nobody deserves nice things

>>98616153
For my part I like the way it handles the Paladin as a name-level alternative to gaining a domain. I always thought that was clever, both in terms of the paladin archetype and offering something to a player who isn't invested in domain play.

>>98616185
I deserve nice things. I'm a pretty cool guy!

>>98616224
BECMI started in 1983, my dude.

File: lame.png (356 KB, 766x624)

356 KB PNG

Everyone knows about the flaws, how about the positives? What's your favorite rule specifically from LotFP?

>>98616311
This is a pretty poor attempt at a troll post. Is there anyone who disagrees that LotFP has several interesting rules variants? Personally I'd say the Specialist's skills is the most popular one.

>>98616310
the first D&D playtests were in 1972 so 1983 is NOT in the first decade of the game

>>98616460
Lmao, who gives a shit about the playtests?

>>98616153
>What's your favorite rule specifically from BECMI/RC?
I'll focus on the (relatively few) positives and skip the (relatively many) negatives.

Druids are fine. Mystics are okay, they have essentially the same merits and flaws as AD&D monks. The domain rules are meh, but they're the only ones we have in any D&D edition, so there's that. I actually prefer the Cleric spell progression, and while the smoother to-hit and save progressions do not have much of an impact on gameplay, I find them more aesthetically i.e. autistically pleasing. The spell lists are fine too.

>>98616311
>What's your favorite rule specifically from LotFP?
I think the way they formalised the "skills" and how they included them on the character sheet is nifty.

>>98616535
>Cleric spell progression
Oh yeah, good catch. I don't think anyone can say the B/X Cleric spell progression isn't objectively wack.

And you reminded me that something I really prefer in BECMI is the AD&D-style spell acquisition for M-Us. The B/X Magic-User being restricted to knowing as many spells as he can cast and learning them automatically when he levels up is simpler, sure, but...

>>98616311

You are legally not required to read any of the text to look at the art.

>>98616567
>The B/X Magic-User being restricted to knowing as many spells as he can cast and learning them automatically when he levels up is simpler, sure, but...
I actually find that rule pretty elegant, particularly in a context in which Fighters are weaker than in OD&D and AD&D. I even have a soft spot for the OED houserule that MUs can't prepare the same spell twice.

This having been said, sure, the B/E rule is not a bad one. I like both.

Haven't been here since corona. Are people honestly gatekeeping BECMI these days or is it just trolls?

>>98617513
The local schizo is trying to use BECMI's existence as both pre-1984 and post-1984 as a shitposting basis to fuck up the threads and >imply that having a specific year as a cutoff is LE BAD. All a part of his tard vendetta against /osrg/.
.

>>98617513
>greeting fellow grognards I am from the long before time!
lol I bet.
>gatekeeping BECMI
totally unnecessary. The MI part especially, Its not a thing many has played enough or even bothered to read.
Posting about a thing with criticisms and whatever rules are salvageable or interesting is hardly gatekeeping.

>>98617513
It's just a troll, yeah. You're good.

>>98617513
Just a single longstanding troll known as fishfag. People bitch about BECMI pretty regularly, but that's in a normal critique fashion rather than a "you are cast out of the light" fashion.

>>98617585
I haven't played rpg stuff since corona. Decided to drop all online play as both cancerous and boring. Met some new people recently that are surprisingly into rpgs and one invited me to his OSE Dolmenwood game he is planning to start running next month, so i decided to check up tg/osrg.
Not really familiar with Dolmenwood but dark fairy tale in dnd sounds ok so i said yes.
I popped in the thread and saw BECMI/RC flaming as the first post and went wtf. Glad to see it's just a troll

>>98617617
Good luck, Anon! I totally understand you as far as online/VTT feeling like a waste of time.

Dolmenwood is pretty cool but a lot of anons don't like Norman folding to wokescolds and censoring the final product. I think you should be able to have fun with it, the main flaw it has is a massively overcrammed hexcrawl.

>>98615401
>https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=461790&hilit=megadungeon#p461790

Holy shit, this thread is a goldmine! Thanks anon!

I've done my own kind of brainstorming a la GFC. It does seem that generally speaking, the maps come before most anything else. I'm so loathe to start drawing though, never been a strength of mine. Writing ideas is so easy, you can do it in bed.

