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:
>>96186918

>Thread Question
What's your favourite obscure rule or table from the DMG or Judges Guild that you actually do use at the table?

>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

Do Underground civilizations in your games have knowledge or impact on the overworld ones? I always have the sensation that there are two distinct games (under and overworld), like there we're two different campaigns

>>96255749 (OP)
>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 a good OSR game that I, a beginner GM, can run for my party of primarily 5e babies?

>>96256400
B/X + OSE-Classic. B/X to learn how to play, and OSE-Classic as a reference manual. The n00b guide has lots of information on how to get started, but for some reason it's being removed today. You can find it in the last threads though, e.g. here: >>96120440

>>96256468
why B/X over BECMI? I've always been under the impression it's just B/X with... more.

>>96256493
> What's the deal with BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia?

> There are two versions of Mentzer's Expert book straddling the "first decade" box in the cover picture. Mentzer's Basic/Expert v1 (B/E) is very similar to B/X. It makes a couple good additions: An extended spell list and encumbrance values for items. It also makes some changes that are down to preference, chiefly that the THAC0, saves, and spell progressions were smoothed out (this Anon likes and uses them). Unfortunately, the examples of play and DM advice in B/E are worse than in B/X, which is why B/X is recommended to learn the game.

> Mentzer was given the task to extend B/X to level 36 and beyond with Immortality, and the results in Expert v2 and CMI were very mixed. Some things are perfectly okay if you like them (very simplified domain rules, higher level spells, druids, possibly paladins), some are doubtful (the mass combat rules, some of the fighter combat options), others are bad and were probably never playtested (the infamous nerfing of the Thief, weapon mastery, unarmed combat), others yet are not even D&D (pretty much the whole Immortal Set). Apart from minor differences, the Rules Cyclopedia is a restatement of BECM.

Seriously, though, why is the n00b guide being deleted today? It's been posted in EVERY SINGLE THREAD for over a year without any issue whatsoever.

>>96256493
>>96256505
Also: The original B/X is a much better learning tool than BECMI, with excellent examples and good tips on how to run the game. BECMI starts with that those two weird gamebook-like stories with the dead waifu that have nothing to do with how D&D is actually played.

>>96255757
>>9. Make a trap

>Glass-Mawed Chest
A Crystal chest sits atop a pedestal. Clear, see-through, treasure inside. Trying to open the chest animates it to bite. Will chase the characters around the room but no further.
Move: 9" = 90' (30')
AC: 3
HD: (As dungeon level +1)
Attacks: 1× bite, damage 1d4 + 1/dungeon level.
Special attacks: If opened unwittingly, the first attack hits automatically.
Special defences: Takes double damage from blunt weapons and half damage from slashing and piercing weapons.
Special: Each round while it attacks, the rattling of the treasure inside of it has a 1-in-6 chance of attracting wandering monsters, arriving 2d6 rounds later.

>>96256679
Not bad but if I was describing this I would try to add in a detail to telegraph the danger. Something like crystal teeth (might be too obvious) or perhaps a severed hand resting atop the treasure is visible inside the chest

>>96256679
Saw this, and while walking around outside was reminded of the old insult saying so-and-so fell out of the ugly tree and hit all the branches on the way down, so here is a setpiece for outdoors, an indoor forest or wherever the hell you want to put it.
>Sequoia Repulsiva
An old sequoia with withering greyish foliage and slimy bark has near the very top, a golden cone visible from the bottom. Three ropes hang from the lower branches and half a dozen rotting ones are strewn around it's base. Rope A, north, is lowest hanging, a halfling could easily climb from here. 1 in 6 chance for a dwarf or elf, 2 in 6 for human, to snap off an ugly stick and relase the rope. The falling branch makes an unmodified attack roll and saps 1d4 charisma.
Rope B southwest, is manheight, snaps only on 1 in 6 for a human or demi human laden with treasure. Finally, Rope C east, must have been set by someone quite large. A stool or stump must be used by a man, and a halfling or dwarf will need to get on a human's shoulders. This rope is perfectly solid.
Three climbing checks, however performed using your prefered system, are now needed to ascend the unsightly tree. Failure results in immediate falling to the base due to it's sloughing bark robbing a character of d6 charisma per stage climbed. If climbing gear is used you will fall part way, sapping d4 Cha, but gain a bonus to climb that section.

>>96257497
Every turn spent ascending the tree saps 1 charisma.
Unexpectedly, falling is painful, but results in no bodily damage, only your appearance and manners suffer.
Most likely, the only clue players will immediately have is to see their veru own hands become progressively more hideous, the skin becoming mottled, greyish with an unpleasant bumpy texture, and at 0 Cha, coated totally in thing oily slime. This condition affects their whole body. Likewise, their mannerisms change, despite their best intentions, all will percieve the ugly character as having more uncouth behavoir than before, using crude terms and explitives when improper, scratching, rubbing, and farting in the presence of honorable folk. The golden cone has 6 +d6 seeds, which when eaten rstore 1 to 2 charisma each. It will not raise charisma over the initial score. Plucking a seed out of the cone drops it's gp value by 200 each, the total value being 1200.

Rumors surrounding the tree:
- The golden cone at it's top bestows beauty on the ugliest of men.
- The sap can be used by alchemists to make an alter appearance potion. False. Save vs Death or take fatal cha damage, otherwise 1d6, if somehow brewed and consumed.

>>96256400
Shadowdark

>>96257497
>>96257509
No disrespect but I have some unsolicited criticism:
>three ropes
way too bloated, and the choice of rope doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the set piece.
>Three climbing checks
Totally arbitrary. Why three? One climbing check represents one "climb." You're just making players roll three separate times for what in all other circumstances would be one roll. Just say characters who fail the climb roll fall fall 1d6x10', losing 1d6 Charisma for every 20' fallen.
>Every turn spent ascending the tree saps 1 charisma
Since you don't give the height of the tree it's hard to know how many turns it takes to climb
>only your appearance and manners suffer.
As written this is an absurd amount of stat damage to lose, but that's whatever.
>The golden cone has 6 +d6 seeds... Plucking a seed out of the cone drops it's gp value by 200 each, the total value being 1200.
Wouldn't the cone value be 200x the number of seeds rolled?

>>96257497
>>96257509
>>96258624
Here's an unsolicited edit:
Here's an edit:
>An old sequoia with withering greyish foliage and slimy bark. A golden cone is visible near the very top, 80' above the ground.
>A rope hangs from the lower branches and half a dozen rotting ones are strewn around it's base. The branch the rope is hanging from is weak and has a chance to break off—2:6 for humans and dwarves, 1:6 for elves and halflings, +1 for every level of encumbrance. The falling branch makes an unmodified attack roll and saps 1d4 charisma.
>The sloughing bark is hard to climb. Thieves may climb the tree without gear with a successful climb sheer surfaces roll, but other characters must use climbing gear and have a percent chance of successfully climbing the tree equal to their dexterity score + level.
>Characters who fail the climb roll fall fall 1d6x10'. They take no fall damage but lose 1d6 Charisma for every 20' fallen.
>Climbing and descending the tree in its entirety saps 3 Charisma each way.
>The golden cone has 6 +d6 seeds, which when eaten restore 1 to 2 charisma each. The cone is worth 200 gp per remaining seed.
>Rumor: locals tell you to fuck off from the tree because people who touch it inexplicably turn ugly

>>96256400

Knave, the original is like 7 pages total, so you dont have that much to memorize and your players have 0 excuse
https://archive.org/details/knave-1.0-en

If you need more tables and stuff you can go for Knave 2E

>>96258679
>Knave, the original is like 7 pages total
exactly, it's a bad advice for a beginner GM, because you need way more guidelines when you are inexperienced
for instance where would anon get info about monsters in a rushed situation?

>>96256400
there are a lot of good choices, depending on how close you want to stick to the "original game". the B/X version of Basic D&D is great for learning to run OSR games, starting you out with dungeon crawling and later moving on to wilderness exploration in the Expert set. it's a great tool kit for learning how to run sandbox games in general really. if you want more tools for generating said sandbox, Worlds Without Number has some great tables in it for setting generation, and the system itself is alright imo, though it can feel a bit higher power level than i personally prefer.

there are also lots of clones of B/X out there that clean things up and present them differently, or change a few things around. Old School Essentials is great for quick reference, though it does lack examples of play, and i would only really recommend using it once you're more familiar with running the game. as >>96256559 said, original B/X is a great learning tool.

>>96258624
>>96258634
Thanks for the critique. Not going to lie, I came up with it all on a whim and phone posted the thing from my car. Pretty much good points all around, only the "turns spent ascending" was meant to refer to the 3 checks, and the value of the cone is isn't tied to how many seeds are within it, it's just that you could rummage around that many times for seeds which may or not be there, potentially destroying it's value entirely. I do prefer your take on it. The absurdity of the stat damage was intentional, but there's already plenty of save or die poison traps. I guess the issue here is someone who relies on high charisma for followers suffering terribly but still being technically playable. Even still I think with your changes it makes it fairly reasonable, if perilous.

>>96258718

proper prep

all I did was pick up some monsters from one of the old DnD monster manuals and convert their stats unis the instructions in the booklet

you dont even need the entire rulebook ported over, just pick monsters that would make sense for the adventure/enviroment

sure, rules light systems will not work for people who are not willing to wing it if the situation arises

>"I kick the cauldron full of soup in the direction of the attackers!"
>well fuck there are no rules for using the enviroment like that, what do I do?
>"You kick the cauldron, spilling hot soup all over the floor, everyone on that direction makes a DEX save to avoid slipping"

>>96258827
Knave is NSR slop garbage, in no way a proper OSR game. If you have players whose only other experience is 5e, they're perfectly capable of handling a shitton of rules and you can give them a real old-school edition like B/X or 1st ed. Knave's only strength is that it's short, but it gets that by chopping out pretty much everything old-school to do it. There's no point going for an OSR game via an engine that doesn't do anything to provide you one.

A beginner GM needs guidance on creating the unique experience of old-school play, not "no rules lol just wing it (P.S. you have no idea what to wing in the first place)".

>>96256559
>BECMI starts with that those two weird gamebook-like stories with the dead waifu that have nothing to do with how D&D is actually played.
It shows you how attacks, damages and conditions work, it shows you special attacks, it shows you part synergy, it shows you that the game is lethal, it shows you that magic is rare but powerful.
All in a few pages.

