Thread 96393394

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 (embed)

>Need a starter dungeon? Here's a curated collection:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/94994969/#95006768

>Previous thread:
>>>>96342662

>Thread Question
Do you have a favorite OSR zine/publication?

I made a micro-dungeon at work cause I was bored. Would you play/use this?

>>96393485
Scuffed map as well!

>What's an OSR?
>Don't know how to get started?
>The friendly n00b guide can be found here:https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0Buntil 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 system to start with if I've never done old-school play but have done plenty of 5e/PF2e/3.5e/etc?
I love my players but getting them to be proactive and do things is difficult. Feels like they've played in games before where their DM was very strict and antagonistic with them so they're afraid to do anything that might rock the boat or go "off rails."
Playing something more open and free like OSR will help shake them up.

>>96394109
Just play BX RAW, at least six months of weekly sessions

>>96394109
The noob guide contains all the info you need and then some:
https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0B

>>96394104
I get a 404 not found from that link

>>96394655
Looks like he removed a space between the URL and the next word. Remove that "until" at the end of the link.

Rolled 9 (1d10)

>>96394104
Rollin.
>>96393485
>>96393497
Neat thanks. Adding it to the lair pile.
Not personally a fan of rolling the treasure during the adventure for things like coin quantity in B1.
Is the 25gp value in B2 the gems or the weapon?
>elemental pillars

I trusted a player to roll his own character and I just found out he couldn't be assed and made up all the numbers as we played. I feel really bad and retarded for not noticing

>>96394109
>Playing something more open and free like OSR will help shake them up.
Only if you repeatedly tell them to explore and make the exploration mechanics leading to XP through acquisition of treasure explicit.
In the same way no amount of rules contain autism, no amount of implicit structure magically imparts itself onto the wotcrefugee.
The
>Successful Adventures
part of the AD&D PHB is pretty good reading for new (and old) players.

>>96395564
Kick them out, immediately. Explain to the group why and roll for things in the open. Cheating ruins the game for everyone.

>>96395942
>Forbidden knowledge is information, sometimes in the form of forbidden books, to which access is restricted or deprecated for political or religious reasons. It differs from secret knowledge in that forbidden knowledge is commonly not secret, rather a society or various institutions will use repressive mechanisms to either completely prevent the publication of information they find objectionable or dangerous (censorship), or failing that, to try to reduce the public's trust in such information (propaganda). Public repression can create paradoxical situations where the proscribed information is generally common knowledge but publicly citing it is disallowed.

>A rich set of examples exist through history.

>The Roman Catholic church forbids publication of books to which it has not granted Imprimatur.

>Throughout the years of isolation in Japan and China all Western literature was forbidden.
Certain 20th century governments (e.g. communist nations in Eastern Europe, China, and Canada) placed strong restrictions on foreign publications.

>In the United States, conservative groups including Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority made several attempts to censor pro civil-rights and feminist works such as Our Bodies, Ourselves.

>In many cases this resulted in people defending themselves by creating political jokes. Jokes throughout history have been a powerful instrument to undermine state authority and the public truth associated with it.

>>96395467
The gems. That is pretty unclear. Yes the pillars are a direct pull from that most blessed of multi-pass.

>What's an OSR?
>Don't know how to get started?
>The friendly n00b guide can be found here:https://pastebin.com/EVvt6P0Buntil 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

Dicks out for the /osrg/ guide!

Absolutely why are the opening posts of the thread getting deleted? Does the janitor seriously have something against this general?

>>96397227
You can ask here:
https://www.4chan-x.net/4chan-irc.html

Are there any systems to generate MAPS of cities procedurally à la Appendix A (tables) or davesmapper (geomorphs)? I know that there are websites that do this, but I want to do it analogically.

The only one I know of is from Four Against Darkness, but it is a bit meh.

>>96397339
Interesting, none that I know of, but there may be some.
This might sound silly, but if you slightly modify appendix a, and consider passages to be roads and rooms/chambers to be buildings, you might be able to jury rig something

>>96397411
>if you slightly modify appendix a, and consider passages to be roads and rooms/chambers to be buildings, you might be able to jury rig something
I was thinking about that, but the problem is that Appendix A creates a lot of space that is neither room nor corridor, while in a town everything is either street or palace.

I've been thinking that I could replace Appendix A with something that only generates the streets, and then you just say that all the space that isn't streets is buildings. The only problem them is that you won't know how big a building is until you've generated the street on its opposite side, so this makes the procedure non-local. Which means it's okay for a DM to create a town between sessions, but not as much for solo play or even procedural play at the table.

>>96397339
>Lankhmar – City of Adventure, geomorphs but does them to represent intertwined alleyways.
.The Nocturnal Table, good set of encounters and bits, not really maps though
>Vornnheim, dice drop connections for streets, sort of neat.
>Yoon-suin city generation, great material but not district specific mapping (unless the new version has that, haven't looked yet)
>Infinigrad: The Weird City Toolkit, haven't used it, iirc has a map like generator.
>Welcome to Corpathium, dice drop, location and overall layout, not street level, good tables for encounters for sewers and roof tops
Almost everything in Into the Cess and Citadel is crap even for newfangled flashy crap.
There's a OPD I can't post on account of pdfs not being supported anymore but Only Acrobats Need Apply is from before the content totally shit the bed.

>>96397560
Here's where I reveal all my nitpickyness.

>Lankhmar
They're pretty nice, but yeah, like you say it draws the buildings as roofs, so it's a bit hard to make out what the structure of buildings should be on the interior. Also, only a dozen of them: Not enough.

I guess I could redraw them and combine them with those from 4AD. Looks like I'll have to come up with my own eventually. Too bad the sizes don't match.

>Vornnheim, Corpathium: dice drop
I HATE dice drops with a passion. They don't really give you maps, only stupid pointcrawls. FOEGYG.

>Infinigrad: The Weird City Toolkit
No preview on DTRPG and nobody sharing it on the network without a sole :(

>Only Acrobats Need Apply
Picrel in case anybody is interested.

Why are OSR thieves so shit

>>96397778
They're the only ones with Thief skills, so they're neither shit nor non-shit. They have their own niche.

>>96395761
>the exploration mechanics leading to XP through acquisition of treasure explicit.
This is terrible advice, because if you want to encourage exploration, you can just give XP directly for exploration. The acquisition of treasure is only part of that equation; it comes with plenty of baggage (like having to haul it back) that actually even discourages exploration.

>>96397789
Yeah but they start with a 10% or something in some skill.
I wonder why they didn't make them start with something higher and then made them progress slower.

>>96397888
You can increase them. Leave the percentages at 14th level unchanged (assuming you're doing B/X) and reduce them by 5% per level below 14th. That way most of them ought to start at around 30%-35% and end at 95% or 99%. I wouldn't go above that or mess with Hear Noise.

Doesn't work as well in AD&D because the progression ends at 17th level, but I'm sure you can come up with something.

Another option is to just let them reattempt skills at leisure, it "just" costs them time. Doesn't work with Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, but that's okay: Those skills are misunderstood by OSR n00bs,Tthieves should stay away from creatures in all situations at low levels, not sneak around like morons.

>>96397888
>>96397992
This having been said, you'd be robbing players of the experience of playing D&D on hard mode. I would recommend leaving the % as they are by the book and just allowing them to reattempt at the "price" of time. Lets them take hard decisions and it's self-regulating anyway.

Remember that in most cases it's the DM who rolls for the success of Thief skills behind his screen, not the player.

>>96398019
>Remember that in most cases it's the DM who rolls for the success of Thief skills behind his screen, not the player.
I try to be fair, not cheating in their favor or against them. It's just that the game seems biased against thieves

>>96397831
This anon doesn't get that exploration leads to treasure.
Good example of having to make many things much more explicit than one would imagine though.

I'm thinking of running a few original dragon lance adventures using BFRP
Any of you anons have any experience/tips on AD&D1e modules conversion to BFRP

If not, what other easily available books I can use to run dragon lance?

Serious question pls

>>96397888
>>96397992
>>96398019
Yet another option is being generous with the interpretation of what Thief skills can do. For example, when the party is surprised, I allow Thieves to check Hear Noise to negate surprise for themselves, assuming the monster is not completely quiet, like Undead.

You can also check out how Macris has "fixed" the Thief in ACKS: He allows them to either check for traps or move silently "for free" while exploring, with a penalty on the % chance of success, and he has given them some kind of darkvision (I think he calls it echolocation). He's also removed infravision from Demi-Humans*

(*) Which by the way is how things work in OD&D as well: Infravision for Demi-Humans is a later innovation. It's in Holmes's Basic and in the PHB, but not in the 3LBB. Not sure if it was introduced in one of the OD&D supplements.

>>96398094
>I try to be fair, not cheating in their favor or against them.
"It's the DM who rolls for the success" is not an encouragement to fudge the dice, this is /osrg/. It's an explanation for why allowing a player to reattempt a Thief skill is not game-breaking. It would be if you let them know whether they failed the check or not, particularly at high levels.

Also, something something Ear Seekers.

>>96398171
Obvious bait is obvious. ST0AP

>>96398203
I would greatly appreciate if you cut the bullshit and try to stay on topic of the question
surely you can try having an actual discussion instead of the usual for /Oldies Shitposting Rehash G/

>>96398203
>Bunch of posts get deleted for no reason.
>2efag = fishfag = false flag fag starts posting again.
>His obvious bait posts stay up.
Coincidence?

>>96398299
I assure you this all reads like incoherent blabbering to me
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about

so can you guys help out or not?
I though you were supposed to know stuff
guess I was wrong

>>96398171
20 - AC = ascending AC (like BFRPG)
look at AD&D or OSRIC to reference any missing spells from BFRPG

>>96398188
>You can also check out how Macris has "fixed" the Thief in ACKS:
This has to be a joke. The ACKS thief is an example of what happens when you push a class into a niche until it becomes a mix of frustratingly worthless most of the time yet still forced into the group. It doesn't help that ACKS has an embarrassing amount of pet classes to make the thief fall even further behind.
Do you mean "fixed", like a dog?

>>96398171
>>96398272
>>96398336
>>96398379
Reminder that we can recognise your posting style immediately, 2etard = fishfag = false flag fag.

>>96398402
What is wrong with you. Don't tag me in your sperg meltdown.

>>96398417
I can use Microsoft Paint too!

>>96398363
thanks anon
sounds simple enough

this whole thread? all me.

>>96398471
you should go see a doctor anon
at least thanks for acknowledging you use paint to hide samefagging
I'm definitely not the one you are talking about, I barely go here, and yet YOUR schizo style is immediately recognizable

>>96398171
What exactly is DragonLance's appeal?

All I know is kender suck.

>>96397831
No! Absolutely fucking terrible advice..
Do not start giving out XP for exploration, XP should be from treasure and combat only.
What he is talking about is seeking out and exploring new areas of the map and hunting for layers and dungeons to pilfer.
Go shitpost in another thread
>>96397992
Or instead of adding crutches and training wheels you could just play the game

>>96398574
14 connected modules of storyfagging plus a setting book

>>96398171
Off-topic: take it elsewhere.

>>96398608
>XP should be from treasure and combat only.
Wrong. It should be for collecting weapons.

You need to bring weapons to the Adventurer's Guild, and the the lady there will put the weapons in a blender, and when you drink the weapon juice that's how you get XP.

>>96398648
anon, have you been playing Elona?

>>96398574
I just think it's neat
plus Elmore's art and reading pirated novels back in the day

>>96398639
>First published 1984
it's on topic

>>96398701
It's on topic regardless of when it was published. Stop feeding that troll.

>>96398379
What are you even talking about? The thief in that game runs great just like the rest of the game does. Are you just the salty retard that everybody makes fun of?>>96398171
All of this post is off topic, make a new thread

>>96398701
No it's not. If you don't like this thread you are welcome to make another one.