Swords and wizardry is really good.

>>98618134
Hey, I'm glad you got something out of it! It's definitely the case that a lot of those old Dragonsfoot threads contain a ton of good discussion and tips from experienced grogs, as well as experimentation from the early OSR. They're worth diving into at times.

How important would people say the inclusion of Undead is in a setting?
Are you short-changing the cleric, or perhaps undermining a core pillar of the game if the Turn Undead ability is irrelevant?

>>98618154
No kidding, imagine my surprise finding one of the original Melan Diagram posts when going back to the start of the thread!

File: Zombie.png (477 KB, 577x725)

477 KB PNG

>>98618476
>How important would people say the inclusion of Undead is in a setting?

If you look at random monster allocations in Appendix C they're not very common dungeon or wilderness. They feel more represented in modules but that's just vibes not going in and counting rate of appearance compared to other creatures. I like them a lot though.

I tend to put at least one on most tables I'm making myself but weight them at less common ranges but that's part of a preference for random encounters to have more reaction roll encounters than automatically hostile which most undead tends to be. I did a barrow tomb intro dungeon once and have had to dial it back since then.

If I were removing undead entirely I'd be inclined to swap Turn Undead for Cure light Wounds.

>>98618476
I wouldn't say they're absolutely critical or anything but I do think they're mostly iconic enemies and it's hard for me to imagine going without them myself.

As for the Cleric I do think that their ability to deal with the undead is a pillar of the class; Barrowmaze's skew in the opposite direction (that is, fucktons of undead as the main type of foe) really illustrates the difference between having at least one Cleric in the party and doing without, when it comes to the undead.

>>98618139
It was kinda mid

>>98618569
Good advice. I think if TU were useless, giving Level 1 Clerics a free CLW wouldn't be an unreasonable buff.

>>98618591
Doesn't Barrowmaze have special versions of the undead who don't turn as easily as they should?
I definitely agree you absolutely miss the Cleric when they're not around and a bunch of Zombies are behind a door. Kind of a weird swingy difficulty scale, either undead encounters have a chance to be trivial, or crazy dangerous.

That reminds me: when undead are successfully turned, are they defeated? So often my players run into a bunch in a dead end room and I guess I just say the skeletons cower in a corner and allow themselves to be coup de graced.

>>98619417
>Doesn't Barrowmaze have special versions of the undead who don't turn as easily as they should?
Yes, it does, but that just reinforces the utility of the Cleric against standard undead (and is also fantastically lame IMO).

>Kind of a weird swingy difficulty scale
Yeah, if there's a flaw with Turn Undead it's that an encounter with five ghouls can be either completely trivial or a near-party nuke depending on one roll. For me though, I feel like it works out over time in an odd way, it's like a less predictable version of the M-U being able to opt to trivialize an encounter with Sleep.

>That reminds me: when undead are successfully turned, are they defeated?
No, I don't think that's the case by the book. Cornered undead such as you describe explicitly fight IIRC. If you roll a Destroy result they're defeated, obviously.

File: Procrastination.png (6 KB, 691x113)

6 KB PNG

Am I gonna make it bros?

>>98619417
The undead flee if they can. In ACKS at least they are also vulnerable so they can be backstabbed/ambushed by those that have the ability and everyone else gets +2 to hit them.
Specifically with how ACKS works I like to let the frontlines engage then turn. It gives the party at least one turn and possibly 2 to attack them while vulnerable and make a mess with cleaves

>>98619818
Did you make it?

Hey, real quick I just wanted to say thanks to the mod/janny for being on the ball and baleeting the garbage quickly. It's really helpful, so thanks.

>>98619818
Has anything particularly notable ever come out of any of these jams?

File: A Mystic Wood OSR Adventu(...).png (1.48 MB, 945x2703)

1.48 MB PNG

>>98623253
eeehhh.... I used to download them when they came up to look for gems but stopped several years ago when the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

I'm curious about this one but most of them seem to have gone the way of the One Page Dungeon Contest.

The No Art Punk contest had some neat material in it as contrast.

