Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General, the thread dedicated to first-decade, Gygaxian D&D, its faithful modern clones, and content created for use with them. Later editions (2e and newer) should be discussed elsewhere.Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons played as intended by its creators from 1974 to 1983 — less emphasis on linear adventures and overarching metaplots and a greater emphasis on player agency.If you are new to the OSR, welcome! Ask us whatever you're curious about: we'll be happy to help you get started. We also have two excellent beginner guides created by Anons with feedback from the thread that you can check for help:>n00b DM's Guidehttps://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0B>n00b Player's Handbookhttps://pastebin.com/XALkXkV0>Troves, Resources, Blogs, etc:http://pastebin.com/9fzM6128>Need a starter dungeon? Here's a curated collection:https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/94994969/#95006768>Previous thread:>>98865622>Thread question:Do you like to include playable clerics in your games or just as NPCs?
>>98924728>TQYeah, I know all the arguments against but personally see little reason not to. I feel that gameplay-wise, they're crucial. Most people axe them for setting/tone reasons AFAICT.
>>98924728After no one wanting to play one for over a year I just dropped it and folded Turn Undead into a player ability in exchange for religious vows with strict requirements. Fits better with the setting and lets me have a few different religious themed abilities that aren't tied to class players can chose from. Its still a hard sell or not a thing many are interested in I think largely because of irl cultural inclinations.
>>98924583Room count too small to be a dungeon? Looks like its got over 40 and decently spaced room key variety going from the map.
>>98925062>Looks like its got over 40Exactly. A dungeon is unlimited in size and grows as you explore it.
>>98925135most people would call that a megadungeon. aren’t there many published dungeons from back in the 70s and 80s that are finite?
>>98925135If you want to say most published modules aren't dungeons you can start with that so we can ignore you sooner. Its even got a river going off the map in 50, that's easy enough to turn into another floor or level if you have a creative bone in your body so you fail on that account as well.
>>98925062Room count is fine, that's a perfectly serviceable dungeon floor based on the map. I don't think anon was talking about the room count though. Probably more how it's cramped and there's not enough empty space for players to maneuver around or past things, which is typical of the funhouse dungeon.>>98925135Don't be silly, anon. You're technically correct that the published map above isn't infinite, but that map is too big for a lair, and I gather has multiple factions, which is the other main criteria for a dungeon vs lair.>>98925159"Megadungeon" is a new-school neologism created after lairs became the norm and dungeons the exception. Anons are right to think it kinda smells.
>>98925300>Probably more how it's cramped and there's not enough empty space for players to maneuver around or past things, which is typical of the funhouse dungeon.Its got 15 out of 50 monster keyed rooms, some are close some are spaced out with many rooms and hallways between them. Still not sure what you're getting at. Can you post an example of what would be better?
>>98925159>most people would call that a megadungeonnewfags all of them>aren’t there many published dungeons from back in the 70s and 80s that are finite?If you take a look you'll see that many have corridors leading into unmapped areas that the DM can/should expand.But that's beside the point, the norm that dungeons should be unlimited in size predates the discovery by Gygax that he could make money by selling substandard products.>>98925300>You're technically correct that the published map above isn't infinite, but that map is too big for a lairMy point exactly.
>>98925410NTAYRT>Its got 15 out of 50 monster keyed rooms,Not really. You're counting keyed corridors as room, and quintuple-counting the keys of what are effectively single rooms, e.g. 5 to 9.Also rooms with traps and/or treasure but without monsters are still counted as not empty by definition.>some are close some are spaced out with many rooms and hallways between them. Hallways don't count.>Can you post an example of what would be better?See the infographic. Empty rooms (no monsters, no traps, no treasure) should be in the ballpark of 28% to 60% based on the published stocking procedures.It's a very wide berth, but going below the lower end is a bad idea.
>>98925410I don't know -- I'm not the original complainer, I'm just guessing at what he means based on his complaint that it's a funhouse.
>>98925214AYRT>Its even got a river going off the map in 50That's a fair observation; in fact, IIRC the river is supposed to lead to the Incandescent Grottoes.
>>98925300>I don't think anon was talking about the room count though. Probably more how it's cramped and there's not enough empty space for players to maneuver around or past things, which is typical of the funhouse dungeon.I am that anon and you are correct.Or, I'm not strictly certain that it's necessarily characteristic of a funhouse dungeon, but it's for sure what I meant by calling it overstocked.>>98925410>It's got 15 out of 50 monster keyed roomsThis is a poor way of counting, because numerous passages and doorways are keyed. Just for one thing, the lair of the sheep fauns is 5-9 inclusive.Counting extremely generously I make 39 actual rooms; of these 26 or so are inhabited. In other words there are 13 rooms in toto, or one-third, which are empty as far as monsters are concerned. Five of those empty rooms are dead ends (12, 15, 24, 40, 44); the remaining eight are all immediately adjacent to at least two monster rooms.
Dungeon
Lads,Been testing OSRIC and the XP gain from magic items is far far less than from 1E. It's the only change that makes me wonder if the creators played it. Can someone make it make sense? t. oldfag
Hexcrawl
No game faggot
>>98926175>>98926185>>98926190As my posts clearly demonstrate there is quite the leverage in defining what is and isn't. The first two can be argued however the no game faggot is set in stone.
