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).previous thread: >>93339775>What's the ideal number of players (in addition to a DM)?>What are some cool ideas/features/tricks you've done or seen done with a dungeon?>What is the role of women in your setting? Is a female warrior or adventurer unusual by societal standards?>How fleshed out and involved in the setting do you like your gods to be?>How hard do you like it to be for casters to regain their spells? Do you allow for partial replenishment?
>>93392958>>What's the ideal number of players (in addition to a DM)?I've found 3 or 4 players is the sweet spot. I have played in a group of 14; combat was fucking hellish, it took fucking hours to resolve.>>What are some cool ideas/features/tricks you've done or seen done with a dungeon?The RPGA module whereby a dungeon trapping a terrible evil was shrunk down inside a magic bottle remains one of the coolest ideas I've ever seen from a convention module. >What is the role of women in your setting? Is a female warrior or adventurer unusual by societal standards?Absolutely not unusual at all. Lest we forget, Grace Jones was killer in Conan the Conqueror, and remains the only woman who ever physically intimidated Arnold Schwarzenegger. 100% Pure Based.
>>93392958>>How hard do you like it to be for casters to regain their spells? Do you allow for partial replenishment?I use a power points system. Resting for one night restores all.
>>93392958>>93393019I guess there's a range of "not unusual". I think something like 17 or 18% of US personnel are women, which is enough that I would say they're not exactly unusual, but they are still outnumbered more than 4-to-1, which is a big gap. At what point do we call them unusual? 10-to-1? 30-to-1? 100-to-1? 300-to-1? 1000-to-1?
>>93393174>Free discussion of house rules and modifications are encouraged.That's the opposite of /osrg/
>>93393174Because /osrg/ throws a shit-fit if people try to discuss things outside of a small bubble. No 2e, even though it shares the same core with all other TSR editions of D&D. No Rules Cyclopedia, or even Mentzer Companion/Masters/Immortal Sets, as they're not in the first decade of D&D. No later 1st edition AD&D supplements. And if you try to discuss house rules that aren't already well-established (like max hit points at 1st level), they'll screech "false OSR enthusiast" at you. No DCC. No Castles & Crusades. LotFP is up in the air. And so on. It's stifling, and it was ultimately easier and less frustrating to make a different thread.
>2eOur party doesn't have a Thief but there's no way I'm single classing that shit. Fighter/Thief or Mage/Thief?
>>93393255All TSR-era editions are broadly compatible. All TSR stuff is decades old. People in this thread want to be able to discuss all that stuff and don't much care if you think it's bad-wrong fun. They also want to be able to talk about house rules and making even major changes to things within a TSR-era D&D framework. If you don't like it, don't hang around here, but don't try to tell us what we can or should discuss.
>>93393255>Only the first edition of D&D captures the oldschool feelingDo you mean "first edition", in other words, "first edition AD&D", or the actual edition first released, in other words, Original D&D? And what about Basic, the first edition of which beat AD&D to the press?
>>93393236Fighter/Thief. Be Conan.>>93393255Thanks anon, sounds like you would prefer /osrg/. Go hang out over there.
>>93393255They aren't but 2efags are ultra-defensive about why they aren't accepted, /osrg/ aren't truthful about it further; they both claim it's because of Dragonlance but that's a lie, It's really about Planescape but you can't say that because It's such a well liked setting.
>>93393236Mage/Thief synchronises really well, and unlike a Fighter, having no armour enhances a Thief's performance.>>93393255Listen here you fucking neonate, I was playing a Berserker in BECMI's Mystara while you were still a fucking itch in the postman's scrotum. I was there for 2nd Edition's staggered release, and I remember how it reflected the way we were REALLY playing AD&D at our tables. The transition was so smooth many tables used 1st and 2nd Edition books interchangeably. We didn't constantly dickride Gygax, and we hadn't even fucking HEARD of Arneson. We didn't lionise TSR - we heaped scorn on it and photocopied whole binders worth of information because they sued their fans like Lars Ulrich out of his mind on cocaine for the most minor copyright infractions. We even used to refer to them online as T$R because their money-grubbing bullshit was even more insane than WotC (who else remembers the TSR woodburning kit? Or the embroidery sets? Or the Dragonlance stained glass windows?).We played the way we did because it was FUN, not because we were pretentious hipsters affecting an era we weren't alive for. We played pixies named Fairy Fawcett-Majors and gnomes named Cyran-gnome De Bergerac. We designed elaborate methods of exploiting the rules, like fantasy howitzer shells that dropped a portable hole into a bag of holding on impact. Bullshit arguments about Orcs needing to be killed on sight vs. the actual restrictions of alignment RAW destroyed whole gaming groups. It was a wild, exciting, lively time that none of us took seriously, unlike you and the rest of the pompous cunts in the /OSRg/
>What's the ideal number of players (in addition to a DM)?I like seven or eight players. >What are some cool ideas/features/tricks you've done or seen done with a dungeon?Combo of a cone of silence and magical darkness. Basically makes the PCs think they're walking into an empty and safe room.>What is the role of women in your setting? Is a female warrior or adventurer unusual by societal standards?Adventurers are an exception, but I try to keep female warriors out of armies, city guards, etc. >How fleshed out and involved in the setting do you like your gods to be?Not very fleshed out, and not very active. Each town has its own patron it worships, more or less.>How hard do you like it to be for casters to regain their spells? Do you allow for partial replenishment?Just whatever your standard "rest or suffer consequences" rules for your system are.
>>93393623>I just like triggering those cunts.I'm sorry Anon, but that's weak and pathetic. Be proud of 2e instead of desperately trying to get into retard grog club.
>>93393255Then fuck off and stay in your containment thread, you won't be missed.
>>93393456Planescape is a well liked video game and art style. The campaigns and books were all awful story railroad twee garbage. Worked in the90s but that's because the 90s were a cultural culmination of garbage we've never recovered from.
>>93393972Cool fanfic. Anyway, for those of us who aren't seething in butt-shredded frustration - 2nd Edition!...I think it's a testimony to the imagination of 2nd Ed that apart from Exandria, the Magic the Gathering setting, Radiant Citadel and Strixhaven; WotC have been leaning heavily on the work done by TSR writers for inspiration when it comes to settings. Sure, they might gender swap a character or add a few minor details, but in every regard the 2nd Edition stuff is superior.Spelljammer for example. 2nd Edition had such developed ship to ship combat the game came with cardboard minis and a hexmap for aeronautical dogfights. 5th Edition was like "I dunno, treat them like mounts and just contrive boarding actions".This is why I'm so glad they never touched Dark Sun. It would have been about as deep as a kiddys paddling pool full of piss, with all the rough edges sanded off and shitty AI artwork.
>>93393951I'm apart of the problem, a huge fan of Planescape but I can at least acknowledge it isn't viable for actual play, the problem? Planescape brought in a whole new type of theorycrafters; instead of people who couldn't play they were people who didn't want to but were perfectly happy polluting every D&D discussion forum for years with their worldbuilding.
>>93394558To put this into perspective, a once very popular guide/website on how to run a campaign in Planescape was written by somebody who hadnt ever ran or played in Sigil, they dedicated over a decade to pure theorycrafting.
>>93394671As someone who's been playing since the 2000's, yes we did, we just all hid it from you to exclude you from the cool fun games.
>>93393174/osrg/ is for sperging out at people who like shitbrews/todd/ is for sperging out at people who hate shitbrews
>>93394609lmao what blog was that? Makes sense,it was when game companies really figured out selling splatbooks was more viable than making anything playable.
I thought this thread was going to be cool but it's turning into somethi g as equally shote as osrg. All I hoped for was a "TSR D&D, played Your way" thread. 2e fag doesn't have to be so obnoxious now that he's separated from OSR spergs, but he is any way.
Stop talking about the old general and talk about games please
>>93393019>I've found 3 or 4 players is the sweet spot.I tend to agree, though I'd lean towards 4 for an OSR or OSR-adjacent campaign.>I have played in a group of 14; combat was fucking hellish, it took fucking hours to resolve.The most I've run for is 7-8 players (depending on how much of the session they have to be there for to count), and I hated it. 7 players take more than twice as long as 4 players. They're more distractable and less focused.
