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:
>>96045263

>Thread Question
What unique or bizarre monster from the 1977 Monster Manual or Fiend Folio stands out to you memory, and why? What is a creative and unexpected use you've made of a first decade monster?

>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.

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

What's the difference between player agency and character driven?

>>96120464
Are we playing a game or are we play acting

>>96120434 (OP)
>no papist bullshit in the OP
Based.

>>96120464
>character driven
I thought we were playing AD&D, not dolls? Does your teddy want some more cookies, perhaps?

>>96120464
Two completely distinct categories. Player agency refers to RPGs, and it contrasts with railroading. Character-driven refers to media one consumes passively (books, novels, comics), and it contrasts with plot-driven.

It's like asking what's the difference between football formations and chess endgames.

>>96120558
Get fucked lmao.

>>96120375
Hey thanks man, I was staring the answer in the face, but I didn't get it, a bit ashamed I needed colours and annotations to get it through my skull.
Cheers!

>>96120959
No worries! I'm sure others will find it useful as well.

>>96120596
thank you, yes. I hate seeing people try to force terms that are completely incompatible just because they heard it before or something.

I'm going to design my first dungeon... What are good resources to help with the layout? I have the 1e dmg already and a copy of Tome of Adventure Design for tables to add extraneous details. Anything else you guys would recommend?
Planning to start small (9-12 rooms?) and run it before I scale up.

>>96123454
>Anything else you guys would recommend?
(1) Lungfungus' Actual Dungeon Mastering: How to Design Dungeons
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91357014/#91399103

(2) GFC: on How to Make a D&D Dungeon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk_5gNe0oSs
but all eight videos on his channel are a must watch
https://www.youtube.com/@gfcsdnd205/videos

>Planning to start small (9-12 rooms?) and run it before I scale up.
Do start small, but 9-12 rooms ain't gonna be enough unless you put them in a line, which obviously you shouldn't do. In any case, be prepared to use Appendix A or geomorphs and random tables in case the players wander off the part you've already mapped.
https://davesmapper.com/

>>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.

>>96124262
If it's a passion project first and foremost, I think you should publish what you like.

>>96120493
>>96120582
>>96120596
I see, that's what I thought you'd answer

>>96124087
Thanks!

>>96120464
>player agency
When the players get to make decisions that affect their characters and the game world.
>character driven
When exploring the feelings of the characters matter more than advancing the plot.

Like >>96120596 says they are, more or less, mutually orthogonal categories. Having more or less player agency doesn't have much or any effect on whether players choose to advance plot or focus on character emotions, although lack of player agency means they can't advance the plot so there is some influence between the categories.

>>96124262
>someone wants to publish some things on DTRPG to basically finance their gaming habit
>I make ttrpg stuff because I enjoy it
YOU seem to misunderstand the desire. When you figure it out, try and explain it clearly.

I, for example, strive to deepen my understanding and experience in the hobby with the eventual goal of sharing an adventure module or two that aren't complete shit (as many are). My reason is not for money, but to push the hobby forward.

Just wanted to say to Bytee, that I absolutely love Voyage to Fomalhaut. I was on a Judges Guild kick lately and this is perfect! Thanks again for running this amazing service!

>>96124262
I think the thing most needed, is adventure sites and modules to support them. Also, just because I personally like it, make the game compatible with all osr, by listing the armor by type instead of number, that is armor as plate or armor as chain plus shield

I finally got around to reading The Walking Wet. What the fuck, it's so good? Was Jennell Jaquays just some kind of savant? Explain this

>>96128288
It's also cheap, and Gabor has a 30% sale right now on top of that. Not to be the guy, but is stuff has always been worth the money for me. The hardback version of Khosura is probably the greatest OSR module.

>>96128660
Not quoted but pretty sure the physical copies are sold out at this point.

>>96128787
Oh, shid.

Well, I can't blame anyone who bought in. They're good books, Bront.

>>96128572
Yes, Paul Jaquays seems to have just had a natural talent for dungeon design, especially visualizing movement through a 3D environment. He went on to work as a video game level designer IIRC, hardly surprising.

Incidentally, it would be kinder to his memory not to allude to the mental illness that blighted the last 10-15 years of his life.

Has anyone gotten to domain play with ACKS? Did anyone get a domain to maximum size or even conquer large numbers of other domains, starting out with nothing but a small mercenary army hired with your dungeon delving spoils and then decides to conquer more and more? Anyone use the mass combat rules? How are they? How annoying are ACKS proficiencies as pseudo-fest blogs?

>>96128333
>make the game compatible with all osr, by listing the armor by type instead of number, that is armor as plate or armor as chain plus shield
That's hilariously retarded, given that all actual OSR games assign the exact same AC to plate and chain with or without shield.

>>96128572
That module is by Paul Jaquays. She only started to go by Jennel many years later. I'm all for using preferred pronouns and names, but let's not rewrite history.

>>96128844
>Has anyone gotten to domain play with ACKS? Did anyone get a domain to maximum size or even conquer large numbers of other domains, starting out with nothing but a small mercenary army hired with your dungeon delving spoils and then decides to conquer more and more?
I haven't, but many have.

>Anyone use the mass combat rules? How are they?
They're good, but I prefer Book of War or figure scaling.

>How annoying are ACKS proficiencies as pseudo-fest blogs?
Pretty annoying. You can remove them, but it's not always trivial to do so because Macris has this habit of hiding core rules inside proficiencies. For instance, NPC specialists all work off proficiencies, so if your players want to hire a specialist, you first go to the RR section on equipment to find out the chance that one is present given the market size, then you pick up the JJ to find out what that specialist actually does, and it's a list of proficiencies. Then you pick up the RR again, proficiencies section this time, and you look up what each proficiency does by cross-referencing the proficiency list on the JJ with the proficiency itself. Chances are the proficiency will then send you to a fourth location to actually understand what the fuck it's talking about, for instance the magical research section or the domain or mass combat sections.

So they can be removed PC-side, but you'll find yourself having to puzzle out how the game actually works when you "remove" the proficiencies, given that they contain core rules.

Removable yes, it's not rocket science. But also pretty annoying.

>>96129139
BX, AD&D, LOTFP, and ACKS all use different numerical representation for armor class.
In BX AC descends starting at 9,
In 1e it starts descending at 10,
In LOTFP in starts ascending at 12,
And in ACKS, AC ascends starting at zero

>>96129198
BX and AD&D have the exact same AC for chain, plate, and shield. It's not that they "start" at different numbers, it's that they have different ACs for no-armour and leather, which is not an issue in 99% of cases: The whole MM uses the AC system of B/X rather than the one of the PHB and DMG, most people never even notice this, and Gygax never bothered to errata it, let alone even MENTION it, because it doesn't make a big enough difference to care.

If you're using a system like ACKS or LotFP, that fuck AC up, more power to you, but it's your responsibility to learn to convert proper AC to the system you're using. Saying "like plate & shield" doesn't work well enough when there's monsters with AC of -1 that you have to describe as "as plate and shield+3", which makes the game beyond annoying to use for everybody, and generally speaking look retarded.

>>96129198
>And in ACKS, AC ascends starting at zero
Holy FOE and people defend this as true oldschool? that's pathetic

If you play ACKS you might as well play 5e.

>>96129312
Could be worse. Could be "AD&D" 2e.

>>96128288
>>96128660
The maps of the dungeons confused me at first because they left out so many rooms. I suppose it's not "batteries included" but that's fine.

>>96129361
Forgot screenshot

>>96129361
>The maps of the dungeons leave out so many rooms.
You mean in Khosura? There's a couple missing stairways, but I've never noticed missing rooms. Can you give an example?

>>96129374
Consider the Pits of Lamentations here for an example. There are three keys: 19, 20 and 21. respectively the Philosopher's Lair, the Haunted Vault and the Cannibal Lair. What about all the other rooms?

>>96129394
Oh, I thought you were talking about missing rooms on the map. Unkeyed rooms are simply empty. Adding numbers to them just to make you flip to a page that says "this room is empty" is waste of time and space.

>>96129236
>when there's monsters with AC of -1 that you have to describe as "as plate and shield+3", which makes the game beyond annoying to use for everybody, and generally speaking look retarded.
Not that Anon.
I completely agree. Most non-TSR OSR content is for levels one to three where these low ACs won't be encountered.

Thus to the Anon wanting to publish OSR content: please make it for at least medium level. There is tons of low level and "starter" content already, and while I do not know about your skills you will most likely not succeed where they failed.

>>96128844
>Has anyone gotten to domain play with ACKS?
>Anyone use the mass combat rules?
Unfortunately not. Ask me again in a year or two
>How annoying are ACKS proficiencies as pseudo-fest blogs?
Read >>96129168
I like them, so it's not a problem for me.
If you need to remove them, it's a pain in the ass though.

>>96128660
>The hardback version of Khosura is probably the greatest OSR module.
I'm starting to read Khosura. How would you bootstrap a campaign, or a series of adventures in an existing campaign, in Khosura?

The module doesn't seem to lend itself to just letting players explore the city and see what happens because it's lacking the more generic and relatively mundane encounters in CSIO, in which players can pretty much go around building by building.

So what would you use? Hooks? Rumours? A specific adventure outside the city?

There also seem to be several fundamental buildings missing: Taverns and inns, chiefly.

>>96131250
IIRC Melan's first campaign had the city located in Barbarian Altanis in the Wilderlands where they just wandered into town and started angling for loot, and in another one the players started out having been thrown into the Pits of Lamentation for crimes unspecified. Both work, IMO.

>The module doesn't seem to lend itself to just letting players explore the city
This is again going by memory and not authoritative, but I *think* what Melan did and probably still does is use Matt Finch's "City Encounters" as well as his own "The Nocturnal Table" (which states openly in its pages that it's the nighttime companion to the former) for such encounters. In other words he's simply placed those routines in separate products, not an illegitimate model although I'll agree it's not obvious coming from the CSIO. I think the think to keep in mind is that CSIO is a product concerned entirely with that type of material, whereas Khosura is a module first and foremost.

>So what would you use? Hooks? Rumours? A specific adventure outside the city?
Hopefully you'll feel like I pretty much answered this at this point but I'll point out specifically that the rumor tables in the book are very good and hook into the module portions well. If you're looking for a campaign-opener hook in particular, I might suggest choosing some suitable rumors rather than rolling.

>There also seem to be several fundamental buildings missing: Taverns and inns, chiefly.
This is true; there are a few caravanserais, but nothing like the insane profusion of taverns we see in the CSIO. I think part of this is just stylistic on Melan's part, but he also expects you to be able to make up such relative trivialities on your own. If you examine the city key of Khosura critically you'll see that pretty much everything keyed is either the location of a major faction or something related to the underworld. Again, it's a module first, not a city supplement.

>>96131603
Thanks!

>>96131616

>>96120440
I can't remember how to roll, but let's see here.

>>96132217

Rolled 9 (1d10)

>>96120440

>>96129394
lmao not every room has a key feature. They are empty for spacing and pacing, but feel free to add anything to those rooms if you see fit.

-BX-
Unarmored 9
Leather 7
Chain 5
Plate 3

-AD&D-
Unarmored 10
Leather 8
Chainmail 5 (notice it provides AC bonus 5, not 4 as in BX)
Plate 3 (provides AC bonus 7, not 6 as in BX)

>>96132364
meant for >>96129236

>>96132232
Mechanism: Trip Wire
Consequence: Poison/water
Tell: Juts/recedes
Random verb: Melt
Random noun: Church

This is going to require some weird adventure game moon logic, but here I go:

A room with only one entrance exit that serves as a shrine to an unholy entity, a great statue of a lesser demon sits cross-legged upon a dais at the opposite end of the entrance. In its lap is a great brass brazier with the dying embers of a conflagration that was recently lit here. In front of the dais is an altar that has many cruel instruments speckled with blood that is not yet dry along with what ever obvious treasure you want here. Additionally along the wall are alcoves with the unlit waxy mass of votive candles. There is obvious carvings in whatever script upon the first set of pillars that mentions "The flames of vigilance ignite upon those that would profane and defile here".

