Welcome to TODD! This thread is for OPEN discussion of TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons (OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D including 2e) and related games, such as retroclones and OSR-adjacent games (OSE, BFRPG, S&W, LotFP, DCC, C&C, etc.). Free discussion of house rules and modifications is encouraged. For the sake of clarity, B/X is the assumed default system for any conversation unless otherwise indicated (but please do feel free to indicate otherwise).>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?>Race-as-class or race-and-class?>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?>Armor as damage reduction?
>>93187986No. Stop. Go back to osrg and apologise for whatever you said.
I'm of the opinion we don't need a separate thread for each edition of TSR-era D&D, and this is an attempt to draw them all together, while providing an alternative to the narrowly-defined concept of OSR used by /osrg/. I am by no means married to the title of the thread.I am posting this thread as B/X has hit bump limit, in hopes to replace and modify it, if people are agreeable to that (rather than add yet another old school D&D thread to the page).
For the AD&D folks, I'm curious which rules you choose to ignore.
>>93187991There's been a civil war brewing for a long time, and basically nobody's happy (except for maybe some trolls). I'm hoping a separation (but one with just two threads, rather than having a different thread for each edition) can help restore balance to the force. I'm not at all certain it will work, but it's worth a try.
>>93187986My Armor-as-DR system, designed to actually be functional.
>>93187986>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?I've always been a fan of rangers: the outdoor skillbillies. So I'd probably add either that to B/X, a barbarian/savage of some kind (an alternate take on the fighting man), or a druid (but only if I don't have to be the one to iron their spells out).
>>93187986>>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?AD&D, accept no substitutes. My very first D&D character was a half-elf ranger named Hauwk. >>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?Alchemist or Shaman>>Race-as-class or race-and-class?Race as class>>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?No demi-humans>>Armor as damage reduction?Yes, but...
>>93188075How do you envision a Shaman and how they'd differ from Clerics and Magic-Users (other than just vibe). Or would they essentially be a Cleric/Magic-User?>>Armor as damage reduction?>Yes, but...Yes but what?
>>93188059i remember this from long ago.One thing i tried to moderate success was rolling for it. Just roll the AC bonus as a die so 1d4 DR with chainmail, ad6 with plate etc. I know osr hates additional rolls but it just works better with the chaos of combat for me, not knowing or being able to calculate if you will damage the opponent or get damaged
For you 1st edition AD&D people: What's a change 2nd edition made that you think is actually an improvement?For you 2nd edition folks, what's something about 1st edition that you prefer?
>>93188100Rolling for armor can make it easier to get the numbers to work and not shut down low-damage weapons in particular, though d4s and d6s are far too much protection unless you're also significantly remaking the way damage works. But I'm one of those peoples who hates the additional roll, especially since an armor roll doesn't represent you actually doing anything. With a dodge roll, you're character is trying to jump out of the way of a blow, but with an armor roll, he's just hoping he gets lucky. I don't know if that sounds silly to you, but it makes a difference to me.
>>93188046Weapon vs weapon speed. It's a drag.Armor weight but not encumbranceSome class and level restrictions.
>>93188101>For you 1st edition AD&D people: What's a change 2nd edition made that you think is actually an improvement?I've read the core books and taken a look at a couple splatbooks. Honestly? Nothing. 2e is a soulless, unplaytested, poorly thought out, purely commercial endeavour.
>>93188127I'm not an AD&D guy, but 2e seems to have tidied some things up, and dropped out stuff like the weapons-vs-armor table, which even Gygax seems not to have liked.
>>93188122i visualise it like it's a roll to hit location, seeing where the hit found you in a more abstract way than defining locations. So a high DR roll would be a well protected place like the breastplate while a low roll would be a less protected area, like a chink in the armor.For me it fits mentally with the abstract combat nature of dnd. I love hit locations in simulationist games but like mythras so an osr abstracted version of that sounds cool to me
>>93188158That makes sense, but I guess it just doesn't hit me the right way.
>>93188127My main disappointment with 2e, back in the day, was that it didn't feel like it innovated enough to be worth being a whole different edition.
I think an XP cap makes more sense than B/X's soft level cap of 14, since classes are partially balanced by XP.
>>93188202It systematically innovated things it shouldn't have, and left untouched things that should've been improved. It's a product of a dark and decadent phase of mismanagement for TSR from all points of view.>>93188228>XP cap of 777,777 in Moldvay Basic D&DMoldvay only goes to level 3, moron. Amateur game designer hour strikes again. Try playing the game before changing it.
>>93188168i know. most osr people i ve talked to hate it with a passion. the guys at my table gave it a pass.I have thought about having the attacker roll for it at the same time with the attack roll to save time but one of the best feedback it got was how the players were more engaged in combat when getting attacked because their fate was kind of in their hands.And yeah i didn't mention it but i also bumped the weapon damage values dy one die step.Another "foe" system i have tried was damage to armor and weapons with each weapon lasting 2 times it's damage die before needing maintenance and the same with armors and their AC (basically DR die in my shitbrew)
All d6 Hit Dice conversion for B/X. Why bother? Because then the number of hit points that a Constitution bonus gives you is proportional to your number of Hit Dice, rather than having a bigger percentage effect on Magic-Users than Fighters (a +2 bonus increases Magic-User hit points by 80%, but a Fighter's hit points by only 44%).
>>93188242>Moldvay only goes to level 3, moron. Amateur game designer hour strikes again. Try playing the game before changing it.Not sure if...
>>93188255Fuck off, troll.
>>93188269You guys are always telling people to fuck off and make their own thread if they don't like what you claim the proper boundaries of /osrg/ to be. So why are you over here being an asshole when people went and did exactly that?
>>93188242>>93188264You know how Basic D&D includes stuff at higher levels than the Basic Sets, but is still referred to as Basic? In a similar way, Moldvay Basic is used to refer to B/X in general. But I'm sure you were trolling, because I don't honestly think you're actually that stupid.
>>93188286Well the reason for that is simple.They don't actually want you to fuck off, they want you to stick around so they can be obnoxious with a captive audience.If people do actually leave and go elsewhere who are they supposed to tell that they're so much better?
Falling damage that somewhat scales with level, so higher level characters aren't just walking off falls from great heights.
>>93188297Sad, but likely true.
>>93188296Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
>>93188324I don't know. It's a tough fight between assholishness and stupidity sometimes.
I was working on a way to have pursuit not be completely predictable, by varying how far people run. I'm not entirely happy with the table.
>>93188364>everyone who isn't me is the same personOnce again, fuck off troll.
Thief skills converted to a d20 and de-shittified at low levels.
>>93188296>Moldvay Basic is used to refer to B/X in generalWrong, B/X is referred to as Moldvay/Cook, since Cook wrote the Expert book.
>>93188461>B/X is referred to as Moldvay/CookYou're wrong because you're leaving off the bit of the story where people do use Moldvay to refer to both extant parts of the BX series. You might mean that, in your opinion, BX should be properly referred to as Moldvay-Cook but the fact is while some people do that, some people don't.BTW, note the use of a hyphen. To conjoin words you use a hyphen. Sapir-Whorf not Sapir/Whorf, Anglo-Saxon not Anglo/Saxon, Mercedes-Benz not Mercedes/Benz. You can at least get that bit right.
>>93187991lolNo, you. Stop. Go back and review the last four or five /osrg/ threads and realize how hopeless your request is. /osrg/ has become a dedicated hipster thread, they don't want to talk about games, they only want to talk about what is and is not /osrg/. Even if you post content that they consider to be on-topic they'll still refuse to talk about anything except how on-topic it is. There is no going back, the best-case scenario is to go forward, and to leave the concept of "osr" behind.
>>93188666>you're leaving off the bit of the story where people do use Moldvay to refer to both extant parts of the BX seriesThose "people", aka (You), are wrong.>BTW, note the use of a hyphenYou have an extremely naive view of sociolinguistics, language registers, and language varieties. In an academic setting you should definitely say Moldvay-Cook. On RPG forums, the slash between "Moldvay" and "Cook" has become universally adopted because it mirrors the slash between "B" and "X". Get over it.
>>93188666>Sapir-Whorf not Sapir/Whorf, Anglo-Saxon not Anglo/Saxon, Mercedes-Benz not Mercedes/Benz. You can at least get that bit right.I'm getting second hand embarrassment from your comment, because one of those examples is wrong: You should use an en dash in Sapir–Whorf, not a hyphen, because Sapir and Whorf are two different people.In academia, a hyphen is reserved for single individuals with a hyphenated name. So for example you have "Nambu–Jona-Lasinio" with a hyphen in "Jona-Lasinio" because it's one person (Giovanni Jona-Lasinio) and then an en dash to separate Jona-Lasinio's name from that of Yoichiro Nambu.You'll find that this convention is respected in all academic journals as well as wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu%E2%80%93Jona-Lasinio_model
>>93187993Id rather see 27 different D&D version thread and see the space wasted by another 40k "Wut did he mean by this" post. And fuck the osRtards if they don't like it because they caused it.
I was considering making realistic use of disease and infection. The latter is an obvious issue when you're getting hacked up on the regular. Some healing spells would probably take care of it, but I might treat it as something that requires a couple points of healing, and healing spells aren't infinite.As for diseases, encountering a bunch of different humanoids in the squalid, damp and tight quarters of a dungeon is a recipe for all sorts of nasty illnesses. I don't want to weigh the game down with things, but maybe I'll include some diseases on a random event table.
>>93188846I just don't think that 27 different threads will be very vibrant. There's overlap and common things players of different editions and OSR games can discuss, so the more unified things are, the more total engagement there will probably be.
>>93188947If more engagement is what you are looking for, you would almost certainly be happier on more popular platforms than 4chan.
>>93188059Very nice, I honestly might steal this as I've increasingly come to like DR over hit/miss.>>93188100I like this even more. Something about die based variable DR just seems right. You could do some fun stuff with magic or masterwork armors too adding a bonus to the DR roll or have a tradeoff of a static DR that's reliable but sits at the median of a particular die spread.
>>93188428I just abstract all of that into Thievery and do x in 6 rolls.
>>93187986Humanizing it into TODD is an interesting idea. Lots of meme fluididity there. In TODD we trust, this is your new TODD, stuff like that. Core problem with splitting threads is /tg/ numbers being in steady decline, people focusing on clique maintenance and purity spirals like this tend to result in lower amounts of actual game discussion. Might work out if you are mostly concerned with having your own thread to feel like a discord moderator of.
>>93189284>Very niceThanks.>>93188100>One thing i tried to moderate success was rolling for it.>>93188100>I like this even more.So there may be another approach that could work for you. Possibly. Right now it's tied up in a wound system I'm messing around with, where each hit die equals one wound, and for every 5 points of damage you roll, you inflict a wound.* In that system everybody rolls an extra d8 for damage (so a dagger would be 1d8+1d4). 2 points of this extra damage just compensates for the fact that you round down on damage when calculating wounds rather than to the nearest threshold of 5 (just because it's easier to round down than to round a 3 up to 5). The other 2.5 points of damage (on average) go towards increasing damage, so that armor doesn't run weapon damage (especially light weapon damage) into the ground. But if you dropped the wound system and reduced the additional damage die, you could get the same sort of randomization you guys like for the armor's DR, only it's on the attacker's end. So you'd still have two dice worth of randomization (including the normal damage die), but extra die would be a set size (probably a d6, since d4s tend to suck to roll) and absolutely always used, and therefore a complete no-brainer.If you boosted damage by 3.5 points, however, you'd be increasing damage output overall, unless you made everybody very hard to hit. With 3 points of DR for plate mail, you'd still be seeing a 0.5 point boost in damage inflicted vs. the normal rules (and if you make DR jump by more than 1 point between armor types, you're making armor more powerful overall). Of course, if you've got 12-sided d4s, you could use those instead of d6s, or you could start unarmored DR at -1 or -2...*It makes tracking life easier, since the numbers are only about 1/5 as big, and the amount of life/wounds you have left can be used to increase the difficult of any special maneuvers attempted on you, like disarming or knocking down.
>>93189438>or you could start unarmored DR at -1 or -2......which seems weird, since why should unarmored people absorb damage, but mechanically, it would work out (and you're not going to be targeting unarmored enemies very often anyway).Regardless, I think that giving the attacker an additional damage die of set size is a solid enough concept.**With my wound system, it works thusly. PCs as well as monsters inflicting a single die of damage get a bonus d8. Monsters inflicting more than 1 die of damage roll 1 additional die of the same size. So a monster that normally does 2d8 rolls 3d8.
>>93189403Not OP, but I like the idea of a thread about old games in alternative to OSRG, and that's even as a somewhat OSRG regular. Less arguing what does or doesn't fit into the thread and more just shooting the shit about the actual games and ways to tweak them.
>>93188967The other platforms I've seen are very restrictive, with a heavy moderation hand, and you have to watch what you post. Maybe /tg/ is too far in the other direction (though having lived through the Nazi Mod, that's something I'd be very careful about), but everywhere else just seems too restrictive for me. Really, I'd just like for people to be able to have nice, creative discussions here without everything immediately devolving into accusations of FOE and whatnot. The current outlook of /osrg/ (or of at least enough people there) has really stifled discussion.
