Duplicate spam thread, the real thread is here: >>98425397
Jannies, please remove this hijack attempt.

>>98486971
No, i'm not going to go to that thread that drastically changed the OP. I made a proper sequel thread.

>>98486939
>What's your fav 1st level adventure?
I think they're all mediocre, but if I had to pick one, it'd be In Search of the Unknown, because it's genuinely fun and throws a lot of different types of situations at the players so they can experience a lot very quickly.

Main reason I don't like using it as an intro adventure for completely brand new players is because it's just a little too whimsical for my tastes, and I think it's better to start the players off with something a little more grounded.

>>98486974
You were the one who drastically altered the OP (or rather, you stole the "Open OSR" title and added your own OP from your failed "OSR Thread"). And all of your OP is terrible, like:
>Is this a general?
>No
What is even the point of this nonsense? This is clearly a general.

And then just malding about /osrg/. This isn't a legitimate thread, it's just a spam and trolling thread.

>>98487060
NTA, but there's any easy way you can tell if an OSR thread is real or fake. If it accepts 2e is OSR (and doesn't try some dumb shit like calling it OSR-adjacent instead) then it's real. It's really that simple.
One of the /osrg/ guys was caught making those extra threads just to be an asshole, and he got caught because he forgot to delete the (you) linking back to the /osrg/ that he had also made.

So, you can go back to the /osrg/, and stop trying to falseflag here like you think it's not obvious who you are and what you're trying to do.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-10 at (...).png (197 KB, 457x395)

197 KB PNG

>>98487051
>In Search of the Unknown

Pool of Wine- Good or bad design?

>>98487051
>no mention of what they filled in
Fake grog.

>>98487060
>What is even the point of this nonsense? This is clearly a general.
Literal years of trolling by OP of the /osrg/ until even the mods told them to fuck off.
They can't tell a true tale if their life depended on it.

>>98486939
I like Tomb of the Serpent Kings. The teach-as-you-go design is good.

>>98487105
Seems like a fast way for one player to really get on everyone's nerves.

>>98487100
>/osrg/ is FAAAAAAAAAAKE
Lmao, you're a hopeless case

>>98487051
>I think they're all mediocre
Lemme guess, you have your own starter adventure?

>>98487105
What happens if you butt chug it?

>>98486939
>>Is this a general?
>Previous thread
You lying fucking piece of shit. This IS a general. That's fine, but you are lying in the OP.
Why?

>>98487654
There has never been a point where fishfag hasn't lied, or samefagged, or samefagged while lying. Why should his hijack thread OP text be any different? One of the key aspects of his insanity is that he's delusional and a chronic liar.

>>98487202
Took a glance. It seems alright, though the "lessons" it's trying to teach barely qualify. There might be secret doors? That's hardly a secret itself.

I'm curious about how artificial the whole dungeon feels, because it's definitely crafted in an artificial fashion. The only way to really get a sense of that though is probably to play it, and I don't see any compelling reason for anyone with more than a few games under their belt to be interested in it.

The life-extending potion is cool though.

>>98487207
Back in acting school, I had a teacher who particularly hated when people acted drunk poorly. He gave several lectures on how the worst thing in the world is having to watch someone fake being drunk instead of properly acting, and that all the cliches about exaggeratedly stumbling about and slurring your words were done by people who failed to really observe others and themselves. The central thesis to his argument was that acting drunk, even for a comedic scene, should be done in such a manner that the audience feels at least a little bad for the character.
All this ended up doing was make most people really self-concious and stiff whenever they needed to act drunk for some exercise.

Now that I think about it, I kinda miss those theater exercises. They were like little freeform roleplaying sessions. I bet some of them would be really good to play before a game session as a warmup/way to get everyone situated.

>>98486939
>What's your fav 1st level adventure?
as far as hidden gems go, for a one-shot I think the Whispering Church (it's free solo adventure from BFRPG forum) is very well done

>fishfag is vagueposting about totsk in his general again

>we are here to laugh at you
>actually comes here to post shit that almost physically oozes malding energy
what did he mean by that?