>>96256400
TRVE AD&D©™®

>>96258827
>bro just use some monster manuals you have lying around
he said to the BEGINNER gm
That's what I'm talking about you are giving out bad advice and you don't even understand

>>96258867
>you can give them a real old-school edition like B/X
more bad advice

>>96259580

well, its my fault for assuming people can just find books on the internet, god forbid anyone finds out we have a share thread with links to anything you could possibly want

nigga its not rocket science

>>96258718
>its bad advice for a beginner GM
its trolling. The thread is basically fucked. A janitor monitors it constantly enough to remove actually helpful advice and lets things like recommending shadowdark and knave sit even though its deliberate trolling.

>>96261170
Occasionally see posters in other threads, or entire new threads focused on screeching about non osr games being bad and wrong. I think giving osr tips and advice when potentially useful in other games is perfectly constructive, and I've seen that too, usually it is well received.
But the strange autistic whinging over other games being wrong makes us look bad to the other users, and even mods. Which may be why this thread has turned into a quagmire, ot all being jist desserts. I can only bring myself to believe that it's no more than one or two posters who act that miserably elsewhere, but recent events just about make me wonder of it's part of a longer concerted effort. I do not like being made into a schizophrenic.

>>96256505
>> Mentzer was given the task to extend B/X to level 36
BX already had rules up to level 36
>The DM must decide whether to use these suggested abilities or wait until the D&D® Companion supplement is released which will detail levels up to 36 in more detail.
>It is important to note that these are only suggestions. Those players and DMs who wish to wait for the D&D® Companion supplement will be provided with exact information concerning these higher levels.
BX thief wasn't going to stay as it was because they'd painted themselves into a corner.
>It will be noted that thieves have high chances of success in their special abilities when conditions are favorable for that action. Thieves will therefore gain new abilities requiring greater skill and danger. These will include the ability to climb overhangs, upside down, ventriloquism, powers of distraction, and the ability to mimic voices.
That's why thief skill values changed so much but other things were very similar. A shame though that we didn't get to see the new skills.

>>96261327
Its been dedicated trolling for years now that's gotten into the moderation. Basically since cavegreg but there was another anon interrelated with the mongrel banquet club and the worst people you have never met that have been proactively trying to shit up /osrg/ because we're nazis or something.

>>96261327
>>96261470
The people that are recommending Knave and Shadowdark in this thread are definitely not the ones going into other threads saying non-OSR games are wrong. You both are talking about two different people/groups

>>96261608
I agree nusr recommenders are different trolls.

>>96261170
there is nothing wrong with recommending shadowdark to new GMs
>it has everything you need to play in one book
>it has a free version of the rules
>it has plenty of adventures published for the system including free ones
>it has a good layout and is very readable and understandable

i wana make the world very big. is the hollow earth enough to accomodate mass offset and still have regular gravity etc?

>>96262414
that is
>hollow = less mass
>bigger = more mass
>both = normal gravity etc
im not worried about 'math' issues, but is this viable without altering something about basic physics?

>>96262414
I think you're underestimating how big a planet *already* is with medieval travelling times, even if PCs eventually get their hands on flying mounts.

Also, since you're asking about gravity: According to Newton's law and the shell theorem, the interior of a spherically symmetric hollow body has ZERO gravity throughout. So unless you assume magic, you float freely in it, you don't walk upside down against the planet's shell.

>>96262450
>hollow = less mass
>bigger = more mass
>both = normal gravity etc
If your goal is not to have an explorable inner core, but just to increase the planet's size without increasing surface gravity, from the physics point of view it's safer to assume that the planet is somehow made of "stuff" with lower density, rather than assuming a hollow core.

>is this viable without altering something about basic physics
I mean, not really, strictly speaking. There is some variability to the density of planets, but that in turn would affect plate tectonics. How anal do you want to be?

Invoking "magic" to neglect complex physics effect should be fine.

But again, I question the need for any of this in the first place. The Earth is already huge.

>>96262470
>If your goal is not to have an explorable inner core
I do want an explorable hollow earth, i figured that being hollow would offset the increased mass of a planet with more surface area for more continents.
>How anal do you want to be?
I want to maintain normal gravity etc, have a bigger planet, and also a hollow earth.
Im just a brainlet at astro level stuff like this, and I hate using AI chat.

>>96262470
>>96262484
same anon. wise words. I think Ill just handwave this aspect. The numbers should never come up anyway i figure

>>96262484
>Im just a brainlet at astro level stuff like this
This is BSc level physics. I wouldn't expect most people to know the shell theorem.

>>96262491
>I think Ill just handwave this aspect. The numbers should never come up anyway i figure
Yeah, don't worry about that.

>>96255979
No, I ripped off the Hollow Earth from Mystara. It's all aztecs and dinosaurs under an inner red sun. Don't think they'll ever travel down there, so might as well not exist. But who knows?

>>96262352
There are way better options closer to the OSR standard (Labyrinth Lord, BFRPG) than Shadowdark (or Knave, for that matter). If you're coming from storygames into OSR, then by all means, but if you're a newbie then I think it's far more important to have a solid foundation.

>>96261398
>rules
Guidelines.
It would have been cool to see their Thief tho

Has anyone run LOTFP for longterm campaigns? I'm talking 100+ sessions, multi-year campaigns. How did it end? Any really good resources that were useful?

I would like to run a grimdark, historical campaign and the Old World seems too much work.

>>96263559
On long campaign, B/X and systems based on it start to show their limitations. Most DMs start including rules from the DMG long before hitting 100 sessions, or they introduce their own house rules to achieve something to that effect. Incorporating stuff from ACKS is also an option now, particularly for stuff like magical research and running domains.

>>96263734
This reads like someone parroting an opinion they heard from someone else and stating it as fact

>>96263881
It does, almost down to the wording.
How and when does B/X show its limitations? What procedures from the DMG?

>>96263881
ACKS rules for domain/research/item creation are incredibly mediocre. It's like they were written solely for the sake of them existing, and not because of any sort of creative spark or clever construction to make things easier for DMs. Rules for the sake of rules, which is pretty bad and lazy design, especially when the procedures eat up so much time to run through and produce such lackluster results.
I really can't trust anyone that recommends those, or ACKS's mass combat rules. They are almost exactly how to NOT design rules.

>>96263881
>>96263897
>>96264018
Welcome back, fishfag

>>96262414
Just make a normal sized world but with a gravity causing doohickey somewhere. You can say a god put it there.

>>96263559
Honestly LotFP always gave the vibe of being meant for one-shots, but the rules are solid af and I don't think you'd have many issues. Definitely go for it!

>>96263734
Well sure, if you're running your standard OSR sandbox and everybody gets a castle at level 9, but if you're running some storyslop historical campaing and you don't feel like being autistic about domain play... I'd say you're good.

>>96264018
I love ACKS domain rules and at the same time you can't pay me enough money to use them RAW. I understand what you mean but I still appreciate having some solid bullshit to fall back on in case one of my players gets retarded and wants to create a bard college or whatever.

>>96264499
who?

>>96264943
>I still appreciate having some solid bullshit to fall back on
I see what you're saying and I think "bullshit to fall back on" is about the most charitable yet still honest opinion one can have about the rules. The rules are bereft of any inspiration and innovative solutions but they exist, which is more than can be said by any procedure one would make up whole cloth on their own.

>>96264943
>Honestly LotFP always gave the vibe of being meant for one-shots
Ironically many of the great LotFP modules are have long-term campaign-defining consequences, so they absolutely lend themselves well to lengthier campaigns as long as you're willing to roll with massive shakeups to the campaign setting

>>96265334
That's exactly why I want to give it a full, genuine try. Go all in on the historical setting and let the horror have full impact and let the campaign world become a mess.

Still, some generators for adventures in a historical setting would be great. I never ran a campaign in the real world.

>>96265500
Wow, that sounds really exciting. I haven't played all the mainline LotFP modules, but I can vouch for Better Than Any Man as an excellent sandbox for low-level adventurers. It's a sensational module in its own right but I also found that the encounters and scenarios do a good job of introducing players to the 17th Century setting, or LotFP's version of it.

>>96265543
Thank you for your insight. Maybe I will start it off with Better than Any Man after all. I was also eyeing the books from the Austrian 3rd party press. They have LOTFP-stuff too.
I would give a lot of money for a book like the canadian campaign setting but in the Holy Roman Empire. Even just for a decent hexmap.

>>96265655
On the other hand: I don't blame anyone for not working this into a setting. Reality is the most complex after all.

>>96265676
>I don't blame anyone for not working this into a setting.
Already done: The Dark Eye
>t. g*rm knower

>>96265815
Das schwarze Auge has an accurate map of the HRE?

Is there any hack that makes more uses of charisma? i am removing the max hirelings and base them on common sense and situation, It will still affect the loyalty or morale rolls if i want to, but I'd like to have more uses for it (i only use it on reaction rolls if it makes sense given the enemy)

>>96255749 (OP)

What do you guys think of Whitehack

>>96266556
I don't think about it at all.

>>96266556
Not osr by this thread's rightfully held position, but I think the auctions mechanic may be fun to try.

>>96266556
>What do you guys think of Whitehack
The whole roll-under thing seems elegant in theory but if the players have been exposed to modern D&D it might be a hard sell. When the second edition came out I tried pitching it to a couple friends and one of them stared blankly at me for a couple seconds then went "That's dumb." Like, they idea of using a d20 for anything other than rolling against a DC seemed inherently offensive to them.

I had the same problem with d6 throws in regular OD&D. I did the "2-in-6 chance of success" thing meaning you succeed on a 1-2, fail on a 3-6. But multiple times somebody would roll a 6 and get all excited because "big number = good" and I'd have to remind them that it's the opposite.

>>96267127
Whats so elegant about it?

>>96257786
Is Shadowdark even OSR? I thought it was it's own thing with an OSR feel.

>>96267127
Damn I feel sorry for you for having unwilling friends like that. I converted my old 5e group to BX and it took maybe three sessions for them to wrap their heads around rolling under but after that it felt totally natural. Rolling under is, IMO, a superior mechanic to contemporary D&D's fixation on target numbers given how arbitrary and inflated dice modifiers become.

>>96266957
Can you fuck off.

>>96256400 here, I'm back after choosing OSE (deciding between Classic and Advanced) and thinking of doing Keep on the Borderlands as our first module
any house rules i should use or anything special in general i should do to ensure a good time for all?