I think this might be a foegyg question, but has anyone used "overcasting" mechanics at their table? I'm thinking of letting M-Us cast when out of spell slots by paying 1d6 hp per level of the spell cast, while also using wonder and wickedness style spells. Is this a terrible idea in some way I'm not seeing?

>>98623328
I like risk vs reward systems in general. However, early on they can't do it because they don't have the HP. Later on they have plenty of spell slots and effectively this is just going to cut down on the careful choices around utility spells or add yet more fireballs and lightning bolts to the repertoire. Not sure I'm seeing the value.

I always ask first "what exactly are you trying to fix?"

>>98623328
I have done similar to this.
It is foe but I don't care. I did stat damage to Int, roll equal to or under your new Int. or spell catastrophe.
It has problems, especially the spell catastrophe table in W&W. A lot of them are campaign altering scale. If you're down with that it works but its quite gonzo. Some of the catastrophes I have had to run with include
>Every time the magic user kills an intelligent being it summons a minor demon. EVERY TIME.
>1 mile radius terrain altering earth quakes
>1000' wide invincible ufo shows up, explodes hugely in 1d6 days
>Magic user falls into month long coma, spawns nightmares from their head nonstop
>All prisoners in 100' mile radius are freed
>Entire population of most nearby settlement transform into hostile beastmen
Shit gets wild if you use the spell catastrophes and they come up semi regularly. So don't use the table in W&W unless you're okay with how fucked it can get.
It was fun for a few campaigns. Certainly added risk:reward to spell casting that lead to some fun games but its notably off baseline.

>>98623371
>>98623371
I want low level casters to have a bit more endurance, but also have reliable casting options. I also had another, much worse idea: casting is a skill in the x-in-6 style of LotFP. When you cast, you roll your skill, plus a second d6 that's your caster level. Caster level starts at ,1-in-6 at level 1 and goes up every odd level. I'd do that with unlimited casts per day, but at level 1 you've got like ~30% chance to actually cast anything when you try to.

>>98623371
>>98623571
I should clarify, you'd cast your spell if you rolled either your skill die or your caster level die. So at level 1 you're shooting for a 1 on either die.

>>98623571
>>98623606
>another, much worse idea
You're right that is much worse.

>>98623253
Anon's right, the No Artpunk Contest produced a lot of solid work.

File: Giant Rat.jpg (1.2 MB, 4000x2884)

1.2 MB JPG

Fucking giant rats guys....

>>98623328
I'm with Anon, I don't think this is going to solve the problem you want it to solve. I'm not ideologically opposed to overcasting systems or anything, but I've never seen a good implementation that didn't cause a bunch of problems. For example, your suggestiong of overcasting at the cost of HP creates a weird GURPSlike situation where Constitution is the most important stat for spellcasters, and as Anon already pointed out, it makes overcasting least available on the low levels, so if your intent is to offer low-level casters more spells, the system actually runs directly contrary to that.

To be honest, considering the historical results of fucking about with spellcasting, I would opt for the quick simple manual fix if I were you: just place more scrolls as treasure, maybe a wand of one of the less destructive spells, a utility or something.

>>98624234
>I would opt for the quick simple manual fix if I were you: just place more scrolls as treasure,
This is the way.

>>98624234
>>98624281
I see how scrolls solve my problem, but I just hate them conceptually. I don't know what it is, but to my mind if using magic is such a distinct skill that it merits being a separate class, then it shouldn't be possible to reduce that skill to a formula. I also think scrolls being single use makes no sense if it is just a formula. I understand these are personal hangups, but that's the motive behind wanting to give low level casters more endurance.

>>98621567
I did make it. But I was really discouraged once I saw everyone else's stuff looked so much higher quality than mine. I'm actually kind of embarrassed now. I just wrote a simple point crawl and used amateur illustrations, and some of this shit looks like it was made by a team of professionals at a major game studio or something...

I hope people like my entry, and I hope that it brings a group of war-gamers some joy.

>>98624511
>I understand these are personal hangups,
Dude, I'm the same way about a bunch of stuff when it comes to the OSR and tabletop gaming in general. Ultimately, you just have to rule what's right for you and your game. Or if you're a player, talk to you game master about it.

