burden of proof" thing on backwards, might wanna fix that. You're also extremely autistic. You'd rather focus on semantics of a word which has ten different meanings even within the game itself, rather than the basic idea that he was suggesting of:>don't let players have campaign-breaking spells readily availableNow, the idea of constraining each spell level down to 8 spells is arbitrary and dumb, just let there be as many spells as you think is appropriate.As a matter of fact he's just talking about rituals, which aren't so maligned here in this thread. Problem is he's talking about it as if it's some new grand idea which has everyone tripping over themselves to call him a retard.
>>66259048What do you define as a spell that lets you skip over gameplay?
>>66259048>>66259050How DoesTeleportBreak TheGame
>>66259082If it's meant to avoid interacting with game mechanics or bypass content. The more it does so, the worse it is. I understand that all spells do this to a degree. By using teleport, you skip over all the random encounters, potential for getting lost, stopping in towns, and the like. With remove curse you avoid gathering items on a quest to remove a curse from someone. Same with cure disease. King is dying of a mysterious disease? Just case cure disease! Adventure is over. >"lol then it's the DM's fault for making a shit adventure"You're missing the point. You can just baselessly blame the DM for not being able to challenge the characters at any level of power. But the more things spell can do, the fewer opportunities for challenges you have. Puzzle-locked door? Just use knock bro. It's not hard.
>>66259155Because some wizard can just use a palantir to find his enemy and teleport there and fuck him up. It destroys any opportunity for an adventure to maybe create a gate or teleportation circle, or gather resources to cast the spell once, and instead gives it a 1-in-10 chance of killing you as a "balancing" factor.
>>66259082>>66259155Any spell that deals damage (skips attacks)Any spell that detects things (skips player skill)Any spell that opens or locks things (skips lockpicking and barricade building)Any spell that heals (skips over damage)Any spell that revives (skips over death)Any spell that summons or creates monsters (skips mover hirelings)Any spell that makes you faster or moves you (skips over movement)
>>66259219>Because some wizard can just use a palantir to find his enemy and teleport there and fuck him up.And that is a problem because . . . ? >>66259163>By using teleport, you skip over all the random encounters, potential for getting lost, stopping in towns, and the like.>Same with cure disease. King is dying of a mysterious disease? Just case cure disease! Adventure is over. >Puzzle-locked door? Just use knock bro.It sounds to me like you have terrible adventure ideas derailed by players playing intelligently.
>>66259304I literally addressed your response in my post and you're ignoring it. "LOL UR JUST A SHIT DM" is a dumbass response when spells specifically made to automatically solve common quest hooks are freely available. Why remove potential adventure from your game? >>66259222Like I said, this is true of any spell to some degree. Again, you are not reading my posts.>healing skips over damageNo, it interacts with damage, it's part of the game play loops (although healing spells are retarded as well in my opinion, at least the "regain d8 hit points" kind). Similarly, damaging spells interact with the combat mechanics. Teleport doesn't interact with anything, it just skips over it. Same with cure disease. They don't interact with rules at all, they just are automatic "I get what I want" cards. At least teleport has a chance to kill you, which just makes it nearly unusable.>summoningYeah summoning spells are shit. You should only be able to summon monster with rituals that involve expensive ingredients that make them prohibitive and using hirelings preferable. And if you really wanted to do it right you could balance the cost of the ritual against the cost of a similar hireling, but that might be a bit too convenient. >Any spell that makes you faster or moves you (skips over movement)Teleport skips over vast amounts of movements which the game has mechanics for. In fact it skips over entire adventures. A game about exploring is turned into a pointcrawl.
>>66259559>Why remove potential adventure from your game?The point of adventures is to get loot and power not stumble into pointless encounters and podunks in search of railroads. Finding a cure for a king is a terrible hook and always leads to terrible adventures. A puzzle door isn't adventure. A wizard ganking an enemy is no issue, especially since it opens up the party to the same. It's obvious that too much 3e and/or 5e has rotted your brain.>Teleport skips over vast amounts of movements which the game has mechanics for.Because that's what it exists for, just like Wish exists to load an older save.>In fact it skips over entire adventures.If an entire adventure can be skipped with a teleport spell then it's not an adventure worth playing.
>>66259985>If an entire adventure can be skipped with a teleport spell then it's not an adventure worth playing.So Lord of the Rings is an adventure not worth playing? Anything that happened in the Hobbit until they reached Smaug? Cool.>Because that's what it exists forOkay. And why is that a good thing?>just like Wish exists to load an older save.And why is that a good thing? >the king being diseased is a terrible hook and leads to terrible adventures... always>source: my ass>the point of adventures is treasure but saving the king is bad because there's no way we'd be rewarded by treasure>better just explore old ruins and not have any story at all because that's FOE>it's okay for high level wizards to teleport in and BTFO the PCs for no reason>teleport chess is cool but anything that isnt sandbox hexcrawl is a "railroad" for "podunks"You sound like a huge fag.
>>66260144Not that anon, but Lord of the Rings is shit.This thread was going so well, then it Gregged up. Hard.
>>66260144>So Lord of the Rings is an adventure not worth playing?It's a Catholic allegory pastiche of Norse sagas, of course it would be a terrible adventure. A good novel doesn't translate to a good module.>And why is that a good thing?Because high-level PCs have invested too much time in the game and should receive some get-out-of-jail-free cards.>saving the king is bad becauseIf you're under lord level you shouldn't be meeting a king. There are smarter and more skilled people to care of him. Low-levels should be interacting with barons and counts at most. High-levels should never have an adventure so banal as "cure this one person," make it "find the cure to this plague (which is also going to affect you)" and then you've got something solid.>it's okay for high level wizards to teleport in and BTFO the PCs for no reasonThe world doesn't revolve around the PCs, if a wizard is teleganking them there's probably a pretty good reason. And it's one of those "adventure hooks" you're so fond of wanking.>teleport chessExplain this fanfic to me. Also, explain why you're ignoring that the major downside of teleport is how little you can take with you (both hirelings and treasure) IN ADDITION to the bad accuracy unless you're familiar with a site, which makes it most suitable for quick escapes.