>What's your fav 1st level adventure?
The Iron Coral by Chris McDowall is great
It's a starting adventure in the Into the Odd remastered book
Has a town, a small hex map with some small one-spread locations to find, and a three level main dungeon
It's easy to run at the table, and if you run it by ItO rules you can fit an entire dungeon floor of like 20 rooms in one session
It's been probably the most event-packed sessions I ever ran

>>98488713
>It's easy to run at the table, and if you run it by ItO rules you can fit an entire dungeon floor of like 20 rooms in one session
That's quite a sales pitch.

>>98489036
well that does say more about the ruleset rather than about the adventure
but yeah, you can do an entire first floor of the main dungeon in a single one-shot, character generation included

>>98489036
If my group gets past three rooms before they get in an argument that ends the night I call that a good game.

>>98490725
I hope you are exaggerating
OSR games really do require a lot of buy in from the player's side
all that talk about gold being the incentive is just fuddlore, the most important thing is that players need to want to explore the dangerous place

maybe you can benefit from creating an tangible reason to hurry inside the dungeon
>captured hostages
>treasure the other robbers are after
>killing the cultists before they finish the ritual
etc.
it often works even with hesitant players

>>98491144
My guys just like to shoot the shit and fight each other more than they like fighting monsters. Same thing happens when we play card games, a dumb fight will break out over nothing and we'll all forget what it was about the next time we see each other.
If there were hostages or other bigger stakes in the dungeon, I'm betting that would just make them start blaming each other faster.

I like you guys. But you all don’t understand the BrOSR thing or even how to consider it (which can really only be done in actual play anyway), in order to stay polite and to the rules here, I’ll disengage.

I’ll leave with this final thought as a serious criticism of what is likely older men here that play D&D: the bros are right about something. How you do one thing, is how you do everything.

These aren’t just “elf games.”

You have the inheritance of the most deadly serious art in the world, and you will be held responsible for your flight into and out of it someday. To dismiss this responsibility, even for the sake of politeness and defusing conflict, is to cede ground to darkness. And that’s perhaps the verdict on that generation which made and played D&D.

“But if a waking writer tells you that his tale is only a thing imagined in his sleep, he cheats deliberately the primal desire at the heart of Faërie: the realization, independent of the conceiving mind, of imagined wonder.”

>>98491451
Problem with BrOSR is all the attention is on the wrong stuff. It's good to take games seriously, but getting all assheaded about rules and mechanics and tracking stuff when these are all abstractions anyway is how you lose sight of the forest for the trees.

>>98491474
>following the rules of the game, and tracking numbers is... le bad???
pathetic state of D&D fans

>>98491451
>BrOSR
Are we still pretending that one play group from Twitter is somehow relevant to anything?

>>98491512
they get complained about here constantly, so obviously still a threat

>>98491527
And kids still worry about the monster in the closet, so I'm sure that's a real threat too.

>>98491490
Finding the right balance is important.

Imagine a game where you had to keep track of everything. Minute-by-minute Thirst Level, how full your bladder was, time required to remove enough armor in order to relieve yourself, you literally piss away most of the game.

Hitting the right amount of tracking stuff so there's stakes and concerns with real mechanical weight but not so much that the game is mundane and tedious is an art, and getting it just right for a group should be about actually understanding RPGs, and not just saying "Well, these are the rules, we have to follow them."

A man chooses, slaves obey sort of thing.

>>98491536
well in this analogy, the "kids" are the others in this thread.
>>98491546
>Imagine a game where you had to keep track of everything. Minute-by-minute Thirst Level, how full your bladder was, time required to remove enough armor in order to relieve yourself,
Except no edition of D&D does this. Your point is invalid.

>>98491451
>I'll leave with this final thought
>>98491546
>doesn't leave at all
>can't think anyway
lol

>>98491512
They're a great example of how to play games wrong.
They want to try and position themselves as the inverse to the Rainbow Tiefling Coffee Shop strawmen, but the chudlife and playstyle they preach as being the TRVE path is so lifeless and dumb that it actually starts to make the farcical Coffee Shop look fun in comparison.