>>98624532
For example, I don't like "Electrum Pieces". I get what their purpose is, and I understand why you'd want to use them in your general game. But in my head it takes something that's very simple and straightforward, and adds a degree of weird fiddlyness.

>>98624511
>the core problem turns out to be an aesthetic issue
Many such cases! SAD.

Still, all you can really do then is try to find something that works *like* giving out low-level scrolls, which have a significant number of strengths in terms of pure gameplay. For example, you can increase or decrease the frequency of scroll appearance yourself, regulating the use of extra spells fairly effectively instead of committing to a fixed system; players not being in charge of selecting the spells incentivizes them to get creative with the spells they do find, etc.

>>98624527
You shouldn't be embarrassed that you created something, Anon. And illustrations are a distraction anyway, they don't improve the way the adventure runs at the table.

>>98624615
>illustrations are a distraction anyway, they don't improve the way the adventure runs at the table.
Yeah, now that you say that, you're right.
The other thing is that my adventure was very, very text heavy, and not formatted well. But this is my first time ever submitting something like this. I learned a great deal from doing this, and I hope that I do marginally better next time.

Anybody made a visual representation for the underclock something to print out maybe laminate and just keep track off on the fly?

>>98624685
Wut?

>>98624685
>I can't draw squares on a scratch pad and move a token across them without assistance
Come back when you can rotate an object in your mind

File: Beggar.jpg (1.71 MB, 3000x4530)

1.71 MB JPG

How would this character fit into your OSR game?

>>98624849
Beggar who gives rumours if you are kind to him or a member of the thieves guild.

bump

>>98625265
What was the point in bumping this off page 4? Did you mean to bump another thread?

>>98623571

If you like that sort of mechanic, take a look at Five Torches Deep's magic system and the Carrion Crawler zine classes "Acolyte" and "Mage" from Old School Essentials.

But.

It's going to change the game dramatically in ways that you might not actually like when it happens.

I'm not a purist of the "everyone in gaming should only play pre-1983 systems," but I am a purist of the "these systems were designed to create a certain experience. When you change things, even if you don't realize it, you are building something that will build a different experience. Things that work well in the old materials aren't going to work well for you anymore. Conversation in OSR spaces may or may not work out for you because it's going to be built on a system you're not actually playing anymore. Not that the OSR games are problem-free, but that you're going to have new, different problems that other people aren't having.

I'm not saying not to do it. But I am saying that if you do it, you should look for help elsewhere with systems that work that way and just let /osrg/ be a different vibe than the one you're looking for.

But if you'd like to start a 5 Torches Deep general, I'll happily come hang out in it.

>>98624511
The formula being one use is directly linked to the Jack Vance Dying Earth series, in the same way spells as memorized single use items are. I get its an aesthetics thing but we can likely come up with a solution that fits your almonds.
Make them potions, clay tablets, little magical insects in tubes that disintegrate when they utter their bug magic because its too much for their bodies to handle, etc.
I forget the zine its in, but there was an article on spells memorized having noticeable and sometimes useful effects as it tries escaping the magic user's head I'll see if I can find.

What do you think of the 3LBB rule 'all weapons, except magical ones, deal 1-6 damage? Have you ever had issues with players just going all-in on daggers? How did you handle that situation?
I'm not a big fan of the Chainmail man-to-man table because it only partially solves the issue and feels a bit clunky to me. I don't get why certain weapons hit low ACs better than high ACs (Battle axe, halberd, two-handed sword, etc.). I mean, imagine a fighter saying: 'I hope my opponent wears chainmail so I can hit him better.

>>98626229
The implication is that big and heavy weapons are worse against lightly armored units because they can evade them easier with their mobility compared to heavier armor. It's kind of silly, but that's how I rationalized it.

>>98626347
I get the rationalization and it makes sense, but then plate armor should be the easiest to hit with heavy weapons, and that's just not the case (except for the halberd, if I'm not mistaken). In any case, the weapon damage issue resurfaces in all combat encounters outside the man-to-man scale. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem: in an ideal world, players wouldn't know the rules and would rely entirely on the referee (I'm of the opinion that a good character sheet shouldn't display certain information anyway), but in practice, it never really works out that way...