>>96256493
I’m speaking personally, for me as a guy whose been an active D&D guy since 1981 and whose spent the much of the 1980s and 1990s running the BEC portion of BECMI, and now runs BX and CP2020 almost exclusively (and plays in my son’s 5E game).
For me, he BX books are just better laid out. As much as I love the CYOA in the basic book (the best tone setter I’ve played for D&D ever), it eats up too much space and throws off the presentation. I also hate that the rewrite into BECMI added a lot of rules vagaries that feel like they’re trying to make it babby’s first AD&D instead of the complete better game it really is on its own. The max level increase just added a fuck tun of useless bullshit that wasn’t gonna get used anyway since demihumans couldn’t play at that point anyway.
The way the BX books present the rules make it very clear that while it is a complete game with an intended way to play, it is still the Dungeon Master’s game to personalize. All later versions of D&D, starting with AD&D 1st-ed but really blowing up in 2E and WotCD&D, make it stupidly clear that if you’re not playing it TSR’s way, you’re not doing it the right way.
I do love the art of BECMI tho. The consistent art style in fully rendered grayscale is great. I often still use the art from it with the VTT when I play online with my old navy buddies across the world.

>>96268032
Great choice! I can't recommend enough the equipment slot and d6 thief skill rules from the Carcass Crawler zines, they are truly QoL improvements over regular B/X rules.

>the second edition brigade is so desperate they are now unironically trying to trick people into playing knave/shadowdark
Fucking disgusting

>>96267964
Can you post on-topic?
Whitehack, knave, and shadowdark all for the nusr thread, feel free to post there.

>>96268162
I will fight anyone who hates on the CYOA from BECMI (stay away from my wife Aleena though). Having said that I would agree that it should've been in a separate pamphlet or something.

>>96268381
Lotfp does it better

>>96268578
It's not helpful at all. Detrimental in fact.

>>96268599
As >>96268162 noted, it sets the tone very well. I'd also argue that it teaches the basics of combat decently well, as it covers multiple one-on-once combats.
If you have a well-reasoned counter, I'd like to hear it. Else you are just wrong and gay and should watch your eyes out with peroxide.

>>96267601
Depends on what definition you're using. At its loosest, any game that tries to go for an "OSR" feel is OSR, At its strictest, OSR doesn't even exist anymore because even the people who once believed they played the TRVE OSR have become tainted by living beyond the date of their savior's life and they all now live a cursed existence bereft of their lord's light and guidance, playing eroding and ever-corrupted mockeries that grow each day more distant from the one and only TRVE way to play.

As far as Shadowdark goes, the creator doesn't want it to be called OSR (just something "OSR-like"), so I wouldn't stress about what sort of category it's supposed to fall into. It's apparently got a lot of features familiar to OSR games, like torch-tracking, race as class, 3d6 down the line, and other bits that have fallen away from "modern" games, so it's definitely worth discussing here, even if it's just a question of whether it's similarities to 5e enable it to be a good gateway for the 5e crowd into other OSR games, or something that might put people off from the category altogether.

>>96268162
I like you.
>All later versions of D&D, starting with AD&D 1st-ed but really blowing up in 2E and WotCD&D, make it stupidly clear that if you’re not playing it TSR’s way, you’re not doing it the right way.
This is my biggest gripe with AD&Dfags in this thread. They make themselves into a slave of a supposed play-style and become consumer whores.

>>96268032
Seconding >>96268381 I use both rules now after playing mostly RAW for a few years and the encumbrance and inventory system is a huge improvement. d6 thief skills are also great; I use d12 and double the point amounts to provide more granularity

>>96263881
>>96263897
B/X shows it limitations when you need to advance beyond lvl 14, duh!

After that you'd need the M/C/I

>>96268783
The thing about BX is it's a perfect self-sustaining ecosystem of a system where as the players grow in skill and the PCs grow in power, so too does the DM grow in his mastery of the game. By the time the PCs reach 14th level, you won't need rules; you already know what to do.

>>96268578
Never read BECMI. It sounds like it's all split apart amongst the chapters, is there a collection of those in the trove or anywhere you know of?

>party has been planning to pick an ideally-non-fight with a manticore for like three sessions (disable it without endangering themselves)
>they were not exactly aware of what its lair was like
>they finally decide to head there and check it out
>upon arriving at the lair they immediately see faults in their plan and change it on the fly
>the manticore's lair is basically also the entrance to a medium-small dungeon
>the changes in their plan and some off-the-cuff player actions cause the plan to just crumble
>they SOMEHOW by the fucking will of fucking god himself manage to escape with zero deaths but a lot of very wounded party members (and no dead manticore)
>but they're retreating into the dungeon, even though I had the wounded manticore just fly off from its lair since they'd managed to paralyze some of its non-wing limbs with poison
>they didn't trust it wouldn't come back while they were scaling back down the cliff (reasonable, I suppose, but it wouldn't have. not like they could know that, so I didn't bother reiterating to them)
>they've convinced themselves that the dungeon will exit at the base of the large plateau the manticore laired atop
>it absolutely does not exit at ground level, there's only the one entrance at the top
it's like watching a trainwreck
this has been the most fun campaign I've ever run but I think it's got maybe two sessions left at most

What are the differences between Whitebox FMAG? Amazon has several copies that are the same price but different covers.

>>96268617
its storyfagging and not exemplary of the OSR gameplay loop.

>>96268162
>All later versions of D&D, starting with AD&D 1st-ed
AD&D came out four years before B/X, mongoloid.

>>96268617
>it sets the tone very well
That says everything about you and nothing about its quality. I don't want to even try and imagine what kind of retarded storyfaggotry you're playing if the sad story of the dead waifu is a good tone setter for it. Fuck's sake.

>>96263559
If you want long-term, you will want to start with AD&D (unless you are DMing for your own or your friends' children).
You will thank me two years down the line.
I am saying this because in my experience pl*yoids refuse to adapt to a new system after the campaign has been going for years.

>>96265919
>Das schwarze Auge has an accurate map of the HRE?
Aventuria is closer than anyone will ever have the patience to publish. Unless you make your own, DSA is the best you can get.
You only need to re-stat NPCs and replace monsters. Which you should have plenty of time for as you don't have to worry about every little setting detail.

>>96269254
reads like you are just a bad DM

>>96268032
good choice

>>96267601
>Is Shadowdark even OSR?
I have read it and dubbed it "Kiddie 5e". Which is probably why the B/X GMs ITT who want to have (more) players see it as a way to "wean" their friends off of 5e and towards Basic.
This effort is doomed to fail however, as all they are doing is reinforcing 5e in their players' brains.

>>96267601
yeah sure, why not

>>96267601
fuck no

>>96267601
It'd be correct to say it's meant to be played in the OSR style but the system itself OSR. it deviates in too many ways that are antithetical because it still wants to leech from the 5e player base and has no interest in giving that up
>tracking torches by an hour RL time as opposed to by the in game progression of time is lame
>inspiration poi- sorry, luck tokens. hard pass. live and die by your dice roll, accept your fate
>unlimited roll to cast spells gets rid of treating spells as limited or tactical resources. a gentle fumble table isn't going to stop someone from casting fireball every round if that's what they're used to from 5e
>death timer instead of dead at 0? AD&D style "unconscious at 0, death at -10" is dumb enough
>restoring all HP at a long rest? when combined with the two points above, YIKES
>encumbrance is an afterthought as long as you don't run out of slots
>>96269867
don't be a fag, it's the NSR community that pushes Shadowdark the most

>>96267601
not here.

>>96270025
* but the system itself isn't OSR

>>96269837
>You will thank me two years down the line.
But why? What does AD&D have that is so vital?

>>96269446
It's just different covers, they're all the same inside

As neat as FMAG is, I gotta say Delving Deeper covers the same material but more accurately, has more extensive guidelines for building a proper old-school sandbox campaign, and costs about the same (free PDFs, $5 on Lulu).

>>96269778
>Seething rage
Play more games, you'll feel better.

>>96270457
>But why? What does AD&D have that is so vital?
It has more freedom.
Want to establish a freehold? Got a rule
Want to research spells? Got a rule
Want to create items? Got a rule
Want to go Astral/Planar? Got a rule
Want to go underwater ? Got a rule
Want character age to actually have an effect and aging to be relevant? Got a rule
Want to add whacky Barbarians and Cavaliers? Got a rule
Want to be an evil Assassin? Got a rule
Want Orcs to have shamans? Got a rule
Want more that 12 spells per level? Got a rule
Want to actually know how much XP you should give for defeated NPCs? Got a rule
Want autistically detailed 1v1 duels? Got a rule
Want actually be creative when deciding on a (multi)class? Got a rule
Want fighters to have an actually good and comparatively high chance to hit like they are supposed to? Got a rule
Want to know what happens to flaming oil if you do not hit? Got a rule
I could go on.

>>96269853
do you have an actual reason for this besides the small dungeon having only one entrance when the campaign is mostly a hexcrawl?

>>96270025
>inspiration poi- sorry, luck tokens. hard pass. live and die by your dice roll, accept your fate
lol
I play ad&d with one 1 but 2 meta currencies
- Astonishing fortune
- Fate point

The first one I give it at the start of the session, one per player. You use it or you lose it. Allows to reroll.
The second allows to pass rolls or affect the game in minor ways.

It allows me to be as lethal as I want, to play unfair modules and give a resource to the players so it becomes "tactical" instead of "stupid".

>>96271318
>this anon is in direct opposition to "rulings over rules"
why are you even here.

>>96271374
"Rulings over rules" is a plebbit-tier NuSR mantra, not the gotcha you think it is here.

>>96271369
>I play ad&d with one 1 but 2 meta currencies
>- Astonishing fortune
>- Fate point
>It allows me to be as lethal as I want
FOEGAY

>>96271408
It's the first "pillar" of OSR. It's something even Gygax subscribed to. He spent a good chunk of time on DF complaining about "rulesplayers" like yourself.

>>96271426
Suck a dick.
In my game if a monster pack captures the players I literally role to see if they are exchanged as prisioners or executed an eaten.
I allow them to spend a fate point to become prisioners.
I don't need to GM-FIAT it like most of you do. I don't give plausible escapes to my players, I give them a tactical tool to use or get fucked.

>>96271431
Don't engage with the PlayAD&Dfag, it's going to ruin the thread.

>>96271431
>It's the first "pillar" of OSR.
No, it isn't. It's a mantra repeated in primers, blogs, and by YouTube ecelebs, and that you've either gobbled up uncritically (assuming you're being honest, which you probably aren't) or using as some kind of gotcha to troll the thread. Either way, you bullshit doesn't fly here.

>>96271454
>if a monster pack captures the players I literally role to see if they are exchanged as prisioners or executed an eaten
Wow. Much lethal. Such impressive.

>I allow them to spend a fate point to become prisioners.
FOEGAY

>>96271645
>Wow. Much lethal. Such impressive.
Whatever.
Is better than your gm-fiat bullshit.