>>93393887>Lol this is the 2nd Ed fag. Who it turns out is very into Dragonlance.Nope. 2e has never been my favored edition, but it's stupid to wall it off or think it has nothing to offer, when it's overwhelmingly compatible with 1e. It's even stupider to sperg out whenever anybody else dares to mention it.As for Dragonlance, I think the first module is kind of cool, though definitely too dependent on preestablished characters and their storyline. After that, the railroading becomes way, way too strong. You could try approaching the modules from a more open perspective, shaking off the confines of the story being forced upon you and just using the setting information, dungeons and so forth, but I think that would grow increasingly pointless (though it's admittedly been a long time since I've looked at any of those things). But if people want to talk about Dragonlance, it's no skin off my teeth. I think the danger of Dragonlance overrunning the thread is minimal.
Please remember to ignore and report shitposters from /osrg/.I'm shocked you guys even fall for this shitty bait.Starting a 2E game soon, the DM said no ''Player Option'' stuff, do to the optional classes like Druid fall under this?
>>93393525>Mage/Thief synchronises really well, and unlike a Fighter, having no armour enhances a Thief's performance.That makes sense. Missing out on weapon spec as a Fighter/Thief also seems like a huge loss, probably no point in doing it at all.
>>93396012>the DM said no ''Player Option'' stuffAsk your DM why. If he says it's because of balance issues, explain to him that it's bullshit and he's fallen for anti-2e propaganda. He's cutting away one of the main attractions and arguably the best part of 2e.
>>93396012Ask your DM. But to my lizardbrain, Players Option are the near infinite number of PO Books TSR released, not the optional classes in the PHB.
Thoughtsfag abhors a vacuum.
>>93396012I'm assuming they're talking about the Player's Option supplements (Skills & Powers and whatnot), which has nothing to do with optional classes in the Player's Handbook.
>>93396129>If your dungeon has rooms in it that contain nothing, they shouldn't be in your dungeon.Disagree. It's kind of silly for every room to have something significant in it (though admittedly, D&D isn't the most realistic game to begin with), and it changes the approach to adventuring if you're 100% sure there's always going to be something.
>>93396241I kind of get it, but if they enter a room and there is literally nothing, no design, nothing that enhances the depth or feel of the area, aka ''there is nothing in this room'', then I feel it's inclusion is a little stupid and worthless.
>>93396295I mean, not every step of hallway has something in it. I do think that you can usually spare at least some detail for any otherwise empty room they go into, but not every room needs a monster, trap, treasure, or some big clue about something. You can just have a musty room full of cobwebs, with some smashed, moldering furniture piled in one corner.
>>93396241>>93396295In my mind a room/building/terrain feature should always have a Watsonian reason to exist but not necessarily a Doylist reason. I've seen fair number of dungeon maps that have tried to give every single room, building or grove of trees a "purpose" in the adventure.
>>93396505>I've seen fair number of dungeon maps that have tried to give every single room, building or grove of trees a "purpose" in the adventure.It's just clutter, innit? In dungeons in particular empty room doesn't have to mean completely bereft of dressing or character. An empty room can serve as a place to hide or rest and with a touch of set dec can provide some atmosphere or clues about the denizens of the dungeon. In the wilderness an empty hex can still be hunted or foraged, serve as a place for an encampment or alternate path to be trailblazed, and could even be the ground for a future encounter.Empty doesn't mean boring or useless. It is potential that has not been realized as it is a player facing blank slate. It can also just be empty. The absence of an explicit game element is needed to make the presence of game elements that much more valued.
>>93396383I can no longer discern honest stupidity from pretending to be retarded.
>>93396829Exactly. An outhouse can just be an outhouse. It does need otyughs living in the pit or a lost necklace worth 300 g.p. hidden within.
You can have as many empty rooms as you like, just don't waste my time with them.
>>93396903YuckNow I'm compelled to write 'Otyughs In the Outhouse', a one page dungeon where hepatitis C is as great a threat as the monster.
>>93396978>a one page dungeonThink bigger.Otyughs & Outhouses
>>93397067Finally, gongfarmers find their proper place in the grand adventure.
https://csio.blogspot.com/2024/07/what-is-classic-adventure-gaming.htmlHow is CAG different to the normal OSR assumptions? I dont get it.
Dungeons connecting otherwise faraway points of the map. How do you feel about it? Can this be abused? The campaign is moderately serious, not sure ig it can cause disbelief
>>93397357It is the original meaning of OSR, before it was claimed by the likes of Ben Miltard and Yochai Cukk.
>>93397406Can be a very good concept, as it helps make the ludicrousness of otherwise ubiquitous "dungeons" make sense in-setting.Yes, it can be abused. Yes, it can easily become ridiculous and ruin all magnitude of distancejgpgts. Use carefully and don't make it commonplace.
>>93397357It's what the Knight n Knaves guys and similar are calling their gaming style now that utter faggots co-opted the term OSR to mean "adjacent" stuff.
>>93397357Seems like its leaning harder into RAW rather than Rulings-not-rules. Anti one-shot. Weirdly adverse to using the term 'referee' and minimal mention of dungeon master despite claiming 1st ed dnd as baseline. Oddly absent emphasis on procedures. Reads more like the 'GM' makes everything beforehand and sticks to it rather than things like reaction tables.
>>93397067>>93397085Sounds like level 0 death funnel.
>>93397357I think the things that stuck out to me are explicit insistance on metagaming, mitigation of "roleplaying", and rejection of mudcore resource beancounting in favor of plentiful rewards for smart play. The rest is pretty rote. Which honestly kinda shits on both NuOSR and overly sadistic TrvOSR purist type shittery. I like it.
>>93398474>>93398514Is this a copy pasta? If not can it be??
>>93395988You could just ignore the modules and just use the Dragonlance setting. There plenty to see and do between The Cataclysm and The War of the Lance.
>>93398474>>93398514KWAB
>>93397357Dunks on kiddie dnd so it can't be all bad.Makes it off topic for/todd/ given their disavowal of the assumption default system.Too bad they lack courage to call themselves FAGs if they're doing a rebranding. Brosr might take that one as their ilk claim post-irony.
>>93398635>Brosr might take that one as their ilk claim post-irony.What's hilarious is all the ideas these people are stealing from Jeffro without giving him credit:This part, for example:>It rejects the term "roleplaying game" or "RPG" because today those names firmly convey implicit expectations running contrary to practices of successful adventure gaming.Is straight out of this, posted two months earlier:https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2024/05/16/tunnels-trolls-is-the-first-rpg/The BrOSR are a bunch of cuts, but the smelly nerds are even worse.
>>93398879The scramble for relevance and rebranding is amusing to watch. FKR didn't catch for the nusr crowd and neither did sworddream. Wonder if they'll inherit osr as no one else wants it.
>>93398879The CSIO post links to a 2023 post also elaborating on FAG principles. I think we're seeing more of an introspective/refinement phase rather than one guy ripping off jeffro ripping off another guy
>>93399001Dunno, mayhaps you're right.
>>93398635The actually added classical simply to avoid the acronym for search engine purposes. It's a reference to a Gygax quote in the AD&D 1E core books.>>93398879The KnK guys are blissfully unaware of that brand of twitter faggotry and have been saying the same things since at least 2009 if not earlier.
>>93393223>OSR excludes Mentzer CMI not BE tooThat's too generous of you. The fopdoodles don't like it being pointed out that original B and E are both within the first decade and essentially identical to BX, even down to the thief skills.
>>93392958Ok legit question. We have a general idea what /osrg/ considers "OSR".At what point do YOU think a game can no longer be considered OSR?
>>93399257>they actually did a thing to avoid search engine fag results, it's a reference ti a gygax quote Truly a man ahead of his time.
>>93399584This is some insane revisionism that comes with the tiddler brainrot.
