Ah, 'tis beautiful.

>>97502613
I'm glad we came to a common consensus about this.

>favorite first decade module
I usually just force the Ghost of Gary (pbuh) to write me a brand new adventure every time I play. Anything to be out of Hell even for a minute, he says.

>>97502646
shut up forest.

>>97502639
Yes, the consensus as finally been reached to form the thread into what it's meant to be.

>>97502654
Are the treants being mean to you again?

File: 301363.jpg (329 KB, 1255x1635)

329 KB JPG

>>97502663
they keep screaming about FOE material. post first decade material.

Wow, from reacting to 2e-faggotry to ACKS advert-thread.

There's no need or reason to have that random retro-cloner dude next to names like Gygax. Just buy an ad, instead.

Can't we get a proper OSR gygaxian/arneosnian thread at all?

>(2e,Basic, retroclones and newer) should be discussed elsewhere.
Macrisian ACKS

Fucking faggots. But at least I'm glad that this marketing scheme showed its true face. Good riddance. Fuck 2e fag, and fuck ACK fanboys, too.

>>97502668
>advert-thread
You mean containment thread.

Still no idea why BROSR give ACKS a pass though. Even that Jeffero guy, who is as hyper-traditionalist as a BROSR can be, went on a limb to say "you know that non-tradionalist b/x clone that has feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse? That's super trad and only real chads like me play it."

I don't want to say it's just politics, but I think it might be.

>>97502667
Yeah, Fat Ogre Earthquakes are pretty bad.

>>97502668
>fuck ACK fanboys, too
They are pretty repulsive. But if they need a thread to argue over their character builds and discuss the best way to stack their spreadsheet piles, that's what the /fdg/ is for. Though, it is kind of funny that acks wasn't made in the first decade, but who's counting anyway?

>>97502710
THAT's what it stands for? I thought it was Fags Over Easy.

>>97502710
thankfully we will have none of it here.

>Another troll thread with an altered OP
Fuck off

>>97502694
We BrOSR love ACKS because it understands that RPGs are serious business. We're here to maintain tonal and mechanical fidelity, not to have fun. And ACKS is about rules and procedures for everything. For an Alignment, if something like Morkborg is Chaotic and something like AD&D is Lawful, ACKS is just a little past Hitler but not quite Mecha-Hitler yet.

>>97502613
>How do you run it to ensure it's by the book?
I figured out that if I can find other people's games and make sure they run their games by the book, that makes my own games be run by the book more.

>>97502668
>arneosnian

arnesonian gameplay is nothing at all like gygaxian gameplay, you can't invoke both of them without talking about completely different things. Gygaxian gameplay is more in line with OSR while Arnesonian is characterized by open worlds, theater faggotry, and rulings based on vibes.

I have a suggestion / question for you guys then.

now, personally, I am an ADnD nut, i found 3.5 and 5e to be well, wierd, and oddly constrained.

BUT, as this seems to be about gaming of a certain era, may i suggest the Sword World games, as they 'play' very much like Anime of the 80's. and very much fit the whole 'player agency' of this schtick.

with the whole 'pick your own quest' from the guild schtick, player groups can avoid the whole 'you must go out to defeat the demon lord reeeeeeeee' etc. and since it IS weeb as fuck, the mechanics DO very much support
>nah fuck that shit, I'm going to go be a farmer in the countryside and we're building a house and shit instead
thanks to NON combat classes for professions and shit. again, REALLY like playing old school rpg's or watching old school anime.

so IF this general is legitimate, a topic of protracted, multi-thread discussion COULD be whether to include sword world etc. (especially since english translations and such are now available for everything[almost])

so, please consider DnD (og) , but weeb edition.

secondly. here me out. now ADnD had rules for all sorts of cool spelljammer shit, gamma world conversions etc.

MAY I also suggest, but again, probably NOT for inclusion here, IF you are after more OG play, consider Star Trek Adventures 1e, for despite being a much newer game, its player agency, combined with the 'episodic' nature of campaign play, allow you as a player group to construct endless seasons of OG trek and tNG of the '70s and '80s in any way you feel free. the use of 'b plot' and/or even 'c plot' if you (for example) use a random mission brief from the shipyards book (blaaaarg! the fizzbanger on the warp core has gone Kersproing! oh no! your ship is left to drift in deep space until it is repaired!)

allows you massive leniency in player agency.

