OSR General - Module Share Edition

Trove: mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA

Useful Shit: pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC

Share the best adventure modules you have that aren't as well known as they should be.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zNLoti4sjlI
youtube.com/watch?v=ypuaJLHK_LQ
tabletopaudio.com/
tabletopaudio.com/tavern_sp.html
drivethrurpg.com/product/181454/Wolfpacks-and-Winter-Snow
recedingrules.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/wilderness-travel-mini-games-ii.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

the Trove seems to cap on the DCC modules after 80 or so. Does anyone have any of the newer pdfs?

What're people's opinions on the C-series of modules (Tamoachan, Inverness, Castanimir, To Find a King, Llywelyn's Bane, and the RPGA Handbook)?

Here's a question;

I know some games basically require or recommend it (DCC), but how about giving players multiple characters to control over the course of an adventure or dungeon crawl?

Since I think most RP groups bigger then 3-4 people are really hard to find time for (unless in real life), I'm planning on getting an online group of 3-4 people that have 2 characters each. It shouldn't be too hard to manage that, right?

just personally, i find controlling 2 different characters way less interesting and immersive. DCC makes it to where that's just how you begin, 0-level. some die, then you choose one to focus on.

So then how do you deal with small player size? Do you just have a bunch of hirelings that the players can become instead if they end up dying?

That, and maybe some rescaling of # appearing and/or hit points

I know that Moldvay advises new players to use extra characters before giving them Hirelings.
Personally, if you find the immersiveness factor to be very important and shy away from hirelings at level 1, you might want to take a look at a game like Scarlet Heroes where the PCs are more powerfull and can take a bit more of a beating. That way, you can use the by the book No. Appearing and / or the numbers in the modules you use without (too much) fear of every encounter being overpowered.

Good ideas for dungeons please?

Anything; a gimmick, a boss, a specific treasure, a specific trap or monster, just give me something to start with here.

Clothing store dungeon.

I'm actually planning on doing this.

I give my players a single PC and then they can take henchmen with them, who are NPCs but basically under their control.Their main purpose is to cover gaps in the party, and be replacement PCs if a character dies.

You should moderate the actions of their second PC; people often forget they're still individual characters, they should have their own whims, they shouldn't live solely to benefit their other character.

What is your tavern music?

youtube.com/watch?v=zNLoti4sjlI

Oh, absolutely. This is why we have loyalty checks and morale for NPCs - a failed loyalty/morale check moves control of the henchman from the player to the GM.

The Hurdy-gurdy was pretty much the official tavern instrument for a long period in European history, I tend towards that and the lute (very original I know).

youtube.com/watch?v=ypuaJLHK_LQ This is obviously electric and hence cleaner, but the tune and style is actually not that different from more traditional pieces.

tabletopaudio.com/
"the slaughtered ox"

or

tabletopaudio.com/tavern_sp.html

A maze of mirrors, with Medusa's patrolling it.

It might sound weird, but ask kids and children for ideas. Some of the best ideas I've heard came straight from the mouth of a 7 year old.

The dungeon level is a tesseract. 24 "faces", each edge connecting three faces. Make it out of dungeon geomorphs if you don't feel like mapping. Make sure to keep notes so that you don't get completely confused.

BMUP

Check seven-chan request thread. I think I saw some modules there.

> I know some games basically require or recommend it (DCC), but how about giving players multiple characters to control over the course of an adventure or dungeon crawl?
I have no problem with it.

In fact, I'd prefer players to have several (main character+his henchment, rather than 2+ full-fledged PCs) - this way I can kill PCs without remorse.

Dungeon levels endlessly repeat themselves. Except each levels is slightly different than the levels before.

First 2-3 stairs are practically identical, but then the discrepancy crawls in. The deeper you go, the crazier shit gets.

Down there is some sort of half-broken artifact that copies levels and makes dungeon deeper: it was an attempt to "dig" the way to some Chaos planes.