>/osrg/ — Advanced Dungeons & Dragons General

>>96265334
>>96265500
> Ironically many of the great LotFP modules are have long-term campaign-defining consequences,
Beware that this sounds in concept but can be a pain to pull off.
One potential "long-term campaign-defining concept" is starting a zombie apocalypse.
Another potential is basically freeing a lovecraftian god that ends the world.

>>96271692
That's where
>as you're willing to roll with massive shakeups to the campaign setting
comes in.

>>96268734
>They make themselves into a slave of a supposed play-style and become consumer whores.
What?

>>96271318
It's amusing how boldly the visiting troll stands in denial of the notion that the almost 600 pages of the MM, PHB, and DMG might actually have more content than the 128 pages of B/X.

>>96271648
False dichotomy. It's not like the only alternative to handing out get-out-of-jail- free points is "GM fiat".

>>96271717
See >>96271718 and all the deleted posts.

>>96271718
>False dichotomy. It's not like the only alternative to handing out get-out-of-jail- free points is "GM fiat".

I'm not talking about "you rolled 3 ghouls and get destroyed". I'm talking in scenarios like being taken prisioner. All the OSR games give plausible exits to the player, in the same way that they always "telegraph" the traps.
Sometimes those "plausible exit" are basically gm fiat and not necessarily realistic in the fiction.
I simply use a consumable tool to avoid using gm fiat and simply go by the dice and the tables. The player makes a tactical choice, to spend a resource or not.

>>96271728
I dont understand how playing ad&d makes you a "consumer whore".
All the books can be obtained for free.

>>96271728
What's "consumer whore" about those posts, exactly?

And how is you adopting a play style any less being a "slave" to that play style than adopting a different one?

>>96271738
>All the OSR games give plausible exits to the player,
Do they now?

>in the same way that they always "telegraph" the traps.
lolwut?

Not sure what you mean by "OSR" but it certainly ain't a thing in OD&D, AD&D (1e), and B/X.

>>96271718
>stands in denial of the notion that the almost 600 pages
Total strawman. The other game in question isn't even B/X, it's LotFP. You're not even reading the posts you're responding to. No one appreciates you treating this thread as your personal AD&D echo chamber.

>>96271692
100% true. There's campaign defining consequences in every Summon-spell even.

Speaking as one of the anons you replied too: I obviously don't want to have ten apocalypses happening all at once. If my (future) LOTFP players ever unleash the horde in Death Frost Doom, it wouldn't be in the first couple of sessions but only when they've established themselves somewhat.
When it inevitably happens I'll call in sick for work for an entire week and plan out things in detail. I look forward to it in a half-masochistic way.

>>96271679
He's touting it again!

>>96271764
I'm interested now.
Let's say that your players are against a band of humanoids. Can be humans or any other sentient monster.
How you decide if your enemies take prisioners or not?
You just decide it beforehand based on the fiction?
You role on a table to give your players a chance even if not plausible?
You allow the players any action to modify this choice?

>>96271784
>How you decide if your enemies take prisioners or not?
Depends on the humanoid and situation. Some monsters are explicitly listed in the MM, those would be much more likely to do it. If the monsters' lair has cells, that would be another factor. When there's no clear indication either way, a reaction roll would work.

>>96271807
>Some monsters are explicitly listed in the MM
*DESCRIBED in the MM as taking slaves

But generally speaking prisoners have monetary value (I use the values from ACKS) so it's usually just a matter of quickly analysing the logistical and monetary pros and cons of taking slaves / prisoners in each given situation.

>>96271807
So we agree that the DMG has rules for lots of things that B/X and LotFP don't (they're not much different in this regard). A few hundred pages worth, in fact. Good.

>>96271832
Well that's sort of why I like to add an expendable tool.
Because doesn't matter how much experience as a dm I have (I'm not that experienced) my calculations will never be perfect, and sometimes I can be simply fucking the players over.
I want a game that plays fair with its unfairners.

>>96271773
Reach LotFP nirvana by having players use overlapping apocalypses to circumvent each other. Crash the broodmother skyfortress into the undead horde of mount deathfrost. Teleporting the monolith beyond space and time into cthulhu's brainpan. That sort of thing

>>96271856
Putting on kids' gloves does not absolve you of your responsibilities as a DM, it only cheapens the experience for the players by absolving them of consequences. Grow a pair.

>(I'm not that experienced)
That was kinda obvious by how opinionated you are against AD&D.

>>96271431
>Rulings over rules is the first pillar of OSR.
I do have to agree with the other Anon that that is bullshit. It's one of several misleading overgeneralisations from a popular but really rather overrated "OSR" primer.

>>96271881
>you are against AD&D.
I'm not against ad&d, you are conflating me with another anon.

> Putting on kids' gloves does not absolve you of your responsibilities as a DM, it only cheapens the experience for the players by absolving them of consequences. Grow a pair.
It doesn't absolve them of consequences, they use a finite resources that they could be using in any other way that are also beneficial. Is a tactical choice.
That's why I said, allows me to eliminate any gm-fiat.

>>96271904
As a player, I wouldn't enjoy being handed out these "points" at all.

>>96271318
You call these rules freedom? I call them chains that bind me down.
Good DMs don't need rules.

>>96271904
NTA; I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning and if metacurrencies work in your game then more power to you. But I have a problem with metacurrencies in principle, in that they simulate a tactical choice through game abstraction, which will to me forever be secondary to actual tactical choices that emerge through the events in game. This is not to say that you're wrong or bad for playing with metacurrencies, or that the tactical questions they give rise to aren't themselves compelling.

>>96271916
I mean, is no different than having a character ability that can be used one time per campaign.
Or rolling really good on a random loot table an getting a limited use consumable.
But you do you.

Speaking of the ACKS slave tables
>Finally able to take slaves as fungible treasure giving an incentive to take prisoners alive
>Because ACKS is 'the heckin' chud game' no one in the community is bitching about how it's immoral, doubleplusungood or whining about how they should be removed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OKdbc0DYpM

>>96271946
I appreciate this answer, straight to the point of the matter (damn, that sound like chatgpt, lmao)

I like them ironically because the game is in itself an abstraction and sometimes its imperfections are not fair to play.
One thing is trying to storm a fort with 100 orcs and getting destroyed.
Another is that I need to adjudicate if your chances of dying are 1/8, 1/6 or 1/4, which can at some point be completely arbitrary.
I want to give a tool to at least fight the math a little. I want to be fair with the unfairness of my game.

I still want to know why playing ad&d transforms you into a consuming whore by the way

>>96271777
ah yes, the oft-touted "there is no purity spiral" spiral when it's an objectively observable phenomenon

>>96271897
Yeah, this is just an OSR meme. D&D has plenty of rigidly defined rules; "rulings over rules" is a statement around the notion that you don't have to try to nail absolutely everything down and make some kind of janky physics/economic/world simulator a la 3rd edition, not that "rules are bad, just make shit up whenever you feel like it" that was then perverted in the same way most OSR early guidelines were: into rigid, nonsensical laws divorced from play experience.

>>96271943
Based

>>96271985
The worst part of 3e is not even that it have "tons of rules" or "tons of tables".
The most egregious element is how heavily the math is interconnected with the stat system.
The whole "1d6/level to a max of 5d6" is a succinct perfect solution to the "I want an effect that scales".
When you start adding skills and stats become a complete mess. An unbalanced mess even.

>>96271985
D&D has plenty of rules. Rigidly defined, however, is up to debate.
It has plenty of advice (including lengthy passages right in the front of the DM's Guide) to change/modify/ignore the rules if you disagree with them, by Gygax's own words. He actually despised rulesplayers like you.

You're basically stuck. Most people don't treat Gygax as some sort of infallible authority, not even Gygax himself, and you want to act like everyone needs to rigidly follow what he said, up until he said something you disagree with.

>>96272260
You're not wrong at all in what you say but >>96271985 is also correct that "rulings over rules" has been bastardized and exaggerated over the years. Like with most things, you have to actually understand the rules at least somewhat before you know how to bend them.

>>96272302
>>96272260
How do you handle called shots in your osr game?
If a player wants to hit a specific location of a creature in combat?
Do you allow it?
You just tell him to roll to hit normally and that the called shot is lost in the abstraction?
Do you allow to hit with a penalty and invent an effect out of the fly?

>>96272325
How big are the player's tits?

>>96272325
>Let's see if you hit first.

>>96272325
In general, I don't allow called shots because the attack roll does not represent discrete attacks but rather your best effort over a 10-second round.
In specific instances (because I'd never have a hard-and-fast "no called shots ever" rule), a pc would need to make an attack with a penalty (usually -2 or -4 depending on difficulty) and adjudicate what happens situationally. For instance, if the PCs were fighting a giant scorpion and someone wanted to disable it's tail, I'd say they need to hit it at a penalty and deal at least 6 points of damage, which can be broken up over more than one round. If a pc was facing off against a man-sized opponent and declared he wanted to target his head for a fast kill, I wouldn't allow it because every strike is intended to be lethal.

For the record, I'm not against rulings—I love rulings. I just also don't use my ability to make rulings as an excuse to say fuck the rules

>>96272372
Consult the table

I will retardmaxx the OSR by playing B/X and not getting into gay purity spiral shit.

I look forward to the new LOTFP releases. There's Japan stuff. I love Japan! Don't think I'll get anything else though.

>>96272325
>>96272415
How are beholders handled?

>>96271943
>Good DMs don't need rules.
I have friends who play ruleless RPGs. They can be fun occasionally, at least for one-shots. It's also very off-topic here: First decade D&D is not a ruleless system.

>>96271949
>I mean, is no different than having a character ability that can be used one time per campaign.
Sure, that's also bullshit.

>Or rolling really good on a random loot table an getting a limited use consumable.
You're trying to rationalise a gimmick you've come up with as a maladaptive way to deal with anxiety over your responsibility as a DM to make rulings.

It also sounds like you might be overestimating the impact of one PC death. Are you running a single party, one PC per player campaign?

>>96272500
By the book? Why do you ask? Are you trying to engineer some "gotcha"

>>96271984

>>96272539
You seem oddly terrified of this "gotcha" business. Do you have a frequent re-occuring problem of getting proven wrong or something?

>>96272515
> You're trying to rationalise a gimmick you've come up with as a maladaptive way to...
No, I'm using an argument to show that the arguments against it are a bit dumb

> Are you running a single party, one PC per player campaign?
No, I'm running a "troupe" style play.
Every player generate multiple characters and pick 2, one is benched in town the other is at adventuring, the rest become potential henchman or hirelings, later they can promote hirelings to henchman and henchman to playable characters.

