Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General, the thread dedicated to TSR-era D&D, derived systems, and compatible content.

Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as played in the game's first decade — less emphasis on linear adventures and overarching meta-plots 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.

>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:
>>96000308

>Thread Question
What's a less talked about OSR or OSR-adjacent system you like?

Want to contribute to the thread but don't know where to start? Use this table.
>1. Make a spell
>2. Make a monster
>3. Make a dungeon special
>4. Make a wilderness location
>5. Make an urban set piece
>6. Make a magic item
>7. Make a class, race, or race-as-class
>8. Make a 4-10 room lair.
>9. Make a trap
>10. Roll 2D10 and combine

>>96045339
>What version of the DMG is that from?
The "premium reprint" from the 2010s.

>>96045263 (OP)
>tq
Wightbox is cool.

>WHAT'S AN OSR?
>DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET STARTED?
>The friendly n00b guide can be found here:
https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0B
>until further notice.

>>96045263 (OP)
>flamebait TQ

so if im understanding ADND combat correctly
>party initiative wins and starts on segment 6
>fighter with 3/2 attacks twice
>wizards casts a spell with 8 segment cast time
>goblin lost initiative and start on segment 8
>goblin attacks fighter once
>party initiative loses and starts on segment 5
>goblin initiative starts on segment 2
>goblin tosses a rock at wizard
>it hits wizard
>loses spell since it would go off on segment 4
>segment 5 starts
>fighter attacks once

does the wizard get any actions since he got interrupted? afaik he should since the declared action would be "finish casting fireball"

after attacking, would the goblin be able to retreat, or was that attack basically "the declared action"?

im just trying to get a sense of how much you can do within a round, since "segments" are apparently only needed to track spell times

>>96045689
It's not flamebait, it's topic-shifting.

>>96045707
>so if im understanding ADND combat correctly
You're not.

>party initiative wins and starts on segment 6
>fighter with 3/2 attacks twice
No. He attacks once before segment one and once again at the end of the round.

>goblin lost initiative and start on segment 8
Impossible, can't happen, maximum initiative roll is 6 on a d6.

>>96045707
>>96045727
>party initiative wins and starts on segment 6
Also impossible. If the party starts on segment 6 they've either lost initiative or tied it, since the initiative roll is on a d6.

>>96045727
>>96045740
so if i correct the events
die roll of 4 for party and 2 for the goblin
>party starts on segment 2
>fighter attacks once on 2
>wizard starts casting on 2
>goblin attacks fighter on 4
>fighter attacks on 10
>wizard attacks on 10

this works as intended?

>>96045679

PSA dont read. Its not in the op for a reason.

>>96045748
>this works as intended?
No.

Again, 3/2 attacks means that on odd rounds the fighter gets an attack routine at the BEGINNING of the round (segment 0) and another one at the END of the round. It's only on even rounds that the fighter attacks on initiative.

The "wizard" does not attack, since he's casting a spell. Worth noting that the rules for spell casting apply to Magic-Users of all levels not only to 11th level Magic-Users.

>>96045763
noted, ill fix it again
party rolls 4, goblin rolls 2
>fighter attacks on 0
>wizard starts cast on 0
>goblin attacks on 4
>wizard finishes casts on 8
>fighter attacks on 10

party rolls 2, goblin rolls 4, wizard declares spell again
>goblin attacks on 0
>hits wizard
>fighter attacks on 4
>wizard fails to start casting on 4
>end of round

i think this should be correct this time?

>>96045707
>>96045727
>fighter with 3/2 attacks twice
>No. He attacks once before segment one and once again at the end of the round.
You're both wrong. In the first round the Fighter gets one (1) attack. He gets the second attack in the second round of combat, and those attacks

>>96045754
PSA hoes mad.The noob guide is great.

>>96045841
>party rolls 4, goblin rolls 2

>wizard starts cast on 0
Debatable, the DMG rules are obscure on this specific point. OSRIC has him start on 2.

>goblin attacks on 0
No, why would he? He attacks on 4 if you use the original DMG rule and on 2 if you use the common revised house rule that each side rolls for itself.

>>96045679
Based. I've made two new covers for it if you want to use them in the future
1/2

>>96045679
>>96045938
2/2

>>96045909
>Why would he?
Cause i conflated multiple attacks starting on 0 as being the same as single attacks starting on 0.

The goblin strikes on 4 then is correct.

Lets say the wizard casts follow the same logic as single attacks.
The wizard should then start casting on either 2 or 4, and since it takes 8 segments, it finishes either on 10 or 2 next turn.
If he gets hit before 2 next turn, is his whole "next turn" wasted, since finishing the spell as the declared action?

>>96045679
>>96045872
We've gone over this. It's barely a noob guide and calling that is intentionally misleading.

It spends way more time giving a wrong definition of OSR instead of actually trying to help n00bs start playing. It's kind of amazing the lengths you'll go to in order to try and gaslight this board.

>>96045987
>The wizard should then start casting on either 2 or 4, and since it takes 8 segments, it finishes either on 10 or 2 next turn.
Magic-User. Yes, according to the OSRIC interpretation. It's not the only interpretation around, but it's probably the most popular.

>If he gets hit before 2 next turn, is his whole "next turn" wasted, since finishing the spell as the declared action?
That's DM interpretation material. I'd personally rule that when a spell spills over to next round
- If the MU is hit on the first round, he loses the spell and the action on the first round, but on the second round he gets to act normally.
- If he gets hit on the second round before the spell is completed, he cannot do anything else the second round.

>>96046036
Alright, makes sense.

Last question, Charging into combat should in the same vein take a single segment, as does Closing into Combat.
All of the listed actions listed in the PHB/DMG and OSIRC would then take one segment to execute, with spellcasting being the obvious outlier?

>>96045679

>>96046121
>Charging into combat should in the same vein take a single segment, as does Closing into Combat.
In OSRIC, yes.
In ADDICT, no: Movement starts at the beginning of the round and is at 1/10th movement speed per segment.

There's pros and cons to both. ADDICT, for example, makes more sense when there's surprise segments. I personally use a hybrid system.

>All of the listed actions listed in the PHB/DMG and OSIRC would then take one segment to execute, with spellcasting being the obvious outlier?
Not really, there's several examples in the DMG of actions taking a few segments, for example drinking a potion.

Also, your interpretation is misleading in the first place: Attacking takes the whole round, the segment you attack on is just when you get an "opening", but you're assumed to be engaging in melee the whole time.

>>96046132
I think your suggestions would make the n00b guide MUCH worse.

>>96046150
Kinda unsurprising since you like OSRIC.

>>96046167
>you like OSRIC
Odd thing to say. I'm actually not such a fan: My own interpretations and house rules differ from it at a bunch of points. I've also criticised the upcoming third edition in past threads.

>>96046167
Let's not start complaining about OSRIC. That's like an infinite can of worms.
Just call it a product of its time (like everything else) and let people enjoy games they enjoy.

>>96046132
>this lone nigger continues on his autistic crusade
How long is it even possible for a person to keep up a struggle this obviously futile?

>>96046150
>misleading
Not my intention, I assure you. I understand that the whole "combat" is an abstraction of the "grand melee".
I'm trying to get a functional grip on the combat, and so far you've given me sound answers.

I would ask what the difference is between OSRIC and ADDICT, but I think that would spark a turf war. So far I like the former's interpretation, because it seems to have less moving parts, and I'll stick with it, until I feel like it's lacking.

Thanks Anon, you've been very concise and considering, cheers for all the help <3

>>96046244
>I would ask what the difference is between OSRIC and ADDICT, but I think that would spark a turf war.
Not very likely here, no, we've never had issues with that as far as I remember. That's only a problem on some specific spaces, this is not one of those.

>So far I like the former's interpretation, because it seems to have less moving parts, and I'll stick with it, until I feel like it's lacking.
OSRIC is definitely easier to get started. And ADDICT has its own problems, chiefly that it uses a form of so-called "quantum initiative": Actions don't always happen on specific segments, but only in relative order to each other, which can be confusing. Which is why I have my own house rules which kinda sit halfway between OSRIC and ADDICT.

>Thanks Anon, you've been very concise and considering, cheers for all the help <3
Glad to help!

>>96046244
>I would ask what the difference is between OSRIC and ADDICT
In brief, OSRIC is an attempt to simplify AD&D initiative (in line with period information on how Gygax et al. actually played) so that it becomes straightforward and easily playable. ADDICT is an attempt to reconcile all the information on how to run initiative and combat generally in the AD&D DMG, leaving as little out as possible. Because statements in the DMG are at times apparently contradictory they've still had to use judgment and make decisions about which approach to use, but there's less of this than you might think (a lot of criticism comes from people who just didn't read the DMG carefully, e.g. I've seen people claim that the thing discussed ITT where an attack against a spellcaster moves to the spellcaster's initiative segment is some sort of incorrect kludge; in fact it's unambiguous RAW as well as clearly the rule as intended).

As you might imagine, this means OSRIC and ADDICT fill two pretty different niches; playability vs. fidelity.

>>96046497
I'm looking to make the game playable and appealing to the layman, so I think I'll skip ADDICT, unless I get some turboautists to play with, since it does sound like a fun experience.

>an attack against a spellcaster moves to his initiative segment
I don't quite follow, do you mean that if a spell casting takes two rounds, if he gets interrupted in the second round, he does nothing?

>>96045263 (OP)
>What's a less talked about OSR or OSR-adjacent system you like?
I enjoy looking at super deconstructed "OSR-inspired" games to see what elements people think are absolutely vital. Like how Mausritter only has 15 spells, and it's kind of curious as to which ones they thought were the most important to have.

>>96046812
No, I mean the thing where if the spellcaster's side wins initiative, say with a 5, and the attacking fighter's side rolls a 4, the fighter's attack nevertheless happens during the spellcaster's segment (DMG 65). That is, you can never be out-initatived from disrupting spellcasting, even if the spell requires only a single segment to cast.

>>96046923
Those recharge conditions (and their ilk) are so funny because casuals read them and think "wow, so evocative!" when if you ever play the game for more than a handful of sessions they inevitably blend into the same "wait three days before you can cast the spell again" blandosity.
At least D&D has the grace to recognize there are more exciting things to focus the game on then recharging spells.

Tell me about the faction conflicts in your megadungeon.
Are they focused on resource scarcity? Territory? Ideological rivalry? Or something else?
Does each floor have its own conflict or do they span multiple floors?
Do your players tend to side with a faction or do they try to play them against each other?

simply eschew segments from your combats

>>96047000
Trips of truth, well I'll be damned.
Applies only to melee spellcasting, but I guess if you got there in the first place it's a deserved hit.

Speaking of, how would enemies go about "breaking through" the front to get to the casters in the back? Aside from slaughtering the frontline?

>>96047014
>At least D&D has the grace to recognize there are more exciting things to focus the game on then recharging spells.
Like material components amirite.

>>96047257
>how would enemies go about "breaking through" the front to get to the casters in the back? Aside from slaughtering the frontline?
Overbearing

>>96047345
I like material components but we don't get very granular with them. Magic User can, and should, have a component pouch that he can refill as appropriate. We only get specific with components that are expensive or rare, like valuable pearls for Identify.

>>96047345
Another reason why BX is the superior game

>>96046150
ADDICT's kinda dumb in any case.
It runs way worse than the OSRIC method and isn't how it was actually played by the games creators. The only raison d'être for it's existence is it's supposed RAW purism except it adds in the author's houserules that go directly against the DMG so it doesn't really manage that either.