>finally started ACKS game
>everyone except one player is playing a freakshit class
I'd rather have played BX at this point but it's too late now because the only reason they agreed to play was when they found the players companion. I really am kind of annoyed Macris cornered the market in autistic simulation OSR games now because honestly I don't even like the domain rules that much and beyond the Duties table there's not much for simulating a world or anything like that. Honestly feels like there's a niche for an actual BX retroclone that then piles the domain stuff on top of it.

>>96398808
Name the specific freakshit you are talking about, be explicit and not vague.

>>96398756
>just like the rest of the game does.
Oh, so you are just joking. Phew, for a second I thought you might be serious.
It's a good joke though. I don't think there's any system that runs worse by RAW.
If you really want a laugh, try the mass combat rules RAW. Embodies the whole "undercooked" aspect perfectly.

>>96398835
Ruinguard
Dwarf machinist
Warmistress
Bladedancer
Thief (the only non freakshit)

>>96398808
>Macris cornered the market in autistic simulation OSR games
If you're actually autistic enough to want to play an austistic simulation, just make up your own rules. They couldn't be worse than ACKS, because at bare minimum they'd actually fit your setting.
>I don't even like the domain rules
I've never understood why people would recommend them. I think people recommend ACKS rules because they need some kind of sales pitch, and there's nothing good to say about the system beyond it has more autistic rules than anyone would ever want, let alone need. WWN does a better job at domains, and even made the whole business system/setting agnostic.

>>96398838
I doubt you play any games, so don't really care about your criticism. Just one more tantrum-haver stomping his feet.

>>96398950
>I doubt you play any games
You've never played a REAL game. Probably why your feelings are so easily hurt.

>>96398417
>I'm totally not 2efag false flagging and samefagging! How DARE you imply that I am!

>>96398701
>A decade lasts eleven years.
Right. Totally two different guys.

>>96399004
>tout tout!

>>96399004
>tout tout!

>>96398852
>I let my players use everything in the book instead of telling them what could or couldn't be used
>How could this am happen to me? >:(
I don't even know what to tell you

>>96399004
>Nou
lmao
He always does that. Every single time.

>>96398574
While the modules are not that great the setting itself is cool.

>>96398608
...so how do you discover the treasure?

>>96398574
>What exactly is DragonLance's appeal?
Its bait. They doubled up on it by combining with bfrpg and overplayed their hand. Note the deleted posts with an extension.

>>96398574
It was the first setting which pitched itself as 'Your characters are the BIG HEROES who SAVE THE WORLD and INTERCOURSE WOMEN'
Plus it had an alright fantasy heartbreaker book series attached to it with at least one protagonist every nerd could relate to, from 'I want unicorns in my orifices' horse girls to 'Man, I'm just here for the doughnuts' casuals right through to absolute 'My character has to be the most special fucker at the table or so help me, I will throw this table' edgelords.

It's also got some music associated with it that, without a shred of irony, fucks pretty hard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oywjqkBVLg4

>>96398808
>everyone except one player is playing a freakshit class
Anon, you should've clarified "human only" before starting...
>>96398852
>Ruinguard
>Bladedancer
>Warmistress
Those are still humans, anon. Only Dwarves and Elves are the legit playable freakshit races in ACKS.
Yes, Zaharans are still humans in ACKS, just brownskinned ones that have made pacts with Chaos Gods and are mostly blood cursed. Fight me on that!

>>96399408
>Zaharans are still humans in ACKS
They're humans in the same way Stygians are human in a Conan setting.
In that 'Yes they're human, but they're not playable outside of very specific Chaotic party circumstances'
Combining a Ruinguard, a Bladedancer and a Warmistress in a party is like going
>Alright a Civil War vet turned Klansman fighting for the south to rise again and two Union boys meet in a tavern...
You can wish you were in Dixie as hard as you like, but it's not going to work out well for you.

>>96393485
>>96393497
Didn't you post this a few weeks ago? Not complaining just want to make sure I'm not trapped in some deja-vu hallucination

>>96399408
>Those are still humans, anon
NTA but it's pretty clear anon was extending "freakshit" to mean zany classes and not just zany races. As soon as you start smashing nouns together to name your class you've gone too far

>>96399408
>>96399526
Anyone who uses the term "freakshit" in any capacity is a troll and/or a retard, usually both.

>>96397831
bro, i'll use Vidya analogy.
Say you're playing a game like Elden Ring, Borderlands or something of the like, you usually have a map showing you unexplored areas, sometimes you see side area, nooks and cranies off the main paths, those are plces you can usually find treasure should you be curious enough to find out, even sometimes a hidde boss fight or alternate route

>>96399424
Zaharans only really play nicely with other Zaharans and other, even more hardcore shitbags.

>>96399443
NTA. It first appeared in December 2023.
https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/91189162/#q91221168

>>96399602
True but not relevant to the matter at hand

How do we feel about Ashes Without Number as a Gamma World alternative?

>>96399677
Most interesting. >>96393485, what do you have to say for yourself?

>>96399692
Gamma World is a wet fart. It's hard not to be better than it.

>>96399690
Blaming the system for your players using all the content in it is like giving children access to fully stocked kitchen, telling them to make breakfast and complaining about the meal that results.
You having to eat baked beans on toasted cinnabons with a side of gravadlax, Shasukha and the smelliest blue cheese that has ever existed is no ones fault but your own.
You could say no at any step of the process and you chose not to.

>>96399723
You're assuming I'm some other anon. Reply to him, not me. I'm just commenting on the names of some classes

>>96399744
Oh no, I'm just making a general point about the situation.

Rate my Death and Dismemberment system, adapted from some blogger I can't remember.

playing some gold box games and wishing the people i knew wanted to play ad&d

where can a fella find a game to play or run

>>96399692
I've never understood the appeal of Kevin Crawford's crap.

I really like Mutant Future, though. Particularly with the Mutants & Mazes variant, that makes it fully compatible with D&D (Labyrinth Lord specifically).

>>96399856
Sadly, you'll need to join a Discord.

>>96399862
Hey Scarlet Heroes is great, no need to be a hater. I like his random tables

>>96399868
darn.

>>96399869
>Scarlet Heroes is great
Yeah, no.

>>96399893
Discord is shit overall, but it's great for organising games if you join a good one. There's several that have multiple sessions a week, with open tables.

>>96398171
There isn't any on the tabletop. WilliamSRD does a good job explaining it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtNYGdDccG0

>>96399424
Not 'all' Stygians are snake-worshiping cultists.
Many are just unfortunate victims, living in a place it's either that or death.
But yes, Zaharans are more like Melniboneans
And yes, that party will probably NOT work out.

>>96399921
Off-topic.

>>96399897
>Yeah, no
You're loss

>>96398094
If it seems biased against thieves, you're adjudicating what those skills do too harshly IMO.
Like, forex, "Move Silently" isn't a 10% "roll to not trip over your feet and alert everything on the next three dungeon levels to your exact location" it's 10% "roll to be a fucking ghost." Monsters should get a chance to hear players approaching quietly, and should automatically hear them if they're making a lot of noise, but they get no chance if the thief makes his roll. If he fails, then he's no worse than any regular character trying to sneak, the monsters get their normal roll.

>>96400171
A typo alas I must commit ritual suicide for the dishonor I have done to Kevin Crawford

>>96400110
If you think a post is off topic, report it instead of being a faggot.

>>96399921
this post was meant to reply to >>96398574

>>96399602
Nah that's just you: freakshit IRL
>>96400269
Still off topic

>>96399330
It was either that or they wouldn't try an osr game because "wahh fighter boring"

>>96399673
>>96400093
Oh it'll be fine, because they'll play edgy classes with le dahk powahhss and never actually roleplay that shit.

>>96399784
Functional, but too many rolls for my liking.
Second roll can be simplified, in that whatever you roll for the second die can also give your result for the location/consequence.

>Brog is knocked down to -3
>Roll a 2, didn't meet the total
>Roll a 4, meets the total, right leg is mangled

Why the FUCK are so many posts getting deleted?
Does the noob guide really scare janny that much? Fucking scumbag

>>96401173
That's a good idea, thank you.

>>96401212
>guide
Wait, the guide's getting deleted now? This is getting silly.

>>96401253
Yep, check the archive. Second post and it got deleted. Someone reposted it and it got snipped again.
This shit is fucking unacceptable

Anyone have good rules for Strongholds- ideally maybe tables for potential visitors and events that occur each week/month?

Players are finally high enough level in an OSE game I'm running, wondering what options I have for fun ways to engage with strongholds they've built.

>>96401268
I mean this with no disrespect—not trying to sound snarky, but why not make the tables yourself? They both seem like they'd be fun to make and you can customize them to your setting.

>>96401284
That's a neat idea, no snark perceived! Sounds fun to develop.

I suppose I'd still be curious to look at existing ones for reference or inspiration. Such as in terms of timing; would rolling once/week on an event table be too much? (I suppose questions like these would also be dependent on my particular setting.. but can't hurt to see how others might do it)

>>96401268
ACKSII

>>96401234
I'll also add this:
The first Death Die should probably result in a scar or gash of some sort (possibly in the same locations as given in the 2 Dice table), provided the roll meets the threshold. That way there's still a point in rolling if you are knocked to 0 or 1 HP.

Also it should go without saying that a third death roll would be redundant. Lastly, and this is more of a note that a criticism of any sort, it's cool that getting hit down to -13 or lower means you're always dead with this mechanic, and it's probably still worth determining which limb gets mangled in that scenario.

Anybody ever play with moldvay's challenges system?
I kinda like the incremental hits

>>96398574
Loved the books as a kid. It's a cool setting. The modules are ass and antithetical to what I love about D&D.
That being said, I would love to incorporate dragon riders in my game at some point. I know there's a Dragon Magazine article about alternative mounts. I should take another look at that. Dragon riding kicks ass.

>>96401331
They're pretty bad. Everything is over-complicated and none of it is fun.

>>96401390
>I would love to incorporate dragon riders in my game at some point.
Take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=allqTr07A1s&ab_channel=WilliamSRD and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Y5-0uM7Tk&ab_channel=WilliamSRD Maybe you can get ideas from these games.

>>96401412
According to you, and you're a nobody with nothing to contribute

>>96399856
I joined a group from this thread and had a wonderful time playing Tomb of Horrors. Post your availability and maybe someone will bring you onboard.

>>96401438
I am fond of that channel. I'd like to get a copy of Dragonstrike at some point. The board game, that is.

>>96399856
>>96399893
I want to play, but I'm unwilling to take the steps to do so!

>>96401463
NTA, but somebody's got to stand up and say "no" to Discord's bullshit.

>>96401478
And that's why you are a nogames :)

>>96397778
>Why are OSR thieves so shit
You are supposed to multiclass or class change to have fun. Single-class thieves are the oldest trap (heh) option in the world.
>B/X need not apply, except hobbits, who are based (on Tolkien)

>>96401528
Skill issue

>>96397789
If what Gary said about thieves holds merit, you should only be rolling for shit that is so out of the realm of player skill that the 10% chance of success is an infinitely larger chance than anybody else has. Also, any time somebody else would be allowed to roll a die to see, you should be auto-succeeding.

>>96401868
Got a source for that? It jibes with what Mornard and others say thieves were like at Gary's table back in the 70s, but I'm not aware of a direct quote from Gary on it.

I do think people misunderstand Gary saying that thief skills are "not magic" to mean they're for basic mundane bullshit, like "that means you can't do anything special or cool with them," when what I think he meant was "you can't catch a hidden thief with detect magic"

>>96401449
This.
I am literally the GM who ran that game.
>>96399856
Your parents were right when they said: "you have to put yourself out there".

>>96401268
If you don't mind stealing and tweaking: Pendragon (5e), the chapter that is named along the lines of "your own land" etc.