>>93189359That's valid too. But a d20 system is closer to the original structure in D&D (which mostly moves in chunks of 5 points, making it rather silly to use percentile dice over d20s). Of course, that may not be something you care about, and I tweaked starting scores anyway, so it's not like I'm closely adhering to anything, but for people who don't want to go more than a step away from the original system, doing d20s could work for them.
>>93189468So for the wound system, if a monster does 4 damage on a 1d4 die, they get a bonus d8? Not sure if i have that right. But wouldn't a bonus of d4 make more sense? D4 has 1/4 chance of wound critting already. But the idea of critical damage is interesting nonetheless.
>>93189543It's not critical damage. It's just damage. Think of it like this: everybody inflicts a base 1d8 damage, to which your damage die is added. So if you use a dagger you do 1d8+1d4 damage. If you use a sword, it's 1d8+1d8.
>>93189565To expand on this, using the normal rules, a sword averages about 1 hit dice worth of damage (d8 hit dice, d8 damage, with an average of 4.5 for both). In the wound system a result of 5-9 inflicts 1 wound, which is essentially a hit dice worth of damage. If you just rolled a d8, you'd inflict a wound only half the time (and nothing at all the other half). That's obviously a step down. So you need to boost damage by a couple of points to compensate. With a 1d8+2, if you roll a natural 1 or 2, you don't do any wounds. If you roll a natural 8, you inflict 2 wounds. If you roll anything else, you inflict 1 wound. So it very nearly averages out to 1 wound (7/8 of a wound).So the bonus damage die contributes to that, and it counterbalances DR a bit as well.
>>93189610I see. I'd like a more streamlined presentation and version if possible. Have it on my desk by noon.
>>93189711>Then stop posting there?Where are we right now?>Welcome to 4chan.I was around when /osrg/ first became a thing and was a pretty heavy contributor. And I was on /tg/ well before that. I am by no means new to 4chan.
OSRG be damned, I'm a TODD poster now.
>>93189734Explaining why everything is being done and the exact math behind it can be a bit involved, but essentially:Armor:--Light / leather = DR 1--Medium / chain mail = DR 2--Heavy / plate mail = DR 3Adjusting Damage:--PCs and Monsters that normally inflict 1 die of damage now roll a d8 in addition to their normal weapon die. (So if you attack with a d10 two-handed sword, you inflict 1d10+1d8 damage)--Monsters inflicting multiple dice of damage simply roll an additional die of the same size (3d6 damage becomes 4d6)Wounds Inflicted:--Roll damage and subtract the DR of your target. For every 5 points of damage that result, you inflict 1 wound.Calculating Lifeblood (the number of Wounds you can take):--Monsters have lifeblood equal to their number of Hit Dice.--PCs roll up hit points as normal, but add 1 extra hit die into the mix (as if they were a level higher). So 1st level fighter rolls 2d8 for their hit points. Once hit points are rolled, divide the result by 5, and round down, to get your Lifeblood (minimum of 1). You can then toss your hit point score, it was only a step in calculating your Lifeblood and is no longer relevant.--When you level up, repeat the process, rolling your hit points from scratch and using then to recalculate your Lifeblood. Keep your previous Lifeblood score, if it's higher than you newly calculated one.Rolling To Hit:--Roll as if attacking AC 5. This number is adjusted as normal by everything but your armor type (including Dex modifiers, and magic bonuses for shields and armor), since armor type now imparts DR.There are some nuances, and I'm still playing around with things, but those are the basics.
Since now there’s a thread outside of OSR, I can finally ask- say I added a rule to Swords and Wizardry Complete (0e but organization is leagues better) where you get knocked out at 0 hp, start bleeding out at -1 hp, and die at -10 hp. Would the game be changed in ways that aren’t immediately obvious?
>>93190069I guess my first question is why have lifeblood? Why not just add the extra damage die and hit die?Everyone rolls an additional D6 for damage and has an additional D6 hit die. Armor does DR like you describe. Why is this simplified system inferior?
>>93190115I don't think so. Tending to wounds to stop people bleeding out can be kind of weird in a system with 6 or 10 second rounds, as that's not really enough time, but S&W uses 1 minute rounds, so it's not really a concern.Obviously, letting people survive into the negatives means having to deal with unconscious people, which can be a pretty big issue, if you can't just magically heal them up. People aren't light, and you need to protect their unconscious bodies from further harm. I think I remember reading about the Vietnam War and how the Viet Cong would often rather badly wound an enemy soldier than kill him, because of the burden he would be on his comrades. That's something to consider, I suppose.
Guy who posted B/X thread here, I love this thread.I only made it ''B/X'' focused as there was currently an ADND dedicated thread as well.Open chill classic DND chat rules.
>>93190115>one of the most standard applied houserules ever, death's door, can't be asked about in the general despite being mentioned thousand of times>obviously has the effect of making PCs hardier than usual and little elseAt this point you're just baiting.
>>93190195>I guess my first question is why have lifeblood? The Lifeblood isn't there because of DR. It's there for its own sake, which is streamlining the numbers in actual combat (even if it maybe seems a bit convoluted to you in terms of implementing the system in the first place). I only brought it up because the bonus damage die thing I've been working on just happens to be attached to the Lifeblood system.>Why not just add the extra damage die and hit die?The extra hit die is really there for the Lifeblood system, and isn't otherwise necessary (unless you're trying to accomplish something else with it).>Everyone rolls an additional D6 for damage and has an additional D6 hit die.Balancing out the numbers so that things die at about the same rate (if you care about not significantly changing that) can be a bit tricky. Adding an extra hit die obviously significantly affects low level characters but an extra 3.5 hit points doesn't mean much for a 9th level character, and therefore won't make much difference.Let me discuss converting armor to DR in my next post, so as to set it apart...
>>93190212I actually hadn’t considered that last part. Heavily wound one guy, and whether the party retreats or keeps fighting, the fact that they’re trying to protect a guy ironically makes them easier to kill. Worst case scenario, they leave him behind, and that’s one guy to either let die, torture for information, or (unlikely, but probable) recruit onto their side.
>>93187991>/osrg/trash - but you go back and enjoy
>>93190253>It's there for its own sake, which is streamlining the numbers in actual combat This is like a thousand times more complex than actual AD&D rules what the hell.
What things do you guys like porting from AD&D into B/X? Should I just look at OSE advanced or plug in what I want from the DMG?
My attack roll and damage system:Roll attack as normal and don't add the modifiers from armor. Armor now reduces damage as followsShields -1Light -1Medium -2Heavy -3This is down to a minimum of 0, so armor can completely negate damage.Critical hits ignore armor and also do double damage.Optional Rule: Armor Pierce Values for weapons to negate DR.
>>93190195>>93190253Okay, so an unarmored guy is AC 9 in B/X. That's our baseline. Each step of armor makes him 2 points harder to hit (AC 7 with leather, AC 5 with chain mail, AC 3 with plate mail). All that you already know. But if we switch armor over to DR, we have 2 immediate problems...If, instead of making you harder to hit, each step of armor reduces damage against you by 1*, you now have plate mail reducing damage by more than the average damage roll of a dagger (3 DR vs. a dagger's average of 2.5). That absolutely runs low-damage weapons into the ground.Second, with armor now affecting DR, everybody is suddenly very easy to hit, so easy it soon becomes laughable. Remember that without armor making you harder to hit, everybody is suddenly effectively AC 9.So to address both these issues, we want to make people harder to hit, but compensate for that by increasing damage against them, so that average damage per turn (chance to hit × average damage inflicted on a hit) remains approximately the same. This raising of damage helps prevent low-damage weapons from being run into the ground by armor, particularly if you raise damage by increasing the die size rather than giving a straight plus.*And this is approximately the right conversion. It varies according to the situation, but 1 point of damage is worth something like 1.5 to 2 points of to-hit.
>>93190294If you use the optional rule, all attacks do D6 damage or multiple D6 based on the "size" of the attack. An arrow or knife does D6 but a polearms or cannonball does 2d6 etc. (you get the idea). This way, the damage dice are about how much average surface area is going to be damaged vs the AP which is about the force of the attack. So a crossbow bolt can easily puncture your chain lef armor, whereas a sword could lop off your leg entirely, but probably won't.
>>93190290It isn't actually that complicated once you understand what you're doing, but it's different enough that you have to wrestle with a bunch of new stuff. But I wasn't pushing the system on anybody else. It's for my own use, and I was only mentioning it in passing because a particular mechanic that was relevant to the conversation (a bonus damage die) is something I've only done any mathing out on related to my Lifeblood system. But people have spoken before about a simple system where each time you hit, you take one hit die off your enemy, with no damage roll. Lifeblood is essentially an advanced version of that with randomization in there.
>>93187986>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?I just give humans a 10% XP bonus, while demi-humans either get no bonus or a 10% penalty depending on class. So a halfling thief gets no penalty, while a halfling fighter gets a 10% penalty. This is actually worse at lower levels but it's still better than capping demi-human progression imo
>>93190333Anyway, without mapping out the exact specifics, Adding the 3.5 average damage of a d6 means making characters something like 7 points harder to hit, if you want to keep things roughly constant in terms of damage output per round. Or it would, if damage vs. to-hit really were a 2-to-1 proposition. 5 or 6 points harder to hit might be a bit more accurate. That takes us down to AC 3 or 4 as guidepost for how hard people should, by default, be to hit.But for starting characters at least, that can lead to a bit of a whiff-fest, which isn't much fun. So setting things at AC 5 might be better, if you're okay upping damage per round by a bit. Of course, that could be counterbalanced by boosting hit dice size, so people have more hit points, but then you have to deal with hit point inflation and bigger numbers, which I tend not to like.So it's all very nuanced.
>>93190294>>93190351Another optional rule I just invented:Your armor *coverage* determines the crit range. If you have full armor (of whatever quality) then your crit range is 20 because your armor covers more of your body. If you have no armor, then you can be critted on a 16+ (natural or not).Additionally we are adding attack bonus to defense because it always should have been because your fighting skill should help you defend, this solves the everyone being easy to hit problem.
>>93187986>demihuman level capsI’m torn on this. On one hand, there needs to be a reason why you would pick a human over a dwarf or elf. On the other hand, it severely limits progression for demihumans that aren’t thieves/assassins. Personally, I think the best solution might be to, once demihumans hit the level cap, allow them to keep earning xp with a 50% penalty, though even that might not be a great solution.
>>93187986>>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?C&C. My best friend loves to play 3e, and we played it alot when it was new. I prefer AD&D1e, and would probably play 1e/OSIRIC as my favorite. Next time I DM it will probably be C&C with some additional PC customization options that will make the players happier.>>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?I won't let go of Monk - even though AD&D monk is unplayable by book. I always find a way to offer a playable monk class.>>Race-as-class or race-and-class?Race as class is fine for newbies, but c'mon son.>>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?No its the worst balance feature in all of AD&D. DM should remove that restriction, but substitute ways to make humans much more attractive to play. You can also make different rules to make demihumans less playable, but that's going to be the less fun option that I don't subscribe to.>>Armor as damage reduction?No. AC works fine as is and is simpler.
>>93190354I'm sure all of that was a lot more confusing to you than it was to me, because explaining (and on the other side, digesting) a bunch of math isn't the easiest thing to do. But essentially, +1d6 damage, armor DR of 1/2/3, and using AC 5 as your goalpost for how hard people are to hit by default should work okay, if you don't mind damage being somewhat increased.The biggest issue I see is that the extra d6 damage is overkill vs. lightly armored starting characters. They have few enough hit points, that any hit on them can be like playing rocket tag. And here's where that extra hit dice I was previously saying is no longer relevant, is actually still relevant. Giving everybody an extra hit dice worth of hit points makes it so starting character don't explode into confetti when they get hit. So I take back what I was saying earlier. It won't have much affect on higher level characters though, so they'll tend to go down a bit quicker.
>>93190212>>93190260The gore of dying in-game is one of those realistic things, like taxes and dismemberments, that really doesn't make the game more fun. Feeling all-better-now when cured back to positive hit points may not be gritty or feel realistic, but in my experience its preferable to more realism as far as having a fun game that people want to play.As I DM I let PC's talk a little, move a little even when below 0. Basically the PC just can't exert themselves (attack, cast, run, lift, etc.). And I am not harsh about the bulk and weight of carrying unconscious comrades out. I don't handwave it, but an otherwise fun table can get dark when DM decides to get strict about encumbrance at such times.
>>93190421>Your armor *coverage* determines the crit range. >Additionally we are adding attack bonus to defenseAre these houserules going to cover the monsters also?
>>93190443>there needs to be a reason why you would pick a human over a dwarf or elf.D&D gives demihumans things, in the form of infravision and physical stat increases, that matter to actually keeping them alive.Just choose to give humans something good too so they aren't left out. Try to make it as good as what elves and dwarves and halflings get, and then remove demihuman level limits (at least for PCs).
