[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]


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.

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

>Need a starter dungeon? Here's a curated collection:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/80674659/#80722465

>Previous thread: >>81680983

Thread Question: How do you like your evil mooks and goons? Evil humans? Hellpit aberrations? Goofy troublemakers? Morloks? Frazetta apemen?
>>
Want to contribute to the thread but don't know where to start? Roll 1d10 (dice+1d10 in the "options" field) on the table below!
Tag your post with [OC] if you want it archived at osrgcontent.blogspot.com.

>1. Make a spell
>2. Make a monster
>3. Make a dungeon setpiece
>4. Make a wilderness setpiece
>5. Make a city setpiece
>6. Make a magic item
>7. Make a class, race, or race-as-class
>8. Make a 4-10 room dungeon
>9. Make a trap.
>10. Roll 2d10 and combine
>>
File: the war on bait.jpg (142 KB, 728x410)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
Reminder to not reply to bait or shitposts, instead report and hide them.
>>
Firearms.

They are easy to implement mechanically: just use them as crossbows. Situationally, they have logistical pros and cons. But; even though they do not break the game by the rules, do they break the "magic" thematically? what do you think?

>>81716630
tq: last I used were evil hobbits
>>
>>81716707
I think they're fine depending on setting. I'd say I prefer earlier firearm designs to later, and I'd like them especially in a more wacky Blackmoor-y setting.
>>
File: 1631455952759.jpg (262 KB, 1280x1035)
262 KB
262 KB JPG
Can anybody gimme the downlow on the Blackmoore setting? Specifically, it's more gonzo elements. Scifi n such. In most places I've checked there wasn't much mention of it
>>
Anyone read though Arden vol?
>>
>>81716881
If we're talking the actual Blackmoor game, there was tons of ancient technology possibly including robots, all magic was via alchemy (you had to have spells as potions and throw them down, the bad guy of the setting was known for mass-producing them of a poor quality), and I'm pretty sure there were aliens abound. Also of course, the players were all teleported into the setting via magic means.
>>
what value does Death Frost Doom have to a GM?
>>
>>81716707
I prefer to mechanically distinguish crossbows and firearms, but that's just personal preference.
Firearms get +4 to hit, handguns deal 1d8, rifles deal 1d10 and have greater range.
This is pretty OP, but I balance them by giving them a chance to jam or explode. Also bullets are stupid expensive and irretrievable. Plus you got the usual noise factor.

As for your question "do they break the 'magic' thematically," my answer is no. The way to circumvent the idiosyncratic feel is to make guns just super exotic and bizarre. That way, they seem more like wondrous implements or ancient artifacts. I don't think you need to go over-the-top with the weirdness factor, but just give them some bizarre features, like the barrel is shaped like a dragon's mouth and covered in gold leaf, or the firing mechanism is made out of mithril and brimstone.
>>
File: mewow.jpg (101 KB, 757x782)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
Is this guy incapable of having an erection unless he gets into a weeks long, time-wasting quagmire of an argument? Holy shit, actually begging people to argue with you "correctly".

Anyway, that's enough off topic:

I'm doing a Halloween one-off, and I wanted to do a horror adventure from the OSR line. I'm currently tied between Forgive Us and Death Frost Doom (I just happen to have these already). Which one is spookier and specifically more lovecraftian. I feel like FU is the better choice since it doesn't have a shitload of retarded extra fluff in but you let me know.
>>
>>81717105
I'm running for a group of newbies this Friday. These are people who have barely been exposed to D&D, let alone old-school play. They don't even know what Critical Role is. They just knew I was very interested in D&D and asked if I could "run a couple games" for them.

At first I was just going to run the first few floors of my megadungeon. But then I thought, "what's the point?" I've run this thing so many times, and these people don't really care about D&D. We can play the dungeon, have some fn, and then go on with the rest of our lives. Appealing, to be sure, but so what. I'd rather give these people an experience they're never going to fucking forget.

I'm going to run them through Death Frost Doom. I'm going to play it completely straight. I am a small, insignificant worm, and this is my way of futilely lashing back at the grim, uncaring world that has beaten me into the dirt every day of my life. I will send these people to hell.
>>
File: Orcs & Trolls.jpg (324 KB, 700x931)
324 KB
324 KB JPG
>>81716630
>Thread Question: How do you like your evil mooks and goons? Evil humans? Hellpit aberrations? Goofy troublemakers? Morloks? Frazetta apemen?
"Muppets through a Sinister Lens" is one of my more fond takes on handling Monstrous Humanoids, as it's an easy way to be able to adjust the tone of a game while still being reasonably consistent
>>
File: Balrogs & Dragons.jpg (204 KB, 700x931)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>81717593
works well with other types of monster too
>>
File: Gothmog.jpg (287 KB, 700x931)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>>81717611
>>
>>81716630
Basically like the punks, drug addicts and low rent criminals I've been around.
>Lazy, self interested, unusually literate and violent compared to other folk,and capable of great cunning but poor long term planning
>>81716707
>do they break the "magic" thematically? what do you think?
Having had firearms in the last 4 campaigns I've ran, not in my experience. The only people I have ever encountered getting autistic about immersion or world building are posters here.
>>81717105
Minimal. A solid 'what not to do except in very specific edge cases' like a con, or as a con like >>81717261 the poor bastard.
>>
>>81717184
I ran a reskinned Forgive Us ages ago and had a good time. The only tricky part was the secret entrance to the lower section not being well telegraphed but ymmv.
>>
>>81717593
Can you give me examples of how the "muppets through a sinister lens" idea might be implemented in a game?
>>
>>81718161
NTAYRT but aren't the Skesis from Dark Crystal just that?
>>
>>81718161
And the goblins from Labyrinth.
>>
>>81719156
It's not OSR unless the Goblin King sings "Dance, Magic"
>>
>>81719156
I forgot the Land of Gorch from early Saturday Night Live (but everyone does anyway)

>>81719286
Obviously
>>
>>81715916
Where is this from? Hard to answer what the deal is if we don't know the context.
>>
>>81716630
Frazetta apemen. I consider them Monsters because they are too far gone to be reasoned with beyond appealing to their desires (food/treasure). They are incapable of honour or loyalty, practically subhuman since they lack any of the values that define us as such.
>>
>>81716881
Besides what the other guy mentioned, the main bad guy of the game, the Egg of Coot, apparently appeared in its throne room as or inside a tank. It was unknown what was the Egg's real form, IIRC. Also, The Temple of the Frog scenario features as its end boss a guy who's basically a Star Trek villain, with demigod-tier powers that are entirely due to his space tech. (IIRC this was somehow connected to a different wargame campaign they were playing, with Trek space battles?)
>>
>>81716630
Frazetta Subhumans are top tier. Hard to comprehend sometimes that he just invented those and they didn't actually exist in any pulp story. They're so iconic to me.

In practice in a game I like variety, though. Evil humans are always great, very useful and versatile; retarded but also sneaky goblins are excellent, Helvéczia's actual devils are a fantastic addition to my repertoire.
>>
File: cool_miniatures.jpg (1.67 MB, 2280x1528)
1.67 MB
1.67 MB JPG
Do you guys ever use a battle map for combat? Or exploration? I found that it helped people focus. But maybe my group just has autism. Most OSR systems don't seem to lend thmselves to maneuvering on a grid, and the battles don't tend to last long enough for maneuvering to be that important.
>>
>>81716630
I really like to utilize evil humans/elves. I take my cues from Howard, Smith and Moorcock.
My dungeons are either melnibobean (elven) ruins of decadent wicked empires OR Clark Ashton Smith evil wizard lairs with lots of magical fuckery and hidden riches behind all the fuckery.
Magic is synonymous with chaos and evil in my campaign for the most part. Elves are a dying race of Amoral holier-than-thou fuckwits who are heirs to a long dead empire rife with hedonism and degeneracy, while my men are scumbags and brigands, my dwarves are clinging on to the memory of the world they built before it was skullfucked and hobbits are just the merchant caste of men.
The humanoid monsters act like men but worse because they are intrinsically incapable of building a society, so they gather round the evil men and the degenerate debutantes and do their bidding. They serve no purpose other than destruction and serving as slaves to their betters, who are almost always powerful wizards and necromancers
>>
>>81720055
I use a chess board and the pieces as an improvised battle map as needed. The pieces are easy to explain as archetypes and the players seem to enjoy picking which piece they are. I had a few different sorts of pieces for a while but it seems faster/just as effective to use one set consistently.
I've had players make their own map on a dry erase battle mat, which was pretty cool to see and we used the chess pieces on it because they made a thing and I wanted to encourage mapping.
>>
How much does a torch weigh in B/X? It seems like an important thing to know given a focus on resource management, but as far as I can tell, there is no weight given. AD&D has them at 3 pounds, I believe, while new school D&D puts them at 1.
>>
>>81716707
I usually only have one choice of firearm if I run anything analogous to 14th/15th century which is the arquebus (or Harquebus if you wanna be fantasy for no reason).

I treat it like a spell, as in you need to declare you’re going to use it after Initiative has been rolled but before the first character takes their turn. Deals big damage, usually 2d6 or 3d4, treats all AC as 15 or less, but backfires on a Natural 1 and can only be used every 3rd turn (basically a 2 turn reload). If you get interrupted before you can shoot you miss your chance. You can technically have the match cord lit ahead of time, which lets you act at the top of initiative (provided you’re not surprised), but it’s obviously smoking and is a source of weak light.

Basically does big damage and punches armour, but is slow to use and might blow up in your face.
>>
>>81720186
Torches fall under the 80-coin miscellaneous item category, IIRC.
>>
>>81716707
I don't generally care for magic in modern day settings. Magic in a medieval-ish fantasy setting is okay because of the separation it has from the world I live in. It's easier for me to accept the mythical reality. Astrology is retarded shit in real life, but it's fine when you're dealing with castles and shit. Primitive guns, for me, start to bridge the gap between mythical reality and our modern, real, rational one. And then I start applying reason to all the mystic shit I just suspended my belief for before. The illogic of the fantasy setting starts to bother me just as people who believe in astrology in real life do.