>>66259985>The point of adventures is to get loot and power not stumble into pointless encounters and podunks in search of railroads.Games are about overcoming obstacles. Loot is only meaningful because of the trouble you have to go through to get it. A dungeon or some other adventure setup is basically just a way of encapsulating a number of challenges and baiting them with rewards. Some spells circumvent certain types of obstacles, which invalidates them as useful elements to challenge the players. If you want to run a survivalist adventure in the desert, where travel is a hardship, water is a valuable resource, the elements pose a real danger, and the players explore to find some lost tomb or whatever, everything is undermined if the party can create water, magically protect themselves from the elements, cast a spell to find their way to their destination, then easily fly or teleport there. That's not to say that spells which create water, protect you from the elements, locate things, or allow you to fly or teleport are inherently bad, but each makes it more difficult to challenge you in a different way. Of course, all powers and abilities do this to some extent, but some more blatantly invalidate certain types of obstacles and adventure premises. I guess my point is that while I don't have an issue with you if you want those sorts of powers in your game, if you can't at least conceive of why somebody else wouldn't want them in theirs, I think you have a lack of imagination and/or empathy.
>>66256883NAYRT, IMO here's a metric I would use to remove the spells I don't like from whatever OSR game I'm butchering:1) Does it remove good adventure, rather than facilitating it? Of course you need to define "good" adventure. I would say that determining that something is magical or fighting small groups of weak enemies doesn't qualify as "adventure" let alone "good adventure", so Detect Magic and Knock are fine, but wilderness travel (vs Teleport) or experiments with an item (vs Identify) actually skip over some interesting stuff. Teleport's risks can actually lead to some fun adventures though, so that's a point in favor of keeping it.2) Does it step on another class's toes? Spells that detect and disarm traps have no business existing when the thief exists. You shouldn't be able to summon a melee brute without any significant risk, your fighter's here for that. "Summoning" and "turn into any animal" type spells typically run into that issue, where the caster can not only keep up with other classes through the new creature's stats, but also access absurd amounts of utility.>>66258970>grammar nazi = calling someone a nazi>yikes!You need to be 18 to post on 4chan.>buzzwords, says the guy who unironically uses "WOTCuck" and keeps forcing the word "shitbrewing"Hahaha holy fuck. What's next? Calling people normiggers? Foetards?
>>66260405>I think you have a lack of imaginationYou're one of the guys too braindead to make an adventure not negated by teleport and you're accusing me of lacking imagination? wew>>66260456Shitbrewing isn't a buzzword, it's an accurate assessment of the drivel that gets proposed here. And WOTCuck isn't a buzzword either, especially when he's an admitted 3e/5e refugee upset that his adventure paths are getting derailed.
>>66260456>Spells that detect and disarm traps have no business existing when the thief existsCounterpoint: what about the times that the thief DOESN'T exist, cuz nobody rolled one? I think it's valuable to have two or more classes which can assess the same type of threat/hazard, regardless of whether or not it's a class's schtick or just a minor ability.
>>66260502especially when he's an admitted 3e/5e refugeeAnon, he was calling you the refugee. It would explain why you're such a fucking sperg faggot.
>>66259155It doesn't break the game, it skips over some interesting stuff and reshapes how the players approach the game into something individual game groups might not be interested in. Why does everything have to be so black and white?>>66260144Not but see if it exists it HAS to be used and be a good thing that everyone should want in their games and build their adventures with it in mind. People who want high level characters to travel are FOE, wanting a high level adventure about lifting an individual curse is FOE, etc.>>66260529I see where you're coming from, but I think it's -more- valuable for the table to have a "fuck, should've brought a thief" moment that highlights how important a class can be. You don't know what you really have until you don't have it anymore, or however the saying goes.
>>66260502>You're one of the guys too braindead to make an adventure not negated by teleport and you're accusing me of lacking imagination?A game could have a spell called "Loot Dungeon", which quite literally transports all the booty in a dungeon to wherever you wanted it to go. Now, I'm quite capable of designing an adventure that isn't invalidated by the spell, but I may not fucking want to. I happen to enjoy dungeon adventures, and I like loot being the main motivating factor / reward. And sure, I could just have a dungeon that's magically warded, but the point at which I need to negate a spell just to run the kind of adventure I want is the point at which that spell shouldn't even exist in my game.
>edition war shitpostingHow about you actually post some OC? Remember- if you haven't posted OC in these threads, you shouldn't be posting.
I've posted this before, but I'm pretty happy with the scheme I came up with for falling damage.
My group is transitioning from playing 5E to a homebrew OSR system. As someone who has experience with 2e, what should I make sure to keep in mind as a player who is new to OSR? i.e. this question is designed for what a player should keep in mind, not the DM
>>66260284>>66260299>LotR is shit>No one ever likes emulating their favorite fantasy stories>no one should ever do this adventure cause they'll already be a lord by this point>getting gangraped by a wizard is an "adventure">Because high-level PCs have invested too much time in the game and should receive some get-out-of-jail-free cards.So then why can teleport insta-kill you?
>>66261302They need to understand that fighting isn't all. It's vital that they get that each encounter is not designed in the least to utilize X resources per day or the like: that each one has to be individually judged by the group as whether or not it's feasible, and, most importantly, that some encounters just plain aren't. They need to know that players running away isn't some special story-based thing that only happens once in a blue moon, but the potential outcome of every fight, and not to feel ashamed or whatever because of that. Basically, the whole combat as war vs combat as sport thing. Otherwise you're going to have a lot of dead characters and a lot of frustrated players pretty quick, and your game could fall apart pretty quick.
>>66261344>So then why can teleport insta-kill you?If you're using it to retreat to a familiar place (your base) there's a very low chance of happening.
>>66258133>I'd be fine with a rules set that only gives 1st level spells and forces the GM to invent the others as the characters find scrolls.Why don't you just... do that, then? What do you need us for?
>>66261095for what purpose?
I want to make dungeon crawling more immersive for my group and the one major issue I've been running into is that my players are asking for specific dimensions and the mapper is being precise to the point that his map look like mine. He loves mapping but the rest of the group kind of hates the delay it causes. I'm wondering if there's a better way to describe the dimensions of the rooms in more naturalistic language and if I should consider passing turns if the players want to precisely map.
>>66262822either just give a rough sketch to him or tell him his autism is ruining the game and somebody else is mapper now
>>66262822Mapping a dungeon accurately should take time. Torches have a radius of light. What are typical shapes of dungeon rooms in your game?
>>66262735The problem with standard falling damage is the extent to which hit points scale as you level. So you have relatively short falls making starting characters explode like watermelons, while high level characters are comparatively invulnerable. This alternate system makes the danger of falling a bit more consistent. A 9th level character can no longer survive a fall 9 times higher than a 1st level character can. Instead, it's more like twice as high, which means that the danger of heights is a good deal more consistent and therefore correspondingly easier for players to grasp.
>>66263157I'm just sticking to squares and rectangles for now. Sometimes there is the odd cavern vault.
>>66263157>Torches have a radius of light.Is this even true? Is there actually a limit to how far you can see?