The pathway to the statue is flanked by three sets of pillars, with the inner two set closer together, there is a thin, gossamer trip wire between these two closer pillars.

Careful examination of the floor from a specific declaration from players reveals reptilian footprints that have walked around the outer side of the middle pillars, otherwise it is assumed that PCs will take the path of least resistance if walking towards the statue and trip the wires on the standard 2:6.

If the trip wire is triggered, the exit is sealed shut by a sheer slab of stone, the demon idols eyes and alcove candles light with flame and a noxious miasma spills from the mouth of the idol.

As the gas will kill the party faster than they can dig through the slab of stone that has dropped in front of the door, the solution is to put out any and all flames in the room.

>>96132364
>I've read both Moldvay's Basic and the PHB!
The "provides AC bonus" part is retarded, though. Armour provides AC, not AC bonus. If you use the Monster Manual with AD&D or B/X, an AC of 5 is an AC of 5.

>>96132483
By bonus I mean "the difference it provides from unarmored AC".
>>I've read both Moldvay's Basic and the PHB!
This bothers you?

No matterr how you cut it, there is a 1 point AC difference from BX to AD&D, regardless of whether or not you want to account for it when converting.
And given LOTFP's AC system, and ACKS' its pretty clear that:
>OSR games assign the exact same AC to plate and chain with or without shield
is proven false, alongside:
>BX and AD&D have the exact same AC for chain, plate

>>96132544
>This bothers you?
Yes.

>>96132544
>By bonus I mean "the difference it provides from unarmored AC".
>No matterr how you cut it, there is a 1 point AC difference from BX to AD&D
Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid.
- If it's AC that counts, then the AC of Chain and Plate is the same.
- If it's AC bonus that counts, then the AC bonus of unarmoured and leather is the same in B/X and AD&D.
You can't use absolute AC for unarmoured and leather and your made up metric of "AC bonus" for chain and plate and say that the difference is always one.

If I were as retarded as you are, I could use your same logic and say that it's the same in all cases, because the AC bonus of unarmoured and leather is the same, and the AC of chain and plate is the same, so the difference is zero.

If anything, it's a 0.5 AC point difference. And that's only:
1. If you neglect all monsters that don't wear armour.
2. If your Magic-Users and Thieves get into melee as often as your Fighter and Clerics.
Which means that you are, again, retarded.

>>96132626
Youre saying a bunch of nonsense.
Numerical armor class is objectively offset by one from BX to 1E, and chain and plate both provide a different effective armor class (regardless of unarmored starting point) from their BX counterpart.

I proved both of your assertions wrong, and you cant refute that.
Try acting like less of a shitty person
btw

Do you ever run outdoor locations (like, zoomed in regions keyed to a hex, rather than the hex crawl itself.)

What is your procedure for doing so? Usually I like marking off a bunch of points of interest that serve to funnel player character attention while paying attention to line of sight (not unlike how dungeon corridors and exits serve as an informational flowchart.)

Obviously I assume a larger scale rather than 10' per square and that since the location is dangerous, I am still rolling for random encounters.

>>96132698
>Numerical armor class is objectively offset by one from BX to 1E
No, it isn't offset by one, because Chain and Plate give the same AC in B/X and AD&D.

>and chain and plate both provide a different effective armor class (regardless of unarmored starting point) from their BX counterpart.
So unarmoured AC and leather provide the same "effective AC" as their B/X counterparts. So AC isn't offset by one, because the "effective AC" of unarmoured and leather is the same.

>>96132544
>>96132698
Nice bait, but nobody is THAT stupid.

Popping into this general after months of not doing so is like visiting that one friend the fell into a rut and can't seem to get out of it but blames everyone else and refuses to take responsibility.

Session 43 of my weekly BFRPG campaign. Another great game. We have had another character reach level 4. She's playing a Fighter.
The players investigated some fairy-infested woods, fought a mutated alligator wolf, explored an old abandoned manor, and one person got cursed and turned into an ox.

>>96132816
One idea I'm experimenting with is 1,500' hexes that take 5 minutes to cross. Maybe using a hexagonal maze generator, with thickets, cliff walls, and bodies of water as obstacles.

But my campaign takes place in a mountainous area, so I've got a trail map with elevation lines, and I'm working on a system for randomly determining how climbable a given slope is.

>>96132892
It's just that a lot of the regulars are on discords now instead since it doubles as a place to play games online and recently there have been way more trolls of various varieties in the thread.

Players have been loving the openness, social and exploration elements of dungeoneering, but not particularly motivated by gold. Anyone have any strong recommendations for alternative sources of XP?

>>96134228
>Anyone have any strong recommendations
Yeah, playing the game for long enough to notice you don't get much done outside of dungeons without gold or the xp it gives you giving them a natural motivator.
And the players stop being as self-motivated once you stop using it as the main source of advancement leaving little to no incentive for rewarding player skill by them actually working out where the hidden treasure and sub-levels are.
As for actual alternate systems, no. They don't work well with AD&D and are usually very arbitrary to boot.

>>96134228
Bait, but if this is true you simply need to stop playing OSR games with those players. It's not for everyone.

>>96134228
I've never met an actual group outside the purest storygamer crowd that isn't interested in advancing their character's level/abilities. Whether they have something specific to spend their money on or not, or even if they have abstract theorycrafter objections to the concept, gold drives the game because it's how they get stronger. It should be obvious to anyone after the first session or two that this is what matters.

Don't use alternate sources: I can't think of any single thing more important to old-school play than gold for XP.

>>96134124
It's just depressing anon. This used to be my favorite place on the internet.

>>96133675
I think BFRPG is a lot of fun, I like the magic item creation rules.

>>96134228
Players don't like leveling up? I dunno, I also just have trainer requirements as per AD&D and that seems to restate the importance of GP.

>>96134406
>It's just depressing anon. This used to be my favorite place on the internet.
Same but what can you do when there's a concerted effort to ruin it.
At least we're getting some better gaming material now with the noartpunk/melan/adventure site contest and good podcasts for 1E out now and less tablebook stuff.

>>96134499
coffee tablebook stuff*

>>96128844
>>96129168
The mass combat is ass in ACKS. Even just setting up a battle takes forever, and for all its complexity there's not much strategic depth.

>figure scaling.
Elegant and simple solutions are often the best.

>>96132827
They literally do not. See >>96132364

-BX-
Unarmored 9 (delta 0)
Leather 7 (delta 2)
Chain 5 (delta 4)
Plate 3 (delta 6)

-AD&D-
Unarmored 10 (delta 0)
Leather 8 (delta 2)
Chainmail 5 (delta 5)
Plate 3 (delta 7)

These differences are very clear.

>>96132892
spoony.jpg

'CURSED' WEAPON

Vorpal Blade of Woe:
This weapon appears to be a finely crafted ancient sword of unknown material, and when tested, is revealed to be a +3 Vorpal sword, however, it bears a terrible hidden effect (not a curse!).
Whenever the sword is used to decapitate, the target instead takes no damage, and on the start of their next turn, they regenerate two heads to replace the one!
This gives them an extra attack each round from each head, but the existential distress of each extra head also forces a penalty of -1 to AC, Hit, and Saves.

>>96135145
-BX-
Unarmored 9 (delta 6)
Leather 7 (delta 4)
Chain 5 (delta 2)
Plate 3 (delta 0)

-AD&D-
Unarmored 10 (delta 8)
Leather 8 (delta 5)
Chainmail 5 (delta 2)
Plate 3 (delta 0)

Leather and no armour are offset by one. Chain and plate are not offset, ya mong.

>>96134228
>Anyone have any strong recommendations for alternative sources of XP?
Yeah, don't do it.

>>96134228
Christ this general has become pure cancer. The responses to this question are some extremely concerning levels of stupid, because it's not just dumb responses, it's responses from people actively trying to be stupid and trying to push other people towards being stupid.

>96135546
>It's yet another "2efag is sad that /osrg recommends old-school gaming" episode.

>>96135546
>Christ this general has become pure cancer.
Because it recommends using XP for gold as an elegant and effective part of the gameplay loop? In that case it turned into cancer circa 2012.

>>96136032
No, because you're trying to pretend it's the only way or always the best way.
And then you try and backpedal it back down to just "Oh, I just wanted to recommend it."

>>96134228
3 XP player rolls a d12 for some reason
10 XP any sustainable farming practice
20 XP nat 20 (once per day max)
50 XP finding something neat
100 XP promoting harmony between different alignments
200 XP player uses character's catchphrase appropriately
3000 XP founding a monster orphanage
10000 XP gender transition

>>96134228
x3 NOT killing the monster
30 XP good penmanship on character sheet
100 XP staying in character outside of session
150 XP each hex explored
500 XP teamwork
10000 XP crossing the gender barrier
-300 XP calling DM railroading faggot

>>96134228
XP for exploration. 10 XP for a new dungeon room. It increments so the next room after that gives 20, the next 30, and so on.
If they leave the dungeon it resets to 10. Players will pish themselves to explore new places and for longer.

Can also be done with hexploration. Depending on the scale of your map you might want to increase it to 50 or 100 (still only a 10 XP increase).

I say that Tim Kask fellow has a fine show on the youtube. Like listening to the old mans ramblings. Quite the good feller.

>>96136197
Have you tried fucking off to Reddit?

>>96136499
800 XP for having fun
600 XP for making another player laugh
300 XP for learning the rules of the game
400 XP for not correcting the DM when he makes mistakes despite having learnt the rules of the game
100 XP for surviving the session
90 XP for attending
700 XP for paying attention when the DM is speaking
500 XP for not interrupting the DM when he's speaking
200 XP for bringing snacks and ginger ale
2,700 XP for guessing which of these are actual rules from AD&D 2e and Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea. They all are lmao

>>96136197
fuck off 2efag

>>96132892
Sounds about right. Though it more of that one friend and roommate that never grew up. They are in their 40s acting like still in their 20s and it doesn't help their roommates are worse. So they're the best of the group but that doesn't say much. Sadly like >>96134124 said, most of the regulars moved to discord and the redditors and other woke fucks have been jumping on here and fucking everything up thinking they can take over like they do with everything. The classic whine they being gate kept or not allowed in till enough of them get in as mod then whine they were always here as they purge the original mods and regulars out. Then after they take over as mods they fuck the place up till everyone leaves and look for the next place to ruin like locusts.

>>96136197
This general has been hostile to your kind of FORGE faggotry and giving 'story xp' since day 1. If you don't believe it just go looking through the archives.

In AD&D creatures wielding short/normal weapons deal more damage with certain weapons to large creatures, such as giants. Do you rule the same for small creatures attacking medium creatures?

>>96135546
>>96136197
>2etard posts again

>>96136379
>>96136499
>>96136616
>wrongthink gets deleted

>>96136744
>Do you rule the same for small creatures attacking medium creatures?
No, lol.

>>96136744
no, and
im pretty sure the ones that do more damage are the ones that small characters cant wield anyway but i dont care to look

>>96134228
Technically, you could have special quest items whose Experience Point Value and GP Sale Value add up to the amount of story goal exp you want to give out, and there's nothing the OSR Police can do about it.