>>98626229
>What do you think of the 3LBB rule 'all weapons, except magical ones, deal 1-6 damage?'
It works well, unlike in Basic, since the weapons' different lengths and to-hit make up for it. Daggers are a poor weapon for the most part.

>I'm not a big fan of the Chainmail man-to-man table because it only partially solves the issue and feels a bit clunky to me.
Well, there's your problem, then. Although of course, Mass Combat also makes the distinction, since you'll hardly attack as better than Light Foot with a dagger.

>I don't get why certain weapons hit low ACs better than high ACs (Battle axe, halberd, two-handed sword, etc.).
While the table has some problems (maces are too good IMO), I don't think this is one. Rather, I really like this feature since it helps to make wearing lower armor a more legitimate choice, unlike in later editions where you're basically an idiot if you don't wear the heaviest you can get. Anyway, it's not a crime to revise the MTM table to your own liking; Gygax did his best with the medieval history resources available to him in the 1960s, but both the state of knowledge and the availability of information have increased massively in the last sixty-odd years.

>>98626437
>it makes sense, but then plate armor should be the easiest to hit with heavy weapons
Not really. In terms of raw realism, plate armor is just better than mail. (That said, the mace actually hits plate more easily than chain with or without shield. Which is an absurdity, but still.)

File: WvAC.jpg (289 KB, 1080x1386)

289 KB JPG

>>98626229
I'm not sure if it would gel with 3LBB but I like the 7VoZ matrices. Nice and simple.

>>98626998
Honestly, if you want d20 to-hit rolls and rising hit chance by level (instead of extra attacks) you won't do better than the Zylarthen matrices. Spalding did a great job adapting those.

Part of the point of Scarlet Heroes is that it can be used to run most OSR modules out there, right? But following on that other anon's question last thread: Say you have a henchman in Lost City, how do you run combat when neither he nor the enemies have access to fray die or the ability to hit HD directly? I guess you could run combat as normal but multiplying the damage of the heroic PC by 5 after using the SH filter, but not sure.

>>98628070
NPCs attack one another's HD directly. So they are really fragile, regardless.

>>98617617
>Glad to see it's just a troll
The support for BECMI is indeed a certain fishy troll. Pushing that offtopic garbage is just the first step towards his latest attempt to shill 2e

>>98617513
BECMI has never been OSR, by common consensus agreed by anons in the thread.
OSR is first decade, gygaxian D&D, BECMI's CMI therefore completely excludes it from the OSR.

>>98624871
What happens if I beat the shit outta him?

>>98628844
>>98628851

Fuck off fishfag

>>98628892
>I'm not fishfag! You are!
Kill yourself with your offtopic garbage.
>>98626229
I think it's silly. an axe is going to do more damage than a dagger.

>>98623328
ACKS has this , I like it and recommend it. It can have some funny results, like accidentally acquiring the anger of hell, and having a chance of having an 8 hit die demon coming after you every week

>>98624199
Eat shit you fucking loser spammer, puckee

>>98624685
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>98628851
>he is still mad that even an anonymous board was able to form a clear-cut consensus against him
Hahahaha cope, sneed and mald, Fishfag

>>98624849
Oh great, yet another dog shit AI repost from the spammer known as puckee
>>98625877
Five torches deep is absolutely off topic, go neck yourself

>>98629367
I'm really hoping that he goes begging the mods for help again one day, that would be one of the most hilarious things to happen out of this

>>98629370
>AI
wut

>>98629370
>Five torches deep is absolutely off topic
NAYRT but did you actually read the post you're seething at? That's literally Anon's point. Chill out, Anon.

>>98629388
How about you don't recommend off topic dogshit?

>>98629403
You sound autistic af bro. Like severely neurodivergent.

>>98629455
Thank you for using the full name, I don't know how you get it past the filter, but you're doing a good service

>>98629377
Kek, yeah, that would be pretty funny. It's obvious that he's gradually realizing that his long crusade has been completely defeated and losing his shit over it, that's why he's back to trying old abandoned tactics like shitposting ITT and trying to make fake new /osrg/ threads, he's simply running out of road and ideas now that it's obvious even to him that his "open" slide thread has failed. It was exactly the same when original /todd/ collapsed, remember?

>>98629455
Bro nobody was responding to that shit in the first place, yes they're spam but just report the posts for spamming and don't engage with them.