>>93190569>Just choose to give humans something good too so they aren't left out.What do you propose?
>>93190645Sure. We might just say that pretty much all monster have full armor coverage unless they are wearing artificial armor as many demi-humans do. Attack bonus could be cheesed by giving them all +2 defense or whatever. Or do it based on hit dice
>>93190392Oh, and i also allow humans to multiclass.
>>93190713If you do try those houserules, come back afterwards to let us know how it went.
>>93190692>>93190715I allow humans to multiclass .I use the 'specialty priest' concept from 2e, with lots of human deities available to follow (far less for demihumans), which essentially lets human clerics have more versatility over demihuman clerics.And finally, I let the human PC choose +1 to any stat they want, and designate -1 to any stat they want.These houserules make humans the most customizable race. That is attractive to some players. Meanwhile, by removing level-limits on demihumans I have freed those PCs from eventually hitting an unfun dead-end. If there is any negative to these changes, we haven't seen or felt them. I just know that all the races are more attractive options now.
>>93190837I will. I'm currently going stir crazy due to lack of games and thus I'm inventing my own bullshit. Might try to solo game RAW OSE to cure myself.
>>93190976>Might try to solo game RAW OSE to cure myself.Don't do it, anon. Sologaming is the saddest thing known to man. Even gaming with randoms is less silent and pathetic.
>>93190989But muh solo game YouTube playlist that made it seem so fun...
Castles an Crusades has a type of multi-classing it calls "class and a half" that I like the concept of. Basically, one class advances at half the rate of the other, which allows you to focus on one thing, and it allows a bit of variation even within the same combination of classes.With the concept of this in mind (more than the execution), I thought it would be interesting to have each demi-human race contribute a certain class towards multi-classing: wizard for elves, fighter for dwarves, and thief for halfling. So a multi-class elf would always be a wizard and something else. In terms of having a class-and-a-half type primary and secondary class division, it would make sense for each demi-human race's select class to be their primary one, but I wonder if it might be more interesting the other way around. So if you're playing a multi-class elf, you choose a class to be your primary one, then get wizard as your secondary one. If this route were to be taken, then a single-class character could only belong to the race's select class.
>>93187986>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?LBB because it is the most creatively engaging and openB/X and clones are acceptable too, though I rank LL over OSE>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?N/A>Race-as-class or race-and-class?Don't care too much>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?Yea>Armor as damage reduction?Gay
>>93191064A fine idea - a real halfway point b/w race-as-class and race & class. Would try.
>>93191253>A fine idea - a real halfway point b/w race-as-class and race & class.Thanks. That's pretty much what I was going for.
Anyone have any official or retroclone module PDFs?
>>93191759The Sharethread is the place for you
>>93190989>Solo gaming is the saddest thing known to man.Give it a try, you'd be surprised how much fun you can have without anyone else there to fuck it up.Think of every time you've wanted to do a specific game or campaign only for some faggot to 'Will of the majority (Just me that is, everyone else is just going to not argue for or against)' it
>>93191799In all sincerity, it's a personal hangup. I've tried to sit down for solo TFT play during a drought and the whole affair just made me sad haha. But the idea of getting to run the autistic shit my players wouldn't entertain is somewhat enticing.
>>93191842>I've tried to sit down for solo TFT play during a drought and the whole affair just made me sad hahaTry doing a really basic bitch ass one like TYoV to get into the mindset of it.
>>93191994it's not a 2e thread. You either have no reading comprehension or, more likely, you are a /osrg/ troll.
>>93191759BFRPG has all of their stuff available for free, aside from what >>93191786 said.
>>93191786Fair enough
>>93187986>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?Basic Fantasy. Rules are made free, uses AAC (I'm running for converted d&drones so that helps), but still has the old school feel and mentality behind it.>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?I already added ranger, paladin, barbarian, druid, illusionist, and scout, but I think an alchemist would be a fun addition.>Race-as-class or race-and-class?I personally like race-as-class but I run race-and-class.>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?Humans get XP bonuses, demi-humans don't, caps are solid at 20 for both. >Armor as damage reduction?Ew. No.
Newbie GM here. Guys, I need your help: give me your best reading material and tips on DM dynamics at the table (the practicalities of conducting a session, how to best use language...), as much of it and as much in depth as possible.
>>93193113It sounds like a copout but the 1E DMG is genuinely the best DM resource out there. Not entirely for DM behaviors (blue bolts lmao) but for creating a campaign that's built to entice the players and not drive you crazy, step by step. On top of that, the wealth of resources and prose just lights up the imagination.Secondly, Gary's article about building a campaign and setting that Ray Otus did a lovely distillation of (and includes the original text) called Gygax 75 Challenge on itch.io. Breaks down building a milieu in ways that are immediately actionable for play now, and a roadmap for developing on that in the background as play continues to really flesh it out.Third, Matt Finch's Primer for Old School Roleplaying is a great resource for players, DM's, and just general good practices for a more enjoyable and fluid game. As far as DM dynamics tips? I'm there to translate to them pertinent information, prompt for their actions or input, and provide the reactions from this world. Sometimes that might end in their favor. Sometimes it might not. I'm an impartial adjudicator using the rules and reason to keep it all running. I'm not there to hamfist some big story. The story is what happens from what the players choose to do and how they choose to interact with (or neglect) the facets of the game world.That sounds pretty faggy when I write it out, but 1) it keeps me sane, in my lane, and planning the right stuff for the game (and not spending too much time doing it) and 2) I find it engages players more once they get the rhythm because success in endeavours they decided is sweet and failure is very real.As far as practicalities, TSR D&D runs like a well oiled machine for the most part. You're asking for input, you're ticking off turns (or days in the wilderness), you're rolling for encounters if necessary, you're adjudicating planned stuff when you gotta, rolling reactions, etc. Just get used to that and it pretty much runs itself.
I want to use race and class in B/X, how much of a pain in the ass is it going to be?
>>93193113Your question is very broad but this anon>>93193278gave as good an answer as you will likely get. But your examples of questions about DM dynamics at the table ('how to use best language'?) make me wonder if you have ever played before?
How would you guys run a Swords and Wizardry game (or really, any old school game) for two players? I’m thinking max HP at level 1, death’s door, and 3d6 arrange to taste, but beyond that, I’m wondering what else I can do to even the odds for any potential players.
>>931931131e DMGFor session management and scheduling, the first 1-3 chapters of the 4e DMG do a good job of talking about that.
>>93193644>max HP at level 1, death’s door, and 3d6 arrange to tasteThose sound good, yeah.I'd also probably be more lax on henchmen and mercenaries for sure. Maybe automatically give them the maximum henchmen limit, and I'd probably adopt what was mostly a misunderstanding of the hire-able men at arms tables (that since a lot of retroclones and alikes have just embraced) and let them hire level zero NM soldiers or level 1 for cheap. Maybe with the understanding that they're mostly dishonorably discharged from service or deserters (and thus have a penalty to loyalty scores and rolls and are greedy as hell) to even the scales if you're worried about a stable of hired men doing all the work. Long story short, you'll want to arrange something that can stand in for help those early levels, and then when they reach henchman hiring levels then they can fill out a adventuring group (which I'd personally be more lenient on finding good help or canvasing for certain classes) and they'll be more survivable.If either of them of a magic user, I'd definitely commit to all that.Not to unduly make them too invincible, but definitely to give some ready help to fill in for what would otherwise be other players.
>>93193644Do what you said, have each player run two characters, be sure to give them hirelings, and make sure they have backups.
>>93187986>>What is your favorite thread-related edition or game and why?>>If you were to add one class to your game, what would it be?>>Race-as-class or race-and-class?>>Demi-human level caps: yea or nay?>>Armor as damage reduction?Ive played every edition and know the ups and downs of each. I grew up on AD&D I played 3rd most and appreciate 5th but wish it was between 2nd and 3rdBarbarian never should have been removed and its the only good class added in UANoYou rarely reach level caps but we generally ignored them so the demi-human players didnt get left behind after 2 years of playingNah I do like the Combat and Tacitcs weapon options and crit tables though
>>93187986THis seems like Mods pet project, so I wont poopoo their sacred cow, but I did add to this thread on topic before jannie smote me. I thought I didnt press post last time.>>93188075eh about armor reduction. is fine if separate from AC/tohit. Keeping major systems not contingent on each other is important for ease of situational flexibility.I think often times damage reduction is just an unnecissary extra step that can just be wrapped up into a more difficult ac/to hit.
>>93188752Fascinating. I note the way people use B/E/C/M/I to consistently mirror B/X. It's almost like people are inconsistent in their language usage.>Those "people", aka (You), are wrong.Wrong to do so, in your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that they do use synecdoche, little miss extremely naive view of blah...
>>93193113Take a look at Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.
>>93193558See Basic Fantasy, but up the XP bonus for humans to at least +20% and maybe even +30%. And that's pretty much it. You should be good to go.However,if you decide to otherwise use Basic Fantasy's rules, be aware that it boosts the damage of cleric weapons and drastically diminishes the preponderance of swords among magic weapons. Because of this, clerics are better in battle and intrude further into the niche of fighters who are weak compared to other editions (as per B/X, not because Basic Fantasy nerfs them). So you might want to nerf clerics a bit and/or boost fighters.For the former, restricting them to chain mail or lighter makes them a bit squishier, but I think fighters can use a boost even in straight B/X. Perhaps the easiest thing to do for fighters is to give them bonus damage (something like +1 weapon damage for every 3 levels, and it's up to you whether to restrict that to melee or allow it for ranged attacks as well). Another thing you can do is to let them attack twice by accepting a -4 penalty to hit with both attacks. At first, with poor starting to-hits, that's going to be a marginal boost at best, but as THAC0s go up and you get magic weapons, that's going to get better and better. But it should play around in the same general range as the +1 damage bonus per 3 levels.
Does anyone happen to know which basic book has the guidelines for how much treasure should be in a dungeon/how often characters should level up? I thought it was Moldvay but I just checked and it doesn't (just stocking procedures).
>>93193644If they don't like actual hirelings, consider throwing a couple of relatively deferential NPCs into the party. I know DMPCs get a bad name, and deservedly so, but these wouldn't be *your* characters anymore than any others in the world. You're not self-inserting, and as long as you're careful not to take away the agency of your players by having the NPCs be too assertive and steal the spotlight, you'll be fine.Beyond that, you should be fine. Scarlet Heroes has rules to boost characters for a single-player game. I'm not personally familiar with its mechanics, but that could be something to look at, if you feel like boosting the PCs more. I think you'll be fine without it though. Gaming with only 2 players is probably more common than you think.>3d6 arrange to tasteIt's probably an unusual opinion, but I'd much rather have set scores that are randomly arranged (with maybe 1 swap in there) than randomly rolled scores that you freely allocate. Regardless, you might consider 3d6+1 or 3d6 reroll 1s to help ensure that the PCs have a solid basis to work with, given that there will only be two of them.
>>93195140Thanks! I don't think I'll take anything other than the classes, and up the EXP.
>>93195140>Basic FantasyWhy did I not know about this? I just downloaded and printed off all their additional class supplements, awesome.
>>93195140>up the XP bonus for humans to at least +20% and maybe even +30%What does this mean? For classes like Assassin? I don't see XP bonus anywhere?I'm just going to make all additional classes human, and keep elf/halfling/dwarf.
>>93195285Because /osrg/ hates fun. It's my favorite game and it's not even close.
>>93195471Pretty neat stuff, I downloaded their monster field guides and some other stuff to use in my B/X game.
>>93195536I'd give the adventure anthologies a look, too. I use them as side adventures, hired quests, and minor dungeons in hexes that I can't be bothered to make by hand.
>>93195558Good looking out, how do you feel about level 0 spells, or cantrips, in B/X?
>>93195632I don't care for them. I don't use them at my BFRPG table, either.
>>93195285The only thing I don't like is the Ascending AC.
Does anybody have an encounter table for stuff you'd meet on a well-travelled major road?
>>93195332Assassins? Are we talking about the same game? Anyway, if you look under the description for humans (page 6), it states they get a +10% bonus to all earned experience. See pic.
>>93195681I started playing D&D (and RPGs in general) in the early '80s, and I have to say that I think Ascending AC is an outright advancement. I disagree with the folks who think THAC0 is terrible though. It's the same equation done a bit differently, but Ascending AC is more intuitive, and you don't end up with -2 bonuses (and inconsistent labeling of things: with descending AC +1 armor helps you, but a +1 dexterity penalty hurts you), and you don't have to contend with confusing wording (when you say somebody has a lower AC, that means better, but people use "lower" to mean less armored as well). It's no big deal either way, but I definitely give Ascending AC the edge.
>>93195683DMG pg 186-187, 1 in 4 encounters are a patrol.
>>93195632NAYRT, but I think expendable cantrips are great, because the repertoire of starting magic-users is so limited (they're one-and-done for the day, even if that one spell is potentially very powerful), and cantrips give them something else to do. And as long as the cantrips are relatively dinky, they shouldn't be unbalancing.