SO, if you WANT a break from western DnD, consider WEEBmode. or consider
DnD ... IIiiiiiiinnnnn ssssssssSPPPPPAAAAAAACCCCEEEEE !!!

I feel anyone who likes OG DnD will find STA a great way to trek out.

>>97503103
>>97503107
this is a thread for OSR games, specifically the first decade of D&D, or Gygaxian D&D. your discussion belongs in the NuSR general

>>97502613
Fishfag hijack threads are getting more desperate all the time.

>>97502613
Finally a proper thread dedicated entirely to TRVE first decade Gygaxian D&D, and Nu-D&D 2e-fags or ACKS-fags can't poison the well for everybody

>>97503202
>or ACKS-fags
lol ACKS is welcome here desu.
No brother war between 1e and ACKS :)

>>97503205
a game with seduction rolls is no brother of 1e
ACKS is offtopic
>>>/NuSR/

>>97502613
Upon hearing about the bros I (during a time in my life with more free time) listened to a podcast or two that had him as a guest. I was prepared (or so I though), he was well known for his performative kayfabe so I expected aggrandisement and comically harsh critism of which he may believe but not to the degree he is professing. After 90 minutes of listening to the shit dribbling out of his mouth, with ne'er more than a few sentences from his host, I realised there was no kayfabe, there was no trve adnd run by the book. There was only a fucking moron who confused being rude with being a professional actor.

There is no hope for the bros. Even your own idol has abandoned you.

>>97503210
>reaction rolls bad!
You are an angry person, and attempting to schism /osrg/ even further is deplorable. 1e and ACKS stand together strong.

if OSR is the archaeological study and reconstruction of Gygaxian D&D, I consider ACKS to be the ultimate culmination of all of that study. by its quality and adherence to Gygaxian values alone, it does belong in any discussion of the OSR. That is not up to debate

>>97503214
id love to know the podcast and episode

>>97503217
seduction rolls
no game that has seduction rolls belong in an OSR discussion
let alone 1st decade discussion

>>97503245
Can you specify exactly what you mean by "seduction" rolls? Because what I see is using a reaction roll to see if seduction works.

So is your issue with using reaction rolls, or with allowing a player to try and seduce an npc?

>>97503245
nonsense, rolling to seduce is an OSR staple.
Do you actually play DnD or do you just ride the archive F5ing for 'ACKS'?

>>97502613
Yet another fishfag trolling false flagging thread with a modified OP.

>>97503244
I think it was one with the red headed lass who ran a 'godstein' with 5th edition.

>>97503264
>nonsense, rolling to seduce is an OSR staple.
surely you will have no issues pointing it out in all first decade rulebooks then? if it's a genre staple, surely it must be in all rulebooks?
no?
how about 2?
no?
how about 1

>>97503255
seduction feat gives you a +1 on reaction rolls if applicable but there are separate uses of seduction feat in the rulebook. that's what I refer to as seduction rolls

>>97503596
Why does everything in ACKS sound like it was made by a man without a cock.

>>97503596
anon if you have to reference a feat it automatically means it's not first-decade Gygexian D&D
So please take this discussion elsewhere, its offtopic

>>97502613
>Fish is so mad they accidentally make a good thread trying to troll
lol

>>97503908
Confirmation bias, you're looking to see such a thing everywhere, so you see it often. Many such cases!
>>97503596
You failed to answer the question.
So is your issue with using reaction rolls, or with allowing a player to try and seduce an npc?
>>97503591
Yeah, it falls under the reaction rolls rules, pretty simple.

>>97504401
>You failed to answer the question.
are you genuinely retarded or trolling?
I'm not talking about reaction rolls per Basic or 1e, or the effect seduction has on reaction rolls, I'm talking about separate rolls altogether.
>Yeah, it falls under the reaction rolls rules
provide a screenshot with the word "seduction" highlighted

>>97504514
Again you're failing to answer the question.
What exactly do you have issue with?

Is it with reaction rolls existing?
Is it with using reaction rolls to seduce somebody?