>>98629484
You do realize that (>>98629468) and (>>98629455) are both severely autistic, right?

>>98629558
Nigger how are you calling me fishfag, when I made fun of him running crying to the mods?

>>98628903
>I think it's silly. an axe is going to do more damage than a dagger.
I believe all weapons should have the potential to deal the exact same damage, just with different probabilities. A well-placed dagger strike is as lethal as a well-placed axe swing, it's simply much less likely to happen. This core idea was stripped away when unique weapon damage dice were introduced, which was certainly more intuitive, but less subtle.

>>98629860
Even if the damage range is the same, which itself is debatable, it seems like an axe would still do more damage than a dagger on average.

>>98629987
It depends on what you think "damage" entails. Amount of tissue destruction? Yeah, you're probably right. Probability of lethality? No, you're probably much closer to parity there. Stabbing weapons make small wounds, but deadly ones.

Since D&D combat is highly abstract and hit-point damage does not directly represent physical injury, the "gross tissue damage" interpretation is unlikely to be the most functional or sensible one.

>>98629987
I mean, there's a reason armies didn't use daggers as their primary weapons. While there are other factors at play, in D&D damage seems the best way to model that.

>>98629578
That IS Fishfag, doing his usual retarded UNO reverse.

>>98630019
His post being deleted makes a lot of sense now. I can't believe this shit head is still doing the exact same thing. Does he not realize that the mods have his IP totally locked down?
>>98629406
That's great, go be a normie on another website

>>98628844
>>98628851
>>98628903
Obvious false flag is obvious.

Are there any other noteworthy systems that have skill system like Worlds without Number? I never was a fan of the roll-under attribute, and I think WwN had a good system with the 2d6 from what I can remember from a few years back

Give me ONE reason to do not use the Hyperborea d12 Thief system instead of the %

bump

File: 5616d9b1ca6efcbd04eeb37bf(...).jpg (133 KB, 1191x842)

133 KB JPG

>>98630542
LotfP's skill system is solid. It didn't get talked about much even when LotfP was popular because there's not much to complain about. It covers most things you'll care about in a simple and direct way.

I've never run any of the X Without Y they've always been collections of tables with varying utility to me. What's the skill system there?

Roll-under attribute was never really meant to be a "complete" system and trying to use it as such has caused problems when I did. It seems a bit dumb on the surface as X in 6 is also roll under but having variety over time helps keep the mechanical side from becoming stale. It doesn't need to be much but streamlining everything to one option seemed to get recitative in an enthusiasm killing way.

>>98631158
>one reason

8.3% increments are clunkier to adjudicate without the benefit of 10% increments if you want more granularity than 16.6% while losing the benefits of how familiar most people are with 1D6.

Its something you could get good at if you were inclined I suppose but not sure why you would unless D12 is exactly the right mouth feel for your autism.

>>98629344
We used the overcasting rules in one of my games and the Cleric did it to cast one more Cure Light Wounds and he got dragged into hell. I'm running more games in the same world so eventually he's gonna show up.

>>98631720
I've heard the name, but never read any of it. I'll look into it, thanks. I did try out the WwN systems a few years back by myself. It's 2d6 against x difficulty, getting bonus on ability modifiers and skill

>>98631773
LMAO WHAT A RETARD

>>98631816
The 2D6 curve can be nice to work with when you want to weight successes towards more frequent. I think it works better for narrative emphasis games but it could work, especially if you're building dungeons well so skill roll failure doesn't close off the dungeon too much.

LotfP is a b/x derivative with a collection of houserules for things like skill systems, encumbrance, 1600s guns and changes to attack progression to favour the Fighter. The spell list is a bit different, the summoning spell particularly.

The published adventures lean into hammer horror splatter punk type stuff which isn't very interesting to me personally but there are some gems in there if you like early modernism europe.

The owner is a sperg but a sperg from an older time that retrospectively seems benign compared to the various mudcore true metal fad that followed them.