>>93196243What's the point of having cantrips over just saying your mage or illusionist can do minor magic tricks that you can work into roleplay, depending on your setting but it should be enough that you're a mage to impress the rubes
>>93196258I like cantrips that are better than useless, but still dinky, such as in the pic here. And having actual spells rather than vague magical powers obviously better defines your capabilities.
Why do Clerics advance faster than Fighters? Is there some historical explanation? Because balance-wise, it makes no sense
>>93196276Clerics are out of whack. I'm not sure if this has ever been explained. Maybe somebody else knows. I will say that nobody in my groups has ever been that excited to play a cleric, so having them be overly powerful is an enticement (and to the point they're healing and helping others, their power at least seems charitable and boosts the whole group instead of just glorifying themselves). But I'm a fan of having a unified XP progression in any case (with no need to compensate clerics for losing their lower leveling costs).
>>93196193Oh I'm dumb.Good lookin' out.
>>93196276Join any MMORPG.No one wants to be the healer.Even if they do pick a healer they want to do damage too.I mean I'd rather be a fighter than a cleric but that's just me.
>>93196318I think making clerics a bit less generic can make them at least a bit more attractive. Give them a different restricted weapon list based on the sphere of influence of their god (c. 3 different weapons), and maybe also some kind of associated bonus or power... and maybe a related bonus spell at each level.
>>93187986tf is with all the old dnd generals? osrg, adnd, odnd, and now todd? Am i missing a joke or something?
>>93197099One part trolling by someone butthurt that they were told their ideas weren't OSR, one part a real response by people annoyed at the extremely narrow focus of /osrg.I suspect the other non-/osrg generals will die, because they were only made in spite and there's few players of any one old edition. But there's enough "I like the vague idea of the OSR but not any of the restrictions" posters that this one might live on, people who just want to fuck around with B/X and DCC and so on who don't particularly care if they're doing it "right". I suspect it will devolve into yet another "everything is OSR" space like pretty much every other one of this type across the net has, but if the people in it are happy I'm not seeing the harm and maybe the various whiners constantly running into /osrg so that they can get mad will finally stop.
>>931965312nd ed does that.
You know there is something i like about new editions of d&d that the old editions kind of flubbed.. you need a 15 in a stat to get even a +1 modifier, which almost never comes up when rolling 3d6 down the line.The build point systems in 2e could use a little work also, someone can easily take 18 18 18 3 3 3.
>>93197179I remember once i had a DM who let me roll 2d4 +10 and assign my scores.
Does B/X use the -10 negative hit point thing or is it just 0 hp = dead? Thats one thing I liked about palladium, you didn't just get 'knocked out' when you lose all your armor, you die.I think my biggest problem with D&D has always been raise dead and resurrection. It makes the game feel cheap and player death inconsequential.
>>93197179>you need a 15 in a stat to get even a +1 modifier, which almost never comes up when rolling 3d6 down the line.That's a 2e thing. Basic gives +1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, and +3 at 18. 1st edition AD&D goes pretty much start at 15, depending on the stat, but recommends that you use a more generous method of stat generation than 3d6, such as 4d6 drop low. Given that, characters in AD&D end up with bonuses that look similar to ones in Basic (albeit with a smaller chance to have penalties). It's 2nd edition that, for no good reason, combines the higher modifier threshold with the flat 3d6 method of generation.
I like the idea of rolling your abilities, but i hate that for the most part they don't matter, either you 'fudge' the rolls with stuff like 4d6 drop one, or you are stuck with stats between the very narrow range where they make a difference.I also hate that your character can come back from the dead, gets 'knocked out' or whatever instead of dying.
>>93197199>2nd edition that, for no good reason, combines the higher modifier threshold with the flat 3d6 method of generation.no it doesn't, it recommends the 4d6 drop one method.
>>93197186You're dead at 0, which I don't like, both because it means a starting character can die when they stub their toe, and because I think there should be at least the potential to get knocked out or incapacitated. -10 is a bit much though, and losing a hit point every turn through blood loss is screwy when you're using 10 second rounds, as that's insufficient time to tend to somebody's wounds. So I prefer to have death happen more in the -3 to -5 range.As for raising dead and resurrection, it's not easy to reach those levels, but I've banned the ability to bring people back to life in more than one of my games. IIRC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess does this.
>>93197220i guess thats why i like the idea of having max hit die at first level. It is odd they changed the mages hit die to d6 though.
>>93197220i also hate save or die mechanics. they are such BS.
>>93197240i honestly prefer the reflex, willpower, constitution saves to the old saves or the new ones. It is a little screwy that int can add to your reflex save, but so long as it doesn't improve your AC and you have to pick between int and dex it works well.
My houserule for death saves:When hit points are reduced to 0, roll your character level or under on a d20 to survive. 1st level characters have a mere 5% chance to survive, a 5th level character would have 25%.
>>93197256nah, save or die stuff is terrible. Its just bad design. you might as well roll a d4 and pick which pc dies.
If you really wanted to change how the game is played, you would get rid of raise dead, reincarnation and resurrection. It would make d&d a whole different game.
>>931972052e presents 3d6 down the line as the default method I, with everything else being an alternative method that needs authorization. 1e advises against flat 3d6, not even bothering to number it as a method.
>>93197263NAYRT, but I don't see why. There are plenty of other random aspects to the game, and rolling to see whether you survive makes perfect sense to me. Maybe it doesn't fit your vibe, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it mechanically.
>>93197270well i'll be damned. guess the ol memory ain't what it used to be.
>>93197278To be fair, 2e does include those other methods right after 3d6 (not hiding them away in an appendix or something), and I can well understand why groups would prefer them, perhaps leading to the assumption, because of personal experience, that they're the way things are supposed to be done.
>>93197273mechanically it takes you out of the game, unless you have raise dead, resurrection or reincarnation. Its the games fail state, its no fun if its just triggered randomly. >Roll 1d6. You lose on a 6.
>>93197287You know what else takes you out of the game? Dying without a chance to save.>Roll 1d6. You lose on a 1 to 6.I'm not sure I see why saving vs. death is markedly worse than the alternative (especially since the attack that brought you to the brink of death randomly hit you for random damage).
>>93197255Fortitude/Reflexes/Will saves make sense as categories (though Will saves can be a bit wonky, with the idea that Wisdom gives you greater Willpower being patently ridiculous), and you can understand what people are actually doing when they save. I'm not sure how they work thereafter, but they really screwed up the math in 3.x though, with a widening gap between strong and weak saves. Also, the fact that you can target somebody's weak save means that you have to calculate the math mostly according to weak saves (so they're not too hard to make), something 3.x didn't do. My approach as far as OSR goes is to use single-category saves, but modified by Con/Dex/Wis as appropriate for F/R/W.
>>93197435Not only that. The DCs for saves in 3.5 start outpacing the save progression in general so even your good save without multiclassing shenanigans that might give some flat bonuses even your good save is insufficient
>>93197738Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the ad hoc categories of old school D&D, but 3.x clearly missed the point of the math. The fact that old school saves get better and better is a counterbalance to the growing power of casters as they level. In trying to be more sophisticated, 3.x screwed this up and put all the power into the hands of casters.
There's a lot of good city supplements for decadent and oriental Conan/Leiber type cities. Are there any that are good for a traditional medieval city?
In B/X, why do clerics surge ahead of magic-users in terms of spell slots? Even leaving aside the fact that they gain access to 3 new spell levels over the course of just 2 character levels, they just end up with more slots overall, which seems weird for a class that can hold its own in combat a lot better than magic-users can.
>>93196531Faiths & Avatars and Demihuman Deities are my favorite resources for specializing priesthoods of all alignments and spheres of influence. Even if you don't use 2e (or Forgotten Realms), they are great for inspiration for your chosen rules system.
>>93197099>>93197140tl;dr: gamers stopped playing with /orsg/ nogames trolls. Many such cases.
>>93197179>someone can easily take 18 18 18 3 3 3.Bold. I'd love to see someone try RPing that.
>>93198645I centered my campaign on Raven's Bluff and its been good.
>>93197099The OSRG thread is absolutely infested with no game trolls. They are in a competition to prove who is the most OSR while simultaneously having zero understanding of the OSR. They claim it isn't OSR unless you are playing with a book printed before 1980 and Gygax personally touched your dice.People who actually play wanted to discuss games and so they gave up on fixing OSRG and use it as a containment thread for the morons.
>>93197200Then use point buy? Then don't let them get knocked out?It's your game anon, this isn't the other thread, you can do what you want.
>>93197270Right in the damn DMG. I love you Anon.3D6 down the line with no considerations was never good, and they knew that.
>>93198827Cleric spells are vastly inferior.
>>93199828Ironically, I have a PHB printed before 1980 and its signed by Gygax, who I met at GenCon long ago. I know EGG would love TODD and not osrg
>>93198827These editions have more balanced classes than appears at first glance. The balance just comes in alot of different ways that aren't necessarily obvious (like thieves' very easy XP table).
>>93198827Also, a great many of those spell 'slots' will be spent curing party members. The cleric will need every one of those spells and the party will be grateful.
>>93199651I prefer the more generic Complete Cleric's Handbook3e's domains are unfortunately the best model for polytheistic empowerment
>>93200192live pic of todd leaving osrg
>>93200192Its been total crazy pants crab cycle watching the osr scenes go through the same steps of od&d to tsr to wotc and rpgs in general. All the makers are at late wotc 2nd ed splat proliferation and shovelware. Dolmenwood seems like the tipping point into wotc and pathfinder era 'the same but different'. Can't wait until they're reinventing the discovery of indi games from the 2010s to get away from all the hearbreakers.
>>93200338>Its been total crazy pants crab cycleI've seen what makes you cheer.
>>93196238Wow, thank you. What does it mean when it has the dash?
>>93200795You mean the dash between the numbers? It means that creature type appears randomly if you roll the two numbers on the table, or any number that falls between the two numbers. Example, Wolf appears on any number from 93 to 100 on a plain.
>>93200192I've been an /osrg/ gatekeeper chud for a while and 80% of my game group is from /osrg/We all generally think that quality has gone down that shitter and the sincere autists have been displaced by cringe nogames zoomers who don't even believe what they're arguingPeople with games (or jobs or lives) don't post refutations against FOEs multiple times a day, 7 days a weekEspecially the fags frenzying whenever 2e is mentioned who then act like the victims when they get pushback for sperging out
>>93200854... Not the hyphens. I mean the entries where instead of a number it has a dash. Does it just mean that creature doesn't appear in that environment?
>>93200925This is pretty much my experience, and take.
>>93201020Oh. That means that particular creature type will not appear for that particular terrain. For example, a Vampire can be rolled randomly on a plain (with a roll of 92) but not in scrub. In scrub, a roll of 92 is Wolf.
>>93201020Correct, does not appear.
>>93190234Awesome. Thanks for the support. I think your thing of stressing OPEN in the thread introduction is really the key to a successful TODD. People need to immediately grasp why there's another OSR thread or they'll just stick with the one with brand recognition.
>>93200925>Especially the fags frenzying whenever 2e is mentioned who then act like the victims when they get pushback for sperging outThe 2e intolerance bothers me, and I'm not even particularly interested in 2e. I just want to be able to discuss OSR-related stuff without having the fun-police throw a hissy fit. Even if you don't consider 2e to be OSR, most of its rules are completely compatible with it, and should be open to discussion. And I don't understand why anybody would even give a shit except to just be an asshole. 2e used to be discussed in /osrg/, but there was never any threat of it taking over. And, I mean, 2e has been talked about in this thread, but not a prodigious amount, and the world hasn't ended.
>>931972004d6 drop the lowest works perfectly fine for old school games, it was Gygax's preferred method too. You'll get +1 higher on a few skills. The main perk of high stats was unlocking the rare classes in AD&D like paladin. The lower impact of skills is precisely why you can be a bit more generous with your roll scheme. so don't feel bad about using it.As for knocked out in B/X 0 hp=dead. They later added bleeding out where you had to either hit negative con HP or -10 hp to die. That because base B/X is highly lethal. It is still pretty easy to die with the negative HP rules in play.
>>93202811>without having the fun-police throw a hissy fit.But anon you silly fuck, how are they supposed to let you know they're better than you if they can't do that?
>>93187986So I can finally talk about BFRPG without assholes telling me to play their grog game? Nice. So does anyone else play or have any suggestions for things I can add into it?
>>93203049Just what I said earlier >>93195140 about increasing the bonus humans get to earned experience and putting some space between clerics and fighters.
>>93203029Maybe they could just use their brains and let people talk about 2e without losing their shit. If 2e being OSR upsets you just keep it to yourself and the mods may leave the thread alone.
>>93203029>If the general were allowed to police itselfLiterally just ignore it you fat retard. Instead spergs can't help but contribute to derailing their own thread every time. It's the oldest fucking rule on the internet: do not feed the trolls.