File: 1774774287520104.png (8 KB, 397x168)

8 KB PNG

>>98491605
im the second post, not the first one

>>98491649
My bad, continue being retarded independently.

>>98491560
I had to use a hyperbolic example just to get you to the level where even someone like you could agree that not everything needs to be tracked.

If we can both agree that there IS an upper limit to meaningful tracking, then we can start a discussion about where that upper limit reasonably is, what it's made up of, and how strictly it should be enforced.

Goal of a game should be to have fun, and tracking stuff is not just a net positive. It comes with plenty of drawbacks, and it's really easy for a game to get bogged down with inventory management or time tracking or small/inconvenient resources.

>>98491678
Why dont you try making an argument about the actual topic and not non-existent hypotheticals?

>Goal of a game should be to have fun, and tracking stuff is not just a net positive
yeah, tracking XP, HP, GP, rounds, turns, its all such a drag, man! OSR is just like, vibes!

>>98491718
Probably because I don't feel like arguing with someone who's just arguing in bad faith.

If you don't want to acknowledge that there is an upper limit to how much tracking is good for a game, I can't really do much beyond treat you like someone with an inflexible mind that can't accept that where that upper limit is will vary from person to person or even from day to day. Acknowledging there's an upper limit is just step one, and you're already stumbling with that step.

You arguing in good faith bro? Yes or no?

>>98491750
>>98491750
>Probably because I don't feel like arguing with someone who's just arguing in bad faith.
Ironic. You do that shit to everyone constantly.

>>98491750
Ive asked you to give an actual example of where playing AD&D RAW becomes too cumbersome due to tracking certain values.

Just produce one or Ill assume youre just another nogames troll.

>>98491512
They're his personal scapegoat, to be tarred with the brush of Badwrongfun and driven out into the desert.
It's a religious thing anon.

>>98491750
>playing D&D is too hard!!!
how?
>well it just is, okay, youre bad faith!!!
lol

>>98491784
Weapons Speed Factors come to mind.

>>98491800
Its a (usually) single digit number that gets written down once, and is how you breaki initiative ties in melee.

In what regard is too much to keep track of, please, elaborate.

>>98491830
It doesn't add anything to the game but delays, and there's many much easier ways to resolve initiative that would still feel natural and wouldn't require extensive tables to look through, extra numbers to track, and so on.

You can subjectively argue about how it's super easy if you want, but add a few more overcomplicated rules in places where simpler and better rules could replace them, and you have a game that is simply not as good as the games that make the smarter design choices.

Warning: Bringing in another hyperbolic hypothetical, so don't get too upset. Even if you want to argue a game is still getting a 99 for a grade, people are going to want to play the game that's a perfect 100 instead. When it comes to RPGs, being second place is just as good as last place, ie. people won't want to play it.

>>98491898
>It doesn't add anything to the game
It adds a layer of tactical choice, with more-damaging weapons having a chance of being too slow to react
>delay
how long does it actually take you to compare two numbers? or you cant quickly recall which common weapons are "faster"?

>subjectively argue about how it's super easy
its literally just comparing two single-digit numbers, sometimes. how is this "over complicated"?

You strike me as somebody who doesnt even actually play the game.

>>98491898
NTA, but comparing WSF 1/36 rounds is over-complicated?

Let's hear another example of tracking numbers in D&D being too cumbersome to play, im genuinely curious.

>>98491799
Ya gots to stop doing that weird strawman stuff. If you're just gonna argue with things no one said, don't bother tagging other people's posts and pretending they're the one you're responding to. No one said doing pointless tracking is hard. It's even weird that you think someone would think that, like you think it's impressive that you are willing to do something pointless even if there's better options available.

>>98492029
nta

>If you're just gonna argue with things no one said,

>>98492029
>Warning: Bringing in another hyperbolic hypothetical,

lol
lmao even

>>98492029
>strawman
aren't you the one trying to make me argue against irrelevant non-existent hypotheticals?