Anyone ever run a successful game on RPOL?

If dungeons are unlimited in scope, keep growing as they are explored, and they restock themselves if you leave them alone for a time, what's the point of having more than one in a setting?

Or, from another point of view: How do you make a dungeon that is simultaneously (1) unlimited in scope, (2) with a unique enough identity that it's worth going to that one dungeon instead of another, and (3) not repetitive from area to area?

>>96401255
Its been happening for months now. One of the antiosr trolls got janitorial. Post shartening they've been twisting the general as much as possible. its quite apparent when you have a ghost post extension to see what gets deleted and what doesn't, how bans vs deletions happen, what trolling gets a pass, etc.

>>96401268
I don't even remember where I got these from. Decent enough basis to build on.
There's a fun table in the Hack & Slash zine for regional events, I think 1 or 2 but its been a bit.

>>96402823
Honestly though I just roll with what makes sense for factions to be up to run through a tarot deck or similar table and what the wargame results have been that month.

>>96402811
>One of the antiosr trolls
There's only one: Fishfag = 2etard = false flag fag: He's betrayed himself multiple times, to the point that it's now obvious that those three are the same person.

Proof is ANY post that uses the word "fishfag" or "2etard" gets instantly deleted.

>>96402853
>gets instantly deleted
Not that that does anything. We can see all the deleted comments anyway.

>Do something for the thread
Out of interest, would anyone be interested in a full write up of my most recent campaign up to the current haitus? Not posted in thread of course since that'd be bullshit long, but in pdf format with images and shit.

Time for some proof
>Fishfag
Go on Janny, prove what a complete nig-nog you are.

It's kind of sad that trolls have such low intelligence.

>12 minutes in the nono corner for ban evasion.
Its not ban evasion silly. Can't even hand out a real ban because none of what anyone is posting is against any of the rules. It even strains the credulity of the
>real reason for the ban
internal mechanisms.
>>96401348
>>96401173
Hear me out.
>save vs death
Pass and the roll is under your Con: you are recoverable.
Pass and the roll is equal or above your Con: you are maimed and require specific healing to recover.
Fail and you're dead.

>>96402941
>That post
Uh oh, looks like the Tranny Janny with the Manny Hannies around the throat of /osrg/ might just be getting a talking to given he's stopped deleting posts in the past 5-10 minutes.
Let's see if they actually do anything about him before celebrating through.
Admins, if you do peek in this thread to take a look; everything this poster said is entirely accurate and we've been putting up with this fuckheads bullshit for months.
Please take him out back of the woodshed, or at least rescind his programmer socks and evict him from your gooncave.

>>96402941
>>96402990
Thirded. Adding to this, this general has been putting together a n00b guide through collective work for over a year. It was NEVER a problem, the guide was never deleted. We always posted it, usually in the first reply to the thread, and it was never an issue. The proof is in the archives.

Then, suddenly, a few weeks ago, every single comment sharing the n00b guide or even just MENTIONING it in reply to newbies asking question started to be deleted, and the user getting warnings/bans for ridiculous reasons such as "spamming".

Please stop the anti-moderation on /osrg/.

>>96402941
Thanks for appealing, anon. It's ridiculous that this moderator has been allowed to delete anything he wants regardless of the rules and ban anyone who calls him out on his topic-shifting bullshit for months on end.

>>96403039
Know what, I'm going to say it.
If you do remove him? Please let us know. I know the 4chan mod team are, for the most part, more secretive than the Illuminati trying to hide their German scat porn from their mother-in-law, but could you at least let us know where we stand on this one?
If you need evidence of him being a fuckhead with a chip on his shoulder then feel free to ask and we'll all happily, gleefully provide it.
I am for the first time in my merry existence on this site, willing to work with and assist the Janitorial staff to assist in the removal of this powertripping faggot.
If you give us this one I promise, I'll stop using the word Janny as a slur for at least the next 6 months.
Alright, 3.

>>96403039
It wasn't a problem until you tried to use it as justification for your "offtopic!offtopic!" trolling.

When people complained about your trolling, you first tried pointing to the OP as to why you should be allowed to troll. When people argued that your interpretation of the OP was wrong, you tried to get the OP changed. When that failed, you then started trying to promote your "n00b guide", which consists of a tiny section saying "just start with b/x" and is otherwise predominantly dedicated to just pushing the idea that OSR only exists in your narrow style, as some sort of constitution the rest of us have to follow.

You really need to just stop, especially with your endless attempts to "control the narrative" like you think anyone has any reason to listen to you. You really have no power here, and the quicker you accept that, the less time you'll waste fighting against reality.

>>96403072
>you tried to use it as justification for your "offtopic!offtopic!" trolling.
Bullshit. What is or isn't on-topic is defined by the OP, not by the n00b guide.

>>96403072
One day someone is going to dox you fishfag.
And on that day the hands of the entire thread will be around your throat and possibly some of the more fruity members cocks in your arse.

>>96403085
It's kind of amazing what kind of posts someone will make when they're no longer afraid of being banned.

>>96403094
>Nuuuu, you can't say that! Y-you should be afraid of being banned by my boyfriend. Why aren't you afraid of me ;_;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDqKdNz6TNs

>>96402941
Thank you for doing this, Anon.

Mod team: I miss /osrg/ and there's no explanation for what's been going on during the last few months here, with a single troll, this one guy:
>>96403072
being enabled and on-topic and helpful comments that didn't break any rules deleted.

We just want to talk about old school D&D without getting constantly molested by ONE troll and its enabler with janitorial powers.

>>96403072
>It wasn't a problem until
It was always a problem, it's just no one ever cared about it because no one ever bothered reading it.

>>96403136
Wait shit, that version says /pol/ on it.
Disregard the Ben Garrison-esq labels, I thought it was the original meme.

>>96402829
>>96402823
>>96402819
>>96401901
These are great, thanks!

Looks like the slippery faggot has managed to excuse his way out of it for another day.
Still, if he's handing out bans we now know they read them and someone in the admin team has seen an appeal that points out the issue and agreed that he's enough of a tinpot dictator to overrule at least once.

Tick tock Janny.

>>96402879
Not really.
Campaign logs are half dream, half you had to be there story.
If something interesting happened, just say it.

>>96401889
Thanks again for running that game. You're a great DM! Hoping I can play with you guys again some time.

>>96402879
Yes. More content is always helpful to try and keep the thread alive.

>>96401348
Great input. I'm thinking of a way to add some detail to the third roll so it's not completely redundant. Appreciate your feedback!

>>96402809
>what's the point of having more than one in a setting?
The only point would be if you or your players get tired of exploring the dungeon. But if it's unlimited in scope and constantly updating, what else do you really need?
>How do you make a dungeon that
Lot's of prep. Why do you want other dungeons if the one you wish to make ("unlimited in scope") can accommodate an entire campaign on its own?

>>96403411
No problem. I am a bit of a fan of death and dismemberment tables. When I feel like being descriptive with a monster's death, a quick roll for location and injury can be fun.
>You thrust straight through the orc's chest
>You slice the goblin's neck open
>Jesus christ dude you lopped off the ogre's arm
Also fun for troll encounters

>>96402829
I'm pretty fond of stealing Harn's event table to use

>>96400180
>ike, forex, "Move Silently" isn't a 10% "roll to not trip over your feet and alert everything on the next three dungeon levels to your exact location" it's 10% "roll to be a fucking ghost." Monsters should get a chance to hear players approaching quietly, and should automatically hear them if they're making a lot of noise, but they get no chance if the thief makes his roll. If he fails, then he's no worse than any regular character trying to sneak, the monsters get their normal roll.
This is very good advice but most systems and/or GM will not handle it well.

>>96401331
>ACKSII
What's new

>>96404319
Waiting for the Treasure Tome to drop. Macris has started sharing document drafts some time ago, so we're not too far from the release (and leak) hopefully.

>>96404159
>Hârn
Based. I use its system to generate Injuries when characters come back from negative HP (as per the DMG) instead of those faggy NuSR death and dismemberment tables.

>>96401528
>Single-class thieves are the oldest trap (heh) option in the world.
Not good

>>96403703
>Lot's of prep.
The question was how do you make one that's unique enough, meaning how do you make two or more that are all individually interesting enough to make them worthwhile.

For instance, you could have one that expands horizontally and has a catacombs theme (like Barrowmaze but infinite), one that is a huge sprawling city with interconnected lairs of mostly humanoids (like archaia but infinite and with levels connected underground), a more traditionally vertical one with a more random "chaos" theme (like Stonehell), one that is a network of interconnected small dungeons but with levels that could be miles apart (like whatever the fuck that one is called), a huge Moria-like former Dwarven city (like Dwarrowdeep), one that is a desert pyramid and its undercity (like B4).

Why visit more than one of them? The Moria-like one could be the only way to cross a mountain for hundreds of miles. They could start presenting individual threats (undead or humanoids or chaos "overflowing"), rumours of artifacts and/or maps to treasures could give reasons to explore just one more area, teleporters might connect their deeper levels and provide shortcuts for long-distance travel for high level characters who can risk getting in and through the dungeon...

>>96393394 (OP)
INSTALL 4CHANX AS A BROWSER EXTENSION ON YOUR PC, OR VIEW THIS THREAD ON THE ARCHIVES AT 4PLEBS.

DO NOT LET THIS ROGUE JANITOR FUCK UP OUR GENERAL

>>96404561
...the desert one might be the only way to get water for hundreds of miles when crossing the desert. Or magical desert storms might dump you there when trying to cross the desert.

A local boss within one level of Dungeon A might be rumoured to be vulnerable to a ritual or weapon found deep within Dungeon B...

Another Dungeon might be all natural, with Caves and vertical crevasses going deep into the earth.

And then there might be a Deepearth a few miles underground that works like an "Underground Wilderness Dungeon" and that all dungeons connect to if you go deep enough, with themes of the classic underground civilisations of D&D. Kuo-Toa, Mind Flayers, Drow, and so on. It could be run literally like its own Wilderness, mapped in 5- or 6-mile hexes, you'd mostly just need to make one (or more) new encounter table and terrain table (fungus forest, underground river or lake, underground swamp, underground broken terrain...)

>>96393485
>>96393497
>no map scale
>no stats
It's less effort for me to make something up than to put work in to make your thing usable.

>>96404309
>most systems
The interpretation is 100% compatible with OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e, and most compatible clones.
>and/or GM
Skill issue. It's not even hard to do.

>>96402809
Mythic Underworld
Migration from lower levels to higher ones (implicit in wandering monster tables)
Migration from the outside world to the dungeon (for all sorts of reasons)
Portals
Stuff that makes monsters (including Abhoth, Shub-Niggurath, etc and machines)

>>96404735
Yeah I have no idea what he means by the systems wouldn't be compatible with it. That makes no sense to me at all

>>96404561
>>96404663
>>96404753
All great ideas. A big incentive to visit different dungeons is by just changing the TOWNS around them: Instead of having each town provide all services (training for upper levels, hiring mercenaries, cleric services, magic-user services, alchemists, sages, and so on), make these specialists and "special buildings" be very rare and each town have one or two at the most.

>We need to hire mercenaries, or the Fighter has just got enough XP to level up.
Must travel to War Town in the Broken Lands.

>We need to resurrect Henry the Henchman, he was loyal and died heroically.
Travel to Holy Town in the Plains.

>We need to buy poison to kill the evil overlord of Evil Town.
Travel to Assassin Town in the Swamp.

>We have more potions than we could possibly use, we should sell them or trade them for different potions.
Travel to Alchemy Town on the Mountains.

>Bobby the Barbarian has paralysed legs from eating the wrong kind of mushrooms. The Clerics at Holy Town say they don't have spells to cure mushroom intoxication.
Must travel to Druid Town deep in the Forest.