>>93203112I kinda got excited and didn't read the thread so thank you for that. I really want to run a game with my friends and I find Pathfinder 1e and 3.5 to be really intimidating with the rules and crunch. But at the same time I had a hard time wrapping my head around Thac0 so I gravitated towards bfrpg
>>93203049Welcome BFRPG-bro. I give magic-users the ability to use slings.
>>93203234For what it's worth, it's pretty easy to convert from descending AC and THAC0 to ascending AC and attack bonuses.Step 1: Subtract descending AC from a number to get ascending AC. It can be literally any number, but 19, 20 or 21 works best.Step 2: Subtract THAC0 from the same number you used in Step 1 in order to get your attack bonus.And that's literally all it takes. Or you could just use a table that's already done your conversions for you, like the ones in the pic here.
>>93203255I've never liked how, due to weapon restrictions, magic-users end up being knife-throwers. That just doesn't fit with any kind of wizard trope, and throwing knives is very tricky to do, so it doesn't make much sense for a combat-poor class. But I'm not sure if slings make any more sense.I like to give magic-users wands to zap people with. Range and damage as with daggers. Only usable by magic-users (and possibly elves, depending on how you want to run things).Neophyte's Wand 50 gp, holds 10 chargesMagician's Wand, 80 gp, holds 20 chargesWizard's Wand, 140 gp, holds 40 chargesAny magic-user of any level can use any wand. The names don't actually mean anything beyond just associating better wands with more powerful magic-users. They are collectively referred to as personal wands. It costs 1 gp per charge to charge or recharge a wand (not included in the item's cost).Although wands zap you with energy, the attacks do not need to be counted as magical, if you don't want to give magic-users the added advantage of being able to readily hurt monsters with immunity to mundane weapons. Personal wands are freely available in most stores that are capable of fully equipping an adventurer.
>>93203222A better idea is not get worked up about that. Even if someone talks about something that is not OSR like DCC that stuff could be used to fuel ideas for something OSR.
Anyone have an opinion on an on-the-fly ruling i'm thinking of making permanent?I'm running OSE, and i use surprise rules by the book when the players open a door (except when i forget, i've been using 3.5 since 2008).But in the last session some monsters were actively stalking the party, waiting to buttfuck them at a moment of weakness, and i thought "what about the thief? He has professional experience in moving silently, he has a numerical advantage to 'Hear Noise,' monsters don't have a skill chart for me to roll on, let's just toss a d6 for him" - and I got a 1"You hear footsteps around the corner behind you"I'm thinking the range should be 1 lower than the thief's Hear Noise because its passive, but that made a lot of sense to me.
>>93203653>Personal wands are freely available in most stores that are capable of fully equipping an adventureri was entertaining the idea until that last line. Magical ren-faire, verisimilitude destroyed, i guess thats fine for the kind of world you like to play in but it won't be for lots of people.The solution I'd recommend is just don't give magic-users dagger proficiency in your game. Hell, make it staff only. M-U don't NEED to have a viable combat option.But even BTB m-u are going to be missing those dagger throws a lot anyway, it IS hard and they ARE bad at it.
>>93203746If you can buy holy water in town, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to buy a basic wand.
>>93203764because i don't like it
>>93203764Traditionally, church goods and services at the very least require an inoffensive reputation and an acceptable alignment. That's very different from the local wand shop.
>>93203835>its not "upsetting," 2e just isn't OSR.2e is the most unpopular edition of D&D ever made, no one cares about it enough to even actively hate it. And if you weren't a newfag fresh out of the depths of reddit, you'd know that 2e posts were uncommon and got at most 0-2 responses, taking up less than 1% of any given /osrg/. But Planet Retard natives like yourself decided that every 2e post needed 3-5 spergy replies which generate counter-responses, talking up significantly more than 1% of a thread.
>>93203804Fair enough.>>93203807I see the manufacture of personal wands as primarily being a craftsman's thing. It's the magic-user who actually "magics" it, with the cost of charging it being the cost of the material components required.
>>93203934Perhaps, but being too common pushes your setting into something closer to Oblivion/Skyrim or 3e's Greyhawk.
>>93203945I mean, all magic-users have spell books...
>>93203835>>93203029>>93200192>successfully forced out all the horrible 2efags, shitbrewers, and FOEs>they make their own ghetto>follow them into their ghetto to cry about how they're ruining /osrg/Damn nigger get a life or at least a game
My plans this evening cancelled, and so I entertained myself by finally tryingBSOLO Ghost of Lion Castle (1984). I just finished.AMA
>>93203985>>93204009this is a friendly general please take your flaming somewhere other than TODD
>>93203966Yeah but canon D&D demographics place adventurers as 1/10th the population. of that 1/10th or 10%, only a quarter or 2.5% are M-Us. The population for Inner London was 50k in 1340 and 200k in 1600, which is also proximate to the implied fantastic medieval setting, averaging 125k. Which if we got to our earlier figures means only 3125 M-Us in the area. BUT once purchased, most M-Us will never buy another spellbook. This makes them a luxury item and likely a side job rather than a primary one.
>>93204015Was that one of the magic pen modules? I’d already had my fill of solo from game books when that was on the market.
>>93204064It is not magic pen. I don't have a hard copy, just a pdf.
>>93197220necroon the other hand, if you put death at -4, then even starting characters CAN'T die when they get stabbed by a dagger. does that ring true to you? not even the un-luckiest shot, into a completely unarmored m-u (with average CON)?i know if someone stabbed me there's a very good chance i'd die, and if i fell off a 15 foot roof i might land wrong
>>93204043is that class breakdown really the canon? (in whatever books you're referencing)I would expect magic-users to be at least a few multiples less common than fighters
>>93204103I guess that depends on whether you use critical hits or not. Also, we're talking insta-death, and not lie there and die after a while (which, in a world with magic healing, can be averted).
>>93204103oops, of course your hp is at least 1, so even a crippled plague ravaged m-u with 3 CON can't die to the dagger
>>93204127AD&D 1e offers the adventurer statistic, IIRC it continues exponentially (1/100th of the population is level 2, etc.).The class breakdown is out of my ass but based on the B/X 4 human classes, I suppose it could be quite lower depending on how you envision demographics of major cities.
>>93204131bleed out is pretty quick if they open your jugular or femoral
>>93204144Why did you state it as fact and mix it in with truth if you just made it up?
>>93204144its fine for napkin math, i'm just thinking i've seen a lot of 1st level fighter mercenaries, not many companies of 25 fighters, 25 thieves, 25 clerics, 25 magic-users
>>93204184we're just bullshitting here, i don't think there was any malicious intent
>>93204184Lying can be fun and educational!
>>93204043I'm all for not being ridiculous with things, but I don't know that D&D really stands up to that kind of statistical/demographic scrutiny. In any case, I don't know what percentage of the medieval population played hurdy-gurdies, but they still got made. I suppose the people who made them (luthiers?) could've made other instruments as well, but I don't know how high a percentage of the Medieval population played any kind of stringed instrument. I doubt they were anywhere near as prevalent as they are today. And for our purposes here, maybe there would be significant cross over between wand-makers and people who make finely-crafted wooden instruments.
>>93204015> that goofy ass Scooby-doo Halloween font on GhostIt's the little things. That's what puts the sovl in.
>>93197179>The build point systems in 2e could use a little work also,You're right for several reasons. One is the way they check validity which does not take into account that some races, like in the Book of Humanoids, have ability score modifiers that don't sum to zero.>someone can easily take 18 18 18 3 3 3.Close but not quite that extreme. That only adds up to 63 but Method VII requires a total of 75 which changes those 3s into 7s. Method IX requires at least 68 and those 3s would be 5 5 4.
>>93205088Because that excludes BECMI and AD&D 1 and so on. Saying that it should be named after AD&D 2 when you say it's mostly about Basic doesn't make any sense.
>>93205088>Why not call this /2eg/?Because we aren't here just to talk about 2e very much. Read the OP next time.Keep believing your conspiracy theory about a mod if you must. But your trolling is not welcome. Go back to whence you came.
If I may make a proposal, perhaps these threads should be called Traditional Dungeons & Dragons & Derivatives - /td&d&d/, /tdndnd/, /tddd/, /t3d/, /td3/, etc.>TraditionalBig emphasis on dungeons and player-driven decisions>Dungeons & DragonsNarrows down our subject matter>& DerivativesEncompasses DCC and C&C while excluding some of the worst nuSR dreck
>>93205796Long time "TSR" player here (I won't call myself OSR just to placate the anti 2e crowd since I have played a large amount of 2e in addition to the various editions of Basic with supplemental material from 1e here and there) but both of those ideas work fine, you just can't do it in the way modern 5e players do. Basically just categorize each adventure as an XP unit or a number of XP units (say from a scale from 1-3, small adventure, medium, large but you can fiddle with the numbers as you see fit) and set the leveling requirement be to have as many XP units as your next level. So two small adventures or 1 medium adventure gets you from level 1 to 2. 3 more small adventures or a small and a medium get you from level 2 to 3 and later on it takes 3 large adventures get you from 8 to 9, etc. What exactly constitutes small, medium and large is something you just have to feel out from experience playing hundreds of sessions.Everything basically works out at the same pace as it would if you were doing the traditional XP progression. Really you aren't getting rid of XP you're just recontextualizing it's source from individual combat and treasure encounters to the completion of long, medium and short term adventure goals and quests. I find this method also helps to drive player initiative and helps them actually interact with the game-world in a more meaningful way. It also lets you give XP for more abstract accomplishments - how much XP do you hand out if your players set themselves to the task of negotiating the normalization of trade relations between the Elves and Dwarves? Chalk it up as a medium adventure (if it took that much time and effort on the players part) and count it as 2 XP units. If they were half-way to level 4, bam now they get a level and you can still reward them for doing things that don't have immediate gratification. That all being said. I would not recommend a new DM do something like this
>>93205909So removing the primary incentive for player agency in the setting, aiming for treasure and by extension levels, and remove the class balancing where classes have wildly different XP requirements which scale with multiclassing and replacing them all by DM fiat.Not surprised you say 2E since that's the edition that gave that terrible advice in the core books and started us down the road to 3E/4E/5E play.
>>93206028>So removing the primary incentive for player agency in the setting, aiming for treasure and by extension levels,Do you actually play with human beings? People don't want levels and gold for their own sake. They want these things because of what they allow them to do in the game world. This doesn't remove that in any way. > and remove the class balancing where classes have wildly different XP requirements which scale with multiclassing and replacing them all by DM fiat.In practice it doesn't make a noticeable difference. Like I said, player progression proceeds at basically the same pace since XP isn't handed out until the end of an adventure anyway the discrepancies that would have existed would have been made up for in the amount of "time" between an adventure's beginning and end. If you have to justify it some-way it simulates a character having to reflect on and learn from the mistakes and circumstances they experienced over a period of time rather than an immediate acquisition of arcade-points. I have never had a player complain that their multi classing progression was wonky because of this. Just because something looks like a problem in theory doesn't mean it is in practice. If you want to talk real-talk. When you were 13 with your pals in the basement or garage playing D&D the way kids do did you guys play with strict XP tracking and an attention to player progression and power scaling or did you fudge half the rules and say shit like "well you guys did just kill the captain of the king's guard so I think you should get to level up now to show that you're the toughest guys in town now". And I bet you guys still had loads of fun didn't you? Games aren't math problems to solve, they are for people to have fun. I'm not saying you can't have fun playing the more RAW way, I've played that way too, more than I've done it the way I've described above. But that is a means to an end not the end itself.
>>93206168>that their multi classing progression was wonky because of this.Obviously not since this would make them far stronger. The ones who should complain are thieves.>When you were 13 I'm not playing like I was 13 nor do I play like I did in 3.5E thank god. Mediocrity shouldn't be your baseline ideal.If that's your thing then do it but it by no means gel well with the designs assumptions of 'traditional' TSR-era D&D.
>>93205909>>93206168This containment thread is the best idea in a long while.
>>93206214>The ones who should complain are thieves.Never had it happen. You might think it would happen but it never did in years of playing this way. Like I said it might look like a problem when you run the numbers but players either don't notice or don't care.>>93206214> I'm not playing like I was 13The way you talk I don't think you were playing anything except with yourself at 13.
>>93206261> and you should wallow in it like I doI never said anybody had to do it the way I described. My point was that methods exist which work fine with TSR era play for alternate leveling shcemes. I specifically said new DM's shouldn't do it the way I described because it relies on experience and being able to intuit progression. I further stated that leveling RAW is a fine way to play as-well. What compels a man to just lie like this?
>>93187986I propose two generals:/osrg/, which remains how it is, and /nu-srg/, for 2e and any OSR adjacent games and whatever else. todd is kind of a weird name imo
>>93206364That cuts out B/X, OD&D and AD&D from discussion here, so that's a no-go. Just because some /osrg/ folks revile anything outside those three editions doesn't mean that the folks who are okay with other stuff aren't interested in those three editions. I, and I'd imagine most folks here, just want a more relaxed, accepting thread with a broader subject matter.