Guns also create problems in terms of stasis and the balance of different factions. Goblins, gnolls, elves, dwarves and whatnot... I'm okay with them all having swords and shit, but it really doesn't make much sense to me that they'd be at the same level of development when it comes to guns (we're dealing with umpteen races that are vastly more different from each other than European nations were from each other during the Late Middle Ages), and the guns should be destabilizing. And once you've introduced guns, the technology should be developing. Sure, it took a while in real life for firearms to get a lot better, but with all the drastically different races, and the crazy interactions between them, not to mention magic and so forth, guns should logically develop much faster.

So yeah, guns ruin the mood for me.
>>
>>81720550
Yes, but that doesn't really work well for something that is being expended as you use it. The idea that your load is the same after using up 10 torches is kind of silly, and goes against resource management.
>>
>>81720186
Don't know about B/X, but the Rules Cyclopedia has them listed at 20 coins apiece, so 2 lbs. Seems reasonable to me although I wonder if it's not heavier than realistic, like most of the equipment weights are.
>>
>>81717184
DFD is pretty long for a one shot. I think we had 3 or 4 sessions in it.You should cut out the whole 1st act I guess.
>>
>>81720055
Positioning is important. Attacking from behind, focus firing and protecting weak party members. I wouldn't bother in easy or small fights.
>>
>>81720614
Correct. Made the same point 2 threads ago. B/X encumbrance sadly is lacking. You can look into Mentzer Expert set, there adventuring gear weight is listed. The disadvantage is heavy bookkeeping. Alternatives are slot based systems like LotFP or Delta's stone system.
>>
File: download (3).png (9 KB, 253x199)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
You guys have convinced me that 3LBB is true D&D.
The freedom to make referee rulings and to adjudicate situations logically is so liberating.
I don't have to be consistent. I'm not beholden to mechanics I dislike.
Example: my party was exploring some ruin and came upon a chest in a secret cubby that was locked. The fighting man said he wanted to pick the lock, so I asked what his intelligence was, he said 13, so I rolled 2d6 and a d4 and said "it would take you about an hour to pick the lock because you aren't familiar with the particular mechanism." I picked the lower of the two d6 and added the d4 to the time.
At another point in the dungeon, the magic user wanted to pick a lock that was old and rusty and he has a 14 intelligence, so I just ruled that so long as he had the right equipment it would take 10 minutes.
My players encountered a pit trap and decided to lay their poles across it to form a bridge. I ruled it would take longer for the lower dexterity guys and also ruled that the guys in heavy armor had a 1 in 6 chance of falling or breaking the poles because of their weight.
As the referee I can just do shit dependent on the situation and most of the time it can be logically sorted out by just talking and clarifying, and if it can't, I can make it take time or just give it an x in 6 chance of working based on how reasonable I think it is.
Seriously thank you guys
>>
>>81721211
So every professor is able to pick locks, because their INT is high?
In my game the Fighter and M-U would have to spend favors, time and money at a thieves guild to even have a chance.
>>
>>81721724
Well he’s not playing your game, he’s playing his own, and making rulings on the fly. Good on him.
>>
>>81721790
>Good on him.
Not on his players, if his rulings suck.
>>
>>81721831
How would you be able to tell that and why would you care? You don't play with his group. He does. You play with your group.
As long as it tracks for everyone involved in the actual game in question, your personal opinions on it (or alternative and unprompted solutions) are completely irrelevant.
>>
>>81721979
You think anyone can pick a lock without training?
>>
>>81722066
Successfully? No. But neither can one successfully win a swordfight without training or cast a spell. And all characters of a class are assumed to possess some degree of ability with their respective class abilities at the start.
Your solution doesn't really make sense to me either, by the way, as it'd make lockpicking some weird riddle of steel shit that Thieves' guilds would guard extremely closely and especially not give away for a few favors and some donations. I mean seriously, the implication you've created is a world filled with locked doors and chests that a miniscule subset of the population possesses the knowledge to open (even among people assumed to be adventurers, dungeon delvers, and graverobbers by trade).
But if it works for you and your players, my opinion doesn't matter. And there's my point.
>>
>>81722066
Perhaps this is a game without Thiefs? I could imagine this working if the players just paid for what equipment they had. It's kind of "gamey" but empowering players that way can be good.
>>
>>81721211
Good form, Anon! Yes, the complexity of stuff like "this lock is of an antiquated and fairly well known type, your intelligence could cope with it comparatively well" has to be handled with endless modifiers and skill values if one wants to "mechanize" it: fiddly and slow. Referee judgment, adjudication, common sense, within the framework of solid base rules, is the superior method: neither freeform nor a clunky trap. I'm glad we could help you reach this level.

>>81721724
>>81721831
>>81722066
>salty homosexual objects to true D&D
Bad form.
>>
>>81722188
The implications the most plausible, when we're speaking of pseudo middle ages.
>I mean seriously, the implication you've created is a world filled with locked doors and chests that a miniscule subset of the population possesses the knowledge to open
Yeah, you could call those keyholders. And we're not talking about generally opening, but picking. There are other forms of opening locks.
>>
>>81717081
>>81719999
Cool! Thanks for the info.
>>
>>81722339
Sounds dumb to me. Fine for your table, if that's your bag, but sounds dumb to me. Which, for the second time now, is my point here.
LBB is not about a standardized one-solution-fits-all approach to D&D. It's about filling in the blanks as you please and as fits the needs/tastes of your group. Which the original anon is clearly doing, and you're doing. The rest, unless invited, is chestbeating over how your homemade puzzle pieces look better than his.
>>
>>81722408
>Sounds dumb to me. Fine for your table, if that's your bag, but sounds dumb to me. Which, for the second time now, is my point here.
Yes, that's my point too. There are good rules and dumb rules. You say it yourself. You're free to call my rule dumb, that picklocking doesn't work without training.
>>
>>81722066
Its actually super easy to pick most commercially available locks, even today. A lock made pre 1900, unless made by a master craftsman who only worked on locks and thus produced super special weird fucking locks that involve a forestroke, quarter turn right, pull back, full turn left, and push forward to unlock, then it should be fairly easy to unlock.
>>
>>81720453
That's a pretty cool rule
>>
>>81720055
Personally I run C&C for this reason because it's basically the perfect marriage of old school D&D and 3.5 grid-based tactical combat which I enjoy
>>
>>81717736
>Lazy, self interested, unusually literate and violent compared to other folk,and capable of great cunning but poor long term planning
TIL I'm a pacifist mook
>>
While scanning through a Judges Guild module called "Witches Court Marshes", I found a series of tables describing random trees and the qualities they might have. I'm curious as to what some of them might be. Or rather, what conclusion someone might be led to about the trees. For example:
What is a "Tree of The Universe"? or a "Tree of High Sorcery"?
>>
Help! The cleric used turn undead on a ghoul that was engaged in a melee with 3 pcs. He succeeds but do the party get free round of attacks since the undead abrutly runs away? i'm playing ad&d 2e
>>
For those who like using skills: Which skills you use? I find some in LOTFP to be redundant

-Climbing
-Searching absorbs Find Traps, altough im not really sure of having it as an incremental skill. more than 3 in 6 searching for secret doors or traps seems like a lot of chance
-Foraging and Hunting
-Languages work as number of extra languages known, decided during play as the languages appear.
-Sneak Attack is weird to have as skill but doesnt break anything as it is
- Stealth absorbs Sleight of Hand
-Tinkering

What I would add is
-Medicine (the capacity of treating wounds seems a very useful skill to have in an adventure)
-Knowledge of X (player chooses during adventure, so they can get information about X topic relevant to the situation they are in. You are stuck with that choice from now on, so you have to weight the decision)

What do you use? any more? any less?
>>
>>81722876
Correct, it drops its defence and turns heel to run. Everyone engaged in melee with it each get to attack it at the number of attacks they normally get each turn, against its AC likely without shield or Dex bonuses (depending on positioning). If it doesn't die, it moves its full movement away from the Cleric.
>>
File: map sample.png (554 KB, 1714x854)
554 KB
554 KB PNG
For the Anon that asked the other thread, here's a sample of my cavernous hot spring dungeon. Only got a few more rooms to fill out and it'll be good to go for the session!
>>
>>81723615
Looks pretty fuckin linear

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/jaquaying-the-dungeon
>>
>>81723684
I’m quite aware, my players are bull headed and don’t care for twists and turns; much less alternative paths. Saves time and a headache from their whining on my end. Probably will add some more secret doors though to give them some short cuts in the end.
>>
Help me get out of the mess I've got into.

In my setting, recovering parts of monsters is a common source of money, as there is a guild of alchemists who pay good money for them.

So the players have been storing lots of monsterpieces (the liquid dead body of a doppleganger which is probably very valuable, a roc feather which is probably not, etc)

1. I need some fair way to assign GP values to that shit

2. Should I come up with a way for PCs to approximately appraise the things before they carry them to Alchemist town?

3. Would you make it so some of the materials are dangerous to carry?

Im thinking on making a "taxidermy" skill or something in which the characters can roll to see if they know if doppleganger fluids are dangerous, valuable or whatever on a succesful roll.