>>93399916>At what point do YOU think a game can no longer be considered OSR?Exact dividing lines are hard to draw, and obviously the term is going to mean at least slightly different things to different people. I'm not overly invested in precisely nailing it down, and am comfortable playing around in a hazy OSR-adjacent and OSR-inspired area as well. I think the important thing, as far as this thread goes, is that whatever it is relates to old school D&D, such that people with knowledge of old school D&D and little else, can easily understand what's going on, and something from one can be reasonably translated to the other.
>>93399916No games published after 2014 are OSR. For games published before then, LotFP defines the limit.
>>93398474>>93398514I didn't really see the dungeons. Could there be some way they could be taken for trolling or something? I'm sorry if you were legitimately trying to contribute and got shot down. And yeah, this board can be unnecessarily hostile. I'm hoping that /todd/ can be better than /osrg/ at least, and I definitely feel like I've seen more positivity and encouragement here (not sure how much of that was you, but I, at least, appreciate whatever contribution you may have made), but there's also plenty of trolling, bickering and nastiness, and while I hope that declines over time, I highly doubt it's ever going to go away. But if you're making a real effort to provide helpful content and build a better thread, I hope you'll stick around, and maybe just scale back your involvement as is necessary to avoid tearing your hair out. And remember that assholes tend to be the loudest, so it's easy to overestimate how hostile this place is.
>>93392958>What is the role of women in your setting? Is a female warrior or adventurer unusual by societal standards?Let me try to come up with a quantifiable scale...Men to women:1:1 = equal footing3:2 = very common2:1 = common4:1 = fairly common8:1 = somewhat uncommon12:1 = uncommon20:1 = fairly rare40:1 = rare100:1 = very rare200:1 = extremely rare500:1 = incredibly rare1000+:1 = extraordinarily rare/almost uniqueWhile it varies from game to game, I think that I, like >>93393540, tend to differentiate between adventurers and common folk (even highly skilled or powerful ones), with women being significantly more represented among adventurers. I'd further divide adventurers in general and important ones the party is likely to have repeated dealings with, just because I find it more interesting for there to be a closer to even split. So I guess my typical distribution would probably be:important adventurers = common to very common (2:1 to 3:2)adventurers in general = fairly common (4:1)nonadventurers = rare to very rare (20:1 to 100:1)But those are just estimates, and it varies from campaign to campaign. I was thinking of running a game at one point where only women could use magic but were significantly outmatched physically, just because I thought that would be interesting.
>>93400454>nonadventurers = rare to very rare (20:1 to 100:1)*fairly* rare to very rare (20:1 to 100:1)
>>93399916/osrg/ is right about the definition of OSR, but wrong about the idea that it is superior to the Hickman Manifesto.
>>93399584>The fopdoodles don't like it being pointed out that original B and E are both within the first decade and essentially identical to BX, even down to the thief skills.Pretty sure I remember them obsessively reposting an image showing how BE are in the first decade.
How do I introduce OSE to people unfamiliar with OSR? I feel like it’s the best place to start out, but it’s terrible with actually showing you how to play, and I know Gavin’s too busy with his failed Dolemnwood project to fix this.
>>93400754How unfamiliar? Are the 5e kiddies or never played tabletop?
>>934007735e kiddies. Though giving it more thought, 2e might be a better old school d&d edition for them. How easily can I add classes and races from OSE, 1e, and Swords and Wizardry to 2e?
>>93400754>>93400788Do B/X, but tell them that their PCs are all goblins and are expected to die. It will help them to leave their protagonist-entitlement at the door and to approach the game with the proper sense of wonder and humor.
>>93400754There's honestly not a lot of player-facing stuff... at least that they have to know. It'd be easy enough to walk them through the character creation process, talking a bit about the classes and such, and that's basically it. They don't need to have the right attributes to pick the best feats to make their characters worthwhile. Knowing which spells to pick might be important, but you can just give the magic-user Sleep to start out with, and that'll set 'em up to do as well as they can. If you want to simplify the ability generation process, you could drop the idea of trading points between them, but maybe give them some other bonus to compensate: +1 to all scores, and they can make one swap... or just add +2 to their prime requisite (+1 each if they have two of them).It's not so much about learning the game, but you might want to consider starting them off with max hit points and maybe even only making them fall unconscious at 0 hp (and maybe die at -3). Basic D&D is brutal at 1st level, and that would give them a little breathing room, so they maybe wouldn't get discouraged by being smacked down so quickly. And maybe just automatically assign each of them a retainer to start out with or something, as that can add a lot to the robustness of a starting party. If you or they don't want to do that, consider slipping a couple of NPCs into the party to fill a similar role. If they generally follow the PCs' lead, then everything should work somewhat the same (though they wouldn't be hirelings and they'd be getting a full cut of the treasure, if they manage to stay alive).
>>93400218It was shitty two-room one-page shovelware dungeons followed by a bunch of tryhard "omg this is so cool best intro module evur!" style replies spaced exactly one minute apart.
>>93392958>>What's the ideal number of players (in addition to a DM)?I don't know ideal but I usually got about 4 if count myself. >>What is the role of women in your setting? Is a female warrior or adventurer unusual by societal standards?Didn't really come up too much. We had lady mercs and Red Sonja types and shit but we never really dwelled on it beyond what you might see on an Elmore painting. >>How fleshed out and involved in the setting do you like your gods to be?Eh. we were a pretty simple bunch, and 14, so a lot of our mythology was pretty catch as catch can. >>How hard do you like it to be for casters to regain their spells? Do you allow for partial replenishment?We;re not gonna stop just because our wizard (JOSH) went full retard. But normally our better DMs paced out major combat moments to accommodate.
>>93392958>How fleshed out and involved in the setting do you like your gods to be?Speaking for myself, I generally find religion to be very uninteresting, and deus ex machina devaluing the struggles and accomplishment of the heroes I've been following is a pet peeve of mine. That and I probably have issues with authority, at least overbearing, unreasonable or unearned authority. I also find the personification of natural forces to be a bit silly, and as a result of all of this, gods have tended to be very background in my games. I've considered making them a bit more alien and even Lovecraftian, or changing them to less comprehensible and less tangible forces, but I've yet to follow through with anything. I think making clerics more interesting is the more important step, though reworking gods might play a part in that.
>>93396505>In my mind a room/building/terrain feature should always have a Watsonian reason to existYeah, but in, say, a ruined keep, the rooms are there because they once had a purpose in that keep, but there's no reason for any of them to have any use anymore. And hell, empty rooms can be a no man's land, providing a safety buffer between creatures that would otherwise pose a threat to each other. I mean, you probably wouldn't decide to hang out in the room next to where are the ghouls are.
>>93400054>No games published after 2014 are OSR.Old School Essentials isn't OSR despite how closely it hews to B/X?
>>93401529>Didn't really come up too much. We had lady mercs and Red Sonja types and shit but we never really dwelled on it beyond what you might see on an Elmore painting.But how common were they? I mean, you might not know exact percentages, but you probably have some idea about whether half of warriors and adventurers were women, or a quarter, or a tenth...
>>93392958It's not exactly a dungeon, but I ran an adventure where the PCs were on a small fleet of ships that sailed off the edge of the world, where you fell for days and days before crashing into an endless plane of water. Because it was outside the normal domain of the gods, people's souls wouldn't ascend from their bodies after they died, leading them to become zombie-like undead.Anyway, this fleet of ships was traveling to an ancient land that was long lost but recently rediscovered as part of a grand diplomatic show to establish trade. It was an ill-advised debacle resulting from self-important nobles trying to out do each other. In any case, the flagship had a gate device meant to link their kingdoms, and the adventure turned around the PCs skydiving from ship to ship, trying to get to flagship to use its gate, while dealing with zombies of the slain, and raiding sahuagin, who emerged from the waterfall of the world, to pillage the fleet.
>>93402040> A movement can't end!> It has old school in the name!The people were astonished at his doctrine Matthew 5:28.
>>93402928> It has old school in the name!It adheres very closely to the original game... closer than any other retroclone I can think of off the top of my head.