OSE Advanced gives me hives. It’s for posers, like buying a sportscar with an automatic transmission. BX is fine for kids and casuals and lazy people, but BX dressing up in drag pretending to be advanced is just embarrassing (IMO, YMMV, jk, etc)

>>96136745
>>96136729
Leaving troll comments up, deleting true rebuttals.

2etard = fishfag = janny

>>96136897
You are correct.

>>96136834
>there's nothing the OSR Police can do about it
2etard = fishfag = janny troll confirmed

>>96136897
Nothing wrong with adding AD&D bits onto B/X, but OSE Advanced is all "player options" which is entirely the wrong mindset for AD&D

>>96132544
>is proven false, alongside:
>BX and AD&D have the exact same AC for chain, plate
hm
>>96132364
>-BX-
>Chain 5
>Plate 3
>-AD&D-
>Chainmail 5
>Plate 3
HM
>5 vs 5
>3 vs 3
>exact same .. is proven false
HMMMMMMM

>party of 3pcs (one who is brand new to OSR), 6 retainers
>head into dungeon flavored as prison no one gets out of
>dont interact much with anything
>After 6 rooms, first encounter is two ogres
>One hit with sleep spell and killed, other downed in combat
>Party split by a portcullis trap in the next room
>Random encounter of cannibal prisoners against the majority of the party that made it through
>lose an elf and a fighter retainer, leave their bodies and supplies laying there
>3 rooms later, still minimum interactions
>Kill a giant spider, almost lose a 4th level MU to it
>Discover an illusionary wall, and goblins inside
>begin to interact by intimidating goblins, stealing a set of teleporting mirrors
>pull a sweet tapestry off the wall to cover the mirrors so they don't work
>find secret door, but decide to retreat out
>No levels gained, but everyone had a good time
They planned the next session the day after and want to do 8 to 12 hours straight. 2 PC's are also using down time wisely, new guy is starting to figure it out. New guy figured out that it's supplies and tactics matter.

>>96137424
Sounds like a fun session anon.
>no levels gained
Fair enough, but they got part of the way there I assume. Any treasure off the ogres, cannibals, spiders?
What's the gp value of the teleporting mirrors?

>>96135360
Your attempt to reference plate as the respective datum for both systems implicitly makes the wrong assumption that they afford the same level of protection in each game when they do not. The purpose of armour is to decrease the chance of being hit so the datum is the unarmoured/clothing only/none value of the respective game and one of those two groups you have listed needs every value to be changed by 1.

While it's probably just a typo, it's still ironic that you name call that guy and yet you're the one who worked out 10 - 3 = 8.

I tried a little battle report with ad&d rules. It was fun.
The mix of determining initiative every round and declaring actions before activating those actions gives it a real different feel and a very team based tactical thought process.

>>96137828
10 = 9+1
>It's off by one!
8 = 7+1
>It's off by one!
5 = 5
>It's off by one!
3 = 3
>It's off by one!
>All armours are off by one!

>>96137943
You got so many rules wrong

>Will advance and attack.
Forbidden by the AD&D rules. If you don't start the round engaged, you can either charge and attack, or advance and not attack.

>Initiative 9
>Initiative 8
Impossible, initiative is rolled on a d6

>Ignoring weapon length.
On charge rounds and on the round immediately after advancing into melee, so the first attack in both cases, the order of attacks is determined by weapon length, NOT by initiative.

>>96138336
I wasnt using strict wordage. by "advance" I just ment "go forwards". I kind of skimped on some rules to be fair.
>Initiative 9
the guide I saw rolled a d8
>On charge rounds and on the round immediately after advancing into melee
oh, that sounds interesting.

This is the guide I used FWI, I didi essentially the same scenario
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sahz7_4n_o&t=22s

Do you have a better one?

>>96138427
>I watched a youtube video
>Do you have a better one?
I know books are scary, Zoomer, but you need to read the fucking rulebooks if you want to learn to play, instead of watching videos by morons who don't know the rules.

>>96138487
NTA, but let's not pretend the 1e AD&D rulebook has clear and well explained rules. Initiative in particular is some clumsy shit.

>>96138487
Why are you so angry?
It was just a flight of fancy and if you dont want/know of anything thats fine.

I usually find examples of play a lot more understandable. I actually read the dmg a while ago and while it was enjoyable, its organization I found kind of byzantine.

>>96134228
> 100 XP automatic player award
> 200 XP showed a love of openness
> 350 XP engaged in social elements of dungeoneering
> 400 XP engaged in exploration elements of dungeoneering
> 2000 XP was not particularly motivated by gold
>10000 XP reconfigured gender

>>96138524
True. There's still no substitute for reading the rules, though. And the fact that the initiative rules are a mess makes it even more important to read a book rather than a tutorial, because a tutorial will give you one person's mix of house rules and errors.

>>96138525
>Why are you so angry?
Grow a pair of balls or go back to plebbit.

>>96138549
I didnt say you shouldnt be angry, I just asked a question as to why.

>>96138532
>350 XP per session per pronoun
>doubled to 700 XP for neopronouns
>2,000 XP for playing a safety card
>5,000 XP for shaming the DM for cultural appropriation

>>96136197
It IS the only way to play *OSR games*, yes and thus always the best way to play OSR games.

If you want to play something else, that's cool, but you have the entire rest of the board for that so no need to shit up our thread.

>>96138716
This isn't "your" personal thread, and you need to stop acting like a retard, especially as you're trying to pump this thread full of lies.

>>96138804
>No, there's a billion ways to play games and-
Yeah but try fucking off to the 40K thread and telling asking them 'Do we really need to roll dice for combat, UwU'
You are here.
In our thread.
For our games.
That are played a specific way.
And no amount of inane faggotry on your part is going to deconstruct them.
If you don't like it? Fuck off and go make /todd/ again, that worked out well for you last time.

>>96138874
Fuck off.
Stop trying to force everyone to conform to your limited and demonstrably wrong world view.

How many times do you need to be banned before you understand that "If I shitpost and spam hard enough, I can change the way a website works" isn't how 4chan operates? You have your personal opinions, and you're allowed to speak for yourself, and that's it.

The specific way you personally play is not the way anyone else plays. Not even two groups trying to play identically end up playing the same way. You not even being able to appreciate something like that has you building your entire stance on an impossible position, and that's without even mentioning that the OSR is for not just a single system.

How the fuck can you be so... wrong? About everything? All the time?

>>96138804
>/5e/ isn't your personal thread, we can talk about any games we want in here, stop policing, reeee!
Lmao, fuck off and try that in there instead.

>>96136197
ntayrt
calm your shit down and stop looking for arguments in your reverse purity touting.
>>96136561
I do this but with 10 flat and for every successfully mapped room or area. Makes them more inclined to map properly. There's already incentive for exploration because that's how you find treasure but humans are fucking bad at evaluating over time so having some number to tell them goes up even with a bum haul keeps the players in it a bit more without being too much of an issue for leveling/treasure/monster xp.

>>96136197
But I don't just want to recommend it. I never say that. I always say that it's a critical and unremovable part of the game due to its importance for the gameplay loop. There's no backpedaling, you're just being disingenuous. And there's nothing cancerous about knowing how OSR games are meant to play.

>>96139273
>I always say that it's a critical and unremovable part of the game
Oh. You're just wrong then. You were better off sticking to your "n-no, i-i was just offering a r-r-recommendation" backpedalling, because at least then you wouldn't be flat-out incorrect.

>>96139273
He's nothing but disingenuous. That's his entire shtick: sophistry, trolling with off-topic bits, and pretending that old-school gaming doesn't exist.

>>96139371
Says the guy who's running away from the discussion and trying to make a boogeyman out of everyone that disagrees with you.

>>96137293
You must genuinely be a fucking retard or something

>>96139411
Don't forget samefagging.

>>96137828
I was extremely drunk last night, but my point exactly still stands, the fact that they have different armor classes relative to being on armored across editions, as well as having different values relative to the other system for their internal armors.
Plate in BX and plate in advanced each offer a different armor value relative to being unarmored

>>96138307
The armors literally are off by one, if you're starting point is different, then yes they are literally different because you are starting at a different initial value

>>96139307
>sticking to
But I told you I never did that in the first place. I'm beginning to suspect you of being a troll.

>>96139445
>3=3
>5=5
>they are literally different
>literally

>>96139437
The argument started over using "Armor as plate," saying that was ambiguous because "it's different between editions." If plate is 5 here and 5 there, it's not ambiguous at all, and that guy's 100% correct; your argument makes no sense, you don't need the module to tell you how far from unarmored the monster's AC is, you need it to tell you its value, which is 5. The fact that it's slightly harder to hit an unarmored person in one of those editions is entirely irrelevant.

>>96134228
250 XP bringing monster to exactly 0 HP
100 XP staying on the rails
0 XP going off the rails
-300 XP use of irony or sarcasm
10000 XP overcoming biologically assigned gender

>>96140478
I recognise that Anon, he's been making this argument that AC 5 is different in AD&D and B/X for a long time now every time the topic remotely comes up. It's some sort of autistic retarded fixation he has.

>>96140579
100 XP for installing 4chanX
2,000 XP for installing GhostPostMixer
500 XP for deleting cookies
1,000 XP for restarting the router to get a new IP
10,000 XP for sneaking in a reference to fishes or retardeness with the first letter replaced by a number without having the post removed

>>96139644
He is the resident troll people further up were alluding to trying to ruin the thread.
He regularly baits people to respond by outright trolling against the general's meaning as outlined in OP, shows general hostility and calls anyone who argues with him a liar then hands out 3-day bans for responding even if it's 100% on-topic responses because he's such a newfag that he doesn't know about archives and userscripts showing deleted posts.
He's easily the worst piece of shit i've ever had the misfortune of interacting with on this site going all the way back to 2006.

>>96138307
>>All armours are off by one!
Stop being a strawmanning dumb cunt. Choosing plate as the datum was bad for comparison. Choosing a proper value for comparison leads to the deltas being off by one when one is set of values is adjusted such that unarmoured targets have the same AC.

>>96139437
Take this with a grain of salt rather than being salty, are you still drunk now?
>Plate in BX and plate in advanced each offer a different armor value relative to being unarmored
It's like you're explaining to me what you meant as if I didn't already understand and agree that plate and mail are relatively better in AD&D compared to unarmoured than they are in BX with the same comparison.

>>96142261
It's painfully obvious you've never actually run a game at this point.

An NPC in an AD&D module wears chain mail and has AC 5. Suppose you want to run that module using B/X or OD&D. What AC does that NPC have? 5, because the AC of chain in AD&D, OD&D, and B/X is the same. It's 5.

An NPC in a B/X module wears plate mail and has AC 3. Suppose you want to run that module using AD&D. What AC does that NPC have? 3, because the AC of chain in AD&D, OD&D, and B/X is the same. It's 3.

You'd know this if you had actually run an AD&D module in B/X or vice versa. You obviously haven't.

The difference could come up in principle if you want to port Unarmored or Leather AC, but in fact practically nobody gives a fuck. Not even Gygax, who never bothered to errata the monsters in the MM: Unarmored monsters in the MM and DMG have AC 9, not 10. There's not a single monster in the the MM with AC 10, but there's a score monsters with AC 9. And the things reverse in the FF and MM2, where you suddenly have a bunch of monsters with AC 10. So clearly it's two different systems, both exist in AD&D, and it's not an important difference.

So when it publish a module for first decade D&D, you can just use the AC system of OD&D, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, the Monster Manual, and half of the DMG and ignore the peculiar AC system in the PHB and the other half of the DMG. Or do the other way around, it doesn't really matter.