Please I'm trying to have a conversation with you and understand the point you are trying to make, but you seem to be evading giving an actual answer on the specific problem that you are seeing.

>>97504582
As an incel I don't like romance or potential sexual interactions happening in games I'm a part of.
Getting someone to sleep with you should not be as easy as just saying that you are going to seduce them and then a random roll of dice.
Hope this clears things up

So this thread
>is against retrroclones
>lists a retroclone (ACKS)
>first-decade only
>ACKS release date 2012

Tells a lot about the IQ level of BrOSR crowd. Minions of that weird dude trying to sell the shitty copy of the original game which is available on the internet for free.
just download TSR D&D, bro(sr).

Also, as bonus
>In ACKS case, the designers drew from a latter edition (D&D 4e) the concept of “tiered” character progression. D&D 4e used Heroic, Paragon and Epic tiers which differ little from each other in actual play, except in personal power level.
>Unlike previous editions of D&D, which used these as an incipent skill system, this one expands their role well into D&D 3e+ Feat territory.
>The game pays no heed to Vancian spell memorization or preparation, granting all casters what 3e called “spontaneous casting”.

So much for first decade, lol.

>>97504592
NTA but whether ACKS is on-topic or not within this trollthread aside, this is a very silly attitude when that kind of rie-or-die romantic interaction is a staple of the very pulp stories that inspired D&D. For example, Howard's Queen of the Black Coast is, on game terms, nothing but the result of the man himself getting an absurdly high reaction roll with Belit on their very first encounter. Similar examples can be found everywhere in Appendix N.

Needless to say, the game is not about romance and this shouldn't occupy more than what's necessary to do the rolls (not like Appendix N fiction spends more time on it either), but as far as reactions go it's perfectly on-genre.

>>97504399
kek

>>97504686
BrOSR is like 25% bullshitting about games, 75% trolling. I'm almost positive the BrOSR include ACKS just because the game got banned from a bunch of websites so they wanted to tap into that autism.

>>97504582
You failed to answer the question.
Are you trolling or mentally retarded?

In order to proceed with the conversation I need you to answer the question, I'm honestly trying to understand

>>97504719
>rules are silly
>it's vibes that are important
Next you are going to tell me DCC is OSR
Fuck off fishfag

>>97505030
I know you are fishfag dude, stop pretending. Besides, there's nothing on the rules that specifies or forbids a high reaction roll to be interpreted as seduction, romance, or any other explanation a GM finds suitable, quite the opposite: It only describes practical effects, leaving the justification to the players and the DM.

Might as well argue that extrapolating from random wilderness encounters (finding, for example, a kobold lair next to a town and coming up with a justification for it) is only playing "vibes'.

Do you guys ever houserule the two-handed axe damage in BX
I think that it should remain like that due to the Dwarf (the Dwarf should not access d10 damage, regardless of anyone's opinion on 2H weapons) but I keep reading and meeting people that want it to be d10

>>97503065
The weird thing is that Arneson's post-D&D game, Adventures in Fantasy, had some stricter/more simulationist rules than OD&D did, while Gygax's post D&D games (Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventure) had a lot of softer, more abstract rules. Even just how they treated inventories (and carrying capacity) had AiF using an awkward system where your characters speed was constantly being altered by the weight they were carrying, while Gygax hand-waved most of that in DJ and LA.

The idea that "Gygaxian" is gamist/simulationist while "Arnesonian" is narrativist doesn't really hold up to any real scrutiny, and seems to be based on a kind of folklore mythology built around them.

>>97505066
Make dwarf axes smaller.
I hate the whole modern thing where dwarves are like 5 feet tall and weigh 250lbs, instead of 3-4 feet tall and 100lbs.

>>97505223
Yeah. People often discuss how orcs increased in size (which I hate) but Dwarves also became heavier and blockier.

>>97504719
You still completely avoided answering the question.
>>97505014
>I'm going to complain about something and when you ask for why, I'm going to play stupid and pretend like I can't follow a conversation!

ACKS is based and categorically on topic, cope and seethe fishnigger

ITT I learned that allowing players to use a reaction roll when trying to seduce an npc, is not just bad, but I should feel bad for it!