>>93402046>But how common were they?Enough. We put in no thought beyond that. Uncommon but not weird. The only thought we ever put into anything was what was cool at the time. Why you gotta make a whole thing out of everything?
Serious question. Why do Sages not know magic. They study everything *except* magic? Why? Or, they know how to identify magic items, but somehow are incapable of casting spells?>>93400470Tell me about Hickman-style play. Do you keep track of torches, rations? Do you handwave it away unless it's "dramatically" relevant? Is it indistinguishable from modern 5e style of play or what are the differences if any?
>>93399916When you can no longer run old Basic modules out of the box and you have to resort to converting. Simple number swaps like ascending/descending AC are fine, and I can see substituting certain save types for others, like going to Fort/Ref/Will saves. I just don't think you'd be able to run Keep on the Borderlands in Mork Borg or Into the Odd without major rewrites.
>>93406450Sages are probably people who love books but don't can't do well in training to be a spell caster.
>>93406450>Tell me about Hickman-style play. Do you keep track of torches, rations? Mostly not.>Do you handwave it away unless it's "dramatically" relevant? Correct.>Is it indistinguishable from modern 5e style of play or what are the differences if any?Every DM is different, but since 3e and 5e are both heavily inspired by 2e when it comes to character building and DM'ing, so chances are you would not notice much.https://github.com/g-gundam/4chan-ghostpostmixer
>Roll stats (3d6 in order)>Get>11 Strength>6 Dexterity>3 Constitution>13 Intelligence>10 Wisdom>14 CharismaWhat class do you give this character to not be useless?
>>93407018Halfling (Suicide Bomber)
>>93407018Fighter. Kill yourself heroically as soon as possible.
>>93407018What makes you think this character is useless? Go get some henchmen.
>>93406450>Serious question. Why do Sages not know magic. They study everything *except* magic? Why? Or, they know how to identify magic items, but somehow are incapableRead the FUCKİNG dmg. They DO cast spells. Goddamn
>>93406575I agree, and yet people will argue vehemently that Mork Borg and Into the Odd are OSR. Why is that?
>>93407018>+0 str>-1 on dex>-3 con>+1 int>+0 wis>+1 chaCharacter has an extra language and can have an extra henchman and advantage on reaction checks. Magic user I'd say. just stay back.
>>93408467I think it's due to those games pulling direct influence from OSR type games, so people conflate those games with the OSR games that have a good 95% compatibility in mind. Not that one couldn't run Keep on the Borderlands in Mork Borg and I bet it'd be a fun time, just that the underlying compatibility isn't all there.
>>93409165No, it's from those games putting "OSR" on the cover because it sells and normies not knowing any better.
>>93393823well done
>>93396012DMs love when players do this>>93396121 at the beginning of a new game. Really makes it all worthwhile.
>>93396978>>93397067>>93397085>>93397496'Atmospheric' effects are absolutely, positively, no bueno at this table
>>93399916>At what point do YOU think a game can no longer be considered OSR?when its not TODD
>>93400788>How easily can I add classes and races from OSE, 1e, and Swords and Wizardry to 2e2e has all the classes and races from OSE, 1e, and S&W already. But if it didn't, you could port directly from 1e to 2e (like, say the half-orc)
>>934094772E does something weird where it uses the racial modifiers after the ability score range.For instance the half orc in 1E takes a -2 to Charisma, that helps it get under the maximum of 12. In 2E the half-orc (as per their reintroduction in Book of Humanoids and Skills & Powers) has a maximum of 12 then reduces that by 2, for a real maximum of 10.
>>93407018A -3 Constitution modifier is complete bullshit for any class. Constitution and Strength penalties are both too crippling (though the latter can at least be counterbalanced with magic weapons). I'm generally in favor of Basic's standardization of modifiers, but they need to be dialed back for Con and Str. A -3 Con modifier means that a d4 class will gain exactly 1 hit point per level, so an 8th level magic-user can die of a single sword stroke from an orc (not that they'll ever get anywhere near 8th level). Meanwhile, a d6 class will average 1.5 hit points per level, and a d8 class a whopping 2.25. Of course the median score is only 1 for the former and 1.5 for the latter, so if either gets a bit unlucky in their rolls, they'll be accruing a bunch of 1s.Aside from that, I would allow a reroll of a character with twice as many modifier minuses as pluses (and a net -2). Then again, I also believe in being more generous with stat generation, if only because bonuses work better than penalties in D&D. So 3d6+1, or something like that. If not that, then just reduce the penalty range. 5-7 = -1 and 3-4 = -2, with 8-12 indicating no modifier.If I had to play those scores though, I'd probably play a fighter and go out in a blaze of glory. If we're allowing point swaps, as per B/X, I'd lower my Int to 9 to increase my Str to 13, so I'd be able to lay down some hurt before I died.
How do I balance C&C encounters? Should I assume a hit die equal to the party would be a medium encounter? I’m running for a group of two.Side note, but I hate this idea of “no balance” that OSR pushes. I mean yeah, some encounters are gonna be easier than others, and some you just have no hope of winning against, but to throw balance completely to the wayside is stupid.
>>93408467Don't know much about Monk Bonk but for Into the Odd it's because the creator started out running osr and when he created his own system to better suit the games he wanted to run he didn't want to give up the label.Basically decided to grandfather himself and no one at the time felt the need to call him out on it (or maybe they did I wasn't around for it).McDowell is a clever guy and his games are simple yet well made. His only crime is opening the door for shitty designers to publish a half baked system and call it 'rules lite'.
>>93410272>How do I balance C&C encounters?CKG p. 248-253 'Encounter Tables'. They start with the HD as a base, but acknowledge the many other factors in addition to HD (number of creatures, special abilities, in lair) that affect how hard an encounter is.I personally always found xp value to be a better indicator of a monsters strength, and although I DM C&C, I still use the old Monster Level tables from 1e DMG Appendix C, which always worked for me.
>>93410272This was from asking one of the BECMI writers about it.Find the amount in ex it will take to level a party up, double that and place it as treasure on the level to account for waste and skipped hidden treasuresIt can be assumed a party of lv1 characters will foray down to lv3 before it gets too dangerous for them.A good encounter is 50% of a party's HD in monsters +/- special abilities
>>93410272I like not balancing because it encourages scouting ahead and planning. It gets boring when its just a standard combat after another.My players had no chance of beating this carnivore ape cult head on but they managed to scout the lair perimiters and get a roigh idea of how many there were. They retreated, bought a fuck ton of oil and hired extra muscle and fucking torched the place. Fire took care of most of the mooks and they got to fight the biggest guys.
>>93407018>>93409091>>93408364AHEM
>>93411013Keep in mind that:>The array given uses 3d6 in order>B/X is the assumed default system for any conversation unless otherwise indicatedSo it's probably not AD&D. Of course, it also uses a new school ordering of abilities, so maybe it's Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry or something... or they just think the new school ordering makes more sense (which is hard to argue with).
>>93411013>>93411076With all of that said, and in spite of the fact that I generally like B/X's standardization of modifiers, I think this is one place where AD&D is clearly superior. Having a -3 constitution penalty is too debilitating. One thing you could do, however, is to have a constitution penalty modify your hit die size, so a -3 would bring a fighter's default d8 hit dice down to a d5, or a cleric's d6 down to a d3 (though magic-users would still be stuck at 1 hit point per level).
>>93410361This. Mork Borg is a great and well designed system and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
>>93411076>B/X is the assumed default system for any conversation unless otherwise indicatedNot for me, thank you very much.
>>93411189The Borg games are art projects pretending to be games. 0/10. Would not play.
So speaking of Dragonlance. Has anyone read it again recently? Cuz I did the first book. I wanna say it mmmmOOOOOSTLY up. It does kind of read like they were writing it as they were going which isn't either a positive or negative critique but it is noticeable. So the story itself is kind of a park ride and the last couple pages I was kind of on fumes. The characters still were generally likable but also Tanis kind of got a pit bitchy and Goldmoon as it went on starting to get really preachy. About quite a few things. I'd say overall I still liked it but it reads very differently when I'm 40 than I remember it doing when I was really young.