>B-but what if I calculate the difference with respect to unarmored AC!
That's nogames bullshit. When you publish a module for AD&D or B/X, you never give AC differences, you only give AC.

he doesn't look like how I envisioned

>>96134228
You can use Dave Hargrave's retarded XP system from Arduin but I suspect he was a monty haul DM at the time given how people were supposedly reaching 50th level and other weirdness, and his own charts show 6 digit xp numbers which don't jive with these capping out at 400. It's a different type of game for sure but he was also a vietnam vet and reportedly bit cooked in the head.

>>96135145
>>96135360
>>96140478
None of this matters without the corresponding attack tables for at least 1 class being compared across games, determining the hit % of each AC at a few representative levels. "armor as" means you don't have to actually provide conversion notes or specify which system(s) it's for. You offload that to the system itself and the DM can have a sticky note on his screen with the armor values. The disadvantage is that you lose the finer granularity of being able to just state a number that doesn't follow this track, and you have to use clumsier wording and more characters both in the stat blocks and whenever you need to state when AC is modified by something or other.


The ultimate goal of stating "armor as" is really to enable cross-OSR-game compatibility since multiple OSR games, when Raggi began doing it in his modules, used ascending AC. It also makes them easier to convert to things closer to d20-system shit, and you have to remember LotFP modules early on were NOT really combat-focused and relatively punishing for kick-in-the-door play.

Not really relevant but history bits: He was also self-aware enough to know that if he made LotFP adventures with exclusively ascending AC (as his preference) it would alienate a lot of other games, as most use descending. His primary aim was to sell modules for the purposes of scamming the Finnish government's "start a business" program, so he could live a bit more like a NEET with his girlfriend at the time being a sugar mommy, buying time on finding a real job. His own system was just intended as a fantasy heartbreaker because retailers didn't know what OSR games were back in 2010 and wouldn't sell modules without a corresponding game.

>>96136744
No. The rulebook does not explicitly clarify, but a small fighter attacking a medium opponent still deals the "S/M" damage, as the opponent is not size L but M.
>>96136768
See the table at the bottom of PHB 19, the triple asteriks especially.
The smallest PCs ("those under 100 pounds") can still use Bastard Swords for example as those are still under the 200 gp weight and under the 12 foot length limits and slash frost giants for 2d8 per hit.

>>96143728
That chart is totally ridiculous even without Arduin's other XP-related systems in mind and completely absurd if you do figure them in, yes.

There's a lot of fun shit in Arduin but Hargrave genuinely had no real grasp of D&D and what made it work at all.

>>96143807
>None of this matters without the corresponding attack tables
Nogames bullshit. You don't need the attack tables to calculate AC.

> "armor as" means you don't have to actually provide conversion notes or specify which system(s) it's for
Congratulations, by not specifying what system it is for, you've made it even less usable for everyone, since now start blocks don't mean anything anymore.

>The ultimate goal of stating "armor as" is really to enable cross-OSR-game compatibility
No, it isn't, it to pose as cross-system faggotry while making the game less usable. What you propose looks retarded on the page, is annoying for people who play D&D, and of no convenience for people who play ACKS or LotFP because they're forced to do a conversion anyway.

>>96144259
>You don't need the attack tables to calculate AC.
We're talking about designing, not playing or creating a single thing for your own group only. If you want to ensure mechanical parity you need to know if you're actually changing the lethality of something significantly with the AC being a 1 or 2 point difference.

>now start blocks don't mean anything anymore
An early OSR mantra was "system doesn't matter". As long as it was basically OSR (in the threads' case, cleaving to the first decade + the principles in the noob guide) you're all good.
>and of no convenience
I can have a sticky note with what each converts to on hand easily. It's 4 lines, and if you're using modules you're basically having to have such notes for things anyway unless you run everything purely as-is. Disbelieving in stickynote gaming is a true nogames position.

>>96144308
>We're talking about designing, not playing
Yeah, that's amply clear.

>I can have a sticky note with what each converts to on hand easily. It's 4 lines
As opposed to ONE line if you give the OD&D/BX/MM Armour Class, e.g.
>ACKS: AC = 19 - AC

I was wondering where you all tend to draw the line on player knowledge and skill vs character knowledge and skill, and how autistically I should enforce, "you didn't say your character did this, so you didn't do it"

A lot of people at least showing a telegraph for most traps being immediately obvious. For example, "there's a singed body here and some holes in the walls", rather than a roll for chance of trap springing and saying, "Sorry, you didn't specifically say you looked at the floor in hallway be so you didn't see the singed body on the floor". (i.e. an intentional siding with presumed character knowledge vs player knowledge)

With maps a lot of people like to make their players draw them on their own with mistakes and all adding to it as part of the challenge and fun. (bias towards player skill/knowledge)

With character names/locations/world lore, DMs might give reminders for players who have busy lives and forgot to write down "the bartender at village #512 was named John." instead of making players rely solely on their notes, because in game the character talked to that bartender literally 2 hours ago and would've remembered it. (bias on character knowledge)

What about dropped items/backpacks in combat? If not specified, realistically do you let characters pick them back up with being specified? Readying weapons before combat? Specifying a joke/insult about an NPC in front of them is out of character? Travel direction? (i.e. we head towards the exit vs we go east, north, and around the corner) How stringent are you guys with these things so that it doesn't become so laissez-faire that no planning or forethought is needed since there's no consequence to forgetting something vs just being too anal about detail?

Domain style is boring. I don't want Game of Thrones, I want Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

>>96144348
Forgot the most important part

>As long as it was basically OSR (in the threads' case, cleaving to the first decade + the principles in the noob guide) you're all good.
Based. Everything else is bickering over very secondary stuff.

>>96120434 (OP)
Rolling

>>96144348
>As opposed to ONE line if you give the OD&D/BX/MM Armour Class, e.g.
>ACKS: AC = 19 - AC
I'm absolutely shit at math so it's simpler to have
>Chain = 5
Or lines of
>X = Y

>>96144354
>"Sorry, you didn't specifically say you looked at the floor in hallway be so you didn't see the singed body on the floor".
This only occurs if something is immediately distracting like a light in the distance or combat. Then they might see "what looks like a corpse on the left side of the room" but not if it's singed.

But if there isn't anything pressing, you might convey that easily. "The scent of rotting flesh assails your nostrils as you make your way down the hall, but there is a distinct undercurrent of burnt hair. Thankfully as your torchlight presses aginst the darkness ahead, it appears to be - this time - an inanimate, burnt corpse."

>What about dropped items/backpacks in combat? If not specified, realistically do you let characters pick them back up with being specified?
I assume you meant "without being specified" at the end but I'd not. Pay attention to your gear! Of course it's most likely going to still be there untouched unless they left for the whole day. The penalty is the time cost in going back to get it.

>Readying weapons
In a dungeon I would ask what each is doing with their hands as standard. Personally I would assume that as part of their action on first initiative that whoever has the map, 10ft pole, or is doing something with their hands has time to draw a weapon.
This also solves the problem of interpersonal conversation coming to blows, since initiative then becomes a form of the classic samurai duel or spaghetti western showdown. Except, with more back and forth of course.

>Travel direction? (i.e. we head towards the exit vs we go east, north, and around the corner)
Depends. The map is the guide out, it can be wrong. If it's just leaving a room with a single hallway, and its obvious where they're going, of course it doesn't matter.

>>96144354
General rule of thumb I'd say is 'If your character would have to be fucking retarded not to then we can presume you automatically do it'
'You don't notice the corpse because you didn't say outright that you were checking the corridor' has the same vibes as 'The orc lops your cock off because you said your character took a moment to take a piss but you never said you put your dick away', in that it has the smell of the DM sitting there with a smug look on his face at having gotten one over on the players by being pedantic.

Meanwhile 'You didn't write down the name of the wizards apprentice and now he's asking you if you've seen the lad in your travels' doesn't feel like you, as DM, are taking the piss.

It's very much a rule of thumb thing really.

>>96144354
>"Sorry, you didn't say you looked at the floor so you didn't see the singed body on the floor".
The singed body on the floor is obvious, the holes on the walls are not unless the players say they're looking.

>With maps a lot of people like to make their players draw them on their own with mistakes and all adding to it as part of the challenge and fun.
It's not just a preference, it's required for the OSR style of play = first decade D&D, Gygax/Arneson style.

>"the bartender at village #512 was named John." the character would've remembered it.
"The character would remember it" is never by itself a reason to give players information. However, since the name of a bartender is trivial information that is easily retrieved by just asking a passer-by, not reminding players of it just results in a waste of time as players sigh and say "okay, I'll just ask the first person I meet".

>If not specified, realistically do you let characters pick them back up with being specified?
Yes, because it's annoying and retarded to go "hurr durr you didn't say you would pick your backup back up".

>Readying weapons before combat?
Players have to declare what their characters are wielding at all times.

>Specifying a joke/insult about an NPC in front of them is out of character?
In-character talk is for faggots, we're not doing community theater here.

>Travel direction? (i.e. we head towards the exit vs we go east, north, and around the corner)
Players are never assumed to know their cardinal directions, they have to say "right" and "left". This is because there's a lot of dungeon effects that can turn characters around, so they can never assume they know for certain what the cardinal directions are, nor should you give that information away.

>just being too anal about detail?
General rule: If it's a challenge for players, don't give the information. If the information is trivial to retrieve and just a chore, give it without wasting anybody's time.

>>96144462
>Players are never assumed to know their cardinal directions, they have to say "right" and "left". This is because there's a lot of dungeon effects that can turn characters around, so they can never assume they know for certain what the cardinal directions are, nor should you give that information away.
This seems good in theory but tracking it in practice is a nightmare when it comes to rooms and not hallways. Many people I know confuse right and left all the damn time.
The simplest thing IMO is always to maintain an ASSUMED north. They have their map, the map has "north" on it keyed (ie checked before descending). The characters will be tracking NSEW due to this, but not an actual compass. Those traps are extra devious because you still keep giving false directions by simply rotating your DM map or using a separate token as a compass rose on your side until they figure out the ruse.

>>96144574
>Many people I know confuse right and left all the damn time.
While I agree that that is an issue with some players, my experience is that the mapper is usually less retarded than average.

>>96144574
>>96144981
ALSO, my own special flavour of retardation is that I can tell left from right instinctively and immediately, while east and west come much less naturally to me.

>>96144368
Why not both at the same time?

>>96144308
The guide you made is filled with lies and it's less a guide on how to get into OSR and more a guide on how to be the worst kind of poster here. It's not a /osrg/ guide, it's a "guy who keeps ban-evading because people don't want him here" guide.

It doesn't even give any good advice on where to start playing OSR games, which is really dumb for something pretending to be a guide for new people.

>>96144390
>the only thing i have left that contains my anti-OSR lies
How you cling to it.

>>96145122
If you're that worried about noobs being missinformed, why not make your own, "proper" guide?

>>96144462
>in-character talk is for faggots
You play a game about elves and hobbits. You were already a faggot, so might as well embrace it.

>>96145332

>>96145332
We actually had a discussion about doing that a few weeks back, and it involved someone having a meltdown about how it had to exclude 2e. Even just scrubbing out the super-opinionated opinions from the current guide had him in a tizzy.

While everyone else was discussing how to actually give game recommendations, he was throwing a fit over how the guide needed to indoctrinate people into his specific play style.

I guess if we want a new guide, we can't actually build one in this thread without our resident tantrum queen exploding. Guess it's just a matter of making a new guide and then presenting it while pretending any opinions held within are some sort of accepted view.

>>96145488
>We
lol
lmao even

>>96120440
How do you guys feel about duel purpose spells?