But Is the only way to do this to have a premade great table of all possible monsterparts with specified dangers and prices, or is there an easiest way to do this?

tldr I made something because seemed a wonderful idea but now I see it requires lots of work
>>
>>81723905
ACKS has this all worked out in its Lairs & Encounters book. GP value derived from Experience value, it has a Proficiency system that comes into play regarding the identification of valuable parts and uses big, breakable, alchemically sealed clay urns that prevent the dissipation of magical properties to make transport more interesting. It also has a premade table of almost every classic monster and the spells/magical effects they can be used for, as well as guidelines for other monsters.
>>
File: Shifty apes.jpg (388 KB, 680x938)
388 KB
388 KB JPG
Are there any monsters/types of monsters you dislike using?
>>
>>81722953
I use the LotFP skills as is, and they all come up from time to time. You can totally change them up as you'd like, but I haven't really felt the need to.
If you're interested in an "official" healing skill, there's one in the back of Eldritch Cock along with the other test rules. I didn't care for it, but it's pay-what-you-want on drivethru, so have a look if you're interested. There's a few other skills too, but I can't remember any other than I think Leadership.
>>
>>81724121
the fuck. Thank you a lot!
>>
>>81723615
How do you create maps like that?
>>
>>81724205
did you felt that search and stealth too broken at 5/6? a thief has to be like level 10 to get to that efficiency in normal BX
>>
>>81723615
Ahh, that was me. Looking beautiful!
>>
>>81724308
Not really. I don't call for checks if it's obvious that they do/don't get spotted. Without some form of concealment, they'll get spotted. With shitty cover like a bush or dark shadows, that's a check. Sneaking in front of a guard, automatic fail. Sneaking behind a guard, check. Works fine.
And having one guy succeed on sneaking around most of the time if he's not an idiot doesn't really hurt the game. They're not gonna skip all the guards protecting THE ORB or the King or whatever, since they'll be properly guarded.
Lone sentries are practically dead meat though, but that's fair, they kind of ought to be.
>>
>>81721211
Congratulations lad.
>>
>>81723905
>hey I decided to half-ass something because I'm lazy now I'm too lazy to fix it pls halp
No.
>>
File: 1610584883234.jpg (327 KB, 1074x1513)
327 KB
327 KB JPG
I may use this as my custom B/X cover, any other suggestions?
>>
>>81722231
3LBBs didn't have a thief, so you're absolutely right.
I don't think it's gamey, however. If we assume that the sort of people who go crypt diving to get rich quick have a vague idea of what they are doing, adjudication the situation by making it take more or less time has the same sorts of risk/reward set ups as a skill system (time eats torches, forces rest, forces wandering monster checks and might not have a reward at the end)
The benefit of individual adjudication is that the players can stay immersed in the dungeon without glancing at what their character can do or rolling dice.
Idk about you but numbers don't compute into action in my brain. Action computes as action. To me at least, it feels less gamey to just let players do stuff (within logical reasonable parameters) than it does to ask them to roll dice.
>>
>>81722442
>there are good rules and there are dumb rules
Right, but what's good and what dumb is entirely subjective based on what table you're at. Can we get to the part where you understand what I'm saying an stop arguing past it now just for the sake of argument?
>>
File: tracker example.jpg (231 KB, 1236x1600)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
Do you guys use a session tracker template?
>>
>>81723905
>But Is the only way to do this to have a premade great table of all possible monsterparts with specified dangers and prices, or is there an easiest way to do this?
Yeah, just decide the first time a monster comes up whether you want its parts to be a big score/whether it makes sense for the parts to be valuable. Then write that down.

You clearly already have a sense that liquid doppelganger is more valuable than roc feathers in spite of the roc being a far tougher opponent, and I'm sure that extends to an intuition about skeleton or dragon parts, the phylactery of dread sorceries which kept a lich alive, goblin corpses etc. Just do the work as it comes up, don't sit there working your ass off in advance. Play long enough and you'll have that table, or close enough that finishing it isn't onerous. Then you can post it ITT or put it in your homebrew or whatever.
>>
>>81723905
IIRC hacklopedia if beasts has sections on what monster parts are useful
>>
So if I'm going to be running Swords and Wizardry for the first time in a few weeks. If I reflavor the 10' grid as 5' squares, how much would this change? The reason for doing this is to give spears and polearms 10' of reach whereas normal weapons would be 5'.
>>
>>81726347
>changing a game you've never played for a problem that only exists as a concept in your head while also being too lazy to analyze the changes yourself
Gygax's Fence claims another
>>
>>81726347
Depends on how you've been running combat. I've seen solid arguments that 10' squares are actually based on the presumption that combat will take place within a single square, rather than between two adjacent squares.
>>
>>81726347
The 10' grid is for your map only, not any table combat map. Gygax recommends using 3x3 squares on the battlemap for each 10' square on the dungeon map.

>The reason for doing this is to give spears and polearms 10' of reach whereas normal weapons would be 5'.
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would changing the scale alter the length of the weapons? Completely absurd motivation.


Anyway, Anon is also right that in general you shouldn't fuck with the game before you understand it unless you *want* to trip yourself up, but in this case it seems like just a misunderstanding of the rules, so.
>>
>>81725611
>Validity is subjective
Is it also subjective what counts as OSR, when rules are subjective as a whole?
No? Right. Validity = intersubjective understanding. And "inter" doesn't stop at the end of the table. You've got a brainlet concept of relativity.

Go ahead Jannie, ban me for not agreeing with me.
>>
>>81726512
>This makes absolutely no sense. Why would changing the scale alter the length of the weapons? Completely absurd motivation.
So if a character and monster can engage in melee at 10ft distance. How else am I supposed to interperate that?
>>
File: napoleonic.jpg (123 KB, 1200x488)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>81716707
Yeah I fucking love guns. I made them a die step stronger than crossbows and they're balanced by the way they put entire dungeon levels on alert. I've been running games with powder era tech and it all just works. Fighting monsters with side based initiative and Napoleonic tactics are is fucking saucy.
>>
Is there at least a way to give spears some kind of advantage? Or are heros just supposed to use swords because spears are cringe?
>>
>>81726534
>validity
Who mentioned validity? I'm saying my table agrees our houserules are good for our table. Your table agrees on your houserules. There is no grander objective sense of right and wrong either of us must appeal to.
>OSR isn't subjective
Okay? And that has to do with our discussion with house rules how? My table doesn't include the entirety of the OSR playerbase. Its 6-8 people who all agree my houserules work for them. Its intersection of subjective understanding in the only context that actually matter: the people I play with.
The rest, like I've already said, is chestbeating that your homemade puzzle pieces are better than the other guy (and believe me, yours are as bad if not worse than the other guys).
And again, rather than engaging with my argument (being that your opinion on someone elses tablerules for things not covered by the RAW are entirely irrelevant because you don't play with them), you're arguing past it with disingenuous false equivalencies about what constitutes OSR and why.
You don't have anything meaningful to say, you just want to argue. Just cop to it, so I can rightfully call you a faggot and ignore you.
>>
>>81725710
I generally jot the useful stuff down in a .txt file. But your way seems like good inspiration
>>
>>81726851
I make it so:
1. Spears can hit from '10 instead of just '5
2. They can deal double damage if set against a charge (Charge for me meaning a character moved at least 20' towards them)
>>
>>81726987
>'10 instead of just '5
That's what I'm trying to do. how do I do that?
>>
Is it best to remove irrelevant rumours from tables? Stuff like 'There is a pig in the village that will grant a wish if you pat its head' is cute but could easily waste dungeon time.
>>
>>81727052
Yeah, especially if those rumors are instead centered around the hubtown, since there's ideally not supposed to be interesting shit there. All the interesting shit is in the wilderness or the dungeon.
>>
>>81727078
Why? And as a follow up question - so what?
>>
>>81727011
uh. They just .. can?
Like, on a battle mat it would be 'hit from 2 squares away instead from adjacent'.
>>
>>81726851
AD&D has reach and space required weapon stats, which make spears more viable in tight, long corridors. It also gives them the ability to attack from the second rank, facing, flanking, and frontage rules, all which give them tactical advantage in combat. If your real issue is that you want to make spears more attractive in combat, you could take a look at that.

Also AD&D 1e has weapon vs AC modifiers, which makes certain polearms more effective against certain armors, if you feel like going full autismo.
>>
>>81727078
Then you also get rumours like

>A ring of magical stone monoliths lies deep within the Shattered Lands

If the Shattered Lands are 100 miles away you better hope you have a hex map ready.
>>
>>81727011
https://fafastgaming.blogspot.com/2020/07/thoughts-on-grid-squares.html
>>
File: spear pot.jpg (54 KB, 307x539)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>81727168
Damn, i'd accidentally houseruled it that spears attacked in ranks in Basic, guess I was thinking of LOTR/WHFB.
>>
>>81727078
“Rumors”
Players want information about the dungeon. Indeed they should, walking into a dungeon blindly is worse than suicide, it is boring. You as the DM know everything about the dungeon, so the players will find ways to subtly interrogate you about it. Make it easy on yourself and have NPCs simply tell the players what they can expect, but you don’t want to give the game completely away so you’ll obfuscate them with lies and riddles.
Don’t waste rumors on meaningless fluff, or your players will get bored with rumors too.
>>
>>81718161
Nayrt but I believe what I do is something along those lines: mooks (particularly goblins and kobolds) I play as kind of goofy and juvenile but also kind of grotesque and sinister. They're like incredibly cruel, sadistic toddlers. A lot of that is conveyed not only in how they treat the players but also how they treat each other. A classic scene I've used for a couple of different groups is: party walks in on a bunch of goblins feasting on gizzards and carrion at a big table. All of the goblins are ravenously devouring the food, just shoveling it into their mouth and barely taking the time to chew, blood stringy sinews just dribbling down their chins. Belching, chewing with their mouths open, making dirty jokes, etc. A goblins tries to snag a bit of food from one sitting next to him, but the other goblin catches him. He slams his head down onto the table, breaking his nose with a loud crunch, and then pins his ear to the table with an oversized fork. The goblins all laugh and laugh at their whimpering comrade until they notice the party.
>>
>>81727135
>Why
Because rumors in town encourages your players to stay in town.
>So what
Because OSR is predicated on the acquisition of wealth for advancement, primarily from exploring dungeons. If money can reasonably be made in town, why would they ever leave?
Or, more to the point, if you want people to explore your dungeon, why would you pepper in rumors of a pig in town?
>Why do they need dungeons
Because dungeons provide a nice framework for the DM to design challenges and place treasure in a way which players can recognize the pattern of and act accordingly.
>>81727185
Why would you include a rumor for something many many miles outside of what players can get to in a session? Unless you want a Hobbit-esque journey campaign.
Ideally, and logically given how information propagates in a by-word-of-mouth world, rumors would relate to local sites of interest. Unless your hubtown is a great tradepost or something where travelers from far away might conceivably have a reason to visit or travel through.
>>81727248
Dunno if you replied to the wrong post, but we're in complete agreement there.
>>
>>81726851
>setting to receive charges
>throwing
>emergency pole
They have enough advantages
>>
>>81722634
Can I have a QRD on the C&C movement and positioning rules? I want player skill to matter in combat as well and saying "we are sneaky and try to ambush" or focus firing one enemy is okay but it gets stale pretty quick.
>>
>>81727394
I'll second this request
>>
File: David_T._Wenzel_-_Cave.jpg (405 KB, 634x724)
405 KB
405 KB JPG
I'm going to make a few index cards with small maps on them, what common things are worth making mini maps for? So far i've got

