File: OSRG Notice.png (198 KB, 564x729)

198 KB PNG

>TQ
The good, the best, the useful. What's the spells you find the most useful? and the most powerful? and those you like the most?

TQ
Phantasmal Force is hands down the most useful spell.
All warfare is based on deception or whatever.

>>92607750
>>92607750
Thanks for the feedback, this is still a work in progress so more eyes on helps. I'm currently working to edit and finalize it, and I'm also rewording rooms to be less 'read-aloud' and more comprehensive description. Will do on the bolding.
I forgot about the cube's treasure.
I should definitely alter or beef the guardian familiars treasure. That thing is a beast.
And thanks for the room matrix compliment. I always wondered why dungeons didn't have them.

>>92608199
>thanks for the room matrix compliment
It's a good technique and I'm going to use it.

When I build a campaign I make a spreadsheet that itemizes dungeons and other areas of interest by relative challenge level and theme but I've never zoomed in on the actual content. I'm definitely going to add the room matrix. It will change the course of rumor and encounter tables too.

>>92607977
Continual Light (Dark)
Sanctuary
Speak With Dead
Animal Friendship
Heat Metal
Alarm
Forget
Stinking Cloud

Haste

>>92608827
>Haste
In B/X perhaps, in AD&D it's basically a curse. Slow is better in AD&D and arguably in B/X as well.

>>92608912
>in AD&D it's basically a curse
You mean the aging I presume

>>92608924
Indeed, Mr. Stanley.

>>92608912
>slow in B/X
there's no such thing

>>92608993
My bad, it's in B/E, and I use it.

>>92608967
Elves and dwarves don't care. Alchemist hirelings can brew longevity potions.
I'm not saying the aging doesn't matter but it's not insurmountable.

Have you ever beaten your subdued dragon with a staff of withering?

>>92609128
there is still the death chance each time you use it even if you are a long lived race

>>92609128
>Alchemist hirelings can brew longevity potions
>each time one is drunk there is a 1% cumulative chance that it will have the effect of reversing all age removal from previously consumed longevity potions

>>92609150
>there is still the death chance each time you use it
Wait, what? Source?

>>92609173
all magical aging triggers a system shock roll

>>92609179
PHB 12. Of course it's in the notes to the Constitution table and not in the section on the effects of magical aging!

>>92609150
>>92609157
You both sound like chickenshits afraid to roll the dice when it matters

>>92607985
Light, sleep, charm person, read magic

>>92609218
yeah its a great spell for those special moments, but i just couldnt call it the most useful spell, because its merely absolutely amazing in special moments but has no practical utility at normal times due to the risk

>>92609157
>>92609173
>>92609179
On a second reading, I am not sure I agree with your interpretation. Notice that the text says magical *attacks*. One could argue that the aging from Haste is not a magical attack causing aging, but merely a side effect. It would kinda be in line with Polymorph Other requiring SSS, but not Polymorph Self.

>>92609249
TQ was best, most powerful, and favorite.
Haste is an awesome spell and anyone saying otherwise doesn't know how to play the game.

>>92609250
Somebody call Tim Kask. We've got a rules discrepancy.

File: titanboomer.png (147 KB, 1737x774)

147 KB PNG

>>92609250
>>92609273
dragonsfoot posts seem to agree that haste causes shock, or at least that it was garys explicit intent because players were abusing the haste spell in his own campaign - the cause of every nerf in ad&d

>>92609293
The master at work
It would have been better to say that you suffer the effects of slow for an equal duration at the cessation of the haste spell. Less chance of outright dying from a 3rd level spell and not charging a mostly ignorable currency (age).

Gygax was a dick and he wrote shit rules.

Fite. ME.

>>92606617
I skimmed a few rooms and this looks like good stuff man. Will read thoroughly later. What do you consider "lower-level" for the PCs?

>>92608299
>It will change the course of rumor and encounter tables too.
Could you educate me on what you mean by this?

>Be every OS or OSR module review ever
>There actually was this cool thing in this hex/room/NPC's house, but it wasn't mentioned anywhere else
>I actually bent that element back into the history
and added it to the rumor table, which I then fudged
>This makes the module better because now every player and group will have the exact same experience, be overpowered with rare items , and have no reason to revisit the adventure again

>>92607977
>checked
>TQ
Wind Walk breaks hex crawls

>>92611032
I am currently in the process of revising a lot of the wording, and that part now reads "low-to-mid level". Since it's for bx, I'd say 3-6th level. The party I ran through this was that level range, and they did well.

>>92611398
I’m mostly thinking of my own process. If I have snapshots of dungeon contents like that effectively at my fingertips it would speed up how I build rumor tables and special encounters.
Like if I can see there are three tribes of hobgoblins within close proximity in three different dungeons that might suggest a trade or military alliance between the three or maybe animosity or whatever.
It’s just a broader top down view of the information. One less step in the mind mapping.

Do you make sure monsters are varied enough in your campaign that magic items that target specific monster or damage types are not useless?

>classes are reskinned as sects within a pantheon
>Fighters are the followers of the warrior god. Mages are the followers of the magic god. Clerics are the followers of the god of life. Thieves are the followers of the trickster god. Etc.
>Adventurers gain supernatural abilities (largely just divine luck - HP) by bringing treasure back from the underworld.
>The gods grant highly pious (high level) heros with domains and followers
>The gods demand that their followers use or don't use particular weapons and armor
>Classes and levels have nothing to do with skill development?
Thoughts? I think it's more coherent than the original.

>>92614865
>coherent
"It makes sense" is a hobgoblin of the amateur game developer. Your ideas sound fun, I would play it, but beware, because countless terrible shitbrew ideas have come out of using "it would makes more sense if" as a guiding principle.

Gameplay experience at the table is generally more important than mechanics that are "coherent" or "streamlined" or "make sense."

>>92615176
At what point does your argument become untrue? Because there is a point at which the mechanics not making sense does matter. People would shit on your game, "why do slings have greater range than crossbows? This game is dumb".

>>92609293
Reminder that casting Resurrection also causes 3 years of aging and therefore calls for a System Shock check. Raise Dead has no such effect, however.
DMG p13

What sort of "World building" do you guys do? How does one go about world building in an OSR setting?

>>92615570
There's some documents floating around that you can find by googling "Gygax 75" that describes a really pretty damn fine way of doing it.

>>92615349
I'll put it another way: "Making sense" is something you can take into consideration, but it's not something you should give foremost consideration to, lest it warp your game into a mess.

>>92614570
I generally make sure that monsters are varied enough to make sure it's not boring. The other thing will usually take care of itself, but if I roll something that targets a monster that will probably have very little presence in the campaign for a while, for whatever reason, I'll change it to target something else.

>>92614270
I see! Well if you don't mind me offering another tip: take a smaller version of your master map and place it near the monster/treasure matrix, then taking a different color for each faction, fill in each room and passage with their respective faction's color, and using black ink, write the number of creatures present. This will help you mentally visualize which areas are controlled and by who, and helps for structuring reinforcement arrivals.

Gygax is rolling over in his grave

Get Ye Gone
False Old-School Enthusiast

>>92608199
>>92612743
What did you use to make the map?

>>92617087
Dungeon scrawl. Its very useful.

Does anyone know of artists I could commission for old-school fantasy illustrations?

>>92618357
There's nothing more Old School than tracing art from comic books

>>92618437
stable d is newschool oldschool

>>92618437
Yeah lol, bad art in general is the most authentically old-school but I still want something good.

>>92618530
just look at thread image

>>92614865
That’s Anakama’s idea for Dofus/Wakfu/Wravan.

Ways to differentiate weapons besides just damage dice? I don't like the Weapon vs Armor matrix, but I want there to be SOME difference between an axe and a sword

Even if it's something fairly trivial like mace-type weapons get +1 to hit against metal armor, axes can re-roll if the damage die is 1 or 2, swords get... something?

>>92618645
swords cost more, here's your difference.
jokes aside, you can use space required for each weapon.

>>92618645
>swords get
Hireling and henchman morale bonuses. Swords are for winners.

>>92618645
My weapon shitbrew keys into my combat shitbrew. Weapons have traits, most of which are just tied to the weapon class itself (blade/axe/hammer/spear)
Some just don't get a weapon class trait and it's fine.
The shirt list that's just weapon classes is
Blades- Can be drawn as part of an attack, except the Greatsword (which just hits hard as fuck)
Hammers- +2 vs metal armor
Axes- Deal extra +3 damage to Shields, and any damage in excess of a Shield's health is done to the target.
Shields- Don't grant any AC, instead they act as a buffer of HP, basically damage you don't have to take.
Spears- Get an attack of opportunity if you're wielding one and an enemy charges at you. My current players hate the declaration phase so that was a concession I made. Ordinarily they just get to be Braced which acts as it does normally.

>>92618645
Swords get parry (as Holmes Basic page 21)
Axes get +1 to open door rolls (wooden only) and can break wooden shields (player must declare they target the enemies shield before rolling, not sure how to handle it from there. It could be on a d20 roll of 2 or greater than the roll needed to hit or specific damage roll thresholds or just giving the shield a few HP)
Maces and Hammers have +1 damage against plate armor
Flails ignore shields
Polearms can attack from 2nd rank and can be braced against charging enemies

>>92618721
>Hireling and henchman morale bonuses. Swords are for winners.
...I unironically like this

File: weapon type vs. AC, simple.png (11 KB, 754x245)

11 KB PNG

>>92618645
Like you suggest, special properties or critical hits is one thing you can do.