>>93206312>"Trad" / "traditional" usually refers to the Hickman manifesto style of gamingNo one has ever dubbed that railroading storyshitting "traditional". Pure revisionism.
>>93206464>No one has ever dubbed that railroading storyshitting "traditional". Pure revisionism.Someone has:https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.htmlI disagree with several portion of this post, he gets multiple things about what he calls "Classic" and "OSR" completely wrong, but just linking it to show that that term is in use. That post is fairly popular in the NuSR / OSR-adjacent circles.
>>93197161I had recalled that, but remember being less than satisfied with it. Upon looking at the PHB, I think that was probably just because it throws out some ideas without the structure/context to put everything together. But maybe supplements do that.>>93199651>>93200218Noted. Thanks, guys.
>>93206453How about>osdndbnpbbafOld School Dnd But Not Populated By Bitter Annoying Faggots?It's got a nice ring to it.
>>93197179In Spears of the Dawn, something similar is put forth with the limitation that the highest ability score cannot go past twice that of the lowest ability score. For the 63 point version it'd mean a single 18 with 9s down the line, and you'd have 14 14 14 7 7 7 as your extreme statblock. The 75 point variant would allow for 18 18 12 9 9 9 and 16 16 16 9 9 9
>>93207936>to be playing games you have to be terminally online enough to be shitting up two generals simultaneously like meLmao sure bubNow go back
>>93208054>There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only. [Gygax, 1974]Gee, wouldn't it have been great if Gygax published thousands of pages in the decade after 1974, completing the areas that he had to gloss over because of space constraints?Instead he never published anything after 1974, and we are left wondering how Gygax actually played D&D.
>>93208212Yes yes, AD&D was written later. And it was entirely because OD&D was incomplete and he felt deeply for the plight of retarded players, and it and its thousands of pages (and many more millions of sales) has nothing to do with Gygax's frequent interactions with OD&D players (who were either too retarded, too lazy, or too spineless to create their own material where they felt the game deficient) teaching him that the playerbase was in fact not made up exclusively of Twin Cities wargamers who were used to doing legwork. And he definitely did not very cynically turn his publishing houserules from his own table to show one way the rules could be extrapolated to a table's needs into an entire enterprise of selling retards the answers to their burning questions (that they could themselves answer and about as competently as Gygax could provide anyway).In fact, one shouldn't alter D&D in any way, or even entertain the idea (lest it be t h e o r y c r a f t i n g) and should instead autistically debate with one another down the the letter of Gygax's words like scripture. This implied singular way of interacting with the game also isn't entirely why people think OSRG and its regulars are whinging faggots, and you are all actually very cool and smart and have adequately sized penises.
Thoughts on this method (not mine)
>>93208615Seems dumb to make resource management random, it's not really conducive to smart play.
>>93208615Aww ain't you the cutest lil' thing>You roll to see if your torches depleteOh noIt's retarded
>>93206408YES
>>93193113I enjoyed that "So you Want to Be a Game Master" book but. 1. The cover sucks. 2. You can read all of that shit online for free, you just need to suffer through his personal life stories to get to it friendo https://thealexandrian.net/gamemastery-101 And hopefully in due time we can both come back here and bitch about our players.
>>93195285Bfrpg is fucking based. A lot of the contributions are from the forums and you're encouraged to make OC for the game
>>93208615It seems to assume there are no corridors just endless rooms connecting to other rooms. And what of chambers?
>>93206293>What compels a man to just lie like this?My guess: being a bitter nogames asshole. The trolls have come to /todd/...
>>93206364>/nu-srg/, for 2e and any OSR adjacent games and whatever else.No. NO. Read the OP - that's not what this thread is for. Read the OP *again*
>>93207756That would be an accurate name. Could maybe reduce 'bitter annoying faggots' to 'trolls'.
>>93208871Said content is invariably mehdiocre.
>>93207936>This general seems to be mostly whiny theorycrafting by nusr types.Why are you here, posting?
>>93208890Is Carin adjacent?
>>93208615>thoughtsfagging already lmao ded general ded genre.
>>93208942dismissing trolls as merely 'grogs' is a crime against grogs who aren't assholes.
>>93206495>retarded article is fairly popular with retards Oh good.
>>93208959picrel the surprise underneath the helmet
>>93206495>err umm ackhsually you can't use that term because it has a commonly accepted meaning!>OSR has a common accepted meaning, erm well that doesn't count because I dislike it!
>>93206364The tried to have /nusrg/ repeatedly. Never goes anywhere because there isn't much to the games. Most discussion was about Mothership, everything else was asking about flavour of the month with minimal response or depth. Because Nusr requires osr material but doesn't make much useful content, even for the osr shovelware mill, it's inherently parasitic and dies on its own.
>>932040431/10 of the population is a lot. 3125 magic users in an area the size of inner London would be a disaster.
>>93208967It's been a pejorative for most of the gaming community for several decades at this point. Part of cultural shifting towards anti intellectualism.
>>93209018>excuse me sweety but you have to use everyone else's definition thas what being OPEN is about, accepting herd mentality
>>93203746Why not just say you can make a wand with a ritual and the costs associated?, and be done with it? Not everything needs a shitty comment.
>>93209970Stop
Are there any OSR-adjacent Bard classes that actually use musical magic (like spells that can only be activated when performing music of some kind), instead of just Thief/Magic-User(or Cleric) hybrid classes? The only one I’ve found that emphasized music was a variant in the Bard supplement for BFRPG, as all the others I’m seeing just cast spells the same way Magic-Users and Clerics do (if they have magic at all), albeit nerfed, since they’re the classic examples of the jack-of-all-trades class.
>>93210246I could swear there's an alternative floating around out there in Dragon, probably from Zeb Cook? Steve Winter has a funny story about Zeb carrying around a dogeared copy of the Eddas in his back pocket and hating Gary's version of the bard, so I'd bet it was him. Bard also got a kit in I believe the 2E viking sourcebook called skald, that's fashioned much more around historical bards.
>>93210246I wanted to do something like that, so I just used the bard from 5e. I've reduced the HD to 1d6, though.
>>93210246>>93210500Oh also Gavin Norman made an alternative to the traditional bard that I'm fairly certain is in one of the Carcass Crawlers and pretty good from what I remember.
>>93210246>>93210500Dragon #56 has a alt. version of AD&D bard (that I have used and found very playable), along with a couple of other bard articles and Sage Advice. Recommended.
>>93210246I don't know if the system is too far afield for you (maybe still useful for ideas?), and I don't know whether it will be enough music-focused for you, but you've gotta respect the Castles & Crusades Bard for not just mashing up existing classes. I'm pretty mixed on Castles & Crusades (it does some stuff really well, but it also has some pretty bad 3e-ism, and actually manages to make saves even more broken than in 3e), but I respect the hell out of it for making Rangers, Paladins and Bards that don't have Vancian spells.
Is ACKS 2E actually available anywhere or was it Kickstarter only?
>>93210857Ignoring the fact that 3e is what the OSR movement was reacting against, 3e is fundamentally broken. That's not to say that everything about it sucks, but it's an unbalanced, rules-heavy mess that fucks up its math.
>>93210828Backers have received mostly finished pdfs of the core. I'm not sure when it's scheduled to be released. September maybe.
>>93210246There's one in Heroic Legendarium. Haven't used it, but it seems good.
>>93206364This is the best solution and the most likely to avoid drama.>>93206408>That cuts out B/X, OD&D and AD&D from discussion here, so that's a no-go.That's the reality of what you want to discuss in this general, as those are meant to be played in the "OSR" fashion and there's already a general for that.>>93209035This is a thread full of posters trying to equate ADnD 2 with the editions that came before it just because it was published under TSR. It made XP as gold optional, abstracted dungeon crawling and other simulation rules, and had an overall design goal that departed from OSR. What you described is the logical conclusion to such discussion.
I'm a bit disappointed that S&W Revised Complete has little in the way of rules for travel, travel speed, resources management, resting etc.. Is that something that people typically homebrew? Do y'all have favourite systems to handle these aspects? Maybe some rules about weather and how it affects travel rates of movement too?
>>93211215>those are meant to be played in the "OSR" fashionNo, those are meant to be played the way the table prefers. There is no right way to play D&D, but simply a way you like the most. If you disagree, i invite you to define what the "OSR fashion" is and why it is objectively the best way to play D&D
>>93211215>those are meant to be played in the "OSR" fashionYeah, because OSR was around when Gary wrote it. He was a huge fan actually. Rather than that the books described the play, and that took a lot of different shapes over the decades between editions and tables, and OSR is comparatively a very new (and retarded) attempt to codify what play looked into a very small box that chronically online autists can argue about the contents of all day instead of playing games.>equate ADnD 2 with the editions that came before it Because it is substantively 90% the same game. To the point that you can play AD&D or B/X modules with 2E with minimal tweaking of 2E or the module.>It made XP as gold optionalOh the HUMANITY!>abstracted dungeon crawlingPft the fuck are you talking about? Dungeon turns and record keeping are very much still codified in 2E. This is where the OSRG faggot reveals he's never even read the game, because he's probably conflating a half remembered grumbling anecdote about how the in dungeon movement speeds per turn have been changed amd conflating that with this vague and retarded notion that "THEY MADE THE DUNGEON PLAY STORYSHIT". And your ignorance is exemplified by that the one new 2E rule that IS any easy target is the optional literal Story XP rewards, and you for some reason (which let's very generously assume has nothing to do with whether you've read or played the thing you're seething over) you neglected to bring up in your "Epic Takedown of Why 2E Isn't OSR" essay #28512.Y'know what's great about a TODD thread in contrast to a faggy OSRG group masturbation? Is that the premise of the thread doesn't care or invite argument about the minute rules deviations between the editions of the game TSR all produced that you are eternally assblasted about. It's about talking about the games D&D TSR made and the derivatives that are functionally that same ruleset.
>>93211215>That's the reality of what you want to discuss in this general, as those are meant to be played in the "OSR" fashionGygax himself endorsed changing the rules to suit your wants and needs, and most people in the old days would've found your zealotry baffling.>and there's already a general for that.Except that to curtain discussion on the core systems and only speak of the changes would absolutely stifle conversation. We don't agree with the line you've drawn and don't respect it. If a B/X general were to grow very popular, would you stop discussing it in /osrg/, trying to work around the more focused subject? What if it was a thread devoted to just the Moldvay Basic Set, and it already existed when /osrg/ game about? Would you then talk about Cook Expert but ban talk of levels 1-3?>>93211274Games like Castles & Crusades and DCC, which take the d20 system and modify it to be OSR-adjacent are welcome.
I want the cool class features, abilities, spells, etc from 3.5 and PF2E, but with the gameplay and simplicity (in terms of the core mechanics, like combat) from earlier editions, because 3.5 and PF2E are far too crunchy for my table. Will I have to hack this up myself, or is there material out there that has done something similar?To clarify, I realize those very features I want from 3.5 and PF2E are crunchy, but I’m okay with that crunch being in character creation or advancement. What I want is that, but with a lack of crunch everywhere else. If this is a stupid idea or just has never been tried before, let me know and I’ll try to find something better.
>>93211418>Except that to curtain discussion on the core systems and only speak of the changes would absolutely stifle conversation.Also, there are a lot of people who are interested in those core systems, but not the retardedly puritanical, virtual-signaling way discussion of them is approached in /osrg/.
>>93211437>I want the cool class features, abilities, spells, etc from 3.5 and PF2E, but with the gameplay and simplicity (in terms of the core mechanics, like combat) from earlier editionsYou're describing 2e's kits. Check out the Complete class books to get an idea. Plenty of setting specific books and Dragon magazine articles designed and described kits. Use that as your starting point and go from there.
>>93211480Thanks. Will definitely give those a look.
>>93211437I'd agree with the other anon that kits scratch that itch pretty well and provide a good skeleton for your own creations for that stuff (mostly just trading one toy the class has for another alternate one of ideally equal utility, though the 2E era folks were less than successful in keeping that consistent), as well as 2E's specialty priests. I know a few older D&D derivatives have tried bolting the equivalent of a feats system or something to the old chassis, but I personally feel like those just don't mesh terribly well with how otherwise on rails class development tends to be and how the ease in creating a character correlates well with their squishiness.
>>93211437I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting to take a more complicated system like those, but streamline and simplify them. I do think it's going to be hard to accomplish this while retaining all the features and such, though some headway could be made from removing extraneous bullshit. But I don't think discussion of that topic really belongs in this thread, as what you're talking about isn't compatible with, or adjacent/related to old school D&D. This isn't merely a "simplified D&D" thread, and people with knowledge of and interest in old school D&D editions wouldn't necessarily be able to make heads or tails of a 3.5 or Pathfinder-based game. Games like DCC and Castles & Crusades take the d20 system and move it close enough to old school D&D to be accessible to folks who only know old school D&D.
>>93211437>>93211546Unless you're just talking about importing specific features of 3.5 and Pathfinder into old school D&D. Or you're looking to do something like DCC and C&C did. But if you're just taking 3.5/PF and excising some of the complexity, that doesn't really have much relevance to this thread.
