[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 20201210_152518.jpg (364 KB, 1100x1392)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General, the thread dedicated to TSR-era D&D, derived systems, and compatible content.

Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as played in the game's first decade - less emphasis on linear adventures and overarching meta-plots and a greater emphasis on player agency.

If you are new to the OSR, welcome! Ask us whatever you're curious about. We'll be happy to help you get started on this playstyle.

>Troves, Resources, Blogs, etc:
http://pastebin.com/9fzM6128

>Previous thread:
>>78847635

>Need a starter dungeon? Here's a curated collection:
https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/75631028/#78894247

TQ: When using demi-humans in your game have you ever just removed all racial bonuses/restrictions and left it all to *flavor*?
>>
File: 10764926.jpg (728 KB, 1920x1920)
728 KB
728 KB JPG
>>78930299
>
Then they really WOULD be just humans with funny ears, so no. Given this option I would just make the campaign human-only.
>>
>>78930299
Want to contribute to the thread but don't know where to start? Roll 1d8 (dice+1d8 in the "options" field) on the table below!
Our OC gets archived atosrgcontent.blogspot.com
Tag your post with [OC] to help archive anon find it, please.

>1. Make a spell
>2. Make a monster
>3. Make a dungeon setpiece
>4. Make a wilderness setpiece
>5. Make a magic item
>6. Make a race-as-class
>7. Make a 4-10 room dungeon
>8. Roll 2d8 and combine.
>>
>>78930299
>When using demi-humans in your game have you ever just removed all racial bonuses/restrictions and left it all to *flavor*?
Nah, I like Race-as-Class, which is basically the opposite of that.

>>78929515
>There is no weird "exception thing" that Moldvay does
Yes there is, dumbass, he advises using lair treasure to stock dungeons and no other edition does this. OD&D doesn't, AD&D doesn't. You replied to a post saying B/X was an exception to this and your answer was HURR BUT B/X DOES IT. Not clever.
>>
>>78930299
>TQ
I play a campaign were, in addition to all the demihuman classes, players can be any race they want as long as they come up with one interesting feature and one interesting drawback. "Interesting" is solely something I determine, so nothing gets too out of hand. So far we've had a lemur person, fungus man, various robots, an undead skeleton ghoul thing, sentient slug mass, and a couple other things I can't remember off the top of my head.
>>78930327
>that forearm
god I'm so fucking lonely bros
>>
How do you feel about mixing gods from multiple IPs into your setting? Like having Cthulu, Khorne, and Apep?
>>
>>78930617
Good, and you should do it.

To elaborate, I think it's kind of weird to lift a whole pantheon from an actual place in time and just plop it in your campaign with wizards and elves and stuff. But to pick and choose, create your own pastiche, you create something new while invoking familiar cultural touchstones that offer more weight than just whatever made-up gods you can create on your own.
>>
Birthright bros, I declined marriage to one of the Sphinx's half cat daughters and now it's going to attack Rheulgard. I was already heading to attack the Twilight King in the winter, I have 100 blood. What do?
>>
>>78930522
>I like Race-as-Class
Based
>>
>>78930877
>Birthright bros, I declined marriage to one of the Sphinx's half cat daughters and now it's going to attack Rheulgard. I was already heading to attack the Twilight King in the winter, I have 100 blood. What do?
commit sudoku for being a dumbass turning down literal pussy
>>
File: mm3.jpg (439 KB, 1200x828)
439 KB
439 KB JPG
When is it a good time to introduce ritual spells into a campaign? My wizard player has been shovelling out gold to research an improved Magic Missile Spell and I'm thinking this is a good time to add it. The problem is that he will likely be annoyed from the increased time to cast. He's level 2 and another year of Wizardry school before he's admitted to the Alumni.

What do you guys think? Is this too early?
>>
So adapting Mighty Deeds from DCC for WWN

>When fighting opponents on a staircase, a character used a sword to stab an opponent and then lever him over the edge of the staircase. Later, the same character tried attacking the foe’s legs to knock him over the edge.

>When facing a carven image with eyes that shot laser beams, a character used use a mace to smash out the carved eyes (and thus disable the laser beams). In another game, a different player tried a similar attack to stab out the eyes of a basilisk and disarm its hypnotic gaze.

>When fighting a flying skull that was out of melee reach, a character leaped from the back of an ally into a flying lunge that brought him within reach of a melee swing at the skull.

A lot of people love this rule but apparently the deed die also randomizes the Fighter's to hit and damage bonus? Not a fan of that.

What would players prefer, having to roll a deed die and get 3+ to do the deed or just ditching the deed die entirely, they keep the Fighter's to hit and damage bonus, and they always get to do a deed as long as they hit.

The latter is obviously more powerful but I don't give a shit about balance or making the Fighter OP. I'm asking what feels better for the player. I know some people like rolling dice and the risks involved in not making the roll.
>>
>>78931124
They would probably prefer rolling the deed die and getting 3+.
>>
Anyone who has Worlds Without Number I need to know something.

Which focus is better: Impervious Defense Level 1 or Armored Magic Level 1?

I'm wracking my brain over this and I still don't understand why I shouldn't just take Impervious Defense if I were a mage or if there's some other reason I should pick Armored Magic because you're still wasting readied item slots with Armored Magic.
>>
>>78931245
Better get another system, anon
>>
>>78930617
Perfectly fine, even good. Maybe not specifically Khorne since the Warhammer Chaos gods are so characteristic for that setting and frankly also retarded even within it, but as a general thing, when I read the CSIO and saw Bledsaw doing that deity-mixing thing, it was a real eye-opener for me. People understand who Aphrodite, Odin or Thoth are, you don't really gain anything by inventing your own war-god named OBINN WAIT NO OGYN and expect your players to keep track of all that incidental shit. The meat of the game is in the adventuring, so taking shortcuts with the less direct stuff to help your players grasp the atmosphere without a ton of memorization is sensible and even clever.
>>
>>78931245
Depends on the campaign the GM is running. By default, the setting is science fantasy Dying Earth so in my campaign, for example, the armors in SWN and Other Dust are out there and not prohibitively rare. Plus enchanted armor can have a lot of perks. Style is also a consideration of course.

I dunno, WWN can be optimized sure and there can be builds and shit, but I find that you can just choose depending on character concept and shit generally works out.
>>
>>78931261
No.
>>
>>78931245
Magic items
>>
File: d20.jpg (59 KB, 600x600)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
I keep trying to get into old school games, but it's a struggle. I read OSE and Mutant Future this week, which are both based on BX D&D's mechanics. Time and time again I see people lamenting how simple BX's rules are and how it's a good base to tack on rules later. I don't understand this thinking.

I feel like the 'to hit' matrixes, the descending AC, and the sometimes roll low, sometimes roll high dice mechanics are cumbersome, inconsistent, and make the system annoying to explain to players.

>Roll under your DEX to climb the wall.
>Roll high on a d20 to avoid poison.
>Roll low on a d6 to hear a sound.
>Huh...?

Why do you guys choose these mechanics instead of something like DCC that uses a consistent roll high d20-based system?
>>
>>78931565
Stop pretending that rules designed to be used by children are hard to understand, remember, or use anon.
>>
Having mechanics with a closer to fit to their use creates a certain "texture" to gameplay. If everything is resolved the same way, actions can feel "samey."

This is a game feel thing, and may not be for everyone.
>>
>>78931565
Multiple different resolution systems allow for more flexibility and balance than "core mechanics" ever could.
>>
>>78931663
>hard to understand, remember, or use
Never said any of these things.
>>
>>78931879
>cumbersome, inconsistent, and make the system annoying to explain to players.
They're easy to understand and not cumbersome (to remember and to use) at all. Get better players if they can't understand something that children can easily grasp.
>>
>>78931747
>Multiple different resolution systems allow for more flexibility
Yes, I get that. Utilizing the dice in different ways does add flexibility, but also make it harder to maintain consistency.

"I want to use my Strength to lift up the portcullis."
>Roll under Strength.
"I want to use my Strength to push down the door."
>Roll low on a d6.
>>
>>78931918
Sure. They're not hard to memorize. But the question was why use janky BX mechanics when you can just say "Roll high on a d20" for literally every task?
>>
>>78931951
Situation: Jump from the ledge onto a flying mutant chicken's back.
>BX: Roll a d20 under your Dexterity with a -2 penalty because of the difficulty.
>DCC: Roll high on a d20 and add your Reflex save vs DC 12.

Situation: You're sprayed with poison.
>BX: Roll high on a d20 vs your Poison/Death Save.
>DCC: Roll high on a d20, add Fort save, vs a DC number.

Situation: Bash down the door.
>BX: Roll low on a d6.
>DCC: Roll high on a d20, adding your Strength bonus vs a DC number.

The d20 roll high mechanic just seems like it'll offer far smoother and consistent gameplay. Yes, BX isn't hard to understand, but the question is WHY use those fluctuating mechanics?
>>
>>78931565
I want to play old school, not 3e?
>>
>>78932045
Because they love using all their different "click clacky math rocks"
>>
>>78931565
>I feel like the 'to hit' matrixes, the descending AC, and the sometimes roll low, sometimes roll high dice mechanics are cumbersome, inconsistent, and make the system annoying to explain to players.
D&D developed organically. You know how newer cities tend to have planned, neatly organized grids of streets, while the streets of old ones twist around haphazardly, changing names several times? Old school D&D is the latter. It absolutely would be more approachable if it was more consistent in its methods of resolution. With that said, B/X is lightweight enough that it's still much easier to learn than really any other edition of the game (excepting beginner systems that don't go past level 3 or 5).

>DCC that uses a consistent roll high d20-based system?
DCC might be more consistent in its dice mechanics, but it's significantly crunchier and more reference-heavy than B/X. It's also not insignificant that the Basic line has a lot of material written specifically for it and that even AD&D modules are broadly compatible (the biggest issue is that they may contain spells and classes that don't exist in Basic, but the former can just be referenced from AD&D's PHB or swapped out, and the latter are usually pretty close to something that exists in Basic and don't generally factor very heavily into the game aside from potentially carving out a role for an NPC you encounter, which could be done without worrying over stats). Also, as the system more retroclones are based on than any other, B/X has connections with a shit-ton of other games. You learn B/X and you're most of the way to Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, or Swords & Wizardry Core, etc. And while the games I listed are similar enough to B/X that it's not a far leap to go from one of them straight to the other, DCC is a bit further out there and gives you a less good idea of how old school D&D runs.
>>
>>78932153
But DCC uses all the regular clickity clack math rocks PLUS more (d3, d5, d7, d14, d16, d24, d30).
>>
>>78931927
>but also make it harder to maintain consistency.
This isn't as important as contemporary over-designers like to think. The fashion of oversimplification has become just another autistic armchair theory focus, this time on streamlining rather than covering all possibilities as it was in the 90s/early2000s.
Having some distinct systems is useful for maintaining feel, having some similar mechanics is useful for ease of play. B/X is put forward as a good base because you can adjust the streamlining or isolated mechanics to suit your tastes. Its worth running RAW for at least one dungeon just to get a feel for it, then alter as you see fit. OSR play necessarily will end up being different than base B/X or whatever, that's fine. The idea of the base is to give a common enough ground to expand on but let people share material and ideas easily.
You're overthinking it before playing it.
>>
>>78931565
It's part of the old school identity and flavor. That's it really. Consistency isn't that important, if anything, I think immediately readable percentages (d100) could be more useful to a system without bell curves.
>>
>>78932045
>Yes, BX isn't hard to understand, but the question is WHY use those fluctuating mechanics?
Because D&D was the first marketed RPG and as such was not developed with a carefully articulated plan of what it should look like when it was finished. There wasn't anything to aim for, because it was the first of its kind, and it just grew bit-by-bit out of the war games they'd been playing. Well, OD&D did. But B/X was based on OD&D and just continued the traditions.
>>
>>78932153
MFW Americans call tinky-tanky, clickin' clanky, flick-and-patter num-num clatters "dice".
>>
I know nothing of OSR but another thread made me curious: what are whitehack and blackhack?
>>
>>78932390
>DICE ANY CUBE
>>
>>78932440
>I know nothing of OSR but another thread made me curious: what are whitehack and blackhack?
Not OSR. Or at least that's what I've been lead to believe.
>>
>>78932440
Whitehack is more or less osr, does some odd things with racial background skills and chase mechanics but nothing that fucks up basic gameplay loops or comparability. You can read the op to figure out what any of that means.
Blackhack is barely osr, largely due to focus on ability scores for roll under in all cases and usage dice rather than resource tracking which demonstrated a total lack of understanding on the creator's part when questioned about it.
>>
>>78932440
The Black Hack is a retroclone of the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The rules are OGL so you can get it for free.