Well, wolfpacks is up on drivethroughrpg.
I'm feeling pretty satisfied with myself.

drivethrurpg.com/product/181454/Wolfpacks-and-Winter-Snow

Wouldn't they all have to walk around with their eyes closed?

I suspect what you'd wind up with is a maze of mirrors with a few medusa statues standing around.

I'm working on a tesseract dungeon too, but with rooms as each of the 8 cubes, with gravity staying consistent to the observer.

How about a maze filled with various petrifying beasties, with the "twist" being that the walls are statues?

Might be a bit overly lethal, though. It'd be like having a dungeon level filled entirely with poisonous monsters - thematically consistent and relatively logical, but perhaps not so fun to play through.

Although I suppose that a labyrinth of statues would probably mostly be explored by blindfolded parties... in which case they get fucked by the touch-petrification monsters, which brings it back to square one and the question of "why the hell would you make a save-or-die dungeon?"

Congratulations!

Are there any games that use ability scores for anything other than determining modifiers?

A lot of OSR use ability scores as a basis for checks (in lieu of being skill specific).

ie) if you need to make a WIS check, roll a d20 under your score to succeed.

I personally do this for CHA in LotFP when my players want to bribe/persuade etc and I think the odds should be stacked against them.

Many early D&D editions use them as class/race requirements and/or for determining XP bonuses.

>odds should be stacked against them
But if you use that, the odds are on their side.
Also what about the NPC reaction table?

I've seen a few where damage to (or permanent loss of) ability scores is a fairly frequent thing.
I've also seen the raw strength score used for encumbrance, and similar.

Not necessarily. Say a player is bribing an NPC. If they roleplay the encounter well, I consider it a success. But if the NPC has reason to be wary or headstrong (a guard or pawn broker), I have them speak, then I roll a CHA check to see if they had the extra push needed.

He means that the average on 3D6 is 10.5, so a character with average Charisma has either a 10 or 11, meaning that the odds are either even or slightly in their favor, not stacked against them.

Right, but what is boils down to is an 'instant win' or a 'gambled win'. If I wanted it to be more difficult, I'd add a Speech skill d6 to the game (add CHA mod in pips) and have them roll on that.

No skill needed. There's a reaction table in the book. You roll 2d6 on it to see how an NPC reacts when their reaction isn't entirely certain. You put bonuses and penalties on it, depending on how they played out the encounter.

That being said, I don't think your method is wrong. I do attribute checks the same way. Just mentioning that b/x variants were meant to use the table, in case the book didn't telegraph it well enough. Which I know it doesn't.

Well look at that! I must have glossed that over assuming it was more combat encounter related. Derp.

Stolen

What is the singular worst aspect of modern RPGs?

The demihuman destroyer: Crystal dungeon with translucent walls that emit bright light that is blinding for PCs with darkvision. Some sectors of the dungeon have all surfaces coated with a heat-emitting fungal infestation that negates infra-vision. The whole thing is an outrageously ancient wrecked starship.

Games like Pathfinder aren't even roleplaying games because the point of the game is rules mastery not imagination and roleplay. It's like OD&D rewritten by an autistic accountant.

Yo, I need some table generators to make a gonzo as fuck adventure. Mutations, space/fantasy weapons, potion effects, room decor, NPCs, etc. Anything goes.

I have the Dungeon Alphabet. Its fantastic. Anything else you can share?

The idea that you can only do what's listed on your character sheet.

I know that it's not as much a "modern RPG" thing as it is just a way of playing, but damn.

Although I suppose that I could point fingers towards how 3E tried to make a rule for every situation. That no doubt helped exacerbate the problem.

I love how Torchbearer and Dungeon World actually have to write down that no, you can't just say that you use your Survival skill/roll to Hack & Slash - you need to actually say what your trying to do and then maybe the DM applies a relevant mechanic to resolve it.

Actually, that's another point. The whole endless "I attack the goblin, I hit, I rolled 3 damage" cycle. Learn to roleplay, people.