I was thinking of a cleric spell called "reflective steel" or "imbue steel" or something to that effect where the cleric can imbue a small part of his soul in up to 2 pieces of metal. for a weapon, it grants a +1 to hit and d4 extra damage, pretty n BUT it also allows the cleric to see THROUGH that piece of steel as if he was looking through the reflection of a well polished piece of metal. allowing more exploratory uses like throwing a ball baring over a wall to observe what's on the other side. Or a little bit of both, cast it on a sling bolt, and if it hits and the enemy runs away without dislodging it yet, you can track them.

like the idea of a sudtle spell that has utility in combat and exploration.

>>96145621
https://www.grammarly.com/commonly-confused-words/dual-vs-duel

>>96145488
really good villian spell too. give the party what seems to be a magic weapon, but really its a way for the vilian to keep tabs on them.

>>96145488
Hmm yes, I remember that real thing that totally happened too, it was very real

>>96146171
Never underestimate his ability to gaslight himself.
The real conversation being something along the lines of:
>Let's make a new guide/wiki
>Great, that retarded nigger of a Janny can't force us to put up with his fucking 2e bullshit off site
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-
Not that I need to describe it given most of us were there.

>>96146207
What's actually impressive is the amount of effort you put into trying to gaslight this thread.
Man, the jobless really are curse on the rest of us.

>>96144462
Good reply. Saved me the trouble of writing one.

>>96146297
Meanwhile outside lead paint infused world:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95955556/#95960045
>Dozens of replies all going 'This is a great idea'
>Literally just (you) on the other side, seething and shitting yourself at the idea of there being a space where your jelquing buddy won't be able to ban people
>Mass deletions

I mean shit, someone even suggested colour coding for 'Core OSR', 'Mostly OSR', 'OSR adjacent'
But apparently that wasn't good enough for you, you actual honest to god subhuman. No, it's your way or the highway, you'll burn this thread to the ground just to rule the ashes.
Because, again, you are a Cunt, capital C.

>>96146322
>thread is nothing at all like he describes
Wow, you were really just praying no one would check, weren't you?
Also, watch this-
>dozens of replies telling you to fuck off and your posts even getting deleted because you keep throwing tantrums (like this one you'r3 currently undergoing)
>literally just (you) in the other side, samefagging and seething etc. etc.

>>96146345
>thread is nothing at all like he describes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpuUwwSkC3E

>>96146335
>nooooo let me keep ineffectually trying to bully people out of saying things i disagree with while also gaslighting this thread and throwing embarassing tantrums that lead to mass deletions whenever anyone disagrees with me

Learn to stop being so autistic already.

>>96146378
>Just let me get away with by bullshit, Janny-Mom says I'm allowed to tag along with you! I'll tell if you keep calling me names, waah-
Go sit at the retard table where you belong >>96127744

>>96146397
Wow, you might actually think you can try and bully people to get what you want.
lol, you probably got bullied super fucking hard to believe that.

>>96146322
>https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/95955556/#95960045
What a perfect description of the faggot we're stuck dealing with.

>>96146427
The worst part? He needs everyone else to be one person, otherwise he can't figure out how he can try bullying them. Hence his boogeyman fabrication business.

>>96146454
The worst part is that he's just wrong.

>>96146345
It literally is exactly as Anon described it and the fact that you posted dozens of times trying to seethe out the idea of the wiki for fear that it would state correctly that 2e isn't an OSR game is not actually an argument. You posting style is way too recognizable for you to samefag the way you do effectively.

>>96146739
>it's not working, I need to gaslight harder!
No, that makes it worse.

>>96146739
Honestly, watching him attempt to will the world he believes into existence thread after thread was amusing early on.
If nothing else the constant hypocrisy of 'This one guy wants everyone who disagrees with him to be the same person, what an asshole he is, the one guy' is entertaining, if only because he simply doesn't understand how anyone could see through his clever disguise of pretending it isn't him samefagging to hell and back.
>But how can they recognize my writing style, that am unpossible!

>>96146739
NTA, but your "style" is pretty much set at this point. You have a tantrum in the same exact way, and it happens on different things, not just 2e. You actually have a list of triggers, because your pattern of trying to make everyone you're arguing with into just one guy has you take your list and trying to make one person out of them.
You deflect, samefag, accuse everyone else of samefagging, and then try gaslighting an audience you think is reading your posts with great interest. You're identifiable even outside of this general, and you've on occasion dragged arguments from elsewhere back to this thread because you think your intolerant idiot behavior and trolling ends where you decide it does.
You're just a whiny troll with severe autism. And for some reason you feign ignorance on why your posts keep getting deleted.

What are some stupid monsters.

I think Burnflowers are stupid.
>desert flowers that shoot heat rays during the day

>>96146907
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoweoL_Q6q0

Can someone explain to me what is this AD&D3E in the OSR Archive? Is this a fan made edition? Looks closer to 1e than 2e, is it 1e but reworded to be clearer?

>>96147011
Demi-liches. Spooky skulls do nothing for me.

>>96147105
Those things may look silly but they are fucking overpowered.

>>96147146
Succinctly why they're dumb.

>>96147174
It's teaches players to not judge a book by it's cover.

>>96147091
>AD&D3E
Did you know that 3E was real but abandoned halfway through? They could no longer marry the vision they had with the old mechanics, so they skipped it to 3.5E. 3E was broken and unloved before it was ever playable, but some of it still floats along in repositories.
Someone please scream and tell me I'm wrong that 3E is your favorite, thanks in advance.

>>96148339
All I've gotta say about 3e?
Ghostwalk was pretty based as a setting, ghosts and serpentmen.

>>96148339
>Is this a fan made edition?
yes https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49186

>>96147091
>Is this a fan made edition?
yes https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49186

>>96148530
TL;DR it's B/X/1e/2e/3e/5e heartbreaker hybrid, one of many that have been attempted, and a classic example of why trying to make a later edition into OSR, or hybridising OSR with a later edition, just doesn't work.

>>96147206
I'll keep that in mind the next time I play with eight-year-olds.

Just moved back near my hometown and wanting to get back to DMing for my brother in law, his son (17) and a friend and their son(13). Any rulesets in particular you found to have strong cross generational appeal/accessibility that I should post in our discord for their perusal. Ideally I would keep it to a handful of options even as I read through all the systems here that pique my interest.

>>96147011
>stupid monsters
This guy right here. Not necessarily stupid in a general sense, but stupidly rare to encounter organically. Roughly 2% to encounter them RAW on sylvan/faerie terrain and only there. If not for their pathetic AC they would be quite deadly.
"Stupid" also in a sense that their rarity makes them hard to use and deal with. DMs will have to find excuses to put them in their non-faerie environs. Actually intelligent flyers are also seen as "unfair" by pl*yoids, especially if their goal is mostly "abduct the weakest one and kill him in our lair".
For players it is hard to justify to have actual IC knowledge of these rare creatures. Everyone knows the Owlbear because they are hilarious and a staple, but not Perytons. Heck, most players don't even know Perytons OOC. They will be surprised at their intelligence and be baffled that these opponents will just pick up a downed guy and fly away instead of fighting to the death. And even if they are the type to look up the MM during the fight, Perytons are so unknown they would not know where to look.

tl;dr if the Demi-lich is a stupid gotcha that will likely kill you, the Peryton is also a stupid gotcha that players will actually fall for.

>>96151825
A 13yo can grasp most (if not all) mechanics on any of the suggested systems in the newbie guide (unless you go full AD&D RAW), so feel free to pick your poison based on what type of game you think your players will prefer the most. Most OSR share the same mechanics, but usually they have different strengths or focus:

You want a several years long traditional campaign? AD&D, OSRIC (3rd edition is coming out soon), maybe Rules Cyclopedia.
You want domain play? ACKS.
You want to keep everyone in a dungeon, forever? B/X retroclones like OSE or Labyrinth Lord.
You just want to have fun without everybody fighting over gold coins? BFRPG, definitely.

Most of us end up mixing and matching mechanics from all those games anyway, so don't be afraid of "choosing wrong" at firat, you can easily switch rulesets or port mechanics from another game to yours. Don't fret.

>>96152046
>You just want to have fun without everybody fighting over gold coins? BFRPG, definitely
Why would you suggest that broken, generic shit?

>>96152049
Precisely because it's generic enough most people can easily have fun with it. The main caveat for BFRPG is the treasure tables and monster XP, but unless you're a hardcore OSR nerd you won't even notice (nor care). It's pretty newbie friendly and I'd even go as far as saying it's the genuine OSR answer to 5e.

>>96152049
You're talking to a guy who's recommending ACKS for its domain play and OSRIC for anything. That's like recommending getting AIDS for weight loss.

>>96151825
The Moldvay Basic set is very beginner (particularly younger players) friendly, with clear and direct language, and is a proper successor of Holmes's version without being the step backward that was Mentzer's. It's a bit loose in some parts, but if you've already got previous DMing experience it should be perfect for you and your group.

You all do ban non-humans at your table, right?

>>96152075
>That's like recommending getting AIDS for weight loss.
You mean chocolate Ayds, right?

>>96152076
>human only mudcore NuSR
Return to Gary's light, anon. True AD&D will set you free.

>>96152076
>>96152083
I can't tell which of you is the bigger faggot.

>>96152076
No demihumans, no thieves and if you're slightly brown IRL (or god forbid, a woman) you get a -10% penalty to XP. Wouldn't run my OSR any other way, sir.

>>96152086
>He denies the light of True AD&D
These are dark times indeed

>>96151825
B/X, OD&D, AD&D. B/X as presented in OSE-Classic might be the most accessible player-facing option, but for the DM it's, best to learn using B/X and only use OSE as a reference manual. The noob guide has more information to help you get started:
https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0B

Unlike the Anon >>96152046 I recommend against BFRPG, because for no good reason Gonnerman decided to go ahead and arbitrarily fuck up core rules like XP attribution, dungeon stocking, and treasure tables.

As for ACKS, it is good, but not the best system to get started. It has lots of compatible mechanics you can steal, though.

>>96152110
You then.

>>96152123
ACKS is only good if for some reason you want a game set in a ACKS-like world, which most people won't. You're better off just sticking to the rules in the Player's Companion books, because they're much more adaptable and much, much easier to use.

>>96151825
Basic D&D with eventual graduation into AD&D.

>>96152139
Disagree. I don't like the ACKS setting for the most part, and I don't use it as my core rules, but I still find that there's tons of useful stuff in ACKS.

Just to give one example, the "Heroic" magic item tables are very very well made and intrinsically useful, and the Wilderness encounter tables in ACKS are much better than those in B/X.

I know someone already made solo rules for BFRPG but I saw a new one and wanted to share. This one makes it work less like Scarlet Heroes and I really like its simplification of saving throws. On the other hand, the 2d6 skill test feels more like Sine Nomine (while the other guy's attribute test is much simpler)

>source: https://hmslima.com.br/

>>96152767
>>96152767
For comparison, here's the other solo rules
>http://web.archive.org/web/20250329213056/https://www.basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4519

>>96152071
Plus it's creative commons now so it's good hacking material.

>>96120434 (OP)
Does anyone have any cool underdark-esque hex maps? I have the one from Kingdom of Ghouls (dragon magazine) but would like something that covers a larger region.

>>96142467
>It's painfully obvious you've never actually run a game at this point.
Great wall of text but since you were wrong at the very start I didn't waste my time reading the rest.

>>96152076
If I did that then my cats couldn't be there and then it'd just be me and...
Me. It would just be me.

>>96152902

>>96153012
Ooh! Thanks. I love the verticality.

>>96152071
>unless you care about the core gameplay loop you won't even notice
New people don't notice things are fucked because they don't know. You're activly encouraging people to be ignorant. Fuck off.

>>96153142
>Add a 0 to the treasure tables
What a hard fix.