The White Hack is a very, very loose retroclone of 0e D&D, such that it's arguably a completely different game. The explanation provided is that it's "how people ACTUALLY played 0th edition" because the real 0eD&D assumes you know the rules of Chainmail inside and out.
>>
>>78932563
>a retroclone
>alter fundamental resolution mechanics
>alter fundamental gameplay loop resources
No.
>>
>>78931565
If it bothers you that much, just play ACKS. Everything is d20 roll high.
>>
>>78932563
This is so uninformed I don't even know where to begin
>>
>>78932563
Wtf are you smoking?
>>
>>78931120
If he has spent enough gold and time, I don't see why not. It's a low level spell. Maybe add some intelligence based percentage rolls to determine if he succeeds each week or month. Are you letting him upgrade it with specific effects in mind (increased damage, for example) or is it more up to 'you' (what the research results in).
>>
>>78931565
>>78931663
>>78931927
The annoying thing is that there's no mechanical distinction between rolling high or rolling low so the system might as well have you roll low or high each time.
>add your DEX, roll 21 or above to climb the wall or subtract your DEX from 20 and roll above that to climb the wall
>roll high on a d20 to avoid poison
>roll high on a d6 to hear a sound
>>
>>78931120
Why not just make it a second level spell?
>>
>>78931120
If he has the gold to do it, then sure, but I would caution against letting him just make a "better" magic missile spell at level 1.
Make it a level 2 spell and have it auto-hit while dealing even more damage.

Make sure he can cast level 2 spells before he makes one of course.
>>
>>78932818
I use d20-roll-high for almost everything. AC is ascending and saves and skill checks all have a target of 20. Why? Consistency.
Every DM loves having well-trained players that know all the pertinent rules and dice mechanics but that's not always the case. I run games for novices all the time and having to reiterate dice conventions is a drag.
There is something to be said for adhering to the original conventions of the game. That kind of authenticity, however, is of no interest to me. I would rather invoke authenticity through play than mechanical fundamentalism.
>>
>>78931927
>make it harder to maintain consistency
That's a (You) problem, not a system problem

>>78932440
Trash and shit, respectively
>>
File: Get ye gone.jpg (59 KB, 312x445)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>I would rather invoke authenticity through play than mechanical fundamentalism.
>>
>>78933258
I have endured many such banishments, yet here I remain.
Perhaps you are using the wrong incantation.
>>
File: Nautiloid.jpg (129 KB, 627x800)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
>>78930299
Anons, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm completely new to OSR and I would like to play AD&D 2e, as I find it very interesting, So far I have only played D&D 3.5 (just this edition, never played 4e or 5e). Now my question is: is it possible or viable to convert spontaneous casting rules from 3.5 to 2e? Before you call me a retard, keep in mind that I'm willing to learn. Specifically I would be interested if it's possible to convert a class like the Favored Soul from 3.5 to 2e? How would you do it? If there are already rules or good resources on that I'd be grateful if you could point me in their direction.
>>
>>78931565
It makes more sense when you're thinking about mechanics in terms of odds rather than "target number," even if technically the "target number" determines the odds.
Also the To Hit matrix is literally just "Add your opponent's AC to your roll. If the total meets or beats your THAC0, it hits. No matter what, 1s always miss, and 20s always hit." It's only presented as a matrix to make it easier to copy the row that corresponds to your THAC0 so you don't have to do any math at all.
>>
>>78930299
Here is the actual correct previous thread since the OP can’t be bothered to do his job correctly.

>Previous thread:
>>78894247
>>
>>78933479
You can get to spontaneous casting by two means I can think of.
Psionics is point based and you're limited by the small number of powers. There's the CPH and Dark Sun to support those rules.
The Shi'ar from Al-Qadim makes pacts with genies/elementals for any spell. It's needlessly convoluted and I'd never allow it in my game.
If you want raw spell power play a half-elf cleric/magic-user. There's not any kits for it but with some trained-only proficiencies and spell research you can be a font of magics.
>>
>>78931120
I think it won't be cool for an improved magic missile. But, I think it's a cool thing to add. I love the ritual magic from Carcosa.
>>
>>78930617
>Cthulu, Khorne, and Apep
I like your moxie. Have a temple, hideout, or dungeon for each faction on my desk by 8am.
>>
>>78933978
>I love the ritual magic from Carcosa
That's not creepy
>>
2011 ASSH,
2018 ASSH 2nd Ed,
2021 Hyperborea (ASSH 3rd Ed.)
3 editions in 10 years? Now 1st and 2nd really aren’t that different really it was a layout change. I guess selling “new editions” lucrative.
>>
>>78933479
Yes
But why?
>>
I’m tempted to try out spell rolls if casters want to wield swords or use armor that’s fine but they will lose automatic casting and instead have to roll to see if they get the spell off
>>
File: spell-jammer.jpg (841 KB, 1026x1500)
841 KB
841 KB JPG
>>78934095
Well I really like the spontaneous casting rules and I'm very fond of classes who use it in 3.5. I know that this edition is not exactly liked by OSR players, but I was thinking it shouldn't be that hard to just apply spontaneous casting rules to 2E. The thing that would need some thought would be the spells per day for example. My only exposition to 2E has been through video games like Baldur's Gate and in the new version sorcerer is playable in the first game (based on AD&D), so it should be possible. I know I mention both 3.5 and vidya, probably gonna get flogged for that, but I was curious what people who actually PLAY 2e would think about it. My perspective is the one of a total layman after all.
>>
>>78933479
>>78934164
Bait
>>
>>78934182
I think you're giving me too much credit bro, I'm not some memelord who comes to OSR thread to bait. I even admitted I know almost nothing of AD&D 2E and was interested if it's viable to convert spontaneous casting rules to 2E. After all it's much easier to convert this than to convert whole fucking ruleset of Spelljammer to 3E.
>>
>>78934105
I've been doing this and it works fine. Make a save to complete the spell or lose your turn. Size of weapon and weight of armor determine penalty. No penalty for spells up to 2nd level but -1 for 3rd and each level thereafter.
>>
>>78934033
A lot of paypigs amongst the gamers ranks. They will buy it because it is “new”. ASSH is a fun house rules AD&D based system chock full of good ideas. But Jeff is clearly trying to make more money off of it. IIRC he wants to turn ASSH into a real job. Commercialization strikes again!
>>
Rolled 2 (1d8)

>>78930459
Rolling, I feel like making something today.
>>
>>78934033
>Now 1st and 2nd really aren’t that different really it was a layout change.
What's the difference between 2e and 3e?
>3 editions in 10 years?
That's what happened to post-Holmes Basic (B/X '81, BECMI '83, RC '91).
>>
>>78931565
>>Roll low on a d6 to hear a sound.
You don't need to explain this one to anyone, players do not roll it. Most rolls are done secretly by the DM, including hear noise, all secret door or trap detection rolls, busting down doors and all thief skills.
>>
>>78933479
>: is it possible or viable to convert spontaneous casting rules from 3.5 to 2e?
Of course you could, but I think it's a terrible idea. Resource management should matter, even in a 2e game. 3e's spontanious casting kills a core element of D&D. There's no trick or difficulty in making it work, so do what you want but if you're listening to opinions, I think it's a bloody awful idea.
>>
>>78931245
Armored magic would allow for the wearing of magical armor as well as shields. Shields in WWN can be used to negate an instance of shock damage, which is extremely useful as any sort of damage will still disrupt spellcasting.
>>
>>78934456
Differences between 2nd Ed ASSH and Hyperborea 3rd Ed.
https://hyperborea.boardhost.com/viewtopic_mobile.php?id=1439
>>
>>78934456
RC isn’t a new edition it’s a rules reference book for BECM.
>>
I want to write a setting module, what ruleset should I use
>>
[OC]
Serpentfolk
Humans with a range of snake-like features such as slitted eyes or patches of skin covered by scales.

Armour Class 7 [13]
Hit Dice 1 (4hp)
Attacks 1 × weapon (1d6 or by weapon (+ poison)) or bite (1d3 + poison)
THAC0 19 [0]
Movement 120’ (40’)
Saving Throws D11 W13 P14 B15 S16
Morale 7
Alignment Chaotic
XP 15
Number Appearing 1d6 (3d8)
Treasure Type U (A)

Poisoned weapons: A serpentfolk who is expecting a fight will have poisoned their weapon. Treat a character who takes damage from a poisoned weapon as if they had been bitten, except the save is made with a +2 bonus.
Poison: Causes death in 1d8 turns (save versus poison).
Trickery: Use disguise or trickery to surprise victims. Can be mistaken for humans at a distance or if disguised.

Just an attempt at making some low-level snake people by mixing OSE bandits and snakes. I am sure there are better snake people out there.
>>
>>78934856
Then how about three editions in 6-7 years: Holmes ('77), B/X ('81), BECMI ('83).
>>
>>78934395
>>78934877
Forgot to link to my roll
>>
>>78932045
new to OSR shit and I have to say i prefer the old school version of all these scenarios

i dm for both ad&d 2e and 3.5e, and i caught myself thinking multiple times throughout my 3.5e game "roll against dexterity" as opposed to "roll reflex." i feel like rolling against your attributes is much more robust and impactful compared to the same-y uniformity of later editions. at least at the low levels, which is the best part of dnd in my opinion.

i also think the defined saves for various sorts of dangers listed in 2e is a lot better than lumping everything together in a few general saves. the latter has the option of simplicity, but it really makes everything mess together like i said before.

i cant defend some jank though, like the d6 to bash down a door. that does just seem like proper old school soul.
>>
>>78932818
Shh don't tell them their so insisted on flexibility and part of the tribe minded thinking of "us vs them" based on using different dice subsystem is completely fucking pointless and arbitrary as Gygax using % on thief skills.
>>
>>78934014
nobody asked for your opinion you squeamish oversocialized faggot
>>
I was thinking of kind of using the OSE advanced fantasy method. I'm going to restrict races to certain classes but without the level cap and include racial abilities and ability score modifiers. To even out for humans I'll use the +1 CHA, +1 CON and they get to roll 2 keep highest result when rolling hit dice.

Would you play this? Why/why not?
>>
>>78935650
Sure. Demihuman level limits are AIDS in my eyes
>>
>>78935696
I agree. I figure it doesn't even matter anways because by the time they hit a level cap (and the campaign hasn't fallen apart) they've already enjoyed their time in the sun
>>
>>78930299
Op, previous thread was >>78894247
>>78917725
That's really good, you're planning to keep working on it?
>>
>>78936163
Yeah my bad. Fat fingered during copy/paste. It'll never happen again!
>>
File: TempleOfTheGoldenCitrus.png (544 KB, 3000x2000)
544 KB
544 KB PNG
>>78936163
Planning on it, yup. Some personal stuff and some job stuff including D&D projects I really want to finish: looking at you, Watchtower on the Indigo River... is getting in the way: but once we get through that transition, I hope to have more time to devote to it.