Another bad aspect of certain "modern" RPGs is the attempt at universality - especially when it's done by systems that very much AREN'T universal. Like the d20 system, for instance. Mechanics bring forth flavor in and of themselves, so you need to make sure to have the right mechanics for the right game.

Also, for chargen, what OSR system can you recommend to create anything from a Cowboy to a Wastelander to a Mad Scientist?

Hey, Trove Guy, if you read this, the Machination of the Space Princess folder apparently has been moved inside Labyrinth Lord. Since it's a LotFP hack, I figure it should be under Lamentations instead.

Holy shit. I just decided to go 'fuck it' and run donjon.net randomly generated dungeons with a bit of tweaking for some more roleplaying opporunities.

I am playing everything straight, "you meet in an inn" and all that. The players are having a blast.

The moral of the story seems to be: if you want to play Dungeons & Dragons, actually give them dungeons and dragons.

I'm pretty sure he included a folder in LL that were my roommates character sheets haha.

Seems like LotFP is all anyone talks about. Is it really that good?

Here's one I made. Obviously more science-fiction based, but hope it helps.

>Seems like LotFP is all anyone talks about. Is it really that good?
Good question. Never played it personally, however "LotFP is a tabletop role-playing game born out of the mechanics of old school fantasy gaming and the love of underground heavy metal, horror literature and film, and in fact all things strange and macabre", makes me quite sceptical. Personally I have never played a "OSR horror" game that I have been pleased with.

In various editions they determine:
> Eligibility for different classes
> Eligibility for different races.
> Bonus XP through prime requisites
> Modifiers for specific functions
> Individual sub mechanics (ability to survive resurrection, for instance)
> Basic task resolution ("roll your dex score or lower to jump the chasm.")
> Proficiency resolution ("Surgery is a wisdom skill, roll under wisdom -2")
> Narrative effects in modules ("Characters with a Wis of X or higher will see through this." "Dryads will attempt to charm characters with a charisma of X or higher.")

I think that covers most of them. There might be others as well.

LotFP is my primary game.

From a strictly mechanical point, it's a very tight B/x clone that makes some mechanical improvements (moving basically all misc task resolution to an x-in-6 format, better thief class, etc) and then twists things to specifically suit the feel they are going for.

In this case, it's weird horror. This isn't the same thing as Call of Cthulhu or ghost story kind of horror. It isn't the kind of horror game you expect from other parts of the horror genre.

In both book aesthetics and general setting tone, it's way better to compare it to some tongue-and-cheek B movie style horror. One of the editions was called the "grindhouse edition." Much of the art is commissioned by artists Raggi first saw on metal albums he liked. It's a little over the top, and not really meant to be taken seriously. It's also reveling in the fantasy viet nam vibe, with some of the modules being brutal.

It does a reasonable job of conveying this in the rules themselves through slight mechanical tweaks. Only fighters get better at fighting over time (which actually works out way better than you might think), magic users and clerics both have more tailored spell lists. Thieves are replaced by specialists who fulfill a wide variety of roles, rather than being confined to a specific niche. He also has rules for early modern weapons and armor in the appendices, and most of the modules for the system take place in an early modern historical setting with lovecraftian undertones.

If you like the vibe, it's a great system. If you don't, it's still worth looking at just to check the tweaks. The encumbrance system is the only one I've ever seen players faithfully track, and I've taken the x-in-6 resolution system and imported it in basically any other OSR game I play.

RPG's that have "builds", I just despise it.

This upsets me too.

I love the game and strategy aspects of RPGs, but I can't stand it when people turn newer or more complicated games into Magic: The Gathering. "Combine this race with that class and those feats and you can..."

It's not a tournament game. Hacking and breaking things can be fun, but actually playing the game like this is missing the point. Yes, I'm calling badwrongfun on this one.

Yes! I love races as classes for this exact reason, its always "Hmm I want to play this , now which is the best race to pick for its abilities?". Also now I feel races don't need to be balanced since its a class unto it self.