>>93411387>So speaking of Dragonlance. Has anyone read it again recentlyI enjoyed it for popcorn schlock, but the rollercoaster between breakneck random shit happening and slowing to an absolute dead crawl for characters to mope feels very amateurish. Also shit like "oh no we have to get the temple in such and such time and its how many miles away we'll never make i-Oh, nevermind the flying horses will take us there" made me laugh aloud.
>>93411387A couple of years ago, the first six novels. They held up. As I kid I was disappointed with the differences between the two trilogies. I wanted more of the same but now the culture shock of jumping from a heroic ensemble story to a more intimate tale of brothers with supporting cast is much less now than it was as a kid. Even on my second read through as a kid which was only a couple of years after the first and I knew what was coming I still found the tonal differences between Twins and Dragons to be startling and I didn't like the characters not being just the same as when the war ended. I don't know quite when it happened but now that I am older I accept the two trilogies as telling rather different types of story and I'm okay with it. I've read them several times over and enjoyed them very much every time, even that first time as a kid when Twins was so different than what I was expecting. They are again on my to read list and on a list of books that I recommend without reservation.
>>93411487Yeah that's the kind of shit I mean. It's a dumb excuse to have something magical or exciting happen but it's hilarious how often they'll just STUMBLE on someone super important that all the villains are after or what really stood out.Hmmmm I wonder who the traitor is. Is it the people I've known all of their lives or this random dude the narrator introduced roughly the same time as the idea of their being a traitor at all. >>93411522I actually haven't read the twins books in ages. The original trilogy and a handful of the others were stuff I read so much they wore out.. I know I read them because our circle was devouring these things as a kid but I honestly can't say I recall much of anything post War of the Lance. Come to think I can really say where I dropped off either. They made like 200 of these things and evidently they were running well into the 2000s. I was probably still reading into the mid 90s though.
>>93408412>They DO cast spellsThey don't in B/X.
>>93412122Have You Tried Not Playing Kiddie D&D?
>>93413042Read the OP Anon, kiddie D&D is the default /todd/ler system.
>>93411196The intent is not to force people to talk about B/X, but to allow people to answer questions without having to ask "what system?" all the time. In any case, 3d6 down the line on its own suggests Basic.
>>93410361>maybe they did I wasn't around for itThis is the answer. The G+ crowd who were always shitters (this is your reminder that Zak ran 3e throughout his entire """OSR""" career and Noisms is a 2efag) embraced him and the actual OSR grogs like Melan, Trent and the rest of the Dragonsfoot/K&KA gang spat him out like poison.
>>93415976Melan praised ItO, thoughbeitever:https://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2019/06/review-into-jungle.html?m=1>The game rules are based on Into the Odd, one of the worthwhile old-school systems which take a step beyond “here be my favourite edition of D&D with some house rules or extra streamlining on the top”. ItO is not a variant, but an in-depth rethinking of the D&D concept, with its own play dynamic, strong implied setting, and support material (which establishes the game more firmly than just a set of mechanics). Like pre-supplement OD&D, ItO is a small, mean, fairly deadly game that has more going on than initially meets the eye. It is far superior to its essentially interchangable rules-ultralight rivals. Consequently, ItO has always seemed to serve as a fertile ground for good spinoffs – like D&D itself, it is a good baseline to build on. (Not to mention many of his publications are converted from his own 3e shitbrew.)
A while back someone posted a B/X-compatible OSR module called something like Roost In the Forgotten Church. It had a gargoyle king in a ruined chapel. I can't find it on Google. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Should an NPC who is level 9 hobbit give away its level at first sight? He is an aged hobbit, likes to dress like a commoner to gather information, and is a criminal wanted by the law.He is accused of the murder of a heir, but in fact he is training said heir (human) to revenge against his uncle, hidden on a swamp with a gang of jolly bandits (all hobbits)
>>93417809>gang of hobbitsOooooooo I'm scared.
>>93411668>running well into the 2000sEven excluding the young adult novels a quick count tells me they published more in 2000 - 2009 than they did in 1990 - 1999. That's a surprise.Graph excludes omnibus and reprints such as the Best of Tales collections which have just one new story and includes two anthologies as 0.25 each, because they each contain only one DL story, and a Spelljammer novel that starts on Krynn.
>>93419033Surprised Hickman and Weiss came back for a bit. But fucking A' they did a lot of these. And Forgotten realms actually exceeds it but a not insignificant amount.
>>93415823You are annoying.
Does fire damage lycanthropes and undead?
>>93415976I wish this was a surprise.
>>93415823>To avoid that, I will assume everyone who doesn't specify a system is talking about 2eThat is not and should not be /todd/, but enjoy the /2e/ general thread you should make
>>93419211>>93419418Just ignore him guys. He’s either a troll or mentally deficient. There’s nothing to be gained by engaging.
>>93419111Well, you just had to tempt me didn't you. A rough count is 300 FR titles, including 180 novels. It hit 230 by the time DL stopped publishing in 2010 with 195 titles. It looks like FR stopped in 2017 with only three D&D film tie-ins, including a kids' novelization, published since then.
>>93419445>There’s nothing to be gained by engaging.There's a certain satisfaction in pointing out how he's wrong. But as you rightly point out, the guy's completely outclassed. There's just not enough challenge to feel like you've achieved anything.
>>93415823>No, it suggests 2e, since it is the default attribute generation method in 2e.It is the first method presented, which gives it more weight than the others, especially since they're grouped together under "alternate dice-rolling methods", but 3d6 straight down the line is still just one method among many and particularly stupid one at that, as AD&D's ability bonuses are clearly designed with more generous stat generation methods in mind (in fact, using 4d6 drop lowest tends to earn you approximately the same frequency of bonuses as flat 3d6 does in B/X). While I don't have anything but very anecdotal evidence, I'd wager that a minority of people playing 2e use straight 3d6, and if you were to take the group of characters generated using 3d6, I think the majority would be for Basic, meaning that 3d6 would, in fact, suggest Basic.>I will assume everyone who doesn't specify a system is talking about 2e, because it's the much superior and complete system.The problem is that you'll be assuming wrong most of the time, especially since B/X is the wellspring of so many retroclones. And while those aren't technically B/X, any given B/X rule is probably going to apply to them as well, making it a good default for the thread. I have nothing against you preferring 2e, but it's a more built-up, specialized system, and as such, it's less universal. Vanilla or chocolate is your default ice cream, not triple fudge nut swirl caramel sundae.
>>93419814>you'll be assuming wrong most of the time, especially since B/X is the wellspring of so many retroclonesIt's a matter of fact that most of the discussion on this general has been about 2e, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planetscape so far.Also, BECMI is much more popular than B/X by far, and it is more complete.It just doesn't make any sense to have a thread-mandated default.
>>93419418>should not be /todd/Janitor applications are closed right now Anon, try again in a few months.
>>93419988>It just doesn't make any sense to have a thread-mandated default.Then people need to be specifc about which edition or clone they want to discuss. I don't care either way but B/X is the lowest common denominator and doesn't require further elucidation.
>>93419355Well how would YOU rule that?
>>93420065NTAYRT. Anons who have a question and don't specify the system do so out of carelessness or laziness. Having a rule that says>You didn't specify your system so now your question is about B/X even though you meant to ask about something else.instead of just asking what system the question was actually meant for is just stupid.Also it's a waste of OP space, solves nothing, and creates confusion.Not that I give much of a fuck, but I'll ignore the rule as well, and either ask or read between the lines.
>>93419355Is there a reason it wouldn't?
>>93420411>>93420067>>93419355"need +1 or better to hit" (or silver in some cases)swing a longsword at them (to-hit roll), it bounces offswing a longsword+1 at them (no to-hit roll), it deals damageThus if they step in fire (no to-hit roll), they take damageThrow a flask of oil at them (to-hit roll), it bounces offNow the next interesting question would be: What if a Lycanthrope steps on a (non-magical) caltrop (no to-hit roll)? Does the caltrop just slide out from under their paw? Or does it penetrate their magical/supernatural defense?