>inns/taverns/halls
>selection of small caves/lairs
>small towers
>>
>>81716707
I never understood why people are so against guns in magic settings. Guns basically are pellets sliding out of a tube really fast. In a world where you can create water, cast flames and summon fireworks, it wouldn't take too long for someone to figure out to make a cannon.
>>
>>81727978
I keep a collection of generic wilderness and houses tiles on hand
>>
>>81728062
In a world where you can create water, cast flames and summon fireworks why would anyone bother making a cannon? It'll never have the sheer destructive power of a fireball.
>>
>>81716707
My setting is essentially the 17th century and I use arquebuses like some of the other anons here, although I actually differentiate between the arquebus and the mousquet, the mousquet being way longer, heavier, does more damage because of longer barrel, and needing to rest on a hook or surface or suffer a massive accuracy penalty. I use the Whitehack rule of two round reload for pistols, three round reloads for the arquebus, four for the mousquet, although players can shorten it by one turn by using pre-loaded apostles instead of a powder horn.

I'm still thinking out how to balance the firearms. Obviously, the report will attract wandering monsters, and I'm thinking of implementing something like a 2/6 chance of not firing if wet. Anybody have any in-depth OSR firearm rules?
>>
File: 1 - GM Sheet v2.pdf (206 KB, PDF)
206 KB
206 KB PDF
>>81725710
Yes. I have a stack of these that pretty much lays out my current campaign. Saves time during the game, but also makes continuity easier between sessions.
>>
>>81728269
And to further this - canons came into use to get rid of fortifications. In a world of earth elementals, xorns, griffons and dragons, fortifications aren't impassible barriers.
>>
File: 1623207995921.gif (1.31 MB, 498x364)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB GIF
Bros, what the fuck is going on recently?
>Run a biweekly game of Swords & Wizardry at my LGS
>We've always made it a point to let whoever join, as long as they're on time and the table isn't too crowded (The latter rarely happens, but on a rare occasion)
>Recently, I've heard new players openly make comments about how the oldschool community is "Gatekeepy" and "Old white men"
>LITERALLY HALF OF MY REGULAR PLAYERS ARE NOT WHITE OR MEN
It's one thing to see this stuff discussed online, but now people that are barely even familiar with tabletop gaming at all are spouting this nonsense. Where are they getting this shit? At my table it hasn't caused any conflict yet, but it makes things really awkward for someone to make a social or political issue out of something like just rolling dice and having a good time. I literally had someone come over to our table and watch for a minute before saying, "This is like one of those older games... That's like, stuffy and gatekeepy." I'm trying not to let it get to me, but that one sentence just keeps going through my head. How can anyone be so judgemental and stupid?
>>
>>81728291
What do the dinosaurs represent pray tell?
>>
>>81726630
>How else am I supposed to interperate that?
They engage from the close edges of adjacent squares. But again, repeat, you're not supposed to use 10' squares with minis or anything like that. You're meant to use 3 1/3' squares.
>>
TQ: cannibal ghouls are my go-to mook, I represent them to be pretty close to Frazzeta savage men, but white, and dessicated. I also really like beastmen
>>81727978
Wenzel hobbit art was so great, they had the series at my school and I spent so many lunchtimes reading it
>>
>>81728361
People are weird. As long as you're creating a fun experience for people you're doing great.
>>
>>81728361
OSR stuff is built and written almost entirely by white dudes without budgets to hire gays and blacks to represent their companies and they hate white people. It's that simple. All the buzzwords are just to mask that.
>>
File: Untitled.gif (34 KB, 478x329)
34 KB
34 KB GIF
>>81728386
>you're not supposed to use 10' squares with minis or anything like that. You're meant to use 3 1/3' squares.
QFT
>>
>>81728361
Those are the people you should gatekeep.
>>
>>81728361
>I've heard new players openly make comments about how the oldschool community is "Gatekeepy" and "Old white men"
Liberal poison, acknowledge and ignore. Some people just want to tear everything down and spread anti-white hatred. Enjoy your games without these sorts
>>
>>81728361
Offer an invitation to these people. That would just immediately put any "gatekeeping" claim to bed.
Better yet, spin it on them and be like "half my regulars are either not white or not men; I don't think it's fair to erase their experience when you claim these games are just for old white guys"

Obviously you don't want to be confrontational, but these people owe it to themselves to broaden their horizons and you're in a position to help them do that. You're under no obligation to, of course.
>>
>>81724155
Nah. I'm an equal opportunity Overlord. Dungeons with fifty different types of gimmick oozes are boring though.
>>
>>81728366
That's the dungeon tracker section. Every 30 minutes (3 turns/boxes) is a random encounter check, so I put the little dino there to give me a visual reminder.
>>
>>81729027
Based
>>
>>81728361
>How can anyone be so judgemental and stupid?
• Youth, and
• Retardation.
>>
>>81729027
Cool, I tend to use this one.
>>
>>81728901
>Offer an invitation to these people. That would just immediately put any "gatekeeping" claim to bed.
This is absolutely the correct move. If they don't have fun, that's fine, but it's worth a shot.
>>
>>81724276
I used the Donjon generator. It was updated so you can go back and edit certain parameters without losing the map. Very useful since I don’t have time to hand map such a huge space.
>>
>>81729306
Thanks mate
>>
>>81716650
[OC] Magic Item: Enchanted Skeleton Key

A metal key, with a bow shaped vaguely like a skull. The key remains cold to the touch no matter how long it is held.

This spooky skeleton key will easily open any locked grave, tomb, or mausoleum. But in doing so, at least one of the inhabitants of the crypt will rise immediately in undeath, with more to surely follow as the days go by unless the key is used again to lock the crypt.
>>
what is you guys experience with 1e appendix B, the random terrain generator?
>>
>>81727978
I sometimes add a new wing to existing dungeon floors with 5-8 room areas. Small lairs to add in are a good way to shake up player expectations.
>>
>>81716650
[OC] Magic Item: Resurrection Gauntlet

This singular gauntlet made of a jade-coloured steel, missing its left-hand counterpart, can revive something within 1 hour of it dying for 2 minutes
>>
File: 01.jpg (130 KB, 1280x720)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
>>81728533
>>81728547
>>81728555
>>81728574
>>81728901
>>81729203
How was it?
>>
>>81729843
I'd be surprised if you got any answers from anons with personal experience of using it; overland terrain doesn't seem to need to be generated randomly the way dungeon interior very well might. It's a narrow niche. Most people like to just go to town with Hexographer, it's enjoyable to draw overworld maps.
>>
>>81729843
Generally good. Sometimes the land becomes a bit spotty with weird, unnatural formations. You should approach it with the intent to modify it for the sake of logic.
I would consider rolling a new land type every 10 or 30 miles or so, just do you don't end up rolling for every mile of travel like it suggests!
>>
>>81728554
Which ruleset is that from?
>>
File: Old_Man_Smoking_Pipe.jpg (221 KB, 900x1351)
221 KB
221 KB JPG
>Players get absolutely wrecked at some ruins to the west of their hub town
>They regroup, heal their wounds, then hire some hirelings
>Immediately get wrecked again and head back to town
>Know that I could lower the difficulty a bit or give them another line they could follow instead
>But part of me feels like they have to learn on their own...
>>
>>81730525
Are the players getting discouraged, to the extent that they are resistant to engaging with the game and perhaps considering not playing anymore? Lower the difficulty a bit.
Are they frustrated by eager to try new approaches, or experiment with something else? You're doing fine.

Are they feeling a little of both? Maybe change the circumstances slightly just to give more variety and allow the players to encounter new types of situations to better acclimate them to the game. You don't necessarily have to make it easier. Players aren't going to learn on their own if they feel like they're just hammering away futilely at problems they aren't equipped to handle—even if they have the capacity to solve those issues themselves, if they don't feel like they do then it just doesn't matter. You're going to have a hard time teaching someone math if you're just giving them the same difficult problem over and over again.
>>
>>81730619
>Are they feeling a little of both?
Yeah, basically this.
>>
https://youtu.be/6Vsv_vC7keA

Who was in the wrong here?
>>
>>81730460
AD&D DMG, page 10.
>>
>>81728554
>>81728386
Okay, so then a 5 foot weapon reach would hit 2 squares away since B4 is between 3 and 6 feet?
>>
>>81730525
If they're new to the old-school playstyle I would just point out to them again that, while nothing stops them from making any number of repeated attempts with whatever methods they can contrive, it is not assumed in this style that they'll necessarily be able to defeat any given opponent and they can't expect to be ultimately victorious, certainly not if they refuse to go away and get stronger before trying again.
>>
>>81731365
Yes.