The idea is "classless OD&D with Chainmail" - I really like Chainmail, more so after working with some anons here to hone out some of the stuff I didn't get and get some perspective on how they implement Chainmail at their tables. Originally was planning on releasing it as a flyer to attach as errata to make it work - but I think it's evolving that it might be better to have an integrated document, as opposed to expecting the player to parse through three or four booklets to get the rules. Should probably post links to all three WIP PDFs I've got so far in a blog post... maybe next week - got a dungeon I'm working on for y'all this week.
>>
File: 1595507871909.jpg (210 KB, 640x564)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
For people who've missed it, here's the Wizardry OVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOTHNoODYmY
>>
Should the Thief be a d4 or a d6 hitdice class?
>>
>>78930522
>Race-as-Class
You should extend that to humans, and then expand the list to end up with just a background system.
>>
>>78936802
This is what I'm waffling on. Shall I use AD&D hit dice or B/X. I think the thief could do with a little more survivability, especially if the group wants to utilize a scout more often.
>>
>>78934913
>i cant defend some jank though, like the d6 to bash down a door. that does just seem like proper old school soul.
At least the bash down door on a d6 includes the bonus from Strength. So that feels more mechanically sound. But then things like tripping a trap on a 1 or 2 on a d6 with no Dex bonus (because there isn't a Dex bonus) is just inconsistent.
>>
>>78934164
If you like spontaneous casting, just give it to all the classes.

Do it like ACKS or 5e do.
>>
>>78934881
The foundational era of the hobby is a poor comparison to the last 10 years for so many reasons. Not a fair comparison at all.
>>
>>78937156
Seriously anon, you asked why people don't use DCC just because it has d20 roll high. You were given answers (from that people like the aesthetic to that people don't like DCC's other wonkiness.) Stop fighting with people over how they want to play.

ACKS is an actual retro-clone of b/x (not just inspired by it) and uses d20 roll-high for everything, and you don't see people getting up in arms about it. The reason most people here don't like DCC isn't because they're assholes who you need to convince that DCC is better, it's because they just don't like DCC.
>>
>>78937705
DCC, built on a 3E engine and devoid of Vancian casting is OSR adjacent at best. He came here to argue.
>>
>>78934868
Which ever one you know best.
>>
>>78937705
>Stop fighting with people over how they want to play.
I'm really not fighting. I'm just trying to be convinced to use a bx-based game over DCC. I guess I really prefer DCC's mechanics, but I don't like medieval fantasy. MCC would be the obvious answer, but that game is a dumpster fire. So I've been checking out Mutant Future, which I think is really good aesthetically. Of course I could just houserule the absolute shit out of DCC's core and make it more like Gamma World or Mutant Future, but is (for me) the perfect setting and an entire game in one book. If I could just get the janky mechanics to click, I'd be good to go.

So that's why I was asking why someone would prefer BX rules over DCC. Hardly anyone has spoke on the advantages of BX rules over something like DCC. They're just either talking out their ass and regurgitating DCC false rhetoric, or they're telling me to stfu and play with janky rules just because.
>>
>>78938595
We have explained. It makes the odds more apparent, and it just has a neat feel. That you don't like that answer is not a lack of willingness to explain on our part.
>>
>>78938595

Ah, I gotcha now. Well to give you what I consider to be the actualy advantages of B/X over DCC, B/X is outdated in terms of conveyance to players as you noted, but even with that it's still often simpler and more elegant than DCC with it's extra dice, tables on tables.

Additionally, DCC removes (or neuters while trying to smash into the d20 engine) what many people consider to be core aspects of old-school games. Namely the exploration loop and reaction rolls (at least is has morale though). This combined with a removal of XP=GP leaves the game as what it was intended to be: a mostly hack-and-slash, d20 era game with some of the aesthetics and inspiration from old-school D&D.

If you're more interested in a different gameplay experience than removing XP=GP and the removal of the exploration loop may not be an issue for you.

My recommendation to you would honestly be: I think it might be easier to start with Mutant Future and house rule in all the DCC you want then to go in the reverse direction, but either way, I think you're probably in for a bit of work for what you want to accomplish.
>>
>>78938595
>I'm really not fighting. I'm just trying to be convinced to use a bx-based game over DCC.
“I’m just trying to be convinced” = I am an uninvited DCC fan that came here to have an argument no one was making. Go suck China Joe Goldman’s dick.
>>
>>78938595
>>78938951

Also, if you want to convert d6 rolls to d20:
1-in-6 -> 18
2-in-6 -> 14
3-in-6 -> 11
4-in-6 -> 8
5-in-6 -> 4
>>
>”there’s just so many different rolls”
>has already listed them all, it’s a half dozen max
>”just roll d20+mods, it’s simpler”, however the list of all relevant modifiers would be a page of pluses and minuses
I dunno man, I just tell players “roll this, on a whatever you succeed” and we’ve continued playing before I could have looked up all the relevant d20 modifiers
>>
>>78931565
You're too focused on rolling. The reason a lot of those systems seem tacked on it's because they started as occasional rulings, because most of the time you shouldn't really be rolling for that kind of stuff like climbing and hearing, you kinda just describe what you're doing and the DM will describe what happens. Even then, the huge majority of the rolls are supposed to be done by the DM, behind a screen when he deems appropriate.
It really is an extremely simple game to play, you're supposed to just focus on imagining the dungeon and interacting with it instead of referencing numbers on your sheet to try to do things.
>>
>>78932045
>>78931927
It's to give different odds to different types of activities. If something has a 1 or 2-in-6 chance of happening, then it's easier to just roll a d6. If yo need more granularity, use a d20, and if you need the precise percentage for some reason, roll a d100.
It also lets bonuses have varying effectiveness without having to do any math. A STR bonus will matter more in tests that require a 1-in-6 roll than ones that require you to meet a d20 TN, etc.

Also, most of these rolls are being done by the DM, the players really shouldn't be thinking about any of this stuff, they should be completely focused on just narrating their actions.
>>
>>78930891
Race as class and 3d6 in order are great, but they're so unpopular with modern gamers, I find it really hard to run the sort of game I want
>>
>>78936802
In AD&D or B/X? You definitely shouldn't depower them in AD&D, and they're honestly pretty shitty in B/X, so boosting them to d6 is, I think, completely warranted. I also think that having their backstab damage scale in a fashion similar to AD&D wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, the main thing you need to do is apply thief skills in a way that actually makes them useful. With some of them, that's not too hard. If a thief is trying to sneak or hide under conditions where another class would have any chance of being successful, they automatically succeed. And since locked doors don't *need* to get picked (and you can always fall back on dismantling them at the expense of being loud and/or wasting a lot of time) you should be fine there too. Traps are maybe a little trickier, but you could theoretically play them in a way that gives anybody the chance to notice and circumvent them through description of their actions, with thieves treating their skill as a saving throw. Of course, at high levels the relevant thief skills are good enough that it more or less supersedes the problem-solving-on-the-player-level approach to dealing with traps, which is unfortunate. Basically, I feel like thief skills should either start off much better or not get as good by the end, depending on the course you want to take.
>>
Repost since the thread died:
Any anons make their own megadungeons? Do you generate them as normal, or use a special set of tables, or just freehand? Any design changes to accommodate the large size?
I've made quite a few smaller dungeons and I think using the normal stocking/generation method would be fine, but I do wonder about alternative approaches to really sell the scale. In my mind, a player should be able to tell immediately when they've happened upon such a gigantic structure. Maybe I should just use some descriptive flair upon entry, and call it a day?
>>
Rolled 8 (1d8)

>>78930459
>>
>>78939934
I think any homebrew megadungeon needs its own systems. It's the whole appeal of the thing, really. So just try something for a couple of levels, then see what works or doesn't, and your group seems to be expecting from it, and adapt as you develop the further levels.

>Maybe I should just use some descriptive flair upon entry, and call it a day?
I think it's best to let them realize it slowly. As they start to interact with the factions, see the daily routine of creatures in the dungeon, and eventually stumble into literal settlements and shit and just start going "wait a second, just how big IS this fucking place?"
>>
Rolled 6, 5 = 11 (2d8)

>>78939961
damn, ok
>>
>>78939425
Isn't it a mistake to list down all the modifiers?
I figure this is something you leave at dm discretion
>>
>>78939934
mostly freehand- for each floor I think of a theme and ~2 factions. Sometimes factions bleed through to the floor above or below if they're big enough or naturally wander in groups up or down a level so you get a taste of what faction is on the floor below and how they work
then I sit down and jot down a handful of cool trick or trap rooms that might be on the floor, handful of faction specific things that might be on this floor, handful of other random tidbits on this floor I like the sound of
then I use something like appendix a(?) out of the dmg for the majority of the floor and then draw in some more unique parts by hand
think of some wandering monsters (I usually do 33% one faction 33% another 33% random themed monsters), key relevant rooms and let them run it
between sessions any factions on floors they've visited so far get a turn to expand, contract, make new alliances or enemies, set up traps and restock areas etc.
>>
>>78938961
>I am an uninvited DCC fan
That nu-TG though.
>>
I do simple d6 side initiative, but I'm thinking about putting a "readied missile weapons go first regardless of initiative" rule in there, what do you guys think? Some games already have both sides resolving missiles before melee and spells already, so it's fitting.
>>
>>78934361
can't fault the guy for wanting to live off of doing what he loves. i'd take that gig.
>>
>>78936576
ntayrt but looking forward to it.
>>
>>78937156
>is just inconsistent
This isn't that important. Get over it.
>>78938595
>I'm just trying to be convinced to use a bx-based game over DCC.
You literally aren't. You are fixating on a thing that isn't relevant in a game you haven't even tried.
>>
>>78940453
Adding an order of operations for combat sequence is important regardless of what sort of initiative you are using.
>declare spells
>missile attacks
>movement
>melee attacks
>morale checks
or some variation help a lot imo.
>>
>>78940493
You absolutely can fault someone for wanting to live off doing what they love if it results in over commercialization and releasing products out of desperation or greed. Maybe you have heard of a now defunct company called TSR?
>>
>>78940453
I've been trying d6 initiative for each phase (Spells Declared, Missile, Movement, Melee, Spells Resolved) and it has caused some interesting gameplay.