>>96046244
>I would ask what the difference is between OSRIC and ADDICT
OSRIC is based on how Gygax and everyone at TSR actually played and ran it at conventions and it runs really well in practice.
ADDICT is a compilation document based on a poll of a couple of Dragonsfoot's guys interpretation of the rules that in practice is overcomplicated, runs badly and includes objectively incorrect stuff like bow init and multi-attacks. More or less houserules.
Imo the latter just goes to show that people are easily impressed by people quoting a lot and there being no other PDF floating about until OSRIC came along, i've seen more than one guy from different crowds (DF included) who considers ADDICT to be a troll document.

>>96047596
>isn't how it was actually played by the games creators.
I think we should be well past the point of caring about that or pretending it ever really mattered.

>>96047681
Naw, i'm here to play actual D&D with the playstyle it was designed for so I care about what actually works.

>>96047700
>actual D&D with the playstyle it was designed for
By people who weren't exactly perfect with their designs.
Appeals to Authority/Tradition etc., especially when done by people who don't actually know how older games were actually run, don't really amount for much.

and so the wheel turns, another fruitless argument begins

hope everyone has some good times playing good games in the near future!

>>96047681
I'd have to be a real dumbass to ignore actual play examples from the people who wrote the system over critical exegesis type nonsense. We know that's what they meant because they actually showed it in play.
>>96047765
I'm aware Gygax stopped using some things but I prefer to find out if it's to my taste or not when I play it as written and intended.
What I don't need is someone to tell me to ignore my lying eyes and play their 'interpretation' when it's clearly wrong by every metric.

>>96047681
>>96047700
>>96047765
>>96047796
Guys let's just nip this in the bud now:
You're both right.
Now please let this rest so the thread doesn't devolve into the same tedious argument that's happened 1000000(0000)x already.

>>96047257
Overbearing, flanking (especially in a wider space than a 10' corridor), striking past the first rank with a longer pole weapon. It depends on the size and depth of the party, of course, but if you encounter a party of 4-5 adventurers they're unlikely to even be able to hold a ranked formation in a normal passage and you can probably just charge past them.

>>96047596
>it adds in the author's houserules that go directly against the DMG
Name one. I don't think ADDICT is even one person's work, it was a collaborative effort on DF or K&KA IIRC.

>>96047824
They're really not both right but the antigaxler isn't going to cause any actual damage with his sperging so I agree we should let it go, just report him and let him keep talking his bawwing nonsense.

>>96047796
You'd need to be a real dumbass to blindly believe in an imaginary version of a designer and his perfection, and be unwilling to consider that maybe, just maybe, they didn't achieve the best game ever designed with their first go.
>We know that's what they meant because they actually showed it in play.
It's much more open to interpretation that you're letting on, particularly with your insistence that OSRIC is, sigh, based on the "true" way that Gygax and everyone at TSR played, when it's really more of just what Finch liked.

What we know about how Gygax played is that it was far from consistent, and even trying to lay the claim that any system is based on how the games were actually played is incredibly deceitful, like telling someone a crayon is the color of the sky. Gygax would often say one thing while doing another, and flip between being strict and lenient without any explanation, which makes modeling a singular system after how he played essentially impossible. Gygax would contradict the DMG constantly, the DMG would contradict itself, and in the end we really need to ask where the value in all this ends.

It's like medieval music. On one hand, it's impressive that people can try and recreate songs from a time when musical notation was considerably looser, but we need to appreciate just how much is a matter of interpretation (and it being considerable). And, in the end, we sort of have to also recognize that a lot of medieval music isn't exactly easy listening.

>>96047963
It's not being "anti-gygax" to recognize the man as being human, unless you wish to admit that being "Gygaxian" is all about an attempt for deification.
You're so far in the extremes that you unironically use an interpretation of him as a blind and blanket Appeal to Authority. You do understand that's a fallacy, right?

>>96047944
All the bow rules for one. They give preferential treatment of their init and give them multi-attacks which the DMG doesn't allow.

>>96047965
Gygax is the actual designer of the game, wrote the text and has final say on what he actually meant by it.
I won't be discussing this any further with you however since you've made it clear from previous interactions that you have ill-intentions and only post to bait out people, not to argue in good faith.

>>96048105
>Gygax is the actual designer of the game, wrote the text and has final say on what he actually meant by it.
Gygax was one among many designers, and he even disagreed with himself.
>has final say on what he actually meant by it.
I highly recommend you visit the dragonsfoot forums and read through some of Gary's posts. It should really help you understand that he was not only human, but his "final say" on anything was always shifting and changing.

> not to argue in good faith.
And this is coming from Mr. Appeal to Authority.
You want to pretend there is some sort of... finality. Some kind of trump card that can force people to agree with you, but the problem is that your trump card is "You need to believe this because the sacred text written by St. Gygax is the only truth" and even Gygax wants you to know that he's just some bloke and his opinions are not worth more than anyone else's.

>>96047944
No, it was the creation of a DF poster called DMPrata.

>>96047944
>Name one.
NTA. No source is given for text boxed in green.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate ADDICT as an attempt to get DMG+PHB to work by the book, but it has its fair share of subjective interpretations.

>>96048328
Not to mention it actually plays worse on the table than actually looking at how the TSR people played.

>>96047963
>isn't going to cause any actual damage
Well unless someone responds to him at all in which case the thread will lose several dozen posts as seen in previous threads.

>>96048078
Okay, citing the UA does technically count as disagreeing with the DMG, I'll give you that. I don't really think it fits the spirit of "adding in the author's houserules", though.

>>96048328
This on the other hand is clearly a house rule or at the very least a personal interpretation, but it seems not to directly contradict the DMG, on the other hand.

What would you guys say are some definitive OSR books everyone should own regardless of system?
For me it's the DMG 1E for obvious reasons but even just the wilderness/hex stuff is reason enough, one iteration of the Ready Ref Sheets/City Encounters/Nocturnal Tables/Encounters reference and a city book like City-State of the Invincible Overlord/Midkemia's Cities.

>>96048597
If we're talking rules references
*only*, I would say the only must-haves are the DMG and the Ready Ref Sheets. I've never seen any other third-party rules reference that rises to the Ready Ref Sheets' level of general utility.

If we're broadening it from there into modules and so on, I would add:
• CSIO
• First Wilderlands set, or all of them for the maps
• The Monster Overhaul
• Khosura
• Staffortonshire Trading Company Works

>>96048597
>What would you guys say are some definitive OSR books everyone should own regardless of system?
I'm allergic to system-neutral stuff, but I would add Wilderness Hexplore to your otherwise list. Adding notes.

>Ready Ref Sheets
Judges Guild

>City Encounters
There's many products with this name, but I presume you mean Matt Finch's one.

>Nocturnal Tables
Nocturnal Table. EMDT 57, Melan. Meant as a nighttime companion to Finch's City Encounters.

>Encounters reference
B. Scot Hoover, CDD#4

>City-State of the Invincible Overlord
Judges Guild

>Midkemia's Cities
I have the 4th edition, but I haven't looked at it yet. Is the 5th edition worth pirating?

>>96048778
>I have the 4th edition, but I haven't looked at it yet. Is the 5th edition worth pirating?
Don't know I have an older one too.

>>96048597
Ready Ref Sheets. How else am I supposed to calculate the exact bust and waist measurements of every female NPC?

>>96049030
How often do those come up?

>>96045707
>if im understanding ADND combat correctly
You seem to misunderstand completely. To understand AD&D correctly you must adhere to the text, the wise and advanced words of E. Gary Gygax (play be upon him). And ONLY the texts, NOT hearsay and "back in my day". You don't rely on mom-science and anecdotes IRL either when trying to apply abstract systems (e.g. math) to reality, don't you?

Pic related. Initiative in AD&D i as follows: the higher initiative (on 1d6) goes first and does all their actions, including spells and mêllé-ing ("strike blows").

Only on simultaneous initiative can segments EVER be relevant. Jumping into roundly counting segments as if the RPG is a photo-finish at a racetrack is EXACTLY the kind of simulationism that our prophet Gygax (play be upon him) has warned against on page 10 of the DMG.
>Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school.

You CANNOT neglect the fundamentals of AD&D if you wish to have fun with it. Otherwise you end up with a simulationist boondoggle that will please no one at your table.

>>96049094
>Only on simultaneous initiative can segments EVER be relevant
I know you're here to troll and report people but have you even played AD&D? Ever read the DMG explaining spells rolling over?
Seriously what the hell.

>>96049094
>You CANNOT neglect the fundamentals of AD&D if you wish to have fun with it.
This almost sounds less like you're actually having fun and more like you're just willing to put up with certain things for non-fun-related reasons.

>>96045872
>You're both wrong.
No, that anon ( >>96045727 ) is absolutely correct, for he follows the procedures laid out in the DMG by Earnest Gary Gygax (play be upon him).
Pic related.

As with all things AD&D: ALWAYS read, NEVER assume.
Do this and your enjoyment will increase tenfold.

>>96049149
He's a troll. Note that he never actually contributes to the general at all just instigates shit, handwaves away talking about what he actually plays and people who argue with him all mysteriously end up getting their posts deleted.

>>96049123
>Ever read the DMG explaining spells rolling over?
Can you refer me to the appropriate book passage, please? As far as I have read, this is only a thing during surprise situations.

>>96049149
>and more like you're just willing to put up with certain things for non-fun-related reasons.
On the contrary. Like EGG (play be upon him) I reject the simulationist attempts (some might even call them 'heresies') at warping AD&D into something that it is not.
Pic related.

For example I ignore the (frankly retarded) surprise rules (1.5 pages, hoh-lee-shit) and go with flat 1d6 rolls only modified by monster abilities and role-play circumstances.

>simulationism/realism/gamism/narrativism

I'm actually kind of amazed people still bring up those sort of outdated game theory ideas. They were already largely on their way out around 2005, and I thought by 2010 everyone had wised up a little, but here it's already 2025 and people are still taking those things seriously for some reason.

>>96049179
PHB on Casting Time outlining how many segments are in a round and rounds in a turn.
Pic related as well.

>>96049299
>sort of outdated game theory ideas.
Care to enlighten us on the current state of game theory in relation to the cobtemporary OSR then?

>>96049299
Much like the 3x3 grid of alignment it's useless for specific stuff but it can be sort of useful as a starting point if people actually know what they mean. No game is going to be 100% of any of them and you can't be like this game is 40% Gamist 40% Narrativist and 20% Simulationist but as an overall starting goal it can be a decent shorthand for the vibe you want out of a system.

>>96049320
>PHB on Casting Time
I'm afraid you are mistaken. The PHB mentions nothing about spells rolling over into the next round.
You seem to be relying on 30 years after the fact hearsay on some forum where they are discussing houserules.

>>96049320
You haven't posted any PHB passages though? Sorry for being pedantic.

>>96048778
>Nocturnal Tables
>Nocturnal Table. EMDT 57, Melan. Meant as a nighttime companion to Finch's City Encounters.
This reminded me: Melan's The Trail of the Sea-Demon is easily the best shorter OSR module. Well worth a buy, and it includes/incorporates his earlier freebie wizard heist, The House of Rogat Demazien.

>>96049320
>PHB on Casting Time outlining how many segments are in a round and rounds in a turn.
>Pic related as well.
Sorry for being pedantic before, I deleted the offending posts.
After re-reading the PHB passages, I now see my mistake.
>regardless of surprise
And all.

>>96049178
>Inverted DMG Anon is a troll
I think we all know who the troll is.

>>96049415
No worries. There's also the DMG Spell Casting During Melee first line "Their commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time." which Gary further explains in that pic.
But I don't find segments to be super nitty gritty really. Most of the time it's just a way to tell if you can disrupt a spellcaster or move before the other side gets to do stuff by comparison.