(Ordinary swords are listed in the AD&D PHB as having 3 1/2' length, which is not coincidental.)
>>
File: OSR.jpg (100 KB, 500x667)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
hi guys. I just wanted to say thank you to all. Here, this little general in this subset of 4chan and some related blogs is the only internet I spend and I dont need anything else. Just wanted you to know that this is the best place in the whole net to discuss this games and that (you) are part of it. Cheers!
>>
>>81716630
Orc reaction pic of them watching 2girls1cup
>>
>>81726891
>intersection of subjective
You might not have noticed it, but the intersection of subjects changed when you posted the rules here.
>>
>>81728287
>I'm still thinking out how to balance the firearms.
I shot flintlock rifles competitively for a few years here are my insights. Flintlocks don’t appear on the scene commonly till the mid 17th century. I limit my players to matchlocks and rarer, more expensive, wheel locks.
Considerations why early firearms are terrible in enclosed spaces (I.e. dungeons)
1. A matchlock requires a burning (smoldering) slow match be carried to fire the weapon. A monopod (shooting rest) was also typically used to stabilize the heavy barrel. Smoldering match gives off smell, light and heat. Doesn’t do well in damp weather.
2. Burning/detonating black powder creates noise, smelly thick gray smoke that isn’t going to dissipate in a dungeon.
3. Wheel locks are mechanically complex. Basically hand built (no interchangeable parts) spring loaded Sparkwheel Lighters. Think a disposable Bic lighter or a zippo.
4. Inconsistent metallurgy means you can only load so much powder to increase range. Barrels aren’t commonly rifled and accuracy beyond 50 meters isn’t great. The delay between trigger pull and ignition isn’t as slow as people think it is but it is enough to effect accuracy. Triggers are crude affairs and set (hair) triggers don’t exist yet.
In close quarters early firearms are one shot at best and its melee time. Let’s hope that bespoke wheellock doesn’t get smashed by an Orc!
>>
How much of the area around a town should be filled with stuff for a megadungeon campaign?
>>
>>81731761
They weren't my rules? I wouldn't post my rules here, because I don't care what you have to say about them. And the context with which the original anon posted them was not for approval or criticism of his rulings, it was to talk about his pleasant experience adjudicating on the fly (which you ignored in favor of nitpicking his rulings like an autistic twat).
Honestly, what else is there to argue about here? You've tried diverting the argument, diluting it, and now trying to recontextualize it as someone having posted their rules for criticisms sake.
Its not gonna work. Your criticism was irrelevant, the solution you put forward was equally flawed, and the only thing you've contributed to this entire thread is a long boring argument featuring you trying (and failing, I'd say) to pretend to be the smartest person in the room.
Give it up, pseud.
>>
>>81732116
I'd say keep it minimal to avoid taking focus away at first, have maybe a lair or two as a side activity. The point of a megadungeon is to have a massive amount of variety within a dungeon.
>>
>>81720055
Are those all hand made sculpy minis? Is it possible to be that based?
>>
>>81731792
How would you mechanically simulate damp weather and smoke? Would the 2/6 chance to not fire be adequate? Maybe an attack value modifier when attacking in or through smoke?
>>
>>81732322
I think 1/3 chance of misfire is pretty punishing for weapons that already have some big limitations. I’d go 1D6 in heavy rain, 1D8 in mist, heavy fog, light rain, morning dew. Condensation is definitely a factor. Historically Flintlocks were carried loaded with an empty pan that was freshly primed before firing. Muzzle covered with greased cloth (shoot through) ans/or had the lock wrapped in grease impregnated cloth in fowl weather to keep the primed pan’s powder dry. I assume something similar was done with matchlocks.
I try to give PCs the benefit of the doubt as they represent skilled, trained, armed professionals. Even a 1st level fighter is a veteran l after all. Modifying to hit through gun smoke is appropriate. I’m a big fan of giving monsters the same exact weapons and mechanics that players get. Sometimes that dissuades players of certain notions. They all wanted critical hits till they were on the receiving end! Too late now boys! You wanted this!
>>
>>81732120
Ironic how you want this to be a cuddly safe space without criticism (which it of course is not) and then go on with ad-hominems and try to sell it as an argument. It's not lmao.
>Picklocking isn't an everyday skill
>Most definitely not before the internet and printing press
>Just throwing this in gets everyone (including Jannies) butt mad
Then you're buttmad that someone criticizes another's tables rules. "Every table is subjective, you have to respect the safe space". Not when you post it here, faggot.
>>
>>81732428
This Thirty Years War-era, so they'd be using matchlocks and maybe wheellocks once they accumulate enough gold, but I see your point, thanks.
>>
>>81732572
Other than mounted men (cavalry & officers), who needed a wheellock pistol to have a free hand for holding reigns I don’t know how common wheellock long arms were. The technology existed certainly but I’ve only ever seen wheel lock hunting long arms never as infantry weapons of war.
>>
Mork Bork, DCC & LOTFP are all OSR to me and the real OSR community. Those are the only metrics that need to be adhered to.
>>81720055
yes, I've got tons of minis that I use. Mostly stuff I print from bestarium miniatures.
>>
>>81732813
>Mork Bork, DCC & LOTFP are all OSR to me and the real OSR community. Those are the only metrics that need to be adhered to.
From your mouth to gods ears! What OSR Community are you referring to? Is it the No true Scotsman forums?
Let’s review since new friends that came to RPGs since 5E don’t get this. DCC and Mork Borg lack mechanically compatibility with TSR era D&D. The origin of the OSR is making new material that is mechanically compatible with TSR era D&D (most strictly AD&D).
>>
>>81733061
China Joe Goodman and his 3E, incomplete rules, non-Vancian casting DCC love child frown in your general direction!
>>
The OSR Community is such a funny thing since it's clearly not even somewhat of a thing. I mostly get along with the OD&Ders, other sections are less for me though I can steal ideas from them without issue.
>>
>>81733061
The Mork Borg, OSR and DCC combined have like 7.6k members
The reddit has 16k.
Mork Borg consistently wins out popularity polls in at least the OSR FB group and reddit, hence it's considered OSR in those spaces that are a better representative of the community than here.
> Is it the No true Scotsman forums?
No? I like this space and consider it to be a part of the OSR?
>new friends
I've been here longer than you have. Lol.
>>
File: appendixB.png (45 KB, 489x521)
45 KB
45 KB PNG
>>81729843
cont.
I made a program to automate it. It's kinda decent... this run happens to have a central plain.
>>
>>81733150
>I've been here longer than you have. Lol.
I’ve been playing RPGs since before you were born. I’ve been here since 2016. You are a redditor and 5E scum.
>>
>>81733150
>The Mork Borg, OSR and DCC combined have like 7.6k members
>The reddit has 16k.
>Mork Borg consistently wins out popularity polls in at least the OSR FB group and reddit, hence it's considered OSR in those spaces that are a better representative of the community than here.
Reddit and Facebook. FML you’re serious?! Lol
>>
File: test.jpg (56 KB, 740x370)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>81733192
>I've been here since 2016.
>He thinks this is old
>he thinks this is an argument for him
>he thinks
>>81733212
>Reddit and Facebook. FML you’re serious?! Lol
Do you think the largest OSR groups around by numbers aren't OSR?
>>81733184
I like it.
>>81716630
>How do you like your evil mooks and goons? Evil humans? Hellpit aberrations? Goofy troublemakers? Morloks? Frazetta apemen?
All of the above. For things like orcs I prefer them to be so utterly inhuman/monstrous as to be unrecognizable. An orc invasion is an existential threat that you can't reason or bargain with at all.
>>
>>81716630
While this is correct in that original D&D was based upon the dungeon crawl and less upon character development & story. (mainly because character survival was often unlikely) the "greater emphasis on layer agency" is pure nonsense. "player agency" was a non-issue that was not addressed at all in the mechanics and was totally dependent on the DM and his style. Originally, the DM could roll all the dice in secret and if he wanted the entire adventure could be dictated by the whims of the DM and not even by the chance of an openly observed die roll. If you want to promote OSR for its simplicity go ahead but the reality is original D&D could have little player agency other than the fact you didn't have lack of mechanics restricting actions like what's done with some DMs in more complex systems. For example OSR, I want to jump off this ledge onto the giants back, DM OK what the heck. Mentally pulls a number out of his ass, make a dex roll. vs say 3.5/pathfinder there's no rule for that so no you can't do it (least wise not until the new book comes out with that feat). Yes I literally have had DMs say certain actions where impossible because a rule didn't exist for it. Grog who played D&D starting back in 79.
>>
>>81733385
Ultimately, what you're arguing is that the only thing that can define the intention of a ruleset is the explicit rules. The original intention of D&D, as seen in Greyhawk and Blackmoor, was exceptional player agency and freedom. Did that pan out for most people? Absolutely not, but it was the intention.
>>
>>81731493
>this is the best place in the whole net to discuss this games
That’s more depressing than uplifting
>>
>>81733278
He thinks that the NuSR 20-something new friends that infest Reddit and started playing RPGs after the release of 5E definite anything of note. Begone tourist.
>>
Hey guys what about 2e?
>>
How much more farmland is needed relative to population in subarctic as opposed to temperate climates?
>>
>>81733496
2e's a fine system, it was just made well after the death of the traditional dungeon crawl and hex crawl so as such you have to tweak some things to play in the 70s style.
>>
>>81733478
>definite anything of note.
Just what is/isn't OSR, it seems.
>Begone tourist.
When are you leaving
>>81733496
Also OSR and possessing of the most wonderful material.
>>
Is anybody looking for an online B/X game in the Oceania/Asia timezone?
Europe is cool too if you're okay with playing around late morning or midday
(sorry if this is the wrong place, I didn't want to spam gamefinder threads in the catalog)
>>
>>81731493
Cheers anon!
>>
>take OSE
>use all the OSE Advanced optional rules
>suddenly streamlined AD&D
>add a couple cool optional things from Dragon Magazine (particularly Gygax's version of cantrips)
>use items from OSRIC and bestiary from Adventures Dark & Deep
>slot-based encumbrance
It's fucking beautiful, anons. I'm going to slap it together in a binder as my own personal Rules Cyclopedia, and not worry about making it look pretty as long as it's readable, since I'm not publishing anything.
>>
>>81733385
>"greater emphasis on layer agency" is pure nonsense. "player agency" was a non-issue that was not addressed at all in the mechanics and was totally dependent on the DM and his style. Originally, the DM could roll all the dice in secret and if he wanted the entire adventure could be dictated by the whims of the DM and not even by the chance of an openly observed die roll.
Whoa, are you saying that a bad DM runs a bad game? That's unpossible!
>>
>>81733496
I'm sorry we only discuss TRVE OSR games like DCC and Mork Bork here
>>
>>81733736
There's no need to be passive aggressive, just don't be silly and act like they aren't a part of the OSR.
>>
>>81733775
>just don't be silly and act like they aren't a part of the OSR
But I'm dead serious and not acting
>>
>>81732558
That anon didn't say that every single player could pick locks. He was talking about how he adjudicated situations as they popped up in his game.
I don't see an issue with a higher intelligence character fucking around with a lock for an hour to figure it out, or better yet, a smart character fucking with a cheap busted lock for 10 minutes to get it open.
I highly doubt a 6 intelligence retard would even have the opportunity to attempt to pick a lock.
We are getting lost in the weeds with this lock shit. The point was about on the spot adjudication.
These aren't set in stone defined mechanics. They are rulings
>>
>>81733496
2ed is the last good edition outside of retroclones.
>>
>>81733811
Oh, I still think that B/X is OSR, but that's fine anon.
>>
>>81733811
OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, 1st, and 2nd -- and retroclones that are based on those rulesets are OSR.
>>
>>81733719
That's the way to do things. Create a frankensystem, make sure you have the rules all together and run it happily.
>>
>>81733184
Very nice! Now shift every other column up by half a cell and change the cell shape, so you've got a hexmap.
>>
>>81733775
Hallmarks of the OSR
1. Player skill rather than skills defined by mechanics
2. Defined exploration rules or system, especially for dungeons or wilderness areas
3. Low-mid fantasy with limitations on magic
>>
>>81733862
>>81733984
Most of those aren't OSR, they're OS
LOTFP is a clear example of OSR
DCC is arguably OSR since its OS inspired, not really compatible though
Mork Borg is barely a game
>>
>>81734156
Here's the question though - is OSR best understood by the systems that fit the bill when the OSR was born out of a desire for new content rather than new systems?
>>
>>81734206
OSR is any RPG that is not soulless 5eshit. The further from 5e it is, the more OSRer.
>>
>>81734298
that's a very huge criteria
>>
>>81734298
That's pretty FKRpilled.
>>
>>81734298
Misspent Youth is a game where your characters have no stats and you take turns rolling 2d6 and hoping for a specific number depending on what scene it is. It has a three-act structure and is based around the idea of playing as teenagers fight the power without losing their innocence.