Generally a character will be acting in only two of these phases, Movement and a combat phase or spell casting. Also, some phases are better to go first while others second. For example when spell casters roll for initiative they want to roll low so they can react to opposing casters if they are present and rolling low for movement allows you to react before the melee round starts. An odd effect of d6 per phase is rolling low then high on the next phase allows the side to go twice without the enemy reacting, This brought nearly a TPK when a few 1HD creatures rolled low for movement then high for melee, being able to rush and attack before the archer and M/U could step back. Playing this way doesn't take much more time to resolve, as the players who are making an action roll the d6 as they tell me what they are doing and I roll mine just the same. Not sure if this really helps your question, but I do second this >>78941779 as good advice.
>>
>>78935588
not him, but that's a pretty creepy thing to say
>>
>>78941779
What about declaration? Do you have the group explain what they're all doing for the round before dicing them bones, or do you roll and then let them decide as you call out each phase?
>>
>>78941998
I feel like this ends up breaking down the combat way too much and it starts interfering with the abstract aspect of D&D, like for example what you described (side A gets to move first while side B is frozen in place, but then side B gets to attack them first). I feel like D&D combat should feel fairly chaotic and abstractly simultaneous on some level, with initiative just denoting which group has seized a momentousness tactical advantage.
>>
>>78942005
NTAYRT but I don’t give too much stock to degenerate shock schlock like carcosa. Now real crimes against the helpless/kids? yeah, hang em high. But some sick puppies imagination doesn’t offend me much.
>>
>>78942287
I don't understand, by the book in B/X initiative gives one side the entire round to move and attack before the other does anything. With d6 per phase it breaks that up and makes it more chaotic as you can't rely on your side having full control of the combat for a time.
>>
>>78942005
not the guy, but why? It's literally just a fictional magic system in an RPG.
>>
>>78942376
It's because breaking it down makes it less abstract, and doing so makes the "I Go, You Go" structure feel a lot more awkward than it needs to. That's my opinion obviously, but I just think combat should be visualized more in broad strokes, you're not really simulating every single step and sword thrust, etc. So when you break it down to this level of considered simulation you end up stumbling onto awkward moments like that. D&D just wasn't made for that level of detail in personal combat like say Runequest or GURPS were.
>>
>>78940453
I like the idea of separating "attack in place" from "move and attack". So if you're shooting a bow from where you stand, or making a melee attack against somebody who is already near you, you go before somebody who wants to run up to somebody and attack. "Attack in Place" still allows you to move 10', but anything further than that and you're pushed into the "move and attack" category (where moves that don't include attacks also fall). If you need to pull out a weapon, that puts you in the "move and attack" category as well. It would be interesting to base initiative (at least within "move and attack") on your movement speed (and therefore, encumbrance).
>>
How do I do disabled beggars that can’t be cured? Why wouldn’t the party just tell them to go to a cleric and then get a job? Or how do I prevent the party from just curing a guy and instantly putting him in their debt?
>>
>>78943561
Don't have beggars.
Failing this, don't have Clerics.
>>
>>78943561
That’s pretty high level shit. Sure Cure Disease is only 3rd or 4th level depending on the game you’re playing but restoring a cripple is Regenerate or Heal if I’m not mistaken. I can’t see too many situations where a high priest is going to be getting much mileage out of having a former beggar indebted to him.
>>
>>78943561
I don't like the implications of the "spells per day" approach to vancian magic. I prefer to see spells as a limited commodity that can't be easily replaced. In mechanical terms, this means tending more towards "spells per adventure" than "spells per day". But even if you're a bit more permissive on a mechanical basis as far as spell replenishment is concerned, I think you weave a narrative where all beggars don't get cured for much the same reason that builders don't make houses for all the homeless. Even if you remove the cost of the materials, it still takes time and hard work. Maybe a better comparison is why doctors don't all just heal sick people for free. I mean, some volunteer work does get done and there are free clinics, but by and large, you're gonna have to pay if you want medical attention (at least if you're in a country without socialized medicine).
>>
>>78943788
On a conceptual basis, I like a "spells per level" approach, which means that spells are never a free ride. You have to advance, becoming more powerful / knowledgeable / spiritual / etc. in order to attain new spells. Mechanically, that doesn't work because it takes too long to gain a level, but fluff-wise going with the same basic mindset isn't a bad idea. If you're one of those people who likes to make characters to pay for training in order to gain a level, you could literally make them pay money to replenish their spells (spending it on research, material components, expensive sacrifices to your god, donations to your church, etc.), though you'd want to err on the side of undercharging rather than overcharging. But with all the gold characters rake in, they could feed the hungry for miles around, but I don't think many people actually do it, so just having there be some small cost to helping people is probably sufficient. If they want to sacrifice a little to help out, that's great, but it's no longer a case of people walking around with limitless free money (where "money" stands in for "spells").
>>
>>78943788
>cost of the materials
>>78943898
>material components
Maybe this is the answer. Maybe cure blindness should require expensive material components to cast. I’ll go with that. Thanks to everyone who answered!
>>
Does a dungeon need a "boss" to tie it together? They are going to root around the basement of a miser who they killed so the ghost of his murdered wife will show him where his treasure is buried. And while he does have plenty of ghosts and other bad things in his basement, it doesn't have a big powerful dude about
>>
>>78944133
You could just have it be a lengthy procedure instead of something you can do easily.
If cure blindness requires you to pray to the Lord for several hours while staring at the sun, that's different from weaving the magic word and bam, done.
>>
>>78943561
Why can your clerics heal permanent injuries?
>>
>>78944686
>
>>
LOTFP related mostly, but, what kind of people likes to play a Specialist?

No bonus to combats or magic, just lots of skills. Skills that even fail sometimes. How many locked doors are in a dungeon to lockpick?

How does that class play? Is it fun?
>>
>>78944154
Doesn't need one, but it can be handy. Also, that sounds less like a dungeon and more like a mystery.
Also, loot this film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPVTzRq-Y-A
>>
>>78944970
I mean, at least specialists have d6 hit dice and get allocate points into their skills in order to be middling to good in a few things as opposed to sucking at absolutely everything. The bit about not getting attack bonuses affects all nonfighters in the game, and is a serious issue (though at least specialist do get to backstab). But I've always liked the idea of thieves better than their actual implementations.
>>
>>78944970
It's surprisingly ok. I give them partial +hit progression though
>>
>>78934868
B/X / OSE are probably going to give you the widest reach. Many retroclones are based on B/X, and B/X stuff is more compatible with AD&D than AD&D stuff is compatible with B/X (because AD&D material has more shit that isn't in B/X).
>>
>>78945080
yeah, but the backstab ability on specialists makes no sense in game. They are supposed to be knowledged on lore and skills, not ninjas.

Figther should get to backstab
>>
File: fight on stairs.jpg (42 KB, 500x332)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>78930299
I spurged and posted what I am trying on srpgg, but just want to see what you guys think, since I like to include a lot of OSR stuff in my shit:

But the system I primarily use revolves around 2 things-

-2d6 roles. I think this is a nice middle ground between linear dnd style and Gurps curve. A result of 5-9 indicates an average or expected result, less is a negative result, and more is a positive result. 2 and 12 act as nat 1's and 20's

-3 context points. In any engagement the three most pressing factors are used to determine the nature and effect of an engagement rather than dealing with specific states. Often it is seperated into subject (usually the player character), object (enemy or object) and environment. For example If I am fighting a death knight on the stairs Ill use the general system to determine. Subject, My character is cool headed and with his prefered weapon (+). Object, my opponent is heavily armored and a trained fighter (-). Enviornment, I have the high ground at the top of the stairs (+). Knowing this I know I have to role relatively high, but not tremendously so to injure the knight, maybe a 9+ on 2d6.

This simplifies stuff and makes it more narrative rather than statesbased chrunchtopia while still delivering some level of tactical interest and conscientiousness. Thanks for reading my blog
>>
>>78945411
sounds cool, although i like more crunch in my games than this
>>
>>78945449
Understandable. Again, its directed to solo play (which can be crunch heavy if you want, but expediency is good for a lot of solo players since you dont have others to deligate chrunchwork too).

Helps to keep shit moving.
>>
>>78942115
I get everyone to declare then roll. Their roll determines what initiative order events happen in for each phase.
>before opfor
>opfor
>after opfor
For each
>declare spells
>missiles
>movement
>melee
>magic happens
>morale checks happen
I only get the players to roll init at the beginning of combat, or if there are momentum shifts in combat like 50% casualties, taking an objective, someone failing morale checks, etc.
>>
>>78942442
Don't do I-go-you-go. Have everyone declare actions first. Describe the general thrust of the opfor. Then resolve it in order of
>before opfor
>opfor
>after op for
for each phase of combat. It requires a bit more brainpower on part of the dm to knit everything together, but it becomes more natural as you do it more.
>>
>>78945249
it feels a little tacked-on, but I guess if a man of letters needs to fight he'd be looking to end it quick with a sucker punch or a knife in the ribs.
>>
>>78941791
>Maybe you have heard of a now defunct company called TSR?
It's funny you should say that with regards to bitching about AS&SH's core rules update speed, since both editions of AD&D got one format update (1e's orange-spine Easley version, 2e's black-cover Revised version, AS&SH 2e) and one mechanical update (1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, AS&SH to Hyperborea) in ~10 years. Same with BECMI if you combine it and RC, except the mechanical update is the line being canned sometime shortly after '94.
>>
File: E0Qa9SKXEAA2NqK.jpg (124 KB, 1336x1014)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
Should've stuck to going after cripples and Australians, Zak. Gencon has actual lawyers.
>>
>>78945937
Nice. Finally the juggernaut of that man’s ego meets an immovable object.
>>
>>78944970
The same reason Batman is so popular? He has none of the powers of Superman or Shazam but he still can stand toe to toe with the big leagues by using tactics, items, and complete bullshit.

In D&D terms using a grappling hook to climb a wall and sneak around is more fun to me than simply casting a spell or fighting the guards.
>>
>>78945036
Yeah the puzzle is more of how to get the old man's vault open than fighting monsters. Though there's some ghosts too in case they work it out too fast.
>>
>>78944970
>Skills that even fail sometimes
Yeah? If a skill worked 100% of the time, then there's no point in rolling dice.
Specialists are exactly like thieves. They're more reliable than the AD&D thief by leaps and bounds, they get to choose where they put their points, AND they roll a single d6 rather than on a d100 chart for no fucking reason.
>>
>>78945249
Specialists are thieves. Sure, they have a little bit more range, but they're still basically thieves. And their skills are thieving and subterfuge based. Stealth to sneak around. Climb for catburgling. Search to find hidden compartments and rooms containing loot. Tinker for breaking into places with loot or to disarm traps protecting it. Sneak Attack so you can ninja up behind somebody guarding loot and kill them. Sleight of Hand so you can pick people's pockets and filch shit. Really, Architecture, Bushcraft and Languages are the only skills that don't fit neatly with the catburglar/ninja/thief dynamic, and you could make an argument for Architecture representing casing a joint, and Languages allowing you to read treasure maps and cryptic documents concerning loot (leaning towards a more towards tomb robbing). Also, it's D&D, so everybody has something to offer in combat.
>>
I am growing to dislike asymmetrical levelling. I understand the reason for designing the game that way, but the fact that for example, clerics and thieves can often have comparable or even superior Hit Points to fighters just because they level up faster just does not sit right with me at all. What would you guys think of balancing the classes a little better and making everyone level at the fighter's rate?
>>
>>78946019
Honestly as much as I detest the egotistical wanker it would be interesting to see gen con lose
>>
>>78946921
First you will have to lessen the number of spells wizards get per level. Then you'll need to buff thieves and clerics in some way. Maybe give them better skills and more spells respectively before requiring higher XP requirements per level.
there's really no other way to do it.
>>
>>78946992
My preference would probably be to leave the M-U how it is, buff the fighter a bit with a quicker attack progression and a special combat ability or two (I think base fighters are a bit lame), leave the cleric how it is (I don't know why they level faster than fighters honestly, as they're better in my eyes, especially as they gut higher in levels), and give the thief better thief abilities and maybe a combat buff. Using AD&D hit dice might balance things out a bit too, but would also make the game a bit less lethal overall (can always compensate with tougher challenges.)
>>
>>78946921
It’s not the worst idea. Clerics wouldn’t need any alteration, they’re already getting a bargain on their track. Thieves would need 1d6 HD, more robust skills, and better... saves? I can’t remember how they compare vs. fighter. I’m sure they’re objectively worse on average but that’s probably due to the quicker advancement of fighter saves.
M-U is your biggest problem. They’re basically on a high interest payment plan for earth shattering powers at later levels. And they would be really shafted if you took anything away from them at earlier levels since they already have fuck all. Seriously. 4hp if you’re lucky, a single sleep spell if you’re really lucky, and a dagger.
I’ve already smashed the shit out of XP advancement and class structure so I’ve got three tracks. Base 1500, 2000, and 2500. Fighters, rogues, and mages take the 1500, advanced classes and split classes take the 2000, and really exotic shit gets the 2500. Sometimes there’s a base 3000 track for custom classes but I discourage that much power for most players and my current pool are still quite green.
>>
>>78930299
Any advice or adventure recommendations for small groups? I have two players that have never played a trpg that want to try after playing through two seasons of Pandemic Legacy. I don't want to hand them a stack of hirelings on their first outing.

I'm running OSE because reasons.
>>
>>78946921
Keep asymmetrical leveling
Hit dice = attack scaling
Thief and cleric will now have a slightly faster attack progression but the extra attacks granted by fighter will even this out
Wizard progresses slowest so he has the worst attack progression
>>
>>78947103
Yeah and while you're at it, it's a bit unfair that magic users don't learn spells automatically when they level up, they might go too long knowing only the spell the they got on chargen.
While we're at it make it so they don't have to prepare spells either, it's needless bookkeeping.
Also they shouldn't lose spells if they get interrupted. In fact, spellcasting shouldn't be able to get interrupted at all.
All the various subsystems are unintuitive, Thief skills should be changed to all be d20 based.
It doesn't make sense that a Thief is successful no matter the skill level or difficulty of what they are acting against, so change the success chance to a bonus to the roll, the DM ought to be adjudicating the target number the Thief needs to succeed. So the game makes more sense, Thieves should receive a bonus/penalty to their skills based on the Dexterity attribute.
So fighters aren't left out of all these buffs, we should remove encumbrance so they don't get slowed down by their armor. Another benefit is we've cut down on even more tedious bookkeeping.
>>
File: berserker.jpg (158 KB, 1169x1600)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>78947103
I think allowing fighters to start with a +2 to hit at level 1 rather than a +1 to hit is a great way to buff them.
>>
File: 73c.jpg (8 KB, 233x216)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>78947192
>Nooooooooo, you can't just change the class tables, they are the perfectly crafted, well though-out and ingenious laws of our lord and saviour Gary E. Gygax, it's not like they're the never playtested scribblings of a Jehova's Witness wargamer churned out over the course of one coke-fueled weekend in the 70's, you can't just change them like it says to do in the forward of the game noooooooooooo
>>
>>78946921
I think an argument for asymmetric leveling is that it's dynamic. Different shine at different times, and so what if the thief is (ever-so-slightly) tougher than the fighter for a bit. (Also, given his superior AC, the fighter will still be more durable.) With that said, I agree with you, and find asymmetric leveling to be fiddly and unnecessary.