File: Screenshot 2026-08-11 at (...).png (92 KB, 1155x512)

92 KB PNG

>>98491930
>NTA, but comparing WSF 1/36 rounds is over-complicated?

Compared to alternatives? Yeah. Probably why many groups just ignore WSF.
Hell, Gygax mostly ignored WSF and even acknowledged that it was probably the most rarely used and even more rarely liked part of the AD&D rules.

>>98492127
>gary
So what? Do you also not use psionics?
We arent talking about what gary daid in his later years, we are talking about the RAW of 1e.

Also, what alternatives?
Seriously, WSF takes less than one second to compare, is only for ties, and isnt a fluctuating number. What makes this "over complicated".

Barring that, I'd love to hear another example of 1e RAW over complicated tracking.

>>98491546
well said
unfortunately it's casting pearls before swine
reading some of replies in this thread is like they are pretending to be retarded on purpose

>>98492103
...Do you understand what a strawman is? It's when you try to say the other person said something ridiculous, just because it's easier for you to argue against an imaginary argument than the real one.

Also, the point of the hypotheticals is to avoid arguments, not start them. When it comes to real world examples, subjectivity can get in the way, especially if someone is arguing in bad faith and refusing to acknowledge something as basic as "little fiddly rules can become cumbersome."

If a rule is well-known as being cumbersome for many people, but you just say "I subjectively and personally don't agree it's cumbersome", then we've gone nowhere. If we can get you to at least agree that rules in general can be cumbersome, we're moving towards a place where you can at least respect the opinion of the person you're arguing enough to acknowledge that they can find something cumbersome that you do not.

Or you can just showcase that it's all bad faith coming from ya.

>>98492184
You keep concocting arguments about things that do not exist.
Why dont you try making a point that is actually directly related to the matter at hand.

What is about about 1e RAW that is too cumbersome to track, nogames?

>>98492176
And yet you rely on hyperbolic lies to justify shirking the rules of the game. neat.

>>98491920
>It adds a layer of tactical choice, with more-damaging weapons having a chance of being too slow to react
LOLNO
no, it doesn't
because it doesn't balance out harder-hitting weapons, which are just a net positive mathematically speaking

File: Screenshot 2026-08-11 at (...).png (125 KB, 1160x457)

125 KB PNG

>>98492162
>We arent talking about what gary daid in his later years
We're taking about how even the guy who made those rules thought they were dumb. Guy regrets ever adding them to the rules.

You're free and encouraged to disagree with Gary if you want, but it's kind of hard to say they're great rules everyone should strictly play by if even the guy who wrote them says they're not worth the trouble.

>Also, what alternatives?
Mostly involving some variety of ignoring them. Even Gygax advocated mostly ignoring them.

>>98492215
stfu you retard
not only you are confusing me for another anon
you didn't even get the notion of a thought experiment to acknowledge an existence of an upper limit of some parameter

it's not that you are arguing in bad faith
you are just stupid, man
get lost

>>98492225
...What? Im not sure you understand the situation.
The tactical choice is sacrificing raw damage for a chance to go first on ties.
No one said anything about "balance".
>which are just a net positive mathematically speaking
except in the case of 2h weapons sacrificing AC.

>>98492259
>We're taking about how even the guy who made those rules thought they were dumb
so youre just changing the conversation, got it.
>Mostly
no, post actual examples of alternatives.

Id still love to see another "example" of 1e D&D being too cumbersome to track.

>>98492267
>the notion of a thought experiment to acknowledge an existence of an upper limit of some parameter
we're not talking about hypothetical parameters, we're talking about a known set of parameters, which is 1e AD&D.
>nonsense ESL ad hominen
yawn.

>>98492176
>reading some of replies in this thread is like they are pretending to be retarded on purpose

I think that's the case. Gave him the chance to prove he could instead argue in good faith though, that's all that could be really asked of me.