>>96049178
>handwaves away talking about what he actually plays
Dude, I obviously play AD&D 1e. Why else would I exclusively post screenshots of the PHB and DMG?

>>96049430
>>96049448
My bad, I misread the post as being fully sarcastic and thought he was the same guy further up who always starts shit about Gygax and 1E at first glance. Only now that you mention it did I check and saw it was a legit post.

>>96049324
There's a mixed bag of approaches to that question, but I personally think that GNS theory in particular fell apart when people started to pick at how these terms were used more often as excuses rather than reasons.
The ideal mechanics are easy to use, don't break verisimilitude, generate interesting outcomes, and so on and so forth. Taking a bad mechanic and saying "It's fine that it's not easy to use, I care more about it being realistic" or "The systems can be as much of a mess as it wants to be because its a narrativist gamist system" is basically trying to sell people on one or two legged stools.
They're incredible oversimplifications that don't recognize overlap and are also far from being comprehensive. Narrativist in particular is a bizarre one, and I think largely came about as an attempt to classify rules-lite systems but managing to miss the mark hard.

>>96047373
>Overbearing
Nu uh, I still have Hit Points.

>>96049465
Huh, okay, yeah, I can actually see that one, alright. Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men!

>>96049465
>and thought he was the same guy further up who always starts shit about Gygax and 1E at first glance.
No biggie.
You can always recognize my posts by the DMG/PHB screenshots taken in "night contrast" mode, unlike that guy who only posts walls of text. I wouldn't dream of disparaging the EGG, who has given us uncreatives so much.
t. "reversefaggot"

>>96049349
>it can be a decent shorthand for the vibe you want out of a system.
I disagree heavily with this. When people are looking for a system, they shouldn't be forced to compare games based on vague compromises.
I think Board Games have actually done a surprisingly good job with just the information of age range, how long it takes to play, and a community aggregated assessment of complexity, and something like the last part being by far more important than any question of GNS.
While "Realistic/Simulationist" games tend to trend towards complexity and "Narrativist" games trend downwards, it's not always true, and worse still it doesn't appreciate that game complexity isn't neccearily even tied to something like rule density.
People still use Newtownian Physics despite them being outdated because for daily usage, they're not going to produce wrong results. GNS really doesn't offer much beyond heavily loaded phrases and vague vibe checks, the kind of oversimplifications that lead to bridge collapses.

What are some of the looming evil threats of your campaigns anon?
Your Iuz invaders, world emperors half-demons, warlords with orc hordes, demon worshippers, arch-devils, evil gods, scarlet brotherhood etc.
I'm in need of some inspiration.

>>96049588
>uncreatives
That explains everything about you quite succinctly.

>>96049588
Cool, I hadn't seen your posts before but I also haven't been to osrg recently.

>>96049639
It's... it's almost too real.

I had a feeling the Gygax-worship was a case of the one-eyed man leading the blind, but to just out and admit that is where it's hard to guess if he's even aware what that says about him.

>>96049077
Every time a female NPC is introduced, of course.

>>96049639
>>96049701
Not quoted but i've sat through enough games by people who imagine themselves 'creatives' to know just how boring their games tend to be.

>>96049746
I've played with uncreative people.
I wonder if you need me to tell you how much they sucked.

>>96049639
>>96049701
Quick, give us your best example of creative original content to prove you're not larping

>>96049805
A town besieged by animated and angry amphoras that have escaped from a massive mass-production kiln, made from clay taken from what once was a troll battleground, soaked in decades of troll blood.
The owner of the kiln is dead within his studio, with a grotesque pottery monster shaped vaguely like a woman continuing to destroy the building.

>>96049628
The lunar prophets. The cursed and ageless descendants of mankind, they ride comets and solar winds down to earth. They look more like abyssal long limbed squids than humans, floating slowly in the darkness of the dungeon.

They still remember where the nukes are. Their laughs sound like the clicks of a Geiger counter.

>>96049608
All those elements you mentioned are important of course but the overall vibe of the system, what it's trying to accomplish is a big thing that can be used to start from. Board games have really broad categories like Eurogames that within that category can differ greatly but it's still a decent place to start talking about what type of game you might want to play. Even if GURPS didn't have a ton of complexity it's still trying to model reality in a way something like Masks isn't. I don't agree with the exact specifications of GNS or the outcomes it tries to assert for game design, but categorizing games by what they're trying to do can be helpful, though certainly not enough by itself to recommend a game.

Ultimately this is just my personal experiences talking about TTRPGs with people so I'm definitely not trying to push it as a Good Thing in game design. Like I said, alignment is basically useless but when someone starts the conversation with "I'm thinking of playing a Lawful Good character" you have a touchstone to start with that will quickly narrow down the space you're working in. The borders are fuzzy and everyone has a different conception of what that means but there's a lot of shared space, the Venn Diagram of everyone's Lawful Good has a decent amount of overlap. As long as people aren't arguing about definitions but just talking about the character from that point the Lawful Good starting point isn't terrible.

>>96049899
Respect that you actually responded.
Animated amphoras are rather lame but the troll blood clay is cool. I like the woman pottery monster but "man destroyed by his own creation" isn't particularly novel.
Overall 7/10, gj.

I made a dungeon at work cause I was bored.

>>96050176
Da map for it. Little micro-thingy, but had some fun with random generators

>>96050176
Put it next to the Blacker Well.
Same opening lines, slightly different contents.

>>96047765
Not an argument.

>>96049701
>but to just out and admit that is where it's hard to guess if he's even aware what that says about him.
Was EGG (pbuh) uncreative because appendix N exists?

>>96049899
>town siege railroad
>non-negotiable enemies
>relies on MM trolls which are already a monster
5/10
>>96050026
>The moooooon maaaannn
>ancient cursed blahablahblah
>hecking tentacles
>bbeg plot
3/10

Neither of those have anything gameable its just ideas guy trop blending. .

I’m thinking about monster ecology today

I’m gonna write my own green skin taxonomy. I have some ideas ranging from generic to what I think interesting, which I will share once I compile a document.

What I am curious about and would like the general’s perspective on: Bugbears

Do they fit into the modern goblinoid/orcoid schema , are they magic , and they a weird offshoot , legend , alien entirely , more related to owlbears , etc

Cheers and hope you all have had good games recently or will have them soon

>>96055447
I'm generally against formalized monster taxonomy; I just lump all humanoids from goblins to orcs to ogres and trolls to hill giants in the semivague category of "fomorian" (how people in the setting refer to them) and leave it at that.
Fomorians are all weird and mystical and don't abide by normal human logic—they're living creatures but they don't abide by the rules of biology as we understand them. They're anathema to humans on a macro scale but on an interpersonal level they can be negotiated with.
Bugbears in particular are like the bogeyman—they hide in closets, abduct children, and leave creepy omens around town, but are not particularly organized or militant. You're never going to see a bugbear soldier or bugbear army, but you stalked by a few of them if you stay out too late in the woods.
Also pumpkin-headed bugbears only. Leave the bear-nosed ones at home

Change my view: "Combat as a fail state" is FOE.

>>96058121
You're five different types of gay.

>reinvents THACO, but worse
>makes magic-users better
macris is a retard, not a nazi

>>96058121
This take is basically noncontroversial at this point.
Everyone knows combat is a fully realized dimension, and everyone has already discussed how the claim is a generalization with many significant caveats and qualifications.

>>96058291
>brigades the LGBT+ reddit OSR
>gets pissed when the LGBT+ reddit OSR retaliates in the most predictable manner possible
It's like watching a two-year-old learn to not burn himself on a candle except this is a grown man getting pissed that the candle won't let him touch it

>>96058291

>>96058600
There was no pro-Macris brigade, it was just the organic increase of activity that always happens with kickstarters. If that was a brigade, then every moderately successful kickstarter is a brigade.

The actual brigade were Yochai Gal, the Mongrel Banquet Club, and their flying monkeys who started an anti-Macris campaign saying he's a Nazi and other bullshit like that.

https://old.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/17fjy02/alexander_macris_the_creator_of_adventurer/

>>96058291
As if those arent somehow the same thing.

17 sessions into Stonehell now. Fairly short, but weekly, games. Characters are mostly around 2nd to 3rd level because they've been each playing a few different characters and we've had 3 deaths. Players have only explored about half of the first floor but also detoured to do stuff outside of the dungeon for a few sessions.

So far they've really been enjoying it. Current party is two fighters, a druid and a cleric. No thief is risky but the party managed to avoid a trapped chest today with good play. Overall, it's been a fantastic campaign and I look forward to game night each week.

>>96058600
none of that shit happened.
>>96058642
Because youre a nogames.
>>96061055
maybe on planet (You)

>>96061184
Cope. The post.

>>96061197
Please just ignore him.

>>96061138
>and I look forward to game night each week.
I am happy for you, anon.
t. weekly game enjoyer

>>96061371
>(Dead)
Stop posting off-topic things that are worth getting deleted.

What's your favorite part of the Adventurer Conqueror King System™ by Alexander Macris (pbuh)?

>>96061138
absolutely based, I love stonehell. best encounter story so far?

How does Robert S. Conley's
>Blackmarsh / Wild North / Points of Light / Majestic Fantasy Realms
hold up against Wilderlands of High Fantasy?

>>96055806
>fomorian
Very good alternative to "giant-type", nice one, Anon!

Can't help but envision a monster taxonomy now that goes Nemedians, Fomorians, Milesians, creatures of God (i.e. mainly angels).

>>96061970
Yesterday had a pretty good one.
>Party encounters Chaotic Acolytes guarding door in hallway
>Tepid reaction. Mild banter but non hostile.
>Party decides they want to see what these guys are guarding.
>Druid and fighter make like they're discussing their next move a short distance from the guards while the fighter surreptitiously pours two pints of oil across the hallway.
>Fighter returns to guards, immediately turns and boots in the crypt door across from them.
>Ghoul emerges.
>Fighter runs across oil as Druid lights it.
>Ghoul begins slaughtering Acolytes
>Party rains arrows into the melee.
>Ghoul survives and charges across the dying flames into the party.
>Dwarf Cleric caves Ghoul's head in with his mace as he reaches the party.

>>96064662
That's the kind of badass shit I wish my players would do

I'm looking for a meme comparing 5E with OSR where the 5E character has a rich history from the beginning but little development, and the OSR character starts out as just Bob but ends up with all the interesting lore

>>96068233
You're welcome.

>>96068233

>>96068582
Thx mate

>>96047014
isn't that literally the opposite?
The D&D spell system is "wait three days before you can cast the spell again"
Having recharge conditions is literally the opposite. It doesn't matter how much you wait, you're not getting the spell back.

Well...except for the literal "wait 3 days" recharge conditions. Those are retarded. They should really be something that you could feasibly do outside of the dungeon if you went out of your way to do it, but not something the dm could just handwave with "ok you do it during downtime".

Though that's probably literally the point of all those "wait 3 days" conditions so they can be handwaved and recharged when returning to the dungeon.

>>96047014
>At least D&D has the grace to recognize there are more exciting things to focus the game on then recharging spells.
Perhaps that is the case in Basic. Not so in Advanced, where it can come down to exact turn counts in determining whether Battlemage Bob has another Fireball or not before he is called to defend against the next siege assault.
And that's a good thing.

>>96058121
"combat as a fail state" is just shorthand for "combat does not exist solely for the players to win or for plot to be advanced"
This idea is completely different from modern storygaming, where the assumption is that if combat is happening the players will win or the DM made a mistake.

Is there documentation anywhere of the changes that were made in each printing/edition of Castles & Crusades?