>>93211344A group could decide to use 5e to simulate spaceship combat cough, cough or go-kart racing, but they're more likely than not to have a bad experience unless they were shooting the shit for half an hour in the middle of whatever else they were doing, like the way you would watch The Room. There's actually an infamous Roll20 screenshot of streamers attempting to run go-kart racing in 5e seriously, but I don't have it on hand.
>>93211570Yeah, sorry, I guess I could have been clearer. I basically want to take the general level of class customization and other class-related features (not verbatim, but using 3.5 and PF simply as an example of the level of complexity and customization) and bolt that onto whichever OSR-adjacent game that would suit/accommodate that the best. I know that would betray the idea of OSR in a major way, but I figured this thread would be more accepting of stuff like that than /osrg/ has been.
Happy to see this thread, got sick and tired of /osrg/'s bullshit. I'm looking for an art piece that's similar to pic related by Jeff Easley except there's also a female elf crawling or crouching and it shows a bit of her butt. I've been going mad trying to find this art, I know it exists and am 90% sure it's literally TSR D&D.>>93188428You realize it is RIDICULOUS that Pick Pockets is the hardest skill for a Thief. If anything that should be the EASIEST Thief skill. From a verisimilitude perspective that is most likely the very first skill a Thief learns, possibly before even being level 1. Even if you generously interpret it to mean "Sleigh of Hand" or "Legerdemain", you realize that is the kind of shit birthday magicians in the real world pull right.
>>93210857>>93211274>3e is great, it's actually the most OSR-compatible of the WotC editions.>3e can easily be made OSR, it supports dungeons(sigh) this is more trolling. Please find something else to do
>>93211215For the love of Gygax...
>>93211597Pathwarden if you want classless streamlined Pathfinder, but it's FOE as fuck if you ask me, lots of those game-y modern D&D "you can now do this thing with your shield that you realistically could've always tried but it was locked behind a feat" type shit.ACKS if you want something actually compatible with old-school D&D.
>>93211437I would say you are largely describing Castles & Crusades, which aims to be the 'Rosetta Stone' b/w AD&D and d20. Give it a look
>>93211395>OSR is comparatively a very new (and retarded) attempt to codifyI hate to sound like I'm arguing semantics, but it's common practice to codify past trends in media, like comic books and the "ages" they have.>what play looked into a very small box that chronically online autists can argue about the contents of all day instead of playing games.I've played OSR games IRL and the people I've played with are chill and well-adjusted people. Tables that I've played at that try to deviate too much from what an edition is designed for tend to fizzle out quickly. It's like pulling too much on a loose shirt string, and a basic principle of design.>Because it is substantively 90% the same game. To the point that you can play AD&D or B/X modules with 2E with minimal tweaking of 2E or the module.You'd have to use 1e's dungeon exploration system and tailor XP rewards to the party specifically.>Oh the HUMANITY!XP as gold has a large impact on player progression and greatly affects pacing campaigns or adventures accordingly. It is just a game, but you could at least understand how it works.>the rest of what (You) wroteYou need to chill out and spend less time online. It's clear that you have an obstructed view of the people strawmen you claim to argue against, and no one sound of mind gets this vexed over tabletop game discussion on a Moroccan fly fishing forum. I said that about dungeon crawling because I've read and compared the rules, and plenty of people before have made the same argument.
>>93211720I looked in my little art library - this is the closest I found but I doubt that's it
>>93211418>Gygax himself endorsed changing the rules to suit your wants and needsGygax took sole credit for ideas that were originally Anderson's, and he's burned bridges with many people. He wouldn't be the final authority on the matter, and even if he was, the changes you would probably want to make to the game would make it play like a separate game entirely. By all means knock yourself out and enjoy, really, but it's disingenuous to claim it would be the same game. Remember that Dota started as a Warcraft 3 mod.>most people in the old days would've found your zealotry baffling.You're missing the point of what I'm saying.>What if it was a thread devoted to just the Moldvay Basic Set, and it already existed when /osrg/ game about? Would you then talk about Cook Expert but ban talk of levels 1-3?You're making a false comparison. You're banning OSR discussion in a thread with editions that are relevant to when played as designed to accommodate for. The Basic example you described doesn't work in your favor for the same reason, and if it actually happened, Basic with some Expert intersection would be discussed. Shitflinging wouldn't start until some starts complaining about it not playing like something closer to ADnD 2.>Games like Castles & Crusades and DCC, which take the d20 system and modify it to be OSR-adjacent are welcome.DCC is NuSR.>>93211439>not the retardedly puritanical, virtual-signaling way discussion of them is approached in /osrg/.What's the beef you guys have with them? Looking at the thread, they seem to prefer this separate general and don't appear keen on talking about it too much apart from someone who apparently asked for a QRD.
>>93211903Intesting, I might buy it then. Does Castles & Crusades support feats? I want to build the OSR equivalent of a Great Weapons Master Hexblade, can I do it with this system?
>>93188314For Falling damage, another alternative is having a derived Vigor stat that is the average of all physical attributes. You can use this derived stat not just for falling damage, but also for eg. poison. Basically anything that can bypass HP, could be damage dealt to Vigor. Vigor would represent literal physical injury, and I would include a generic Injury table with healing times.Similarly, a derived stat for attacks on the mind (such as charms) can be used, if you ever thought PCs being mind-controlled on a failed save was unfair.Save for every (up to) 100 feet fallen, if successful halve resulting Vigor damage (1d6 every 10 feet as standard). If you combine it with an injury table the result can be fairly believable without being GURPS levels of autism. Note that in real life people have survived great falls with just broken bones.
>>93212130Wow, such a simple and very realistic rule, thanks for sharing Anon. It totally makes sense to have two additional stats for this kind of things. What would you call the mental equivalent of Vigor, by the way?
>>93205222>Method VII requires a total of 75Wow! So I can build a character with 18 / 18 / 18 / 15 / 3 / 3? That's fantastic, so much more freedom than with 5e and 3e! Why isn't everyone playing with this system? Is it compatible with Castles & Crusades?
Are there any decent substitute magic systems for OSR out there?I want something more along the lines of Conan where magic is either sleight of hand bullshit (poisoned powders, alchemy, ect) or obscenely powerful and lovecraftian with little in between.No fireballs, but yes 'This fire now burns on water and hatefucks my enemies if I can get it onto them'
>>93211903No. No feats in C&C. Also, I assumed you asked in good faith. But wanting 'the OSR equivalent of a Great Weapons Master Hexblade' makes me doubt that.
>>93212289I thought you were a troll. Now I know you are a psycho.
>>93212418>Are there any decent substitute magic systems for OSR out there?If you're talking about alternate spell lists, there are plenty, but rebuilding it from the ground up would be a massive overhaul. Magic user classes would have to be revisited and it might end up feeling very foreign to older versions of D&D.
>>93212433nta but all trolling aside; what's the problem with feats so long as they can't be used to start buildshenannigans.I'm talking things that don't come up in combat and are less frequently dungeon relevant; knowledge abilities, being able to do crafting, knowing how to sail a boat properly, ect, with each one being its own thing rather than absurd trees or anything.
>>93211914>I hate to sound like I'm arguing semanticsBut you're gonna do it anyway lmao.>I've played OSR games IRL and the people I've played with are chill and well-adjusted peoplePeople IRL playing old school games are a chasm away from the OSRG, bub. I dunno even know why you'd attempt that comparison.>You'd have to use 1e's dungeon exploration system and tailor XP rewards to the party specifically.No, you wouldn't. 2E has the same dungeon turn. And it has XP-for-gold. >XP FOR GOLD IS THE ERM CRUX OF THE GAMEAnyone who's actually played TSR D&D realizes just how fucking hollow that white room theory crafting platitude is, and how quickly surviving characters forget considerations of gold entirely. Why do you think Gary through in all these exorbitant cost thresholds like training and spell research etc? Because that carrot of the GP equating to levels doesn't last forever.>erm I'm just arguing in good faith and you're mad bro No, you're arguing the same retarded nonarguments OSRG fags have always leveled against 2E. You're a dumb baiting faggot and you should go back.
>>93212083>DCC is NuSR.Maybe on Planet Retard.
>>93188938This is good. It will make the Paladin even more special because of his immunity to diseases; it will also make the Cleric more important in his spells related to purify food and drink, and healing diseases.
I'm going to start doing pick up game one shots to get people interested in B/X. Here is a list of house rules I'm currently thinking of using just to make things easier to get started:>All weapons 1D6 RAW>Dual wield is +1 to hit>2H weapons get +1 to damage>Swords get Cleave>Fighters get +1 to hit and damage rolls>Max HP for HD and using DMG's health pool dice>Read magic is automatically given, MU's get 2 spells at level 1>When rolling stats, use optional method shown in DMG (3D6 rolled 12 times take 6 highest, arrange as wanted)This would be for straight up sitting at a table and having randoms come in and roll characters and play one shot short one page dungeons, so character growth is probably not going to happen unless they are interested and then we can set up a better/longer campaign or dungeon.Any other ideas that would help facilitate a quick pick up game of B/X?
>>93211720The pick pockets score is unchanged from the book. I honestly find pick pockets to be annoying, because it's basically there to stir up trouble, as the thief derails everything in town by trying to pick pockets until they're caught. Yes, the thief picking random locks in town would be an issue too, but the picking locks has a more common adventure-legitimate use in the dungeon, and so doesn't tempt people the same way. Also, pick pockets makes me, as DM, have to figure out what people have in their pockets, which is annoying. In any case, I largely left the pick pocket score unchanged so as not to potentially mess with low-level play, when a bit of gold is far more valuable (which would, in turn, make trying to pick people's pockets in town more tempting). With too high a chance to succeed, it might be well worth having a new thief try to pick some pockets, and just discarding them and rolling up a new character if they get caught. The end result is either some nice extra starting money, or a new character with no skin off your teeth.
>>93212207Vigor came to me naturally, but I haven't really come up with a suitable name for the mental equivalent. Willpower or Resolve, perhaps? Note that if you give it to monsters, the question becomes how it interacts with Morale if at all. RAW B/X, monsters don't have attributes to begin with, but level 0+ humans and such might, if the GM designed them as potential retainers. Perhaps a niche case, but what happens if would-be retainers form a rival party, presumably they would use Morale then?
>>93211597To do that, I figure you'd want to pick some OSR or OSR-adjacent system as your basis, then work on adding one aspect at a time. If you want feats, work on feats. Maybe you eventually want to have a bunch more customization, but it's easier and more likely to get done if you focus on one thing, and if you design that thing to work on its own, you're more likely to end up with a workable game (and not eventually lose steam working on a dozen different things, and end up with everything half finished and a completely unplayable game).
>>93212560>Swords get CleaveWhy can't axes cleave? >When rolling stats, use optional method shown in DMG (3D6 rolled 12 times take 6 highest, arrange as wanted)Way too much pre-game rolling
>>93212489>But you're gonna do it anyway lmao.Is this a counter-argument of some kind? In either case, I'm not being dishonest.>People IRL playing old school games are a chasm away from the OSRG, bub. I dunno even know why you'd attempt that comparison.You're moving the goalpost. First, you were talking about the OSR scene >>93211395. Now, it's the general specifically.>No, you wouldn't. 2E has the same dungeon turn. And it has XP-for-gold.ADnD 2 advises against wandering monsters and makes significant changes to movement. XP itself is handled as optional in ADnD 2 and it shows. A 1e dungeon would have to be rebalanced thoroughly in light of those things.>>XP FOR GOLD IS THE ERM CRUX OF THE GAMENice mole hill.>Anyone who's actually played TSR D&D realizes just how fucking hollow that white room theory crafting platitude is, and how quickly surviving characters forget considerations of gold entirely.I and people I play with have had no problem with this. Have you ever considered that it might be a skill issue on your part?>Why do you think Gary through in all these exorbitant cost thresholds like training and spell research etc? Because that carrot of the GP equating to levels doesn't last forever.You clearly don't understand how the game works at a fundamental level. Rules for hirelings, mercenaries, and keeps were implemented and this was a means of preventing their gold revenue being exploited for insanely fast progression. Paying for them, equipment to carry stuff around, and upkeep for lairs contribute to keeping gold as XP balanced in the right hands.>>erm I'm just arguing in good faith and you're mad bro I was and am.>No, you're arguing the same retarded nonarguments OSRG fags have always leveled against 2E. You're a dumb baiting faggot and you should go back.Your paranoia is getting the better of you. Get a grip.
>>93212546Care to explain why?
>>93212687How long does it take for you to roll 3D6 lol.lmao.Cleave is a fair point, maybe I'll just... axe the idea... lol.lmao.No I'll probably just do no cleave.I also had an idea for people wanting to fighting 1H with having the other hand free or other use (torch, etc), and giving them +1 on saving throws if their hand is empty.