It has nothing to do with 5e, but it's definitely not OSR either.
>>
>>81734298
based and vampire masquerade is OSR pilled
>>81734156
>Mork Borg is barely a game
I've disproven this already, you don't need to parrot it just because other anons do.
>>81734071
Sure.
>>
>>81727394
>>81727496
C&C combat is as follows:
>Move your full movement rate (30ft for most PCs x2 to jog x4 to run) in a round
OR
>Move half your movement rate and attack
OR
Cast a spell

Once you are in engaged in melee you cannot disengage without taking -2 AC for the round and provoking an AoO from every engaged combatant before you move, OR you can do a Fighting Withdraw and move half your movement without these penalties.

Positioning: Attacks to the direct rear of the model get +2s (Thieves and Assassins get +4) to hit. Left and right rear side squares are flanks and at +1 to hit.

Large creatures AND 10' long weapons vs >6' weapons is an autowin on initiative in the first round of melee.


There are a lot of other optional rules you can toss in like Pushing, Overbearing etc but that's the basic gist of the barebones system.
>>
Is there a retroclone that specifically runs with the weapon vs armor tables? I'd be curious to see what someone would do with a clarified and simplified game with that being an assumed part of combat.
>>
>>81733674
Yeah I'm interested, how do you want me to contact you?
>>
>>81733150
>Mork Borg consistently wins out popularity polls in at least the OSR FB group and reddit, hence it's considered OSR in those spaces that are a better representative of the community than here.
Then go talk about that shit there. Apparently there are thousands of likeminded idiots you can gibber with.
Really, there's no point in you being here. We're not relevant to you community, don't talk about games you like and there aren't enough of us to matter by your metrics. You're just wasting your own time.
>>
>>81732558
>cuddly safe space
>completely unrelated jannies talk
Glad you've finally dropped the pretense of this being an argument about anything, amd you're really just looking for someone to butt heads with, you lizard brained mongoloid.
This >>>81733814 anon's got the right of it. It was about learning to make rulings in the moment and working it with your table. You just took that as an opportunity to shit on him for no reason and shill your shitty house rules for lockpicking.
>>
>>81733150
So many people buy margarine spread, so its the same as butter.
>>
>>81728361
The internet is real life now, that's what old people only grasped during the elections.
>>
>>81734298
>The further from 5e it is, the more OSRer.
This is fucking gay revisionism. The OSR started as a direct response to 3.x, and then grew in popularity during 4e. 5e might be lame as fuck and have a terrible fanbase but the system is closer to the "OSR" ideal than either of those two games. Now suck my cock
>>
>>81734656
It's a joke
>>
>>81734439
We're currently using a discord server for VC/3d6 generation and roll20 for the game, but both are very minimal.
tw1ckz(hash)6214
>>
>>81733385
Ice cold take. The OSR was never about slavishly attempting to mimic exactly how D&D was played back in the '70s and '80s, but rather returning to design mentality and libertine creativity that was embodied by that era. You can read the old Dragonsfoot threads if you like; they're all still up.
>>
If any of you spend more than thirty seconds of your life arguing about whether Mork Borg or 2e or DCC are OSR you're fucking gay and retarded. Don't do that. You might as well suck each other off since that's about as productive. Just fucking stop it.
>>
>>81734556
>So many people buy margarine spread, so its the same as butter.
To make this analogy work better the vast majority of the butter consuming community would need to consider margarine to be butter, not simply consuming one more. :^}
>>81734512
>Then go talk about that shit there
Why? I can exist in multiple places at once.
>don't talk about games you like
There's people talking about B/X and LOTFP in this very thread.
>>81734707
B-B-based
>>81733719
What about the advanced options do you like anon?
>>
>>81734071
>3. Low-mid fantasy with limitations on magic
The other two are good but not this one. Limitation on magic insofar as it keeps the PCs from being too overpowered (early on) but low-mid fantasy? What is there in either the history of D&D or the history of the OSR to support this? Not to lean too hard on the classics here but neither Gygax nor Arneson's were particularly "low fantasy." Neither were the modules that came out during the '80s.
Low-mid magic settings probably make up a sizeable portion in the totality of the OSR but that certainly doesn't make it a "hallmark."
>>
>>81734829
Allow me to explain my meaning:
When I say "low-mid fantasy" I mean "a type of fantasy that is more grounded than modern WOTC&D passes off as kitchen sink fantasy."
OSR gaming as a whole is much more grainy and lower magic than something like say modern forgotten realms or, God forgive me, eberron.
The OSR doesn't throw off that "Harry Potter with knights and demons and UwU cat ninjas" vibe that most *high* fantasy stuff does in the modern era, because that's not what the game is about.
Maybe high, low and mid fantasy are the wrong terms to utilize to describe what I'm saying, I am an autist after all, but I hope I've gotten my point across.
The OSR is more Elric and Conan while being less Anime world of warcraft star wars YA novel than the other way around.
>>
>>81734707
Praytell what rules system did those fellows on Dragonsfoot seek to use you fucking charlatan?
>>
>>81734372
Thanks anon I'll check it out. Seems kinda similar to 3.5 but better.
>>
>>81734905
Kitchen sink settings suck
>>
>>81730718

>shoves the DM

what did he mean by this?
>>
>>81735189
From what I can tell, I think he meant to inform the internet that he is a massive pussy
>>
>>81735080
Why? What's your ideal setting?
It feels like a lot of OSR shit is building out a setting through play, and that lends itself well to the kitchen sink
>>
>>81735080
What about a setting inside a giant kitchen sink?
>>
>>81734736
>You might as well suck each other off
I feel like that would be an improvement to this thread
>>
>>81731493
Sure thing. Have a cool picture.
>>
File: Something.jpg (11 KB, 225x300)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
I feel a bit dumb for this, but what does Domains at War do for ACKs? Is it just an alternative combat system? Is it just for a wargame type battle? Or is it the main combat system for ACKs?
>>
Why does /osrg/ love taking the bait so much? Are you guys stupid or something?
>>
>>81734743
>What about the advanced options do you like anon?
I'm nostalgic for the game with race-class separation because my granddad ran a B/X + AD&D mishmash for me as a kid. Plus I like the new classes, the rules about having a percent chance to learn a spell when you encounter it but possibly failing (though I let you try again if you encounter the same spell again after leveling up).
>>
Any thoughts on tracking doors in dungeons? Like, which ones are closed, which are open, and which are locked? I remember reading in OD&D that doors can change positions on their own without warning and you can roll to determine whether a door has changed positions since you last passed by.
>>
>>81736487
Domains at War is the Mass Combat system for ACKS, which uses a formula to boil down the HD and fighting capability of enemies into a Battle Rating which is then applied to either a series of rolls (Quick-start) or a full on hex & chit wargame.