>>98492269
>Id still love to see another "example" of 1e D&D being too cumbersome to track.
Psionics then. That is a BAAAD set of rules.

>>98492294
Which part in particular? I thik the combat is tedious and easily gamed, but all PCs having a chance for psionic powers from level 1 is quite based.
>>98492304
>why?
because you cant, because you dont play D&D, let alone have a through understanding of the books.
>I already declared victory, I dont need to support my claim!
okay please stop bothering to reply if youre not wanting to discuss.

>>98492304
Why are you so mad?

Talk about the game, not your feelings.

>>98492269
>The tactical choice is sacrificing raw damage for a chance to go first on ties.
there is no tactical choice to make if one option is strictly superior on average

>>98492448
There's numerous reasons why one might have a dagger in place of a two handed sword, and I'd be happy to provide examples. One having a bigger damage die can be mitigated in a number of ways.

Damage vs Speed is absolutely a tactical choice, whether you think it's extremely unbalanced or not.

>>98492486
you can make up artificial situations all you want
having a harder hitting weapon that is only inferior in speed factor considering all other parameters are equal is strictly superior on average
so there is no tactical choice to make
so speed factor adds nothing while taxing the game pace

it's a valid example you tried to handwave away

>>98492507
>you can make up artificial situations all you want
the entire game is an aritificial situation.
What I am talking about is occurrences that can and will come up in your game at one point or another.
Unlike yourself, who was talking about non-existent things that are irrelevant to D&D.
>considering all other parameters are equal is strictly superior on average
except thats not the case, which is the point. theres a number of parameters that may be different.
>speed vs damage isnt a tactical choice
just such a weird thing to dig your heels in about.
like I said, im happy to provide plenty of examples.

>>98492507
NTA, but lolwut?
long sword vs 2h sword is literally a tactical choice wtf lmao

>>98491144
>all that talk about gold being the incentive is just fuddlore
LMAO, Fish once again showing that he hates the OSR and everything about it

>>98492507
>he doesnt know that WSF allows multiple attacks
KWABOTY

>>98492507
you never heard of spell casting-time?

>>98492619
>>98492691
>muh 2 attacks
>muh spells
work on your reading comprehension
>having a harder hitting weapon that is only inferior in speed factor considering all other parameters are equal is strictly superior on average
>>98492526
>theres a number of parameters that may be different.
then it's the other parameters and not the speed factor that is the deciding factor

File: 1764890041466388.png (159 KB, 338x319)

159 KB PNG

>>98492763
>WSF doesnt matter because its too hard for me!
Theres plenty of reasons to pick a weapon that has a small WSF, and the small WSF is one of the benefits, yes.
Sorry to hear that a game for 12 year olds is too complex and cumbersome for ye.

>>98492763
>then it's the other parameters and not the speed factor that is the deciding factor
uh, no?
As said, theres plenty of reasons to not pick a heavy weapon eg 2h-sword. And theres plenty of tactical choice between dagger/longsword/2h-sword.

>>98492774
>game for 12 year olds
There's no WSF in B/X, silly person

File: 1773072865103452.png (1.25 MB, 651x823)

1.25 MB PNG

>>98492810
youre right, 10 year olds.
dummy.

File: MugAlbert.jpg (14 KB, 311x474)

14 KB JPG

>>98492819
>gets the age range wrong
>calls others "dummy" for pointing it out

File: 1786209747865041.jpg (27 KB, 455x344)

27 KB JPG

>>98492839
regardless of age-range, youve already admitted that a game for children is too difficult for you to play. That's okay, tard-kun

File: Venger.png (474 KB, 752x568)

474 KB PNG

>>98492907
I'm a different anon, silly person

>>98492907
>difficult
Why do you keep doing that thing where you treat someone calling something not fun as them calling it difficult?
Go count the grains of sand in a sand box. Unless you want to admit that counting is too difficult for you.

>>98493036
164352. It was a small box.