>>96272539
I think he is asking because beholders have a inherent "called shot" mechanic.
Which makes the fact of not handling called shot a bit weird at the table if you say "no you can't" to every called shot except when it's against the beholder.
Except that everybody know the game so well that knows exactly against which monsters they can do what. Which sort of defeats the point of experimenting with the fictional reality.

>>96271985
Also, as this excellent video explains, rulings ARE rules. After you've made a ruling, it becomes a precedent that you'll need to be coherent and keep applying in the future. So "rulings over rules" is an attempt to create a distinction where there's none.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uiXgBASiNQ

>>96272584
>gay video
Miss me with that shit. No views for you.
Either present your own argument in 2000 characters or less or fuck off to Reddit where posting other people's ideas is acceptable behavior.

>>96272325
>How do you handle called shots in your osr game?
I don't, except for specific monsters with specific body parts with distinct AC and/or HP. For example Beholders.

>You just tell him to roll to hit normally and that the called shot is lost in the abstraction?
Yep.

>Do you allow to hit with a penalty and invent an effect out of the fly?
Nope. It slows the game down for no real benefit. If I wanted to play something with that level of detail, I'd play Harnmaster.

>>96272602
>It slows the game down for no real benefit.
Hack away the magic pendant from the evil sorcerer necl?
Knock away the magic helmet from the evil warlords head?
Bring a manticore down damaging its wings?
Shot the evil dragon on its chest weak point after discovering that he lack scales there?

>>96272599
>present your own argument in 2000 characters or less

>>96272584
I've already done it in 216 characters:
>rulings ARE rules. After you've made a ruling, it becomes a precedent that you'll need to be coherent and keep applying in the future. So "rulings over rules" is an attempt to create a distinction where there's none.

>>96272599
Didn't watch the video but the argument is that a ruling is a rule.
Is you make a ruling over an action then it's a repeatable action and you created a rule.
If you make a ruling over an effect then it's expected the same ruling if the effects appears again.
If you makes contradictory rulings then the fictional universe becomes shit.
So you are basically creating rules with your ruling.

>>96272616
The game already handles all of those situations perfectly well, no need for house rules:

>Hack away the magic pendant from the evil sorcerer necl?
Reduce him to zero HP.

>Knock away the magic helmet from the evil warlords head?
Reduce him to zero HP.

>Bring a manticore down damaging its wings?
Reduce it to zero HP.

>Shot the evil dragon on its chest weak point after discovering that he lack scales there?
Reduce it to zero HP

>>96272638
Serious question not trolling.
Do you believe that any other system that allows something different to "reduce him to zero HP" is FOE trash not OSR?
Or do you think that other systems more detailed and with more crunch can still be considered OSR?

By the way I'm reading the Wilderness Survival Guide that have rules to calculate how many days without water you can survive.
Epic autism.

>>96272623
That's not an argument. Those are your beliefs.

You're trying to conflate coherent rulings with rules, when the former is adaptable and can take into account nuances and changing conditions, while the latter is incapable of doing so without incorporating rulings.

A precedent is also not a rule, and saying a ruling turns into a precedent and then into a rule is such a severe conflation that I suggest you stop hoping that youtube videos can argue your points for you and try doing some thinking of your own.

>>96272702
>Do you believe that any other system that allows something different to "reduce him to zero HP" is FOE trash not OSR?
I LOVE HârnMaster. It's also obviously not OSR.

>Wilderness Survival Guide
Meh.

>>96272702
>Do you believe that any other system that allows something different to "reduce him to zero HP" is FOE trash not OSR?
What does AD&D say?

>>96272773
>What does AD&D say?
Overbearing, pummelling, grappling. 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head.

>>96272581
The way I see it, the beholder and similar monsters that have target-able body parts are a great blueprint for applying called shots to other creatures, hence my example with the giant scorpion. Not exactly sure why this is controversial

>>96272781
because it's not PURE dnd so it SUCKS

>>96272799
What are you even trying to argue at this point?

>>96272781
>great blueprint for applying called shots to other creatures
It quickly becomes a game of "mother may I", which I don't like.

Also, another problem with this kind of ruling is, do you also allow monsters to attack the PC's hand to make him drop his weapon? Tear away the PCs magical necklace? If you don't let them do it, it's unfair to the monsters. If you do let them do it, often players start bitching and whining. And if they don't, it slows the game too much for my taste. Or it starts to depend too much on my fiat (see above under "mother may I").

Last but not least, what do you do when you have engagements with a bunch of combatants per side? Now you have to start keeping track of which creature was hit in which body part, which has dropped its weapon, and so on. It doesn't scale well.

>>96272819
Well the "perfect system" is one that operates effectively at different scales.
For that is better to use different rules.

200 soldiers vs 10 manticores
is not the same as your 6 players trying to kill 1 manticore in a cave
allowing to hit big monsters body parts allow a lot of tactical decisions
maybe if you destroy one of the manticore wings it will be more prone to parlay

>>96272806
use your fucking head for a second and figure it out for yourself

>>96272806
It's just 2efag trying to muddy the waters as usual.

>>96272849
shadowboxing

>>96272819
You have a very steep misunderstanding of what I am saying.
First, I don't have any issue with "mother may I" because my players and I mutually trust one another and respect the game. If you're players are being bitches why play with them?

Second, I stated earlier (but I'm assuming you haven't actually read my earlier posts) that I generally don't allow called shots save for edge scenarios. In particular, I explicitly stated not allowing called shots against man-sized opponents. So no targeting hands etc. I get your compulsion to jump into a conversation but please remember to read the thread before chipping in with your perspective.

Third, in regard to many combatants, if you're talking about mass combat I wouldn't allow called shots because mass combat is more abstracted than man-to-man. If you're talking about a scenario where many combatants are engaged in man-to-man combat with many different enemies with targetable body parts (such as the giant octopus), I don't remember if I've ever run a situation like that but I know how to track monster hp totals so it probably wouldn't much of a struggle.

All this is just to say though that you are jumping into a conversation mid-way through and asking me a bunch of questions I already provided answers to earlier in the thread.

>>96272819
>It quickly becomes a game of "mother may I", which I don't like.
All RPGs boil down to games of mother may I, just with various levels of obfuscation, misdirection, and sometimes just outright pure cope from people unwilling to come to terms with the fundamental truth.

>>96273094
Yeah...
The problem is not the game devolving into "mother may I" but the game devolving into "No you can't do that" completely trashing the immersion of the game, this is sort of hand waved away when everybody have experience to know "what is allowed" given the current system.

>>96272434
This is the correct attitude.

OSR is awesome.

>>96273154
Never forget fun.

>>96272581
>I think he is asking because beholders have a inherent "called shot" mechanic.
Corret
>Which makes the fact of not handling called shot a bit weird at the table if you say "no you can't" to every called shot except when it's against the beholder.
Not automatically - maybe the Beholder has a particularly vulnerable eyestalk, maybe other monsters don't have a tail that is so fragile so it's better to "simulate" (please don't get triggered anyone) the interaction in the standard way.
But it's still interesting to consider or to use as a blueprint if needed.

>>96271856
You are an irresponsible childlike DM and you are afraid of actually playing the game, so you give your players story tokens, in order to prevent anything bad from happening.
You clearly don't care about what the dice say

>>96271949
It is literally and explicitly completely different from those things tho, otherwise you would be using them in the first place.
You're a FOE, GYG

>>96271984
There is no spiral because the parameters for what this thread encompasses, have stayed the same for years.
Get with the program or get another thread going

>>96273279
>irresponsible childlike DM
is amazing the level of shit people will come with
wtf this is even about

> so you give your players story tokens, in order to prevent anything bad from happening.

they can use them for other things
for example in my game all spells are randomized, you don't pick spells when you level up, you only learn them from scrolls, training or exchanging spells
you can spend one of the metacurrency to allow to train the specific spell you want (you still need to spend time training but you can ensure the spell)

this gives tactical choice
do i want a "out of jail free card"?
or do i want to ensure i have sleep/fireball?
also the metacurrency allows for small changes only
if you go down vs a monster you can spend it to be unconscious, but if your friends run and leave you there you are basically dead

>>96272434
There's no purity spiral, and BX is a quintessential osr game. You're obviously new here and just trying to start some type of argument.

>>96272559
You are absolutely rationalizing a maladaptive gimmick. You're teaching your players that they can just have freebie fate and story points so that they can masturbate under the table while their characters survive against All odds.
You're bad dm, you're a foe, and you're an embarrassment to this thread.

>>96273323
i play games and test interesting mechanics
you are a dumb mother fucker lmao
> rationalizing a maladaptive gimmick.
not an argument

>>96273312
>you can spend one of the metacurrency to allow to train the specific spell you want
lmao you're only making it worse.

>>96272719
Rulings absolutely become the rules of your games you buffoon.
If a rule doesn't cover a situation, the DM makes a ruling on it. Then in order to maintain consistency and versimilitude, that ruling becomes a standing rule as part of the game.
For fuck sakes this isn't complicated

>>96273323
please shut the fuck up and go play your dumb game with 4 spells and one die level of abstraction so you can larp that you "test your players" with some dumb trap
stop answering me
i can read contrarian arguments but i can't read your retarded dribble

>>96273340
I think he got triggered because he saw Macris discuss this.

>>96272846
>>96272799
Would be nice if you could just have an opinion without hiding it behind layers of irony

>>96273312
Calling you your responsible and childlike is pretty accurate, considering that you are so bad at the game that you have to give literal "reverse fate/undo story" tokens, because you and your immature players are so afraid of actually having consequences arise from the game, that you will do everything you can to avoid them.

>>96272434
Breathtakingly based

>>96273323
>so that they can masturbate under the table
NTA, my players already do that while staring at me pls help

>>96273356
> bad at the game
I homebrew the game whatever I want, I don't marry a system, I modify it into my own system
What the fuck that have anything to do with "being good or bad"?
Also is unrelated to a game with consequences or not.
God you are so stupid.
Please just shut up.

>>96273312
Yeah we know they can use them for other things, and it's a fucking embarrassment you should just let them play the game as it's intended without giving them training wheels and pushing the bicycle for them

>>96273346
What would be even nicer is if he kept his thoughts to himself and stopped polluting the thread

>>96273378
Please tell the crow about your game and how you play it.
Show us how A REAL PLAYER does it BY THE BOOK.