>>96069807
I think you and I basically agree; if a spell recharge conditions actually had bearing on the decisions players make (ie certain spells could only be recharged at specific locations in the hex map, or required petitioning an astral entity that could only be contacted during the night of the new moon, etc.) then it might be interesting. But if the recharge condition is "go a day without opening your eyes" or "let the spell sit in a box for three days" then how could it possibly not get handwaved after a few sessions? It's game design meant to be interesting to read, not interesting to play.
>>96071327
You are correct, but in the sense that in AD&D focuses on the important part of spell recharge (the time expenditure) and not whatever inevitably handwaved action goes into spell recharging.

I ran a session recently with a bunch of newish players. The party faced off against a giant crab. A player wanted to pole-vault onto the crabs back with his 10'-pole and then hammer an iron spike into the crab's brain. Before I tell you what I did, I want to know: how would you adjudicate this?

>>96073369
Eww.

>>96073560
Melee attack roll at -8. If it hits, I'd ballpark the damage from an iron spike at 1d2.

>>96073586
That's too generous. Ten-foot-poles are not sturdy enough to vault on them, let alone elastic enough. I'd rule that the pole breaks and the PC has to make a dexterity check to avoid taking 1d4 damage.

>>96047965
You are in every single thread just to cry and stomp your feet about how much you hate based gygax (pbuh)

>>96068233

>>96073560
is he a thief-acrobat?
if not, find a better way.
>>96073635
retarded reasoning

>>96073586
>>96073635
Wow you both are no fun. I said roll under dex to get on the crab's back, next round roll under dex again to stay balanced, take the lesser of two attack rolls to hammer the spike in, and on a success the crab saves vs. death. The player failed the attack roll the first round but managed to stay managed to stay balanced for another round and nailed the crab. It was an electric moment for the newbies.

>>96073927
yeah, i often hold the bike when my son is learning his tranining wheels.
doesnt make either of them healthy or beneficial in the long-run

>>96073927
>three rounds wasted
>one attack dependent on four separate rolls
retards all around imo

>>96073927

>>96073935
Not that serious
>>96073953
At that point the only other PC that was engaged in combat had died and the rest of the party was behind a portcullis (classic falling-gate-splits-the-party trap). It was either try something radical or risk two 2d6 pincer attacks. Players didn't figure out that the crab could only detect moving creatures, but whateva. How would you have ruled it?

>>96073985
Disapproving is easy but let's see what you would have done

>>96074001
>>96073635

>>96073991
>Not that serious
then dont reply
>>96073991
>How would you have ruled it
by telling them they arent an acrobat, theyre likely to fail. Try attacking or running, or making a better plan.

OSR doesn't actually emulate Appendix N literature. Sword & Sorcery isn't possible.

>>96074095
>then dont reply
No I think you should know, for your sake, that it's not that serious. You sound like you DM with a stick up your ass

>>96074111
>tell you that handholding bad player ideas isnt good for your games
>BUT ITS NOT THAT SERIOUS
stfu you insipid retard, you asked for advice and got it.

>>96073991
at that point both you and the player were worthless morons

>>96074106
nogames troll shitpost

>>96073369
There doesn't seem to be a single changelog anywhere but they talk about some of the changes here: https://forum.rpg.net/threads/c-c-differences-in-castles-and-crusades-printings.714959/

>>96074348
Yep. They're making up a cope for why they don't have games lol. Games aren't worth playing anyway because they don't satisfy [arbitrary autistic criteria]

Had session 41 of my groups BFRPG campaign. I put Black Wyrm of Brandonsford on the edge of one region, and the players just stopped there on the way through. Was a great game. They explored the woods and puttered around town doing little sidequests. They're gonna be leaving next session, but I'll have it so that in future sessions down the road they'll hear about the decline of Brandonsford until they deal with the "Dragon" (Which I've reflavored as a linnorm, because true Dragons come with their own implications in my setting.)

>>96075270
dogshit game. hard pass, shant be reading

>>96074309
I think the difference is I want to promote those kind of swashbuckling deeds in my game and you don't. Agree to disagree
>>96074316
How would you adjudicate it? What about what I wrote indicates I am a worthless moron?

>>96073927
Sounds like you and your players had fun anon.

I wouldn’t have allowed vaulting with the ten foot pole but everything else tracks. Perhaps a penalty to the DEX checks, given the player was not playing an acrobat. Allowing two attacks without the crab defending itself/bucking the player (especially with the first set of unmodified DEX checks) was perhaps a bit too generous as well.

But the new players are probably excited to play again and sounds like you are happy with your game so far as well.

Cheers

>>96073560
I use the DCC mighty deed rules for fighters so I'd probably rule it they'd need a successful deed to get on the crab's back and then maybe an attack roll with a penalty to nail the spike in. The player would need to be really specific with how they are carrying the spikes because I'm not letting anyone dig through their backpack while on top of a giant crab.

>>96074001
>what you would have done
"Roll a new character." An epic death by Giant Crab is far better than that bullshit you've allowed him to do.

>>96075608
>I allow characters to vault on top of Giant Crabs with a ten-foot-pole, but I draw my line at where on his character sheet he's written he's carrying his spikes.

>>96075673
Games run best when they're best and retarded in equal measure

>>96075657
Ah but you see I am merely the impartial arbiter; the dice decide if a character dies.

What are your thoughts on poisons or other effects dealing ability score damage in OSR? Obviously it wouldn't have as much impact as it did in 3.5 due to how the modifiers link to the scores, but I still like the concept. Does it ever work for you or no?

>>96075897
There's already canon effects like that in existence, such as the Yellow Musk Creeper, so I don't see it as a big deal. I have undead drain Strength temporarily instead of levels.

>>96075754
belt pouch, any other dumb questions?

>>96073560
Probably would determine if they were able to pole-vault onto the crab by class & dexterity score (If they could do it, they simply do it as their movement that round- if not I tell them they know they couldn't pull it off. Fighter in leather with high Dex can do it just fine, but in maille not so much. Magic-user can't do it unless he has a high Dex. A thief can do it no matter what their Dex is, as they're trained.)

Once atop it, they would certainly be the target of it's next attack unless it was vitally distracted by other combatants. If they don't get snipped to death on the next turn, I would treat the iron spike as a normal attack vs. the crab's AC, dealing normal damage. However- on subsequent rounds, the spike would remain in place in it's brain, and subsequent hammering of it would be attacks vs. AC10.

a semi meme answer to the pole vaulting on a crab question, but a thief acrobat would be able to do it without a role as written, and it seems a 10' pole is what he is allowed to use
its up to you what you think a non-TA character could do by rolling
although i think based on the giant crabs size, a pole vault wouldnt actually be totally necessary

How do you handle it when a player wants to attack a specific part of an enemy's body? Like someone who snuck up on a sleeping giant and wants to cut his throat, or walloping someone in the head who's unaware? Assuming the PC isn't a thief.

>>96077311
In case of no surprise/coup de grâce situation: Adjust to-hit roll to be more difficult by however many points = (hit location table index count + 1)/2, rounded up. If your hit location table is too large you'll need to prorate this number to align more with whatever you roll to-hit.
In case of coup de grâce situation it's much more interesting to see what else happens than leaving to-hit or even damage to dive, rather being spotted, caught, an unexpected sound occuring, someone rounding a corner, etc. are the more interesting things to roll for to see how the situation might be complicated.

>>96077554
How do you make a hit location table compatible with this procedure? I'm not familiar with the idea. Are there examples?

>>96077554
retarded
>>96077311
sleeping means they can be killed with a sufficient weapon.
Called shot to a target? -4 to hit.

>>96077554
>For a relative 50% penalty to hit you get a 100% chance to kill instead of just doing damage.
Congratulations, your players are now doing this every round against all opponents that they need three or more hits to kill on average.

>>96077311
Calling the shot on a specific "hit location" is fluff with no game effect unless the rulebook entry gives a specific AC for specific locations, e.g. the Beholder.

As for your examples:

>someone who snuck up on a sleeping giant and wants to cut his throat
Like with 95% of unaddressed issues with B/X, the answer to this is in the DMG, which is why it's, required reading. Page 70.

>walloping someone in the head who's unaware?
You don't even need the DMG for this, there's an official rule in B/X for it, for fuck's sake. Against an unaware but awake opponent you make a standard attack at +2 to hit in B/X by the book, ignore Dexterity bonuses and shield, normal damage on a hit. +4 to hit and double damage for a Thief of course.

>>96077684
>How do you make a hit location table
You don't: This is D&D, not Runequest or Hârnmaster. Don't mess with core rules, combat in D&D is abstracted for a reason, preventing it from turning into a slog.

>>96078299
bx addresses it thobeitever

>playing bx
Nonce behavior.

So the 2efag shifted to just being relentlessly negative this thread and shitting on any rulings and creativity, huh?

>>96077311
In the case of a sleeping enemy, supposing the sneaking up without waking it was accomplished the job is already done; that's an automatic kill. I might allow a save vs. death for a huge and/or armored enemy like a giant or dragon, but serious damage would be incurred even on a successful save, something like OD&D's save vs. poison leading to half your max HP in damage if successful. For called shots generally I agree with >>96078299 that they should not have an in-game effect unless specified by a monster entry. Disarms are best handled as a consequence of beating the opponent down to 0 HP – a narrative framing of beating someone but leaving him alive – and called shots for the purpose of e.g. plinking a potion before the enemy can drink it are best left unallowed, as players will quickly tire of such tactics when used against them.

>>96073560
Make a normal attack. The effectiveness of the attempt depends on the roll. If they miss they fumble, if they hit they do their normal damage.
But the trick is to trick them into thinking they did something. Roll a save vs death behind the screen. If the crab fails then I'll decide based on their damage roll.

>>96077311
>How do you handle it when a player wants to attack a specific part of an enemy's body?
I don't. AD&D doesn't deal with that level of detail.
>Like someone who snuck up on a sleeping giant and wants to cut his throat
That'd be different. I use AD&D DMG rules, if it's out of combat then it's a roll on the assassination tables for the sleeping opponent regardless of player class (unless it's magical sleep which is an auto-success) and if in combat and there's an enemy who can interfere then it's two-auto hit attacks at full damage. They can at most kill one asleep npc per round.
>or walloping someone in the head who's unaware?
Rear attack, +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield and dexterity bonuses.
If thief or assassin it's a backstab which is like the above but +4 to hit instead and damage is doubled/tripled/quadrupled depending on the PC's level.

So many games use the AD&D or 3e ruleset- but usually only the combat and character class rules.
Why aren't there any games that are based on the BX ruleset?
Even just the reaction rules would make D&D style videogame rpgs more interesting but there doesn't seem to be any games that use them. God forbid the goblin npcs decide that you're a cool guy instead of being murder automatons that will only stop when either you or them are dead. Tying into another missing feature- no morale rules. God forbid npcs flee and stop fighting. Skyrim is infamous for npcs who "surrender" only to immediately start trying to fight again.

>>96080622
Reaction rolls for encounters and Morale rolls for monsters that aren't fearless are both in 1E.
As for why games don't adapt them, i'd guess it was either considered not the focus of the game or too much work or the devs simply didn't know the systems.

>>96078299

>>96078309
I'm talking about particular situations where someone has an opportunity to attack a specific part of an enemy. This isn't a rule that would be coming up normally in combat and slowing it down.

>>96080149
I disagree about disarms. My players recently fought a revenant with an OP magical sword and took great pains to restrain him as much as possible while they hacked at his arm to get him to drop the sword. It was cool, and involved creative uses of, and potential sacrifices of, the resources they had. I see no reason to make a moment like that impossible.