>>98926175>tomb of some guy
>>98926178>Can someone make it make sense?Add it to the list of poorly thought out random changes in OSRIC 3.https://rancourt.substack.com/p/ad-and-d-1e-osric-30-changelog
>>98926190See the image in >>98925416, newfag
>>98926178Is this OSRIC 3? Didn't really read it, already own AD&D books, but is it possible that the XP rewards are some obvous multiplier of the originals (e.g. x10, x100) for legal reasons?
What is the general opinion on the new 2026 version of Old-School Essentials? It looks like he's compiled the pure B/X rules and his 'advanced fantasy' rules into one book, calling out everything that is not pure B/X as an optional rule.Is that accurate? Is it still worth getting?
>>98926455The thread generally dislikes the Advanced default.>calling out everything that is not pure B/X as an optional ruleAIUI the Advanced stuff is the baseline and it's the original B/X rules such as race-as-class that are optional rules. Didn't read it though, this is just going by hearsay from other anons.
Question: I have been running a game using B/X rules set in Azeroth for a few months, but with some new classes and spells to give more of the world's flavor. I really dig how the game is going. The PCs are basically freelancers working with the Reclaimers, and the Explorer's League, hitting up old ruins and such looking for treasure to sell on the black market.I've noticed that WotC is gonna put out a WoW book using 5e or 5.5 or whatever the fuck, and it makes me wonder if any OSR players suffer from the same kind of autism as me and would have interest in a book that gives the races, classes, and spells to play in Azeroth designed for B/X? Should I polish this shit up, file off the serial numbers, and sell it on DTRPG?
>>98926455>Is that accurate? Yes.>Is it still worth getting?Not really. No only does OSE-Advanced miss the point of AD&D entirely, but its rules for races and race-classes are mediocre to out of the box.Which is odd because OSE-Classic is hands down the best and only faithful retroclone of any first decade edition.
>>98926566>>Is that accurate? >Yes.Sorry, no. This Anon has it right:>>98926477>Advanced stuff is the baseline and it's the original B/X rules such as race-as-class that are optional rules.
>>98926498>Should I sell it on DTRPG?If you make it PWYW or at least send a copy to Bytee, sure.
>>98926566>No only does OSE-Advanced miss the point of AD&D entirelyHow so?
>>98926590It's mostly (mediocre to bad) player options with some additional (okay) monsters and magic items but practically nothing from the DMG. And the DMG is where the AD&D gold is.
>>98926498Stop talking about 5th edition in the osr threads you fucking loser
>>98925490I haven't read the Grottoes book but it seemed obviously like a place to put in a connection to a deeper caves area. I more or less figure most dungeons can be easily made into an infinite dungeon by adding a door so making the distinction doesn't seem as important as highlighting that most dungeons can and should have the possibility to expansion but iirc that's in the DMG somewhere. Head cold so my memory is going to be bad.
>>98925455>You're counting keyed corridors as roomYes. I do this. That's how you get traps in hallways and corridors and ambushes and travelling monsters that aren't part of the random encounter table. How can you not be using hallways as room to maneuver? That's an essential part of the exploration process unless you're doing some weird dungeon rooms as point crawl sort of thing. Post a dungeon you made that fulfills this ratio and design in a way you think is better. >>98926147You as well. Interesting no one was able to do that when directly asked.
>>98928624>How can you not be using hallways as room to maneuver?Nobody said that, stupid.
>>98928624Making a note for a trap or something in a corridor isn't a keyed "room". It's a hallway. >How can you not be using hallways as room to maneuver?What kind of retard babble is this?
>>98928700A hallway connects one room to the next, and you walk through it, and walking is a kind of movement, so that means it's a "maneuver!" Yeah, he's just grasping at straws I think
>>98925062>>98925135The book pretty explicitly calls it the first level and gives suggestions on where the referee can expand it
>>98928924We're long past that, now we're down to "it's not cramped if you pretend that hallways count as rooms!"
>>98926455It's better compared to the previous version, there's actual advice for running the game and designing dungeons that would be useful for a new referee. >calling out everything that is not pure B/X as an optional rule.There's a page in the back of both the referee and players book that signposts some limitations if you want to follow B/X and says "ignore all optional rules in the book except these". New players are going to completely miss it if the person running the game isn't holding their hand through it though. It needed to be a two page flow chart in the front differentiating things to use/not use for the Classic or Advanced flavor.He's apparently backtracked on the plan to phase out Classic entirely and is just putting the play advice and errata out as a new book>Is it still worth getting?It's value is pretty limited to people completely unfamiliar with the game.If you're already have/are playing the older version, print the errata and call it a day. There's decades of advice on running the game from blogs without buying new books.
>>98929129>There's decades of advice on running the game from blogs without buying new books.This. Also, if you DO want to buy a new book with advice on running the game, you can't beat Melan's GM Guidelines.
>>98926498I haven't read the 5.5 book but I know it has Death Knight and Demon Hunter so my assumption is that it's set in modern/retail Azeroth. A proper OSR WoW hack should be Classic era completely ignoring anything TBC or later. Folding in the faction conflict would be a cool system to manage on top of the monster/class/etc reskins, something akin to Rexxar trying to get groups to join the Horde (or slaughtering others)
Relatively new to OSR, which system (or supplement) has the best hexcrawl procedure for long-term, sandbox-style campaigns?