>>96273312
What's really amazing, the shit that people come up with, is DM's who are so bad at the game that they have to give their players fate points in order to have them not leave in protest after the first session

>>96273378
I truly can't believe that you are a 40+ something dude.
Jesus

>>96273342
You think that because my game doesn't use your fate points, that it has "four spells and one die level of abstraction"?

You're a buffoon and you feel so bad at playing a game for 12-year-olds that you need crutches and training wheels.
If this isn't date, it's honestly one of the most embarrassing posts I have seen here in a long time. Stick around, you might make a name for yourself :)

>>96273405
I think that your game suck ass because you sound dumb as a bag of bricks.

>>96273370
If you ask the DM and your players, all collectively need these fate points in order to be able to play the game, because you are afraid of what happens when you roll the dice, then yes I would say that you are categorically bad at this game (one designed for 12-year-olds mind you)

>>96273387
Well I play in multiple sessions weekly, and I have for the last several years. We hew as close to raw as possible, making on the flight rulings when necessary, and then researching their validity afterwards, instead of belligering the game by looking things up in the moment.

Furthermore, the DM and the players all have implicitly collectively agreed to accept the results of the dice regardless of emotional impact, without needing fate points or story tokens or playing my ex card or drawing the veil or whatever the fuck safety net you installed.

>>96273424
cool story bro

>>96273416
I think fate points are dumb but this is a rather strong reaction

>>96273399
Not sure why you would want to believe that, considering I'm not.
Do you just make shit up in your head like an actual schizo delusion sufferer?

>>96273410
Ah, classic. You have nothing to say, so when criticized you will instead start making up delusions in your head about how *my* game goes.
You are so bad at the game, that not only are you unable to play it without training wheels, you're afraid to even try.
You're definitely better off playing a different system entirely.

>>96273438
I qualify you for the content of your interpretations mind you.

>>96273426
>Tell me about your game then bro!?
>Uhm, not like that, I didn't expect you to actually reply!
Can I spend a fate point to undo your post?

>>96273427
I like fate points in non-osr/story games, and I think his reaction is pretty appropriate.

>>96273356
He could just be playing a generally riskier game with higher stakes, and the tokens are to compensate for that, like how WFRP works. It's supposed to be a very "deady" game, but uses Fate points so that it's not a pure meat grinder.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, some D&D DMs make death common and thus just an inconvenience rather than a true disaster, with replacement characters ready to appear as Bob2 and Bob3 and so forth. In those games, PC death is much less of a consequence than in a game where players are supposed to be invested and care about their characters. Finding the right balance for your group between the extremes of "Infinite Deus ex Machina Coins and foam sword combat with free resurrections and kisses on your boo-boos" and "Your characters instantly die upon entering the dungeon, no save, and if you die in the game, you die for real" is really a subjective question.

At the end of the day, there are no "real" consequences in an RPG, so it's up to the group to determine what kind of imaginary consequences they are comfortable with and what kind of countermeasures are available to compensate for how risky things are.

>>96273444
you can roll 1d6
which is not a 1d4
nor a 1d8
so you feel better

>>96273440
Are you ESL or you just having a hard time typing with your fingers shaking?

>>96273448
>i like ... story games
gross

>>96273449
BX / advanced are already risky games, and if he's playing warhammer, he's not playing osr.
Why you trying to come up with fake scenarios to defend him?

>>96273448
I don't consider anyone that says "story games" to be a real person, and it makes sense that you have a troll opinion.

>>96273477
Believe it or not, people are allowed to play more than one type of game :-)
And furthermore, these games benefit by keeping them exclusive of each other, otherwise what's the point of even playing one particular thing?

>>96273449
>>96273449
it is a risky game with high mortality
some players reserve the point but a lot of them use it for other things so the dying count is steady
that's why I use the troupe format, every player have a benched character that is already part of the story

also there are other results that come from the non-standard character of the game
like custom tables to handle down time events, carousing, researching or simple events that happen at towns when the time passes

you can literally blow up your lab while researching and die or get janked at a tavern
of course anon could tell me that its my problem because i use those tables in the first place
but i think its cool, it makes the world feel alive and dangerous

the irony is that probably anon game "by the book" probably holds more his hand that my game "with the fate point" lmao

>>96273477
Maybe you have a hard time with reading comprehension, I never said I like story games I said that I like fate points in story games. In a game where you absolutely are relying on the narrative itself (games I dislike), it's understandable to want to have some type of undo button. But osr games are not "collaborative storytelling"

>>96273476
i'm literally shaking

>>96273482
Are you illiterate or just stupid.

>>96273486
That's fine, people like you generally run away at the first sign of resistance, it's part of the "being so feckless you need training wheels for a game for 12-year-olds"

>>96273507
>people like you generally run away at the first sign of resistance
Is this how you're hoping to bait people into continuing to argue with you, even after you outed yourself out as just a troll?

lol.

>>96273489
>>96273494
It's just a joke man relax

>>96273494
>I ... said i like story games ... I said that I like ... story games. In a game ... it's understandable to want ... some type of ... collaborative storytelling.
gross

>>96273490
>character that is already part of the story
Just when I thought you hit rock bottom he gets out his spade and starts digging.

>>96273572
You really have zero qualms about having everyone recognize your trolling calling cards?

I am relatively new to OSR, I ran a few one-shots of b/x to gamer and newbie friends it went well most times by the one thing that always seems like it’s not working is mappping.
I make sure that there is a mapper in every game I ran but either I don’t know how to describe the dungeon in an acceptable manner or the player doesn’t get how to do his role.
Any tips on how to improve?

in D&D terms, what level is Kenshin as a fighter?

>>96273667
I just find it amusing how with every attempt to defend your stance you only make it worse for yourself. When you initially said you have your player create more than one character I thought MAYBE your campaign wasn't utter crap from every possible point of view... and then you go out and reveal that the reason you do this is that, if a character gets killed, you want to preserve the STORY. I'm sorry, it's just hilarious. You're really hopeless.

>>96273713
Watch GFC's video on how to map. All of his eight videos are a must watch, but this one in particular addresses this specific concern of yours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prijsOI3xWs

>>96273723
D&D is a game, not an RPG.

>>96273723
depends. How many grunts can he kill in one move?

>>96273743
>>96273723
>D&D is a game, not an ANIME.
t. gets excited by CAPCHAs.

I like AD&D because it makes PCs more consistently strong. 6HD thieves!

>>96273743
>, if a character gets killed, you want to preserve the STORY
Never said this.

>My game needs fate points because things might go wrong or bad dice might happen!
nta but I've got to say; My game doesn't need fate points because I make my own luck through planning and not getting into situations where a single squiffed roll would kill the entire party.
Have you tried playing smarter and being less of a little bitch?

>>96273773
>Never said this.

>>96273490
>that's why I use the troupe format, every player have a benched character that is already part of the story

>>96273788
Literally doesn't say that "it's to preserve the story" anywhere
You prove, once again, that you are mentally challenged

>>96273788
Please tell me more how you have 7 years of experience and you play in multiple tables.
Unironically.
Want to know more about your games.
I'm amazed to know more about the games of such "colorful" personality

>>96273791
Why is it a plus that there is a "benched" character that is "already part of the story"? What bad things would happen if there weren't one?

What even is a "benched character" in the first place?

>>96273755
>>96273743
There are some funless cumslurpers in this thread who would agree that D&D isn't an RPG.

>>96273803
Based if true.

>>96273803
Technically it's a FAG (fantasy adventure game, of course). The term RPG wasn't used until later.

>>96273800
>What bad things would happen if there weren't one?
Nothing, they will find a random character that they will magically trust and become part of the party so the player can still play
Which is less cool that "already was part of the troupe"

> What even is a "benched character" in the first place?
For the reason above. Also to incentive players to have multiple characters if they get bored of using one. Or if they want to do some downtime activity and can't coordinate with the rest. They can leave one character doing whatever and pick the another.

>>96273723
Unknowable. His power level varies in the series considerably, alongside what he's demonstrably capable of.

Sending out a ranged attack with his sword, cutting through two feet of stone, striking nine times in a single instant, creating a miniature black hole with a vortex effect, and being able to spin his sword fast enough to create a shield against flames are all things Kenshin can do that most fighters can't, and some of those are treated as just little tricks rather than serious accomplishments. And, none of them come close to his real powers, which are his indomitable will, faster-than-vision speed/reflexes, and near-perfect ability to read his opponents.

In D&D, he would be much higher than 20th level, because D&D doesn't really go anywhere near the speed that Kenshin fights at when he's at his peak, which is entirely superhuman even according to the characters in-universe. While the Kenshin world power level seems low compared to something like Dragon Ball, Bleach, or Naruto, it's still at a place where even early warriors were able to casually deflect bullets and wield gigantic slabs of steel and paralyze people with their eyes and still be considered incredibly weak compared to later warriors.

>What bad things would happen if there weren't one?
Nothing, they will find a random character that they will magically trust and become part of the party so the player can still play
Which is less cool that "already was part of the troupe"

> What even is a "benched character" in the first place?
For the reason above. Also to incentive players to have multiple characters for when the characters die, or if they get bored of using one. Or if they want to do some downtime activity and can't coordinate with the rest. They can leave one character doing whatever and pick the other.

>>96273800
>>96273857
The characters are part of a bigger troupe.
A benched character is a character not currently adventuring with the rest.
He is in town doing whatever downtime activity the player wants to do.

>>96273743
>I just find it amusing how with every attempt to defend your stance you only make it worse for yourself.
You say this, when it's actually you who are making a fool out of yourself.

I'm not even the guy you're having a meltdown over.

>>96273857
>>96273831
>Nothing, they will find a random character that they will magically trust and become part of the party so the player can still play
Case in point. So when you were initially asked
>Are you running a single party, one PC per player campaign? >>96272515
The answer was actually "yes", although you tried to dissimulate it. Certainly the "single party" part: Additional "benched" characters are there first and foremost just in case a PC dies. So you actually have multiple training wheels house rules in place because you are terrified of consequences, and that your campaign would crumble if there were any.

Based on reading this entire exchange, the metacurrency guy has a decent rationale for using fate points to achieve a style of game that works for him and his table and a bunch of other people are sharing their headcanons about how his game must actually be bad.

Obviously fate points aren't for everyone and if the metacurrency guy's reasoning was worse (ie "metacurrencies are more contemporary and thus better" or "my players asked for it and I capitulated" or "metacurrencies fix the game and thus everyone should use them") then he should be rightfully chastised, but all the pathologizing is just tedious.

>>96273881
>a bunch of other people
I'm willing to bet it's mostly one guy samefagging, considering that we have a guy who does that quite a bit and he fits his profile exactly.