>Rolled a cleric with an Int of 4
I know I'm going to get shit for this but what are my options for increasing my stats?
I'm not going to be a little bitch and have him walk into the mouth of a basilisk or some shit but playing 'hurr hurr I like trains' for an entire campaign sounds shit.
Can Miracle cure retardation? Can I slip the gods a $20 for a reroll?
Doesn't have to be a flat bonus, just a reroll.

Speaking of weapons one of my players has taken to using a grappling hook and rope in combat to snare or trip enemies and I'm curious how others ITT would handle this.
I've made a few hasty rulings on it, usually just increase the to-hit roll. I think I should also brush up on grappling rules because that's an inevitable going down this road.
Anything helps just spitballing here.

>>92618854
Is Int 4 even really that bad? it pretty much just means no bonus languages, unless your table is making you RP him like a retard or something

>>92618878
Yeah, retarded NPCs don't even get INT scores, INT scores are for player characters.

>>92618854
>>92618878
Does that mean he can't read/cast cleric scrolls?

>>92618854
I know this sounds silly, but your intelligence score should not dictate how intelligently you can play your character. For this reason, I kind of wish they had named it something different ("mental aptitude" is at least more oblique). But regardless, Intelligence should cover only aspects of your character that don't interfere with player agency. So a 4 Int cleric can't read or write (or just can't read or write Common, depending on how you play things), but is otherwise a fully-functioning, perfectly capable character.

>>92618906
ACKS so it does, he's illiterate.

>>92618878
Honestly? I just want to know if I've got any choice outside of playing Brother Spaghetti-Os magic adventure going forward.
All I can picture in my mind is an Int <3 run of Fallout where the character is too stupid to even engage in the plot.

File: image_2024-04-26_082840842.png (511 KB, 647x481)

511 KB PNG

Forgot to add the picture.

>>92618918
To follow up on this, people often seem to feel they need play low-Intelligence characters as if they're retarded or at least total morons, but they don't have low-Wisdom characters do retardedly-foolish shit all the time, like randomly jump off bridges, and they don't have low-Charisma characters do socially offensive shit all the time, like asking complete strangers how big their dicks are, or some shit.

>>92618922
>ACKS so it does, he's illiterate
He would be illiterate in Basic as well

>3 INT has trouble speaking cannot read or write
>4-5 INT cannot read or write Common
Is there a difference here? One seems to not have the ability to read or write AT ALL. The other specifies "Common"
Cleric and Magic user scrolls are written in magic "formulas" and there must be enough light to "read" them
Does this mean the Cleric with INT 4 should have the ability to read Cleric and cast from Cleric Scolls while and INT 3 Cleric cannot read anything including scrolls?

File: intelligence use of languages.jpg (184 KB, 1086x763)

184 KB JPG

>>92618989
As with many other things in B/X, it's a bit unclear. But notice how 6-8 Int says "can write simple Common words". In a vacuum, that would suggest to me that they can only write Common. So who knows?

>>92619024
What I will say is that Magic-Users have spell books, but nowhere does it say they have to have at least a minimum intelligence. They also have a Read Magic spell, which would seem to get them around the quandary of whether low-Int Magic-Users could read scrolls.

However, for Clerics...

>Magic-user and elf
>spells are written in a magical language and require that the spell-
>caster use a read magic spell in order to understand the scroll so
>that it may be used later. Clerical scrolls are written in a common
>tongue, but only clerics have the spiritual contacts necessary to
>make the spell work.

>>92619037
This whole thing is another example of how old school D&D isn't written in a technical way to properly make clear its intentions, something that can be rather frustrating at times.

>>92618764
>Shields- Don't grant any AC, instead they act as a buffer of HP, basically damage you don't have to take.
Inb4 your players start employing porters to carry 20 shields each.

>>92618853
>all rows add to zero
>all columns add to zero
>based

>>92618854
>playing 'hurr hurr I like trains'
Then don't do it, you fucking retard. This isn't community theater. Fucking kill yourself.

>>92619037
Yeah. Low INT clerics are clearly screwed. They cannot read common and scrolls must be read aloud.
But now the question remains if low INT MUs are also screwed.
I think my argument can be made for MUs. 3 INT can't read anything even after casting read magic to "understand" what the spell is they are still incapable of reading it aloud later to cast from the scroll.
While a 4 INT MU cannot read common but can read the "magical language" after casting read magic to understand it.
Does the magical language become common after the read magic is cast? Basic just says read magic makes them "understand" it.
It's also worth noting that magic user cannot USE cleric scrolls while clerics cannot READ magic user scolls.

>>92619077
To be fair, swords get screwed, as their bonuses are vs. lightly armored foes who are easy to hit and their penalties are vs. more heavily armored ones, but then swords are better than other weapons as it is, so you could see this as a balancing adjustment.

>>92619077
>chopping and bludgeoning attacks are harder to land on unarmored targets because...
>who fucking knows
>cringe

>>92619104
They aren't harder to land on unarmored targets, they just don't have as large of an advantage in such circumstances as other weapons.

>>92619100
Strictly speaking, columns adding up to zero is kinda necessary, but rows doing so not as much.

>>92619104
>chopping and bludgeoning attacks are harder to land on unarmored targets because...
Found the superobese smelly nerd with no combat / martial arts experience.

>>92618853
>>92619109
Effective/adjusted ACs...

Bludgeoning:
Unarmored 8
Leather 6
Chain 6
Plate 4

Chopping:
Unarmored 8
Leather 7
Chain 6
Plate 3

Piercing:
Unarmored 9
Leather 7
Chain 5
Plate 3

Slashing:
Unarmored 11
Leather 8
Chain 3
Plate 2

>>92619116
Axes, being end-heavy, are more unwieldy than swords tend to be. Swords are more nimble and can inflict significant wounds against unprotected skin with less force than a bludgeoning weapon. A glancing blow with sword can still cut. Also, bludgeoning weapons tend to be end-heavy, like chopping weapons.

>>92619116
Please enlighten us HEMAfaggot. What the fuck are you on about besides the unarmored having more mobility?
>You are unarmored.
>I swing at your head with a club (-1 to-hit)
>I swing at your head with an axe (-1 to-hit)
>I swing at your head with a saber (slashing) (HECK'N +2 TO-HIT!!!@1)
How does this make any fucking sense in your world of sTuDyInG tHe BlAdE?

>>92619138
>Swords are more nimble and can inflict significant wounds against unprotected skin
This makes sense but bludgeoning weapons will hurt the target with armor and without armor it's much worse.
Maces and Warhammers tend to be a lot lighter than people expect and also shorter than swords. They're usually more "nimble" than most people expect.
I'm sure HEMAfag can attest to that.

>>92619138
>>92619195
And axes?
Common. Pig iron tomahawk are nimble and while they aren't as sharp as swords who's to say the steel hand axes in D&D aren't razor fucking sharp?

>>92619195
>This makes sense but bludgeoning weapons will hurt the target with armor and without armor it's much worse.
As it should be going and is going by >>92618853. See >>92619120. Some people seem to be assuming that just because a bludgeoning weapon gets a penalty against unarmored and lightly armored targets, it's actually worse against them, but it's not. You have to remember that it's modify existing numbers, so all it's doing is reducing the gap between moderately/heavily armor and unarmored/lightly armored. Reducing, not eliminating or reversing.

>>92619211
You have to hit with one particular part of the axe, and axes are end-heavy, making them less nimble. A one-handed sword has more reach than a one-handed axe, you can do good damage with a larger percentage of it, and it's weighted closer to your hand, allowing you to move it quicker. So against an unarmored target, where you don't need the extra hitting-power of an axe, a sword is going to tend to be better. When you're striking against a target in moderate to heavy armor, this advantage reverses. The sword is still more nimble, but it doesn't have the hitting-power to deal damage through armor as effectively.

File: Pollaxe_MET_14.25.340_001(...).jpg (1.22 MB, 2250x4000)

1.22 MB JPG

>>92619219
>>92619233
I get it.
You would want the sword to shine against unarmored opponents because it's a long and nimble razor edge against someone without armor. Maybe damage differentiation would curb my autism on this but it's just feels weird nerfing axes to-hit roll. IMO when axes hit they HIT, period. If you're unarmored an axe can cleave off flesh and bone. Axes should have damage modifiers against armor types and a more flat to-hit modifier across most armor besides plate.
Pic related, what I'm wielding if you're running your game like this plus a slashing sword and dagger on my belt.

>>92619373
>Maybe damage differentiation would curb my autism on this but it's just feels weird nerfing axes to-hit roll.
I mean, really, axes should be harder to hit with, period, but do more damage. But we're reaching beyond the way D&D does combat at that point, and into the realm of armor as damage reduction and so forth.

>>92619138
>>92619233
This.