>>93212130Sort of a like a Flesh and Grit system?I'm actually pretty happy with the way >>93188314 works. I think it fairly elegant addresses the problem, and gives higher level characters an advantage (both because that 1d6 damage means less to them, and because they have a better chance of saving for half damage) without having them just shrug off falls from great heights. And I think it's fairly simple too, though suppose it may look more complicated to others.
>>93212687>Why can't axes cleave? NAYRT and maybe the "cleave" isn't the best name for it, but with an axe, you burying the thing in your target. At a default, swords slash rather than chopping (though there are obvious exceptions, of course), which means they are, to some extent, sliding along the target, which doesn't arrest motion in the same way. With this in mind, and the fact that swords are more nimble (since they are balanced closer to your hand), I think it makes sense to have swords be the ones that allow you to make a follow-up attack.
>>93212731>Is this a counter-argument of some kind?Counter what, faggot? You literally opened with the admission that you're just arguing semantics. Lmfao>You're moving the goalpost.What's the word for this kind of retardation where you just vomit a random fallacy name in lieu of a rebuttal?>Now, it's the general specifically.It was the OSRG because that's where (You) come from, fag.>ADnD 2 advises against wandering monsters and makes significant changes to movementPatently false.>XP itself is handled as optional in ADnD 2 and it shows. Hahaha, jesus you fucking deranged mongoloids really will stoop to just outright lying in your hysterical hatred of a (35 year old) new game edition huh? XP itself is not optional, the game never says it is, and never provided a means of circumventing its use. It has the exact same XP tables as 1E.>A 1e dungeon would have to be rebalanced thoroughly in light of those things.1) Use XP for gold. 2) Use the XP tables that aren't optional and are identical to 1's class XP tables.Whoooooa, that was a lot of rebalancing. No wonder you faggots recoil in horror at Gygax and Arneson saying they expect you to make shit up yourself.>skill issue That doesn't even make sense in this context, lmfao. Jesus you're bad at baiting.>I was and am.That's adorable.>osrg? Who is this osrg? I am just random concerned citizen that happened to show up after osrg's retardedly on nose attempts to raid the thread were deleted by modsHahaha, motherfucker, I can literally go to your thread and SEE you all seething about this one realtime. Who do you think you're fooling?
>>93212449Wasn't the Hexblade introduced in 2e? Or was it the Bladesinger? One of those.>>93212483I don't see the problem either if all classes get access to feats. They are already balanced anyway, why can't you just drop them in the game? The core rules are the same. Ability scores, hit rolls, AC, HP, spell slots... I think it works just fine. One feat at level 1 and then another at levels 4, 8, 12... something like that.
>>93212560>Max HP for HD and using DMG's health pool diceHealth pool dice?>Max HP for HDAt first level or every level? Because I'm not in favor of the latter as it'd lead to hit point bloat and make people far too durable.
>>93212560Great ideas but why only swords get special effects?Polearms have a reach of 10 feet and can block someone charging at that distance if they hit.Hammers knock back 5 feet on a hit, Reflex save to avoid.Maces: on a hit Will save or stunned for one round.Throwing knives: two attacks per round.Flail: ignore shields.Axes: On a critical hit Fortitude save or severed limb (roll 1d6 for which).Staff: Can use it to jump over obstacles.
>>93212795>Sort of a like a Flesh and Grit system?Without the attribute damage aspect of NSR, yes, attribute damage is too fiddly and I'd argue incoherent with the implied usage of attributes in B/X (I realize B/X has monsters that deal attribute damage but let me explain). In B/X attributes are an essential (like a soul) part of a character, for example, if a character transforms or is reincarnated in the form of another creature, his attributes remain the same. Magic items in B/X pretty much never modify attributes. Something to think about.
Do these editions have high power ceilings, like I’ve heard newer editions (3E and later) do? Also, I know this may be blasphemy, but I have almost no interest in dungeons, and I want to run a more overworld-focused campaign. Am I looking in the wrong place for that? 2E seems closest to what I want, from the little I know about it.
>>93212940You could have max HP but also have all attacks deal max HP. This way you dispense with damage rolls and combat is much quicker. Has anybody tried it? I don't think it makes much sense to make two rolls per attack anyway.
>>93212993Overworld adventures (hexcrawls) are possible but unfortunately there isn't much written on how they ought to be done. Different modules have contradictory procedures. Note that if you're making hexcrawls the primary focus of your game, you're going to need rules for travel, weather, fatigue/resting, and so on. Running it "freeform" like a modern D&D adventure where you just skip to the "interesting" bit isn't really in the spirit of old-school D&D. Not that you can't do it this way, nobody's stopping you, but your players might find themselves bored from the lack of "content" (as old-school D&D doesn't have the character customization of modern D&D, instead old-school D&D's "content" is the stuff I mentioned).
>>93212940Sorry, in ADND, Fighters roll 1D10, so they would just get 10HP at first level, and only at first level.They would roll 1D10 for every level after 1st.>>93212950Yeah I didn't really love giving swords something, you get an off hand you can carry a shield or other weapon in, and those have bonuses, being one handed with a weapon gives you +1 to saving throws, unless the other hand is holding something (shield, weapon, torch, etc).I do like the idea of using the weapons as tools, obviously an axe made for battle isn't going to be great for chopping, but it sure as hell will do a better job than a sword or spear, using the staff to gain height is cool as well.
>>93212993>Also, I know this may be blasphemy, but I have almost no interest in dungeonsBy the books, you could just run entirely wilderness adventures, but the tradeoff is gonna be considerably more danger and less reward.Off the books, I've always had a wild hair about using dungeon level random monster tables for the overworld that scale (disgusting I know) with player level, especially as they already have a possibility if getting a monster 1-2 levels higher. And using fixed levels for dungeons. Like Ultima IV monster tables
>>93212993You can literally become Immortal in BECMI! It's like 36 levels mortal and then another 36 levels Immortal! And at 36th level a Mage can like cast 9 spells of every level, even of 9th level. And the Fighters get Grand Weapon Mastery that allows them to have all kinds of special abilities according to the weapon they chose. It's pretty cool.And then when you become Immortal there is like a new alignment called entropy because at that point both the Lawful / Good and Chaotic / Evil ally against these uber baddies that just want the whole universe to become entropy. It's pretty cool. And the Immortals are like 4d while mortals 3d. I am not shitting you, it's pretty cool, it's all in the Immortal set. But I have never figured out how to make the 4d thing work. Any ideas?
>>93213042Also makes some of the classes bonuses that are strictly for dungeons pretty bad, at least in B/X.
>>93212783>How long does it take for you to roll 3D6 lol.12 times? And writing each result down? And then flipping between all the classes and attribute tables? Much longer than you think.
>>93212775nuSR fetishizes rules-lite systems to facilitate the faggiest version of post-D&D adventuringDCC fetishizes complex systems to facilitate pre-D&D Appendix N adventuring
>>93213060This is my problem with the Ranger. If you don't plan on doing wilderness stuff, his "woodsman" abilities will literally never matter.
>>93211342For any missing stuff i always use the Adnd 1e DMG
>>93211342>I'm a bit disappointed that S&W Revised Complete has little in the way of rules for travel, travel speed, resources management, resting etc..The 2e DMG and PHB are great for all that. Highly recommended. Anything you don't find in S&W is in there.
>>93212857>Counter what, faggot?Oh fuck, you're actually illiterate.>What's the word for this kind of retardation where you just vomit a random fallacy name in lieu of a rebuttal?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>It was the OSRG because that's where (You) come from, fag.Have you be proscribed medication, and if so, are you taking it?>Patently false.It does in light of "story considerations," as mentioned on page 101 of the 3rd print.>Hahaha, jesus you fucking deranged mongoloids really will stoop to just outright lying in your hysterical hatred of a (35 year old) new game edition huh?You're fucking insane.>XP itself is not optional, the game never says it is, and never provided a means of circumventing its use. It has the exact same XP tables as 1E.You are either implying that the edition didn't take into account the effects of making gold as XP optional, or that encounters and XP are adjusted as a result, the latter meaning that encounters in previous editions would need to be adjusted to adapt to ADnD 2.>1) Use XP for gold. 2) Use the XP tables that aren't optional and are identical to 1's class XP tables.Read above.>Whoooooa, that was a lot of rebalancing. No wonder you faggots recoil in horror at Gygax and Arneson saying they expect you to make shit up yourself.If I said you piss your pants every hour, would that make it true?>That doesn't even make sense in this context, lmfao. Jesus you're bad at baiting.Not everyone you disagree with is a troll. Act like an adult.>I can literally go to your thread and SEE you all seething about this one realtime.So there really is beef? Everyone can check the general right now. They got right back to answering questions about where to find content materials. You decided to get angry and imagine strawmen to fight because I said that the differences in play and modifications encouraged by this general warranted distinction from OSR play to avoid overlap drama.
>>93213098>DCC fetishizes complex systems to facilitate pre-D&D Appendix N adventuringBeing complex doesn't necessarily make it OSR. It's simple at its core armor class systems aside, but the depth lies in other aspects of it. In other words, I'm politely trying to ask what kind of complex systems you're referring to.
>>93213065Skill issue I guess.If I encounter someone that takes longer than a minute to do that or their brain explodes I'll just have them roll 4D6 remove lowest.
>>93212843Axes should be R2K1 for damage
Jesus Christ, get a fucking room, you freaks. It’s one thing to make a reply chain of short posts, but quoting each other line by line and spamming the thread as you carefully pick apart each other’s shit? Actual homosexuality. Anyway, how about a fairly general, open-ended question to spark actual discussion? Do any classes added after B/X (whether in official or unofficial core books, supplements, etc) actually add to the genre in a meaningful way, or do they simply limit what the original classes can do?
>>93213173>erm you can't readNot an argument.>literal wikipediaNot an argument.>ERM TAKE YOUR MEDSNot an argument.>It does in light of "story considerations," as mentioned on page 101 of the 3rd printNot true, and even entertaining the reality in your mind where it is, that isn't what you said to start. Who's shifting goalposts here?>erm you're insaneNot an argument.>You are either implyingMotherfucker you literally said 2E made XP optional.>XP itself is handled as optional in ADnD 2You said this lmfao. And that isn't true.>erm you're pissing yourself Not an argument.>They got right back to answering questions about where to find content materials.Was that before or after mods starting cracking down on them? Because it seems like until that point they were perfectly content seething over it rather than talking shop.Overall, your ramblings don't qualify as an argument, much less a coherent thought. So there's not really anything to say to you besides you continue to prove yourself to be a screeching retard and your flimsy attempts to "troll" the thread aren't as clever as you think they (or you) are.
>>93213316It's just one shitter shitting up the thread and one other idiot responding.Hell, it might be the same person because they sure are shitting up the thread.
>>93213209>Being complex doesn't necessarily make it OSRPoint me to where I said it was OSRDCC not being nuSR doesn't make it OSR>>93213285>takes longer than a minute to do thatPeople regularly roll 3d6 twelve times, write down each result, re-arrange the scores to pick race/class, and have all their modifiers on the sheet in under a minute? You sure?
>>93213436I'm not going to argue with an obvious idiot/person who just wants to argue. Rolling 3d6 12 times takes twice as long as rolling 3d6 6 times, which is like 30 seconds.Go away troll.
>>93213604I accept your concession, armchair games theorist.
>>93213436>>93213675I'm not this guy >>93213604.>Point me to where I said it was OSRHere >>93211418.>DCC not being nuSR doesn't make it OSRI said earlier that it's not OSR.
>>93213783>HereThat's not me, Planet Retard denizenThis thread is rapidly making me think the problem is not /osrg/ but the general /tg/ userbase
>>93213327>I don't want those to be arguments>therefore they aren't>I now believe you said nothing or said things you didn't actually sayYou're one missed pill away from shooting up a school.>>93213345>it might be the same person because they sure are shitting up the thread.Unfortunately not. Does that make me the shitter or the idiot?
Since we’ve hit the post limit, should we make a new thread? I’d call this a success.
>>93213845>I’d call this a success.Some success this is.
>>93213865Feel free to leave.
>>93213817It's just one butthurt idiot from the OSR thread trying to shit up this thread because he can't insult people for not playing something the way he deems it should be played.Fuck 'em.
>>93213980I wish I could be as optimistic as you
>>93212560Have some pregens on hand--B1 has done the work for you--because you may find yourself wasting table-time and boring or frustrating newbs by putting them through chargen they don't understand for a game they've never played. Give them mostly-complete characters they can quickly modify, a rumor or two about the dungeon, and do not send them shopping for gear--give them a few set packs to choose from. Get them to the dungeon entrance asap--use your time playing the actual game. Plus, when things go poorly for the characters, the loss of a one-off won't turn newbs off the game.
>>93213845Yes, make a new thread, we're cooking
>>93213845Do it. Shitters aside, a lot of good traction with people who wanna freely talk old school games without all the retarded dogma.
>>93213845Yes but I think we should make it a point to clown on people who are taking obvious bait. They're just as bad as the baiters, if you can't tell someone is arguing in bad faith after a couple replies... I don't know what to say.
>>93214318>>93214318>>93214318God, the 5 minute wait to make a thread is unbearable