>>96273800
>What even is a "benched character" in the first place?
You just exposed yourself, here. Benched characters have long been part of the hobby.

>>96273875
>you are terrified of consequences
I supposed to kick the player out of my group if his character dies?
What's the problem of having multiple characters per player?

> dditional "benched" characters are there first and foremost just in case a PC dies.
No they are not

I'm not running a west marches if that's your question.
I have a set number of players that have 2 characters (could potentially have more, but never happened).
In general they are adventuring with one when the other is doing downtime activity.

>>96273881
i think his metacurrency shit sucks but i don't really care if he wants to run his game in a way i disagree with

i'm just enjoying watching everyone dogpile and shit on him, it's really entertaining

>>96273902
I mean is literally one dude, which is you.
Still waiting for you to tell us about your games.

>>96273902
>samefagging
You're the worst troll on this board and the rest of us would like you to leave.

>>96273893
So, again, you're firmly in the single-party style of play.

>I'm not running a west marches if that's your question.
West Marches is a 3e thing, this is /osrg/. Get your basics straight.

>>96273908
take your meds bro that's the first thing i've said on this whole stupid debate

i'll tell you about my games anyway though

i'm playing in an AD&D game tomorrow my buddy is running, and i'm planning a B/X game to run later on once my current campaign wraps up

>>96273930
I haven't said anything about West Marches, you're confusing me for someone else. Maybe best to step away from the computer for a few hours

>>96273937
> i'm playing in an AD&D game tomorrow my buddy is running, and i'm planning a B/X game to run later on once my current campaign wraps up
I meant something about the campaign or whatever
But that's nice anon
good for you

Totally unrelated but I'm working on some custom spell schools and I need help with naming—what's a good title for school with spells that involve time and space, like Haste, Enlarge, and Dimension Door? My first thought is "Dimensionism" but that sounds dumb

>>96273962
>school with spells that involve time and space
Spatial craft

>>96273529
Didn't you say you were done replying?
Try sticking by what you say, it'll make you look like less of a fool.

>>96273962
Manifold Magic

>>96273950
the AD&D game is (unfortunately) set in the forgotten realms (my buddy likes the setting for whatever reason) but i'm still excited to play in a game for once instead of constantly running them, though i do love DMing, don't get me wrong

the B/X game i'm planning is going to take place mostly in a big jungle region in a setting i'm working on with player input (leaving it pretty skeletal for the most part so we can expand on it through play)

thinking i'll use Stonehell as the tentpole dungeon for the B/X game because i really like the layout, though it may require a bit of tweaking here and there because the setting is more bronze age / early antiquity

on that topic, if anyone has any recommendations for good supplements or modules that fit the early antiquity sort of theme, i would appreciate anything

>>96273743
It's a FAG
FANTASY ADVENTURE GAME

>>96273796
Who do you think you are replying to?

>>96273803
Correct, it is not a role playing game it is a FAG.

>>96273881
His rationale is that he's not good enough to play the game and his players aren't good enough to play the game, without being hand held and training wheeled.

>>96273908
Not even close. Just because you are upset doesn't mean you get to make up details about things you know nothing of.

>>96274067
I'm not upset.
Already stated that I'm okey with contrarian arguments.
The other dude was misrepresenting my posts, pulling shit out of his ass and giving dumb arguments.

>>96274075
>the other dude was misrepresenting my posts
He does this a lot.
As in, 90% of his trolling is tagging someone's post, strawmanning, and then repeating that over and over again because he really is just hoping to "win" via attrition.

He assumes that he has more autism than anyone else, and frankly he's right. Unfortunately for him, being wrong for a hundred posts until no one bother's biting at his bait doesn't somehow make him right, even if he then tries to "reimagine" what happened in the thread.

>>96274167
Well I'm not the guy he replied to, and I know for a fact that there are other posters than me making the same complaints about this specific instance.
Fake points/story tokens is absolutely antithetical to what this thread tries to uphold and represent. If you like it in your games, that's fine, but don't pretend like anything other than a negative reaction is hurtful.

>>96274199
>to what this thread tries to uphold and represent
Can you seriously fuck off already?

What’s the funniest place to put a green slime?

>>96274206
Sorry that this thread has specific guidelines that it tries to operate under: we try to stay on-topic here, unlike yourself. Please stick to actual OSR discussion.

>>96274206
You should really try and adapt to what the thread is instead of trying to turn it into what you want it to be.
We have people on ironically recommending knave and Shadow dark and now fate points, and that shit is all completely off topic for the games we play in this thread.

>>96274199
>Fake points/story tokens is absolutely antithetical to what this thread tries to uphold and represent.

Not at all, Aside from you being generally a retard who only is speaking from the position of a small minority of the braindead "OSR means playing like the Amish plow their fields" screechers, the concept of Hero/Fate/Fortune points and other meta-concepts is not antithetical in any fashion to OSR games.

Fate points may be an awkward and generally clumsy way of bandaging over a game, but they are an easy way of broadly modifying a game without having to rip apart its innards. And, they help bandage a game over when experimenting with the innards and not knowing if you've pushed things too far. They're on a layer "above" the game, which makes it very easy to see when and how they come into play, and are often just a failsafe that let you push things harder than you might without them.

I don't like Fate Points, but they're not a bad tool to have on hand, like a roll of duct tape. You kind of want to avoid using tape when you don't need it, but they brought a roll up to the Moon just in case, and it even saved lives on the Apollo 13 mission.

>>96273829
>Later
OD&D is a FAG, the D&Ds worth playing are RPGs.

>>96274627
>the D&Ds worth playing are RPGs
Holy fuck a genuine heretic.
B/X is a FAG too, fraud-kun.

>>96274741
the cover says both, to be fair

>>96274753
Being an RPG overrides being a FAG.

>>96274741
To be fair, you can't expect everyone to actually read OD&D which never once says Fantasy Adventure Game in its text anywhere but does talk about your roles.

>>96274406
>Fate points may be an awkward and generally clumsy way of bandaging over a game, but they are an easy way of broadly modifying a game without having to rip apart its innards. And, they help bandage a game over when experimenting with the innards and not knowing if you've pushed things too far. They're on a layer "above" the game, which makes it very easy to see when and how they come into play, and are often just a failsafe that let you push things harder than you might without them.
This is so well-reasoned and well-said I'm surprised to even see it on OSRG. Good job anon, you've broadened my perspective.

>>96274741
based only play the EC(pronounced ACK) parf BECMI

>>96274889
I see we've reached the strokeposting phase of the thread

>>96274905
Ive never left, the stroke merely phases in and out of existence.

>>96274029
It actually sounds like his rationale is fate points allow his players a risk/reward decision to determine certain outcomes instead of leaving them to dice or DM fiat.

>>96274881
Absolute lolocaust.

"role playing" sounds more gay than Fantasy Adventure Gaming even with the acronym

>>96274881
I have never seen a post so well reasoned in the entirety of my online existence. The doors of perception have opened.

>>96274928
You have every opportunity to make as well-reasoned and well-stated an argument as that anon, and yet you seem to squander it at every turn.

Your (or whoever's) argument that "fate points in an OSR game are bad in all cases" is just not as convincing as "well it depends." Nuance>no nuance

>>96274928
>>96274945
I don't think you got the point across man maybe try posting again

>>96274950
What part of his posts makes you think he was ever more than a troll?

>>96274770
Not even close.
>>96274753
It says FANTASY ADVENTURE GAME directly next to the brand name of the game, role-playing appears in the corner in fine print.
Osr is a FAG

>>96274406
The fact that you can't figure out how to play the game without including the ability for the players to undo your mistakes and their mistakes, instead of rolling with them and adapting, says everything. I could be a literal drooling retard, but that doesn't stop you from being a shit dm with shit players a shit dm with shit players

Jesus christ this troll just got desperate as fuck.

>Let's check out the OSR thread, see what it's about
>Get the archive links and shit, nice obfuscation to protect the resources
>Neat, there's a 'what's OSR about' section, let's have a look
>Top entry is a Xitter right winger rant saying every man should play D&D since it's Trad and Based and They:tm: stole all our social opportunities and you have to play The One True Way (i.e. the way they think it ought to be AKA the biggest red flag to not understanding D&D's core tenet)

What the kids say? Oof. Yikes.

>>96275071
Lmao the Miya Thread what a blast from the past

>>96275030
Only for babies who play the baby game.

>>96274199
This thread tries to uphold and represent a lie about the past with no basis in how D&D is meant to be played.

>>96275071
who the fuck cares

>>96275210
Keep at it, 2efag. I'm sure with just a bit more spamming and samefagging you'll convince everyone at long last. Any day now.

>>96275176
More like a blast from my ass. Hot air and stank.

>>96275250
Why are you getting upset?

>>96275262
it seems like you're the one who's upset over some random rightoid being stupid on twitter, which has nothing to do with games, which i doubt you play anyway

>>96275299
>no u
lol

>>96274627
>OD&D is a FAG
No, OD&D is an FMWCPPPMF. B/X is a FAG.

>>96275262
>More like a blast from my ass. Hot air and stank.
Yeah it really was a bad thread, politics aside. He gets many, many details wrong, both about the game and how it was played back in the day.

Is Mage Knight appropriate for this thread?
The old ones with clicky things at the bottom of each figure

>>96275460
I recall it being pretty roundly mocked in the thread when it was first posted.

>>96275481
No.

>>96275481
As long as it vibes with oldskool aesthetiks it is ok. Never mind the skitzos who want to keep you down. Staying "On Topic" = thread suicide.

>>96275481
Pretty sure that's primary a war game.

HOWEVER, Mage Knight Dungeons is definitely an OSR game, if for no better reason than it provided some excellent miniatures for dungeon exploration, principally a fantastic little treasure chest that.... wait... for it.... had a little clicky cylinder dial inside so you could close the lid, spin the dial, and generate a random result, including a trap.

If that doesn't get your dick hard, we cannot be friends.

If they had made them generic d4s or better yet d6 results inside the chests, every single DM who played on a grid would kill for them.

>>96275678
That's fucking sick

>>96271943
>Good DMs don't need rules.
No rules = not a game. You'd just be play acting some sort of tandem spoken story writing assignment.

>>96275722
Give it a fucking rest.

>>96275792
Is reciting the Lord of the Rings with friends and improvising new scenes and characters OSR?

>>96274242
Bottom of a pit trap
>>96274926
And that's FOEGYG

>>96275202
t. poindexter dweebazoid

>>96275210
point out the specific lie you are referencing.
>>96275071
decent bait
>>96275481
of course not. why the fuck would it??