>>78946992
>First you will have to lessen the number of spells wizards get per level.
Low-level magic-users hardly have any spells as it is. Aside from possibly nerfing Sleep and Charm a bit, they're fine until they get to higher levels. There, I think they already have issues with gaining too many spell slots at a time, and too quickly gaining too many high-level spell slots. I like something like in the pic here. Numbers that are highlighted in green indicate they are one point higher than going by RAW. Numbers highlighted in light red are one point lower than in RAW, while those in dark red are two points lower. (The optional cantrip column is in grey, because there are no 0-level spells in the RAW.) To give you an idea of how the progressions compare, at 14th level, the alternate progression is nearly identical to the RAW progression at 11th level (it optionally has four cantrips and it has only two 4th level spells rather than three, but is otherwise identical).

>Then you'll need to buff thieves and clerics in some way.
Give thieves d6 hit dice. They deserve them anyway. Clerics are arguably too sweet as it is, and don't really need buffing.

>>78947103
Buffing fighters is a good idea.
>>
>>78947103
I use degree of success on hit roll as damage, so fighters automatically not only hit harder, they kill faster as well.
>>
>>78946921
I believe the original designers vastly underestimated the strength of the Cleric spell list. Speaking of this:
>>78930299
Has anyone here actually been in a situation where a name-level MU was in play at the same time as one or more name-level Fighters were? You know, those situations everyone uses to complain about quadratic leveling? Is it really that bad?
>>
>>78947385
What is your system for this? I've often thought of doing single roll attack resolution, both for elegance, and because it's just intuitive to me that if you attack "better" you do more damage. But at the same time I don't want to break compatibility too much. Some things from the base game would certainly change, like Dex rolls being applied only to chance to hit and not to damage, but I don't really care about that particular change much. Just curious to know how you do it.
>>
>>78943221
I like that too. That's pretty much how Shadow of The Demon Lord does it I think, except instead of rolling initiative PCs always go first unless ambushed/surprised/stunned. I think they call it "fast actions" and "slow actions", but it's the same principle, doing something vs. moving and then doing something. I think it'd be pretty easy to add d6 group initiative to this.
>>
>>78947417
>Has anyone here actually been in a situation where a name-level MU was in play at the same time as one or more name-level Fighters were? You know, those situations everyone uses to complain about quadratic leveling? Is it really that bad?
Honestly, at name level, I don't think wizards are too out of control in B/X. Yes, the last three times they gained a level, they got two spell slots each time, and they probably shouldn't have, but they still only have six "high-level" spells (3rd and above) to dole out, and as long as you're not too generous letting them replenish them, that's pretty limiting. Really, how stingy the DM is about that sort of thing can make a huge difference. (Admittedly though, name-level fighters in B/X are rather limited, and it can take them a while to chip away at an enemy.) Now once you start looking at 13th or 14th level magic-users, well... a 14th level magic-user has fourteen high-level spells.
>>
>>78947451
Damage on attack roll = degree of success +1. The +1 is so you always do at least 1 damage on a hit, otherwise you would be subtracting -1 from all damage rolls for no reason.
If you want more granularity, you can allow a fixed damage bonus depending on the weapons being used: I allow a +1 for two handed weapons so they're not strictly inferior to using a sword and a board.
>>
So, do you let players create new classes with your blessing?
>>
>>78947677
Of course. None of my players have, though...
>>
>>78947677
Yes. It’s collaborative and I have absolute veto power but I’m all in for letting players take the reins. I’ve got a fairly robust framework for how things are valued, roughly based in the B/X class construction document. I don’t remember who published it. Necrotic Gnome maybe.
>>
>>78947677

what >>78947825 said
>>
File: E0QmnrBXEAAbTB5.png (18 KB, 1187x566)
18 KB
18 KB PNG
>>78945937
>Zak

He also tried to sue Mike Mearls and got the case thrown out. Hahahahahahahahahahaa
>>
File: whee.jpg (29 KB, 628x402)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>78949210
For once, it's the porn star paying to get completely fucked in under an hour.
>>
>>78947677
Haven't had the opportunity yet but I've played in a campaign where I got to make a cleric subclass for a religion I had founded. It was pretty OP, good enough to be a solo class and it was allowed. It was a fun time.
>>
>>78945937
>that lawyer's name
>>
>>78944970
The other classes have a 1-6 skill chance in their skills, they look upon specialists with envy
>>
>>78931918
>a game for children
This is a meme. It was made by 30 and 40-something dudes who played war games. Kids bought the books but I can count on one hand the amount of people I've talked to, both in meatspace and the internet, that played as kids and had any idea what they were actually doing. This is a shit deflection argument to avoid engaging the issue at hand, and to make yourself feel smarter without actually doing anything intelligent.
>>
>>78932390
Are britbongs even human?
>>
>>78933258
What did he mean by this?
>>
>>78936802
If a class can't cast spells it should be at least a d6.
>>
>>78950411
Basic was for kids, it just turns out that basic is also good for everybody.
>>
>>78947192
I can feel the asspain through my screen.
>>
>>78947192
>magic users don't learn spells automatically when they level up,
[laughing AD&D]
>>
>>78936576
Aforementioned map, with key and PDF:
https://clericswearringmail.blogspot.com/2021/05/may-day-adventure-temple-of-golden.html

>>78946644
I like that they are called "Specialist" and not "Thief" - personally. Yes, Bilbo was a "thief" to Thorin's company - but having the associative nomenclature with larceny removed means, I would hope, that dickwad players would have less justification to steal from the party.

>>78947677
No. Classes were a mistake.
More seriously, still no - I've played with and enjoyed custom subclasses before - like other anon's custom Cleric for his setting - but to me, the class is informed by archetype: it's about the role you play in society and the niche you fill in the adventure, not an expression of creative license.
>>
>>78945080
>>78946305
>>78946437
>>78946644
>>78946644

ok then, the fault was on me by thinking that in Lotfp, the specialists were a different thing to "filed off numbers" thieves. I genuinelly pictured them as architecture conneisseurs delving in dungeons.

Which now leaves me thinking: Is it possible to play a character in OSR whose main abilities are knowing/crafting/finding things? Maybe with a slowed (instead of null) attack progression and thief HD?

How could it be on par with other classes to be playable? I was already imagining it existed, so now I kind of want it
>>
>>78950749
That's what hired help is for anon
>>
File: Yo!.png (218 KB, 391x461)
218 KB
218 KB PNG
Sup grog's, oblivious newfag comin through!

Is there a system out there that ties domain level play in the OSR vein together with tabletop miniature wargaming in a more direct way than laying out general rules for "mass combat" (hex & chit). I have seen quite a lot of that solution but it would be comfy to have the OSR vibe together with a clearer focus on wargaming with minis so that you could adventure, run domains with PC's who prevail and then play out large scale conflicts using a map of the realms as a campaign and minis on the tabletop.
>>
>>78951527
ACKS
>>
>>78951542
Cheers. Will look into it.
>>
>>78949210
>Admon, Moshe Yiftah

>>78951527
ACKS
>>
>>78951527
ACKS is your best bet like >>78951542 said (make sure to check out all the supplements too), but I'll offer you a few more resources you may find helpful:
Chainmail
Swords & Spells
An Echo, Resounding
d20 Stronghold Builder's Guide

Godspeed, domainchad.
>>
>>78947825
Sorry fren, though it can be a hassle with players that are always trying to push for more unique abilities and shit.

>>78948058
Would you mind sharing your framework? I'd be very interested in how you handle it. Right now I'm going very off the cuff with what feels right.

>>78950175
Gotta make sure I don't let player's go too far. I have one who's very good at coming up with concepts and abilities but terrible about balancing out the good with drawbacks.

>>78950720
I get what you're saying, I try to use classes to a minimum as in I don't need 5 different types of thieves that are all very similar.
>>
>>78950411
OD&D was popularized by college students and adults, but B/X was 100% marketed towards kids and teenagers.
>>
>100s of pages of dry, laconic city/region descriptions with paper-thin plot hooks
Who's the market for this garbage?
>>
>>78953433
It is I, anon.
I can make it work.
>>
File: 1573202889149.jpg (380 KB, 953x1200)
380 KB
380 KB JPG
Shilling Saturday is here!

This week I have two posts, the final post on how I prep for hex crawl campaigns, specifically creating a town and a method of naming NPCs taken from early random generation of The Elder Scrolls.

https://simultaneous-initiative.blogspot.com/2021/05/step-four-place-to-rest.html
https://simultaneous-initiative.blogspot.com/2021/05/prefix-suffix-naming-tables.html
>>
>>78953726
uh that's gonna be a Yikes! from me dawg
>>
>>78951527
>>78951640
ACKS, yes but you also want their supplement Domains at War for the wargaming part..
>>
>>78944970
>>78950720
Specialist i took as, well, a specialist. someone with a particular specialized job. and assassination would definitly be one of them. soldiers are not usually trained in subtrifuge and the like. If they are, they are usually high class (think dignitaries)/elite soldiers. Therefor it is a more specialized skill rather than general military experience.
>>
Whiffing is boring. How about subtracting (or adding with DAC) three from everyone's Armour Class to make everyone hit more often?
>>
>>78954309
How about you take a whiff of fuck you, 'cause I hate your idea.
>>
>>78954346
Why?
>>
>>78954309
>whiffing on hits is boring, nerf AC
>whiffing on damage is boring, buff damage
>whiffing on deathblows is boring, nerf HP
And only a few more steps to go until you get 3e's rocket tag
>>
>>78954405
Yeah except I'm not going to do any of those things so this post isn't relevant.
>>
The Chad Holmes Basic
>aimed toward newcomers and kids with the intent to graduate them to AD&D
>needs no sequels because you're supposed to start using AD&D after level 3
>written by a doctor
>5-point alignment