>>92619177
>>92619195
>>92619211
>>92619373
Feel free to comment on the topic after getting in the habit of taking regular showers, grooming, losing 100 pounds, and practicing a combat sport or martial art for at least five years three times a week in a proper gym/school (not in your own basement watching youtube videos).

>>92619410
>I mean, really, axes should be harder to hit with, period, but do more damage
But it's an axe just chopping through your shit because grug chop. It should be easier to "hit" but significantly different damage based on armor type. It should also leave you more vulnerable.
>But we're reaching beyond the way D&D does combat at that point, and into the realm of armor as damage reduction and so forth
Definitely. But if your using this type of weapon vs armor differentiation shit I'm just going to carry a pole axe that covers most of my bases and a slashing sword to cut down unarmored mooks.
I prefer to just add little things to certain weapon types instead of trying to play this realistic weapon game that can and will be minmaxed. If a player thinks his dwarf should have an axe I don't want rules discouraging that. Otherwise everyone ends up with either a pollaxe and slashing sword or a shield/bow left hand and both a slashing sword and mace on the belt and right hand to maximize to-hit potential.

File: 82b.jpg (104 KB, 680x680)

104 KB JPG

>>92619459
Anytime you want to translate your HEMA wisdom into OSR mechanics we're all fucking ears. Otherwise, keep your "knowledge of blade" cringelord shit to yourself.
>just got out of the shower, thank you very much
>not fat
>fit
>pic related

>>92619520
>keep your "knowledge of blade" cringelord shit to yourself.
Said the Anon who posted twenty comments on his own "knowledge of the blade" and got triggered for being called out as talking out of his own lard ass.

>>92619563
I still haven't seen a single sentence of your HEMA and "martial arts" wisdom put into elf game mechanics.

I'm playing B/X I want to remove armor and weapon restrictions for all classes.

What can I do with fighter to offset the fact they lose they main feature?

Also, do I just allow magic users to cast in full plate? Would that be a problem?

>>92619784
anon, why?

>>92619602
>I still haven't seen a single sentence of your HEMA and "martial arts" wisdom put into elf game mechanics.
Because, unlike you, I am not a faggot trying to "fix" D&D by injecting "realism" into it.

>>92619602
>>92619846
Also, this:
>>92618853
is perfectly adequate if you want to go down that road, you are just too obese and smellynerd to understand it. Swine meet pearls.

>>92619821
Because why not?
It makes more sense and seems more fun.

>>92619931
>It makes more sense
I sense a pattern, is it national realism retard day?

>>92619931
so basically you want a bx-less BX. just play NuSR such shadowdark or cairn instead.

>>92619976
Is armor restriction the one thing that make bx bx?

>>92619784
The weapons thing shouldn't be too hard to compensate for, but letting magic-users wear plate mail is a huge shift. Let's look at hobgoblins, one step above a base-level monster, with their 18 THAC0. They hit an unarmored 9 AC 60% of the time, but plate mail's 3 AC only 25% of the time. Letting magic-users wear plate mail therefore allows them to take 2.4 times as much punishment as before. That's better than upgrading them to d10 hit dice. And at the point at which you're letting magic-users wear any armor and use any weapon, you've effectively turn them into gishes. Unless you want to hugely increase their XP requirements (which I think is boring), or to cripple them in some other way, the only other option I see available is to similarly boost all the other classes. And... you could do that. I mean, D&D is designed around dramatically scaling levels of difficulty, but you would have to mess with all the classes. (And thieves may be an issue, because they're not gonna be able to do some of their thief stuff in plate mail, unless you want to just get silly with things.)

>>92620040
yeah is one thing (not the only) that make D&D D&D

>>92620045
The idea is that, they can use the equipment, but it may hinder some of their abilities.
Magic users still need both hands free to cast spells, and thieves wouldn't be able to sneak or climb walls in heavy armor.
With mu, maybe anything heavier than leather is too bulky for casting. Maybe even leather is too much.

>>92620077
lol
Lmao, even.

>>92619784
>>92620045
If all classes can use all weapons, then you need to boost fighters and, I would argue, thieves. Both of those are already on the gimpy end of things in B/X.

For thieves, just giving them d6 hit dice could be adequate. I'd personally like their backstab damage multiplier to increase as it does in AD&D, but I'd like to do that anyway. I'd also like to boost their low-level thief skills, but that's a completely separate issue.

As for fighters, giving them bonus damage (+1/3 levels, or +1/2 if you really want to supercharge it) is an easy solution. Letting them attack twice in a round is a bit more complicated, but also more unique-feeling (they can attack twice by accepting a -4 penalty to hit with both rolls, and if you want to supercharge things, that penalty decreases by 1 every 3 levels).

>>92620107
I was thinking about giving them +1 to hit on top of their normal progression. Starting at 18 THAC0 and going from there.
Maybe giving them +2 damage on a crit.

>>92620105
ahahah, gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8

>>92620149
That's not a lot.

First there's the bigger damage dice swords have over daggers and staves, doing 1.8x as much damage. Magic swords are also much more common than other magic weapons (for instance, something like 16x more common than cleric-usable weapons, IIRC), so for the sake of argument, let's say that allows fighters to retain that 1.8x damage even as the party levels. If magic-users can now use magic swords, that goes out the window, and to balance things out fighters get +1 to-hit and +2 damage if they happen to roll a 20? Fighters are weak in B/X relative to other editions anyway, and this is just not enough. Hell, at that point, clerics with their quick level progression are really encroaching on fighter territory (assuming we're also letting them use swords). Giving fighters two attacks comes closer to compensating for losing a 1.8x advantage than just giving them +1 to hit.

Personally, to give weapons meaningful choice, I have had good experiences rolling damage "with advantage" or "with disadvantage" against armor types.

AC 7-9: swords, advantage; maces, disadvantage
AC 4-6: axes, flails, advantage
AC <4: maces, advantage; swords, disadvantage

Something like that. It is not realistic: but it's not designed to be. And it's simpler than the WvA table.

>>92619784
Go the other way. Remove Magic User, Cleric and Thief. Increase scroll treasure quantity. All characters can learn spells from scrolls.

>>92620040
>Why can't I call "B/X" something that isn't B/X?
Philosophy hour on /osrg/.

>>92619784
they can wear it, but they only get half the bonus (10 naked, 11 leather, 12 chain, 13 plate). They are not trained to use armor after all.

Make it 10, 12, 13, 14 for thieves so they can wear leather without penalty.

And yes, why not, cast without penalties. Encumbrance should take care of it (though its better if you use strenght based encumbnrance: magic users will have a hard time fighting for slots if they didnt roll good STR

>>92620837
cont.

also much better if you force the MUs to use a staff and the staff counts towards encumbrance.

>>92620635
sounds more complicated to me if you are going to be rolling the number of attacks a fighting man has against normal opponents

>>92620707
Some mechanics are more central than others. Some mechanics are more peripheral. Making alterations to the rules (home brewing) is part of the fun of the hobby. This isn't a religion, it's a game and a hobby.

>>92620635
That doesn't really work, given how powerful Advantage and Disadvantage are. So let's take a level 5 fighter with an adjusted THAC0 of 14 (due to strength and magic weapon bonus) who's got a mace. That gives him an 80% chance to hit an unarmored, AC 9 target, and a 50% chance to hit an AC 3 target in plate mail. Disadvantage vs. unarmored AC 9 means 64%. Advantage vs. plate mail AC 3 means 75%. So you're considerably better off striking at a guy in plate mail than a guy without any armor at all.

>>92618854
I have been playing for the last year or so every week with a clear who only has a 4 wisdom. Just have fun with it

>>92620971
It was tested in B/X. So no. But I could see where you're coming from.

>>92621378
Advantage/Disadvantage on the DAMAGE roll - not the attack roll. The intent was to make weapon choice matter.

>>92621286
Still doesn't explain why you want to call "B/X" somethig that isn't "B/X". Shitbrew whatever you want however you want, you're the one with a religious fetishism for labels if you care so much for getting to use that specific one.

>>92621795
>Advantage/Disadvantage on the DAMAGE roll - not the attack roll
Oh. My bad. Lazy reader. I still think you're gonna have issues though.

Using the same numbers from >>92621378, but applying advantage/disadvantage to damage instead of to-hit...

80% chance to hit AC 9 × 2.53 average damage for a d6 roll with disadvantage = 2.02 average damage per round

50% chance to hit AC 3 × 4.47 average damage for a d6 roll with advantage = 2.24 average damage per round

You're still doing more damage vs. the guy in plate mail than the unarmored guy.

>>92621478
Based role player
>>92620639
Unirronically this. If you want your character to be known as the one with mystical esoteric knowledge it should be because you bargained for the scrolls when it came time to split the loot. Not because you accidentally rolled a 13 on your int score.

>>92621867
> You're still doing more damage vs. the guy in plate mail than the unarmored guy.
Yes. That's the goal - unless I misunderstand. Assuming (because B/X) you're *not* using weapon adjustments: the mace would do more damage to an armored guy but less to an unarmored one - motivating the hero to potentially grab a sword.

That said, I don't remember if I did the math on hit probability differences and how they would impact damage per round, especially considering the variable damage option. Thank you for breaking it down.