You could even have some of those services be available only through disreputable individuals deep within the dungeons. For example, sages specialising in different topics.

>>96404894
NTA but you just unlocked something in my brain for how I'm going to organize my next hexcrawl. Thanks!

>>96404444
>Shill ACK to death because "it has a rule for everything"
>still have to borrow tables from other games
lmao
just as usual acks has an enormous wordcount but nothing of actual value that isn't just dnd parts

>>96405196
Tell us about your last session, fishfag.

>>96405196
And yet it has sold a lot more copies than anything you've ever made. :)

>>96405196
>Have a preferred game system
>Enjoy modifying your preferred game system
>The usual suspect has a melty over this
You really should just find a new general, or better yet, make one!

>>96404735
>>96404777
I mean that it's a reasonable interpretation but it's never fucking ever explained properly in the books, and in most of the new OSR material that is still close to those, is worse.

>>96405313
If you're bad at understanding context maybe?
I started playing when I was 12 with school friends, and we still understood that thief abilities are above and beyond normal procedure.
Again, skill issue.

>>96405331
This is disingenuous, people argue about Thieves and Thief skills since forever

Worth a read?

>>96405337
And those people are bad at the game, because they have no ability to contextualize specific abilities superseding standard procedure.
Are you one of those people?

>>96405349
Off topic, but why don't you just find out for yourself?

>>96405352
You are being willingly ignorant here. This is not an honest way to conduct a discussion, frankly.

>>96405369
I'm not being ignorant, I'm acknowledging that those people have made that mistake, and I'm calling them bad at the game for it.
If I can understand these implications at 12 years old without anybody to guide me, then others can too.
>I failed my move silent roll! Wait, since I cannot automatically sneak up silently, do I still get my normal chance for surprise?
I don't know why this line of logic is so esoteric

>>96405381
>I don't know why this line of logic is so esoteric
I don't know either, it's always seemed kind of obvious to me, but then I've had arguments in this very thread with people who insist that Mike Mornard must be lying because thieves can't possibly be any good at things. It's weird.

>>96405381
>I'm not being ignorant
You are being ignorant AND condescending, sorry. I didn't tell you everything.
And more importantly: even understanding those rolls and when they are done, the fact that the % is so low it's not some esoteric feature, it just sucks on a math level.
If you were as smart as you think you are, you could have brought up that the game POSSIBLY calculated things assuming multiple thieves attempting.

>>96405419
No, turns out you're just bad at games, and now you're embarrassed and projecting.

>>96405431
Nope. For starters, most Thieves would be hanged just for pickpocketing in the streets using B/X %.

>>96405419
>It's not my skill issue, it's the low percentages' fault!
Astounding. You know that you can use those abilities as much as you would like to without penalty, right?

>>96405444
Huh, sounds like unskilled criminals are more likely to get caught, just like unskilled fighters are more likely to die.
And yet that still has nothing to do with this discussion.
It's okay to just admit that you made mistakes in the past, we are all anonymous here and there's no shame.

>>96405337
Anon I think you underestimate the sheer number of people playing this game who have a skill issue. People nowadays struggle to understand Descending AC no matter how clearly it is explained.

>>96405460
>You have a target number to hit, based on your level
>Try to make that roll, but the enemies armor is applied as a penalty!
Again, the fact that people have trouble with this there's no problem of the game, it's a problem with them being stupid.

>>96405456
>Huh, sounds like unskilled criminals are more likely to get caught
To the point that none would survive without starving, in fact, using those chances.

>>96405448
>You know that you can use those abilities as much as you would like to without penalty, right?
Not really, some must be used 1/level

>>96405476
As a bonus*
Great way to make a fool of myself!

>>96405481
Literally the exact same as any first level fighter. You've gone completely off the rails from this conversation, and I accept your admission that you are bad at the game.
>>96405495
That has nothing to do with pickpocketing, or move silent / hide shadows, which is what is being discussed.

>>96405530
>and I accept your admission that you are bad at the game.
You are basically unable to have a discussion about the topic because you are using this cop-out since my first statement.
I would rather say that you are weirdly defensive against an element that has always been considered a glaring weak spot of an otherwise beloved game and has been house-ruled ad nauseam with varying satisfaction.

>>96405557
Again, I'm sorry that you have a hard time as an adult, figuring out what 12-year-olds were able to grasp in the 80s.
Go play some games

>>96405569
You are refusing to address any point tho.
Did you write this game? You are acting as if you did, and YOU are coming up as incredibly immature (and bad at math).

>>96405230
Cut out the money he spent on shills, and it's not that impressive. Even with you, he couldn't even get 2000 backers for ACKS2, so he couldn't even afford real art.

>>96405620
What money? What shills? Be specific and provide sources, otherwise you just outed yourself as another petulant crybaby (and this thread has one very specific one)

>>96405481
Rules say the GM adjusts difficulty for pickpocketing based on circumstances.

The way you avoid starving as a beginner thief (or street urchin, etc) is by picking easy marks. Pickpocket the drunk who's stumbling home alone in the dark for a huge bonus to your chances, dude.

>>96405349
Kinda?
It's perfectly readable, and better than 90% of fantasy fiction, but that's because most fantasy fiction is crap.

It made me appreciate Greenwood better, because him actually being a halfway-competant writer puts him head and shoulders above most people that have worked on D&D or its settings.

>>96405615
You're asking me if I wrote moldvay basic?
You can just stop being mad about this, it's okay to admit that you struggled with something that children can grasp.

>>96405648
You are acting in an irrationally defensive manner.
And for what? For a class that has been written better in AD&D and that makes an argument to go and fish material in 2e.

>>96405215
>>96405230
>>96405293
breathe it'll be ok

>>96405620
>couldn't even get 2000 backers for ACKS2, so he couldn't even afford real art
chat is this real?

>>96405196
No one actually plays ACKS, at least not as written. It'd be impossible to do that, because the game is so bad. At best, a group might try it, but the DM is going to quickly abandon most if not all the rules, until they might as well just play Basic instead.
The real people who continue to bother with it, at best, use it for some tables until they inevitably realize they would have been better off just making their own tables. Some people are not there yet, but some people take longer to learn anything.
It really shouldn't even count as an OSR either. It has feats, splatbooks, and dozens of classes. Instead of simple rule systems with broad applications and quick executions, it has comically specific rules with laborous procedures.
If OSR came about because people were scared of old school games being lost in the face of 3rd Edition's "more is more, and buy more books" philosophy, ACKS is that philosophy embodied.

If you had two wizards grappling on a contested magic staff, how would you solve that? They reached it at the same time and now you have to decide who gets it.

>>96405687
>If you interpret the thief skills wrong, then THIEVES ARE BAD, mmkay
You're not making a strong case here

>>96405777
>THIEVES ARE BAD, mmkay
The only correct part of your post - for B/X, that is

>>96405620
>he couldn't even get 2000 backers
OSRIC 3 had more backers and raised less, what does that say about it, then?
>>96404444
>instead of those faggy NuSR death and dismemberment tables
ACKS is NuSR?
>>96405196
are you illiterate?

>He's back to whining and trying to convince everyone ACKS is bad using the same arguments that he keeps getting heckled out the thread for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTHn2tHhcI

>>96405722
He got one artist, but couldn't afford to do the whole book so instead had to use AI art.

It's partly because the kickstarter goal was kept super low so they could do the whole "we had a succesful kickstarter!" bit of advertising, but aside from just not asking for enough money, he encountered an unexpected hurdle.

His game got blacklisted by the artist community. No one wanted to be associated with his game, and anyone that didn't care could still ask for a hefty premium. Maybe he had alternate finances ready to cover for the way he lowballed his kickstarter goal, but he just wasn't prepared for how bad his game's reputation has become.

>>96405806
OSRIC is kinda trash.

>>96405722
I'm going to save you a lot of time and irritation.
Presume anything negative said about ACKS that's said in the spergies, seethiest way possible is the same person, our resident troll, Fishfag.
And thus can be safely ignored.

There's legitimate critiques of ACKS, but not from him. Instead you're going to get the spindoctor special where he faggots together the most negative interpretation of any given situation he can and, when truly pressed on it, then go off into talking about how ACKS man carved a dick swastika on the moon with his secret Milo space laser or some shit.

He's mentally ill and we're just stuck with him.

>>96405806
>more backers and raised less,
Wouldn't be surprised if ACKS tried pumping up its numbers on kickstarter by self-donating. When most of the money is coming from a few people spending thousands, you start to wonder who those people are.

>>96405860
This being the perfect example, observe how he has pulled this rumourmongering bullshit completely out his arse.
Observe for yourself how over the next few threads he will engage in inane citnogenesis to try and create legitimacy for his slander.
Same as he has for the AI art thing he's talking about a few posts above funnily enough.

>>96405807
You realize there's more than one person in this thread that isn't keen on ACKS, right?

>>96405773
Each rolls 1d6 to see who gets it. If they're both NPCs I'd leave it at that, otherwise if one was a PC I'd follow the unarmed combat procedure I designed and bolted on to BX.

>>96405860
no, the math works out pretty cleanly to an average of about 200 dollars per backer. which is around the tier that got you the three nice core books.

>>96405860
Best case: Mac just put a couple thousand in himself to chum up the water. Not uncommon for kickstarters, it helps it rise up in the algorithm.
Worst case: there's actually 7 people who spent $2,500 on ACKS and one of them is here.

>>96405969
We can see the backer breakdown.
543 for the $50 tier.
21 for the $75.
54 for $100.
18 for $150.
905 for $175.
322 for $200.
22 for $375.
9 for $400.
15 for $600.
9 for $1200.
7 for $2500.

>>96405687
>Fish
>2e
BAHAHAHAHA. Nice bait, you almost had me

>>96406013
failure disgusts me

>>96405941
You're talking to a guy who likes to lie and lie hard, because he thinks people will start to assume the truth has to be somewhere between his lies and what they originally thought.

>>96406063
You're projecting again. But you're welcome to name the lie.

>>96405801
Personal skill issue.

>>96405974
>>96406013
This is kind of pathetic for a kickstarter.
For a comparison, Shadowdark hit 2.6 million dollars with 14.5k backers.

With a highest tier of 349 dollars.

>>96405827
Getting blacklisted is a positive quality. ACKS is far better than anything youve ever published (which is nothing)

>>96405860
>Making up retarded nonsense when his story falls apart
Just call Marcis a Nazi already lmao

>>96406029
>>96406089
more deflecting with no actual arguments.
Too bad 2e assigned % are at least a palliative.

>>96405966
Oh, I would also randomize with a d6 or two for two NPCs but what if they are not?
What are good grapple rules?

>>96406185
I think he's broken.

>>96406106
>>96405230
At this point I'm won't be surprised would it turn out Macris is the osrg ACK! shill poster

>>96406205
Ok anon, fine.
What did you actually write of worth, as an answer, that actually addressed these points besides "le skill issue"
Please go ahead and write it.

>>96406221
The person you were replying to is broken.

>>96406216
He would have tried suing 4chan first.

>>96406103
I mean you are comparing it with the bestselling system, which is much better designed, better written, and is just a better overall product, so I would almost say it's not fair
... but that's the second revision we are talking about while SD is a new system, acks was supposed to built up on the fanbase
turned out there isn't much of a fanbase to speak of

>>96406192
>What are good grapple rules?
As somewhat recent "discussion" on this thread would show, that's a can of worms, but how I do grappling (which is the correct way for my table) is contested HD rolls, where each party rolls d6s for the number of HD they have. If the attacker scores higher than the defender is grappled, which means he is immobilized, can only attack the character grappling him, and must succeed on another contested HD roll to either break free or reverse the grapple back onto the attacker. If the attacker loses the contested HD roll, he waists his turn.

>>96405807
Why are you posting corrupted files?