>Fishfag is so desperate that he's literally fighting himself and pretending to be an schizo so his fake thread remains up.

Next time he's going to argue with himself about whether player characters shit and piss or not.

>>97505675
>I've been given a reply that I completely misinterpreted the point due to either never actually reading the rules or out of an outright deceptive intent, and I've been provided with an elaboration on what was the core of the argument
>but I continued to ignore the elaboration and proceeded to insist we move the discussion into artificial and retarded constraints that had nothing to do with the point of discussion
>now I've been told to fuck off and I'm mad because I actually have no means to refute the point being made apart from trying to divert the discussion
still waiting for screenshots with highlighted word "seduction" in any of the first decade rulebook btw, Mr. "it totally jams with the vibes of Appendix N so it gets a pass"

If we don't put our foot down on what is first decade D&D, we are as good as accepting DCC, Into the Odd, or Shadowdark in this thread.

>>97505061
it's been stated quite clearly it's not about the +1 on reaction rolls, you fishnigger

>>97505684
...I mean, yeah?

I'm getting kind of weirded out by the sort of guys who hate roleplaying but want to use seduction rolls. Seduction in an RPG is already pretty cringe, but trying to make it a mechanical transaction feels like something an accountant who never got laid without a receipt would include in his games.

>>97505770
So its about allowing players so "Seduce" an NPC?
Who fucking cares, boohoo. ACKS is based and I'll seduce you until you love me, faggot

>>97505755
>If something isn't explicit in the rules, even when it's a perfectly valid justification for an abstraction (reaction roll), it doesn't exist. Btw no, my PCs never shit or piss, that isn't in the rules.
>Btw I am an incel who already admitted that a single dice roll abstracting away romance (which actually prevents the cringe that is roleplaying it) triggers me a lot.
>No, I don't care that this is present all across Appendix N, the explicit inspiration for the game and how the world ought be interpreted.

Dude are you mentally ill?

>>97506023
>actually prevents the cringe
Rolling for it just makes it a different kind of cringe. A sadder kind of cringe.

Also, a mildly rapey kind of cringe.

...wow, this really is the BrOSR general. Wasn't expecting to need to use a phrase like "mildly rapey kind of cringe" today, but here we are.

>>97505843
So, let me get this straight: Instead of rolling a few dice and deciding it that way, you want your friends getting all flirty with each other across the table while roleplaying the scene?

Bro, if you are gay for your players you don't need to hide it here.

>>97506034
>milquetoast nogames newfag blanching at grogs rolling to seduce
faggot lmao

>>97506034
You openly admitted that the reason you don't like it is because you are a self-declared incel who gets triggered with the topic. You have no room to call a simple dice roll resolution cringe.

Also...

>Rapey
You believe NPCs are real?! Holy- dude, that's crazy!

>>97506053
Worse: He wants the players to actually play out the scene because in his mind that's somehow not cringe. I suspect he might be in the closet.

>>97506037
Think of it like killing a cow.
If you had to do it with a hammer like they used to, you might not do it at all. You'd actually have to face the fact that you're killing an animal and getting blood on your own hands.
But, if you could just pass that off to someone else, possibly even a semi-automated process where the most you have to do is push a button while not even seeing the cow, you might not even think twice about it. Sure, same amount of cows are dead and you are directly accountable, but you imagine your hands are cleaner.

Basic principle applies. You are generating the same amount of cringe, but you're doing it in a way you think spares you some of that shame. And, since you're making that mistake, you might end up doing it so often you feel like you should invest in a feat to boost your chances.

>>97506056
...are you alright?
You clicked on my post, but you seem to be talking to someone else, and I don't see any posts that you could be referring to.

>>97506139
Are you denying that this post is yours? >>97504592

>>97505843
>by the sort of guys who hate roleplaying but want to use seduction rolls
I too am afraid of things I made up in my head

>>97506115
>Rolling to seduce is actually just like killing a cow
>All while implying that killing an animal is, on itself and not by virtue of its purpose, bad
>Somehow this nonsense actually computes inside his head

Dude you are so far gone, fuck.

>>97506171
Ah, I see, that post.
Yes, I am not that poster. I'm neither involuntarily celibate nor am I entirely opposed to romance in a game on principle (though admittedly I have seen most efforts involved with it fall flat.)