>>96082030
>I disagree about disarms.
That's your prerogative. My immediate question would be what exactly is your plan for when the PCs start to try to disarm everything with a weapon and monsters thus start doing the same to them, but that's your business too.

>>96082302
Not quoted but there are disarm rules in UA.
I'm not using them for similar reasons in that I don't want to encourage having disarms left and right from enemies and hirelings.

>>96082008
>I'm talking about particular situations where someone has an opportunity to attack a specific part of an enemy.
It doesn't change anything, the damage is still only HP.

>>96082302
>My immediate question would be what exactly is your plan for when the PCs start to try to disarm everything with a weapon and monsters thus start doing the same to them, but that's your business too.
NTA. DMG Weaponless Combat.

>>96082302
You don't do damage when you disarm normally. So most of the time it's not optimal. The revenant specifically had a really good weapon and was restrained with his arm sticking out.

What's the best game for Sword & Sorcery?

As someone new to DMing OSR games, I'm a bit confused on how to adjudicate the use of a 10 foot pool. One player who carried it at the front of the party said "I'm poking the ground in front of us like a blind dude using a cane so I shouldn't fall into any pit traps", I took it that the pole counted as an extra 2-6 chance for the trap to be sprung and he got mad when he did actually fall into the pit.
How is it supposed to be used? The book just says you can use it to poke traps and chests and shit to see what happens.

>>96085327
>the pole counted as an extra 2-6 chance for the trap to be sprung
youre doing it right

>>96085236
They changed the name to just Hyperborea in their third edition and I don't know what they changed in it.

>>96085236
Any of the first decade D&D editions.

>>96085387
Yeah, no. Hyperborea is a shitbrew based on "AD&D" 2e, and as a consequence it includes bullshit like XP for story goals and showing up. Picrel. If you want to know what the problems are with that are from the /osrg/ point of view, it's discussed in detail in the n00b guide:
https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0B

>>96085327
>>96085368
>>the pole counted as an extra 2-6 chance for the trap to be sprung
>youre doing it right
Not really. I treat it as a *separate* 2-in-6 chance of springing the trap with the pole, 10' in front of the character instead of by stepping on it.

With many traps, this means that it is sprung safely: the pit opens in front of you, the arrows shoot in front of you. Only with an area of effect trap greater than 10' would the person with the ten-foot-pole be affected, for instance a gas affecting a whole room, or a ceiling collapse affecting a 30' by 30' section.

>>96085501
>Not really
>goes on to describe what I said
"extra" *is* seperate, dingus. The extra 2 in 6 is the pole's chance, and its always in front (unless for some reason otherwise specified)

>>96085533
Sounds like you didn't really read the post you were replying to, then. He had the character fall into the pit trap because he wasn't distinguishing between the two, he just treated it as an extra probability for the same thing to happen.
>>96085327

>>96085583
No, the anon here >>96085533 got what I was saying, sorry I didn't make it more clear. What I meant is that I rolled for the trap twice: Once for the pole and once for the player. If the pole springs the trap, the player is fine so long as he's out of range for the trap's effect (like a pit trap or blades swinging across)

First roll (pole) didn't spring the trap and the second one (player) did. The player was complaining because he wanted the pole to essentially substitute for him and basically make him immune from traps with floor mechanisms (ie, if the pole springs the trap, he's safe since it opens in front of him. If the pole DOESN'T spring the trap, I should not roll for him to spring the trap when he walks over it since he "already checked" that area).

Did something happen to the O-S-Rchive?

>>96078263
>Congratulations, your players are now doing this every round against all opponents that they need three or more hits to kill on average.
Go Yourself with Gygax, Fellow Osr Enthusiast.

>>96085614
>player was complaining because he wanted the pole to essentially substitute for him and basically make him immune from traps with floor mechanisms
Did you explain the mechanics to him when he said he was going to tap the floor? That's information I usually share with the players precisely to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.

>>96085974
Yep. I find that telling the players "I may allow this, but how will you feel if monsters do the same to you" gets the message across most of the times.

>>96085974
So are crits fine if they can happen to anyone?

>>96086044
No, they're still bad. Just not as bad.

>>96086077
Eh, good enough.

>>96085962
Seems like it got taken down because somebody uploaded stuff that makes publishers trigger-happy.
We're still waiting for updates from Librarian, check the PDF Share Thread.

>>96086358
Fuck them!

>>96085501
>Hyperborea is a shitbrew based on "AD&D" 2e
Stop repeating this, dumbass You've been told half a dozen times it's not true. 2e is shit and off topic but Hyperborea is based on 1e. If it has bad XP rules just say that.

>>96085327
The only thing I think you're doing wrong is
>an extra 2-6 chance for the trap to be sprung
Pit traps are only sprung on 1-2 on a d6 roll. So tapping it with the pole is actually more likely than not to not trigger it. Still a good idea obviously, but you only avoid one trap in three this way.

I regret allowing paladin as a starting class in my campaign. Feels like it cheapens the class to have them running around at low levels and it gives paladin players the wrong incentive:
Sacrifice yourself in the name of uprooting evil, vs say a lawful fighter: chivalrously obtain wealth in order to become better armed, trained, and lead men.
The former almost always ensures that low level paladins will overextend themselves and the party and get killed, and encourages less of the treasure hunting mindset necessary to get out of the first few levels. By later levels I think paladins can justify acting on most threats, hence I'm thinking about making it a prestige class for lawful fighters (and maybe anti-paladins for chaotic ones).
What are your guys' experience with this?

>>96085501
You have a really bad way of exaggerating minor nitpicks into cataclysmic events.

>bullshit like XP for story goals and showing up
Neither are a big deal. Especially your griping about attendance XP as if it were the end of the world, like 200xp is going to break a system apart. It's not a great rule, but to hear you describe it is like you telling us anything except XP for Gold is total sacrilege when that has always been a clumsy enterprise that had players stripping doorknobs off of doors (or even just the whole doors themselves) and other silly business. Also, your "n00b guide" is less a guide and more just you trying to push your bullshit propaganda and targeting people who you hope wouldn't know any better.

>>96088281
NTAYART, but doorknobs and doors aren't treasure unless they're actually made of gold. What kind of bullshit criticism of gold vs xp is that?

>>96088411
Brass is valuable, especially if it's brass with potential archeological/historical value.

>>96088276
This is exactly how paladins work in BECMI/RC. When you hit level 9 you have a choice as a Lawful Fighter: become a regular knight/lord, or become a paladin, eschewing domain control and followers in favor of some bonus powers for fighting evil. Chaotics can likewise opt to become an avenger, basically an antipaladin.

>>96088411
You're talking to the local troll. Don't feed that nigger (you)s. His criticisms are always bullshit.

>>96088601
Sounds neat, that seems like what I'm looking for.

>>96087944
>If it has bad XP rules just say that.
NTA. Where are those rules that you're both criticising from?

>>96088411
The "gold is everything" concept fixates player attention pretty heavily on just "get gold", and that's enough of a good reason why even OD&D included alternate ways to gain XP. The options weren't implemented particularly well, but it's pretty obvious that people wanted something different even as early as the first few years of the game.

Players stripping down dungeons of anything even mildly valuable in order to maximize their XP gains would occasionally reach absurd levels, particularly in tournaments. We're talking meth-addicts-wripping-the-wire-out-of-walls-for-the-coppper levels of taking anything that might have a GP value. Corpses and even living creatures were fair game too, so things could get wild.

>>96088281
The n00b guide is based and it's also right about XP for gold.

>>96088794
>Players stripping down dungeons of anything even mildly valuable in order to maximize their XP gains would occasionally reach absurd levels, particularly in tournaments.
I'll take "things that never happened and he's pulling out of his ass" for 500, Alex.

>>96088815
Most tournament specifically avoided determining placement by Gold/XP. Many early ones (like those held at GenCon) worked using a secret "checklist" system that scored different actions and encouraged players to rush through the dungeon as fast as possible in order to rack up the most points in the time they were given, and with no awards for treasure. Amusingly, at some tourneys every team got 100 "participation" points just so no one would have a negative score. Some were just straight races, where whichever party reached the end of the dungeon fastest won. Some tournaments were actual combat tournaments, particularly small scale ones.

But, some organizers did experiment Gold/XP as being part of how parties would get scored, and they were generally considered to be awful because of aforementioned meth-addict playstyle.

Is it okay to talk about ose here?

>>96088281
worthless fucking troll

>>96088281
What an absolutely worthless troll post.
You are a terrible dm, assuming you actually play and aren't a nogames
>>96089120
Why not?

>>96089013
Those tournaments were not intended to be played consecutively as campaign sessions, they are literally just for examination of the circumstances and characters at the end. Do you actually have any type of context to the things that you say, before you say them?

>>96089265
>>96089277
Why are you like this?
This thread doesn't need your limp-dicked shitposting.

>>96089296
Why do you post pointless personal criticisms instead of talking about games or the subjects being discussed?
Is it potentially because you are trying to make this website unusable for the active user base?

>>96089013
>Most tournament specifically avoided determining placement by Gold/XP.
Who the fuck cares, nobody is playing tournaments here, and tournament scoring is irrelevant for XP attribution.

>>96089339
Then why bring up tournament style point-based scoring in reference to your argument?
My entire point is that they didn't use XP because they weren't for character advancement, they were seeing how many points you could accumulate based on character action.

>>96089352
>Then why bring up tournament style point-based scoring in reference to your argument?
I never brought up tournaments, 2etard did.

>>96088281
worthless trollpost deisgned to astroturf.
Players ARE NOT stripping brass doorknobs for sale, and if they are, its your skill issue as a bad DM

Going to play nights dark terror for my next scenario of Scarlet heros. Made a map of PC knowledge of the route from Kelvin to Sukiskan and surrounding areas. dont have a hexgrid dry erase board though, so going to approximate with squares.

>>96089120
>>96089120
Why would it not be?

>>96089352
>Then why bring up tournament style point-based scoring in reference to your argument?
He did not. That was you as far as I can tell.

>>96089339
The idea is that games typically try to reward certain behaviors, creating positive feedback loops. Early on, they realized putting almost the entirety of the mechanical rewards a character would receive attached to obtaining gold lead to somewhat skewed play, with even Gygax writing about how it was an abstraction that required a heavy amount of suspension of disbelief and a bit of a gentlemen's agreement to work. In tournaments, where gentlemen's agreements were immediately flung out the window, the system really falls apart.
Exploring other options is something early DMs did considerably, so I'd be hesitant to call it some sort of inviolable standard that must be maintained at all costs.

>>96089490
This: >>96089013 was not my post, I replied to it. Are you delusional, or lying?

>>96089013
Well then, thank god tournament play is irrelevant nowadays.

>>96089491
>they realized putting almost the entirety of the mechanical rewards a character would receive attached to obtaining gold lead to somewhat skewed play
Except it doesn't. It was the best way to play and it still is.

>>96089440
Idk, I've tried to talk about other stuff here and I got yelled at but I guess that's not important now.

How many levels and stuff should I have for a weastmarches game that will have roughly 16-24 players? I plan on having NPCs as well that can fill in parties alongside the players. I also want to run npc parties too in my off time.

>>96089587
>How many levels and stuff should I have
Of a dungeon? Stock five full levels of one sheet of graph paper each, with option for expansion/collapse (or just use stonehell!).
>weastmarches
you sound like a new DM, so Id not focus on that label. Just play the game RAW.
Please dont have your special NPCs join the party. Let the players hire them as retainers instead.
Also 16-24 is going to be a lot of players. Be cautioned.

>>96089587
>How many levels and stuff should I have
One more than where the players are planning to go to next session, and Appendices A, B, and C ready if they go further than what you expected.