>AXOMORPHER FAG REPORTING
Many months ago I shared the development progress of my Axomorpher thingamajig... and then I forgot to share it when I completed it! Here it is:
https://sygor-hnot.github.io/axomorpher/

>It's a gimmick
Yes, but it's MY gimmick.

>>96153423
In case it isn't clear, you can use the Preset tab edit the structure of the dungeonmorphs

>>96152089
So you are nogames.

>>96153255
>I'm stupid
>why aren't you?
BFRPG fans at it again
>>96153733
Relax your sphincter, anon, he was just being silly

>>96153142
I'm encouraging people to give OSR a try and, eventually, maybe understand what we're about.

Not all groups jump happily into gold-as-XP, race-as-class, THAC0 or even sandboxes. BFRPG is a nice compromise that I can see many DMs running without changing their playstyle too much and alienating their 5e players.

Once you're running your game then suddenly most of what we are asperging about here starts making sense. Otherwise all you're reading about is a bunch of retards whining about treasure tables and forcing you to read shit from 1976 without having the context to understand why that matters.

>>96154353
>forcing you to read shit from 1976
and we get to the heart of your problem

Armor Type………AC Value
Wizard Robes..…………. 10
Unarmored.…………….… 9
Padded.…………………… 8
Leather.…………………… 7
Scalemail…………………. 6
Chainmail…………………. 5
Splintmail…………………. 4
Platemail………………….. 3
Full Plate………………….. 2
Field Plate………………… 1

>>96154491
No, the problem is you don't read all of his post and just get butthurt over a small part of what he said.

>>96154491
Not really, huge fan of CSIO and Wilderlands of High Fantasy. Since you're avoiding my point I'll assume you at least understand it. That's good enough for me, friend.

"Don't read too much, get to playing".

>>96154353
>alienating their 5e players.
If they are alienated by a mere whiff of oldschool, they are not worth my time.
They accept Earnest Gary Gygax into their hearts or I do not accept them into mine.

>>96154693
Oh, I read it all, I just singled out the dumbest part of all the dumb.

You can't just introduce new people to baseball all at once! You'll scare them off!

Maybe leave a glove laying around where they can see it. Show them the ball while you're watching streams of Subway Surfers together. Eventually when they're no longer frightened you can start to introduce more of the rules, and maybe one day take them to a game. But it might help if you replaced parts of baseball with a different game. If you do all this, you'll be able to to share your love of baseball with your new friends who hate baseball!

>>96154353
I'm encouraging people to give chess a try, but I'm afraid they might not like it, so I'm teaching them snakes and ladders. If they play snakes and ladders for long enough, eventually they'll get chess.

>>96154947
If you can't run the game at a quick pace were it's very action-focused and without any breaks for 50+ second long rule lookups then no, you shouldn't use the full rules.
Pacing is easily one of the top three most important things about running AD&D.

>>96154947
>>96155135
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware BFRPG was no longer OSR. Silly me.

>>96155207
(You) said that yourself:
>BFRPG is a nice compromise
Nice or not (it isn't), a compromise isn't the real deal.

>>96155207
I think you're talking to our resident game-nazi troll.

>>96153423
I'm not super into the gimmick but there are solid applications if taken beyond what it generates, thank you for sharing.

>>96155207
As has been said many times, it's not that it's "not OSR" it's that it's a shitty OSR game. "But my group had fun" is not a valid counterargument to criticism of missing or broken rules.

>>96152071
It's dogshit
>>96152778
>Plus it's creative commons now so it's good hacking material
Only weird little cowards wait for someone to authorize their actions
Only

>>96142467
Wrong, moron. Probabilities are different, simple as

>>96156526
>missing or broken rules
You've got a very weird view of how games work. I've encountered this before, typically among people who try to present their personal views and tastes as objective ideas.

>"But my group had fun" is not a valid counterargument to criticism
Unfortunately for you, it is a valid counterargument to "It's a shitty game."
"I had fun" does not make bad rules disappear, but it does diminish how vitally important those rules apparently are. If someone had fun despite the rules you disagree with, then perhaps those rules are not enough to condemn the system as you are attempting to do.

A game can have "broken" (a terrible word to use in these discussions, since the meaning seems to shift back and forth depending on what the trolls needs it to mean at any point in time) rules and still be a decent game, especially if it took creative risks that lead to those "broken" rules in the first place.

BFRPG is far from my favorite game, but it's certainly a lot better than many other games frequently discussed here, especially because it was designed with houserules and customization in mind. There's a good number of people even in this thread who could stand a few lessons on flexibility, and its unsurprising that they'd stuggle with a game like BFRPG.

>>96151860
How exactly do they use the heart to reproduce.
Lube?

>>96157300
Lot of words to say "I know the rules are bad, and I don't care"

>>96157300
>It's a shitty game
"It's a shitty OSR game" is not the same thing as "it's a shitty game." BFRPG is bad at being an OSR game, because it's built with non-OSR houserules and expectations and advice, and has dungeon generation rules that do not provide a solid OSR gameplay experience if you're dumb enough to use them.
If somebody wants a generic fantasy adventure game, BFRPG is a decent suggestion. If somebody wants to /play an OSR game/ it's a terrible suggestion. Being "designed with houserules in mind" means it's for advanced users who already know the OSR inside and out and can modify it knowing what they'll get, it is NOT suitable for newbies who've never played OSR before.

>>96157413

>>96153423
>>96153446
I am pretty into this gimmick for one dungeon.
Thanks anon, really like it.

>>96154353
>Not all groups jump happily into gold-as-XP, race-as-class, THAC0 or even sandboxes.
>Not all groups jump happily into osr
then they should play something else. If you have to trick people into a thing its not a thing they're going to like or stick with, you're just sad and lonely enough to compromise too much. Either stop babying your players or play something you don't have to hoodwink them into.

>>96157413
You've got a very weird view of how OSR games work.
It's incredibly closed-minded and makes you sound like you think there is some sort of singular way to play OSR games and anything else is heresy. Leave that kind of chanting to the 40k players.

>Being "designed with houserules in mind" means it's for advanced users who already know the OSR inside and out and can modify it knowing what they'll get,
No, it's built with the idea that people are living, breathing, and (most importantly) thinking creatures, and that they can be trusted to have their own opinions and make their own decisions. OSR isn't about brainwashing people into some sort of cult, where everyone does their best to adhere to some imagined "True OSR" as closely as they imagine they can. The OSR has thousands, potentially millions of styles built out of dozens of systems with countless differences; even what OSR stands for isn't unified.

You apparently are exactly the kind of person who could benefit from learning how to play BFRPG, because you are weirdly rigid and mentally inflexible, which is ironic considering the gymnastics you perform. You're like half an inch away from trying to say BFRPG isn't an OSR game, and instead are settling on "it's a poor representative of OSR", or in your words a "shitty OSR game", like you're the one who decides that.

I disagree with a lot of BFRPG, but it's easy enough to learn and to adapt to a style you and your group prefer. I wouldn't personally recommend it, but a lot of people seem to like it and it's light enough to let people quickly form their own opinions on it and explore their own options and ideas.

>it's built with non-OSR houserules and expectations and advice,
You disagreeing with something doesn't make it non-OSR.
I'm pretty sure most people would disagree with your interpretations of OSR, but you're allowed to have almost all of them, just not the part where you imagine your sect is the one true faith and all heretics must be killed.

>>96157324
>How exactly do they use the heart to reproduce.
>Lube?
Yes, and the lube hardens into an eggshell around the heart. Then the youngling Peryton hatches after 1d4+2 weeks, taking on quirks and characteristics from the (N)PC, so that it can be spotted in a following battle for the satisfying "oh, no, it's Jim!"-effect.

>>96158679
>everything is osr because i feel like it
NTAYRT. Go away. There are many other places you can be praised for such long winded nothings.

>>96158762
>>everything is osr because i feel like it
Do you know what we call the fallacy where someone misrepresents or exaggerates an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack?
We call that "strawmanning."

>>96158679
I don't think anyone should get angry at the idea that osrg is rigid. But the post you're answering to didn't say the things you answer to. His points were
>Games that expect modification are not introductory games, you need some previous experience to know what you want
>BFRPG isn't a shitty game, but has expectations that make it a bad go to when someone wants to try something OSR

>just not the part where you imagine your sect is the one true faith and all heretics must be killed.
don't be dramatic, there has to be like a dozen posts itt that deserve that line more than the one you replied to.

>>96158762
>>everything is osr because i feel like it
that wasn't anyone's point, you're not even supporting the previous anon. You decided some rando was the target of your pet peeve.

Has anyone played a campaign with 1e OA recently? How does it hold up?

>>96158851
>1e OA
Can you show me on the doll where the OSR touched you, please?

>>96158824
>Games that expect modification are not introductory games, you need some previous experience to know what you want
That's essentially every game. I can't think of a single one that actually says "You are forbidden from making any alterations to these rules," and none that can actually enforce that anyway. Just about all of them encourage houserules of one form or another.

BFRPG is really just a game with a large/old enough community to share copious amounts of houserules/modfiications, and that's encouraged by the base game being very basic (and free). I think it's a fairly natural approach for a group to start with a lite system as an introduction, and then develop the game from that point as they gain more experience, and BFRPG seems designed with that in mind.

You could do worse. I personally think it's good for groups to start with games with large and official foundations so that they feel like the rules really matter (because one of the initial hurdles that new players often have to overcome is that feeling that RPGs are just whim and fancy), but I've played with people who responded much better to lighter systems and even some people who responded particularly poorly to more structured and rigid systems. A point in favor of games like BFRPG is that it's a quick and easy read, even if that just means its easier to look at its rules and say "This game keeps flipping back and forth between extremely autistic and way too basic."

>>96158999
>I can't think of a single one that actually says "You are forbidden from making any alterations to these rules,"
No one said that. The point is that a game that expects a GM to adapt it is one that expects an experienced GM. At not point was not altering things brought up.

>two
I love the Grell. This piece of art is one of my favorites. My current party would get absolutely shitsmacked by one right now so it's a good thing they haven't encountered one. 11 attacks with paralysis and a 4-in-six chance of surprise is nasty. I'm sure they'll happen across one some day. I also loved the art for the Gar for whatever reason.

>>96159159
Forgot pic

>>96158999
I appreciate BFRPG for what it is, but I think people's critiques of it are fair. I do own several of the books, and I salute the author for how he prices his stuff. Some decent modules in there too.
>>96152075
I like OSRIC. I use it as a base for my games and add in stuff from AD&D that I feel is missing.
>>96137209
Agreed. B/X with additions from AD&D is a phenomenal way to play the game. Dragonslayer does a good job of this, I feel, but if I were going that route I would probably just use Labyrinth Lord/BX and bolt on stuff from the DMG

>>96159046
>a game that expects a GM to adapt it is one that expects an experienced GM
It expects them to -eventually- adapt it.

>At not point was not altering things brought up.
The idea that BFRPG is somehow supposed to be only for advance and experienced DMs because the community has lots of advice on how to build up the incredibly basic system is entirely, 100% illogical. It's a stripped-down game designed to be playable by children, but also has support for people to make it more complex once they're more comfortable with it.

The whole "Being 'designed with houserules in mind' means it's for advanced users who already know the OSR inside and out and can modify it knowing what they'll get" is one of those things that might sound like an argument, up until you actually look at what's being discussed.

https://basicfantasy.org/srd/whatIsThis.html

We're not talking about a game with thousands of fiddly little numbers that requires extensive documentation on how to develop your own sub-systems and other houserules. We're talking about a more basic Basic, essentially the exact opposite of a game only for "advanced users."

>>96158877
NTA. Oriental Adventures, Mr. Foe.