>>92622273
"I hope they're wearing heavy armor so I can kill them more easily" isn't something I can hang with. You can make it so switching weapons would advantage you without ending up with stuff like that, which doesn't make sense.

>>92622456
Wow, bro.. "making sense"?? We don't do that here.

>>92622456
How is the WvA adjustment table any better for you then? Just curious.

The statement, for me, wasn't "I brought a mace, I hope they are wearing armor" - but instead, "I have my sword, but I think I might run into someone in heavy armor, so I will also bring my mace."

>>92622531
"making sense" in that context is more an euphemism for "too fucking dumb".

File: m2m.png (62 KB, 858x311)

62 KB PNG

>>92620635
why not just use Chainmail man-to-man table?

>>92622572
>How is the WvA adjustment table any better for you then?
Oh, I don't like it either. I think it's overly-fiddly nonsense.

But you can have something simpler like >>92618853, for instance, where you're incentivized to use a mace vs. heavy armor without it making it so that heavy armor actually makes you more vulnerable to maces than if you were naked.

>>92622647
Plate armor provides zero protection vs. two-handed swords, and actually makes you more vulnerable to flails, maces, and halberds. A Chain mail and shield combo provides no protection at all vs. pikes, flairs, and maces, and actually makes you more vulnerable to two-handed swords, battle axes, and halberds (by 2 points!). A plate mail and shield combo (the heaviest in the game) is completely useless vs. a halberd, flail, or mace. Unless there's something I don't understand about how this table is supposed to function, it's pure garbage.

>>92618645
Swords are portable (lighter/less encumbering). There's a reason small swords were the gentleman's weapon, not a pocket axe or a walking spear. Swords are much more convenient to carry and use on short notice vs the other types of weapons. So the sword user can react faster to an ambush if his weapon is stored vs anyone else, and it's generally less of a pain in the ass to keep your sword on you than your spear, hammer, etc which all catch on obstacles way more often.

>>92622674
Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying!

>>92622647
I have.


>>92622735
Some of it is based on Gary interpreting historical books on medieval styles - like, the shield doing nothing if you have plate armor in most cases is because later medieval plate covered everything a shield could.
https://youtu.be/F0sGtOCsWXo

>>92621286
FOEGYG

By request of one of my players, i will homebrew a class based on making medicines/antidotrs/poisons, maybe bombs. Basically an alchemist that doesnt delve into magic or not much at least. Is there any precedent that i can absorb? Do thieves have the capacity to prepare poisons somewhere or did i dream it?

>>92623627
Check out assassins in AD&D? Poison's their big thing.

>>92623627
The DMG is required reading, Anon.

>>92623726
You tried this same thing and got utterly blown the fuck out for it last thread. You sure you're ready to look like a dipshit again?

>>92623873
>got utterly blown the fuck out for it
Really?
>>92604411
>>92604439
>>92605593

>>92623994
kek, "btfo"-anon confirmed for a healthy imagination

>>92624013
Anon, your aversion for the DMG and Gygax is so out of place for this general that I can't help but wonder if you might not be 2efag still having failed at getting a life.

>>92624059
A truly active and fanciful imagination you have.

>>92624059
Meant to reply to
>>92623873

>>92623873
He's right tho. The 1e DMG is indeed required reading for anybody who wants to post in this thread.

>>92624215
You don't get to set requirements for anyone. I know that annoys you, but continuing to whine about it only makes you look like a faggot.

>>92624222
He started off saying it was required reading when I asked if age modifiers were added in 3e and said I play B/X, not play AD&D. He eventually had to resort to lying justify his faggotry, pretending that I said they were introduced in 3e and was a WotC kid. In short, he's a moron that just wanted to fight, got exposed for his ignorance and lawncrapping, and then eventually had to lie to save face, while the other anons in the thread and I continued to discuss the 1e DMG and B/X civilly.

GO reread that section of the thread if you like. It's plain as day that he's just a faggot that wants to fight instead of talking about games.

>>92619846
>Because, unlike you, I am not a faggot trying to "fix" D&D by injecting "realism" into it.
Reading comprehension.

>>92624283
>He eventually had to resort to lying
>got exposed for his ignorance
>had to lie to save face
Did you forget to take your anti-psychotic drugs, Anon?

>>92607977
Maybe there is something I'm not getting, but could somebody give me some insight into why ability scores are in the particular order of:
S I W D C Ch?

>>92624283
And you don't get to come talk with the big boys unless you know how to tie your own shoes
Please learn how to put in at least a bare minimum of effort before you ask other people to perform for you.

>>92624783
>big boys
Thanks for that laugh.

>>92624769
First three were the prime requisites of the original three classes - Fighting-man, Magic-user, Cleric. Maybe the ordering of the last three was just arbitrary.

>>92624769
There probably isn't a reason, but S I W seem to be in the order that Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and Clerics were introduced in the game.

>>92624894
>>92624895
Something I noticed is that those appear to be the only stores that can be reduced at character creation to increase a prime req. Question is: does the game use anything of value whatsoever if I were to arrange the ability scores differently?

>>92624964
>does the game use anything of value whatsoever if I were to arrange the ability scores differently?
You would be forcing everyone to deal with two different orders, given that all published modules use the traditional one. What's there to be gained from using a new order?

>>92625029
>inb4 "it makes sense" lol

>>92624964
Do you gain anything of value from changing to the modern stat order?
No.
So why change it?
Keep the three main prime requisites next to each other in the orginal order for ease of adjustments and to stay TRVE KVLT

>>92625029
>>92625258
I was considering putting them into alphabetical order, grouping them by physical and mental, or some other half baked idea.
I think I agree with both of you however. Thank you for the insight

>>92624964
It might rankle some grognards, who just don't like you fiddling with things, but otherwise, no. The order of abilities actually used to bother me... a little, not a lot, but still bother me. I do think that modern D&D groups them in a bit more of a logical fashion (there are some things it actually improves, though this is a pretty minor thing). I actually go Con, Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha though, to have the most closely related stats next to each other, for reasons of stat-generation fuckery.

another question:
I understand the generality of left to right with saving throw difficulty, by any idea why b/x and ose are Death Wand Paral. Blast Spell, whereas something like acks is Paral. Death Blast Wand Spell?

>>92626518
I have no idea why Macris decided to order the saves in a way rather than another one. Most people would be used to either the grouping and ordering of B/X or the grouping and ordering of AD&D, that are similar but not identical.

>>92626764
And Labyrinth Lord uses Breath Death Paral. Wands Spells.
wack

>>92626518
>Blast
Do notice that there is no such thing as a "Blast" save in D&D, it's a new name for Breath. (I think it's a good name, but others might feel differently about it.)

>>92626785
(Also: Some retroclones and shitbrews (ACKS is a shitbrew (which isn't necessarily always a bad thing)) have changed name or order of saves because they were concerned about copyright issues, since the D&D save categories are not in the 3e and 5e SRDs.)

>>92626810
>>92626518
if it's ACKS 2E there was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate D&D terms

File: blasts.png (53 KB, 262x407)

53 KB PNG

>>92626787
I use blast. I ask these questions because I'm making a character sheet.

>>92624964
I have changed the order of ability scores to Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Charisma. I also have my classes in order of Fighter, Thief, MU, Cleric.

This was merely due to my own bias of preferring nonmagical classes, and working out my own rules for fighters and thieves before the others. It may also bias my players, as I have them roll down the line which might incline them toward fighters and thieves, but I’m not sure if this bias has played out in a meaningful way.

While the original order of ability scores may have been arbitrary, keep in mind that ANY organization will be arbitrary, even the decision to split them from physical and mental is rather arbitrary. Ordering by prime requisites may indeed be the least arbitrary looking purely from gameplay purpose as opposed to aesthetic purpose.

>>92626967
>ANY organization will be arbitrary
I like fun backronyms like SPECIAL (Fallout) and CLASSIC (Wasteland 2)

>>92627064
SWIDCC?
CCWISD?
CWISDC?

>>92627136
WISDCC
'Cause wiszards are diccs.

>>92619868
>is perfectly adequate if you want to go down that road
I disagree with to-hit adjustments. Too many will get out of hand quickly
>ability score modifier (+1)
>magic weapon (+1)
>Bless Spell (+1)
>slashing vs unarmored (+2)

>>92627064
I accidentally ended up with MR FAIRS in a homebrew. Maybe that's not the most impressive thing, but it was without having to rearrange anything, with each attribute next to the ones with which it was most closely related.

>>92627191
NAYRT, but I like the idea of magic weapons upgrading your damage dice rather than giving you pluses to damage. The only problem is that you run out of dice after d12s.

But: d8 --> d10 --> d12 or 2d6 --> d8+d6 --> 2d8

I've also toyed around with the bonus damage from strength being best of X dice, so a +1 strength would allow you to roll one extra die and take the highest result. The only issue with this is diminishing returns. On a d8:

no mod / 1 die -- 4.5 dmg
+1 mod / 2 dice -- 5.81
+2 mod / 3 dice -- 6.47
+3 mod / 4 dice -- 6.86

>>92627324
Just get some zocchi dice and keep going up, anon.

>>92627655
Nah. I don't want to rely on nonstandard dice, and I feel like there are already enough different kinds of dice on the table as it is.