>>66263198I don't see how that is causing a delay? >the room is a perfect 25x25 square and there are doors in the middle of each wall.Is the issue that his map just looks too much like yours? You either have to switch to irregular shaped rooms which would just increase the delay. Or continue with what you are doing and tell them that it takes a turn to map a room as accurately as they are asking, because it takes up much more game time.
>>66263342I think it's just a player issue with the mapper. I'm delighted that he's taking interest in the game but I will start to implement a turn for accurate mapping rule as the players have the problem. My question is how should I best describe the readily knowable rough dimensions of a room (lit in this case) without explicitly stating the exact measurements?
>>66263195>while high level characters are comparatively invulnerableI guess it depends on your comparatively definition. I don't really have a problem with higher level characters surviving higher falls, and they face very dangerous damage die at heights.
>>66263314Is this sarcasm?
>>66263314anon, what time is it where you are? I want you to do an experiment for me.
>>66264332>>66264354I haven't seen any enclosed space that isn't completely lit by a torch. I don't have a tunnel a hundred feet long to test, but even a candle illuminates almost everything in the biggest room in my house.
>>66262088I was looking for suggestions of what spells to include or not include. I'm just saying that a very basic spell list could leave things more open.
>>66264407Where the fuck do you live where there are no large underground spaces (either natural or manmade) reasonably close?
>>66265049Northern California. If you were to take a torch into a subway tunnel or something though how far would the light go?
>>66264407>but even a candle illuminates almost everything in the biggest room in my house.That's depressing Anon.
>>66261095I came up with my own solution for falling damage earlier today: Every ten feet, take 1d6 damage per increment of the Fibonacci sequence. So:>10ft 1d6>20ft 1d6>30ft 2d6>40ft 3d6>50ft 5d6>60ft 8d6This means that you take more damage for accelerating on your way to the bottom, perhaps capping out at some point (once you hit terminal velocity). I was hoping to make it so that falling 50ft would kill 50% of people (as that is close to the real life statistic: falling from about 46ft gives the average victim 50/50 odds of survival) but I don't think I managed if the average person has, what, 3.5 hit points?Anyway, I think I prefer your version.
>Fall damage debateI don't use damage for falls. I just call it based on the situation, whether the character dies or not. Maybe a save involved, either to avoid falling in the first place or save yourself on some dangly rock bits.Most of the time, long falls = death and there's nothing you can do about it. "If you didn't want to die, you shouldn't have fallen off the cliff."
>>66265710So everyone either takes no damage or dies?
>>66265710There's something to be said for that, but I think all the long fall trouble comes from the desire to have damage for short falls. There's sort of that 20-40 feet area where people expect to take damage but probably not die, and people try to construct thorough A-Z systems to take that into account, but they tends to break down on either the low end (characters exploding after 10 feet) or the high (falling 100 feet, tis a flesh wound because I'm 10th level).
I know most people rule two-weapon fighting gives +1 to hit or damage or AC or just don't allow it. I am aware of the issues that multiple attacks give: but what if, if you chose to dual-wield, you made two attacks but each only did a d4 on a hit no matter what weapon was used, and you couldn't apply Strength to the off-hand damage roll (or maybe both). Then it's just "splitting up" your damage into two attacks, so you're more likely to do at least something but not as much as if you'd fought with one weapon.I just want to make it feel like you're fighting with two weapons.
>>66266023>I just want to make it feel like you're fighting with two weapons.Fighting with two weapons really is just using one for parrying and one for attacking. Shield and sword, parrying dagger and sword, two swords, doesn't really matter.
>>66266023That sounds kinda cool because it rewards using two daggers.
>>66265049Where the fuck is the warm pooop in your mouth, natural and manmade?
>>66266023That could work. I've also seen the solution of "roll twice for damage, take the highest of the two". Your system is fine but discourages using a knife or d4 weapon on its own, but maybe that's intentional.
>>66266317Asking for a friend, what's a good way to make knives/daggers a more attractive option?
>>66267096All weapons do 1d6 damage.The weight, size, and cost, is now very attractive.
>>66267096Throwable.Hidden.Easy to afford.Let you attack in a grapple, deal 1 damage to enemies who fail to grapple you.Can duel wield them.Are a focus for some dark ritual spells.Requires less magical sharpening oil to cover; can use the last bit in the flask to empower a dagger when you don't have enough for the sword.Pick any and all of the above.>>66267156trash
So I looked into torches more.The longest single stretch in Keep on the Borderlands was 205 feet. It was also exceedingly long, the nearest being 175, and the nearest after that being 130 (I think). The average seemed closer to the 50-75 range. With those numbers in mind, a torch that illuminates 100 feet seems like it'd be more than sufficient to light all but the longest of hallways. Given a requirement of 100 feet of useful illumination, you'd be looking at something that puts out at least 233 candelahttps://flashlightwiki.com/Light_Output_Measurements).With that, we can directly and easily estimate that our torch needs to be the equivalent of about 233 candles, or about 18.5 lumens (12.57 lumens = 1 candlepower). A couple of quick sanity checks (https://ledflashlights.in/pages/how-many-lumens-do-i-need-for-a-flashlight | http://www.ledflashlights.com/flashlight/how-many-lumens-do-i-really-need/2012/06/) confirm that this is in the realm of reason.So the question is: does a torch have 233 candlepower? I can't really imagine 233 candle flames in one large flame, so I don't really know. But I'd guess a candle flame is about half an inch tall and a quarter inch in diameter, so if you laid 233 next to each other you'd have an area of about 29 square inches. Wrap this around a cylinder, and you're looking at a cylinder of approximately two inches in diameter and four inches in height serving as your torch's burning head.Now, obviously, treating a torch as a fabric of candle flames isn't perfect. That being said, the torch size I happened upon was surprisingly close to the imaginary torch I had in mind. Given these numbers, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that, in all but the longest hallways, a torch will illuminate everything you can see. However, if you want to see something in clear detail, you'll probably want it to be a very close--probably only about a foot and a half away.
>>66267431Non fucked first link: https://flashlightwiki.com/Light_Output_MeasurementsI think this also happens to fit nicely into actual play. You can treat everything in line of sight as visible most of the time, simplifying description. At the same time, everything is going to be dim, shadowy, and generally poorly lit--exactly the kind of environment you'd both expect in a dungeon, and that allows you to give descriptions allowing for details that are left out (secrets, traps, tracks, etc.) without deliberately skipping or glossing over them. More than likely, the poor adventurers just can't make out much more than the shape and general color of a thing until they get closer--yet another good reason why, despite being able to see the entire room at once, it takes a full turn to actually explore and map it. Especially when you keep in mind that the torch is indeed a live source of fire, and can't be swung around unknown objects willy nilly.And as for >>66266857, I think the points that guy brings up, although good and informative, aren't too relevant in adventuring situations. The refueling isn't much of a concern, since light is more valuable and you don't plan on being down there for extended periods of time. The standard is to have torchbearers in the middle of the party, with the rear guard facing back and the vanguard facing forward--in other words, the torches won't blind or hinder the vision of anyone but the torchbearers. The smell and smoke may or may not be a concern. The smell I'm fine with ignoring for the large part; no one expects the dungeon to smell pretty. Burning pitch or orc shit, either way it's nasty. The smoke could be a problem, especially in man-made dungeons. But if the inhabitants ever built fires or spent long times down there, they probably have some, limited, ventilation themselves. And if not? It can act as another good reason to keep the players moving and conscious of spending their time efficiently.