>>98930367>A proper OSR WoW hack should be Classic era completely ignoring anything TBC or laterWhy?
>>98930386Because it's old school blockhead
>>98930410>"old school" just means oldThat's a retarded take, but I guess I can't expect much better from a WoW fanboy
>>98929129It is hilarious that he's re-releasing what his game was originally intended to be (a faithful b/x clone) as a "Basic game" version of the now much more complicated full system. This also makes the "Essentials" part of the name strange. If the 2026 books really were the essentials, you wouldn't make a stripped down basic version.
>>98930375OD&D has the best hexcrawl procedure if what you want is for it to be actually playable at the table:>https://rancourt.substack.com/p/a-survey-of-overland-travel?open=false#%C2%A7od-and-d
>>98930452It's ridiculous. There's been a lot of "recapitulating the mistakes of the first time round" going on in the OSR since the pandemic.
>>98930464It's been happening since the OSR movement began, really. People do the same shit that happened in the early 80s, go down the same roads, and miss the point and/or break things in all the same ways
>>98926894That sucks but I wonder if it's not at least partially for legal reason. Not all, but a lot of the good stuff in the DMG isn't necessarily "rules," which are the part that can't be copyrighted.
>>98930681I seriously doubt it, OSRIC has virtually all of that stuff. No, the real reason is that players are more numerous than DMS, and readers are even more numerous than players and DMs combined, and both players and readers like player options, so those make far more money. Therefore, if you want to cash in hard, you print splatbooks to sell to players and readers. DMs can just fuck off, they're too small a market.
>>98928566You're a moron. Mentioning that a 5e product exists as a basis for wondering if something sorta similar for OSR games should be put out is not talking about 5e.
>>98926894Where do the player options come from? Are they the author's invention?Where do the (okay) monsters and magic items come from? Are they the author's invention?
>>98930814They are /inspired by/ the options in the AD&D player's handbook and DMG.
>>98930375OD&D, AD&D, and B/X all have good hexcrawl procedures. Those of B/X as explained in OSE-Classic are probably the easiest to understand.
>>98930681>I wonder if it's not at least partially for legal reason.It isn't. It's because there's very little market demand for it.
>>98930791NTA>Mentioning that a 5e product exists as a basis for wondering if something sorta similar for OSR games should be put out is not talking about 5e.Either way the answer is "no".
Why are thieves so shit?
>>98931393Are they, though? What makes you think that?
>>98931393because bypassing the dm's obstacles was seen as the most broken and annoying thing ever by gygax and his crew and they made sure to shit on the class as much as possible.If you were to tell me the reason they didnt define what thief abilities do, was to be able to fuck players and keep the agency for themselves i would believe it.
>>98931488>If you were to tell me the reason they didnt define what thief abilities do, was to be able to fuck players and keep the agency for themselves i would believe it.Assuming that that's the case, that wouldn't make the Thief shit but highly DM-dependent.
>>98931488That would also be a reason for banning the Knock spell, unless the DM remembers to always lock-and-bar every door
>>98931393>can't try again if they fail to find a trap or pick a lock>takes turn to that anyway>chances of success are low at early levels too>can't trade chance to succeed to speed up the task>no way to passively notice anything so is worse at detecting secret doors than than an elf>spellcasters can use knock and find traps to succeed with 100% certainty>need to be able to operate in the dark but can't see without light but even if you could almost everything can see in the dark tooThe first time I played a thief it was so bad I dual classed out after second level.Thankfully ACKS fixes literally all of these problems.
>>98931688Eh some of the issues with thieves having very low success chances (particularly hiding and sneaking which don't allow the player to spend time to get a bonus).I also think that while having the judge roll the dice behind his screen for the thief's various skills is thematic (the thief always thinks he succeeded after all) players aren't a fan because you're rolling for them.That said it's a marked improvement on B/X's thieves imo
>>98931744It is a bit buried in the rules but if you have sneaking at all you are just harder to hear than someone who doesn't even on a failed roll, a thief can close to within 10 feet of an unaware creature before they even get a roll to notice them. A pass means the thief made 0 noise so no roll is possible.
Dumb question about the ACKS2 Treasure Tome. In an example text, they generate a hoard with 1750 ep, 2100 gp, and 3600 pp. But when you look at the tables they go by thousands exclusively (1000, 2000, etc.) which makes the example impossible. Did they fuck up or am I reading the table wrong?
>>98931744>I also think that while having the judge roll the dice behind his screen for the thief's various skills is thematic (the thief always thinks he succeeded after all) players aren't a fan because you're rolling for them.It sounds like you're saying this is an ACKS feature. To be clear it isn't, it's the same in O/A/B/X D&D
>>98931819>Did they fuck up or am I reading the table wrong?Neither, you missed a word.
>>98931902>percentages are modifiers to the value and not the chance for the treasure to be present in the hoardOh goddamnit, I AM stupid.
>>98932056No, percentages *ARE* the probability for treasure to be present in the hoard. Are you unfamiliar with the notion of average and expected value in statistics?
Do you allow players to map on graph paper? If so, why? Their characters would not have graph paper. Is player mapping purely a representation of the innate human spatial sense? If so, people can visually understand the layout of a building pretty well in most cases. So the DM should draw the map for them. Otherwise, the DM should force them to only draw on unlined paper. Thoughts?