>>92627664
Suit yourself. My DM introduced them to our table recently after the party finally hit 1 million XP to cover some rare artifact weapons we have acquired. My level 15 fighter (neutral traveling knight) just got a normal sword +2 that was once the personal sword of some ancient emperor from a few ages past and still sharp and sturdy as fuck. 1/day it can do a 1d18 damage (no bonuses to the damage though). Sucks if you activate it and miss though but there is something satisfying about smacking a monster for 15 damage (which so far has only happened once). Then again, once I hit Expert rank in my normal sword weapon mastery rank it won't be as big a thing but I am just having the fucking hardest time finding someone to train my character, the DM keeps rolling shit for my fighter to find one.

File: level 4.png (170 KB, 382x511)

170 KB PNG

>1e has over 70 varieties of pole arms

>>92627852
That's based. I like playing B/X but I miss some of the crunch of AD&D.

>>92627852
Gygax said in an interview that was added so people could use them to differentiate army figures on the table.

>>92627931
Which is funny, because at the time (and even still in some games) most if not all polearms on figures you could get in enough bulk to form armies were pretty much exclusively spears. To get something like a Bardiche-bill-hammer-berd-hook-fachaurd, you'd have to sculpt your own polearm heads at 25mm scale.

Any Red Tide fans here? How would you start a campaign? I've already done "You wash up on a beach after a shipwreck" and "You go into the Westmark with a letter letting you keep whatever lands you conquer"

File: prime requistes.jpg (280 KB, 1600x1066)

280 KB JPG

>>92627136
SCCIDW

I want to start my next campaign off with "the slave trade ship you were prisoner on got eaten by the kraken or something and you've washed up on the shores of a strange land. you've got nothing but skivvies to your names, and no clue where the fuck you are at all."
so yeah basically just the start of age of conan
but I feel like that's too weak a start in terms of the capacity to have some information. also no one having anything besides whatever they can scavenge, but I think that's part of the fun. at least, it's fun I'd have
short of having a dead explorer's campsite with a weather-worn map indicating like "white sand beach" "campsite" "strange ruins- cannibals" "town- pirates" and some other possible locations and some beat up gear, barely enough for a person, straight on the beach, how would you actually give them enough information to have a goal in mind?
is this too harsh a start? and what would you do for a M-U who doesn't get a spellbook?

>>92629162
>and what would you do for a M-U who doesn't get a spellbook?
i seem to remember shamans/witch doctors having like wood blocks with carvings of their spells and so on, have them learn to make a spellbook this way from locals.

>>92629162
>>92629186
to add on this maybe this idea works best as a funnel type adventure? i would be inspired by the beginning to Path of Exile and Isle of the Abbey for a beachcrawl

How do people feel about Castles & Crusades? My dad was into it, and I was reminded because someone actually ran a game at a small local convention.

>>92629194
I'd kind of be treating the situation like a funnel before moving into volcanic island hexcrawl, just with level 1 characters. though I do see the merit of just going with a standard level 0 funnel. might be the better way to go about doing things specifically to avoid that situation
I've never run a level 0 funnel in OSR before. I've done it in shadow of the demon lord though. the idea of having a very clear "this is THE thing to do" in getting to a safe town weighs a little heavily on my mind but I still just really like the idea
>>92629186
pilfering a carved one is a thought, but there's also the problem of them not starting play with spells memorized due to being stuck slaving on a boat for weeks. so even if they had a spellbook they wouldn't have read magic to do anything with it.
I was also imagining just placing a powerful temporary thing like a staff or wand or something in an obvious, tantalizing, but dangerous location. like an isolated altar in the jungle, covered in blood, with a crooked black stone staff resting against it. the remains of some dark sorcery gone wrong that left the area around the altar blighted. and Idunno a giant spider or something. cannibals avoid the altar like the plague and some critter took up a lair there

>>92629256
>Castles & Crusades
It's a 2e/3e hybrid. It's fine if you like it, but it's not really the focus of this general.

>>92629256
What the other anon said. It's a relic of the pre-OSR era, and mostly only notable because Gygax wrote stuff for it.

>>92629162
What about if one of the slavers survives, someone who knows enough to have come here to sell them, but who has no details on the inland areas.

They'd also make a very convenient disposable henchman, slave for sale, spare rations, ect depending on how the players are feeling towards the people that enslaved them.

Chris Gonnerman's new video on the Consent Checklist just dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsYh83FNDlg

File: DoWeCare.jpg (59 KB, 425x600)

59 KB JPG

>>92629652

File: dis-gin-b-gud.gif (2.66 MB, 498x267)

2.66 MB GIF

>>92629699
Not sure "care" is the right word, you might want to watch it or not depending on what you like with your popcorn. I think the video implicitly says a lot about Gonnerman and some of the choices he made in BFRPG, including why he doesn't use XP for gold.

>>92629799
>why he doesn't use XP for gold.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that Capitalism is mentioned several times in the same tone you might use to throw racial slurs at a klan chowder cookout?

>>92627852
>>92627931
In The Strategic Review, I forget which issue, Gary writes about why, A, the spear in Chainmail kind of sucks and, B, why "polearm" in OD&D was a single entry when there were many polearm variants with special purposes in history. Apparently, HEMA nerds in the 1970s wrote to him whining about it sufficiently for him to write a rebuttal.

It makes me wonder if the famous "polearm table" is an underhanded gratification of those nerds: a curse to give them exactly what they want - "Not satisfied with an abstraction? Here! ALL the polearms! Bathe in the complexity!"

>>92619024
You can be functionally illiterate and still be able to understand a stop sign. Think about your average weeabo's ability to read japanese. Still might pick up the meaning by context.


3. Struggles to write ANYTHING. Can count to potato.


6-8 Could make a stop sign that others could understand. Can figure out which tavern to go into with a nameplate alone.

>>92629162
I have done this - if I were to offer any advice: in an OSR backdrop, make sure there is a "town" they can get to relatively easily. The way OSR mechanics work, you kind of need one - B4 might serve as inspiration.

>>92630115
>HEMA nerds in the 1970s
No such thing, HEMA started in the 1980s.

>>92630287
Are you sure? I've always been under the impression "HEMA" was an umbrella term for the study and recreation of historical European martial arts - not a specific organization: if it is an organization, I will stand corrected - the SCA was founded in 1966, so I could amend the statement to "SCA nerds."

>>92630653
HEMA is indeed as you say an umbrella term and not a specific organisation, but at the same time refers to a specific movement with a specific point of origin in time, around the 1980s/1990s.

E.g. Fiore dei Liberi never used the term "HEMA" (or however you'd say that in Italian), even though he was doing something that people today are trying to revive when they do HEMA.

>Playing a priest of a reptile god in ACKS
>One of our random lair encounters is 2 Noxious Basilisks
>Ask DM if they count as Reptiles for my speak with beasts ability
>Seems so
>Bewitch the two of them thanks to some hard prep and a lucky roll
>Find out these fuckers can do a 20' Diameter cloud which does 6d6 damage with Paralysis every d3 rounds
>And are resistant to all mundane damages
>And is large enough to act as a mount
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU
God bless out in the open rolls, otherwise I'd think the DM had put it in there just for me, knowing it came entirely out of chance makes it feel like I earned this through quick thinking instead of being given it.
Sets blessing be upon me lads.

Which is better: OSE or DCC?

>>92631425
OSE is a faithful repackaging of BX.
DCC is some weird half baked 3e based system that is not under the subject of this general

>>92631425
OSE is easier to run long term. I would like to give AOSE a try one day - but have only played classic to date.

DCC is fun in spurts, but lacks certain campaign elements, places less emphasis on resource management, and favors fighting over the holistic OSR experience.

>>92631487
DCC is absolutely OSR

>>92631678
how? it's only "OSR" in the vibe, nothing else. the the same creator of the game says that is not OSR

File: 1712112327952336.png (164 KB, 553x585)

164 KB PNG

>>92631678
Lol lmao you're either new, or trolling.
Regardless, you're wrong. Cheers!

File: brainstorm.png (491 KB, 1186x1694)

491 KB PNG

>>92614865

In general, what do you like about OSR campaigns? What don't you like? What does your chosen system (whichever particular flavor that happens to be) handle poorly or require especially careful arbitration of?

>>92632490
I just like diegetic logic-based exploration, the pursuit of wealth over a grand world-saving narrative, and non-superhero player characters. I like dungeon crawling and seeing and adjudicating the results of player experimentation.
I don't like how, almost invariably, the PCs end up embroiled in something that isn't necessarily the pursuit of wealth. "Whoops our pursuit of wealth stirred a dragon and we're not just going to flee responsibility," "this large and powerful faction are fuckers, let's make the campaign about taking them out," etcetera. The move from low to mid level burns me out and I'm just not interested in it.
I'm using rather hacked-up OSE/B/X and don't really have any problems with it personally but my players have voiced that they'd rather have more tactical grid-based combats with more character abilities.