>>96159236
BFRPG BRO
>>96159263
BFRPG FOE

>>96159236
It's 2025 Anno Domine and Labyrinth Lord + AEC is still the superior OSR experience.

>>96159564
I'll have to take a look at AEC. I recently read through LL and really like how things were put together.

>>96159564
>>96159738
LL-AEC beats OSE-Advanced in terms of content. It incorporates much more stuff from the DMG, which is great although it still misses some key ingredients. It also has less FOE bullshit like kitchen sink fantasy classes, and keeps the race/class/level limitations as a core feature, which is just great. Also it's compatible with Mutant Future / Mutants and Mazes.

However, in terms of presentation, its readability with respect to OSE-A is very bad. You have to give the Norman its due.

>>96152046
>>96152075
>>96152123
>>96152326
Thanks for your advice. I have started reading Moldvay.

>>96157300
>Unfortunately for you, it is a valid counterargument to "It's a shitty game."
Lmao no it's not. You can have a subjectively positive experience in the most dogshit systems conceivable.

But the other anon is also right that you're disingenuously eliding the distinction between "a shitty game" and "a shitty OSR game", which is bad faith argumentation.

>>96158679
In the sense you mean there is a singular way to play OSR games. That's what makes them OSR. You're allowed to play non-OSR games, it's not heresy. It's just not what this thread is about. You've been told many times that if you don't like OSR games you're welcome to use the entire rest of the board.

Hot take: AD&D with B/X additions/replacements is the optimal way to play.
Challenging enough for adults, simple enough to run and prep.

>>96158824
That's specifically anon's point. Their entire peeve that there are standards. Not even standards everywhere, just in one specific place. That's it. That's all they have. Its been a consistent troll for ages at this point.
That you can't parse their long winded garbage is a you problem.

>>96158999
>I think it's a fairly natural approach for a group to start with a lite system as an introduction, and then develop the game from that point as they gain more experience
This is a bad premise. Most light systems assume there are experienced organizers at the minimum, their lightness was originally based on preexisting knowledge. That has largely been discarded by artfluff and the cargo cult of it doesn't even know what they are fucking up. It tends not to matter much because the games don't get played, they're display pieces, but your entire conception of how games are taught and probably learning in general, are wrong.

>>96160831
...You're not aware that BFRPG was one of the first OSR?

>Most light systems assume there are experienced organizers at the minimum
Citation needed. I hate to pull that card, but if you're just gonna try to pass off bullshit and then build your entire argument on it, I'm gonna just call you out to spare us.

Many light systems are designed to be used as a first system, with almost baby-talk level of explaining how to run a game.

Check out this bit from the first page of the BFRPG.
>In effect, role-playing games are just grown-up games of pretend. If you remember playing pretend as a child, you may recall having some difficulty deciding whose idea should have precedence… if one child plays a knight and the other a dragon, who will win? Surely the knight doesn’t win every time. Role-playing games have rules to determine such things. These rules can range from the very free-form and simple to the very complex and detailed.
It's almost cute.

More importantly, check this part out from that same first page.
>If this is your first time as GM, or you have limited preparation time, you might wish to use a pre-written adventure (called a module) rather than create one yourself. Several modules are distributed for free on the basicfantasy.org website; many of the modules available on the website are specifically designed for use with a party of new players.

Clearly they're not assuming an experienced organizer at the minimum if they address first time GMs right from the start.

>your entire conception of how games are taught and probably learning in general, are wrong.
Oof, someone tried to proclaim himself right a little prematurely, perhaps.

>>96160815
Having standards is not a problem. You being wrong about what those standards should be and trying to be the one who determines what they are is the problem. If you want to be a little game-nazi at your own table, that's your choice, but you're going to have to keep your autism in check elsewhere if you don't want your face rubbed in the dirt.

Ok, so I am solo playing, in part for my own enjoyment, and in part to get more familiar with how OSR feels for eventually gming a game at my local library.

How do people usually record stuff for npcs? pic related is my shorthand using npc stat block then a bullet listing relevant information.

>>96161323
That's pretty close to what I do, but I also leave myself a bit more room to describe appearance and inventory. I would also roll HP instead of just denoting HD if they were in the party. I'll generally roll relevant HD for monsters when they first take damage in combat, but NPCs get their HP recorded before the party ever encounters them whenever possible.

>>96161501
Thats fair enough. I was using hd cause I was using scarlet heros which does damage per hit dice and is ment for solo play, but i think im going to transfer to more conventional b/x rules, cause it doesnt seem like scarlet heros damage works well with a party.

here is a peak of the first encounter in nights dark terror, an ambush on our boat from iron ring slavers.

>>96162100
Ah yeah I assumed it has to do with system choice.

>>96158877
fucking retard moron

>>96162100
Scarlet Heroes isn't meant for solo play, it's designed for one DM/one player.

>>96161013
>game-nazi
whoo, Godwin makes an appearance

>>96163095
its designed for both. there is a gm emulator and other solo tools in the back.

unfortunately I think you lose a lot of the tactical depth without a party. But I had a real blast playing the boat ambush of nights dark terror with my adjusted rules. which was keep the fray die and defy death roll, but do away with the damage mitigation. that plus having a party of 2 normal pcs without those rules.

think im ready to try and run this encounter tonight at game night.

>>96163271
I wish I was a game nazi, unfortunately im not high enough rank, im only a game hitler-youth…

>>96160294
>I have started reading Moldvay.

>>96152326
Here.
If you are anything like me in a few years time, you will yearn to break free of Basic's limitations and crave for the release only Advanced can deliver.
Enjoy.
ignore the surprise rules though, wtf. Gary will understand.

>>96163508
AD&D Wirbelsturmbannführer reporting.
Drop your contact info for immediate reporting to my gaming table.

>>96163271
Less genocidal regime with impeccable fashion, more autistic pseudo-authoritarian behavior, a la grammar/soup.

>>96120440
hmm, heres an idea: cursed items as a punishment. some elf or wizard place or whatever actually requires you to equipt cursed items as a punishment.

its a pain to fudge with a curse, so might as well use them for the criminal justice system system as it is.

>>96163561
>autistic pseudo-authoritarian behavior
That's how I would describe calling people you disagree with an "x nazi"

>>96163955
that's just because you're a zoomer

>>96163701
Interesting. It's an effective way to force someone to pay a fine, since they'll have to pay for a remove curse or equivalent.

>>96163955
We're good then, I only call people I agree with "x nazi".

>>96163967
He's right tho, that's been the common usage of nazi for like the past 40 years.

sometimes I'm a grammer nazi.

>>96163522
>ignore the surprise rules though
Nah, surprise is great because it can potentially reward you for clever play and harm you for being caught unawares.
If it's just the explanation you think is convoluted then use the OSRIC one.

>>96164032
>sometimes I'm a grammer nazi.
Not a spelling or capitalization nazi, apparently.

I'm working on a multiplayer videogame somewhat based on the bx ruleset.
I'm trying to make it more solo friendly because lol level + rocket tag = not a good time.
Surely someone else has had a similar sentiment ( at least, lowering the lethality of the low levels). What is the typical way of going about this?
My initial idea is some sort of damage cap based on hit dice, so at low levels combat will take at least a few attacks, no 1hkos
Another idea was to decouple armor and evasion, with evasion being avoiding hits entirely and armor reducing the damage roll. But this would still have the problem that magic users are extremely fragile.
Thoughts?

>>96165642
Look into old traditional roguelike games like netyhack. A lot of them are near direct rip offs straight from dnd

>>96165642
>My initial idea is some sort of damage cap based on hit dice, so at low levels combat will take at least a few attacks, no 1hkos
Start at level 3. Problem solved.

>>96165642
in scarlet heros ment for solo there is a damage reduction table. die roll of 1 is 0 hp, 2-5 is 1 hp 6-9 is 2hp and 10+ is 4hp.

alternately there is the defy death roll where you use the above calculation and roll d4 times your level and take that damage instead of whatever you are trying to avoid. but then the next time its d6 times yours level, then d8, etc until d12 times your level

but really, bx isnt ment for solo.

>>96159236
>Agreed. B/X with additions from AD&D is a phenomenal way to play the game.
I did this as a kid back in the 80s. It was just because my friends and I didn't have the patience or understanding to run AD&D fully. But it turns out that might have been the best way to play.

>>96159236
>B/X with additions from AD&D is a phenomenal way to play the game.
You are not playing an OSR game. B/X is for retarded children

>>96167256
Obvious false flag troll is obvious

>>96167256
>Four hours later...
Funny how stating the obvious that 2e is not OSR leads to the post being immediately deleted and a 3-day band, while an obvious troll lying by saying that B/X is not OSR is perfectly okay.

>>96159236
>>96166971
what parts did you take from ad&d? I would think the next logical step would be picking and choosing shit from the rules encyclopedia given becmi progression. but granted the -cmi part has a lot of extraneous pet systems that get forgotten half way through development..

>>96168443
NTA

>what parts did you take from ad&d?
The Monster Manual immediately, since it's 99% compatible. Then most of the DMG, bit by bit as inspiration and need strike ad as your understanding of the game matures. The PHB is good but largely optional.

Notice that it's almost the opposite of what OSE-Advanced does.

>the next logical step would be picking and choosing shit from the rules encyclopedia
Lol, no. It's an extremely mixed bag, it breaks random shit (like the infamous Thief nerf), and it doesn't address almost any of the issues in B/X that the DMG fixes.

really liked the boat encounter of nights dark terror, the boarders acting as a timer as they swim towards your boat while their archers lay cover fire and a single assassin hidden among your oarsmen. pretty dang hard for a party of 4 2nd level adventurers, but i can see it being really. well suited for 6. deciding weither to focus on the archers or the exposed but not immediately threatening boarders is a fun choice

One thing that I dont get though is why the basic mooks have a moral of 12 while the 2hd slave leaders only have a moral of 10. surely the leaders should have more and a bunch of oprotunistic grunts shouldnt be fearless automatons. I took the liberty of giving them an 8 moral instead. which we took advantage of by retreating to thelower deck entrance and killing the boarders at the choke point until they were at half numbers and decided a few slaves werent worth thier lives and ran away.

How do you guys handle move and shoot?
Do you make differences between say a bow, a crossbow, a thrown weapon?
Or just... no differences because you CANNOT move and shoot, fullstop?

>>96168838
-2 to hit

>>96168838
You cannot move and shot. You move and then you shoot. The only difference between types of ranged weapons are the range bonuses or penalties.

>>96169314
>You move and then you shoot.
This is what I meant, sorry for the lack of clarity. I wasn't thinking about move-shoot-move or anything like that.

>>96169314
>The only difference between types of ranged weapons are the range bonuses or penalties.
Some thrown is d4 in some version of the game, not d6, IIRC

>>96168807
It's been a long time since I read this module, and I don't remember a huge amount of it, so I might very well be off base, but I think the idea is the Iron Ring grunts are conditioned to be fearless in a way that their commanders aren't. Notice how the Hound boarders also have a "ferocity bonus" to hit? Which the Reaver fighter doesn't have, so he actually hits worse than the lower-level grunts?

>>96165642
What sort of game? First person action like Dark&Darker? Isometric RPG?
You could lean into the lethality and have a mechanic that allows for easy rerolling/respawning at death. I think a big one would be to grant Max HP at first level. You could also adopt the death and dying mechanics from AD&D, as in down but bleeding at HP-1 with a timed ally pick-up mechanic.
With the return of Commodore, I've been thinking about making a fun little dungeon crawler in the vein of Impossible Mission and Prince of Persia. or something. Trapped rooms, monsters, magic items. Could be a ton of fun.