>>98932066Yeah, kinda, but re-reading the example I think I get how they're using the average amounts to illustrate weight/hoard size. Right?
>>98932121NAYRT but yes. You can't roll those hoards (you can't even roll 3.5 on 1d6) but it gives you a sense of where the average size of a hoard will be all the same, which lets you understand roughly what to expect when you start to roll (e.g.) a dragon's hoard, so that for example it's easier for you to work out if this particular dragon's hoard is larger or smaller than the typical one.
>>98932082>Do you allow players to map on graph paper?Yes.>If so, why?Because the rules say so.>Their characters would not have graph paper. Sorry I have to be the one who breaks it to you, but the characters are not the players.>Is player mapping purely a representation of the innate human spatial sense? No, player mapping is a rule of the game.
>>98932082Of course not, I run an immersive campaign. I also climb onto the table to act out monsters just like I saw on Critical Role too
>>98932171>Sorry I have to be the one who breaks it to you, but the characters are not the players.So there is no connection between the characters and the players?
>>98932210>So there is no connection between the characters and the players?What's that supposed to mean, exactly?
>>98932082>>98932171So anyway, I'll post a couple of infographics, one old and one new, so we get something useful out of this retarded discussion.Old one first.
>>98932082>>98932171>>98932314New one second
>>98931393They're not, you're running them wrong
>>98932082>Do you allow your players to utilize basic tools like pencils and paper? More worthless drivel from somebody who has never played D&D a day in their life
>>98932314>>98932320Found a couple more sources on the graph paper thing.
>>98932210The character is not a role in a play. It is primarily a pawn used by the player to interact with the game world. Trying to prevent players from using player knowledge that the character wouldn't have is both counterproductive and absolutely futile. Conversely, there's a great deal we must assume the character perceives but which the player obviously cannot, so there's already a sort of disadvantage for the player which it's only fair to rectify by some gameplay expedients.
>>98932314>>98932320>>98932320Infographic Anon, you are and remain a gem of this establishment.
Anyone have the stick figure cartoon image where noobs come into a small scene and ruin it?>>98932591Would be cool if they were all collected in a pdf or something
>>98933080>Would be cool if they were all collected in a pdf or somethingIt's called the DMG
>>98932591>Infographic Anon, you are and remain a gem of this establishment.<3What I lack in creativity I make up for in autism.>>98933080>Anyone have the stick figure cartoon image where noobs come into a small scene and ruin it?Do you mean picrel?>Would be cool if they were all collected in a pdf or somethingThat's a neat idea, but since the images all have different resolutions, and some are very big, I'm afraid it would look like shit. I will give some thought on ways to publish the stuff, though.
>>98933080Maybe?>>98933159I think Anon means this.
>>98933209This is it thanks
>>98933209>wordswordswords>general nerd seething about normies>>98933159This one's better, more succinct and to the point
>>98930681>>98930747>>98931012My research now suggests that some DMG tables were eliminated _most likely_ for legal reasons. Saying that a magic item is worth 1/10th the value of the magic items gold price is entirely different from 1e's xp assignment table. My original point was more in the area that a lot of 1e modules throw magic items at players to help them level as part of the core design, making levelling in OSRIC a much slower grind based on my runs. The fun part is - after my legal research I've concluded that I can pretty much use OSRIC 2.2 (with the correct attributions) in a commercial game application and the Wotzis can't do shit about it. 3.0 is ruled out in that analysis as it incorporates newer WoTC legal slop. And it's worse anyway so I wouldn't want to use it. So we'll see what I can put together.
>>98931884No I'm saying that it's still an issue for some players in ACKS that is carried over from B/X. Sorry for the confusion.
>>98934062>My research now suggests that some DMG tables were eliminated _most likely_ for legal reasons.OSE kept all the tables in B/X and didn't need to eliminate anything.Also remember that Finch is known to hide behind "legal reasons" to justify his insertion of shitbrew bullshit in OSRIC 3.
>>98932380Men & Magic
>>98934472Am I correct that none of the first decade editions have much in the way of specific rules for mounted combat? Or am I missing something?
>>98932380>>98935081Added, thanks!
>>98935081>>98935115Interesting, your version has the reference to Outdoor Survival, but mine doesn't. Presumably it was deleted by WotC? Either way, updated version.
>>98935136I couldn't tell you what OD&D version the PDF was from other than one of the prints after Tolkien references were altered
>>98935136>Presumably it was deleted by WotC?It would make sense, since it gives a by-then long obsolete address for Avalon Hill. Didn't TSR tiself end uo buying Avalon Hill?
>>98935273According to wikipedia Hasbro acquired Avalon Hill in 1998, and it was private before then. So no, AH was never a subsidiary of TSR specifically.
>>98935284Oh, it was Hasbro. Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
>>98935273You're probably thinking SPI, a different board game manufacturer, which TSR acquired in 82-83.
>>98924728What happened to all of those awesome open osr/osrwf threads?<:^)
>>98935385Oh yeah, good point. Yep, I definitely scrambled those two together in my mind.>>98935432All I'm going to say is, I'm glad the trolls are kept out of the actual general. Whatever happens to them on the board at large is probably well-deserved, but let's leave it out of here. These threads are so much better since the shitposting was suppressed.