>>66267156and now no one uses anything elsegood job
>>66266056this isn't entirely truefighting with two weapons and attacking with both simultaneously is historically accurate. You force your opponent to block one while you hit with the other. See Florentine Rapier Fencing
>>66268340>Florentine Rapier FencingThis is a weird and ahistorical SCA term. Fencing with a case of rapiers was also mostly a master's showpiece to demonstate his skill, not something ever used in the street or even in organized duels for the most part.Even then, the general strategy is to use one sword to bind and remove both of the opponent's sword, then hit with the other. Blows with both swords at once are very rare and using a huge flurry of attacks in general so that the rate of attacking increases doesn't really happen.
>>66268362I agree that large flurries of attacks didn't really happenbut attacking with two swords certainly did, one would usually be guarded against and you would hold the bind til your other strike hitI have always run it that shields give +2 AC, Two Weapons give +1 AC / +1 To Hit, and Two Handed Weapons give +2 To Hit and Larger Damage DiceIt makes everying feel strong and has a sense of verisimilitude when taking into account the history.
>>66252159New in /osrg/, what is FOE, FOEGYG, etc? Thank you kindly.
>>66268533Formido Oppugnatura Exsequens
>>66268542>Not field on enemy
>>66268340I've only ever seen attacking with both weapons in the mythos of Chinese and Japanese duelers and in the gladiator style (which was forced for purposes of entertainment, not for efficacy). Again, parrying daggers and the like were very common. But the off-hand weapon isn't used offensively unless there's a HUGE discrepancy in skill or some other extremely unlikely circumstances. And this is on top of the fact that swords are already almost entirely dueling weapons and not suitable for almost any kind of battlefield purpose.>Florentine Rapier FencingLike the other guy said, this seems to be ahistorical, from what I found it was created in the '70s, by the aforementioned Society for Creative Anachronism.But if you're mixing a group that literally has anachronism in their name for historical, there's really no hope.
>>66268533Fellow OSR Enthusiast, Glad You're Gaming!
>>66268607"Creative Anachronism" has always struck me as mostly a euphemism for making shit up.Not that there's anything wrong with making shit up for fun as such, or we'd all be in trouble, but yeah.
>>66266023I allow duel wielding daggers. Advantage - two attacks per round. Penalties - Only 1d4 damage, you can't carry a shield, and you aren't able to wield a more powerful two handed weapon. Seems to work out fine.I didn't see any rules on duel wielding in BXE, are they there?
>>66265368Remember that while your rate of acceleration is constant when measured by units of time*, it actually decreases when measured by units of distance. That's because for every additional 10' you fall, you're going faster. Going faster means it takes you less time to fall that 10', which means less time for gravity to accelerate you.Of course, your body's ability to absorb a certain amount of impact force is a counterbalancing factor. You can take a certain amount of shock before you start to get injured, and a certain amount beyond that before bones start shattering and internal organs rupturing. I don't know how to properly balance these two factors (slowing acceleration per unit of distance vs. the body's ability to handle a certain amount of shock), but systems that significantly increase the damage for every 10' fallen don't make much sense to me, unless it's just a necessary fudge to make sure that high-level characters can't shrug off long falls.>perhaps capping out at some point (once you hit terminal velocity)The internet tells me that terminal velocity occurs in falls of somewhere around 1500 feet, though obviously your rate of acceleration would be slowing significantly before you hit that mark. Regardless, you'd have to fall a long way before damage capped out, at least if we're going by actual physics.*Well, relatively constant. Air resistance does slow you more the faster you are going.
Any good adventures for being stranded on the Moon?
>>66266023Striking twice every round seems wonky to me. Maybe if you only struck with one weapon (possibly with a +1 bonus to hit), but under certain conditions, you got to make a followup attack with the other--when you rolled maximum/minimum damage, or maybe when your attack roll is divisible by 5, etc.
>>66268310Weapons do 1d6 damage.Attacking with a longer/heavier weapon than your opponent has gives you a +1 to hit.*In B/X at least, +1 to hit is worth significantly less than +1 damage (it's more like half as much), so this is a comparatively small thing. And instead of a dagger being two steps of damage below a normal sword (d4 vs. d8), it's only one step of to-hit (the sword is longer, so it gets +1).This means that if you want to wield a dagger, you can do so with incurring huge penalties. Yes, it does mean that your opponent will be at +1 to hit a lot, but that's not huge, and your dagger is easily concealable, and doesn't encumber you much.*Actually, I think a good way to represent this difference in to-hit is to have the smaller weapon miss on a "tie". That is, when you exactly match your target's AC with your to-hit roll, that indicates a hit if your weapon is as big or bigger than his, and a miss if your weapon is smaller.
>>66270711Moonhop is a system.
>>66259304>It sounds to me like you have terrible adventure ideas derailed by players playing intelligently.Bingo! Nicely put sir! It takes a "Skilled" DM to challenge "Skilled" players. If you find the game play too difficult because of players being creative, seems to me the best fix is to become creative yourself. IMHO. :-)
>>66259163I'm going to repeat what people are telling you: those are pretty terrible adventure ideas. It doesn't even take a lot of effort to make them playable. Want the players to go on a quest to gather ingredients to cure the king from his mysterious disease/curse? Okay, the king was bitten by a fucking vampire, go. You need to take the party's capabilities in mind while writing adventures. Do you think a bank robbery would be very engaging or memorable if the group was playing as the Avengers?
>>66266023I treat 'paired weapons' as just like any other 2-handed weapon. It does d10 damage and requires both hands, just like a greatsword or anything like that.
>>66256671No.It's perfect as it is because it depicts the *idea* of the place and not the place.
>>66267096One I saw that I was considering was making 1d4 weapons "explode" when you roll a 4 for damage, which makes them sort of wonkily equal with a d6 of damage -- 75% of the time you're dealing between 1-3, sure, but there's a slight chance of dealing, like, a 7 or something. It's not very good but it's neat.