>>96268032
Keep's a sandbox that takes a decent DM. Remember there are probably various factions in the Keep and for sure in the Caves, they may well be related. Put the Caves at least one 6mi hex over else it's a half hour's walk from the Keep - introduce players to low-stakes local wilderness travel and exploration. Encourage players to figure out logistics for retrieving treasure. Be stringent with when you grant xp for treasure. Make sure players get involved, initially with locals handing out quests. Make sure it's clear what types run the place and who they can train with. Import AD&D training rules, fighter mook mower ability and extra attack routines. Encourage low-level domain play (PCs can build a band of followers and hirelings and build a pallisade) by using tithes, duties and excise in the Keep from AD&D. Ditto to age and aging, MU scrolls fading, Clerics not necessarily getting every spell prayed for, especially reversed ones. You can give a taste of mass combat through brutal scaling if the Keep gets assaulted. Consider giving MUs starting spells a la AD&D. One option is to expand using Mike's World but players ought to look beyond the Keep and Caves before you do so. Track time properly in dungeons, wilderness, town, between sessions. If players dislike followers and hirelings, encourage them to run a stable of characters. Consider introducing a rival NPC adventuring party. Define NPC personalities ahead of time so important ones like the Castellan, Curate, Advisor, Guild Master etc. all have defined ways they act.

>>96275597
shut the fuck up. stop topic sliding the thread.
/osrg/ isnt about "oldskool aesthetiks" you mongoloid simpleton.

>>96275678
No its fucking not. Having cool terrain pieces has nothing to with with being 'osr'.
Get a fucking grip, troll.

Hey guys, I'm currently running an AD&D 1e open table right now saturdays at 6pm CST. We're starting with T1 the village of hommlet, I'm new to DMing ad&d to be honest but I've luckily got a couple grognards to keep me on track.

So far the party has killed a few bandits and only just approached the moathouse. Combat has been fun with spell timing, weapon lengths, and charges, albeit a bit slow while I learn the ropes. No deaths so far though, a surprising amount of druids and clerics in the party hah.

If any of you are interested my discord name is Dingus1863, just message that you wanna join and I'll add you to the server.
Don't be a nogames, its fun.

>>96276405
Sounds awesome, anon. I regret being busy Sat nights, but best of luck mastering the game.

Hello /osrg/. I have found an utterly fantastic treasure trove of hundreds of free maps. Could whoever maintains the pastebin add a mention of it?
https://paratime.ca/friday.html

Pic related

>>96276405
im a yesgames on saturday, but FOEGYG!
(friends of ernest, glad youre gaming!)

>>96276464
not jelq'd

picrel plus "1d10+2d6-2" btfo's 90% of gamers

>>96276689
this, but weapon: speed, length, and space.

>>96276464
not jelqed

is knave compatible with 1d10+2d6-2?

>>96274406
>braindead "OSR means playing like the Amish plow their fields" screechers

>>96275210
>This thread tries to uphold and represent a lie about the past

Thank god Big Brother swooped in, removed all the wrongthink, and left up these comments that are totally not trolling.

>>96274406
from the standpoint of this thread's osr lense, yes.

i play osr with pbta

>>96276824
play ad&d

>>96276858
thats not osr

>>96276858
why?

>>96276464
Really cool, but It would be nice if he added general description of the building.
I'm trying to understand if the following is a temple, a keep, a manor, a fortress or mansion.
https://paratime.ca/ff01-28-2022.html

>>96275044
> your mistakes
Is so dumb, because you are assuming the fictional reality of your game is represented perfectly or "farily" (in a gaming sense) by the current level of abstraction.

Your players want to do a bunch of things with potential campaign level ramifications and you tell them "you have 1d6 chances".
Why no 1d4? Why not 1d8?
Are you being fair? Are you fucking them? Or are you giving them too much leeway with subconscious gm-fiat?
The metacurrency allows a GAMEABLE tactical element to an imperfect abstract gaming tool.

In my game a lot of really bad shit can happen to a magic-user doing research, from the laboratory blowing up and doing a ton of damage to summoning demons that can potentially go aggro. All of this can happen on downtime and is determined by a bunch of tables.
By the book (most books) this does not happen and your player just pay a bunch of gold to advance his character. If you want it to happen you need to do it ad-hoc, and do a ruling, so you are potentially fucking your player for no reason.
I transformed it into a game that makes the world dangerous and no "safe place" like in a west marches. There is no "safe town".
But you have a tool to at least mitigate this.
If you want to use your tool to have an extra spell (advantage) or as a safeguard if the random table fucks with you is your choice.

>>96276977
Insane bait

>>96276858
Yes

I play my osr hack with knave + savage worlds

>>96277050
Based. Savage worlds is peak osr.

as a bystander who has no horse in the race
>>96276977
this sounds like reasonable rationale by someone who knows what he is doing and why he is doing it
>>96275044
>>96277039
this sounds like a mentally-rigid midwit having a) no arguments b) a power-trip over the pettiest of things like being right in muh internet midwit-hugbox

can we please stop this fruitless discussion now?

>>96277089
Yes, you are a bystander, as in you are new to this thread.
If you cannot play BX without having fate/story points, that is a big misgiving how you and your players are able to handle the game itself.

>>96276977
>My games are super lethal, a lot of really bad shit can happen.
>Except it can't, because I allow players to say it didn't.
>I transformed it into a game that makes the world dangerous.
>Except it doesn't, because players can say "thanks but no thanks".
>Like in West Marches.
In other words, you've read the reddit-tier memes about lethality being the defining feature of OSR (it isn't), believed them, decided you wanted to be one of the cool kids who ran these super duper lethal campaigns like West Marches (which is a 3e thing, not an OSR thing, like another Anon pointed out above), but then...
>Why no 1d4? Why not 1d8? Are you being fair? Are you fucking them? Or are you giving them too much leeway with subconscious gm-fiat? You are potentially fucking your player for no reason.
You got scared of taking responsibility for running a super duper lethal campaign and inserted an undo button. This allows you to tell yourself you're running this super duper lethal campaign like all the cool (according to you) West Marches DMs, but without actually doing it.

>>96277050
>>96277051
Thank you, janitors, for aiding and abetting these valuable contributions to our general that are totally not samefag trolling.

>>96275379
>No, OD&D is an FMWCPPPMF. B/X is a FAG.
Got a warning for bad quality posting for writing "gibberish".

Imagine moderating /osrg/ and not even knowing that OD&D is not an RPG but
>a FMWCPPPMF: (F)antastic (M)edieval (W)argames (C)ampaigns (P)layable with (P)aper and (P)encil and (M)iniature (F)igures
and that B/X is not an RPG but a
>a FAG: (F)antasy (A)dventure (G)ame.

Can we please get a janitor and mod who have some basic familiarity with Gygax-era D&D, instead of 2e/3e/5e kids who don't know the basics of it and are trying to impose their play culture where it doesn't belong?

>>96275481
More than whatever the troll is pushing, yes.
Actually on-topic no.

>>96273784
>He didn't dare reply to this post
Lel.
Keep in mind my personal system of choice, ACKS, does have fate points.
But they're an optional rule (Which I use mind you) and are justifiable in setting as the favour of the gods.
I've actually enjoyed including them since watching my players actually engage with the setting by doing things like purchasing albino bulls to sacrifice, or getting incoherently drunk and banging all the temple prostitutes that've ever existed fits nicely with the kind of setting that my table jives with.
That and they're not a get out of jail free like a little bitch card.

>>96277121
How come you've never mentioned your metacurency mechanics in this thread before?

>>96277799
>>96277121
Sorry, meant for
>>96276977
Of course

>>96277121
>In other words, you've read the reddit-tier memes about lethality being the defining feature of OS
Is not about the lethality per lethality per se.
Is about the immersion and emergent play.
Please stop with the
> You got scared of taking responsibility
or dumb shit like that
it's okey if you don't like the mechanic, but inventing dumb shit to justify yourself is annoying
I want emergent behavior from the game that is out of my control, sometimes can be too punishing so i have a mechanism to make it fair (in a game sense, not in a fiction sense)

>>96276977
>>96277877
(You):
>Why no 1d4? Why not 1d8? Are you being fair? Are you fucking them? Or are you giving them too much leeway with subconscious gm-fiat?
>you are potentially fucking your player for no reason.
>sometimes can be too punishing

Also (You):
>Please stop with the "You got scared of taking responsibility"

>>96277877
>Why bother coming up with a fair ruling when you can just allow players to save and reload the game?
Brilliant. Excellent DM'ing practice. Total tonal and mechanical fidelity to first decade D&D.

>But guys, it's so lethal :(
Why is anyone replying to this moron? Please. Stop it. There's no need to shovel trollfeed into his mouth with your bare hands.

>>96276958
Yeah, it's quite generic. I think that's intentional though.

>>96278067
I'm going for mood, gameplay and experience not a making a clone.
Also is mechanically compatible.
You can keep using the exact same procedures and the exact same tables with little variations.
I prefer to add bigger variations and have a fallback mechanic.
Is really not hard to understand.

No sessions for the next two weeks.....

I'm running on a VTT, should I still have my players draw their own maps?

>>96273829
Technically it's not really.
While Fantasy Adventure Game only shows up on the cover of BX D&D, it also calls itself a Role-playing Game. OD&D doesn't mention being an fantasy adventure game or RPG at all anywhere in the base three pamphlets. Finally, AD&D1E calls itself a Roleplaying Aid and never ones mentions being a FAG.
So, as I was recently warned by the OSRJanny, all this fagtalk is gibberish.

>>96279038
Yes. If using Foundry as you should, give one of the mapper trusted player status and ownership over a folder of blank map pages.

>>96277089
>this sounds like a mentally-rigid midwit having a) no arguments b) a power-trip over the pettiest of things like being right in muh internet midwit-hugbox
That's what happens when a person's entire personality is based on how they play a game, and their concept of adulthood is based around what a game of play-pretend has rules for. Any deviation from those two things can only be perceived as a personality flaw and/or a personal attack. It reminds me a lot of early CWC having to constantly remind people that he's straight.

>>96277089
And this sounds like you are making up training wheels because you are too bad at playing a game designed for 12-year-olds to do it without having your hand held.

>>96278286
Having faith points is quite literally the opposite of what osr gameplay is about, a ring of wishes is one thing, but having a standard boiler plate undo button for every character, is just cringe inducingly embarrassing

>>96279101
Nice historical revisionism, you're a fag, not a FAG

>>96279280
Nah, fuck off. The game has functioned for 40 years without faith points. You're obviously either new to the thread, or an outright troll.