>>93418616/osrg/ would never had laughed at that. /todd/ is reddit decadence
>>93420869>swing a longsword at them (to-hit roll), it bounces offThat just doesn't make sense. If a weapon bounces off them then you can't poke them with a blunt stick to push them off a cliff. Instead the person pushing gets pushed back supernormally in some sort of perverted version of Newton's Third Law. Jump on them while wearing football boots with extra sharp studs and the werewolf is a cool if probably noisy trampoline.>"need +1 or better to hit">swing a longsword+1 at them (no to-hit roll)Even if +1 is necessary to hit, no where does it say that simply wielding a +1 weapon is sufficient to hit.Fortunately, BX and BECMI both say that a magic weapon is needed to harm them, not to hit them and there's no specification it has to have any plus so a cursed sword would work. 2nd ed says harmed too with wounds from other weapons healing too fast to cause injury so again could be hit while not harmed by any mundane weapon. It's only 1st ed that requires a +1 or better to hit.
>>93421465>2nd ed says harmed too with wounds from other weapons healing too fast to cause injuryBeautiful. Finally an explanation that makes sense. Add it to the long list of reasons 2e is the best edition.
>>93420869>swing a longsword at them (to-hit roll), it bounces off>swing a longsword+1 at them (no to-hit roll), it deals damageWhat? I don't understand. Did you accidentally reverse those? For a longsword, why would you roll to hit when you can't hit them? And why wouldn't you roll to hit them with the +1 longsword that can actually hurt them?>if they step in fire (no to-hit roll), they take damage>Throw a flask of oil at them (to-hit roll), it bounces offThis is predicated on the above part, which doesn't make any sense to me, so this doesn't either.>What if a Lycanthrope steps on a (non-magical) caltrop (no to-hit roll)? Does the caltrop just slide out from under their paw? Or does it penetrate their magical/supernatural defense?If they step on a non-magical caltrop, they don't get hurt. A caltrop isn't going to be more deadly to them than a non-magical two-handed sword swung by an 18-strength fighter. The interpretation of the exact physics of this is up to you, but I'd treat it as if a guy in combat boots harmlessly stepped on a small but sharp rock that would've lacerated his bare foot. His foot is just too tough/mystically protected for the caltrop to penetrate.
>>93421465>That just doesn't make sense.I guess that depends on how we're interpreting "bounces off". I never imagined that they effectively had force fields around them that repelled incoming blows like a trampoline. But if we're using "bounces off" more figuratively, then it applies. Your sword blade does not sink into the werewolf, but instead glances or slide harmlessly off of it.>Even if +1 is necessary to hit, no where does it say that simply wielding a +1 weapon is sufficient to hit.Were they thinking a +1 sword auto-hit werewolves? That's just weird. Why would they do that?>It's only 1st ed that requires a +1 or better to hit.The thing to remember is that, in D&D, hitting something doesn't mean just making contact with it. Armor makes enemies harder to hit, and that certainly isn't because you're whiffing them, catching only air. It's because the armor is deflecting or absorbing the blows. So if you need +1 weapon to hit, it means you need a +1 weapon to be able to land an effective blow on them... to be able to even attempt a to-hit roll.
>>93416178Melan can actually read and think so yes. ItO is the actually good rules lite osr game. Its the one that got ripped off by all the art'punk' shit. It was the highlight of the entire thought experiment. It was never built for long term play though.
>>93420869>>93421891You could always say that they take 1/10 damage from nonmagical attacks. This would make them effectively immune to most of them, but maybe frame things in such a way that they're more relatable. Those blows that didn't inflict hit point damage on them might still technically hurt them. I cut and scrape myself all the time, but I'm clearly not doing hit point damage to myself with anything but the worst of injuries. I'm a not-particularly-robust normal man, so I suspect I have 2 hit points at most, and I'm not in danger of dying every time I bang my head on something or stub my toe. So maybe lycanthropes are the same way. If you slash them with your sword, that shit fucking hurts, probably cutting them at least a bit, but it isn't sufficient to bring them noticeably closer to death.
>>93419550I've read nearly all of them. The fr books are superior imo
So do we hate 1e in this thread or no? I'm getting some confused vibes. Probably just me
>>93422068>It is the best edition for osr play, but the spectrum of this general is more broad and not concerned with osr entirely
>>93417754That's literally the name, it's just obscure: https://clericswearringmail.blogspot.com/2022/07/roost-in-forgotten-church.html
>>93421891>>93422052And both of you are getting into why 3e changed the mechanic to Damage Reduction. Doesn't change that the 3e implementation also has problems but showcases what sort of thought process led to it.
>>93425184The DR mechanic of 3e is probably the best improvement from Adnd and a rule i would probably backport if i ever tried to run a 2e campaign
>>93421964>The thing to remember is that, in D&D, hitting something doesn't mean just making contact with it.I know that but the way that other anon was writing, it didn't seem like he'd accept the commonsense D&D meaning like "making to hit roll means roll for damage or to cause some other effect needing contact".>So if you need +1 weapon to hit, it means you need a +1 weapon to be able to land an effective blow on them... to be able to even attempt a to-hit roll.That term effective blow you're using is too vague for my liking. I'd consider tripping or shoving a werewolf with a quarterstaff to be permissible and I'd require a to-hit roll to see if it was effective or not, possibly with a save for the werewolf. I wouldn't require a magical weapon for it as it is itself a non-damaging effect.Not allowing this would lead to the situation where a werewolf could trip over a stick someone left leaning against a tree, or over a stick someone was holding, or over a trap which raised the stick, but not trip over a stick where someone was swinging or poking it at the werewolf's legs or even very gently lifting it timing it for when the werewolf ran past. I think lifting it with timing would call for a to-hit roll, so the werewolf ran into the stick without the stick holder moving the stick into the werewolf, just lifting it so the werewolf effectively kicked the stick with its shin or paw same as if the stick was just sitting there.While one might argue that a werewolf is harmed by being tripped I think that would be contrary to general understanding of the combat rules and would be silly even in a fantasy world where werewolves are real and are immune to damage from ordinary steel weapons.
>>93427223>I know that but the way that other anon was writing, it didn't seem like he'd accept the commonsense D&D meaning like "making to hit roll means roll for damage or to cause some other effect needing contact".Yeah, I was more talking to them (or folks in general) than you.>That term effective blow you're using is too vague for my liking."Effective blow" to me makes it about doing damage, not tripping or whatever, though I understand what you're taking exception to. In any case, I think we're basically on the same page. I'd probably still lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt to the werewolf when it comes to avoiding detrimental effects from tripping, knocking over and so forth, but it doesn't have a force field around it and is capable of being affected. Ultimately, all of this comes down to DM discretion, which is something old school D&D leans more heavily on, and isn't something that should be shied away from. There are times when I think it would've been better if old school D&D had done a better job of setting a standard or laying out reasoning on something, but 3e's attempt to be completionist just made it an unwieldy mess.>>93425303There's plenty of isolated things that 3e does well, especially just looking at them on a conceptual level, but the implementation often sucks, and when you put everything together, it's just awful.
>>93427801OSRG isn't on the same page on anything. They're too busy crying whether Mentzer or Moldvay or RC is Trve OSR. As far as I'm concerned everything up through blue logo 2E is "old school" whether or not it's "OSR", I don't care.
>>93422068Of course we don't hate 1e - it's specifically welcomed in /todd/.
>>93428625I have an especial love for the 1e DMG. I still can use it in any edition, is why I asked. I can go on for days about how his it is, honestly
>>93399916I think of it being akin to Roguelike vs Roguelite; the former is very specific while the latter is just somewhat related.>OSR: Has to be extremely similar to B/X or ADnD 1/2 (I know 2e is controversial but Idgaf.) If I need to change a goddamned thing to make a module work between two games, one of them is not OSR.>OSR-Adjacent: Takes a lot of ideas from OSR, aims to have a similar loop of dungeons and emergent storytelling, but deviates enough that it "Ain't the same." This is extremely broad to the point where you can pretty much call any dungeon crawler "OSR-Adjacent," much like how anything with runs that reset on death is called a "roguelite" nowadays.I don't hate Adjacents or think OSR is some pinnacle of design, but there's clearly a difference between B/X and OSE vs Mork Borg or Darkbad.