Has anyone had a look at the Heroic character rules in Stars Without Number Revised? I'm unsure of how well they play.
Hey faggots, thoughts on Old School Essentials? Is this the definitive OSR game now, you fucking queers? Do we finally have a game we can rally behind you goddamned sons a'bitches?
>>66271373>>66271757Solving "wilderness travel" by casting "teleport" and "king's curse" by casting "remove curse" is not creativity. It's the opposite of creativity. It's like using a cross-shaped screwdriver on a cross-shaped screw. RPGs... okay, mostly OSR RPGs are fun because the interesting "screws" don't have obvious screwdriver equivalents. We might disagree about what makes an interesting "screw", but I personally like the travel problem and the curse-lifting problem -- it shouldn't be hard to imagine why. Those are fun concepts and they lead to good moments, even -- especially! -- at high levels. And even if they're not that original! Maybe you guys are fine connoisseurs who got bored of those terrible generic ideas after consuming too much fantasy media or having the luxury of playing too many campaigns. But my table sure isn't, and hasn't. Not yet.You could make up a shitty strawman about I'm a railroad DM who will remove all the interesting game-changing options, but you'd be missing the point. I can't speak for the other anon who started the conversation, but I don't take issue with the party returning to an old dungeon to bargain with griffins and then fly across the whole country on griffin back, thereby skipping all the travel potion. That's great play and I fucking love the idea. I -DO- take issue with the system providing a built-in "summon friendly griffin mount" button, even if that button has a chance of backfiring. Yes, I know there's a lot of great adventure potentially stemming from the existence of that button, I might even run an adventure built around that specific problem solver. That's because I'm not criticizing its existence and SHOUTING at you to remove it from YOUR game because it SUCKS, it's just not the kind of adventure I or my players want at the moment.
>>66274019>Kiddie D&D shitbrewnah>>66274187>It's like using a cross-shaped screwdriver on a cross-shaped screw.Well maybe you should be presenting problems that are just cross-shaped screws. Like those weird six-point screws or pins that need a soldering iron to be removed.>Those are fun concepts and they lead to good moments, even -- especially! -- at high levels.Name three examples.>You could make up a shitty strawman about I'm a railroad DM who will remove all the interesting game-changing optionsIt's not a strawman though, you and the other guy are literally complaining that you can't railroad the party into certain modules.
>>66274367Oh, you're the "shitbrew" dude.Two of your arguments were already addressed in my post, the third is so subjective it would lead to something like "well it wouldn't be fun for ME, YOU on the other hand are satisfied with LITERALLY EATING FECES". I'll let you figure out which is which. Read my post and engage it in good faith and we can have a conversation, in the meantime I'll just call you random buzzwords, you literal nazi pedophile cuck.
>>66274187If you present a problem with a very straightforward solution, you can't expect the players to put MORE effort that they otherwise would in order to solve it in a dumb way. GMing would be supremely easy if everyone went along with challenges like that, all the time.But I think you're misrepresenting the way spellcasting actually works here. For example, the "teleport problem" never comes up because Teleport is a 5th level spell, it can only move you to a known destination, and only a single person at a time. Meaning: it is inaccessible for most of a character's career and useless for most situations where long journeys are necessary.
>>66274623But it's not like I'm taking away my player's ability to simply kick a locked door down. The "straightforward solution" only exists because whoever wrote the system being discussed wanted it to exist. "Cast Remove Curse" is only a straightforward solution in Dungeons & Dragons & Derivatives.I'll admit to being a little dishonest on the specifics, you caught me there. But in the end I don't want to criticize specific B/X stuff (ultimately a spell's strengths and limitations can vary from system to system anyway), just the general idea that "screwdriver spells" belong in every game ever.
>>66274747Just remove magic if you don't want magic to be useful
>>66274747>Dungeons & Dragons & DerivativesSo the OSR games, the subject of this thread? If you don't want to play OSR games then why are you shitposting here? Go to /gdg/
>>66274747My issue with what you're doing is that you presented it here before actually putting in the work. You sound like you already know what spells you do and don't want gone, you have a strong idea of what spells belong and don't, yet you're asking us to basically confirm what you already feel, ie it does come across like you're asking us to just suck you off before you've even given foreplay a second thought. Go ahead and get rid of whatever you consider to be a problem spell. See if it works or if it doesn't, then bring it back to us and we'll probably tell you it sucks then too - but at least you'll have something to show us.>>66274797There's a difference between being useful and being too useful. But then again, as low level MUs only get like three spells per day by third level it's not even that big of a deal anyway.
Would it be completely fucking gay of me to limit human classes to level 9 and demihumans to something like level 6 for my own homebrew? This is less about balance (although demihumans are inherently multiclassed, so the difference in level caps is a small balancing factor) and more about just saving space/ink. Characters don't really get to do shit beyond name level except in unusual cases and by that point it's actually completely reasonable to play adventures that aren't all about getting stepping into murderpits just to get an assload of treasure.
>>66274747>"Cast Remove Curse" is only a straightforward solution in Dungeons & Dragons & DerivativesIf you don't want it, remove it. What people are taking issue with is the extrapolation of this to the entire magic system. You aren't TECHNICALLY wrong, it's just a very circular argument. Anything that increases player power is going to make certain challenges non-viable *if* you work with them in their most literal iteration. For example, a Bunnies & Burrows campaign where the PCs are terrorized by a murderous cat mastermind would be trivialized if I brought my B/X 1st level fighter, but that's why my dungeon crawls usually don't revolve around cats
>>66265087Even with a reasonably powerful flashlight, you definitely can't see very well for more than around 30 meters in a dark forest.
>>66274871Okay, I kinda set myself up for that one. That's a good point, but in practice I'm pretty sure a game is still OSR if it doesn't have Remove Curse (or even if it doesn't have half of B/X's spells!), and plenty of old school and OSR games aren't D&D.>>66274994Oh yeah I think we're in agreement, and it's not really a big deal anyway, you're right. I'm not looking for approval blowjobs, I do plan to jack off to my spell removal fetish all by myself and report on the experience regardless of /tg/'s opinion. What I'm looking for is just to convince some anons in this thread that removing 1st level fighters for your game of Bunnies & Burrows doesn't mean you're a bad GM who doesn't know how to be creative/challenge players.
>>66275202Fair enough. But you never needed to convince us not to include the B/X fighter in Bunnies & Burrows (or 3.x, for that matter - it goes both ways). You didn't present anything new or particularly novel, half the people ITT have probably tossed around the idea of totally changing the spell list. But unlike other anons who are concerned with Sleep and Charm, you're concerning yourself with problems that pretty much never come up, because nobody really gets past the first handful of levels, yourself included.I'm not sure why you had so many people sperging the fuck out at you like that, it's kind of odd.