>>96406192
>What are good grapple rules?
No rules. Grappling is for tryhard realismfags. Does the Bandit leader get to send 5 mooks to grapple you, one succeeds and now you're helpless? No, because that's stupid.
All that grappling systems accomplish is slow down combat and make the aforementioned situation slightly less stupid.

>>96406369
What an absolutely stupid take.

>>96406192
>What are good grapple rules?
My group uses a 2d8 system for situations that require skill arbitration (Which is rare.)
But in the event of a grapple, I do opposed 2d8 Strength checks, winner gets to do an action against the loser (Deal damage, force them to move, disarm them, hold them still,) Then someone grappled can make a roll on their turn to reverse the effects of the previous winner.

Grappling doesn't come up often.

>Use the word "fishfag"
>Banned from all boards for "off-topic".
>Fishfag's troll and off-topic posts stay up.
Fishfag = 2etard = false flag fag = janitor sockpuppet confirmed once again.

>players say they can't decide which location they want to go to
>They do this every single week when I am trying to prep for next session
>I ask what the problem is
>They say they don't even really know what their objectives are as a group
>I've left them like a dozen or so leads of various types in the world
A merchant from the capital city said he would hire them to escort horses to a neighboring country.
They heard a rumor that a foreign noble was kidnapped and is being held prisoner in an underground lair.
An alien in a crystal ball told them the location of a powerful magic artifact.
They overheard a rumor that a town up north has been dealing with fay from a nearby cave
There is a mysterious chasm that opened up recently in the east. Nobody has went down in it yet
They have a bunch of items that need to be investigated or identified, and recently they have heard of a wizard's college to the northeast
An elven diplomat in the capital city claims that his sister is missing and the last clue they got suggests that someone took her into the city's sewers
There are like 4 dungeons that they haven't even halfway finished exploring
They keep wanting to go visit a subterranean dwarven stronghold, but don't actually want to go to the tunnel system that goes there...

THE FUCK DO THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DO THEN?! I've asked, but they are apprehensive when I try to force them to make a decision...

>>96399699
Yeah what's up with this op? Why did you like for attention?

>>96407307
I get your pain, brother. I think your issue is you're giving your players wayyy too many options. It's like trying to get a group of people to decide where to go for lunch; it's better to throw out three solid but distinctive options instead of a dozen of whatever places are nearby. Every new option confounds the difficulty of reaching a consensus as people either don't agree or (as is most often the case) don't want to commit

>>96407307
>>96407660
I want to add that each of these leads are all very ambiguous, but all seem to boil down to going somewhere and checking it out. So then the players are like "do we want to go to the fay cave and check it out or the sewer system and check it out?" which is like deciding between the left door or the right door. Maybe more exciting verbs—"rescue the foreign noble," "descend the mysterious chasm," "strike a deal with the wizard's college"—would help your players decide by giving them a clearer and more distinctive picture of what they can expect from the adventures.

>>96407307
Pick three of those you want to run.
Ask at the end of the session, see where they're at.
Tell them you need to know the group answer by midway to the next session and you'll be basing the answer on whoever responds. You need to know what to prep.
Do that. Don't bitch out. Keep doing it. They'll figure it out
>Captcha
>DND40
>No captcha, wrong thread

What's the best way to get my hands on OD&D, just print out a pdf or is there a clone you guys recommend?

>>96405752
>No one actually plays ACKS, at least not as written.
I actually do, but I have to admit my GM has always at least 7 spreadsheets open while we play it.

>>96408013
If he was playing ACKS RAW, he'd have thirty.

>>96406594
>What an absolutely stupid take
Do you care to elaborate or should I go over to
>not an argument
right aeay?

>>96407979
>What's the best way to get my hands on OD&D, just print out a pdf or is there a clone you guys recommend?
The osrg guide has a few paragraphs dedicated to it, here's the most relevant ones.

>>96402819
>don't even remember where I got these >>96403160
>These are great

Careful anons, keep it down before the PSPD get you. Tables 71 through 73 are from Oriental Adventures, pp. 107 ff. One of the best published campaign settings I ever DMed in. Kind of annoyed me for a while that they retconned it to make it part of the Realms. Especially didn't see how the Celestial Bureaucracy was supposed to be reconciled with the FR gods.

>>96408599
That's not at all helpful.

>>96409426
Nou

>playing stars without numbers as a player
>the group I'm in play it straight in every situation, full on throw the character sheet at the problem.
it's fun but it's not really what the system wanted so I do end up just thinking why were doing it in this system.

>>96409426
My brother in Christ it is the first result when you google Greyharp.

>>96408599
OSRIC didn’t kick off the OSR movement. It followed in the wake of Castles and Crusades, which was the original “Try to emulate older editions while being OGL-compliant game.” And it even then both those games came after Hackmaster. OSRIC is also not very good or faithful, so I don’t know why it’s got a whole paragraph to itself in the most faithful and recommended section, aside from your guide being generally a wordy mess.

>>96407979
Depends on what you want out of OD&D. If you're just curious about the history of the game, it's easy enough to print out a pdf and you can have all the fun of trying to make sense of it while half-way inventing your own game, just like people in the past did.

Also, if OD&D seems daunting, Swords & Wizardry Complete Rules is designed to be specifically undaunting.

I genuinely don't get the complain about ACKS and muh random tables: Having actually tried the system and being in a campaign right now, unless you have five characters doing different things the tables you would be using the most are related to random encounters and weather, and while this process is a little more involved compared with B/X or AD&D, it isn't any more complex or obtuse.

The examples of supposed overdesign tend to mostly come from stuff like market avaliability and merchantile modifiers, things that the game itself admits are not necessary to use unless a player wants to deal with it. The claim that the game is so complex and obtuse that it is "imposible" to play rule is baffling: None of this feels any more complicated than AD&D, let alone systems like Harm. An average session will only use a handful of the stuff in the JJ.

And just to be clear: It's not perfect nor is my claim that it doesn't deserves criticism (the default way to handle initiative is shit), but the idea that it can be somehow too much for a grown ass man to play RAW is retarded.

>>96408452
It's pointless to humor you. You dismiss outright a very common event in fight and fiction, you are simply an obtuse cretin anon.

>>96406329
>where each party rolls d6s for the number of HD they have.
I am unsure I like it, a 9th level wizard should still lose vs a 4th level fighter

>>96409679
It's a political shitmess with a layer of grogs vs artsyfarts on-top of it. Basically HDbait for the overly sensitive American culture war burnouts.

>>96409679
>a little more involved compared with B/X or AD&D, it isn't any more complex or obtuse.
This is being somewhat disingenous. How relatively obtuse it is varies (since to be fair, b/x can be pretty fucking obtuse at times), but it is almost always more complex than it ever should be for any given rule.
The big issue is that the rules it presents for things like domains/mass combat/exploration/etc., what advocates for the system champion as being its strong points, are some of the worst assembled rules in the system, being the most over-complicated and often outright draining examples of rules written for the sake of having rules.
Playing ACKS using the rules as provided can be an outright nightmare, with the mass combat rules in particular being a trial of exteme patience even beyond ordinary ACKS combat, which is slow and awkward thanks to things like your aforementioned initative gripe.
It's playable if you trim off the fat, ignore the vast majority of the rules and procedures, and houserule away the more annoying "innovations", but even then it's not going to be very good because its core will always be a game designed by people who seem to delight in busywork and wasting other people's time.

>>96408452
Sometimes a take is so stupid (such as yours) that it should just be dismissed out of hand. Arguing about it would just lead to a retard like you to spew sophistry until the thread dies

>>96409739
You can do variable hit dice, I just use flat d6s. When a 4th level fighter whiffs a grapple attempt against a 9th level MU I just assume he does that Ming the Merciless thing where he coldly stares at the fighter until he freaks out and backs off

>>96409797
>You can do variable hit dice
You mean the creature uses his own type? Not bad

>>96409772
>Playing ACKS using the rules as provided can be an outright nightmare, with the mass combat rules in particular being a trial of exteme patience even beyond ordinary ACKS combat,
How do they fare compared to BECMI?

I know the domain system in ACKS is similar to BECMI (different tone tho looking at the boundaries for what is wilderness and what is civilization).
I know the commerce part is a re-elaboration of a certain mercantile GAZ for later BECMI.

>>96409772
In which manner do you feel that the domain and mass combat rules are overdesigned, draining or obtuse? Having played two battles and doing a little of domain play I didn't found them to be at all problematic to deal with, and quite frankly I ran into far more frustration having to reroll initiative each new combat round while crawling through a dungeon.

But I never found myself in need of cutting off the fat nor houseruling the system. None of the more obtuse rulings are, in the end, what you will be interacting with in an average session.

Like, don't get me wrong: I get why, coming from a more traditional system, ACKS might feel more complicated, but calling it a "nightmare" seems uncalled for when my ESL ass can perfectly use it without major complications.

>>96409772
>draining examples of rules written for the sake of having rules
>game designed by people who seem to delight in busywork and wasting other people's time
this

>>96409824
The Companion books are Mentzer moving B/X in the wrong direction, but comparatively, they're not as bad. The domain rules are not great, but they're short and provide enough of a backbone to work from. You can even see aspects of it in ACKS's DNA, though ACKS takes all the more complicated parts and makes them even more complicated for shits and giggles.
The mass combat rules are likewise not great, especially compared to simple alternatives like just scaling up unit numbers, and you can see The War Machine's direct influence on ACKS's mass combat rules. Except, where Mentzer's rules are already more complex than they need to be, they're an abstraction done to try and save time. A TWM battle takes some time to set up, but it's over relatively quickly. An entire battle can be done in less time than a single turn of ACKS, which compounds slow rules on top of slower rules and then splits battles up into several phases each turn, almost like a joke.

>>96409962
>The Companion books are Mentzer moving B/X in the wrong direction
Here't the thing. I think it was the right direction barring what they did to the Thief, if one wants to scale the game. If you don't want, you stick to Red+Blue.
With this in mind, should I interpret the hostility toward these things as objective, or just an hostility toward non-B/X rules?

>>96409729
>You dismiss outright a very common event in fight and fiction,
Could you please let me know how you handle grappling attacks fast and efficient? I have a whole fantasy campaign to manage after all.

>>96409649
>It followed in the wake of the disappointment that Castles and Crusades was too far removed from AD&D, just like Hackmaster and various other wrongheaded attempts to recreate AD&D before
FTFY

C&C and others suffered from the belief that you couldn't print anything that was close to the real original rules, OSRIC decided to get closer to just reprinting them than anybody had dared before, which was the critical difference, and why all those other systems (of which you only remember C&C and Hackmaster) are all forgotten, failed experiments.

>>96410769
>Could you please let me know how you handle grappling attacks fast and efficient?
Why do you think I asked, retard? If I recognize the NEED of a type of rule doesn't necessarily mean I know good rules of that type.
How do you even breathe with that brain, anon?

>>96410973
That's literally just the K&KA manifesto. They're the only guys who actually still care about OSRIC, a largely forgotten and failed experiment that is completely irrelevant in a time where access to the genuine games is stupidly easy, both in official and unofficial methods.

C&C opened up the door in a time when people were scared that old school gaming might die out thanks to pressure from WotC for everyone to play 3rd edition. When that pressure never manifested, and C&C proved to be a commercial success without any legal backlash and was endorsed by Gary Gygax as a proper successor to the old school spirit, OSRIC was really just hoping to come in afterwards and lick up C&C's spent spunk.

>>96411082
>C&C fan tries NO U
>It's not very successful

>>96410022
NTA, if you have to pick between that dichotomy, it's objective. Keep in mind this general is still a bit divided over B/X vs AD&D, and AD&Dfags are divided between trying to play RAW and ignoring fiddly shit (whatever someone decides is fiddly - yet another conversation).