>>92632490
I'm this guy >>92631012 and ACKS is a recent thing for me, as is OSR.
But I fucking love how encounters aren't necessarily combat encounters. In newer games its like the Star Trek battle music starts playing whenever you run into anything and they just go at you for all they're worth. There's no common sense, everything from demons to rodents are just homicidal.
Thanks to moral checks, reaction rolls, ect it truly feels like we're people who are interacting with a world/ecosystem rather than running right in an old arcade beat 'em up.
I don't feel like that encounter could've happened in 5e, because the DM would be too set in the mindset of 'This is going to be a cool/cinematic fight' rather than 'Boy, are these things going to eat the parties entire ass if they're not smart and don't come up with creative solutions to avoid having their entire ass eaten'

>>92632566
This is how the feel.
I've thought about introducing a 'Forced Retirement' roll that starts when you first get titled, because I don't want to deal with any of the kingdom management or 'managing your bard school' stuff. At and every level after you get titled, you roll to be 'tempted away' by those things, and when you are no longer purely an adventurer you are retired and now an NPC. I feel that's closer to the nature of the game, high level play is essentially another game entirely. Getting to that level is like having your picture put up at the bowling alley, the reward is having 'won' with that character and having them immortalized in the campaign.

File: DCC is not OSR.png (6 KB, 466x165)

6 KB PNG

>How dare you say DCC is not OSR you are excluding me.
Joseph Goodman, the author of DCC, on whether DCC is OSR.

File: frogwizard.jpg (164 KB, 1024x1024)

164 KB JPG

>>92607977

Hi guys, I don't play DnD (too alone for that) However I deeply enjoy the worlds, the monsters and the stories.

I wanted to ask you, is this the strongest monster ever made?

I am talking about the constellate, a sentient constellation.

https://spelljammer.fandom.com/wiki/Constellate

>>92629652
It's unfathomable to me that people spend time thinking about these things. You shouldn't play with people you don't feel safe around. That completely eliminates the need for these "safety" tools.

This is shit that only applies to weirdoes that play with randos on discord.

>>92632982
>I don't play DnD (too alone for that)
Play solo! It's loads of fun and there are tons of tools for that. You can start with these two playlists:

BroSR AD&D solo playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_z29m150g5r5TvlCLzlaBTcK7YZiTWPf

Shitbrewed OD&D solo playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLWlyyPUNLSxVSJUJ5hxyqKMDZnE5LQ9M

The AD&D DMG (the real one, not the knock-off) has procedural rules to create dungeons, wilderness, and castles on the fly. Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy adds even more to that. You can definitely play on your own! And if you stream it, I guarantee someone will be watching.

>is this Fagjammer monster the strongest ever made?
You are very welcome here, we're very happy to help you play, but it's also important that you don't be a faggot, Anon.

>>92632999
>This is shit that only applies to weirdoes that play with randos on discord.
If that. It's 99% performative.

>>92632336
You do realize that what isn't isn't osr has been clearly defined by this general for years now?

>>92632970
This anon is 100% right about DCC not being OSR. That doesn't mean it's not a fine game; it is. There are lots of fine games that even have very similar feel to OSR games but that are not OSR, like Shadowdark for instance.

The only non strictly OSR game that I would include as an OSR game is Castles & Crusades, because it tried to do what the first OSR games did without perfectly recreating the rules. It instead modded the 3.x SRD rules to get a game as close to the original editions as possible without stepping outside the SRD, for fear of being sued (everyone was scared shitless of being sued at one point, before Stuart Marshall and Matt Finch went full "come at me bro").

I would therefore call Castles & Crusades something like an "OSR Emeritus". It's what we had before more true to the original systems came along, and was very important in that respect, so it gets a seat at the tables while still acknowledging it as something whose times has passed for strict definition OSR people.

>>92632982
Garbage post

>>92633095
I have been playing with random 4channoids on discord for over a year and things are going great. There have been a couple of social complex but nothing bad talking it out wasn't able to solve.

>>92632970
>Inspired by OSR
>But not bought by OSR people
That makes a better argument for it being OSR than you think.
Also, why does it ruffle your feather?

>>92633148
When I first started playing, most people didn't even encourage 'playing' specific games. "The Best Game is the One you Make' was the mantra, then OSE got kickstarted and we started loyalty testing everyone and making fun of 'shitbrew'.

>>92633439
Please define what you think osr is, and then I will refer you to how it has been defined in this very thread for years.

>>92633439
>Also, why does it ruffle your feather?
Unironically because he's an autist that hangs around the thread airing his massive, salty vagina any time anything he considers outside of the Orthodox is mentioned.

>>92633455
Non sequitur

>>92633459
>Is shadowdark osr?
>Is rune quest osr?
>Is DCC osr?
It's so very tiresome.
"OSR games encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as played in the game's first decade"

>>92633465
>Non sequitur
It wasn't an argument, it was a sequence of events.

>>92633472
All three of those things are OSR

>>92633486
No lmao. You're off your meds or shit at trolling.
>>92633498
;)

>>92633458
>Please define what you think osr is
*sound of crickets*
Stop engaging with the troll, people. Just report and move on.

>>92633455
That's anecdotal at best. The OSR began out of people wanting to make new content for AD&D without getting sued. Reviving original D&D was the entire point in the beginning of the OSR, it was only later as the OSR began to explode in popularity that new people cam in who didn't get that, and some of them started to co-opt it for unrelated things in order to get kickstarter bucks or whatever.

>>92633486
Maybe wherever you are from, but the fatal flaw in your plan is: this is Earth.

>>92633648
>AD&D
Ah shit, now you're going to set him off again

"""""Advanced""""""
lol!

I want to play Swords and Wizardry. How is Splinters of Faith as an adventure?

>>92633455
>"The Best Game is the One you Make'
The best game for your table is one tailored for your tables needs, this is still true.
For purposes of discussing >OSR<, your homebrew tweaks are probably 100% irrelevant.
OSR is a specific idea, not the OSR we all made along the way.

My weekly game is primarily OSR but uses FOE stuff. I don't talk about that here.

Anyone seen The Dream's in Gary's Basement?
Tried to find a share of it but turning up nothing and wondering if it's worth $20. Looks like it has a bit of Mornard in it.

>>92633648
Fuck you, I'm talking about this general specifically. I'm talking about here, this place, not some vague 'community'.

>>92634405
What stuff?

>>92634405
>My weekly game is primarily OSR but uses FOE stuff
CONFESS

>>92634796
There was a lot more of that kind of "OSR is just whatever" bullshit prior to about 5 years ago, yeah, but we saw where that lead, which is why the definition in the OP exists now.

Where were you when we had all those lengthy discussions about what OSR is, what it is not, and why, that you somehow missed all that and think the current definition (which is based off the one used in K&KA and Dragonsfoot, the actual literal birthing grounds of the OSR as a movement) just came out of nowhere?
Discussions about what is and isn't OSR happened, it's a settled question here now, deal with it or go somewhere that uses the "whatever" definition, like Reddit or any number of faggy discords.

>>92634905
not him but
>slot based encumbrance
>somewhat hacked combat procedure with no declaration phase
>very hacked weapon tables
>silver standard because I like gold being high value and the subject of much avarice
>homebrewed base-4 classes with what are essentially 2e Kits because I like a little customization
>anime catgirls as a PC race (plus human/dwarf/elf/OC aliens)
I will ask for no forgiveness. I know I am bound for hell, and I have no intention of changing my ways
the rest is just b/x though

>>92634932
>Where were you when we had all those lengthy discussions
He was where he still is, being part-time-anti-OSR-provocateur and part-time-anti-OSR-jan, trying to topic shift this general and failing. It's the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, Anon.

>>92634981
>>slot based encumbrance
Medium FOE
>>somewhat hacked combat procedure with no declaration phase
Fine
>>very hacked weapon tables
Fine
>>silver standard because I like gold being high value and the subject of much avarice
Slightly FOE, but fine
>>homebrewed base-4 classes with what are essentially 2e Kits because I like a little customization
Pretty FOE
>>anime catgirls as a PC race (plus human/dwarf/elf/OC aliens)
Patrician. What's the point of a fantasy adventure if there are no catgirls, anime or otherwise?

>>92634981
Your only cardinal sin is the shitbrewed classes.
>>92635148
Rakasta appear in B/X via Isle of Dread. They're just a monster entry and not a PC race but I'll let it slide.

The PCs want to accompany a guard sortie against an orc lair they reported to the town about. The town pretty much has it covered- it's the largest in the region that can afford to send a group of ~60 guardsmen (still leaving a bunch at home) against the orcs, which number around 30 and aren't very organized.
I'm not super sure why they decided to warn the town guard about it but they did, and the town guard would rather eliminate a nearby threat than let it fester. I see no reason for them to not be organized enough to not do some preliminary scouting and ambush tactics to make their victory as painless as possible, thus the PCs aren't necessarily NEEDED. Nevertheless they don't have a reason to turn down a helping hand. The PCs are just 1st level turdlets with about 1k xp each or so.

I feel like I should just offscreen this because it's frankly not all that interesting and the PCs don't have any real leadership role in this, just some modest pay for the information and acting as mercenaries in a pretty low-risk routine operation. But what else should they even get, if anything?