The Virgin Moldvay Basic
>aimed toward kids
>has a sequel because it's the common core of D&D
>written by some dude
>3-point alignment
>>
>>78954309
Shock damage from Worlds Without Number has been a hit with my group. Minimizes whiffs, adds more danger to combat, and differentiates a few weapon groups.
>>
>>78954846
What is shock damage?
>>
>>78954309
Then you should do things will a lesser chance of whiffing, if your character can't find then you should do something clever, useful or tricky instead.
>>
File: Classes.png (40 KB, 1508x607)
40 KB
40 KB PNG
Rate my class tables.
>>
>>78955077
>single XP track
Based.
>Only goes up to level 9
Based.
>Single saving throw
Based.
>ACKS style attack throw
Cringe
>White Box: FMAG style thievery skill
Based
>d6 HD for thief
Based
>step based attack and save progression
Cringe
>Overall rating
Still better than the default ones.
>>
>>78954976
When you miss with a melee attack, you still deal damage equal to the weapon's shock value plus any damage bonuses, so long as the enemy's AC is low enough. A sword could have Shock 2 / AC 15 (or descending AC of 4), meaning on a miss an attack would still deal 2 damage, so long as the enemy's AC is equal to or worse than the weapon's shock AC target.
>>
>>78933781
>Also the To Hit matrix is literally just...
No, it isn't. Not "literally". Different probabilities in some cases.
>>
File: 1613772516970.jpg (762 KB, 2011x1000)
762 KB
762 KB JPG
>>78954099
How is Domains at War compared to the other options for OSR Wargaming supplements like Chainmail, Swords and Spells, OED Book of War, and Battlesystem? I'm looking for something that is a good wargame in itself, but also has a good method of importing monsters and characters as accurately as possible to their original entry. (Spells, abilities, etc.)
>>
White Box has a rule that fighters get to make as many attacks as their level against enemies of 1 HD or lower. What other systems do something like this?
>>
>>78954600
>Holmes Basic
>aimed toward newcomers and kids with the intent to graduate them to AD&D
>needs no sequels because you're supposed to start using AD&D after level 3
All wrong. It was written to introduce OD&D (which is the reason for many of its peculiarities). Gygax went through it and added PLAY AD&D in a bunch of places after the manuscript was done, I'm not sure Holmes even knew AD&D was going to exist when he wrote his starter set.
>>
>>78954600
All of the things you listed under Holmes are negatives.
>>
>>78955077
>>78955214
Single save is absolutely garbage.
There's no inherent differentiation between outcomes. You're just as likely to fail an insant-death save as you are to save succeed against a minor inconvenience or damage.
>>
>>78955641
AD&D does that exact thing. OD&D has a wider and better rule (vs. normal-types, not "1 HD"), and EPT adapts the OD&D rule in an also better, but unnecessarily complicated way (there's a matrix of attacker vs. defender levels which determines how many dice of damage a Fighting Man's attack does if it hits, and he can spread those dice out over multiple enemies of the same type if the attack hits).
>>
>>78955728
>There's no inherent differentiation between outcomes.
There is if your DM is good.
>>
>>78955728
Agree with this man, I've never understood the people who pretend they just can't handle keeping track of five numbers either.
>>
>>78955728
Or you can just apply modifiers to the rolls like with everything else instead of cluttering up your character sheet with a bunch of arbitrary "categories."
>>
>>78955853
>I've never understood the people who pretend they just can't handle keeping track of five numbers either
Because while the mechanic itself is great, the categories are arbitrary and so are the numbers given to each class. Unifying them into a single "good at avoiding" number is much better then trying to rule which category to use every time a unique kind of danger shows up.
>>
>>78955835
And now your DM is just making shit, which lessens the players ability to assess threats, which devalues the game experience. You know the "rocks fall, you die" meme? That's basically what you do when you remove the neutrality of system based saves vs peril and arbitrate it on the fly.
>>78955859
See above, and attribute based modifiers is even worse because if you make attributes too important
>>78955919
>trying to rule which category to use every time a unique kind of danger shows up.
What dangers have come up that none of Poison, Death, Dragon Breath, Wands, Spells, Attack roll or simply automatic damage doesn't cover?
>>
>>78955754
I just skimmed through the books I have here and found that OSRIC and S&W Complete do this, although they don't specific if you can divide attacks between different targets. LL has fighters getting a single extra attack at level 15 and then every 5 levels thereafter, which is honestly fucking ridiculous in my opinion but I think it's how it's done in BECMI.
>>
>>78955919
They're not arbitrary, retard, they're formed by play and the actual numbers are determined by logical reasoning about what things should be inherently easier to succeed at and which classes should be good at what things. (Granted, the further away from OD&D you get the less true the latter becomes.)

Also, mashing them together into a single "good at avoiding number" is totally arbitrary either way, you don't excape arbitrariness by wilfully fucking the system up.
>>
Are there any dungeons that exist as starters for megadungeons without actually being megadungeons?
>>
>>78955966
>OSRIC and S&W Complete do this
Unsurprising, since those are clones of AD&D and OD&D respectively.

>LL has fighters getting a single extra attack at level 15 and then every 5 levels thereafter, which is honestly fucking ridiculous in my opinion but I think it's how it's done in BECMI.
Yes, Basic came packaged with these problems from the factory. The Basic Fighter is known to be the weakest iteration, and it's arguably a problem the referee needs to solve.
>>
>>78955955
>And now your DM is just making shit
The whole point of OSR being rules light is to give DMs and groups fertile ground to come up with their own rulings. Your argument has no place here.

>What dangers have come up that none of Poison, Death, Dragon Breath, Wands, Spells, Attack roll or simply automatic damage doesn't cover?
There are no rules that dictate what each of those categories specifically represent in any OSR system aside from vague generalizations, so distinguishing between them during edge cases, which are super common if you actually play games, already requires the DM to "make shit up".

>>78956129
>They're not arbitrary
>Fucking Dragon Breath and Wand are categories
Ok.
>>
>>78956129
>they're formed by play and the actual numbers are determined by logical reasoning
Have you ever actually played these games? Are you new to this whole thing or something? There is not delicate logic or any kind of game balance in old school D&D, these numbers are literally just Gygax and Dave going "huh, I think this should probably work like this" followed by decades of writers and editors trying to make the rules be less arbitrary.
>>
>>78956129
See >>78947339
>>
>>78956176
What do you think for fighter? The only thing I can think of at the moment is extra melee attacks every 4 or 5 levels. We already use rof for missile weapons
>>
>>78956176
Yeah, Basic fighter is pretty lame. I tried fucking around with LOTFP for a while but I think it messes around too much with fighters, with the whole +1 at each level and the "offensive" and "defensive" attack modes. I think I'll stick to S&W/White Box, it's simple to remember, the faster THAC0 progression is there but is much smoother, and I think it does enough to make fighters viable without making them heroic.
>>
>>78953830
good to see anon.
>>
>>78954846
shock damage fucking hurts at level 1. If you play a fighter, ditch the two-hander and get a shield, trust me. Got ambushed by 3 gobbos and while they all missed, it didn't matter since they all had spears.
>>
>>78956185
>The whole point of OSR being rules light is to give DMs and groups fertile ground to come up with their own rulings.
Rulings doesn't mean "just make shit up as you go along with no regard for consistency"
And if you decide "ok, saves vs instant death are always done at bonus of 3" then congratulation fucktard, you just recreated the save category system but obfuscated it from the players.
But if you decide "oh, THIS save vs death gets a bonus of 2, this other one gets a bonus 5" then you return to my previous point; reduces the players ability to accurately assess risks.
>>
>>78956185
>edge cases
>super common
And yet you can't provide a single example that none of what I provided don't cover.
>>
The original 5 category saves work perfectly if you just rename them for clarity. Dragon Breath is more like Area Attacks and Wands is more like Magical Devices.
>>78956185
Can you show us some edge cases to corroborate what you're saying?
>>
>>78955728
>check saves table
>7 8 7 9 10
Why not just round down? They are always very close to one another.
>>
>>78956185
>Dragon Breath and Wand are categories
Not arbitrary. Those were things that came up in play.

>>78956287
"Arbitrary" doesn't mean "informed by experience", monguf.
>>
>>78957014
>Why not just round down?
Because you run into the aforementioned issue that you're as likely to fail a save vs death as you are to fail a save vs something more trivial, which plain feels bad.
>>
>>78956790
Deciding beforehand to abstract STs is not "making shit up on the go". If you don't like the rule that's fine, but this whole "IT'S NOT THE INTENDED WAY" attitude is frankly pathetic.

>reduces the players ability to accurately assess risks
Again, only if your DM is shit. Being consistent with how you use the universal ST vs. just using a table is literally just a question of preference. There's no "One True Way" to this.


>>78956807
>a wand that shoots death rays
>a spell that poisons you
>a poison that paralyzes you
Etc. And there are just cases where you gotta choose between one or the other. There's still the cases where the thing that happens is very specific and has no obvious correspondent category.

>The original 5 category saves work perfectly if you just rename them for clarity
Of course, but then you're already making changes to the rules, and you'll probably want to adjust the numbers for each class again to closer align to the new renamed categories depending on how broad or specific you've made them.
Either way you're just ruling according to your preferences.
>>
>>78930299
Anon, you got a version of that pic without text or a source on the original? I realy like it.
>>
>>78957080
Does it really? d20 is so swingy I don't think you'll feel a +1 or +2 difference at the table. Or you could just use the best save as the general one.
>>
>>78957018
When is Dragon Breath saving throw coming into relevance during play if it's only triggered by one move by one enemy type? Or am I supposed to have dragon hatchlings everywhere to justify giving that category character sheet space?
Or are you gonna tell me it's meant to be AoE attacks and not just a dragon's breath attack?

Also, can you explain why each class has different values in each saving throw and why they have those values?
>>
>>78957080
You don't, because then you get specific bonuses to those saves. It's literally the same thing but more flexible. The DM might just decide characters with high DEX get a +2 bonus to avoid traps that require you to move fast, or that high CON gives you a bonus to resist poison, etc. As long as your group uses the bonuses consistently there's really no problem.
>>
>>78957018
>Not arbitrary. Those were things that came up in play.
How the fuck is Dragon Breath not an arbitrary choice? There are dozens of monsters with unique abilities that come up more often during games than Dragons. There is no balance or design logic behind making a category called Dragon Breath, it was chosen arbitrarily by Dave and Gygax.

>"Arbitrary" doesn't mean "informed by experience"
Where did I say that? I'm arguing the exact opposite of that.
>>
>>78957107
>a wand that shoots death rays
Doesn't exist and for good reason. If you're including broken garbage like this in your game you can't complain about the rules not accommodating you.
>a spell that poisons you
Obviously save vs poison. You do know that spells only prompt a save vs spells when explicitly stated? Have you never had a player cast sleep in your life? Do you not play games?
>a poison that paralyzes you
Notice the categories are Death / Poison and Paralysis / Petrification. It's pretty obvious what's intended if you weren't being pedantic.
>>
>>78957182
So either you've now recreated the save categories (redundant) but made them obfuscated ( bad game design), increased character dependence on attributes (bad design) or you're making bonuses/penalties up on the fly ( bad game design )
>>
>>78957222
>There are dozens of monsters with unique abilities that come up more often during games than Dragons.
Post them.
inb4 a bunch of 2e nonsense
>>
>>78957222
I'm almost sure the Dragon Breath is a category because it was a saving throw category in Chainmail, where you wouldn't have an expansive number of monsters but rather a reduced number of unit types so having a detailed categorical list of every single save within the wargame system is handy.

>>78957256
Ironically, the spell "Power word: Kill" doesn't give neither a spell nor a death saving throw.