>>96410769
>>96411023
Hit dice roll off.
Total attacker vs defender dice.
Highest wins, incapacitates loser or escapes grapple.
Incapacitating force can't do much while focusing on giving the victim a wedgie or whatever it is we imagine grappling to be.
Probably something hing about weapon speed if you're doing that.

>>96411249
The b/x vs ad&d has always been a local joke.

>>96411139
>C&C fan
That's not his name. He's not actually into C&C, the reason he brings it up regularly is because he believes his imaginary history will undermine this general.

>>96411464
>Hit dice roll off.
What do normal men do? Can they grapple at all? What is their hit die, if any?

>>96411023
>If I recognize the NEED of a type of rule doesn't necessarily mean I know good rules of that type.
If grappling is a
>very common event in fight and fiction,
How have you been playing/running your games without good rules? Did you use the ones that suck or did you simply forego grappling?

>>96412111
NTA but if you need to be asking these questions you should get some more DM experience under your belt. Any old school DM who knows what they're doing could answer these questions intuitively. that being said, since I'm in a charitable mood: normal men have 0 HD. If one tried to grapple I'd either have his result be 2 without rolling or have him roll a single 1d4, depending on my mood and the situation

>>96412111
A surprising number of questions about normal men (that aren't immediately intuitive) can be rather quickly answered by the DMG. As ever, I strongly implore everyone to at least peruse that book.

>>96412334
>can be rather quickly answered by the DMG
So, do Normal men have d4 (DMG) or d6 (MM)?

why yes, i do enjoy OSR, both Cy_Borg and Death in Space.

>>96412565
>regular SOLDIER is a MAN AT ARMS
>normal MAN [...] There many types of men
There is, in fact, no singular answer! There's other examples of normal men who have varying amounts of HP, meaning of course that it depends on the Man in question. This is like asking what hit dice a PC has. What kind of PC are we talking about?

I've been reading B/X and OSE, but what the fuck should I run?

>>96412754
BX/OSE

>>96412565
>>96412576
>>96412733
>>96412111
BX Normal Man is much simpler; just 1/2 HD. None of that 0-HD 1d6/1d4+3 hp nonsense.

Five Torches Deep has such underpowered spellcasters. My player wants to be a wizard blasting people, in that system it seems like a very stupid idea RAW

>>96412203
>since I'm in a charitable mood
kys

>>96413093
>play NuSR mudcore bullshit
>be surprised when it fetishizes low levels and cuts your progression off at the knees

>>96412191
>How have you been playing/running your games without good rules?
OSR is not my sole system but there are no transferrable mechanics.
I am not satisfied with BECMI striking and grappling especially the AC parts.

>>96412565
>So, do Normal men have d4 (DMG) or d6 (MM)?
Neither, Picrel.

But generally speaking in the three AD&D rulebooks the newer rulebook overrules the older one. So the PHB (1978) takes precedence over the MM (1977), and the DMG (1977) takes precedence over all.

>>96413130
get off my dick. I've picked 5td because it's just barebones 5e - Understandable to my group of complete newbies and explainable by me, the newb DM with 5e experience

>>96413076
Yeah but B/X, also has mercenaries and brigands with the same HD and fighting ability as veterans, which is bollocks.

>>96413093
>Five Torches Deep
Outstandingly bad choice.

>>96413235
>Yeah but me and my group are retarded.
Okay then. But you're very unlikely to get a warm welcome here being a self-admitted retard who plays NuSR bullshit.

>>96413258
PLEASE get off my dick.

>>96401877
>Source
I thought I had one, but I've scoured Thief aricles in TSR and early Dragon and Dragonsfoot. So if there ever was a source It's been lost, and if I constructed that memory from broken bits I apologize for wasting your time.

>>96413276
>Only give me positive feedback.
Grow a pair of fucking balls, Zoomer.

>>96413124
Stop acting like a faggot when you beg to be spoonfed
>>96413093
Dohsghit off-topic troll post

>>96413258
>being a self-admitted retard who plays NuSR bullshit.
And who complains about the results being exactly what folks here would tell you to expect from said NuSR bullshit

>>96413235
It's not OSR, so go fuck yourself you stupid troll

>>96413282
It's cool, I kinda figured, but held out some hope that maybe somebody'd found a direct Gygax quote that would finally shut up the "no! thief is bad!" posters

What's a NuSR?

>>96413247
Not bollocks at all. Why wouldn't brigands and mercenaries (especially) be veterans?

>>96413330
>Stop acting like a faggot when you beg to be spoonfed
That post wasn't answering mine, I just think you are an insufferable cunt.

>>96413397
And I think worse about you, and yet here we both are.

>>96413357
NuSR is to OSR what 2e was to AD&D, only instead of catering to the storygaming special education kids of satanic panic evangelical karens it caters to the storygaming ADHD kids of idpol panic pink-haired karens.

>>96413357
Anything that enrages the pathetic autists here - truth to be told they often have a point.

>>96413394
Do you even know what a veteran is in D&D?

>>96413357
Games that claim to be OSR or to have been inspired by the OSR but don't want all that icky fidelity to the actual OSR. In other words, everything and nothing: there's no OSR police, so there's nothing to stop someone from deciding that the only relevant parts of the OSR are the cargo-culted principles of "player agency" and "rules light" that they heard about from a video linked a reddit linked to a blog linked to a Myspace page and making a storytelling game about radical rollerskating real estate agents and calling it OSR. Such games are termed NuSR by the original OSR fans--shoddy and ersatz, photocopies of photocopies.

There's a separate movement of people who understand that they're not actually even remotely operating under the original D&D-based tenets of the OSR any longer; they call their own games NSR. While their games are often shit, they at least have the understanding that they're actually doing something different, for better and for worse.

This blog post goes into the whole de-evolution in some detail:
https://osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-historical-look-at-osr-part-v.html

>>96413412
Yes, it's a 1st-level fighter. Before you snap back with some tedious snarky comment, ask yourself if what you have to say is truly worthwhile or just some knee-jerk reaction to being disagreed with.

>>96413357
osr stuff that the greybeards think is too close to 5e (even if it's not really true)

>>96413397
I'm the anon you're originally responding to (the insufferable cunt); >>96413330 is just doing some drive-by trolling. Tell me to kill myself all you want, but that won't change the fact that I'm going out of my way to generously impart wisdom to newbie DMs instead of littering the thread with bad posts. That, to me, is much more insufferable than some good-natured ribbing.

>>96413435
Okay then: The reason mercenaries are not 1st level fighters is the same reason hirelings, in general, are not 1st level clerics, 1st level thieves, or 1st level magic-users. If you want a 1st level fighter, you need to get a henchman.

>>96413405
kek, that's a solid definition

>>96413405
Good one but missed the opportunity to say "genderqueer".

>>96413461
Read Cook Expert again. Mercenaries do not perform adventuring duties, they just defend strongholds and castles. That's why they're not treated as henchmen.

Also, to clarify what I said earlier, mercenaries are NOT technically 1st-level fighters, otherwise they would be Veterans, which have a different entry. They just have the same fighting capability. My bad for not being clear about that.

>>96413421
Thanks for the explanation and the read.

>>96413501
Yeah, it doesn't make sense that they're not 1st level fighters but they're identical to 1st level fighters in all respects except what they do or don't agree to do.

Easily fixed by giving them 1d6 hp and -1 to hit.

>>96413357
Something dumbasses cry when they see something they don't like.
>>96413466
More like a solid turd.

>>96413405
lmao not 100%
but a good 80% - there are also people that create "atmospheric art" and want to make a game out it it

>>96413612
NTA but I agree. It's a good start, but "storygaming" should be removed. What about artsy genderqueer ADHD kids?

Is Castles and Crusades worth getting? I noticed they have a starter set up on dtrpg today..

>>96413686
No.

>>96413686
Not particularly, no. Like its proto-OSR brethren, it really half-asses being an old-school game, to the point that disappointment over it led to the actual OSR. Most people find the SIEGE engine that powers it quite clunky.

There's a thread here you can read that has a bit of discussion on it:
www.rpgpub.com/threads/castles-and-crusades-is-it-any-good.8648/

Being long since eclipsed by the OSR, it's not really talked about in this general.

>>96413686
It's kind of a weird curiosity at this point. Some people like it, but it's got weird 3rd-edition-isms that put it in a weird space between editions.

>>96413864
>proto
It's OSR, you weird fruit. You K&KA retards really are shameless.

>>96413864
The entire rest of the world recognizes C&C as one of the first OSR games, and its release was a pivotal moment in the OSR movement. The only people who don't consider it an OSR game are basically just the guys from the Knights&Knaves Alehouse forum, who instead want to claim OSRIC was the first OSR game. Why? Because they made OSRIC, two years after C&C.

It's kind of crazy how much of your weird bullshit seems to only come from you being indoctrinated into that weird K&KA cult, a group that tried to start a civil war on the Dragonsfoot forums about what should be called OSR, with the vast majority (some 90%) of Dragonsfoot disagreeing with their strange and strict definition that almost seemed like a focused effort to try and convince everyone that the game they needed to be playing was their OSRIC.

>>96413927
Nobody gives a shit about C&C, much less puts it on this pedestal you do. Piss off to the "entire rest of the world" already if they all agree with you so much

There is literally NOTHING special about C&C except that Gygax wrote some stuff for it. It wasn't the first "let's make 3e into something kinda like old D&D" game to exist, nor was itthe only one of its era, and it wasn't even particularly good either

The OSR began with OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, not C&C.

>>96413942
It served its purpose. Hell, without C&C, there wouldn't even have been an OSRIC.
Also, you seem like the kind of guy who worships Gygax. I bet you'd love looking into the Castle Zagyg series he wrote for C&C.

>>96413965
>It served its purpose.
Sucking hard enough that people stopped making 3e shitbrews and calling them "old school"? C&C wasn't the only one of those, dude

>>96413954
It coming out two years before OSRIC and three before LL do make it special, since it pioneered the method that both games followed, essentially brute-forcing a novel interpretation of the OGL. The good reception alongside the various endorsements it got carved open a road for most other early OSR games to follow.

>>96413987
>novel interpretation of the OGL
There's nothing novel about it

>>96413889
I'm not a K&KA retard, but I'd much rather be a K&KA retard than a 2e retard like yourself.

Regaedless the other Anon is right about C&C being bad.

>>96413987
>a novel interpretation of the OGL
lmao that's literally what the OGL was for, genius

>>96413987
"Using the OGL for literally what it was designed for" is not a "novel interpretation of the OGL". OSRIC is what danced around the OGL's previously unseen limitations, to the point that WoTC contacted its creator over it and Ryan Dancey was publicly musing over how he felt that OSRIC had gone too far. C&C had none of that.

I never know if you already know stuff like this or are just making stuff up, but it's worth putting things straight for the record.

>>96413458
It's not "drive by trolling" it's explicit advice for somebody who's obviously not capable.

>>96413889
Except it's not relevant to this thread, which is the standard of osr we were using.
I know that's hard to understand, but try to keep up with the rest of the class.

>>96413508
You probably shouldn't take that guy too seriously. He's like 10% almost-right, 90% bitter bullshit.

>>96413536
Is actually closer.

For a long time, roughly 2003-2015ish, the OSR label was far from some formal concept, just a very loose idea. Eventually, however, it became a marketing term and actually had monetary value attached to it. Likely thanks to Stranger Things coming out in 2016, there was a huge flood of reinvigorated interest in older editions, and OSR became an easy label to slap on games and churn out absurd profits, even on fairly lazy products. Around 2020 is where the "NuSR" and "NuOSR" term started to be thrown about, largely to indicate the sort of games that were being made with 5e/other modern game elements to try and capture some of the 5e crowd, with the 5e crowd being by far the largest/where most of the money was. However, that's not a hard and fast rule, and some games that are often called NuSR are radically different from 5e and occasionally from D&D altogether.