>like the broad strokes of Dolmenwood in the Welcome PDF>want more info so acquire the zines>it goes too in depth about calendars and flowers and shit>don't want that level of granularity but too uncreative to come up with it on my own>now there's a huge setting book coming outThe same goddamn thing happened with The Continent/The Known World/Mystara and now I have no idea what the fuck it is I want from a setting
>>66275202>plenty of old school and OSR games aren't D&D.A game that isn't TSR D&D isn't OSR.
How come a lot of you faggots think that OSE is shitbrew when it's just a reorganizing of your "precious" B/X in an easy to read format, homos?
Why are bloggers so fond of ripping off Peter Watts? (except Cacklecharm xoxoxo)
>>66275487>Peter WattsLiterally who?>>66275487B/X is written for children, it doesn't need to be formatted to be "easy to read." Also, it's inferior to LBB and AD&D. Additionally, most B/X dickriders are SJWs.
>>66275528Other than skerples you mean?>>66275589>B/X is written for children, it doesn't need to be formatted to be "easy to read."Improvements in printing techniques, layouts, tables, hyperlinked PDFs, etc.
>>66275589>>66275639B/X is better written than B/XE and OSE.
>>66275639Yeah, skerps just rips off of us instead.Also B/X is ridiculously easy to read and find anything you need, the only issue is that you need to look through two different books, but apparently OSE is going to be in multiple different books which defeats the entire fucking purpose.
>>66275697Would you be interested in doing a review that compares specific examples (e.g. climbing rules, a specific spell, etc.) to prove your point?
>>66275258I won't pretend I was doing something novel or substantial or trying to "convince" the whole thread, all I did was vocally support the original "Remove Teleport" idea (I'm also concerned with Charm and Sleep!) and engage with the sperging out and actual arguments. In any case I'll need to actually get to work, that's true. Will report back with my findings eventually.>>66275417That's incorrect, OSR is the friends we made along the way, actually.
>>66275729TWO BOOKS BADFIVE BOOKS GOOD
>>66275729>Yeah, skerps just rips off of us instead.Skerps here, I have also ripped off Peter Watts. Not for an OSR game, mind, but still.
WHO THE FUCK IS PETER WATTS
>>66275897Sci-Fi author, famous for Blindsight, Echopraxia, and the Rifters trilogy.https://www.rifters.com/https://www.freesfonline.de/authors/Peter_Watts.html
>>66275815Get to it. The longer you sit here and post about it, the longer you're not working on your brew. Which goes for myself as well, for that matter. Here I am, having just recorded three songs, got my own shitbrew open in LibreOffice, discussing potentially joining a second band, and yet instead I'm telling off some dude for not doing his work. Fuckin-A. Excuse me, I'm just upset with myself and my life choices.>>66275871I have an overall positive opinion of you and the content you create even though you're a filthy fucking pilferer. Keep at it.
>>66275966I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the day I start to worry about opinions people here hold about me is the day I decide to pull a [insert OSR personality here] and delete my blog in a huff.>LibreOfficeBut why? Have you tried Affinity?
>>66276001>But why?I am lazy and set in my ways.
>>66276130But it's so easy to learn! And it does pretty things with tables and text boxes.
>>66275487There's no "lot". It's mostly one guy, whose complaints are always written in the same substanceless memey catchphrase way. If you put "fag", "kiddie", and "shitbrew" into a filter you'd rarely see a complaint (and lose about 75% of the garbage posts in this general).Actual complaints about Essentials tend to revolve around it being broken up into multiple books, though there's recognizable strengths there too. The new edition adds the all-in-one book he always said he'd do, though I have to admit I find the new, even-more-stripped-down rewrite kind of soulless. Maybe that's an aesthetic concern, but even if it makes information easier to find and process quickly, I find it kind of makes the material a chore to read in a different fashion.
>>66275729>Also B/X is ridiculously easy to read and find anything you needI thought that until I read B/X Essentials and realized there were rules I didn't even know existed buried in random ass places of B/X. Hell, in my experience a lot of people don't know B/X even has rules for creating castles and etc.
>>66275589fuck off greg
>>66276373>Hell, in my experience a lot of people don't know B/X even has rules for creating castles and etc.Call me a fanboy (you wouldn't be TOO wrong), but I would argue that's a flaw with those people, not the book itself. Just looking at the table of contents the only thing that I can think of that it doesn't tell me exactly where I'll find the information I need, is rules for pursuit/evasion. But I'll bet you a beer that the information for that can be found in "The Encounter", where all the other related rules for encountering and engaging monsters can be found. And considering ALL of that information is contained in about 4-5 pages per book, I won't have to look for long.
>>66276373>Hell, in my experience a lot of people don't know B/X even has rules for creating castles and etc.Bull fucking shitThat stuff is very clear and has it's own section, the only reason you wouldn't know where it was is because you literally just skipped the entire section. Now, I will say that you wouldn't be expected to have read that far if you were a player (it's in the DM info section), but for a DM the ONLY excuse for not knowing they exist is that you literally just didn't read the book. It is quite literally the SECOND page in the section, has a picture, clear bold title, and takes up almost the entire page.
>>66277107like nigga damn, calm down
The OSR /tg/ community is probably the worst RP community on the internet. You people are a bunch of entitled brats who, for some reason, think your view on the hobby is not only the ONLY correct view on the hobby, but are utterly intolerant of everything else happening in it.
>>66275639Arnold also does it a lot with his weird pyschological threats.
>>66278547This shitbrewer jabronie is absolutely SEETHINGIf you don't like it then go to the bingo halls that pass for OSR forums and cry about it there
>>66278717This tinkerbell-lookin', beard-shamin', bullywaggin', dickmuchin', god-hating' WELSHMEN is SO mad that other people want to make stuff for HIS PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKE OF A GAME that he absolutely cannot STAND to have them in the same FORUM as him.
>>66277787Nah I'm with him. The book is 64 or so pages, if you've bothered to open the book then you can literally learn everything as long as you care enough. This isn't like the modern books where you can be excused for not remembering the contents of every wall of text.>>66278547Half of these guys are traumatized by people doing shit that completely flies in the face of the OSR spirit, so yes we have gatekeepers. The OSR is a hobby and an identity, so there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to prevent either from being changed unnecessarily. Imagine if people actually LIKED Raggi's new rules.It's true that nobody is out to get onto our computers and wipe all traces of TSR D&D from our hard drives and then mindwipe us too. Nobody is actually taking the games away. But we want new content to actually be usable at our tables too. It's why people get pissed when new D&D editions come out. We want to actually be able to fucking use the newer content that is being created for it. Otherwise we're completely on our own, and the variety of ways we each can individually experiment is finite. More similar games breeds higher numbers of people playing the same game who can bounce ideas off of each other to figure out what works and what doesn't, what's retarded and what's genius. In all seriousness we're not merely gatekeepers, but incredibly, incredibly harsh and narrow critics. And there's not a single damn thing wrong with that. Now quit being such a wuss.