>>98631857
You can change the dc and things like that. I just prefer it to how much difference there is between someone with dex 17 and dex 13 with rollunder. I was skimming through the new version of OSE, and thought that could be a fun system to try again. I grew up on BX, but I've come to really like skills more.
Eccentric people were a lot more charming and fun in the old days. Apropos those, I have no experience with ACKS, but it seems fun, but I think it's a bit too heavy for me
Also looked into Tales of Argosa, a little to grimdark for what I am thinking of, but kinda get into the skill system more there too. Character creation and customization seems good though

Oh, and I really didn't like the character creator in Worlds without number. The tables and resources are great tho

File: 193837.jpg (51 KB, 403x395)

51 KB JPG

>>98631816
Realized I forgot my image

What's the best way to run an OSR game that fits the oriental/Feudal Japan/Generic Asia aesthetic? (Something like a cross between Inuyasha and Avatar The Last Airbender, but in B/X or soemthing similar.)
I'm currently reading through Oriental Adventures, but is there anything I can do to assure tonal fidelity of the game will *feel* like my players are in Feudal Japan, (Even when running adventures written to fit in medieval europe)?

File: Chanbara.jpg (208 KB, 850x1100)

208 KB JPG

>>98633011
>best way
Taking a look at Chanbara, Oriental Adventures, the Crimson Tide/Scarlet Heroes material and and Nubulith stuff then mashing it together until it works for you depending on how historical, classic, kitchen sink or artsy you want it.

>>98633106
Chanbara seems really cool. This is exactly what I needed for my Weeaboo fightan fantasy games.

>>98633190
I haven't looked at it since it came out but hitting 40 has done strange things to me like reawakened my inner weeb. I hadn't thought that was interesting for decades l but it was funny to notice.

>>98633261
I've had a similar resurgence in my own life, regarding weebshit and anime. It honestly started with that whole "Sony and Physical media" thing lately. I went and looked at my old DVD collection of shit I haven't watched in a long time. I cancelled all of my streaming services because they're getting so expensive and stupid nowadays... For the past month I've been living off DVDs and movie files I already owned. It turns out I had a huge collection of anime and samurai films from back when I was really into that stuff.

When handling encumbrance, do you have your players track how they're carrying items in different sacks and backpacks or do they treat their inventory as an abstraction? I never bothered with the former because character sheets are never designed for it and I assumed it doesn't add much to the game but maybe I'm missing out.

>>98634006
The former seems to happen naturally for me; "I shovel the coins into the sack with my hands" etc.

>>98634006
Backpack can hold up to 400, fill up two large sacks and tie the openings together then sling them over your shoulders for another 800, and then Ccarry a small sack in each hand for another 200 each, bringing you up to 1600

A guy (Or a captured prisoner) that just follows the party with a torch doesn't count as a henchman, right?

>>98634537
A linkboy is a hireling, not a henchman, yeah. AD&D actually lists the trade by name under hirelings.

In B/X their status is a little fuzzy, but there I'd treat them as a specialist who gets hazard pay for going on adventures.

>>98628070
>Part of the point of Scarlet Heroes is that it can be used to run most OSR modules out there, right?
Hardly. You don't need Scarlet Heroes to run OSR modules.

>Curious about OSR
>Find a clip of Brendan Lee Mulligan complaining about how complicated it is
>Gives example of THAC0 as the most complicated part of the game
>Look up THAC0
>It's basic arithmetic that I learned at such a young age I don't remember learning it

Okay so if that's the peak of complexity in this type of game I might as well try it.

>>98635485
Brennan Lee Mulligan is a retard, a funny retard I'll admit, but a brainless dipshit. In this case he's also just feeding into memes (literal memes, not image macros) about D&D in the 5e community. Old editions are hard, they're for chuds, something something Gygax father of the game, it's just mythologizing.

Also, THAC0 isn't even really in OSR games. It's only used in one book as part of an abbreviated listing of monster stat blocks. The oldschool editions use to-hit matrices that you literally just look up the required throw on.

Any tips for running an OSR session 0?
>inb4 some faggot confusing session 0 for trigger warning lists and character backstories

>>98635552
Yeah, don't. Generating characters takes literally 5-10 minutes and nobody should be wasting any time on backstory. Just get them into the dungeon right off the bat.

>>98635557
Yea nigga if you're running for a new group you should probably tell them not to waste any time on backstory. The purpose of session 0 is telling them what kind of game to expect at your table.