>for a weastmarches game that will have roughly 16-24 players?
Westmarches is a 3e thing. We just call it "D&D" over here, since that's how it was (meant to be) played initially. You can say open or semi-open sandbox if you want to be more precise, but it's kinda redundant given the topic of the general.

>I plan on having NPCs as well that can fill in parties alongside the players
If you mean hirelings and henchmen/retainers, you MUST do it by the rules. If you mean DMPCs, don't.

>>96089619
>Stock five full levels
That's nice but overkill.

>>96089663
For a group of ~20, it really isnt.
Stonehell levels 1-5 is roughly the same size and sustained my party of ~8 for 8 months.

You dont need to have the whole thing all at once, but you still want a big level one, and ways of accidentally slipping to lower levels.

>>96087969
>Pit traps are only sprung on 1-2 on a d6 roll
That is what OP is doing. What he meant to say is 2-in-6, which would otherwise be understood to mean that the chance occurs on a roll of 1 or 2 as you say.

>>96089779
Yes, in my case i write 2-6 (not 2/6 or 2 in 6), because it's how I did fractions in school, so a 2-6 chance equals 2/6, 1 to 2 on a d6.

>>96089619
I'm not new, I've been running for about 10 years and have played in long term weastmarches games for about 7 years now. Playing and Dming in the format. I'm just not really familiar with ose dungeon pacing since I've only run a one shot or two of any ose/osr games. We used 1:1 time in our games as well so I'm moderately familiar with that aspect.

>>96089821
First off, its "west" not "weast.
Also, if youve being playing/running for that long you shouldn't need to be handheld on "how many levels is a dungeon?". Use your own experience and intuition.
As for pacing? Just go look at ose treasure stocking, average out the treasure of 80 rooms/floor, then divide that twice your numbers of players. If the fighters would level, youre golden

>>96089804
>because it's how I did fractions in school
Neat. Where was that? I'd think
>2-6
will generally be interpreted as the range of 2-to-6 in english speaking america but could be regional.

>>96089844
Sorry, force of habit. We called our game weastmarches because players would always get east and west mixed up, like all the time, not from rolling bad just from actually getting the directions mixed up so we just started using the term weast.

>>96088281
>>96088555
if your players are stripping doorknobs to scrap brass, then youre a shit DM

>>96089013
Those tournaments were not intended to be played consecutively as campaign sessions, they are literally just for examination of the circumstances and characters at the end.
Do you actually have any type of context to the things that you say, before you say them?

>>96090092
Yeah okay, tigtone

>>96090092
>playing for 7 years
>players literally cant tell left from right
>"how many dungeon do I make?"
holy fuck youre retarded or a good troll

>>96089710
>For a group of ~20, it really isnt.
I didn't understand OP to mean all of them would play at the same time, since he mentioned "weastmarches".

If that's the case, it's best to have multiple dungeons of which you've sketched out the first couple of levels than one down to level five, to begin with.

>>96090470
I may have misinterpreted.
Either way, fuck 2etard

>>96089586
>Except it doesn't.
Except it does, especially in the aggregate.
It also leads to spells like Tenser's Floating Disc existing.

>>96090894
>nooooo a heckin utility spell exists??? that means xp for gold "skews play!"

>>96090954
The amount of bullshit he's come up with over the years is truly a marvel.

>>96091222
I really am astounded at how hard he 'flounders' in every thread

>>96091248
I sea what you mean. For heaven's hake, his arguments are invariably bassless.

>>96089567
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

Tournament play is brought up as an example of what happens when the "gentleman's agreements" that helps Gold as XP to work are removed. Gold as XP encourages certain behaviors, and these are generally mediated by informal rules and expectations of behavior. When put into an environment where the rules are tested, ie. such as a tournament, the flaws of certain rules become heightened and more apparent.

>>96090176
That's basically the issue. The rules encourage a certain type of behavior, and it's up to the DM (and group) to discourage it.

It's not some hyperbolic catastrophe, but Gold as XP is just one option that has its flaws, and there's alternatives found in plenty of OSR, including variants (official and homebrewed) for OD&D/AD&D. Understanding options, exploring their benefits as well as their flaws, and finding what works best for you and your group is really all that's being advocated for.

>>96090894
What is wrong with utility spells? Spell casters are going to make spells that make their lives easier.

>>96089491
>we should just reinvent retarded ways to fuck up the incentive structure as though it was 1978 all over again, because... because we should, okay!!! Just look at how effectively I can misinterpret Gygax (no quote provided) in defense of my cretinous position
No and go jack off in a Runequest thread or something.

>>96092277
>further weasel words and baseless claims to try to expand the definition of OSR
No.

>>96090176
I mean, he is a shit referee, this is 2etard we're talking about, but you don't have to be a bad ref to let the players make bad decisions. If the players want to fuck up doors in the dungeon in order to weigh themselves down with comparatively worthless loot that's their prerogative, they're allowed to screw it up (although I have to wonder what kind of mythic underworld has brass door fittings). 2efag doesn't seem aware that encumbrance is limited and such behavior is senseless even when XP is awarded only for treasure, however. Unsurprising, considering his fixation on the worst edition of D&D which lacks sensible dungeon exploration rules.

>>96092277
the rules do not encourage stripping doorknobs to sell as brass scrap, you disingenous fuck

>>96085327
It lets them spot the trap easier without triggering the contraption. At least how I rule it.

>>96075270
Excellent game choise. I ran two campaigns with bfrpg bur have decided to move to odnd + chainmail for the next one.

>>96092954
Nothing's wrong with utility spells. But, an incredibly specifically designed spell with awkward limitations imposed upon it to try and discourage anything beyond its intended purpose is poor design.

A mage that can create a floating disc of null-gravity that's able to support hundreds of pounds, or let's just go ahead and calculate it in g.p. because let's be real here, would probably want something a little better than a magic wheelbarrow, and most player's involvement with the spell is asking if it can be used for something with a bit more utility and generally being disappointed, especially with the special note on page 45 of the DMG that's explicitly says the caster can't ride it. The only kind thing I can say about the spell is that it can at least be used to transport some liquids.

It's a mix of some of my least favorite kinds of design. It's an incredibly powerful effect in the context of the universe, but given odd limitations in order to try and coax it into a single purpose (and a particular spell level). It's also a spell that exists not because of some sort of organic thought process, but because carting treasure around was a big deal thanks to the rules of the game world. Not a fan.

Also, quick shout-out to Tenser, who according to his own spell would be going around stealing doorknobs.

>>96093525
>an incredibly specifically designed spell with awkward limitations imposed upon it to try and discourage anything beyond its intended purpose
absolutely retarded levels of cope

>>96093525
For people like me who go into areas and hoover everything up a magic wheelbarrow spell is just what I need.

>>96093639
The spell itself is... fine. It does its job.
It's the design of it that I'm not a fan of.

>>96093665
be more specific

>>96093688
it insists upon itself

>>96093688

>>96093525

>>96093733
youre fucking stupid lmao

>>96093064
>he is a shit referee
You're assuming he plays. Hilarious.

>>96093759
It's par for the course. Like that time he spent a whole thread arguing that a decade lasts eleven years, or that other time he spent a whole thread claiming Gygax introduced the Druid orisons and ignoring requests to point out the specific book and page number where he did that. This time we get a whole thread on stealing doorknobs.

B/X newfag here again, how long is a combat round supposed to be? And what actions can a PC or NPC perform other than the combat related ones listed? I'm especially thinking about drinking potions and switching items between characters or equipping something from your inventory.

>>96094763
>B/X newfag here again, how long is a combat round supposed to be?
"Time in encounters is measured in rounds of 10 seconds each", B23.

>And what actions can a PC or NPC perform other than the combat related ones listed?
Potions and other magic items take one round to use, B47 (Using Magic Items). You're supposed to adjudicate most of the other stuff according to your own sensibilities, but swapping items in mid-battle should probably eat a round minimum. The Example of Combat on page B28 mentions the elf Silverleaf drawing a weapon (oddly unspecified) and attacking in the same round, so you can assume that's intended to consume no actions, at least assuming that it's worn in an accessible sheath or the like.

>>96094901
Thanks a lot, sometimes I miss those basics in the rules.

>>96094911
No problem. It's all there really but if you're not used to it you won't remember where to look.

>>96094763
>>96094901
>The Example of Combat on page B28 mentions the elf Silverleaf drawing a weapon (oddly unspecified) and attacking in the same round, so you can assume that's intended to consume no actions, at least assuming that it's worn in an accessible sheath or the like.
Example notwithstanding, it might make sense to give a penalty to initiative for drawing a weapon.

>>96095587
It might, it might. But since Anon is new to the system I opted not to confuse the issue with potential rulings and house rules, and just cite RAW. You may or may not have noticed that I didn't even reference the Expert rules.

>>96096037
What did the deleted post say? Based on your reply it seems like it would have been rather innocuous.

>>96096470
It also had an image that dared to critique 2efag's particular style of terrible argumentation and so had to be purged for our own protection. Check the archives.

>>96096037
>even this post got deleted
Unironically for what reason

New adventure for my game of scarlet heros is going to be B10: Night's Dark Terror, since its recommended level 2-4 and I just reached level 2.

Jessie alms, the traveling cleric is a bit stir crazy after saving and quite promptly celibrating with Imrie the Eyeless. He wants to explore more of the Dutchy of Keremikos and signs on as protection for a caravan of horses headed to a frontier settlement called Sukiskan. For the first 12 miles everything was all right, but on mile 18 a strange creature Alms vaguely remember as a Kappa lurks out of a nearby stream and proposes a trade for some delicious horse flesh. promising relief form disease, regrown limbs, and other miracles that Alms believes could be naught but unholy... but his curious mind is intrigued nevertheless, and sees a few of his companions raise an eyebrow as well. This cant end well, either by combat or by dark bargain...

The orc represents the Kappa, I dont have any unmounted horses, so the mounted archers represent unmounted horses and the guy in the front with the hammer represents a non combatant hireling holding them by the bridle as us four mercenaries surround the livestock.

>>96096037
>You may or may not have noticed that I didn't even reference the Expert rules.
Why, do the Expert rules say anything different on the topic?

I know this probably has been answered in previous threads, but how would one represent a soldado of the bourbon spain variety without having a small squad of pikemen and musketeers in a tercio? You could just be a stereotypical rapier duelist ala being an officer but I'd imagine that would look more like parody then anything.

>>96045263 (OP)
Does 2e stuff go here too.

>>96097496
>Lvl 1 Fighter
>Buy a pike
>Buy a rapier
>Ask your DM about an arquebus
>Buy holy symbol, silver
>Have a mustache
>Name: Ricardo Manuel de Alcántara y Dos Torres

I mean, what more do you need friend?

>>96097505
Yeah.

>>96097505
Just don't bring up Deck Apes.
There's lots of great 2e monsters. Hadozee are not one of them.

>>96097505
>>96097754
>>96097781
Obvious samefag is obvious.

>>96097505
As long as you do not mention anything that is only present in 2e, and as long as you don't mention 2e.

>>96097849
>>95948142

>>96097505
No.

>>96097781
What so bad about the Hadozee?

>>96098569
>furry armpit-fetishist's wet dream

>>96095587
>>96096037
>>96096470
>>96096495
>>96096545
install 4chanX and/or GhostPostMixer to see deleted posts.
If on mobile, view the archived thread at 4plebs

>>96097505
It does not, no. 2e is outside the topic of this thread.

>>96098569
They are an objectively inferior space-faring animal race.

>>96099369
>GhostPostMixer
The better option, since 4chanX only loads deleted messages that are quoted by undeleted messages

>>96100153
I can't argue with that.