The funny thing is OSR and NuSR don't have concrete definitions, and one man's OSR might be another man's NuSR and vice versa. Even more amusingly, NuSR is sometimes used in a derogatory fashion by people who in turn would end up having their own style of play be called "BrOSR" (a hyper-strict obsession with imaginary fidelity and a "this isn't a fucking game, this is serious business" attitude). Ironically, this has actually lead to some creators calling their own works OSR-like/OSR-lite/OSR-adjacent/NuSR in order to try and separate themselves from OSR thanks to their perception that the BrOSR groups are giving OSR a bad name.

>>96414222
>The funny thing is OSR and NuSR don't have concrete definitions
We have a concrete definition, right here in the OP, and you're seething about it right now

>>96414222
Anyways, this is all nonsense and >>96413421
is, while obvious a bit shaded for comedy purposes, accurate.

I'm preparing a campaign to start as a new gm with a mix of ad&d 1e and 2e.
How should I handle encumbrance?
I'm shitting bricks on this topic.

>>96414006
>>96414086
>>96414105
C&C used the OGL to create a system that could work almost as a bridge/rosetta stone, allowing older adventures and material to be played even without access to the original systems. Some conversion was necessary, but it was considerably easier than trying to port the material into 3rd edition, and it was compatible enough for Gygax to bring Castle Greyhawk into it.

Before that, Hackmaster was a parody game that also enabled that same form of "you can use this system with older material (just ignore the jokes)", but that was a game made by people with ties to WotC. Hackmaster was kind of bad and not even that funny as a parody game, but people were kind of desperate in that era.

Between 2000-2004, people were genuinely scared that WotC would never reprint older editions, and that they would become increasingly difficult to obtain (physically/legally). That's where the birth of the Old School Revival began, and this lead to C&C being made as a way for keep the older material alive, hence the "revival" business. In hindsight, it's actually somewhat funny, but even Christianity began as an apocalyptic cult that thought the world was going to end within their lifetimes. The OSR started with people genuinely afraid "old school" gaming would just die out, though I guess we don't really know whether it would have continued to this day without their early efforts.

>>96414299
For 1st ed, grab a copy of Footprints #7 and use the summary of 1st edition encumbrance there, instead of wrestling with the 1st ed layout.

I wouldn't use the 2nd ed for encumbrance (or much of anything, really, but you do you). If you do, you'll need to figure out how much rations weigh, because the system doesn't tell you. Encumbrance is optional in 2e, and there's two different versions, but the simpler version is a workable system if you don't mind tracking in pounds It's always better to use a real old-school system though.

Or if you have no patience for granularity, steal any one of a number of slot-based alternatives, like the LotFP one.

There's really no shortage of encumbrance systems out there. You'll be able to find just what you like if you're willing to dig.

>>96414299
That's a matter of preference.
My suggestion is to try out the 1e style, and if it works out fine, keep with it. The major difference is just that 1e uses bulk as part of its equations and things are just generally slightly more difficult to carry compared to their 2e counterparts, so if encumbrance presents itself as a constant sticking point and makes the game less fun for your players, you can switch to 2e's style which is a bit more forgiving.

Or, you can just start right with 2e, which also comes with the benefit of being presented more clearly so it's a little easier to learn, and if something about it isn't working right, you can try out 1e.

Really, there's no wrong way to do anything. Try it out, see how you like it, and then make decisions AFTER you have the experience, not before.

>>96414222
Dogshit troll post.
Likely 2e/fishfag

>>96414299
You shouldn't ask here 2e is off topic.
And 1e already has encumbrance rules.

>>96413531
> it doesn't make sense that they're not 1st level fighters but they're identical to 1st level fighters in all respects except what they do or don't agree to do.
What are you talking about? Why does it need to be different? Why can't mercenaries just be 1st level fighter NPCs who protect strongholds and fight other armies?

>>96410973
>C&C and others suffered from the belief that you couldn't print anything that was close to the real original rules

>The player rolls 3d6 and adds the results together for a total score of between 3 and
18. This process is repeated six times for a total of six scores.
The six scores are
>Str, Con, Dex, Cha, Wis, Int
Main character classes with hit dice and abilities are
>Cleric, Wis, d8, turning, spell casting
>Rogue, Dex, d6, climb, traps, hide, move silently, open locks, pick pockets, back attack, sneak attack
>Fighter, Str, d10, extra attacks against low HD opponents
>Wizard, Int, d4, spells
Fighter xp total nearly identical between C&C and 1e levels 1-10 and especially 1-7
Cleric spells (level 0 and 1 in C&C vs level in 1 e)
Spells in both
>Bless, Command, Cure Light Wounds, Light, Purify Food and Drink, Sanctuary
Different names
>Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law vs Detect Evil
In C&C only
>Detect Poison, Detect Undead
The effects are similar for the named spells or even nearly identical e.g. Command is a one word command active for one round

That's all from the 2004 printing of C&C, and it's looking suspiciously close to the "real original rules" of 1e, not even 3e, you say the writers were scared of making it like.

>>96410022
It's entirely subjective. It can only be subjective. If it were objectively bad then it would have been impossible for people to play it and enjoy it. But people did play BECM and enjoy it, even as nerfed thieves. It's a matter of taste and that is subjective.

>>96414299
Equipment slots. I use the Carcass Crawler #2 system. There is literally no reason to stick to vanilla AD&D on this, having players adding lbs on their phones during the game is retarded.

>>96414756
Make a C&C thread, faggot

>>96414006
>>96414086
>>96414105
WOTC wanted people to make new material mechanically compatible with DND to promote DND's share of the market, stifling competition, and increasing core rule book sales.

>the logical conclusion is that the larger the number of people who play D&D, the harder it is for competitive games to succeed, and the longer people will stay active gamers, and the more value the network of D&D players will have to Wizards of the Coast.
>We make more revenue and more profit from our core rulebooks than any other part of our product lines.
>The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books.
>Ryan Dancey
>VP in Charge of Roleplaying Games
>WOTC

Ryan there says the OGL to exists to generate increased core rule sales for WOTC. C&C directly challenged this by replacing the
core rule books. Hard as it might be for you to comprehend that anon is right about C&C's use of OGL being a novel and unexpected use of OGL. It created direct competition with DND core rule books, entirely contrary to WOTC's intent.

>>but OGL allowed anyone to rewrite the rules
Yeah, it did didn't it, but that is directly contrary to WOTC's expectations.

>Create a genre-specific game ... based on the D20 System
>
>Yes, but you'd have to deal with the fact that people will have to buy a fantasy-themed D&D player's handbook in order to get all the character creation and development material. This may or may not prove to be a problem. ... I'd love to see you sell my PHBs to your Wild West customers! :)
>Ryan again

You see, OGL was to sell DND core books, C&C replaced those books.

>>96414794
Lotfp did that better

>>96414877
Yes.

>>96414794
>adding lbs on their phones
What the fuck? D&D uses coin weight, not pounds, and why are your players using phones at the table?

>>96414963
>that anon

>>96409649
Useful pic. Source? Or does anyone have it at higher resolution or as a spreadsheet?

>>96414299
AD&D 2e is utter unredeamable crap. But you already know this, you're just samefagging and baiting as usual.

>>96415040
t. phoneposter

>>96414299
2e is off topic.
1e has fine encumbrance rules

>>96414963
mucho texto

>>96413954
C&C were the first to say
>fuck it if wotc wants to sue us they can sue us, we are doing this
they pioneered the way for all other OSR games to follow
this makes it very special regardless of what you think about it as a system [it's alright by the way]
credit where credit is due anon

>>96415118
Even your spelling and bad attitude are redeemable anon. You're sort of right about 2e being unredeemable though, but only on account of being unable to redeem something already in a state of grace.

>>96414299
Your choices are really between detailed and simplified encumbrance. In practice, it's probably easier to take 2e as a base and then modify it, including by using the optional rules already included, than try to take 1e as a base and update some stuff in line with 2e. It's not worth losing sleep over. The simple 2e tournament rules for encumbrance work well enough, but if you try and make things more complicated later players might complain so better to go for a more detailed system and then watch the other players abuse it anyway.

What's the issue with 2e?

>>96415668
Bards at 1st level
Flood of spells given in the PHB
Milestone xp as the default
No gygaxian prose
Less focus on dungeoneering

been playing B/X for a while now and aside from some changes to weight/inventory that I've made, it's strictly by the book. no one has ever wanted to be a magic user, and both elves in the party declined to take read magic after leveling up. is it so crazy of an idea to have MU start with read magic in addition to whatever spell they pick? it of course contradicts the known spell limit, but they are still limited by what spell is memorized for the day. it just seems like something someone who studied and learned to use magic would know, and might encourage players to pick that class. Thoughts?

>>96415668
>What's the issue with 2e?
Main issues:

1. Its rules for awarding XP are a narrativist insult to your intelligence

Experience in AD&D 2e is awarded for idiotic things like "learning the rules of the game", "learning about the campaign", role playing, having fun, surviving, and achieving story goals (I can provide a summary of the 2e rules for XP if it's of interest). Given how crucially XP incentives direct how the game is played by both the players and the DM, this makes for a radically different game.

"AD&D" 2e supporters point out that the XP for gold rule exists in 2e. However, it's an optional rule that the DM is advised against using. It's part of a long list of rules that "AD&D" 2e omitted or broke only to re-introduce them as optional while criticising them. This makes it even worse as a learning tool for a novice DMs that wants to learn how to run an OSR game, since you are actively advised against using the core procedures that define OSR.

2. Most exploration rules omitted or broken

Notably, dungeon exploration speed was increased by a factor of ten and wandering monster frequency was reduced by 70% with a warning that even that might be excessive. Small stuff like no rules for distracting monsters with treasure or food during chases. This breaks the way dungeons are run in AD&D irreparably.

3. Hickman-style advice for DMs

The advice provided to DMs is perfectly in line with the one from the WotC editions: Drastically reduced player freedom and initiative, narrativism, railroading, magical tea party, quantum ogres, and so on.

4.Core DM tools omitted

No wilderness encounter tables, dungeon encounter tables, or urban encounter tables. No tables for determining the magic items of PCs and NPCs of levels beyond the first one.

>>96415668
Other important differences between AD&D 2e and AD&D [1/2]:

1. All or most of the rules for downtime play were omitted or broken

For instance, natural healing occurs at triple speed, no rules for diseases and parasites, no forced bedrest after being reduced to negative HP (file under "game made easier for players"), no recommendation that 1:1 time when no play is happening is "best". Training reduced to an optional rule. No rules for spying and assassination.

2. No tools for the "wargame club" style play for adults

No mention of players running multiple characters in the same campaign. No mention of adversarial play between players, that's actually discouraged or forbidden. No naval combat or underwater adventures section. No demi-human and humanoid racial relations table (see also Bowdlerization). No rules for slaves or peasant revolts. No mention of figure scaling rules: i.e. one figure = 10 or 20 creatures for when your party or army has to fight an army of 200 orcs.

3. No tools for procedural game generation

No rules for generating dungeons, wilderness terrain, and wilderness strongholds. No random trap tables. No random dungeon dressing tables. No rules for generating NPC parties.

>96415668
>>96415984
Other important differences between AD&D 2e and AD&D [2/2]:

4. Bowdlerisation

No prostitutes. Demons and Devils renamed to things I would feel dirty typing, to let your American Christian Fundamentalist mom sleep at night. No rules for gambling. No rules for random generation of entities from the lower planes (appendix D).

5. Hand-holding

Poison being lethal by default removed. Reduced memorization times for spells. No rules for when, how, and whether gods and their supernatural servants grant spells to clerics based on the level of the spell.

6. Combat dumbed down

No weaponless combat (grappling, overbearing and pummelling), no weapon vs AC adjustments.