>>98932082Never really felt the desire to create so precise a map, I usually map more like text adventures. You are in the throne room, there are double doors back to the main salon, single doors to the east & west and a large tapestry on the north wall behind the throne (which probably conceals another exit).Since the PCs don't spend time with tape measures to put exact sizes to the walls, only the direction of the exits matters.
>>98935460Yeah go ahead and fuck off with the concern-troll tone policing.
>>98935639Retard nogames.
>>98935639FOEGYG
Looks like the Castle Greyhawk auction is going to end without meeting its reserve price. $62k still the high bid with eight hours to go...Wonder what'll happen with the print release of the materials if this falls through. Hopefully it'll still go ahead.
>>98935825>Wonder what'll happen with the print release of the materials if this falls through.IIUC they're only selling the physical copy and reserving all copyright on all content, so the outcome of the auction shouldn't have any direct bearing on anything being published.
>>98935825There will probably be last minute bids. People still use sniping services.
>>98935847>IIUC they're only selling the physical copy and reserving all copyright on all contentYes, of course. What I'm worried about is more that a low price on the manuscript will make them conclude that interest in the Castle just isn't there and publishing isn't worth it.
>>98935873Ah I see. But that would that be a logical conclusion? I presume that the market of regular people who want to read it vs that of wealthy people who want to own the original must be quite different, with little overlap or correlation.
>>98935891Yeah, I agree, but the the Castle is famously controlled by an insane person. It's been unreleased these last 18 years because she thought it was worth way more than it was.
>>98935910Perhaps *not* getting what she was hoping for might make her course correct.
>>98935945From your lips to God's ears, Anon.
>>98935965I don't particularly like the taste of earwax, but then again there's worse divine body parts for my lips to be sent to.
>>98935967It means "I hope God hears your words," anon, not "please stick your tongue in God's ear"
>>98926175A clever adventurer tunnels into chamber 2 from the outside to avoid 200 sheletons.
>>98935432I tried to help Fish out and contribute some content to his thread. But also I would like to believe that after Fish wrote >>98932584 in which he called osrg 100% fag posts and gloated that his thread was more popular than osrg, that the gods, or rather the mods, decided his hubris must be punished.
>>98936831We are 100% FAG posts, though! Fantasy Adventure Gaming is where it's at!
>>98936831>I tried to help Fish out and contribute some content to his thread.Why would you do that? Well, water under a burned bridge, nevermind, maybe.>>98936907Kek, it's funny because it's true.
>>98934472Wtf why is there an OSRIC 3? Wasn't OSRIC just a legal exercise to see if you could use the old rules?
>>98937214The idea was to add more original material that they felt they could now get away with, fix some errors in the old version, and polish it up with a focus on being a better vehicle to teach people AD&D (as opposed to just giving them the rules). They succeeded in all that, but the combo of OSE being close to 100% faithful and OSRIC 3 adding some new bits whose justification is questionable has led to people being annoyed.I think it's still a solid work and an improvement over v2.0, but there's still work to do to get to a definitive restatement of AD&D.
>>98937214One, Finch has been getting gradually worse basically through the entire period of the OSR, shitbrewing, fishing for players from outside the OSR and so on.Two, while the case for a clean restatement of B/X is pretty straightforward, AD&D is like OD&D in that a not inconsiderable part of the value of the original lies in how it's written. Now that actual AD&D books are readily available in every conceivable format, the space for a faithful retroclone has simply dwindled. OSRIC still works as a perfectly functional fig leaf for publishing AD&D material (for example, I can't recall a single instance of Melan's Gamemaster's Guidelines using or referencing a specifically OSRIC rule), but there's not much call for it to be an exact clone to do that. At this point, everyone who might care knows what an "OSRIC-compatible" label means.
>>98932320>>98932314>le epic rulesSo OSR is just blindly following a particular set of game rules with no logic justifying them instead of an actual philosophy of play? Good to know. Enjoy fading into irrelevance while 5echads keep winning.
>>98937335>while the case for a clean restatement of B/X is pretty straightforward, AD&D is like OD&D in that a not inconsiderable part of the value of the original lies in how it's writtenThat doesn't justify Finch making rules up wholesale like requiring minimum strength scores to use certain weapons and a hundred other such examples.
>>989376491e is a miniature wargame. movement is in inches. 5e is a theatre club game. (for example)Using square graph paper allows for emulation of the wargame mechanics in 1e without miniatures.
>>98937958Not sure why you are replying to the retarded troll, but square graph paper in first decade D&D is meant for players to map dungeons, primarily and in the context we were discussing.
>>98937826>That doesn't justify Finch making rules up wholesaleMorally? No, but that's not the question. It's a matter of market niches. The number of people who care that Finch's house rules are shit *but would have bought OSRIC without them* is minuscule since those guys just buy (actually, typically already have) real AD&D books. OSRIC 3 is selling to extreme completionist collectors (who are few), to the AD&D turbogrogs who already have the other OSRIC editions and genuinely want to see Finch's house rules (also few, but more numerous than the above), and to people who are dumb enough to compulsively buy new thing because new thing supported, y u play ded game???? (who are retarded beyond all human intervention). Finch is effectively betting that category 3 there is large enough to make him money. Call it immoral if you like, it doesn't change anything.His rules are shit though, to be clear.