>>78957282
>obfuscated ( bad game design)
Do you tell your players if they succeed their hide in shadows roll?
>increased character dependence on attributes (bad design)
To be fair anything beyond OD&D does this too.
>>
>>78957256
Not only are the categories not the same between different systems and editions, but all of those are things that have showed up in multiple OSR modules before, and different modules use different ways of dealing with it (some require a save against poison, some against spell, some have no save, etc.) meaning there are multiple interpretations of the rule, like literally everything else in old-school D&D. Try looking up the meaning of pedantic, because it's literally you right now.
>>
>>78957282
If you're that worried about redundancy and balanced game design then maybe a newer edition is more to your liking. Playing old-school D&D just to stick to the rules by RAW is something that even the fucking designers would call you a retard for doing.
>>
>>78953830
Cool shit, anon. Keep em coming.
>>
File: ishygddt.jpg (43 KB, 250x250)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>78957282
>but made them obfuscated
>he doesn't roll behind his screen
>>
>>78957632
>He doesn't do all rolls for his PCs behind the screen so as to maintain their attention
>>
>>78957658
>He doesn't play solo and then give his players a write-up of how their characters did afterwards
>>
File: 1619899978182.jpg (217 KB, 720x516)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>78955456
Yes, it is slightly different if you don't use 20s always hit, 1s always miss. Otherwise it's exactly that.
>>
>>78957698
>He runs games
>He doesn't play inside his own head in a perfect dreamlike state where 100% of all content is engaged and absorbed with
>>
>>78957336
>>78957632
There's a difference between the players knowing their odds but not knowing if they succeeded, and not even knowing the odds to begin with.
>>
File: 1619900388452.jpg (104 KB, 720x295)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>78957703
For Character attacks, your THAC0 doesn't advance linearly, but you'll notice the numbers are all sequential for any given row.
>>
File: 1619900728842.jpg (56 KB, 720x194)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>78957788
And from Expert
>>
>Death Ray & Poison
Anything that kills you in one hit without having damage rolls associated with it
>Wands
Spells from a wand, crossbow, spear, or dart traps etc.
>Stone
Paralysis (of all sorts), turning to stone, getting squished by a big slab or boulder or other such object, falling into a pit trap (from being surprised and not reacting quick enough)
>Dragon Breath
Other than dragons breath, other non magic gaseous/flame like attacks fit here ie getting sprayed with something or running through dangerous flesh eating gas
>Spells
Spells cast by hand that don't fit into any category above
>>
>>78957752
You just tell them their odds before the roll, then? It's not like the d20/d6 odds are very clear for most people to understand completely. (If you have to roll under 13, can you mentally calculate your % chance to succeed? What about )
>>
>>78957879
>Anything that kills you in one hit without having damage rolls associated with it
Being instantly crushed too?
>Stone
>getting squished by a big slab or boulder or other such object
How does that not instantly kill you?
>falling into a pit trap (from being surprised and not reacting quick enough)
Turn to stone includes reaction rolls for traps?
>>
>>78957888
Ntayrt
Trips were wasted on you
Are you just being deliberately contratian? It is not difficult to know "13 is a little more likely than not," even ignoring just how easy it is to evaluate and people divide 6, 12, and 60, seemingly weird numbers, into smaller amounts every time they use a clock. Assuming percents are the only meaningful way to evaluate odds is just dishonest. Do you have any idea how long people used x:y or x-in-z to think about odds without caring about percents?
Not to mention you're just wrong to defend single save.
>>
Any good 1e Retroclones out there or is it best to get the reprints? I will be playing with individuals who are far less willing to parse through 30 year old D&D content (and Gygax's writing) than I am.
>>
File: 1607537791715.jpg (732 KB, 1437x1600)
732 KB
732 KB JPG
Could anyone take a break from arguing systems and give me a few lite systems and small adventures/dungeons to do a one shot with my family? I've already done maze rats and i'm looking for some new stuff to look at.
I really like roll tables and i'm not bothered about setting since I just make it up as I go.
>>
>>78958066
ToTSK unironically
B/X is small and complete
>>
>lite systems
No

>>78958044
Is best to get the original non-reprints
>>
>>78958043
>Assuming percents are the only meaningful way to evaluate odds is just dishonest
Never did that, but if you want absolute clarity (if that's important for you) it's objectively clearer for human brains to see percentages rather than having to do an extra mental step. The way we perceive random chance is a well studied phenomenon. Has nothing to do with what dice were used in TTRPG since their inception and clarity wasn't the reason they were used anyways.
>Not to mention you're just wrong to defend single save.
Not defending anything here, just following their own logic, if they care about letting your players know their odds you can tell them before you roll.
>>
>>78957879
Is a Hwacha volley an attack roll, a Dragon Breath save, several rolls or something else?
>>
>>78958143
>best to get the original non-reprints
Why?
>>
File: 1616276931053.png (539 KB, 736x536)
539 KB
539 KB PNG
>>78958139
I've done ToTSK.
I just spotted there's a lite folder in the trove tho.
>>
>>78958044
Assuming you don't want to shell out 300 dollars for the originals. OSRIC is a pretty complete reference to the most frequently used rules from 1e. It's missing psionics, bard and monk and many of the DMG minutiae like lycanthropy or red light tables.
>>
How fucked is Zak?
>>
>>78958371
Lite systems are generally not very good ano, but if you want to try go ahead. I don't think Basic is hard even for a normie
>>
>>78955467
Domains at War is split between 2 supplements: Campaigns and Battles.

Personally, I like the Campaigns book, but not the Battles book, which I find overly fiddly. The Campaigns book uses rules similar to BECMI's War Machine rules to resolve actual combat, and it's filled with some really cool rules for actually adjudicated raising armies, going on campaign, sieges, supply lines, etc.
>>
File: 1599571929615.jpg (273 KB, 797x1177)
273 KB
273 KB JPG
>>78958447
It does the business when youngest is 9 and oldest is 50.
>>
>>78958066
This list of adventures is tite, but they typically last more than one session so it depends on what you mean by oneshot.

If you want content for one 3-4 hour session I might suggest you just roll up a dungeon on Donjon or the like.

Either way, Moldvay Basic is the ruleset for you.
>>
>>78955641
The common house rule that fighters can cleave is also meant to accomplish something similar.
>>
>>78954309
I agree that low-level play can sometimes be a bit boring/frustrating because of how easy to miss it is. If you've only got a 40% chance to hit, the chances are greater than 1-in-8 that you're going to miss four times in a row, which could be most or all of a battle. It's a minor tweak, but you know how THAC0 in B/X usually improves 2 points at a time, but has that one 3 point jump (THAC0 19, 17, 14, 12, 10)? I boost the THAC0s below it by a single point, so that all improvements are 2 points, are lower-level characters a slightly better at hitting (THAC0 18, 16, 14, 12, 10). This is mainly helpful at the fringes, against monsters with particularly good ACs (an AC 2 acolyte or veteran, for instance, against whom a starting character would go from hitting 20% of the time to 25% of the time, increasing your hit probability by one quarter).

One issue with nerfing AC by 3 points is that later on, it can be come very difficult to miss. Going by the rules as written, a 13th level fighter with a +1 strength and a +3 sword is going to have an adjusted THAC0 of 6. That means he's going to hit a thief in +3 leather armor 95% of the time as it is. Nerf AC by 3 points, and shit's just ridiculous.

Also, it bears mentioning the reason why the chance to hit for starting characters is so low: your enemies will typically go down in one or two hits. To-hit is one of the biggest ways that D&D regulates how much damage per round a character does (magic weapons are the other), so that high-level characters are more effective than low-level ones (since they're fighting monsters with many more hit dice).
>>
>>78958160
There is nothing objectively clearer about a percent than any other ratio of a decently composite number other than familiarity.
As I mentioned, people know how to visualize parts of 60, 12, and 6 without even realizing it, because everyone has used a clock.
20 and 6 are both small enough that it might even be clearer in an intuitive sense than percents.
And why use a system where you have to tell them their odds when you could just, you know, use one where that's not obfuscated?
>>
>>78957256
Do you also use weapons vs armor tables? Or do you accept that sometimes it's easier to just use one simple method to resolve a situation?
>>
>>78954309
>>78958920
So a few ideas...

Here's one that'll send the grogs into conniptions, but I like the idea of using some sort of expendable resource like fate points to boost individual rolls (though I tend to like framing them as deriving from character ability, so something like "talent", "focus", "drive", "willpower" or "grit"). If you let somebody spend a point of whatever-you-want-to-call-it to boost a roll by 1 or 2 points after the fact (or twice that if spent before making the roll), that can be pretty handy. Yes, you can hit where you would otherwise have missed, but it comes at a price.

Another idea is prevent your chances of hitting from getting too ridiculous at high levels by not having your chances of hitting be the only way your character improves their attacks. If they get bonus damage or multiple attacks, then they can be as effective (or more) even with a worse THAC0.

Also, if you give characters an additional hit die, or let them survive decently into the negatives, then it's okay if they're being hit more often, and a similar thing goes for monsters. Or you could just be okay with orcs going down 25% faster.
>>
>>78958963
>20 and 6 are both small enough that it might even be clearer in an intuitive sense than percents
I'm not questioning that it isn't easy to read the dice and get a somewhat accurate idea of your chances, but I'm saying that rolling on a d20 or a d6 obfuscates the actual percentage of rolling X number, and that human brains get weirdly confident but wrong when gauging randomness and likelihoods of things happening.
If you have to roll under 12 and get a +2 to your roll, can you intuitively tell what percentage chance do you have of succeeding? What about 4-in-6 in the next roll? No sorry, make that roll OVER 4 and add a -1 to the roll. How about I tell you you need to roll under 34%? Under 75%?
It's not that unclear to be honest, just that if you want raw clarity without calculating roll over/under and percentages in your head the d100 has that going for it. It has things going against it too so I'm not shilling here for d100 OSR or whatever.

>use one where that's not obfuscated
Would it be obfuscated if in the rules/character sheet it is written down that you add your attribute bonus. Or that certain races have bonuses to context specific rolls? (Like dwarves having better saves vs poisons or thieves having better saves vs traps). Functionally it would be very similar but more open ended to context (Which is what people end up doing with the regular saving throws anyways, see anon trying to fit "Turn to stone" into "React fast enough to the pit trap" or "Anything that immobilizes you")
>>
>>78930299
Not looking to start a flame war but I am curious; Why is Black Hack considered not OSR? In my experience I've been able to run games very close to what I run using BX. I will admit I do houserule in some elements of BX/AD&D but generally speaking the abstraction of DESU keeps the game quick and firmly in the realm of rulings>rules as well and creative interaction.
>>
>>78959248
You're stuck to this idea that 100 is an inherently more "true" base than anything else. It's no more "true" than any other number. It's just common because it's a multiple of the number of digits in our counting system. People misjudge how "fair" a 60% likely outcome is just as they misjudge a 12:8 outcome or a 12-in-20 outcome. None of these is more "true" than the others.
>>
>>78955077
You fixed the XP requirements so it doesn't take just as many XP to go from level 1-to-2 as it does to go from 2-3. Nice! You also pick a nice place to round things off (30k for 6th level instead of 31k). Oh, and you're using a unified XP progression, which I wholeheartedly approve of.

I like fighters getting multiple attacks, but I'm not a big fan of them abruptly doubling their offensive power. I'd rather see something like them getting x2 attacks at 4th level (since you're doing this in level tiers), but at a worse attack throw number.

Thieves get boosted to d6 hit dice, which I like. Thief skills are simplified and significantly boosted, which I also like. A 50/50 chance of failure is still pretty shitty though, so I wouldn't mind seeing them jump up to 4-in-6 a little sooner (I wouldn't have an issue with it if 5-in-6 came sooner too). I'm not sure how you're handling something like "climb walls", since it normally has a much higher chance to succeed than the other skills, but you could easily boost it by letting people take the better of two thievery rolls.

All classes now progress in 3-level tiers. Well, it's consistent, which makes things easier. At that point though, in seems like one of the major points of tiers is gone, and maybe everything should progress incrementally instead.

Fighters have attack scores 2 better than anybody else to start off with. Given how limited the abilities of other classes are to begin with (a single spell, shitty thieving ability), I'm not sure this is strictly necessary, but it doesn't horribly offend me either. It makes starting fighters pretty sweet though. I'm a bit confused about the actual numbers though. How are they affected by somebody's AC? Hitting a heavily armored opponent 60% of the time at first level (before any bonuses are factored in) is really fucking generous, so I'm assuming the attack throw numbers are for less-armored folks.
>>
>>78957986
Being hit by a slab, boulder, or falling rocks usually is listed as damage under some older modules.
Turn to stone I use as paralysis as per basic too, and included paralysis by surprise (being paralyzed with fear / surprise etc)
>>
>>78955728
Save numbers aren't as carefully structured as people like to say. A class's chances to save vs. death might be the same as its chance to save vs. paralysis, or just one point worse. Yes, there's a general trend towards save vs. death being slightly easier than paralysis being moderately better than saves vs. generic spells, but I think you can represent this by giving a +2 bonus vs. deadly effects or ones that take people out like petrification. I don't think you really need wands or dragon breath categories at all, so that leaves you with 3 different categories and figuring out how to lump them together into effectively 2 (your normal save stat, and a category you get a bonus vs.), and I'd really just set the generic "spells" category as the base one, and give you a +2 bonus vs. everything else.
>>
>>78956689
>>78957459

Thanks! Honestly I'm kind of at a loss on what to post next week, what kind of content do anons want to see from a blog?
>>
>>78959519
To be honest, I'm unsure of the multiple attacks. I added the boost to thief skills at the same level as the attacks, so your suggestions would fit nicely.

>maybe everything should progress incrementally instead.
Maybe, but B/X as big boosts instead of incremental progress so I kept that.