>>96098569
Nothing bad about them but they do represent the third iteration of gliding monkey that TSR made and the third iteration of gliding ape TSR made that went nowhere.
>Angry nocturnal gliding space apes in Star Frontiers called yazirian. (Poor gliding rules. Minimum launch height of 10m, a 1 in 1 glide ratio, but in 1g they have a max range of 10m whether they launch from 10m or 100m.)
>Psychic subterranean gliding apes in first edition Shadowpeople in Dragonlance
>Elf-loving gliding space apes in second edition Spelljammer
It looks like someone either fell in love with the gliding ape design or someone said we spent time on this so use it. Like other anon said they're not great monsters, but neither are they bad monsters, they're innocuous and nothing stands out about them as very anything.

>>96101669
I wonder if there's some non-D&D place they're all drawing from. I remember apemen in the Howard Conan stories, but can't remember any gliding ones.

The only thing I've discovered in my searching is that this song is definitely the official song of the Hadozee.
https://youtu.be/aRHqs8SffDo?si=2rEOMim2MCjAjzpO
>“I don’t feel safe in this world no more,
>I don’t wanna die in a nuclear war,
>I wanna sail away to a distant shore…
>and make like an ape man!”

>>96101772
There are flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz if Niles didn't think of it himself because with flying squirrels and other mammals like that existing in nature monkeys with the same sort of membrane isn't much of a stretch. I suggest Doug Niles as the common link because he is credited with the Hadozee entry in the first SJ monstrous compendium and before that he worked on both SF and DL.

>The Kinks
Nice.

can demons survive decapitation like a golem or elemental?

>>96097781
>>96100153
>>96101669
>>96101772
>>96102080
Amazing levels of nogames faggotry while having a conversation with himself. But tell us more of how actually playing first decade D&D will lead to stealing doorknobs. I'm fully convinced (You) have never played a single game in your life, at this point.

>>96102217
seconded

>>96102217
I understand that you've the distinct disadvantage of not being me, but do try to keep up. You haven't the linguistic capacity to critique my prose. This is demonstrated by your conflation of a word's prominence in the semi-literate public's availability heuristic with its semantic complexity. For example, instead of "isotropic" should I write "in an omnidirectionally uniform manner"? That's five damn words instead of one, in case your mathematic and linguistic abilities are proportional. I was also critiqued for my use of the word "riposte". Yet "rebuttal", "refutation" and "retaliation" are all longer despite being more commonplace. Moreover, most synonyms will have nuanced differences in their implications which may be quite abstruse. A riposte differs from a refutation in that it specifically denotes a swift verbal parry. Furthermore, your assertion that semantic complexity is a sign of stupidity is pretty much the obverse of the truth. If I thought you were within ejaculating distance of cognitive competence, I might explain how intelligence is extant owing to emergent complexity. You'd better hope, for the sake of your intellectual independence and autopoiesis, that you never face me directly in a more thoroughgoing debate. :)

>>96102217
>>96102225
NTA, but I think he's referencing this story I've read somewhere about a game where Gygax was running some early version of the Tomb of Horrors (or another similar module?) where the main dungeon entrance had some special anti-magic doors made of some rare magical metal to avoid players fucking with it, and this group decided these huge doors made of magical metal were probably more valuable and way safer to take than whatever was inside the dungeon, so they stole the gates and went back to town to sell them. Gygax ended up changing the module so this wouldn't happen again.

I don't know if this is true or not, but to be fair this sounds fucking awesome and you'd need to be a retard to complain about this if it were to happen at your table.

>>96095587
>>96096037
>>96096470
>>96096495
>>96096545
install 4chanX and/or GhostPostMixer to see deleted posts.
If on mobile, view the archived thread at 4plebs

>>96093525
>an incredibly specifically designed spell with awkward limitations imposed upon it to try and discourage anything beyond its intended purpose
Based, fuck MUs who think they can get away with (sometimes literal) murder so and so many times a day. We're all playing in the same game here, we are not your linebacker peons.
>is bad design
>Tenser's
Clearly this is an example for a player designed custom spell that the DMG recommends to heavily nerf. You greedy pl*yoids are lucky it isn't second or third level.

>>96102167
>can demons survive decapitation like a golem or elemental?
They can if the decapitated demon is merely the illusionary self of a Type VI or higher created to distract you while he gates in more dudes for you to decapitate.

>>96049608
>While "Realistic/Simulationist" games tend to trend towards complexity and "Narrativist" games trend downwards, it's not always true, and worse still it doesn't appreciate that game complexity isn't neccearily even tied to something like rule density.
You made up the opposing position because that's not what it's about at all. If anything I find many narrative systems so complex they're actively confusing

>>96103017
>If anything I find many narrative systems so complex they're actively confusing
You're agreeing with that post.
>it's not always true, and worse still it doesn't appreciate that game complexity isn't neccearily even tied to something like rule density.

>>96100153
Get your slop posting faggotry gone.

>>96095587
>>96096037
>>96096470
>>96096495
>>96096545
If you want to see janny's rampant illicitly deleted posts, install 4chanX and/or GhostPostMixer to see deleted posts.
If on mobile, view the archived thread at 4pleb

>>96102217
seconded

>>96102982
So the answer is "no"?

>>96049608
Yeah, GNS sucks ass. The Threefold Model is stole everything from was okay though. Because it emphasized that the three goals aren't exclusive, and didn't try to position one as superior to the others.

>>96106377
nta but yeah, GNS is for midwit pseuds

>>96045263 (OP)
How do you deal with people who want to do more then one action in a round "I want to attack him then kick him"
Ive only dm'd a handful of times and my default is to allow them to do that, but at a penalty for both things (2 to-hit rolls, both at -3)

>>96094901
Another newb question: Can characters still move in a combat round and then drink a potion or use a wand?
And do both of these actions need to be announced before initiative like casting a spell and melee movement?

Adding to >>96106980
From my understanding they can't move but does that mean they also need to announce it and can be interrupted?

>>96093525
>or let's just go ahead and calculate it in g.p.
>quotes an AD&D spell
>(deliberately?) ignores how AD&D works and is actually played

>It's an incredibly powerful effect in the context of the universe,
Having a pizza sized donkey for a few hours is "incredibly powerful" in your opinion?
>inb4 it scales with level
So do a bunch of other first level spells which nobody complains about, like, ever.
Magic Missile comes to mind.
>but because carting treasure around was a big deal thanks to the rules of the game world.
Exactly nobody, save the most pedantic and therefore undesirable players, is stopping you from banning it at your table.
I have a personal gripe with the 'Write' spell, thus I banned it. End of story and my players are still having fun.
>Also, quick shout-out to Tenser, who according to his own spell would be going around stealing doorknobs.
Which is quirky as a magic user should be.
Tenser also transforms into a gigachad fighter ('Tenser's transformation') who goes to town on fools with nothing but daggers. Both of these behaviors are based and AD&Dpilled for both low and high level Magic Users.
Perhaps you should reread the PHB and DMG to get a better feeling on what AD&D's style is before you immediately nitpick what you personally dislike about it.

>>96106980
>or use a wand?
If we are talking AD&D: no.
Pic realted is a breakdow of what actions can be taken in a round. As you can only take one action and casting spells/wands is different from moving (A, fleeing, or E, closing), the answer is no.
>interruption
Spells can be interrupted RAW and that's a good thing , ut magical devices not so much.
I guess if you attack the wizard's wand like you would attack a Mind Flayers separate tentacle (possible RAW)?
Item saving throws crushing/normal blow category) should absolutely apply in that case.

>>96106980
>Can characters still move in a combat round and then drink a potion
AD&D, yes. According to EGG (play be upon him), drinking a potion (if at hand) is a matter of seconds.
>And do both of these actions need to be announced before initiative like casting a spell and melee movement?
AD&D, yes.

>>96102963
>this is an example for a player designed custom
Since no one else has mentioned it I'll remind you all that Tenser is an anagram of Ernest as in Ernie 'the Barbarian' Gygax.
rest in peace mate

>>96106921
>How do you deal with people who want to do more then one action in a round
No. Characters are allowed one basic action per round.
A Basic or AD&D fighter may be allowed multiple attacks per round but that's already covered in the rule books.

>>96106921
Attack at -4, hit does normal damage, plus a save vs paralysis or be knocked back/prone

>>96109039
this

>>96107083
>Having a pizza sized donkey for a few hours is "incredibly powerful" in your opinion?
No, creating a pizza sized field of null-gravity that can support potentially thousands of pounds is an impressive piece of magic. The diminishing part is its restricted usage, not what the spell actually creates.

>>96106921
>>96108768
>>96109039
>>96109252
The attack roll isn't just one stab or kick or whatever. Its all that already happening.

>>96109428
>The attack roll isn't just one stab or kick or whatever
Actually it is just one stab or kick. That's literally what the attack roll is.

>>96106921
The same way I do when people want to take extra actions in any other game. "No: the game doesn't work that way." There's no need for dumb gotchas or anything other than the simple, straightforward approach here.

Some GMs permit stuff like this, applying what they feel are appropriate penalties. However, it's very difficult to get right, as if it works it often short-circuits the combat process by leading to quick victory; applying sufficient penalties to not make it the go-to tactic while at the same time not making it pointless or impossible isn't simple, and getting it wrong can derail your whole game. I allow unusual things, based on circumstantial/environmental stuff (e.g. your classic swing from the chandelier stuff), but not everyday "just gimmee more attacks" things.

tonight the party found the futuristic sci-fi elements of the otherwise fairly low magic conanesque swords and sorcery setting
they teleported halfway across the map and immediately broke the teleporter

>>96106921
>How do you deal with people who want to do more then one action in a round "I want to attack him then kick him"
"No."

>>96088759
>Hyperborea
>XP rules
I'm neither of those anons but Hyperborea barely has rules about XP at all. It makes some vague, ambiguous statement but still provides XP thresholds for every class.

This is one of the weird parts about Hyperborea: Sometimes it just assumes you have AD&D or B/X as reference to draw from and doesn't flesh out mechanics. I was immensely disappointed to find that there's no rules for building a wilderness or dungeon. There's a huge random encounter table but it's a separate supplement by a different author and not in the books.
There could have been a couple of pages less about the climate of Hyperborea and more resources to actually create and run campaigns.

Soloplayers: What houserules do you have to make OSR work? I like Scarlet Heroes but I'm not sure how to convert +1 damage swords and other magic items given the damage rules.

I want to run a hexcrawl solo soon.

>>96111145
>I'm neither of those Anons but Hyperborea barely has rules about XP at all. It makes some vague, ambiguous statement but still provides XP thresholds for every class.
This is wrong. The original comment >>96085501 included a screenshot of the relevant rules, but it was deleted. Attaching it again.

>>96111268
>Soloplayers: What houserules do you have to make OSR work?
None. I just use OD&D, B/X, or AD&D with Appendix A, B, C, and Wilderness Hexplore.

>I like Scarlet Heroes
I genuinely don't understand why people use that bullshit when D&D works perfectly fine for solo play.