>>98936972>Why would you do that?Well, I wouldn't do it again. He is FOE and writes poor content.
>>98935825The auction ended at $85k and didn't meet the reserve.
>>98938204Looks like 6 bidders went over $60k, and 2 bidders went over $80k.
>>98931393https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd4jB9cbhQ8They aren't. Their skills are meant to be used as a last resort, not first. You try having your way by RPing, rolling Dex, then finally you make a skill roll. Think of Thief skills as heroic ass pulls and not the default.
>>98938204>>98938209Damn, that's crazy. $80k and they wouldn't take it? Well, it's interesting anyway. Let's see what happens next.
>>98938211I don't want to listen to this ugly old faggot's slogans and cope. This is not how most people actually played the game and there's no indication in the writing of any of the books that this is how it was meant to be played, either.
>>98938696Yeah, the thief's job is to spot the trap and open the locked door or chest. If we have to make noise to break it open any way almost every time we may as well hire another fighter instead so we win whatever fights happen from the noise. Thank God ACKS fixes that.
>>98938696Yeah, "you were meant to make a Dex check before ever rolling thief skills" is pure bullshit.
>>98938211>They aren't. Their skills are meant to be used as a last resort, not first.First of all, pic rel for posting such a shit video. Second, how does that excuse thief skills being under-tuned? The thrust of the video seems to be "uh, ACHKSHUALLY it doesn't matter that the thief's skills are crap because you're not meant to actually use them" which dodges the entire argument. 3/4 of the video is just him complaining about rollplaying in later editions and talking about how B/X is about problem-solving, which anyone who is aware of the existence of thief skills should be aware of. His example of "opening a door with a dagger in an emergency" is also completely fabricated given that on X10 it says "Thieves' Tools. A thief must have this small case of lockpicks to use his "Open Locks" ability." and on B10 "A thief's training includes learning how to [...] open locks (with a set of lockpicks or burglar's tools)". His "finding traps on the run" example also doesn't hold up, as Moldvay (B22) says "Checking a specific area for a trap will take one full turn. The DM should only check for finding a trap if a player says that the character is searching for one." That example is a bit more nebulous but the generally accepted interpretation seems to be that thief abilities and the special check apply to "small" traps while everyone gets the standard chance in the standard time frame and on the subject of interpretations it also seems to be generally accepted that opening a lock operates similarly on a turn-based time scale.It's fine if he has his opinions and rulings and house rules and some of them might even be good but presenting his example as he did - without any sort of citation or disclaimer - is just disingenuous.
>>98931393SVoZ fixes this.
>>98939513Not a huge fan, honestly.
>>98938931>>98939476No one knows how to pronounce the holy tetragrammaton GYGX either. Pronouncing it "Gygax" is just rabbinical bullshit.
>>98939694I've heard that the holy invocation FOE started out as a way to encode the vowels, so it should be pronounced GFYOGEX.
>>98938696>This is not how most people actually played the gameI'm gonna have to stop you there, anon. Nothing we do in the OSR is "how most people actually played the game" because how most people actually played the game was retarded faggotry. Mornard's right about how the thief was supposed to work. People who think the thief is shit are running him wrong.
>>98939757>Mornard's right about how the thief was supposed to workWhat indication is there, anywhere in history, that this is how the thief is supposed to work? If you want to argue that it's better for the thief to work this way, that's a different claim than it was designed to work this way.
>>98939826To be clear, the blog post linked above is NOT from Mike Mornard, and seems to be a telephone-game distortion of what Mornard said about how the thief worked at Gygax's table.
>>98939826I'm not following anyones arguement. I just read the 1e rules.Thief:DM has a copy of the thief abilities. When thief declares action, DM rolls. Thief always thinks he is moving silently or hidden in shadows. Thief never knows someone heard him or there was no one there to hear him in the first place.In the case where the outcome is obvious - thief scales side of house - thief falling off the house reveals the roll.Thieves level the most quickly, and, while starting with difficult rolls, usually hit level 3 by the time others hit level 2. By level 3 you have a decent chance of doing things with a good dex. And it just gets easier from there. Always thought thieves were quite powerful as written. They are also a great choice for multiclass because it greatly extends potential, and has no level cap. But they are written to play conservatively at lower levels. What am I missing?
>>98940045Nevermind I watched the retarded video and now I see the argument. The video guy is 10% right and 90% wrong. His critique of 5e faggotry is correct. However, no one but a thief is going to be able to spot a needle hidden in a chest and only if he looks first. No one but a thief is going to spot a floor trap that gives out under a certain weight but only if he looks first. And so on.
>>98940045Not sure you're missing anything, just some food for thought.It is not immediately clear what the consequences are if a thief successfully hides in shadows or moves silently, specifically: How does that affect surprise chances? The answer is not at all obvious, and the closest we have to an answer is almost a hundred pages away in a seemingly unrelated section of the PHB.Can a thief find and remove only treasure traps, or also room traps?What happens if the thief fails at finding or removing a trap, does he set it off?Climbing Walls is more or less clear... but what are the chances for non-thieves to climb? It would seem logical that anybody can try a rough surface with ledges and many projections that is non-slippery, while only thieves can attempt very smooth and slippery surfaces, but probabilities for non-thieves are never stated.Hearing Noise seems to assume that it can only be used to listen at door, but does it? It would not be completely outlandish to allow Thieves to make a hear noise check to negate surprise, for example.Clearly how powerful and useful the thief class is depends on how the DM adjudicates all of these scenarios.