>How are they affected by somebody's AC?
You add the AC to the difficulty. So if you hit on 9+ and the enemy has 6 armor, then you need to roll 15+
>>
>>78959457
>People misjudge how "fair" a 60% likely outcome is just as they misjudge a 12:8 outcome or a 12-in-20 outcome.
That's true.

>>78959589
Kind of strange with surprise rolls being a thing already. I get it's different as it's supposed to be 'shocked' but that doesn't seem to warrant the same weight as being petrified or as being crushed by rocks. (Also I just realized being paralyzed/turned to stone doesn't imply damage normally but rocks do, might take that into consideration?)
I think rocks or falling damage when it gets into the lethal range it should really be a death saving throw instead. Do they not die instantly if they succeed in their save, despite getting crushed by a boulder/falling really far down?
>>
>>78959519
>>78955077
I'm cool with single-category saves. Certainly something should be done to improve the ad hoc save categories that old school D&D uses. I do encourage some differentiation between deadly effects (probably including stuff like petrification) vs. everything else, but a simple +2 or +3 bonus would take care of that. I do notice that your saving throws for fighters are awfully nice starting out. Presumably monsters aren't using them as the basis for their saving throws, because that would make them obnoxiously hard to affect. Overall, I do like the idea of fighters having good saving throws, though this is another way that starting fighters are really nice compared to their comrades. A wizard at first level has only a bit more than 1/2 a fighter's hit points, a shitty AC that means he's probably being hit about twice as often, a worse attack throw, a worse saving throw, and a much worse weapon selection, with only a single spell to counterbalance things (admittedly, if that spell is Sleep, it's a nuclear bomb, but it's still one-and-done).

With all of that said, I don't know that I'm necessarily arguing for you to nerf starting fighters, and I guess you have boosted clerics (who get a spell at 1st level) and thieves (d6 hit dice and thieving that isn't abysmal). Magic-users are really the only class that hasn't gotten better (though they do level faster, so that's something). By the way, have you considered giving wizards some 0-level spells to give them more magic to do when starting out (even if it's very weak magic)?
>>
>>78959850
>Presumably monsters aren't using them as the basis
They aren't, I gave fighters +2 to saves and attacks as class feature. If it's too much I'll reduce it to +1.

>By the way, have you considered giving wizards some 0-level spells
I have, but that's a departure from B/X and I still have to think it through.
>>
>>78959726
>Maybe, but B/X as big boosts instead of incremental progress so I kept that.
Yeah, but B/X obviously uses its level tiers as a way of having some classes progress faster than others. The boosts are the same, but fighters get them every 3 levels, clerics and thieves every 4, and magic-users every 5. If everybody gets boosts every 3 levels, then that aspect is taken away. With that said, I don't have a big issue with the way you're doing things, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have structured things like that.

One thing to consider is all the classes getting better at exactly the same time, since your tiers are all the same size, and all the classes share the same XP progression. When entering the third tier (at level 7), casters are simultaneously getting access to a higher level of spells.

Another thing to consider is that it's comparatively boring to go up a level with the change being one more die of hit points. If you go incrementally, then you can arrange things so that there's almost always some other advantage, improving your saving throw, attack throw, number of attacks, or thievery (though the latter two already defy the tier format).

On the other side of things, having numbers progress in tiers does make them easier for people to parse.
>>
>>78959685
I'm sorry if you've posted this already (haven't gone through all of the posts just yet) but I'd like to seem some musings on your experience using different initiative systems, or something in that area, especially considering the name of the blog.
>>
>>78959726
>You add the AC to the difficulty. So if you hit on 9+ and the enemy has 6 armor, then you need to roll 15+
Hmm. Let's see... that means your starting attack stats for nonfighters are 1 point worse than in B/X. I would tend to lean the other way (towards improving starting stats a bit rather than making them a bit worse), just based on how frustrating it is to repeatedly miss, but it's not a major change.

I notice that most of your stats are odd numbers. Is this just how things worked out? I ask because I've been lead to believe that people find it slightly easier to do math with even numbers.

I notice that you kept the 3-point to-hit jump going into the third tier, but I've never understood why that was a thing in the first place. I don't see any reason why that tier, in particular needs to be a bigger jump than all the others, and it bears mentioning that later editions of Basic pared it back to the standard 2 point jump.

I also notice that you have saving throws mirroring the same 3-point jump, and I don't see the point in this either, and in this case, I'm not sure it mirrors what's done in B/X, at least any class other than magic-users (and it's magic-user's top tier in B/X, so that maybe makes them a bit different). No, scratch that. Clerics also get a bigger bum to their saves. So it's magic-users and clerics. But with fighters, dwarves, halflings and thieves, the gains are about the same (maybe one of the five saves goes up by three points instead of two, but otherwise...). That's not to say that you can't innovate, but I don't really understand the reason behind the change.

Also, it's kind of bothering me that the top level of these classes isn't 10, because that would be the point at which they enter a new tier (rather than having their top level be the last level in the tier they were already in). Then again, fighters get a third attack, thieves up their thievery skill, and clerics and wizards gain access to 5th level spells, so...
>>
>>78959782
I give them a chance to be creative about it if they succeed. Maybe they jump out of the way by a hairs breath. Maybe the boulder clips them and sends them tumbling to the side, scared out of their wits but miraculously untouched. Maybe they grab onto a ledge as they fall and scramble back up in a sheer rush of adrenaline etc. I reserve the surprise rolls for surprise in encounters for them and monsters. If they fail it, usually I roll for a large amount of damage (2-5d6 depending on rock/boulder size and severity) so it's not a total death sentence like save vs death would be. Sometimes they get lucky and just come out very bruised and tattered. It might not make perfect sense or be exactly by the book but that's how we've always played so it just makes sense for my long running table. And I guess that's the thing for early d&d- no two tables or DMs are gonna be alike in how they run the game. Sometimes I get the thought that for all the arguing in this thread about the "right" way to do things we all forget that od&d was just meant to be a guide for approximate play and that even arneson and gygax ran their games completely different from each other
>>
>>78960213
I like level 9 because it's where you stop getting more hit dice.
>>
>>78959726
>To be honest, I'm unsure of the multiple attacks.
I'll continue to plug something like in the pic. AD&D, of course, uses an intermediate 3/2 progression that reduces the abruptness of going straight from one attack per round to two. (Of course, it undermines that intermediacy a bit by putting it at the same time that the fighter improves his THAC0 by 2 point.) I've always thought AD&D's method was a bit clumsy to keep track of, but you can track it (and make it so you don't randomly get screwed by not being near somebody in the wrong round) by drawing one poker chip per round and cashing in two for an additional attack.
>>
>>78960265
If you made 10 your new top level, you'd clearly want to have classes get 10 hit dice rather than giving them +1 or +2 for a single level. It would maybe be the difference of a hit point or two overall, so not a big difference. But there is an aesthetic argument for confining the levels to the single digits (then again, I think there's also an aesthetic argument for making the top level 10). But like I said, the classes are all getting something at their top levels. It's just that if there are tiers, I reflexively expect the top level to represent entry into a new tier. But that's also more aesthetic than it is mechanically important.
>>
>>78934033
>>78934818
Looking at the proposed changes/additions, I think it's a valid basis for a whole new edition, instead of the eratta'd reprint that was originally planned. I only pirated 2e, so I'll probably drop funds to get a proper copy this time, but I can definitely understand if someone who might have actually bought 2e while it was in print might be salty about a new release this soon.
>>
>>78958322
So your players don't run into 7 HD dwarves
>>
>>78960581
maybe its a dwarven high-king?
>>
>>78955467
The quick start is good the campaign stuff is detailed, the battle book is yet another wargame.
>>
File: Dragonriders-of-Pern.jpg (558 KB, 1600x1200)
558 KB
558 KB JPG
>>78959685
Whatever you are good at, whatever really has your attention, whatever you find yourself thinking about over and over when washing the dishes, walking the dog, taking a shower, etc. Don't force it and shovel out shit.
>>
>>78960606
24 dwarven high kings?
In the first level of the dungeon?
Localized entirely within a 40 x 40 chamber?
>>
>>78960826
Yes.
>>
>>78960855
May I surprise them?
>>
>>78960866
No.
>>
>>78960826
We all know it's the DM's job to make sense of the dice results. Or to know when to scrap said results and roll again. That's RAW, baby
>>
File: zenopus.jpg (72 KB, 542x521)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>78958066
The sample dungeon in Holmes basic is very good. I respectfully submit that it should be included in the Useful Intro Adventures doc at >>78958687 should the editor decide to update that list in the future.
>>
What are some good modules like b2 and b10, that come with the surrounding wilderness? I like them as a starting point for populating the area.
>>
How can I discourage my players from nuking the first thing they encounter with everything they have then immediately returning to town/camp to "reload" their spells and shit?
>>
How do you build a megadungeon for roll20 even? Just spit out donjon maps and link them together?
>>
>>78962046
They'll never get anywhere if they do this since the dungeon shouldn't be as they left it when they come back. If they're going into one room, looting, and going away, then the astronomically slow leveling is its own punishment
>>
>>78962093
>the astronomically slow leveling is its own punishment
I'm thinking about really driving this home by house-ruling that returning to town means ending the session. You want to cut the expedition short and bail? No problem, see you guys next week!
>>
>>78962343
Talk to them first. If you do go through with this make sure to wean them off of it later once they start playing like big boys. Tactical retreats can be valid.
>>
>>78962343
i would stop playing with you if you did this, and i expect that's probably what your players will do too. there is literally nothing wrong with going back to town to rest up, it's an intended part of the game. this is just masochistic autism.
>>
>>78962403
*sadistic, fuck
>>
>>78962046
Deadlier wilderness encounters. If these clowns are going back and forth to the dungeon after a 5-minute work day the local manticore will take notice eventually and swoop out of the sky on one of their trips back to town.
Also, as anon above said, if they’re blowing their load and fucking off after every encounter they’re not collecting loot and XP and every trip through the wilderness is depleting resources they will not be able to replenish because they have no gold.
If all this sounds too long term then just lock them in with a rockslide, door that needs a key, or drop them down a level or two with a slide trap. It’s cheesy but D&D is a cheesy game.
>>
>>78962046
>>78962343
bro just talk to them what the hell
you're the DM but you also have human rights
>>
>>78962343
I'm not trying to do the epic attack you personally thing here but that seems incredibly unfun and tedious, and I don't think I'd wanna play with someone who ran games like that. Why do you think that is a good idea?
>>
>>78962396
>>78962458
Of course, I'm not going to suddenly spring this on them as a gotcha, but I'm going to talk to them about making each session its own expedition to the dungeon because it's taxing on me as a DM to have to come up with the consequences of their previous expeditions on the fly like this multiple times a session.

>>78962403
>>78962508
I'm not talking about camping outside the dungeon, I'm talking about making the whole trek back-and-forth from civilization multiple times a session, to keep all spells and HP topped off in every encounter. I know the counter to this is to "have the dungeon react" to this, but realistically it's really taxing on the DM to expect this kind of on-the-fly dungeon restocking and cause-and-consequence improv.
>>
>>78962419
I think that might be it, I might just not be paying enough attention to resource management and wilderness encounters, making going back to town a much easier decision than it should.
>>
>>78961083
Seconded
>>
>>78962623
Rations, torches, and oil add up. It requires some accounting on the DMs part but that accounting is one of the tools to enforce the gameplay loop. Expeditions have to be succesful on some scale to fund the next expedition. If the party keeps taking pleasure cruises where they’re not at any real risk they won’t reap any meaningful rewards.
It’s important to introduce hard decisions. Dropping hints about greater rewards, and introducing obvious portals to new layers of the dungeon. Curiosity is a powerful driver. Time limits are a useful tool also but that runs the risk of becoming story-driven which isn’t a great pairing with the early game.
>>
>>78962584
What restocking rules are you using? If you just use the normal dungeon sticking chart and roll on your wandering monster table to determine what comes up when you roll "monster" or "monster+treasure", you can restock really quickly. Especially if you already have some traps and pre-rolled or decided to make a couple extra that thematically work with the dungeon.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.