>>96168838
I use phased initiative, and shooting happens before movement. I wouldn't allow both in the same round, if you want to move around you'll just have to not shoot in that round.

Of course, with O/AD&D long rounds that makes no sense, it would make more sense to allow it than not.

>>96169568
you could maybe treat the shoot range as one higher if you move.

>>96169549
shit, that makes this a really hard encounter then. especially since it says the boat crew nope out of combat.
>furious bonus
yah, I wasnt quite sure what that ment, so ignored it really to keep things going.

>>96165858
>>96166490
>>96166699
thanks
>>96169566
More akin to a MUD, not quite an mmorpg. Guess you could call it a morpg
I want to lean into the random encounter tables + heavier social elements. So rather going to Y location knowing that X mobs are there so you grind for exp in usual computer rpgs you scout out an area to see what threats are there and see what treasure is in the region to either find or get from loot drops. Treasure for xp as well. There's not many, if any, smash-and-grab computer rpgs.

>>96169795
Yeah, I'm not saying that you're wrong to change it. Classic case of where referee judgment comes into play. All I mean is my recollection is that it's deliberate, not some wacky accident.

>>96167256
>You are not playing an OSR game. B/X is for retarded children
You're confused. B/X is well within the first decade, so it is OSR, and it's a pretty good game to get started with OSR for many people. You're mixing it up with AD&D 2e, that's the one that's not OSR because it's a Bowdlerized knockoff for the storygaming special education kids of Satanic Panic moms.

>>96165642
Please spend a few days playing Nethack, Wizardry 1 trough 3, and Ultima 1.

>>96167256
BOOHOO NIGGA
go slit your throat

>>96168838
BX raw, you can move and then shoot.

AD&D you cannot, in either combo

>2efag is once again attempting to purity spiral out actual OSR games in the hopes of getting the thread to somehow agree that no games are OSR, or some equally silly shit objective
Jej, it's so predictable. It's like we entered into the next zodiac sign or something.

>>96170669
>BX ISNT OSR DONT PLAY IT
lmao

>>96168490
>The PHB is good but largely optional.
Debatable. A fair bit of the DMG is written in direct reference to the PHB where you have one article in the PHB and the DMG one is expanding on it.

Fucking Dyson Logos has stolen our mascot and is monetising it.

https://dysonlogos.blog/2025/07/24/the-true-meaning-of-the-osr/

>>96170669
2efag's long since been banned, anything that's happened in the last month is outside shitstirrers.

>>96170910
It goes without saying that the parts of the PHB that are needed to understand the DMG are needed to understand the DMG. I was referring to what most faggots seem to focus on, player-facing character building options.

>>96171120
Fair enough, just being a bit of a pedant.

>>96171131
No worries, a bit of pedantry is always based.

Osric 3 late pledges are up in case you missed it like I did: https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3
I also noticed the adventures they offer are all by AD&D CAG guys like Zherbus (the AD&D combat example and No Artpunk #2 Carcass of Hope guy), Hawk (Gunderholfen guy) and Melan.

>>96171263
OSRIC is kinda shit though and completely irrelevant with AD&D being widely and easily available. I don't think there's anything OSRIC does that AD&D doesn't do better.

>>96171297
It gives pretty good gameable explanations of a lot of the more ambiguous areas of the rules like initiative.
The new edition is also aimed at new players learning the rules rather than just a publishing vehicle and reference like the older editions were.

>>96171335
NTA. The OSRIC initiative system is a house rule, not an explanation of the DMG one. It's a good house rule, and it's certainly a good way to get started, but it's still a house rule.

>B-but that's how Gygax played!
In some context and some occasions, according to some reports, yes. But even assuming he ALWAYS used the system given in OSRIC, which is at least debatable, if Gygax wrote something in the rulebook and then did something else at the table, it's still a house rule rather than an explanation of what the rulebook says!

I don't really get the OSRIC hate desu. If nothing else, it's a good way to get people who would otherwise get filtered by High Gygaxian into an AD&D game.

>>96171088
Do we actually know that Dyson isn't the one who made that /osrg/ logo in the first place?

>>96171263
Thanks brother. The adventures are what I really want, so I need to see about getting these.

>>96171429
I just had a brainblast for a modified npc reaction ruleset.
Basically how it works is:
>Based on the 7 deadly sins
>The npc state is determined by 1d8: 1 - Prideful, 2 - Wrathful, 3 - Envious, 4 - Greedy, 5 - Gluttonous, 6 - Lazy, 7 - Lustful ( only by technicality for my usage it's more like desire for communication rather than sex), 8 - Neutral
The npc alters their behavior or changes how they expect the player to behave towards them
>Prideful - Neutral or Lawful npcs will refuse communication unless the party face is wearing fine clothing, equipment, and/or jewelry. Chaotic npcs will expect the players to act deferent and offer tribute or hostilities will ensue
>Wrathful - Neutral or Lawful npcs will refuse to communicate or indirectly try to harm the player. Chaotic npcs and beasts will outright attack
>Envious - Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful npcs will be uncooperative and indirectly try to harm the player if the party face is wearing finer clothing, equipment, and/or jewelry than the npc. The npc will become more friendly if you give them a precious gift
>Greedy - Lawful and Neutral npcs will be uncooperative. Chaotic npcs may outright attack. NPCs will be more cooperative and npcs will not attack/stop attacking and flee if given a precious gift. At DMs discretion they may be greedy for a specific item the players have.
>Gluttonous - Lawful and Neutral npcs are indifferent to the party. They can be made friendly by offering them fine food, wine, or a party/feast. Carnivorous Beasts will attack due to hunger. Chaotic npcs may attack the players for food and will flee one food is acquired or become neutral if fine food and drink is offered.
>Lazy - npcs are indifferent to you and just want you to go away
>Lustful - the npcs just want to talk to you. share some rumors and gossip. magic users will want knowledge of magic items or spells. npcs may desire you stay for a party or feast, with chaotic npcs becoming hostile if you refuse.

>>96171419
It's neither his art style nor his kind of humour.

>>96171368
>It's a house rule
Nah, the change they're doing of which die to look at they're doing is a houserule that Gygax used.
Their actual interpretation of initiative is just a reading of it close to how Gygax ran it and one of the actually good relatively straightforward ones that actually plays smoothly at the table. (which is more than can be said for some of the alternatives)

>>96171263
I'm not seeing a Melan module? Gabor Csomos is a different guy, all Hungarians are just named Gabor, that's how it works.

>>96171706
>>It's a house rule
>>B-but that's how Gygax played!
>Nah, it's a houserule that Gygax used.

>>96171919
I'm talking about two different things in that post.
One is a houserule based on Gygax's game, that you roll your own side's init instead of the opposites side. It doesn't really affect any of the game mechanics it's just a question of who rolls what.
The other is an interpretation of AD&D RAW based both on the text and Gygax's gaming, an interpretation that runs well at the table.

>>96171796
Ah my bad, I just saw he was part of EMDT and named Gabor and assumed it was Melan.
Apparently it's the dude who wrote Lost Valley of Kishar and Caught in the Web of Past and Present which won the first No Artpunk contest.
Not a bad pedigree at all.

>>96172369
Rolling your own side's initiative seems like the best way to do things as it accounts for situations with more than two sides engaging in a combat without having to arbitrarily dictate who is rolling for what.

>>96172421
Yeah, having run Lost Valley I can attest to his chops. Great, playable stuff.

>>96172369
First off, there's definitely merit to your earlier claim that OSRIC is more playable than its main competitor (ADDICT). But that doesn't make OSRIC AD&D RAW in any sense. Let me elaborate:

>The other is an interpretation of AD&D RAW based both on the text and Gygax's gaming, an interpretation that runs well at the table.
It can't be both "AD&D RAW" and "based on Gygax' gaming" at the same time, given that Gygax didn't play AD&D RAW when it comes to initiative.

OSRIC privileges the way Gygax played over AD&D RAW every single time, to the point that it's not intellectually honest to say that OSRIC is an interpretation of AD&D RAW. There's too many rules that it ignores intentionally, for example faster weapons getting multiple attacks against on a tied initiative roll, or the interplay of weapon speed vs spell casting time.

(Also, arguably Matt and Stu overstate how well their own houserules align with Gygax' own houserules, but that would be a different topic.)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate OSRIC. But when it comes to initiative, it's not AD&D RAW. It's not even close, nor does it try to be. So why say that?

>>96172421
For sure, not saying he's a bad writer or anything of that nature. Like you say, he's got a solid pedigree of his own, if maybe not quite as strong as Melan's – but then, who does, in the OSR?

>>96172542
>given that Gygax didn't play AD&D RAW when it comes to initiative.
The designer didn't know what he wrote and meant it to play much worse intentionally as did everyone else who read it the way he did. Not to say it's entirely uniform because even the OSRIC and CAG crowds have different takes on when movement starts.
>There's too many rules that it ignores intentionally
They don't really. What they specifically say is that unless the DM rules otherwise the "source material" i.e. original AD&D is still valid. Remember that OSRIC was written as a quick and legal reference for publishing material and for use at the table and a ton of rules exceptions that rarely ever happen aren't that useful for either. They're moving some of it back now that it's going to be a new player reference although I doubt everything will go in there.
As for ADDICT that's just one DF guy's houserules (that ignores bow init rules) and that's without getting into the other several interpretations over at DF like quantum init or Huso's houseruling. The only reason ADDICT is even considered a competitor is because it's the only one that bothered putting it into a pdf and arguably one of the worse ones in my book.

>>96172542
>given that Gygax didn't play AD&D RAW when it comes to initiative.
I don't have much left over for the opinion that the actual designer of the game didn't know what he meant when he wrote the text and considering the OSRIC and CAG crowd both interpret similar takes it seems the guy who designed the game had it right.
Not to say it's entirely uniform because even the OSRIC and CAG crowds have different takes on when movement starts.
>There's too many rules that it ignores intentionally
They don't really. Remember that OSRIC was written as a legal thing for publishing material and as a quick and useful table reference for people who already know AD&D. Ton of rules exceptions that barely ever happen aren't that useful for either.
Older OSRIC got around this by saying something to the effect that the older source material was still valid unless the DM nixed it i.e. AD&D core rules still apply.
In the new version they say they're moving some of it back now that it's going to be a new player reference although I doubt everything will go in there since how often do you actually hit those exceptions really.
As for ADDICT that's just one DF guy's houserules that ignores bow init rules and that's without getting into the other several interpretations over at DF like quantum init or Huso's houseruling. I feel the only reason ADDICT is even mentioned at all is because it's the only one that bothered putting it into a pdf and arguably one of the worse ones in my book (and that of several others like Bill Silvey who theorized something to the effect that it was a troll document lol).

>>96172698
>I don't have much left over for the opinion that the actual designer of the game didn't know what he meant when he wrote the text
That's not what I said. I said Gygax IGNORED what he wrote, not that he didn't know about it.

>They don't really.
I've given you two explicit examples that you ignored, and that prove you're wrong. The reasons they omitted those rules (copyright or play preference) is largely beside the point: The fact remains that if you remove rules you're not doing rules as written.

>In the new version they say they're moving some of it back now
We're discussing the version that's actually out. I'm pretty sure they won't add weapon speed factor back in, but if they do, we'll reevaluate.

>As for ADDICT that's just one DF guy's houserules
I'm not saying it's perfectly faithful (nor that it's GOOD). But it hews much closer to AD&D RAW than OSRIC does, because for example it includes all the quirky rules about weapon speed factor that OSRIC nixed.

To the extent that ADDICT is house rules, OSRIC is even more so.

(I don't play with the ADDICT rules, to be clear.)

>>96158762
>3 day ban for trolling
>all that other shit still here
lmao