>>98940167True. With hide in shadows I just use invisibility rules to strike - but only if someone comes within melee range. Or I allow a backstab if target is within movement range and engaged or attentive to something else.Thief can remove any trap - thought that one was clearly articulated but I'd have to go back.For finding traps - no trigger. For removing a fail triggers. Usually there's a saving throw that allows for the reflex response of a triggered trap.Hearing noise applies anywhere for me. And a successful one negates surprise for the thief or the party if he quietly informs them.Good point though.
>>98940167>Clearly how powerful and useful the thief class is depends on how the DM adjudicates all of these scenarios.Yes, that's basically what Mornard said. All the "thief is shit" people are running him very differently than Gygax did, and most of it is down to how you interpret what those skills do. Imagine if the fighter had an "expert swordsmanship" ability with a 15% chance to do some crazy sword stunt, and everyone and their cousin instead made fighters roll it alongside every attack in order to not stab themselves. People would say the fighter is shit, and you should replace your front line with thieves because they don't kill themselves within three rounds!
>>98940225>With hide in shadows I just use invisibility rules to strike - but only if someone comes within melee range.Good way to handle it. It's worth noting, however, that even invisibility itself only increases the chances of surprise by 1 in 6.>Thief can remove any trap - thought that one was clearly articulated but I'd have to go back.Problem is, the difference between room and treasure traps is never spelled out clearly in any first decade book, as far as I'm aware. E.g. for B/X the second answer here:https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/41032/in-moldvays-basic-dd-should-the-thief-roll-twice-to-find-a-trap>For finding traps - no trigger.Reasonable.>For removing a fail triggers.Pretty punishing. No thief in his sane mind would ever try to disarm under those conditions. ACKS II has the trap set off in 5% of the cases if searching methodically and 15% of the cases if searching hastily. Even that rule would make any thief think twice before attempting it.>Hearing noise applies anywhere for me. And a successful one negates surprise for the thief or the party if he quietly informs them.It's very reasonable, but arguably bordering more on the house rule than the ruling.
>>98940254As far as poison triggers are concerned. Level A insinuitive poison has a +4 save, but even before that the thief also has an 80% chance to smell it.But yea house rules help this further - like if there is a particular type of monster in the dungeon (say giant spider) - that might be the likely source and I'd maybe use enfeeblement versus save against death.
If we are going to allow some boomer to try and mislead people that the thief is fine we may as well hear the rebuttal from someone who claims to have fixed its problems.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kytpNE_6h_w
>>98940610>some boomerYou mean Mornard, or the blogger dude linked upthread? 'Cause Mornard actually played at Gygax's table, and I haven't heard anyone who was there contradict him.>muh house rules to fix the thievesWhoop de doo
>>98940680And by "Whoop-de-doo" I mean "everyone and his dog claims to have fixed the thief, and most of their fixes are retarded" and all of them are unnecessary
>>98940610> but the thief can only open locks 15% of the time thief is brokenBring 10 thieves people. Problem solved.
>>98940739This is genuinely part of the explanation. If you have four Thieves in the party even 15% Open Locks is iteratively a 48% chance to spring a given lock.
>>98940775Or use LotFP where every class has a 1-in-6 Tinkering chance to start.
>>98940244are you a retard? opening a lock isnt the equivalent of some super special martial arts maneuver. opening a simple lock is like so fucking easy for someone with skill. hell you can learn to do it with some trash 5-10 dollar tools and a free afternoon.Factoring in the ones that would exist in a medieval setting especially the thief is the most competent and incompetent class of all time at the same time.Most importantly if you fail you can just keep trying til you succeed but the game has you able to try only once for gamist reasons.The thief can climb a skyscraper at level 1 but cant open the simplest of locks.The class is bonafide trash because gygax was a retard when it comes to the thief.If he wanted locked doors so that players dont casually discover and loot all of the dungeon you cant open he could have them be stuck, sealed or locked with a riddle or magic or whatever else he wanted
>>98941120Wasn't the thief class made up by some fan that submitted it to Gygax?
>>98941120t. retard
>>98941133The Thief class was first invented by one of the guys playing Warlock, a highly baroque D&D derivative from California. The creator of the class spoke with Gygax on the phone and described the class to him, Gygax thought it sounded neat, but tossed most of its mechanics out (teh Warlock thief's skills are basically built on the magic user's spell framework) and wrote his own version of the idea.
>>98941133he was the one that published it as is in his book.there is no excuse really>>98941233nice arguement. where was i wrong exactly?just the fact that 50 years later this is still a topic of discussion and half the retroclones try to fix the class one way or another shows he fucked up massively
It amazes me how angry some people get when you tell them that maybe Gygax knew what he was doing and the thief is fine if you run it the way Mornard says Gygax did, here in a community that is built upon a bedrock that was the realization that maybe old D&D wasn't shit after all, and maybe everybody was just running it wrong for all those years.
>>98941345Any link to the Mornard quote?