>>93429257I also adore that book - I met EGG at a con long ago and had him autograph my PHB - but I should have had him sign my DMG.
>>93427989>whether or not it's "OSR", I don't care.Unabashedly grounded.
>>93393582>2e is not OSR, it's superior to OSR, and calling 2e OSR is detracting from its value.2E is OSR in the only way that matters: I can run a 2E game and use old adventures without rewriting them, and I can run RC while using 2E adventures without rewriting them.The switchover is 3E and the D20 system. Nothing else matters.
>>93393540>I like seven or eight players.I've been running with 6 across various different editions and, indeed, games (e.g. CP2020 and CP red also) and with newer editions (...we never did 3E but both 4E and 5E)6 feels like "too many" for 4/5E but it's just about manageable for lighter editions. To me, 7+ sounds like a nightmare so I'm curious how you make it work? (Inb4 you just have better players than me - a very realistic answer but not one I can use lmao)
This whole 2E being better than OSR vs it not being OSR is the absolute lamest shit I've seen out of these threads. It's literally two OSRG faggot trolls baiting one another.Go back.
I don't know if Knave-based games are appreciated by my fellow /todd/lers (I haven't seen any Knave discussion when I've visited /todd/), but Vaults of Vaarn is based on Knave 1E. Anyway, VoV is pretty barebones, as is Knave 1E. What can I slap onto it to flesh it out? I was going to use a bunch of stuff from OSE (Advanced, for more options), but are there any other books that would work well for making it into a "fuller" experience?
>>93433761i had never heard of this before. looks cool.what exactly are you looking to add into the game?
>>93434664Mainly (desert) travel mechanics.I should have specified in my post, but I'm more looking for any recommendations of supplements that would fit the setting, which is a huge desert with gonzo shit in it. Some rules for psionics would be nice, too, but they'd have to be separate from a psionics-based class, due to the classless nature of VoV.I know it's a niche request, but I'm just throwing it out there in case somebody else here has run VoV. I'm really open to anything to beef up the game in general, as long as it fits the theme.
2e is genuinely a great game if you ignore every optional rule in the books.
>>93434715Check out the Journey rules in Adventures in Middle Earth.A journey consists of a Embarkation, events during the journey, and a arrival. There are four roles that need to be filled during a journey, hunter, look out, guide, and scout. Depending on the length and difficulty of the journey (as determined by the areas the PCs are travelling through) a number of events are rolled and resolved.Note that you are not rolling per hex or per area but rather you get a handful of encounters that you can sprinkle along the way. All the encounters not about meeting people or fighting monsters specifically, but vague enough that a creative dm can twist them to fit the circumstances of the journey. Another thing i would recommend checking out is an old boardgame called the Source o the Nile by Avalon hill that deals with explorers traveling in Africa in the 19th century and has a lot of rules and tables for travel.In the Labyrinth from The fantasy trip rpg has also fairly decent travel rules that cover the essentials and leave room for the GM to figure out more details if they want.GURPS has pretty good travel rules, too, which are generic enough to import into other games. Compared to the TFT rules, IIRC they lack the getting lost mechanics and hexmap baseline, but add travel speed based on encumbrance level, fatigue, weather and clothing effects, hunting, foraging, and some other bits. Gamelords published some nice supplements for Classic Traveller: The Desert Environment, The Mountain Environment, The Underwater Environment. The Mountain Environment is more about climbing, and The Undersea Environment more about SCUBA etc. They're generic enough to be useful for other games, but some conversion from (or adaptation of your game system into) Traveller stats is needed.I would generally look outside the osr for adding rules since this is a nusr system. I don't really know about psionics and rules for them.
>>93435000Thanks for the detailed answers, man. I will definitely check those games out. I don't mind conversion at all - a good baseline to build off of would be enough for me, and the ones you mentioned sound like good fits for what I'm looking for.
>>93434723Word. And it gets even better if you include them.
>>93431149I wouldn't do more than five players in a tactical minis game like 3.x and beyond. Too much shit to track for anything to get done in any capacity. I run BFRPG with eight players, it works well. Not a lot of the modern bullshit to get in the way, and combats being resolved by groups, simultaneously, really helps speed things up.
>>93434715Check out the will and the way and the complete handbook of psionics
>>93435000See, GURPS is /todd/.
>>93392958>How hard do you like it to be for casters to regain their spells? Do you allow for partial replenishment?I do think that being able to partially replenish spells gives you a nice middle ground so it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It could be stingier (without a week of rest and meditation in a safe, comfortable area, you cannot fully regain your spells, so a partial replenish is the best you can do with a single night's sleep) or more forgiving (you can regain all your spells as normal, but with a shorter rest of an hour or two, you can partially replenish your spells as well) than usual, but it's nice to have extra flexibility.Staying away from some kind of mana/spell point system (which is too fiddly and is particularly susceptible to issues of balance), it's not too hard to work within a Vancian framework. I've mentioned this before, but one approach you can take is to let casters regain one spell slot from each level they have access to... except the top one. 1st level spells can possibly be exempted from this last restriction, so even if you only know 1st level spells, you can get one back. You could, of course, finesse things a bit, and mark down what people get at which levels, but the simple rules I just managed can give you a functional framework.
>>93422111This is how we know a person knows nothing about old school gaming (or gaming in general). To associate the 1e with roguelike experience or any material with a lot of random tables (like the Judges Guild books) is a sign of a somebody who never gaming or does not read the fucking books. The tables are never meant to be use like to generate everything in the games, or use algorithmically. Only OSR-fags think of that (and railroad 2e gamers)
>>93435965>I wouldn't do more than five players in a tactical minis game like 3.x and beyond. Too much shit to track for anything to get done in any capacity. I run BFRPG with eight players, it works well. Not a lot of the modern bullshit to get in the way, and combats being resolved by groups, simultaneously, really helps speed things up.oh god is that my mistakei always use individual initiativefuck me you're right, that probably does cause a lot of the issue
>>93435049I don't like proficiencies - neither WP, nor NWP (nor "general skills" from RC)they have the same problem as long skill lists in other games, or feats in newer editions: The more options you have to be good at shit, the more options you have to be bad at shit.Character customization is all well and good until you realize that your priest doesn't know what heaven is like because you didn't realize "planar geography" was a skill you could fail to pick.2E Ninja book (Complete Ninja's Handbook? Complete Book of Ninjas? Too lazy to go check right now) or possibly 3E Oriental Adventures (but I think it was 2E ninjas) introduced this samurai quick-draw skill "Iaijutsu" and the problem with that skill is less that it exists, and more that every single pre-ninja Fighter is suddenly no longer a world-class duelist because it turns out there's a dueling skill they didn't pick (unless you just don't introduce the book of course)So - character customization, that's fine with me. The "profession" table in 2E just before the NWP tables, that's great. Actual skill/proficiency/feat picking... I don't like it.
>>9339295810 minutes of preparation per spell level recovered. If you teleport somewhere (level 5) it had better either be important or longer than 50 minutes of riding - else you're just being profligate with your magic.Advantages:(1) It puts a real limit on how many spells your casters feel like blowing on most occasions(2) It allows casters some great "you haven't even seen my true power" moments when they realize this one is actually a problem fight and they need to roll out the big guns(3) It makes other characters skills make more sense in context - why would the thief rank up Open Lock when the wizard has Knock? Well it turns out, Knock (lvl 2) takes 20 minutes to reload PER DOOR(4) It gives otherwise minor magic items way more reason to exist. A wand, scroll or potion is a far greater resource when it doesn't just save you a spell slot, it also saves you a lot of downtime restoring that spell slot later
>>93442627Proficiencies benefit no one except fighters for the purpose of specialization.Even then, it's stupid because it will only incentivize picking long swords every time because of probabilities. So if a hammer of thunderbolts is found later, he won't be ready to use it, which is a shame (because who specializes in hammers?)So just give all fighters the improved attack rate for specialization for all weapons, and leave everyone else stock.For NWP's, just assume adventurers are competent people and can generally do whatever their class abilities are. Some situations should be automatic success, some modified for difficulty, but all should be modified for experience/level.Doing stuff outside your class should still be possible, with appropriately fair modifiers.