>>97506191
Are you just naturally this dense? If not, can you stop deliberately being an idiot?

>>97506233
and yet you STILL cant articulate what your issue with this matter is

>>97506242
Romance and seduction being cringe is largely the result of forcing fellow players to sit through an uncomfortable flirting session with either another player or the GM, trying to precariously live out a fantasy others didn't agree to partake in. Having something as simple as a reaction roll and interpreting the result as such isn't by itself problematic, which is the underlying premise of your (bad) comparison.

Should we follow your idiotic logic through, games like Pendragon would be inherently cringe because courtly love, marriage, passions and dynastic conflict are core elements of the experience. In reality, these are too mostly dice rolls (seasonal ones in the case of marriage and children) and justifications for quests in line with the inspirations of the game, that being chivalric romance.

The intention isn't to create a detailed and mature love simulator, which is stupid, but an abstraction in line with the inspirations and framework of the game, where that kind of simple-minded attraction occurs and is often useful within the overall adventure. Once again, Queen of the Black Coast is the best example of this.

I believe, honestly, that you are starting from the wrong premise here, which is that reaction rolls are meant to simulate when in reality they are abstractions of more complex interactions.

>>97506335
Oh, Pendragon? Is that OSR Gygaxian D&D? No? You're just bringing up off topic theaterfag games because you're autistic?

>>97506351
>cant integrate abstract concepts without a dissonance attack

>>97506363
>Can't discuss Gygaxian D&D without bringing up non-Gygaxian systems

>>97506393
You don't care about Appendix N, which is the explicit framework of the game. You don't know what Gygaxian means.

>>97506393
We're talking about ACKS here in the ACKS thread, actually!

>>97506393
>brings up an "off-topic" game
>NOOOOO STOP TALKING ABOUT OFF-TOPIC GAMES NOOOOOO!
kek

>>97506416
See >>97503240

File: 1753942490364702.png (51 KB, 220x146)

51 KB PNG

>>97506436
Seconded.

>>97506335
> is largely the result of forcing fellow players to sit through an uncomfortable flirting session with either another player or the GM,
No, it's mostly a player trying to define his character by their sexual exploits. It's the kind of sad wish-fulfillment fantasy that is endlessly made fun of because pretending you're getting laid is always going to be cringey, whether you're sucking your DM's tongue or having dice act as a proxy for your own personal lack of charisma.

I can agree fondling your DM's man breasts is probably more vicerally cringey, but it's still quite cringey for the awkward perma-virgin playing a charcter with +5 to seduction making a pass at everything with a warm hole, even if that pass is just him muttering "i roll to seduce" and then breathing heavily to himself while the DM indicates that the roll succeeded or failed without any further comment.

There is probably some way to make seduction in a game not the horrific cringefest it almost always ends up being, but delegating it to rolls doesn't make the core issue less cringey, it just puts it in the category of "knows he should be ashamed but does it anyway," which is really just some hypocrisy at play. At least the two guys licking each other's tonsils are open and honest about what they're doing.

>>97506469
>wish-fulfillment fantasy
thats the entire premise of the fuckin game ya mong

>>97506469
so youre okay with killing your enemies, but youre too good to jack them off? fucking asshole

>>97506469
>Define his character by his sexual exploits
>Compensate for his lack of charisma
>Making a pass at everything with a hole
>Breathing heavily
>Hypocrisy

Except no one mentioned, defended or implied this, ever. You are not arguing with anything real at this point, much less so with my arguments, but with a massive fucking cartoon inside your head, making unjustified assumption after unjustified assumption all while failing to actually articulate a coherent point not reliant on a strawman. From the get go, the idea of making a pass to everything with a hole is plainly impossible in these games outside of a GM running some weird magical realm.

Do you actually play games?

>>97506483
Not for me. I'm happy to play characters with crippled stats who struggle to survive in a shitty world where they have to risk death every ten feet.

The whole "role playing games are all about escapism and wish-fullfilment and coping with your personal defects/mental illnesses" has always struck me as extremely unhealthy, and while I'll admit that I do try to make my characters appealing, part of that is remembering no one likes a Mary Sue.