>>96087944
>If it has bad XP rules just say that.
Still waiting for your answer to:
>>96088759

>>96111363
>I genuinely don't understand why people use that bullshit when D&D works perfectly fine for solo play.
You don't sound like you have friends or games. Give us a story from a recent session or FOE and Greg

>>96109368
>No, creating a pizza sized field of null-gravity that can support potentially thousands of pounds is an impressive piece of magic.
PHB 69/69:
>known as Tenser’s floating disc after the famed wizard of that appellation (whose ability to locate treasure and his greed to recover every copper found are well known). The disc is concave, 3’ in diameter, and holds 1,000 g.p. weight per level of the magic-user casting the spell.
Thousands of pounds? So are you level 20 (2'000 pounds or 20'000 g.p.)?
At that point every spell is bound to be good. And you have a boatload of spells per day as well at that point: 5/5/5/5/5/4/3/3/2
Might as well *Teleport* the whole shabang directly to your wizard tower with one of your five fifth level spells instead of carting it around like a goober asking to get ambushed or dispelled.
My advice is to join an AD&D campaign and get a character to at least 7th level. That will give you a pretty good idea how the game is actually played.
t. been there, done that

As the noob guide points out, side initiative is your friend at the start of a combat. How about the following rounds, is it fine to stick to side initiative? Or should I let the players roll individually while I still use side initiative for the NPCs?

>>96111423
I'm curious exactly what in the sentence "I play solo using AD&D and the DMG appendices" makes it sound like I don't play solo using AD&D and the DMG appendices.

>>96111624
Not sure where you got the idea that the first round is somehow special: Use side initiative on all rounds. Individual initiative is a headache with little upside to show for it.

>>96111813
NTA but you are like me and would rather not play than play disgusting FOE and nuschool crap.

>>96088759
>>96111368
Sorry, I got banned for pointing out that 2e doesn't belong in the thread. The answer is that bad XP rules can come from anywhere, ridiculous house rules or anything, so it's impossible to know, but *even if* these particular rules were ripped right out of 2e, wording and all (which they are not), that doesn't in any way, shape or form mean that "Hyperborea is based on 2e" generally. It's entirely possible to, for a less incendiary example, write a B/X clone which nevertheless incorporates the pursuit and evasion rules from OD&D. In spite of the morsel of OD&D rules, the game is still clearly based on B/X.

>>96109895
I have a general rule that you cant do a basic alternate shit more then once in an engagement to circumvent shit. you can try to attack and trip once, but after that the opponent is wise to it, you are going to need something more inventive.

>>96109428
>>96109888
wouldnt that imply you can do more then one thing if its over a longer period of time? not just a single swipe, bust a series of blows and reposts?

In AD&D, is there anywhere that lists the cost and time of the labourers during stronghold construction?
Or is it tied to the listed price?

I was rereading a Dragonsfoot post about the magical item, a Harp which could do 100 man hours per turn for 3 turns.
But that doesn’t really correlate to any other measurement in AD&D 1E I can find.

>>96113824
Go with Gygax

>>96113824

>>96113824
Fellow Osr Enthusiast,
Get Yourself a Game

>>96114461
>50lbs max
why are they so WEAK

>>96114526
They get paid by the hour / day

>>96113068
Prove to me Hyperborea is not based on 2e.

>>96114546
that's a terrible excuse, I worked hourly hauling heavier loads for ten years

>>96114430
>Go with Gygax
Praise be upon our Dear Leader.

>>96114648
I'd be curious as well. He's stating it as self-evident, but so far the only piece of evidence actually presented is the rules for XP, which are obviously inspired by 2e.

>>96115181
>why, yes my houserules DO add Gygaxian Juche government forms!

>>96114430
Gax vobiscum

>>96113181
No, it wouldn't. The rules say you get one attack per round, extra attacks for haste and higher level fighters, regardless of A/D&D's 60 or 10 second rounds.
It's a rule for a game. It's not a simulator. If every character could do an arbitrarily large number of actions per round it would obviate the entire basis of attacks per round, of time-keeping, of level improvement, and you'd have an unplayable mess where everything happened all at once.
Various strikes, feints, parries, dodges, and manoeuvres throughout the round are already assumed. It's ridiculous to imagine that two combatants stand stock-still for about 58 seconds out of a 60 second round and each makes just one movement. That is too often depicted as a joke and a criticism. It's not a funny joke and it's a very poor criticism which implies a lot of stupidity in anyone who makes it and more stupidity in anyone who gives it credence.
The one minute round gave D&D the same time scale as Chainmail. OD&D even says to use the Chainmail combat rules in which one attack step is listed for each of missile and melee but OD&D also provides an "Alternate Combat System". One attack per round is a convenient in-game abstraction that allows for differing levels of capability and threat between various PCs and monsters. It is the randomised possibility of making a defined game action to change the opponent's h.p. or status of being grappled, blinded, etc. that regulates the flow of the game and actually allows the game to proceed in an orderly fashion--or to proceed at all.
That it permits an archer to only fire one arrow per minute when a competent archer could accurately loose more is irrelevant as this is a fantasy game, not a simulator. The game already ignores the fatigue an archer would experience limiting both rate of fire and total arrows loosed before too exhausted to shoot again.

>reposts
ripostes anon. While a riposte might come in a repost, a riposte is an answer and to repost is to post again.

>>96115847
Et cum ludis tuis.

>>96116328
>The rules say you get one attack per round, extra attacks for haste and higher level fighters
Extra attack ROUTINES, not merely extra attacks.

I like giving magic users dangerous scrolls.
>Scroll of fireball
>2d6 damage, or 3d6 if I feel spicy
>On a 1-4, the fireball explodes on you instead

>>96116577
1-4 on what? 1d6? Seems harsh.
Either way, I'm not big on this for scrolls in particular, since they're single-use; I find there's no practical tactial effect, if that makes sense. Either your one and only scroll works no problem, or it ratfucks you; there's no play between them. I actually prefer this type of mechanic for spells, because if a spell backfires say 1:6 you don't stop using it, you just change your calculus for *when*.

>>96116409
What is an attack routine? How does it differ to the common understanding of what an attack is in D&D? Why don't the rules already say "attack ROUTINE" if the difference is as important as you are claiming?

The answer to the last question is that when the DMG says
>During a one-minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage.
we can tell the difference between the meanings of "attack" as the generic feints and parried blows and as the specific game process of making the attack roll. We don't need to throw an unhelpful extra word in.
That leads to the second question being answered "it doesn't", the common understanding of attack is that it means this "attack routine".
That leads to the first answer being "a longer name of interest only to academics and maybe not even then". I've never had to explain to anyone or had to have it explained to me that getting an extra attack meant "repeat the attack routine". We've all intuitively understood that getting an extra attack means you do the same things as for a the first attack. I don't see that your "correction" helps.
If there is a difference, please answer my three questions and explain how the extra word makes a material difference and helps people play the game.

>>96116759
An attack routine is a "set" of attacks that all happen simultaneously in-game. This includes most monsters with natural attacks, e.g. a Troll's claw/claw/bite and, in the case of PCs, fighting with two weapons. It does NOT include higher-level Fighters getting extra "attacks" when attacking with one weapon: Those are extra attack ROUTINES. This has several critical implications:

1. A Troll and a Fighter attacking with two weapons roll initiative. They make all their attacks (claw/claw/bite or sword/dagger) on their initiative, since they are part of one routine. Their probability to go before a MU casting Magic Missile is about 50%.

2. A hasted Troll does not roll initiative: He gets three attacks before segment one (first routine) and another three attacks at the end of the round (second routine). Its probability to go before a MU casting Magic Missile is 100%.

3. A 14th level Fighter fighting with one weapon does not roll initiative. He makes one attack before segment one and another attack at the end of the round. This is because he gets two attack ROUTINES. Notice how this is radically different from a first level fighter fighting with two weapons, who does roll initiative: His probability to go before an MU casting Magic Missile is 100% instead of about 50%.

2. A 14th level Fighter fighting with two weapons does not roll initiative: He gets two attacks before segment one (first routine, sword/dagger) and another two attacks at the end of the round (second routine, sword/dagger). This is because he gets two attack ROUTINES. His probability to go before an MU casting Magic Missile is 100%.

>>96116759
>>96116759
P.S.
>Why don't the rules already say "attack ROUTINE" if the difference is as important as you are claiming?
The word sequence "attack routine" appears FOURTEEN TIMES in the DMG. Don't talk about things you don't know anything about, Anon.

If someone wants to publish some things on DTRPG to basically finance their gaming habit, what sorts of things should they be?

These are the things which I have the skill sets and interest to do.
>OSR adventures
>OSR monster books
>stock art
>paper miniatures

There's probably some other things I am not thinking of that I could do as well.

Also, what DTRPG stuff do you publish, anons?

>>96114754
50lbs is already the same a 10 Str PC can carry with full move under the basic/phb rules, so that just means that that is what they are
you would have been some kind of encumbered at your job

ACKS is very based in anyone that says otherwise is delusional or lying

>>96109888
One of the genuinely stupidest fucking posts I have ever read hereOne of the genuinely stupidest fucking posts I have ever read here

>>96117075
Monster books with art seem the most likely to get money but that's just a hunch.
A really well made adventure that gets good publicity would work too. Heck, even poorly made ones with good publicity do well.

>>96117760
Nice job, ESL

>>96117075
If you want to make money I suspect that there's better ways than publishing on DTRPG.

>>96117075
>to basically finance their gaming habit
working one hour of overtime, once, should do it
what else do you really need to buy other than shiny new dice because the gremlins took the old ones

>>96116577
>dangerous scrolls.
>Scroll of fireball
>2d6 damage, or 3d6 if I feel spicy
>spicy
Are your pkayers' characters all below level 3 by chance?

>>96109888

>>96118653
Yes. I should've mentioned that I give such items to lvl 1-2 characters.

>>96118469
I'm not ESL I have to use a speech to text because I lost most of the use of my hands several years ago

>>96117075
Try one of each and see how they sell and decide from that.
I suspect adventures are more popular but also get more critical eyes looking at it.

>>96116882
>>96116902
Based and Gygaxpilled.

>>96118791
Stay strong, Anon. May Gygax in Heaven and his prophet Macris on Earth look upon you with pride and benevolence.
>t. fellow bodily retarded Anon and also mentally as well, a bit

>>96116882
An edge case would be if the 14th level Fighter faces a creature with multiple attacks, the initiative would be of concern, for determining who strikes first, second, next-to-last and last.
This should be correct right?

I just got stuck on the "does not roll initiative" part, if nothing else.

>>96118987
Thanks a lot for your encouraging words, it's slow and ponderous to type, but I'm not in pain and I can still do all of my gaming just fine
Friend of gary, get ye gaming, (Pbuh), and may your sessions be filled with fish!

>>96119059
>An edge case would be if the 14th level Fighter faces a creature with multiple attacks, the initiative would be of concern, for determining who strikes first, second, next-to-last and last.
>This should be correct right?
No.
- A 14th level fighter gets two attack routines, so he gets one attack routine at the start of the round and another attack routine at the end of the round.
- The creature with multiple attacks, however, has one attack routine, so all of its attacks happen on its side's initiative. E.g. a Shambling Mound, two attacks at 2d8 damage, does both of the attacks on its own initiative.

It DOES enter into play when the fighter fights a hasted creature, independently of how many attacks the hasted creature gets per routine. In that case, both the fighter and the hasted creature go once at the beginning of the round and once at the end of the round, so if they're attacking each other or in any other case in which their relative order matters their respective sides' initiative rolls determine who goes first.

>>96119800
I don't mean to sound aggressive, but where is the distinction that having 2/1 attacks as a 13+ Fighter counts as having two attack routines, and not one routine that has two attacks?

>>96120056
Picrel.

>NEW THREAD
toxic blue edition
>>96120434
>>96120434
>>96120434

>>96120446
>making the thread early just to make it gross
You're a weird shitbag.

>>96118592
>>96118582
You seem to misunderstand the desire. I make ttrpg stuff because I enjoy it, not because I need the money. I have disposable income as is. Now, if I can make a little extra scratch to buy this or that for gaming while doing something I enjoy, that's certainly a better option than working more for money I don't need.

>>96116328
thanks for reposting my risposte repost with a riposte.