>>93399916>https://csio.blogspot.com/2024/07/what-is-classic-adventure-gaming.htmlRe: AD&D OSR stops at the end of 1e, Dragonlance doesn't count either.For B/X it's tough. IIrc other than gameplay examples and artwork there was no real difference between the Cook and Mentzer B/X. For BECMI, I definitely isn't OSR and I'm not sure how I feel about C&M.I think OSR D&D should feel like the 1970's. Even though Cook B/X was 1981 it still feels like the 70's, non-Gygax stuff after that tends not to.
>>93442876>For NWP's, just assume adventurers are competent people and can generally do whatever their class abilities are.>>93442627>I don't like proficiencies - neither WP, nor NWP (nor "general skills" from RC)NW proficiencies are not all optional in 2e. 99% of them might be but one ranger class ability is>Even if the optional proficiency rules are not used, the ranger has Tracking proficiency.Of course that's bad, not from the force you to use a proficiency angle but from the everyone can be as good a tracker as a ranger angle.
Question for the thread: I've had a lot of problems getting an old school game to take off from the ground. It ranges, between people just wanting to troll and dick around at the table which causes it to collapse (read: Players continually failed what I call the "Poop Pants Test"), all the way up to my longest game of old school where we played like 5-7 sessions, but the dungeon I was running at the time (Morgansfort) was too deadly and I was too new at it that it continually TPK'd all the players within the first 5 rooms of the dungeon until they got fed up with it.What do you guys do to get a game running and continually running? What has worked for you to get people hooked in? What hasn't? I think I've identified a lot I did wrong with the Morgansfort thing, but I still have trouble getting people to play the game, especially in old school format, for very long.
>>93446770>Of course that's bad, not from the force you to use a proficiency angle but from the everyone can be as good a tracker as a ranger angle.I’m not making an argument for or against proficiencies with this but your example is a misrepresentation. Rangers improve their tracking by 1 every 3 levels 3/6/9etc and non-rangers taking the proficiency suffer a -6 penalty right off the bat. A character with an 18 Wisdom would start off with a tracking value of 12 which is two below the minimum a ranger would start with. To be on par with a ranger you’d have to be using the bonus languages as proficiencies optional rule, have a massive Intelligence in addition to a massive Wisdom, and dedicate most/all of your slots to tracking.The whole scenario is highly implausible.
>>93447149We like implausible around these here parts
Just played a D&D 1e game (1974, the version where wizard does not have magic missile). It was honestly a blast. I rolled an elf wizard, tried to rob what ended up being a gold dragon, died to a crocodile, and then rolled another elf wizard. Progression being principally from adventuring (vs level up mechanics) feels so right.
>>93442876>For NWP's, just assume adventurers are competent people and can generally do whatever their class abilities are. Some situations should be automatic success, some modified for difficulty, but all should be modified for experience/level.That's how C&C works
>>93447101>What do you guys do to get a game running and continually running? What has worked for you to get people hooked in? What hasn't?I almost exclusively DM people I already know. I never bring a game cold - I float campaign ideas, see what grabs their interest and go from there, usually a few weeks after I propose a game.If I were trying to DM for people I don't know, I would try xtra hard to lay out my expectations for the players at the very beginning, as well as gauge the new players on what they are most interested in their RPG. Adjust according to the feedback. What *hasn't* worked is when I get wedded to pushing forward on a module, campaign setting, or even game system that the players are lukewarm about from the beginning. Chances are they would rather not be there and that will show up quickly. Best to get significant buy-in from the players before the game even begins.
Do you include ape-men as opponents for your heroes?
>>93400754I've been feeling the itch to play again lately after my last failed startup and have been wondering the same question. Right now, I'm toying with the idea of not telling them a single mechanic and just handing them a character sheet that says "Your name is Bob. You were a farmer, then you spent a year training with your town's local watch and are decent with many weapons. You're above average in strength, somewhat hardy, but you're a little slow in the head and could use a breath mint. Here are the items that you have:[...]" Then I plop them in a dungeon and let them explore. Not sure how that will go though, so I'm only thinking about it.
>>93416178>>93421975Never looked into it, but I've seen it around a lot. What makes Into the Odd so special?
>>93420129I would personally rather ALL questions get answered right away with an assumed base, and then we just correct any mistakes, as opposed to EVERY question just being replied with "what edition?" with no further input until that poster comes back. It moves the conversation along quicker and allows people to contribute instead of just wasting replies on something.
>>93420129>>93448641I'd add that most people would probably assume a B/X basis anyway, so having a comment about it just clarifies things.
>>93448641>as opposed to EVERY question just being replied with "what edition?"You are making up a problem that doesn't exist to justify a rule that doesn't make sense and is only there to push some kind of agenda or set a tone / expectation.>>93448702>most people would probably assume a B/X basis anywayNah
>>93448738>You are making up a problem that doesn't exist It doesn't exist because it was solved in OP.>to justify a rule that doesn't make sense and is only there to push some kind of agenda or set a tone / expectation.Considering every single other topic in /tg/ asking any sort of narrative/world building/agnostic systems question is almost immediately met with "depends on the setting/group", I think it's a safe assumption to make with any thread on /tg/.
>>93399916I think the whole thing is misnamed at least here on /tg/ where the thread is called Old School Renaissance. A renaissance is an effort to make new things based upon/inspired by but improving upon the past. That's not what a lot of it is about.The BX worshippers are not renaissants, they're revivalists. OSRIC attempts to reword the AD&D rules while recreating the mechanical effect of those rules. That's also a revival effort, not a renaissance effort.The OSR thread starts off>encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as played in the game's first decadebut that denies Castles and Crusades which is not mechanically faithful to early D&D but was tonally intended to recapture that feel and it was the first OSR release and recognised as such from the days when OSR was coined.OSR was primarily a reaction to WotC's DnD 3. AD&D 2 is old school and is essentially the same game as AD&D 1, albeit bloated with splat books."OSR" as I see it on this forum is more interested with old style dungeon crawling, whether revival or renaissance, and it should be named as such instead of stealing the name of a different and broader concept. TODD is actually a closer name for it, or TDX as in "TSR D&D (first) 10 (years)".My limits for OSR are basically pre-DnD 3, back when it was TSR suff and had an ampersand in the name. DnD 3 felt different to all D&D that went before it but, settings and modules aside, D&D before it was broadly the same game.
>>93449289>but that denies Castles and CrusadesCorrect. C&C was, in fact, considered a huge disappointment on the K&KA and Dragonsfoot forums when it came out, which is why they started working on OSRIC.>OSR was primarily a reaction to WotC's DnD 3.And to the Hickman Manifesto, of which 2e is an expression. Discussion of 2e is as prohibited on K&KA as discussion if 3e is.>AD&D 2 is old school"Old school" is a relative term and unrelated to what OSR is.>2e is essentially the same game as AD&D 1False. See above under "Hickman Manifesto". 2e runs counter many of the AD&D core mechanics, for example it does not support Gygaxian dungeon exploration (most rules omitted, movement rate increased tenfold, DM advised against using wandering monsters) and overhauls XP rules, relegating XP for gold to an optional rule that you are advised against using.>"OSR" as I see it on this forum is more interested with old style dungeon crawlingIronic of you to say this when 2e doesn't support it.>My limits for OSR areYou don't get to show up twenty years later and redefine what OSR means the people who invented the term already did. If you want to talk about a different thing, use a different term.In your case, the term you are looking for is "TSR D&D". Be a man and own it.