>>92635648
Perfect opportunity to play a round or two of Chainmail. Regardless of what systems you use to resolve the battle I say play it out.
You can have the party go ahead with some scouts or something. Or have the main force surround the orc village and send the players and a few guardsmen to mop up any stragglers in the surrounding wilderness (And you could resolve the main battle offscreen during this time)
>But what else should they even get, if anything?
Reputation. Make a note of it and communicate it to the player's in-game.

>>92630287
>>92630653
>>92630760
>>92630115
In 1979, we would have called them historical recreationists, SCA people, or renfaire people.

song related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zcKVwI0AMg

>>92634405
Thank you for understanding.

File: coins.png (871 KB, 902x856)

871 KB PNG

I'm done with variety of coins, and the land only has gold coins.

I know it affects the choices of taking or leaving a treasure once the PCs find it, and simplifies encumbrance rules a bit, but I think it balances out when one loaf of bread costs 1 gp.
Because I hate acting out as an exchange office at every session.

If they want to have the value but lower the encumbrance they can always buy jewellery or gems.

>>92632982
Come over to /srpgg/ and start playing B/X solo right away! That's what I do, and it's fun!

>>92638270
why are you posting 5e?

File: movement.png (172 KB, 599x542)

172 KB PNG

Alright /osrg/, I'm doing homework on increased movement speed within the dungeon, and am extrapolating from both BX and 1e.
AD&D recommends a speed increase of up to five times exploration speed for a known route(three time in BX/OSE), and up to ten times if the party is all out running (fleeing).
So I take this as being you can move x5 for the areas you are familiar with and relatively safe within (levels 1 & 2), and still retain your chance to avoid traps, avoid surprise, and remain in cohesive formation.
Moving at beyond x5, up to x10 would forgo these things, which is discouraging, though it is not forbidden.

However, regarding running (speed x6-x10), it may be maintained to up to six minutes, though each two minutes or fraction thereof requires one full turn of rest. You will always be surprised if you have an encounter while running, and fighting before you have the chance to fully rest will result in having -2 to hit and damage, while enemies will gain +2 to hit
(This is modified from BX which states that you may run for up to five minutes and then need to rest thirty minutes. I increased it to six minutes to make it cleanly divisible with the required resting.)
Any feedback?

>>92638438
(disregard the levels 1&2 bit, that was a leftover from discussing this with the party)

File: add-n4.jpg (251 KB, 1250x1610)

251 KB JPG

>>92629162
This is a good module that uses that scenario. Best known for introducing 0-level rules (which I don't love, and ignored), I liked the module itself for a campaign-starter quite a bit. 'Treasure Hunt' was a boring and misleading name. It should have been called 'Escape from the Pirate Island of Doom'.

>>92629256
I like to DM C&C, and use it IMC

>>92638378
coins exist thru all editions.

It was just the first picture that showed up when I googled dnd coins. What's your problem?
And to me, it looks more like 3e/3.5e book.

>>92638270
>loaf of bread costs 1 gp
that sounds like you are drastically undervaluing the treasure players are meant to have
i would also say that you dont have to act out the exchange office at all, but thats not really a point of contention

>>92638270
>>92638595
>And to me, it looks more like 3e/3.5e book.
It's 5e.
PHB page 143 to be exact.
Now GYG

>>92638438
>I increased it to six minutes to make it cleanly divisible with the required resting.
How is six minutes better than five for this, Anon?

One detail you might not have noticed is that in AD&D ten times exploration speed is combat speed, because of the one- minute rounds. You don't have that in B/X.

There are similar implications for "you can run for X minutes" when it comes to combat, if you use one minute rounds.

Last but not least, you need to clarify how all this interacts with charging and tactical movement in the wilderness, making sure your average humans are not faster than Usain Bolt.

File: monster territory size.jpg (196 KB, 695x605)

196 KB JPG

Do you worry about monster demographics?

>>92638981
one encounter per six mile hex where not populated, when not in totally barren lands such as arctic or desert

>>92638852
you think different currencies don't exist in OSR? Fuck off...

>>92638981
Yes.

>>92638981
>one encounter per six mile hex
Pretty sure Anon was talking about lair density, not encounter frequencies.

>>92639135
No, he's telling you that if you want to argue (wrongly) about whic Watzee edition that image is from, you should fuck off and look it up yourself instead of bothering people in the OSR thread with your offtopic babbling.

>>92639135
I KNOW platinum is twice as valuable in the 5aggot slop you posted vs platinum in B/X

>>92638270
>>92639135
You can fuck right off.

>>92638270
My biggest issue with coins is that copper pieces start off feeling worthless, silver pieces relatively so, and even gold pieces seem rather piddly pretty quickly. Going with a silver or even copper standard helps that a lot. Then the different kinds of coins people find are valuable, worthwhile ones, rather than jars full of pennies.

File: Smaug.png (321 KB, 389x287)

321 KB PNG

>>92639354
>My biggest issue with coins is that copper pieces start off feeling worthless, silver pieces relatively so, and even gold pieces seem rather piddly pretty quickly.
That's a feature, not a bug.

>>92639198
>Pretty sure Anon was talking about lair density, not encounter frequencies.
so was I

>>92639379
You have one *lair* per six mile hex? That's ridonkulously low.

>>92639370
I don't like features that seem designed to annoy me.

>>92639392
Pretty sure Arneson and Gygax weren't out to annoy you, Anon.

>>92639354
NTA but what I do is simply convert all copper treasure hordes into their equivalent in silver.
Fuck copper. I don't even use copper to charge PCs for a beer or meal at the tavern.
>b-but the economy and muh peasants tho
>you're missing out on the riveting game play of going in and out the dungeon 10,000 times to pick up 2.5GP worth of copper!!!!1
I just don't care and I have a feeling a lot of DMs back in the day felt the same way.

>>92639410
>going in and out the dungeon 10,000 times to pick up 2.5GP worth of copper!!!!1
That's slightly more than fits in one small sack. B/X characters can carry 1600 coin weight max, which is 16gp if you're carrying just copper. Not a lot, but for one character it's better than having empty pockets on the return trip because your allies were able to carry all the gold and silver with room to spare.

>>92638966
Normally it is 30 rounds (5 min) of running and 3 turns (30 minutes) of rest.
If you ran for 1 minutes, youd have to rest for 6 minutes, and 2 minutes of is a 12 minute rest.
Ive ironed that out a bit by making each 2 min (or fraction of) require a turn of rest, up to 6 min and 30 min of rest. Not perfect, just a semi-simplification.

1e phb p102
"Movement rate is always shown by a numeral followed by the sign for
inches thus, 9". The number of inches moved is scaled to circumstances
and time by modifying either the distance represented or the time period
or both.
Movement in the Dungeon: The movement distance in the dungeon is 1"
to 10' over a turn of 10 minutes duration while exploration and mapping
are in progress"

This means if your speed is 12" you explore 120' in 10 minutes right?

And regarding charging, that would fall under combat movement, which would remain untouched by this, so as per normal.
In the wilderness, I suppose that the same general outline as above would apply, though with the ranges measured as yards rather feet, I don't think the speed is excessive.
Speed 120y per 10min
x10 (flee speed) for 1200y per 10min
Or 120y per 1min
Can run for 6min for 720y.
That's 2160' in 6min, or 1 mile in 14 ½ min.
An intermediate runner averages about a 7 minute mile. This is about half of that.
Please correct me if I have miscalculated.

>>92639388
i dont think so, i think i mentioned before how the human, tribesman entry would need the hex it is in and the six surrounding hexes as hunter gatherers at max size.
Wolf packs in Minnesota, for example, can have territories that range from 7.5mi2 to >214 mi2, at a bit over 31 square miles in a hex, its kind of roughly in the average middle for good quality forest I imaging, but i'm not an expert
for brown bears it looks like you would never put more than one bear lair in a six mile hex also, in fact possibly it would be a hex flower just like the tribals if anything
and yet i've had people in this very general tell me that i was being ridiculously DENSE by putting one lair every hex, but i think people have got funny ideas about population density to begin with because of modern farming

File: e2a (1).jpg (17 KB, 720x405)

17 KB JPG

>>92639435
>>going in and out the dungeon 10,000 times to pick up 2.5GP worth of copper!!!!1
>That's slightly more than fits in one small sack
Just being hyperbolic.
Let's use Morgan Ironwolf and her 930 remaining coin weight as an example.
Let's say a party of 10 Morgan Ironwolfs come across 9,300 copper pieces. They take all the coins and are maxed out on encumbrance. They leave the dungeon at encumbered movement speed and gain 93XP and 93GP worth of purchasing power to spend on retainers, gear and food.
In my elf games that same party of Morgan Ironwolfs come across the exact same result I rolled on the treasure tables except this time it's 930 silver pieces. The players pick up all the coins but are far from maxed out on encumbrance, however RAW they all move at encumbered movement speed. They must now decide to either press on and push their luck or take the 93GP/XP worth of silver back to the surface to hire more retainers and resupply.
Now they could divide the 930 silver amongst fewer characters and gain a movement advantage in combat vs the first party but the party as a whole must move at the rate of the slowest player. The trip out of the dungeon is at the same movement speed for both parties.
The only difference is:
>do we continue the delve or take the money and run?"
Obviously leveling rates can be slightly faster in my elf games vs RAW but my players would often grab one or two piles if treasure and leave before hitting their max carry capacity so I think it evens out.
It really don't matter

File: 1.png (808 KB, 1570x974)

808 KB PNG

>>92639435
>going in and out the dungeon 10,000 times to pick up 2.5GP worth of copper!!!!1
>Ea-nasir intensifies

File: felix-and-gotrek-ch-by-lkiss.jpg (980 KB, 1920x2716)

980 KB JPG

>>92639553
sorry, these were for you, anons:

>>92639354
>Going with a silver or even copper standard helps that a lot
does that mean you calculate XP gain on copper/silver? Otherwise they'll just never level up. But this might be a good idea for my solo game, since I enjoy low-level play, unlike my players. Might be good way to extend low-level playtime.