>>66278748>make stuff for HIS PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKE OF A GAMENo content is better than bad content ya simp
>>66278748Here's the thing, you're not making it for his game, you're making it for YOUR game. His game is B/X, possibly with a few house rules that don't need to be brought up. That's the most common way to play OSR; for all intents and purposes, B/X and its extrapolations ARE the OSR. So if you're talking about something that is the opposite of the most commonly-played OSR game, then why should we want to hear about it?
>>66250745Could anyone explain to me how hex maps work? What is the purpose of the hexes?
>>66278869Hexes are meant to be used for overland travel. Their popularity goes back to various competitive boardgames where they're less cheaty than square grids (diagonals lmao). Depending on the scale they can be so large as to be virtually pointless. They're also pretty.
What level would a Claymore be in an old-school game? Like super-hero level?Related question: The game handles a pretty steep power slope early on (i.e. a 1st Level character is roughly 1/8th as powerful as an 8th Level character), but after it hits 10th level you pretty much have a slope. Bloodstone even makes note of this - you can run a bunch of 100th Level characters, sure, but they're not automatically going to be that much more impressive than the default 20th level characters. Magic-users are sort of the exception, in that you go up to about 30th Level, and those small HP gains really do start to stack up. But how exactly do you model a Three Kingdoms type Fighting-man who can mow down 100 people?
>>66278973>What level would a Claymore be in an old-school game?What, you mean like a claymore mine? I don't understand this question, I think.
>>66279067You're like a leech, bloodletting this thread of its newfags and FOEs, while also degrading the overall quality of the thread itself. I've become unfortunately accepting of your existence.
>>66278973>how exactly do you model a Three Kingdoms type Fighting-man who can mow down 100 people?Probably by playing a different game, wuxia isn't really a core supported style of the OSR. I'd say OD&D with Chainmail combat gets closest, though, since the level 8 Fighting-Man attacks like eight men each round instead of increasing his to-hit bonus.
>>66278824Bad content is needed for skill to be built to create good content.>>66278854Who said I wasn't making stuff for B/X?
>>66279117The girls, not the monster. Or the swords, for that matter, though the swords are lower-case claymores.
>>66278973>But how exactly do you model a Three Kingdoms type Fighting-man who can mow down 100 people?You play a different game
>>66278778Why can you not be harsh, constructive critics, instead of harsh, asshole critics? What's wrong with wanting niceness? Why do people (usually older generations) think it's such a bad thing to want more positivity in the world?
>>66279227In that case I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Is it a mango? I've never heard of it. Can't help you, either way.
>>66279227I'm not sure any Fighter can really represent them unless you use RC rules, in which case easily in the 30s.
>>66279325Claymore is R63 Berserk basically, and nothing that fits in OSR. And this is speaking as someone whose wanted to run a Claymore game for a while.
>>66279170I feel like wuxia could be made to work in something vaguely OSR if you leaned into the right things and it might be worth the effort, you'd have to do a lot of work and be smart about it though
>>66278824Then I guess you are good to go, faglord
>>66279306This general used to be about one million times more chill, BUT it also used to not contain faggots appearing and braying one of the following:1) I've abandoned Pathfinder because of what a huge asspain it is to run and how dogshit all the adventures are! Help me recreate Pathfinder from scratch and make linear adventure paths!2) I've noticed that magic/saves/XP-for-gold are trash, how could you be so stupid that you didn't figure this out? Here's how I plan to fix this broken game you're all playing:3) I don't play and I have no plans to play but I really like the OSR in theory, here is my extensive homebrew that obviously has never been in contact with a table because I lack the confidence to write a novel, please discuss4) 2e is OSR because I don't want to have to start my own general, now let's talk about tons of 2e-specific shovelware, the OSR has no playstyle element, reee5) I like everything about the OSR except [extremely crucial element of the OSR], why do you all insist on discussing it, can't we all agree that it's an unimportant detail?All these types of assmaster also get intensely hurt in the butt when you point out to them that that's not the kind of shit we do here, and then the regulars get spiky in response. Back when the general started out, it was composed of people who were genuinely enthusiastic about all or most of the style and were able to mention their own deviations from it with some self-distance and humility.(The antiskerpfag and the other shitposter have no excuse, though, they're just plain retarded and ought to be shot, then have their corpses banned.)
>>66279215game design is like any other creative medium. The only way you get good at it is by lots and lots of practice. I have whole fucking crates of unpublishable garbage I wrote as a teenager and in my early 20s, that's never going to see the light of day. But, I'd never be able to write anything half-decent if I'd not got that practice in.>>66279306we're on 4chan, where when an asshole decides to be part of a thread there's nothing you can do about it. Most posters in this general are basically lovely, but the comments we notice are fuckin' greg ranting about shitbrews and foegegs and kiddy-edition and whatever daft buzzwords he's thought of this week. I hear filtering his particular tics makes the thread much better.>>66279360>scrolls of hidden fighter techniques instead of spell scrolls>quests to learn mystic secrets from wise mountain-top-dwelling mentors>loose mechanics allow you to make a ruling on whichever over-the-top kung-fu bullshit a player wants to try.martial arts stories are super doable in OSR. Your biggest obstacle is xp-for-gold, you need to find a different measure of success to define the gameplay loop, and I'm not sure what that could be.>>66279490I'm honestly beginning to suspect that a lot of points 2, 4 and 5 is just shitposters stirring things up.
>>66279360I agree, actually, but I think that it would have to be made by someone who *already has his own ideas* about how to rework one of the base games and that's why he made it. Cavegirl didn't come in here and ask us how to model a money-less caveman economy in an OSR game, she just dropped that shit on us because she had clearly thought it through herself based on a strong comprehension of the basic principles of old-school D&D, if you see what I mean.Not to say that Anon's a faggot for asking his question, I just think that for that question, "it's not really strongly supported" is the correct answer.
>>66279521Daily reminder greg did and said nothing wrong.
>>66279521>your biggest obstacle is xp-for-gold>scrolls of hidden fighter techniques instead of spell scrollsIt's not xp-for-gold, it's xp-for-treasure. All treasure (or specifically dungeon treasure, in some cases). This includes finding magical devices and relics. The most efficient way to do it would be to assign values to physical location or land (temples, etc.) and treat those as the main available 'treasure'. Evil fighters take a 10,000gp temple, you take it back, now you have a 10,000gp temple an 10,000 XP.