My recommendation is you just keep the rolling system from the quick-start and use the full rules as a supplement for turning enemies into the QS system. The QS is a lot more simple and fun than a wargame.
>>
File: firearms.png (72 KB, 1288x250)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>81716630

You didn't listen.
>>
>>81737271
Roll a d6
6 - The door has been destroyed.
4-5 - The door is closed.
2-3 - The door is open.
1 - The door is locked/sealed.
>>
File: 1576372910611.jpg (128 KB, 1024x1024)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
I think that most people that are arguing about what is and isn't OSR simply miss the fact (or refuse to accept it) that a certain game doesn't have to be 100% OSR to have OSR elements in it - but that still makes it (partially, at the very least) - OSR. There's nothing wrong with deconstructing the whole thing, looking at it "modularly", taking parts, themes and ideas from it that you like and implementing them elsewhere. If you wish to stick to a very strict and rigid design mindset, by all means do, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to be constrained by such starting points if they wish to enjoy a bit (or a lot) of OSRness in their games.
>>
>>81737434
>doesn'thave to be 100% OSR to have OSR elements in it
>deconstructing
>mental gymnastics
Go fuck a balrog, Bork Bork is still not OSR
>>
What TSR-era and/or OSR-inspired zines/periodicals do you find to be the most worthwhile? Old Dragon magazines have some pretty good stuff here and there. What else?
>>
>>81737480
Daily reminder that 'OSR' is a made up term by hipsters who discovered the original D&D rules and has nothing to do with how people actually played the game in 1974 which was intended as a far more crunchy, rules heavy and 'traditional' experience due to its origins in indepth, tactical wargames.

Concepts like 'rulings not rules' purely exist within the imagination of modern 'OSR' and never appear within any of the original works and texts of DnD which present themselves as straight rules meant to be followed as closely as possible.

So literally any game can be 'OSR', including Mork Borg because it's a made up new term that merely defines a means in which modern players run tabletop roleplaying games.
>>
>>81737680
Doesn't matter how you try and twist it buddy, bork gawk isn't OSR
>>
>>81737790
Define OSR
>>
File: define.png (368 KB, 572x469)
368 KB
368 KB PNG
>>81737793
>>
>>81733496
Total shit, off topic, bait.
>>
>>81733984
>and 2nd
Nope.
>>
>>81736720
Unironic answer: it's unfortunately necessary to constantly enforce the line when trolls try to topic shift, as otherwise the general would get diluted to uselessness. This is *why* they insist on pushing things like this over and over.
>>
In Basic Magic swords are twice as common as any other magic weapon, I assume nothing will break if I flip the chances?
>>
>>81737862
I accept your concession.
>>
>>81738045
fuck off to a NuSR containment thread. We're not discussing this with you every single thread
>>
>>81731365
Just don't use squares. Problem bleedin' solved innit. Squares are gay anyway.
>>
>>81738065
stay mad loser
>>
>>81737680
If the term OSR doesn't matter, why are you so intent on slapping it on Morf Borf and other stupid shit like it ? That's litterally the whole point of the conversation, Murf Bangr is an artshit cashgrab that only works because it tries to associate itself with "OSR". Which makes people who are trying to genuinely integrate concept from old rules in their games because it dilutes any debate it's in to "Hurr look how good I consoom".
Which is EVEN WORSE in the case of OSR since the community has solidified around keeping the mechanical compatibility between systems so the creativity of every person benefits everyone long term. People have shared "OSR" content on blogs, forums and sites like this shithole for years, for free, and for the benefit of everyone.
People don't dislike Murk Berg because it's OSR or not OSR, they hate it because of what it represents as a philosophy towards the hobby.
here, you got me to give you a candid response, now go ahead, dodge and strawman all you want, fuck you.
>>
Who even cares about Mork Borg anyway?
Show of hands, who here even plays it, as opposed to just being mad about it
>>
>>81738526
Nobody plays it, even the shills just bought the merch, that's the whole point
>>
>>81738546
So...why are we arguing about it?
>>
>>81738559
because the shills are insufferable and I'd love to understand why they're in the wrong general, and go participate in the nuOSR containment thing
>>
File: yikes.png (969 KB, 1280x720)
969 KB
969 KB PNG
>>81737680
>Muk Bang
>>
I don't like murk burger, it feels weird. The book is much more artbook and in line with modern design, even if it drinks from OSR in some way.

Now, I do like DCC a lot. I've used the modules for quick sessions or to pick ideas. The spell stuff is hit or miss in some tables but it's fun. Idk and maybe don't even care if it "really" is OSR, but it's the only of these new systems that got me to play it regularly together with 1e and B/X; So yeah it is OSR in my personal and probs retard opinion.
>>
File: Upper halls Blackgate.png (6.18 MB, 6976x5304)
6.18 MB
6.18 MB PNG
Welp, my Megadungon project has it first map.
>>
>>81734361
You haven't disproven shit you disingenuous hack. You just keep spamming a thing hoping everyone will agree with you in a way you care too much about while simultaneously pretending to have ironic distance. Get killed.
>>
>>81739071
Love the loops you have going.
>>
>>81733775
>there's no need to be passive aggressive
>le winkyfaec
Get killed.
>>
>>81727052
>Is it best to remove irrelevant rumours from tables?
Yes. I use a modified version of this pdf, make the rumours as needed. Basically the party gets 1 free rumour per return to civilization or when having a friendly encounter in the wilds. Extra rolls cost legwork and time.
Or you can get a sage.
>>
>>81739071
>increasingly sized triangle rooms
That's not ominous at all.
Looks cool anon, thanks for the map.
>>
>>81739087
>>there's no need to be passive aggressive
there really isn’t
:^)
>>
File: D7d is evil.gif (849 KB, 500x340)
849 KB
849 KB GIF
>>81739071
Looking good, thanks for remindinmg me I need to start my own dungeon.
>>
>>81739085
Thanks -- Unless it a small map I try to avoid single paths unless it a set area -- for example 13-19 is going to be the base of the White legs, which are a small goblin tribe (and most likely the first faction the PCs will meet), 42-44 is a crypt, and 56-59 is a series of puzzles/riddle rooms. with the last room being treasure.

Most of the other rooms contents will be vie- dice rolling.
>>
What if instead of talking and pissing and crying about morkbork and morkposters, we stay on topic?

>TQ
I'm a LotFPfag, so I really like having all the mooks be human. If I run a module with goblins, they're just weird gross humans who live in caves and crawl through cramped tunnels and do goblin stuff. For some reason players find it creepier when dirty humans sneak into your camp at night to steal stuff than when fantasy creatures do it.
I used cave dwelling demon chimps once for an adventure. They had long, oily fur, needle teeth, tiny red eyes, six fingers and toes, and short horns jutting out from their forehead. Players didn't bat an eye. But it's fine, I liked using humans more anyway.
>>
>>81739071
Nice, Anon!

The only thing I would say is consider adding one or two more stairs down.
>>
>>81716630
>How do you like your evil mooks and goons?
Just friends
>Evil humans?
Yes
>Hellpit aberrations?
Yes
>Goofy troublemakers?
Yes
> Morloks?
Yes
> Frazetta apemen?
That’s racist
>>
>>81739317
I was thinking about that -- But I decided that the other half of the first level will have 1 stars up (to a sublevel), 1-2 stairs down (to major levels) , and one passage to a crabman sublevel that will connect 1b-2b- and the outside.

So level 1 in total will have 5 connections , just that only 2 are in the upper halls.
>>
>>81737434
>3e adopts xp-for-gold
>3e is now OSR
>>
>>81734905
I see what you're saying. But I do think that "low/med/high" fantasy is not exactly proper terminology. Elric, for instance, is very much a "high fantasy" series. In the very first book, Elric consorts with elemental spirits, summons demons, rides in a mythic land-boat, travels to another dimension, and acquires a sentient magic sword.
Conan is much closer to "low fantasy," for obvious reasons that don't merit going into detail.
But there ought to be a term for the ren-faire genre pastiche of nud&d. It's not strictly "kitchen sink," since that could refer to any sort of gonzo fantasy which we all know can be perfectly congruent with the OSR (eg ASE). I don't know if there's a good word for it, yet
>>
>>81739071
Reminds me of ASE1, in a good way, with the large central corridor. I think it's an underutilized idea.
>>
>>81734991
AD&D, both classic and by way of OSRIC, as well as some B/X. Not really relevant though; no need to grasp at straws.
>>
>>81737325
It's a good question, retard
>>
>>81738032
This is demonstrably false; just look at how bad the thread got over the summer. It doesn't matter whether or not people were trying to prevent the thread from getting "diluted" since the end result was utter dogshit. It's better to just ignore the people that are obviously trying to fish for (you)s and only engage with people that are here for genuine discussion.
>>
>>81738041
The logic behind the prevalence of magic swords is that only fighters can wield them, so the fact that they're so common implies that fighters are meant to acquire them and get a bump to their combat abilities. Partly explains why the on paper the fighter seems rather lackluster compared to other classes.
>>
>>81716630
There is a selection of humanoids right there in the book. Keep it classic and don't be a faggot asking leading questions. Can you do that for us OP?
>>
>>81740402
>don't ask leading questions
>in the OP
First day?
>>
>>81740112
I've never said that another game can simply "become OSR", but that OSR as an idea goes beyond the game and system it sprung from - it's that charachteristic. And that style of play, design of encounters and dungeons, flow and structure of a session, atmosphere and feeling of the game, can be ported elsewhere. Take Forbidden Lands for example - literally not!OSR: the game - just with ~40 years of game development under it's belt, in regards to the original.
>>
>>81734354
>rolling 2d6 and hoping for a specific number
>three act structure
This is literally the 5e playstyle with the d20 traded in for 2d6.
>>
>>81740424
You’re saying that OSR is an abstract set of standards not tied to a specific game, right?
>>
>>81739071
That is a good map, like the corridors and how a lot of stuff loops around.
>>
File: crimson glory.jpg (904 KB, 1208x1627)
904 KB
904 KB JPG
>>81739322
>Frazetta apemen
>racist
You're pullin my leg, right? You gotta be. Ape-men and other subhuman creatures like man-hounds are peak kino choice
>>
>>81737680
>Concepts like 'rulings not rules' purely exist within the imagination of modern 'OSR' and never appear within any of the original works and texts of DnD which present themselves as straight rules meant to be followed as closely as possible.