>>97506536
Are you being deliberately stupid?
Let me ask this: do you actually think the other side is licking each other's tonsils?

>>97506582
Forgive me if I am wrong but the language you use, from your implication that seduction/romance should be treated this or that way, to the fact that you are now speaking about Mary Sues and what not, all of which tends to be related to a heavily interpretative, storytelling focus, strikes me as not very representative of what OSR games tend to be about. You seem to assume a play-act attitude.

>>97506597
You failed to actually present a reason why you think those things are bad based on anything that was actually argued for, simply assuming that their mere existence can only be useful for characters that define themselves for their sexual exploits and controlled by slimy players throwing the dice at everything that moves and has holes. There's nothing worthwhile to chew on in your post except assumptions you haven't justified.

>>97506582
>fantasy shouldnt be fantastical, it should be miserable!
kek okay retard. literally playing the game is "wish fulfillment" .
Im sorry that youre ass blasted that ACKS lets a seduction specialist get +1 to reaction rolls

>>97506656
It's worse: Anyone that actually plays OSR games knows that 1st level PCs are very flimsy and not too competent: a bad wilderness encounter and they are fucking done for. The fuck he means avoiding Mary Sues? Who the fuck can actually play that in a proper campaign? What are his games about that playing a Mary Sue is a genuine concern? If anything the real problem in a game is the opposite: You roll up awesome pcs that die like bitches anyway, wasting their potential.

We've already explicitly stated on the OP that ACKS belongs in any discussion of Gygaxian D&D and that this isn't up for debate. If ACKS allows it, it's Gygaxian, because ACKS is the modern culmination of years of research into Gygaxian play

A quick primer for those who think they have a subject worth debating, ask yourself 2 questions
1. Was Gary doing this back in Lake Geneva?
2. Does ACKS allow it?

If you answer yes to either of these questions, than there is no ambiguity or questioning left to do. You have your answer

>>97502668
>ACKS advert-thread
The portmanteau was right in front of you, man. Your psyop skills are weak.

GygACKSian D&D

>>97506832
>GygACKSian D&D
I laughed harder than I should've.

>>97506804
You're mistaken.
ACKS only belongs in the BrOSR interpretation of Gygaxian, and the BrOSR are basically wrong about everything.

In the confines of this thread, ACKS is allowed, but it really doesn't make sense where people use any sane definition of Gygaxian or OSR or Game.

>>97506656
>>97506794
How can you be simultaneously diametrically wrong?

Is this a demonstration of what happens when people deliberately try to be idiots and misinterpret something as hard as they can and going into laughable extremes, but in opposite directions from each other? If it is, great joke, you really did a great job showing how dumb people can be when they're just trying to be dumb.

>>97506832
BASED BASED BASED

>>97506893
>playing a game where you are more badass than IRL and go around killing monsters in the underworld to gain social glory isnt wish fulfillment
lol

>>97506869
I've never seen a more wrong post on 4chan

>>97506804
>feats and freakshit are now first-decade Gygaxian D&D because some macris simps said so
Fuck off to your discord you fishretard

>>97506955
Macris alone didn't say so, years of research into Gygaxian D&D culminating in ACKS, the ultimate love letter to Garys style of gameplay, did

>>97506893
So far you utterly failed to articulate why are we wrong and you right without appealing to fallacies, that's the thing. All you have are unfounded assumptions that, if anything, only hint that you might not actually play these games at all.

>>97506023
>it's an OSR staple
>prove it
>but muh Appendix N vibes!
>no, prove it
>ARE YOU ILL? MUH VIBES!!!
no
DCC and shadowdark follow Appendix N vibes too
doesn't make it a first-decade Gygaxian game
now you didn't specifically ask for forgiveness after intentionally lying in >>97503264
but since you obviously have no arguments I gracefully accept your concession.
We are done here.

>>97506978
>>97506893
>>97506794
>>97506640
>>97506597
I don't know what your argument is about because I won't follow the reply chain all the way to its beginning, but your debate is easily resolved with the /fdg/ discussion primer here >>97506804

>>97506986
So your player characters don't actually shit nor they reproduce or have parents, as the rules don't explicitly mention such things. Is that right?