>>66279521>Your biggest obstacle is xp-for-gold, you need to find a different measure of success to define the gameplay loop, and I'm not sure what that could be.Instinctively I want to say that the "lawless/Chaotic/Dark" half of the wuxia world would retain the XP-for-gold since they're all bandits and shit like that, while the "Lawful/Light" side would gain XP only for extended timeouts on Wudang mountain, but that would be unplayable; you can't have a game where you character improves by NOT being played. That's like an anti-functional gameplay loop.
>>66279568Better reminder: Greg is a stupid faggot who does and says retarded things.
>>66279590I can imagine a super stereotypical medieval fantasy game that is exclusively about saving damsels in distress instead of delving for treasure. Their ransom value is the XP you earn.
>>66279627[insert Skerps post about THAT ransom here]
>>66279568>>66279615anon there's a little bit of greg in all of us. Whenever somebody wants to call somebody an inbred simpleton because they don't have the weapons vs ac tables memorized? In that moment, they are greg. When somebody shitposts about Not OSR rather than offering constructive feedback? That's also them being greg. Whenever you somebody starts flinging zak-themed shit around for no reason, or getting into edition wars, or starting up The Culture Wars? Those are all moments when they become greg.You see, the real greg was the enemies we made along the way.>>66279627I literally have a blogpost about this. I would link it but then people will assume I'm skerples.>>66279590>>66279605Honestly I don't know wuxia that well so I can't really comment, but tomb-robbing doesn't seem ideal. What does a wuxia protaginist *do* in most stories?
Non-Specialists getting 1 skill point at Level One and 1 additional skill point at each level up. Yay or Nay?Specialists will still receive 4 starting and 2 more skill points each level.
explain this greg meme
>>66278778>. The OSR is [...] an identityTake a walk around the block, come back, and think about what you just said
>>66279701If you do that, you should give specialists something special to compensate for it. It's only fair.>>66279704The best poster to ever live.
>>66279677Technically it would be more appropriate to say "what does a wuxia do" since the "protagonist" word is redundant. In general, it's not that much different from certain westerns, and for that matter, not a huge departure from even something like the Conan stories save for motivation - the hero, usually not of upper-class status, shows up in a random place, where there are bad people doing bad things and getting away with it. Often the bad people start shit with him, or he protects someone the bad people do shit to, and then from then on bad people start dying. A lot of them. "Peasants saved" would be a useful enough measure.
>>66279701nay. Being able to improve skills is the specialist's whole schtick, by giving everybody access to that you massively devalue their niche. I would possibly give other PCs some skill points at first level, but none as they level up. In the same way that only a fighter improves their attack bonus, only a specialist gets more skill points.Also in your example, everybody but the specialist is getting free stuff. If the non-specialist gets 1 p at level 1 and 1 each level thereafter, a specialist ought to get 5 at level 1 and 3 each level thereafter.>>66279751xp for peasants saved sounds pretty decent, I think? The important thing is to incentivize an end goal (saving peasants/getting rich) rather than a specific method. If you start saying HOW you have to do that (IE: by killing baddies) you lose a lot of the flexibility of play that makes OSR fun.
>>66279643Ransoms are great. Bankrupt a county. Start a war to steal some nobles. Sneak out of a castle, or sneak into it to assassinate a prisoner.
>>66279985>Bankrupt a county. Start a war to steal some nobles. Sneak out of a castle, or sneak into it to assassinate a prisoner.BUT THAT BYPASSES THE ADVENTURES I WANT TO RAILROAD THE PLAYERS INTO
>>66279709I did. You are what you do. Is that a good thing, is it a good thing that part of my identity is playing elf games designed to be played by kids? Maybe not. It helps that I can also define myself by other things which are less embarrassing to bring up around people between age 13 and 30. Does it make a difference when we're talking about a hobby, whether it's shared by thousands (I'm guessing the number of us is at least at 4 digits worldwide, right?) or millions?So we're rabid about it. Big fucking deal, you're on 4chan. People on /v/ tell you to kill yourself if you think Dark Souls is hard. Why take it so seriously?
>>66280172Shoulda picked a different game then.
Alright, I’m just gonna fucking ask for clarity-is OSR just D&D’s first edition? That’s what I think when i see these threads.
>>66278547>The OSR /tg/ community is probably the worst RP community on the internet.It's actually the best. I love this place and everyone on it except for Skerples and the other namefags.Just like every other general, just like every other board - fit in or fuck off. Right, who's got any good hexcrawl tables?
>>66281130It's the playing style associated with the earliest D&D rulesets, a mix of both viewpoint and rules. For example, 2nd ed AD&D is pretty similar, ruleswise, to unequivocally OSR rulesets, but there are a few subtle but important differences and, more importantly, the mindset of the game designers changed by then and so the adventures released for it almost all no longer play like old D&D. Hence why plenty of people say 2nd ed doesn't count even though it's old by today's standards and seems like generic old D&D to any modern player.Generally you're talking OD&D, B/X, and 1st ed AD&D, and an emphasis on player agency instead of story uber alles, gold for xp vs combat is all, and less concern with "balance".
>>66279521>we're on 4chan, where when an asshole decides to be part of a thread there's nothing you can do about it. Most posters in this general are basically lovely, but the comments we notice are fuckin' greg ranting about shitbrews and foegegs and kiddy-edition and whatever daft buzzwords he's thought of this week. I hear filtering his particular tics makes the thread much better.WELL SAID! You most definitely deserve a Cheroot.:-)
>>66281130All pre-3e D&D has the same foundations, making those editions essentially compatible at a core level, in a way that 3.x, 4e and 5e are not.
>>66281190>who's got any good hexcrawl tables?gotchu, famalam
>>66279325>Is it a mango?
>>66279490>them that that's not the kind of shit we do hereNYPA faggotwe do whatever the fuck we want here
>>66249256All of the aboveWe use an over-world map for travel combined with a weather systemI use battlegrids/map tiles for every scenario- having a map for forest, snow, desert, castles, tombs, ect ect. I also exclusively use maps posted by a guy in one of my OSR groups on FB, I just think his works top notch
>>66282049Heres one of the maps I used, if anyone wants Ill post the artist kickstarter and patreon. Top notch artist
>>66282115Check out the guys magazine- all the maps come with prompts but are targeted for incorporating them into your homebrews.
>>66281437You can find the full finished version of that here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/8rzqb19ph6qqzns/The+Scorched+Coast+Volume+1.pdf
>>66282504Is it any good?