7. Mixed DM tools omitted that make the game weaker or blander

No rules on how to make holy water. Rules on lycanthropy reduced by 90%. No herbs, spices, and their medicinal properties. No Appendix N.

>>96415668
Last AND least: Omitted/changed player-facing options

Why least? These are not really the most important differences, and of course they are also the only differences that 2e fans ever mention because they approach the game the same way WotC fans do, so character building options are the only thing that they give any importance to, let alone understand.

No Assassins, no Monks. Changed rules for multiclassing, with higher level limits and the option not to use them at all. No psionics (this also affects a bunch of monsters, that are changed or omitted). Bards are transformed into a "normal" class. A unbelievable amount of completely unplaytested optional rules and classes made available in tens of splatbooks. Specialist "Wizards" and "Priests".

>>96415668
It's 98% identical with 1e. There's no real problem with it.
Gygax was a coke fiend and got kicked out of TSR before 2e, so his devotees cry about 2e and take every opportunity to turn molehills into mountains, spinning how even little changes break the game and are even antithetical to how games are supposed to be played.
It'a just them being super butthurt over office politics.

>>96415668
Well outlined by an anon already but also that it's demoralization bait for the current moderation shitshow. None of these fuckers play C&C, 2nd Ed, etc. they just want to fuck up/osrg/ because of irl mental illness about chuds. It's tied into The Worst People You Have Never Met, various leftypol discords, the Mongrel Banquet Club, pointless drek like that.

>>96414299
>I shitpost on whatever topic wil let me ban the bad people

>>96416077
Closer to 99%, actually.

The list seems long, but most changes were very minor.

>>96416077
>>96416151
>%99
The only way to maintain that bullshit is to fall into
>System doesn't matter
Sophistry at which point you can go talk about osr on Reddit.
Address these posts
>>96415979
Instead of waiting for your pal to delete it.

>>96415789
>No gygaxian prose
That's a huge bonus.
2e is far better formatted, organized, and especially written than 1e.

>>96416320
Being better formatted is not a redeeming quality for being a shit system, except to the extent that it helps people come faster to the conclusion that it is shit.

Is it still trying to talk to us?

>>96415006
AD&D weight is often given in coins and in pounds. Given that D&D is typically 10 coins to a pound players are probably still using a calculator to track their encumbrance. Unlike the other anon I don't see a particular problem with this though.

>>96415923
>is it so crazy of an idea to have MU start with read magic in addition to whatever spell they pick?
This is what Gary settled on with AD&D, in addition to letting new MUs have three additional spells. One that is offensive, one that is defensive, and another that is for utility. At the very least it might be good to give both Read Magic and a spell of the player's choice.

>>96415979
Something that is often overlooked around the failure of 2nd ed's gold for XP non-implementation is its complete reworking of its treasure tables. Even if you decided to fight its advice and go with gold for XP, monsters in the game give out so little gold that it becomes a terrible method of advancement, because the game has been redesigned around killing shit rather than plunder.

2nd ed Type A gives about 17% of real Type A.
Types B-F all give about half.
Type G gives about a third.
The big Type H gives a fifth.
Type I gives about a third.

If you want to play proper old-school style, you need to throw out all the monster XP values (inflated in second) and import all the 1st ed treasure values (crippled in second).

>>96416965
This. It doesn't matter if it's "99% identical", what matters is what the differences are. That 1% can be the difference between human DNA and a chimpanzee.

>>96416998
>That 1% can be the difference between human DNA and a chimpanzee.
Or a merman.

>>96415789
>Bards at 1st level
Not a problem.
>Flood of spells given in the PHB
Good.
>Milestone xp as the default
A system being bad because because xp for gold is optional and not default is a bit of dumb.
>No gygaxian prose
This.
>Less focus on dungeoneering
You can steal all the dungeoneering from other books.

So all the rules are better and there is extra content and the missing content can be taken from other books.

>>96417035
>2e is great
>if you take out all the 2e parts and replace them with the ones from 1e
>...
>I think this is a solid argument for 2e's quality

>>96417035
Feel free to make a new thread then, I'm sure all of the excited players will flood over!
>>96414222
Dogshit troll post

>>96416965
No? Even ODD includes monster XP.

>>96417370
He means throw out the inflated values, which I'll grant is optional. Not doing so will have players levelling faster than you'd get with earlier editions, but that's not exactly a pillar of the OSR, just a balance thing.

>>96417035
>A system being bad because because xp for gold is optional and not default is a bit of dumb.
That might be the biggest understatement of this general.
You're talking about the dumbest shit coming from the most retarded of retards, doing their best mental gymnastics to try and explain why people should be mad at 2e.

It's cart-before-horse right over a cliff.

NEW THREAD

>>96417397
>>96417397
>>96417397

>>96417413
>thread made early
>just so he can spam his guide
You really never learn.

>>96417404
>cliff
Oh no, the purity spiral, if this goes on then... you'll have to make a different thread instead of shitting up this one all the time?
The OP definition has been in place for years, and the only thing bad that's come of it is you guys whining about it all the time
>>96417422
You can piss off too

>>96417404
Nobody's mad about anything, what we are is: upholding the thread to the standard of the topic as outlined in op, that has been standing for years.

I'm still not sure why this is such a hard to grasp concept for you.

>>96417422
Feel free to make a new guide! Or even make a new thread!

>>96417428
We've gone over this, you weird little troll.
The OP definition of "TSR-era D&D, derived systems, and compatible content" means you need to shut up already.

The following bit of text, regarding "broadly" what OSR games encourage, does not mean what you think it means, and also isn't some strict definition or contract in the first place.

How can you be so confident and yet so wrong at the same time?

>>96417370
Yes. 2nd ed, by chopping gold for XP, revalued all its monster XP values under the assumption that (despite it's dog's breakfast of XP methods given in the 2nd ed DMG) killing is the bulk of your XP intake. If you try to run old-school and are taking in the proper amount of treasure to facilitate that, you'll advance too fast because you'll also be gaining inflated monster XP on top of that. For example, an erinyes is 6+6 HD in both editions, but worth 875 XP in 1st ed and 29,500 in 2nd.

>>96417491
Okay bmy point is: instead of doing all of this stupid shit you could just not play 2e.

>>96417477
>we

>>96417498
I agree completely. I was trying to show how the usual bullshit claim of "it's 99.999% the same and no effort to play old-school" is in fact bullshit in all sorts of ways that 2e defenders conveniently glide over.

>>96417477
>Ad hominem
>Simultaneously cherry-picking the op while ignoring the "first decade" qualifier
>straw man finisher
Wowie. With all of this effort you've spent upset, you really could just make a new thread.

>>96417516
I see, I think I messed up the reply chain, and assumed that you were arguing in favor of it.

>>96417522
>qualifier

Doesn't really mean what you think it means if you think it means it should exclude "TSR-era D&D, derived systems, and compatible content."

You weird little troll.

>>96417562
It means "in the game's first decade"
The fact that you conveniently ignore it in favor of other things, says everything we need to know about you. And yes, it's literally just you.

Please just make a new thread at this point, it's not amusing for anybody, and all you're doing is dragging the quality down.

>>96417516
I'm pretty sure they either know all this and are baiting, or they just don't play 2e, because all this stuff is pretty obvious if you play that edition for any length of time.

>>96417477
You conveniently omitted:
>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.

>>96417615
He loves to use weasel words and cherry pick, while simultaneously disagreeing with the same source he is using.
I really wish he would just make a new thread and see how well it does.

>>96417584
>The fact that you conveniently ignore it in favor of other things,

You shameless little hypocritical shit.

You cling to the "first decade" bit, while ignoring not just the whole second line only speaking "Broadly," but how you hope to use your personal interpretation of what is the most important aspects of the game's first decade solely to try and exclude 2e for some incredibly butthurt reason.
You conveniently ignore the " the thread dedicated to TSR-era D&D, derived systems, and compatible content" part, over and over again, all just so you can try and argue about the "first decade" business, like a drowning man clutching at a single straw.

>>96417639
>I really wish he would just make a new thread and see how well it does.
2e threads always die fast from a lack of interest, Hence the attempts to glom onto this thread.

>>96417491
Does 2nd ed have the same needed xp to gain a level?

>>96417643
>You cling to the "first decade" bit
It's there. It's always been there. Get over it.

>>96417684
Yes, that's part of the oft-touted 99.9999999%

>>96417643
I'm not clinging to anything, I am taking the op as a whole, and using that as the standard for the thread.
Meanwhile: you are cherry picking things in your favor, and omitting things that are not, and when you get called out over that, you resort to calling me names like a child in gradeschool.

>>96417643
It has literally been in the OP for 653 threads in a row.
If you're going to use any part of that passage to support you, use the entire thing, not just the part you like.

>>96417744
Oops pic

>>96417712
Then changes see here >>96417491 makes sense.

>>96393394 (OP)
Apropos of nothing, man I like the composition on this art piece. Every time I see this little thumbnail on the catalogue it just pops.

>>96417769
Yes, the change makes sense if you're trying to do a new-school (as in the 80s-90s RPG movement away from D&D) monster-killing hack'n'slash game*, but it works against you if you (rightly) want to put xp for gold back in so the game plays right.

* Which is not what the story-oriented designers of 2e wanted to make, but it is what their changes created. They were not good game designers

>>96417886
>They were not good game designers
They were riding on Gary's coattails their whole careers, and when they were left to their own devices, their true talents were revealed for what they were: Third rate novel writers with no understanding of role-playing games or game design.

>>96417886
Or maybe they saw that people enjoy killing monster so did something other than cry about combat being a fail state.
>>96418041
They did give us some still loved setting so while they did mess up here and there it there was still good stuff.

>>96418066
>Or maybe they saw that people enjoy killing monster so did something other than cry about combat being a fail state.
That's the dumbest thing anybody's said in this entire thread. Bravo!

>>96417542
No worries: happens all the time.

>>96418079
I think you meant to link to one of your own posts there.

>>96418066
>They did give us some still loved setting
Those settings are loved mostly by people who like to read instead of playing. Practically nobody plays in them, because they were not really made for playing.

>>96417769
They make sense in the context of 2nd ed itself, which is not surprising: the designers were trying to be internally consistent, of course.

They don't make sense if you're trying to rationalise a position where 2nd ed works just fine for running an old-school game where treasure is the primary source of advancement. Then you have to change all the random treasure values, and hundreds of monster XP values.

>>96418212
Just because you don't play them does not mean other are not playing them.

>>96418233
It doesn't mean other people *do* play in them either. We've seen how discussions about 2e go on this general: People who want to discuss 2e here have never once made a play report or asked any question that was even vaguely related to actually playing the game. Even when there were short lived 2e generals, same thing: No discussion of actual play.

>>96418228
>They don't make sense if you're trying to rationalise a position where 2nd ed works just fine for running an old-school game where treasure is the primary source of advancement. Then you have to change all the random treasure values, and hundreds of monster XP values.
I vote to include this in the n00b guide, I don't think the issue of the fucked up treasure tables and monster XP values is discussed in there.

>>96418282
Barely anyone in /tg/ play any tabletop games so saying about no discussion of actual play of 2e is proof of no one playing 2e silly.

>>96418286
Seems a reasonable addition to me, too

>>96418307
>Barely anyone in /tg/ play any tabletop games
I don't know about that, I don't go to other generals, but it certainly stands in contrast to the culture of /osrg/, where we regularly get play reports, questions about how to implement specific rules in ongoing campaigns, how to handle troublesome players, and so on.

>>96418322
>where we regularly get play reports, questions about how to implement specific rules in ongoing campaigns, how to handle troublesome players, and so on.
A few years ago that was true but now not so much.

>>96418286
>>96418318
Thirded.

>>96418395
That's still true right now, and in similar volumes to what we had before. It's just straddled by rampant shitposting and NuSR wars.