>>97506993
Wow, the genuine organic free-range discussion primer, created with input from the many posts of /fdg over its long years of existence? That's amazing. Thanks for pointing the many real and genuine members of this thriving general to this amazing, real and genuine resource.

>>97507036
The law is being laid down here for the inaugural /fdg/, so now you know what's allowed. No one predicted the thread would be flooded by trolls who want to subvert GygACKSian D&D with their modern interpretations

>>97506978
You're making an empty claim about an argument you've refused to even look at in good faith.

You are more weasel than man. And, that's not Ad Hominem, that is me explaining how you refuse to even begin to argue. Until you give even the slightest indication you have anything even resembling a drop of good faith in you, I can just point at previous arguments that were made and wait for you to not be such a little weasel.

Do you wish to further demonstrate your weaselness? I'd recommend against it.

>>97507066
Can you explain to us how someone plays a Mary Sue in a proper OSR campaign?

>>97507082
Who said anything about proper? I thought we were making fun of ACKS.

>>97506986
prove what exactly?

>>97507124
Prove you understand Gygaxian gameplay values

>>97507580
I just paid a hooker with down's to fart on my tongue after I snorted cocaine off of her feet.

>>97507710
Wrong order.
>Give the hooker downs.
>Fart on the coke
>Wash your feet you filthy animal.

>>97502613
So any of you plah any games?

>>97508525
I've been playing a lot of ACKS.

>>97508762
>playing
Not the verb I would have used. Anything that feels like a second job can hardly be called play.

>>97505087
because Arneson's personal playstyle revolved around the GM improvising reality, but once it came to actually having to write his own rules, he now had to translate that into a system other people could actually use, and I think he overcorrected. At the table he was loose, but when building a product for others, he overcompensated for that by overspecifying.

and Gygax? well after getting ousted he realized he'd have to tone it down a bit to try to get lots of people to buy his new game.

>>97508525
Yes, ACKS2

>>97508777
??? dumb fucking retard

>>97508777
just admit you don't like OSR and go back to your theaterfag games

>>97508762
>>97508847
>feats
>freakshit classes and races
>>>/NuSR/
ACKS is off topic in a first-decade Gygaxian D&D thread, thank you for understanding

>>97509314
The virgin bx blackrazor fears the virility of the acksman.

>>97509398
please refrain from trolling in this thread
keep it to the containment threads

>>97509314
>freakshit
Elves, dwarves and good (or evil) humans are freakshit now?

>>97506037
It's even more absurd than that.
The ACKS 'Seduction' rules are basically designed for courtly love and politics.
>I want to make my realm bigger
>I can do this by marrying the daughter of the baron who owns the next realm over
>But he's not much of a fan, hm, how to do this
Of either "Cringe romance at the table" or "Roll some dice and your character gains a new wife (life good), on with the conquest and adventure" I'll take the second one.
Or maybe Fishfag would prefer playing in the the Kronar the barbarian setting where men shit out babies and women don't exist?
He's certainly enough of a faggot to yearn for that.

>ACKS is the culmination and peak of OSR, the apex of the Trve way
Know what, true or not?
Watching him get really pissy over people saying it is very entertaining.

>>97509405
The fake thread poster fears the slightest amount of levity.

>>97509609
>acks shill is unaware he is the butt of the joke
Oh yes, it really is the One Trve Way, I fucking love games that can kill people by boring them to death, I've become the top hitman in Bolivia thanks to it.

>>97509314
Kek, you're wrong and retarded, for numerous reasons, but the most important one: because I say so.

You have demonstrated that you don't play games, you don't even know how to make a character, and on top of that you're an ESL which is just disgusting

>>97510231
You don't play any games at all ever. You've admitted that you have barely had even one session of D&D in your life and it took you almost a year to get it organized

>>97507580
prove you eat my shit

When I read ACKS I can't help but think to myself this is the game Gary would've made if he were still alive today. It's perfect.

>>97510363
>the most important one: because I say so.
that's just called delusions anon

>>97512237
>Please saaaaaar, you must be of the taking me seriously kind. I am master of many Dagons and my Izzat cannot survive much more of this
Lel, k.

>>97512215
it is truly peak macrisgaxian first decade roleplaying.