Arneson's players didn't even know the rules and Gygax said if your player wants to be a dragon, make up stats for a young/weak dragon comparable to the rest of the party and have them grow as they level up.
>>
File: frazetta3-barsoom.jpg (66 KB, 600x395)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>81740609
Barsoom White Apes are always fun to throw in as the source material is known, but you will get 1 person out of five get it.
>>
>>81740451
>This is literally the 5e playstyle with the d20 traded in for 2d6.
No, I mean each session is an "episode" and you frame each scene, and in each scene there's a chart that says "in this scene, everyone is hoping for a 9." There are zero modifiers and you're not trying to meet/exceed that number. You're hoping to roll EXACTLY that number.

You say how you're attempting to achieve the goal of the scene, and roll 2d6. If you fail, you describe how you tried and failed but got your side closer. If you succeed, you describe how you succeeded.

Players and GM take turns doing this. If the GM rolls the 9 (or whatever it is) first, any may choose to "sell out" one of his or her character's virtues to win anyway, at the cost of some of that character's innocence. From then on, the way that character pursues goals may change from "cool" to "trendy" or from "rebellious" to "wrathful."

You have zero numerical stats whatsoever and there is zero strategy involved. It's as close to a purely narrativist system as I've seen.
>>
So, the point of level drain is to get players to run the fuck away from undead and find them scary, right?
>>
>>81737680
>Concepts like 'rulings not rules' purely exist within the imagination of modern 'OSR' and never appear within any of the original works and texts of DnD which present themselves as straight rules meant to be followed as closely as possible.

Old fag here - the older editions didn't have enough rules to cover a lot of things, so you made it up, and each table had its own versions.
>>
>>81740686
There are three attacks that can cause fear in players.

Level Drain, turning to stone, or save vs death poison.
>>
I want to make a hexcrawl where players have a kind of in-world map with poor scaling to start with and can try to improve it over time.

I'm really not confident about my ability to make a decent-looking map. Any advice?
>>
>>81740793
use hexmapper or another computer tool.
>>
>>81740660
Oh, PbtA.
>>81740793
Just draw a shit looking map and give your players a blank hexsheet to do it for you I mean make their own improved version.
>>
>>81737680
>Concepts like 'rulings not rules' purely exist within the imagination of modern 'OSR' and never appear within any of the original works and texts of DnD which present themselves as straight rules meant to be followed as closely as possible.

All of it is, of course, optional, for the premise of the whole game system is flexibility and personalization within the broad framework of the rules.
September 1975

D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules.
April 1976

Fantasy is not bound to rigid rules and rationales. Fantasy is imaginative. If you feel that your fantasy is better than this in some aspect, that's fine. After all, it's your fantasy.
July 1976

As we've said time and time again, the 'rules' were never meant to be more than guidelines; not even true 'rules'.
July 1976

Get fucked, revisionist.
>>
>>81740479
In a a way, yes, both standards and themes - OSR is a game in it's own right, with it's own system and rules. But that way of playing is unique, fun and cool in it's own right and that goes beyond the system itself. And that meta-level spawned an entirely different kind of roleplaying, contrasted with d&d we have today etc. Which in turn ended inspiring other games to attempt to copy it and clone that atmosphere and playstyle - hence all of the nu-OSR games and old-school renaissance in general.
>>
>>81740962
thank you.
>>
>>81738041
Absolutely it will. The magic swords are crucial, they're effectively outsourced Fighter class features. They have to be much more common than weapons any loser can use or you're nerfing the Fighter badly.
>>
>>81740609
He was baiting, and you took the bait. The halberd fish are disappointed in you.
>>
>>81738041
>Swords are fighter only
>A major point of fighters is they get magic swords.
>>
>>81740962
>Get fucked, revisionist.
Just want to bandwagon on this to point out that post 81737680 is one instance of a recurring, specific troll. It's always the same guy trying the same thing: to claim that the principles of the OSR are made up because he played the game wrong back then himself. Actually, this troll was probably born in about 2006.
>>
>>81741516
Yeah, I suspect I was playing D&D for over a decade before the troll was born.

I actually pulled out what we played in 92-95

B and E of BECMI with the thief given D6 in hit dice since they are so nerfed in BECMI.
>>
>>81740962
This might seem dumb but I dont think original dungeons and dragons is osr compatible.
>>
>>81742039
Mind explaining what you mean?
>>
>>81742039
After reading this my vision turned red and my mouth started frothing. I would have punched a hole through my computer if I hadn't burst a blood vessel and blacked out for 30 seconds
>>
File: Bait.png (20 KB, 209x200)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
>>81742039
>>
>>81742061
The three brown books dont have osr compatible rules. Osr means advanced/basic style dnd rules which is when most of the freewheeling mentality of dnd was lost. This is most likely why gary and tim never ran those later versions but always some personal homebrew version of odnd.
>>
>>81742136
I can see that to an extent, sure. I think part of the OSR mentality is trying to reintroduce that OD&D-style openness though.
>>
>>81742136
>Osr means advanced/basic style dnd rules
No. It doesn't.
>>
I think that the best thing one can do to counter meaningless "Is X OSR or not" is post fun play reports & content.
People who start and give into fruitless arguments should die in a fire
>>
>>81742154
A huge component of osr is rules compatibility with those editions.
>>
>81742039
>81742136
>81742211
Reminder not to reply to trolls posting the most retarded possible takes. No matter what you say to them, they will only take it and make it worse. Idiots who attempt to reason with them are almost as bad as the trolls themselves.
>>
File: 1629134785846.png (376 KB, 986x802)
376 KB
376 KB PNG
I hope putting a few smaller, more loaded dungeons outside the megadungeon won't dissuade players from visiting it
>>
>>81742252
>rules compatibility has nothing to do with osr
Genius.
>>
>>81742182
>fruitless arguments
Disavow arguments. Acquire fruit
>>
>>81742288
I'd keep them very small if possible. Lairs and the like seem like the best option, though of course as the players level up having other moderate-size dungeons starts making a lot of sense since you're into the wilderness exploration part of your campaign.
>>
>>81742039
>osr compatible
This all relies on what this anon considers “OSR” to be.

If we’ve learned anything from this thread, it’s that there is no consensus on definition.

I like “Old School Revisionism”
>>
>>81740420
I'm skeptical you know what a leading question is.
>>
Im getting autistic about how having a weapon makes deflecting a blow (Monster tentacle, other weapons...) easier than not having it. Why does not having a weapon give you a penalty to AC? Or should not swords give you a bonus to AC when compared with a mace? Swords are balanced for parrying.

Should i forget this mess and go back to normative dnd?
>>
>>81742575
>Why does not "not having a weapon"
Fixed
>>
I'm thinking about altering the module "Incandescent Grottoes" into an above-ground maze of paths through a forest rather than a subterranean dungeon. I have a forest that needs to be populated with some events and areas, and I'm curious if you all think it would translate itself well to that.
>>
>>81742575
Seems like you're basically trying to slot Song of Swords into D&D. Best not to overthink stuff, it's a simple and abstract game.
>>
New thread
>>81742638
>>81742638
>>81742638
>>
File: Maginewt.jpg (22 KB, 237x284)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>81739150
Glad you found it useful. :-)
>>
>>81742288
Nah that's fine. People like variety.
>>
>>81742288
As a player, I love that shit. If we get stuck in any particular area, it means that I can leave and go choose another area, then come back later.
>>
>>81742475
I'm skeptical you've spent more than one day in this thread. I'm also skeptical if you know what a leading question is, since OP wasn't trying to confirm any bias or direct people to a specific answer but was instead adding a little stylistic flourish to the question. Plus OP questions are meant to be conversation starters more than anything so getting butthurt about them is dumb and unproductive
>>
>>81737990
Wrong derppy pants
>>
>>81737996
2e is OSR. Deal with it.
>>
>>81742666
Kek, that's pretty funny, Satan.
>>
>>81742855
> I'm skeptical you've spent more than one day in this thread.
And that would make sense if you thought I didn't know there was usually a thread question.
>>
>>81737271

I roll a d6; 1-2 is locked, 3-4 is stuck, 5-6 is a normal closed door. Sometimes I'll use a barred door, being stuck from one side and able to be barred if the party happens across the correct side.
>>
>>81742211
OD&D is compatible with those editions. I mean, Basic is essentially the LBB + supplement I. AD&D is a continuation of OD&D with the kitchen sink. Yes, some stuff is shored up and some new stuff is added, but it's not an entirely new thing. Now if you're saying the LBB, with no thief, no variable weapon damage, all d6 hit dice and so forth is not compatible with Basic and Advanced, well, that certainly is a bigger difference, but to rest on that as proof of incompatibility is kind of like saying OD&D (just the LBB) isn't compatible with itself (LBB+supplement I), and that's kind of silly. Certainly, OD&D explains less stuff, explains stuff less, and explains stuff less well, and maybe that encourages a different sort of gameplay (since you have to make up shit as you go along), but I don't think that was the intent. I just think Gygax was shit at organizing and explaining shit at the beginning. It was more like shorthand notes for somebody who was already familiar with the game. Just because Basic and AD&D are cleaned up a bit and better explained, doesn't mean they're entirely different animals. And it's not like B/X in particular doesn't have its own differences in approach to AD&D.
>>
>>81745011
Odnd isnt really compatible with odnd + suppliment 1. Suppliment 1 was meant to replace a lot of rules. It plays pretty differently with new rules. Thats why theres retro clones for that emulate the game with and without the suppliment.



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.