>>92639410
> what I do is simply convert all copper treasure hordes into their equivalent in silver.
I do the same thing but with gold

>>92639553
>ai slop
Leave.

>>92639553
>>92639553
Yes, it's an image board. Specifically a thread on Old School D&D on the Traditional Games image board.
So try to keep you images of high quality and relevant to the subject of the thread because ITS AN IMAGE BOARD.
>does that mean you calculate XP gain on copper/silver
I don't use silver standard. I'm NTA
>I do the same thing but with gold
Good for you but you are sacrificing higher value hordes being moved in less trips by converting EVERYTHING to gold.
Higher level monsters will have plenty of EP and PP in their hordes.
All I did was shave off the most worthless coin from my games and converted it to silver. We are not the same.

>>92639553
>does that mean you calculate XP gain on copper/silver?
Yes.

>Otherwise they'll just never level up. But this might be a good idea for my solo game, since I enjoy low-level play, unlike my players.
Forcing your players to take 10 times as long to level up when they don't like low-level play seems like a bad idea.

>>92639410
Using a silver standard ups the value of all coins 10 fold, so you can either convert metals (1 gold --> 1 silver, 1 silver --> 1 copper, 1 platinum --> 1 electrum, 1 electrum --> 5 copper) or knock a zero off of how many coins you find.

>>92639553
Go back please

>>92638966
Nta, but outdoor running is already broken btb raw.
Example: B24 "characters may move at up to three times their normal movement rate (per round)."
For a speed of 40, this is 120 per round, which is 120 yards in one round (10s).
The IRL world record for the 100 yard dash is 9 seconds, and this clocks in at 100 yards in 8.3 seconds.

>>92639605
>which is 120 yards in one round
thats because the rule come from ad&d where it is 1 minute, like chainmail. 1 inch being 10 yards outdoors, or 10feet indoors which is where the 3x difference comes from

>>92639621
Like I said, btb it's broken in BX.

File: bfcfa0e1-97b0-45d3-8401-a(...).gif (364 KB, 400x168)

364 KB GIF

>>92639605
This >>92639621
Just call outdoor combat rounds in B/X as 60 seconds like in AD&D and it's all good.
The amount of "seconds" in a round exists souly in the fantasy of the game anyway.
If all combat measurements (besides spell area of effect) are changed to yards in B/X we can assume the amount of imagined seconds within the combat round should also increase.
Another minor flaw found in B/X but it's still perfect in every way!!!

File: 1709610755191527.jpg (132 KB, 854x970)

132 KB JPG

>>92639668
I'll toast to that.

>>92639494
Just because hunter gatherers roam seven hexes, doesn't mean they have cleared seven hexes of all lairs.

Just because you can have only one bear lair in a hex, doesn't mean that the whole hex is deserted except for that one bear lair.

And so on.

>>92639651
>it's broken in BX.
And in AD&D combat in dungeons takes a full minute to do anything and moves at a snails pace if you play out the fantasy of the combat round like an autistic in your head.
AD&D should switch to 10 second rounds indoors is you want get autistic about it but it really doesn't matter. It's abstract.
B/X should switch to 60 second combat rounds outdoors
Simple as

>>92639717
Yeah. Largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand though

>>92639739
AD&D combat rounds don't make much sense indoors
B/X combat rounds don't make much sense outdoors
That's a relevant point to the discussion.

>>92639760
I agree. Which is why I first posted that running outdoors was broken btb in BX
:)
However the discussion is about running indoors within a dungeon.

File: 417937 (1).jpg (122 KB, 900x1391)

122 KB JPG

>>92634806
>>92634905
Sure, here's some of the FOE stuff I run:
>Similar to Ars Magica Non-vancian magic system is my nr.1 FOE.
>hacked together Downtime system Zyan as a basis.
>Simulacrums travel system
>Death & Dismemberment table at 0 hp
>Crit effect by damage type
>Guerilla initiative

>>92634981
>slot based encumbrance
>somewhat hacked combat procedure with no declaration phase
>silver standard because I like gold being high value and the subject of much avarice
I also do these

As well as no classes, no levels, no combat hirelings.

It's all still Hexcrawling / dungeoncrawling with Wandering Monsters and reaction rolls.
Compatible with ADnD.

>OSR as a "War game"
We're ramping up to run Chainmail + ODnD on the side with minis and terrain.
No idea if it will be a good idea.

>>92607977
completely ignorant question. Is there something like a open, minimal osr website with an srd like d20srd.com? I don't like reading pdfs.And I like to be able to see the rules with minimal fluff on them.

>>92619024
What was the origin of the alignment language idea? I honestly cant even imagine it coherently much less implement it

File: GKVLCgXXAAARqfw.jpg (522 KB, 1182x1505)

522 KB JPG

I'm very new to OSR, but my party has been considering running something in it because of Dungeon Meshi. Are there any specific games and supplements you guys would suggest for similar tone? I'm already aware of Monster Overhaul and it's pretty great.

>>92640814
not anything to my knowledge sorry

>>92640814
https://www.basicfantasy.org/srd/

there's a few other ones out there.

>>92640814
OSE srd
ACKS srd

4 Against Darkness is more similar to AD&D than most NuSR schlock...

Discuss

>>92641586
>Discuss
Nah fuck off. Talk about it yourself or buy an ad

>>92640043
>As well as no classes, no levels
How??

>>92640900
>What was the origin of the alignment language idea?
latin or old slavonic

>>92640900
Catholic latin for lawfuls and hep jive for chaotics

>>92640930
Just play BX.
>>92640814
All of basic is 68 pages including spells and monsters. Just read the whole thing.

>>92641718
>Catholic latin
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

>>92641900
...are you trolling?

>>92641963
Are you retarded or just from the USA?

>>92642219
Not that anon, but read a little of this.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#:~:text=Ecclesiastical%20Latin%2C%20also%20called%20Church,especially%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.

>>92642234
Yeah, that's an article about Ecclesiastical Latin, not "Catholic Latin".

>>92642219
Wow

>>92642306
You're one miserable pedant.
Would you have still pissed your pants if I said church latin? As in, Catholic Church Latin? Fucking jerk

>>92642321
I wouldn't have said anything if you had talked about a Latin that exists, like Ecclesiastical Latin or Church Latin, instead of one that doesn't exist, like "Catholic Latin" or "Catholic Church Latin".

>>92642340
Not that anon, again, but click this.
>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=synonym

>>92642340
What a fucking joke you are.
For one, you can clearly see that my post was a joke based on the "hep jive for chaotics"
I'm not a Catholic nor do I have some intimate familiarity of how they function.
I do however have a passing knowledge of the Catholic Church canonically using Latin in liturgy, which was different from the vulgar Latin.
So guess what, it's easy to refer to something colloquially by referring to its associations. Latin used by the Catholic church? Easy to simply call it Catholic Latin. And the best part is, you knew exactly what I was talking about, meaning that regardless of your butthurt nature, my point was still clearly made.
Now please kindly go fuck yourself with a rusty bar

>>92642356
"Catholic Latin" is as much of a synonym of Ecclesiastical Latin as "Republican English" or "Freedom English" is a synonym of American English. If you said "Republican English" or "Freedom English" people would guess what you are hinting at, but still think you're retarded.

>>92642383
>Catholic Church canonically using Latin in liturgy, which was different from the vulgar Latin.
Polemics aside. In case you're curious, Ecclesiastical Latin is extremely close to Classical Latin. The differences are much smaller than those between Shakespeare's English and modern English. Probably comparable to those between American and British English, except that Ecclesiastical Latin has extra vocabulary to talk about objects that were invented in modern times.

Vulgar Latin, on the other hand, is not really a thing. Someone proposed the concept relatively recently (I believe less than two centuries ago?) and it's currently rejected but practically all academics, since it's very unclear what it referred to in the first place. For some reason many "laypeople" still think it's a thing, not sure why.

>>92642468
I'm not actually curious and I don't really care.. I posted a joke and you seemed to get your ass blasted over it.
Catholics are a joke and you are the punchline.

>>92642504
>I'm not actually curious
Yeah, you don't come across as such, seppo.

>>92642519
Why would I care at all about this?
Similarly why would I care at all about how much of a bitch fit some third worlder cathcuck is throwing?

>>92642519
Sorry but you've just been excommunicated

>>92642519
Gettem, champ!

>>92642546
>third worlder
I'm Swiss. If Switzerland is the third world, what are the USA?

>cathcuck
Never been a Christian.