It amazes me how angry some people get when you tell them that maybe Gygax didn't know what he was doing and the thief isn't fine even if you run it the way Mornard says Gygax did, here in a community that is built upon a bedrock that was the realization that maybe old D&D wasn't shit after all, and maybe everybody was just running it wrong for all those years but it wasn't perfect either and besides that in a game that is all about adding your own house rules and homebrew on top and making it yours, discussing it's faults and what you would fix in not a problem but a strength.
>>98941373>NO Ulol
>>98941361I don't know what the Anon is referring to, but these links on the pre-Supplement-I Thief might be interesting to peruse."The Thief addition" Scan:https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html?m=1Transcription:https://www.scribd.com/document/60358862/Original-EGG-Thief-Class-GPGPN-239
>>98941361NAYRT but I *think* it's in the comments to one of these posts:>https://www.blogofholding.com/?series=mornardI won't swear to that though because I didn't go full spoonfeed and check all of them for you.
>>98941708NTA. I've read through the post and comments but I didn't find anything particularly enlightening abot how Gygax ran the Thief.
>>98941708Thanks for the link, Anon. That was an interesting read.The person above me is right though, there's nothing specific about Thieves.
>>98941970>>98942113Alright, check. I also have this screencap but it's very vague indeed and definitely not the original source, so I didn't post it before.
Guys I wanna try a OSR game, not the B/X but anything built on top that it is worth to play and that enhances the core rules.Please, suggest me what is the best for YOU
>>98942369What is unsatisfying about B/X for you? What do you think needs enhancing, exactly?
>>98942369I still like Lamentations of the Flame Princess more than any other retroclone. I like the simple d6 skills. I like the Specialist class for its versatility. I like slot-based encumbrance. I like that there aren't arbitrary weapon and armor restrictions. I like it's deviation from a lot of the traditional spells. I even like a good amount of its adventures. I like its implied "real world but weird and grim" setting. I like that Raggi sticks to his guns and just does what he likes to do..
>>98942359Okay, I dove into Plebs and came up with some actual source links. WARNING: purple posts follow.Probably the initial source:>https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/b-x-rethinking-thief-skills-progression.692440/#post-16886215Sauce of the screencap above:>https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/basic-d-d-a-thief-that-can-contribute-from-level-1.475334/#post-10975509Extended Thief discussion on the ODD74 board with some contributions by Mornard:>https://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9062/thief-skills-before-rhe(Mornard appears here as a "deleted member", but his posts can be identified as his by the fact that others' quotes still list them as by "gronanofsimmerya", the name of his Fighting-Man character. There are at least three other deleted members, so one must read carefully.)
>>98942470All in all it seems to boil down to>Jul 26, 2013 at 12:17am @gronanofsimmerya said:>Anybody can try anything. D&D characters are considered to be competent adventurers, not bumbling amateurs. I think adding skills in general is the worst thing that ever happened.Problem with that is, Thieves created specific obstacles that didn't seem to be as central to gameplay before as they were afterwards, specifically treasure traps and opening locks. And now those are staples of OSR gameplay, so you need to make some kind of house rule for how those are dealt with in a thiefless world.And no, "do it narratively" doesn't cut it for me, because I don't have enough ideas about how locks work, which would inevitably result in rote repetition of the same procedure every single time. And I don't like roll-under ability scores either, it makes AS too important for my taste.However, it could be something as simple as:>Climb WallsUse Open Doors.>Open LocksYou need a key. If you don't have one, you have to break it, and it's VERY NOISY. Or maybe 1-in-6 for everybody.>Find and Remove trapsJust use the room traps procedure. No removing, just identification, and then it's presumed that you can just find a way around it once you know it's there.>Pick PocketsI can live without this skill, but perhaps the target gets a save of some kind?
>>98942470>>98942525Hilarious that people are still arguing about the Thief class and skills 50 years later.Thief class rocks.
>>98935873>will make them conclude that interest in the Castle just isn't there and publishing isn't worth it.the Gygax estate already licensed it out to Troll Lord, remember?https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/troll-lord-games/castle-zagyg-galleries-of-the-arch-magehttps://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/troll-lord-games/gary-gygax-s-castle-dungeonsI thought about backing it, converting from Castles & Crusades back into an actual OSR system is easy enough. Unfortunately past experience with C&C material didn't give confidence in Troll Lord doing it justice because most C&C writing I've seen is rooted in some of the worst of 2e-isms.
>>98942369ACKS is the best game built on B/X, it fixes some core issues, makes fighter types really strong at all points of the game and make thieves not miserable to play.
>>98942769I love ACKS, but I think recommending it to complete newbies is setting them up for failure.
got any good ol' dungeon music to go with /osrg/?
>>98942525Right, that's the real problem with the Thief, it's not that he is too weak at low level or whatever. It's that the he's self-justifying. Once he is available to play, the DM has to fill the dungeon with locks and petty traps so the thief has something to do. In a dungeon game, nothing is lost by removing the thief and also removing the annoying locks/traps.To me, the class makes much more sense if urban adventures are going to be a significant part of the campaign. There I feel he has something to contribute that was not already covered before, mostly due to Pick Pockets and Climb Walls.If the DM is willing to extrapolate Pick Pockets to indicate the chance of success of a whole heist operation, the Thief can shine in downtime as well.