>>98493036
There are whole boards where people are dedicated to the idea that grindy dull shit = difficulty

>>98493036
>>98493072
If the game is cumbersome for you, that's a personal skill issue

>>98492294
Psionics are essential for numerous monsters. Derp

>>98493054
In a maximum of 7 minutes, or 420 seconds, you counted that many?
391 grains of sand a second?

>>98493214
Most 12 year olds can, what's your deal?

File: chalmers-simpsons.gif (1.26 MB, 498x354)

1.26 MB GIF

>>98493229

>>98493036
Because apparently you comparing two numbers, 1/36 rounds takes so much time, that it creates an actual problem for you playing.

>>98493036
>WSF is equivalent to counting grains of sand
Uhhh. What???

>>98493253
Why are you here? Why are you not counting that sand?
Apparently noting a grain of sand and increasing the count by one is too hard for you?

>>98493264
Can you recognize that counting sand is something someone might find boring rather than difficult. Is that within your mental capacity.

>>98493239
You may not see my 12 year old. That would be weird.

>>98493274
>>98493269
Counting sand has no relevance to WAF, and you have spent the whole thread arguing about non-existent hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with d&d at all.

File: drax-the-destroyer-nothin(...).gif (3.98 MB, 250x250)

3.98 MB GIF

>>98493329
Do you actually have some learning disability?
Is this your first time encountering analogies or metaphors?

>>98493368
So you cant actually discuss the actual subject? Why do you need to completely lean on "metaphors" that have absolutely zero relevance the the topic itself?
Unless you genuinely think that comparing one (1) number every 36 rounds is actually on par with counting grains of sand in a box, in which case I assume youre just a brainlet that cant handle math in any form.

>>98493813
You can't discuss the actual subject though. You're deliberately diminishing how annoying WSF can be, omitting rules interactions and uncertainty thanks to its over-complicated design, and essentially retreating into a personal subjective space while demanding everyone has to follow you.

You are not in control of this discussion. No one has to discuss things on your terms, especially when you've proven you can only argue in bad faith.

Also, if you don't like being made a fun of through the use of analogies, don't make piss poor arguments that leave you looking like, pardon the simile, a brain-addled literal-minded alien used for comic relief.

>>98493840
>how annoying WSF can be
Thats your personal opinion, and its based on it being "too slow and cumbersome", which is a skill issue.
From my POV, you are the one deliberately ignoring how little time it takes to use in practice.

Ive also asked numerous times to discuss any of these other instances of things that are too "cumbersome" to track in 1e RAW.
Someone mentioned psionics, and then went completely silent about it.

>>98493851
>Thats your personal opinion, and its based on it being "too slow and cumbersome", which is a skill issue.

And according to that logic, Gygax also suffered from that "skill issue."
That's pretty funny.

>>98493851
>Someone mentioned psionics, and then went completely silent about it.
Oh yeah, no one wants to talk to you about it, go figure.
You really need to work on your whole "actually being able to talk about things in good faith" thing if you actually want people to talk with you about topics, instead of just pointing out all you can do is argue in bad faith.

>>98493855
...Okay? Im not making any claims about how gary did or didnt play. Besides that, he largely played OD&D
.>>98493860
So... you just wanna have a tantrum instead of giving examples of the claim you made?

>>98493864
>...Okay?
That's some egg on your face.
Look. Let's be clear about something.
You're not cute.
This whole /v/-style "if you don't like it, it means you need to git good" trolling doesn't really work here, and at the point where you've boxed yourself into arguing that even Gygax didn't like a pretty widely disliked bit of rules because of "skill issues" is where you really don't deserve any further attention.

>>98493875
>that's some egg on your face.
...for what? I never said anything about how gary played, thats you.

Your one and singular complaint about 1e RAW being too hard, is that WSF takes too much time to use.

Youre also the bozo claiming that there is no tactical impact on using a longsword vs a 2h sword.

Its okay to be an angry nogames, just git gud and play AD&D.

>>98493875
>>98493880
This anon(lol) had to backpedal from
>there is no tactical choice
to
>I don't understand the choices
to
>Its no fun for me to be dumb