New to OSR. Say a trap goes off. Darts shooting, trap door opening etc. Is rolling a DEX check (d20 under) the way to see if characters fall victim?

>The idea that you can only do what's listed on your character sheet.

I swear you faggots haven't even put into any thought why they're designed like this.

It's called abstraction, the amount of time it takes to becoming a wizard is ridiculous and that's if your talented, why the fuck would you take to learn how to become a master lockpick or archer as well?

Depends on the trap and circumstances. (Boring answer, I know.)

The way I'd do it, if a trap is activated, the effect happens period. You're supposed to find traps before you put your dumb foot on them.

If a trap has an action that's so slow that whoever triggered it has a decent chance of getting out of it unscathed anyway, then whoever designed it wasn't a very good trapbuilder.

An exception is traps which manifest spells or spell-like effects, like a stone dragon head carved in a wall which actually breathes fire in the corridor when the party trips in a wire or something.

Then, standard saving throws apply.

Basically what I want to say is "Traps usually shouldn't have saves unless it makes sense. If they do have saves, use the actual saves, not stat rolls. They're called "saving throws" for a reason."

Use "vs. Death & Poison" for poison needles and spikes, "vs. Breath" for explosions, blasts of compressed air, maybe portions of dungeons rigged to collapse and such, and "vs. Wand" for spell effects from magical traps. Trapdoors should have no save (not much you can do to fight gravity), but they're usually the easiest to spot and avoid.

Depends on the specifics. Check out how some of the early modules are set up.

Generally speaking, a trap will often only have a specific chance to go off anyway "on a roll of 1 or 2 on a d6." When they do go off, they often call for a specific save to avoid the trap, representing the character's reflexes. Which save depends on the specifics of the trap and edition.

This. So much this. I want the player choice to be about stuff they do in the game itself, not to be primarily about how they built the character before the game began.

>I want the player choice to be about stuff they do in the game itself

In other words you want to play a CRPG not a PnP RPG. RuneQuest tried to pull off a system like this and everybody quickly learnt it plays HORRIBLY.

Whats with the hate dude? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I don't understand it. Chill out and relax, we're just having discussion.

Because this question gets asked every thread and gets the exact same replies, then nobody takes the opportunity to check out systems that don't do this.

It doesn't get asked every thread, and so what? People can't like what they like? Stop such being a baby about it.

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

Let me guess, you also spam about how great WoP is right?

I don't even know what WoP is, but I'm getting the feeling you're just being an ass for the sake of it.

So has anyone in the history of rpgs ever managed to figure out how to make wilderness segments as interesting as dungeons?

Serious question. I'm not normally that involved in OSR stuff, but I've been running a bit of a West Marches-style game for a while now and I'm really enjoying it. Coming up with unique dungeons, designing challenging encounters, and watching the players try to make it through them alive—that's all great.

But the wilderness segments. The getting-to-the-dungeon segments and the getting-back-to-town segments. I just feel like it's really hard to make it feel worthwhile to play them out and not just gloss over them with a little "You walk for many hours..." etc.

Anyone ever played in a game where travel, survival, and stuff like that actually felt like it mattered? Where it actually felt like it added to the fun of the game? Any advice you folks can share?

Has anyone ever played B5 - Horror on the Hill before? First time going through as a player and I swear we can't get anywhere without 2-3 random encounters where we have no chance but to fight.

Yo.

Bump

Here's one idea on that front:

recedingrules.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/wilderness-travel-mini-games-ii.html

GURPSfag dropping in; there's a supplement for Dungeon Fantasy — GURPS's answer to D&D — focused entirely on wilderness adventures, aptly named DF 16: Wilderness Adventures. While the crunch won't be useful to you at all, the splat ends with a sizable and system-agnostic chapter dedicated to running adventures or even full campaigns in the great outdoors.

um


Why do you people like or prefer old DnD? I picked up the 1e ADnD book and its a fucking mess in terms of layout with a bunch of weird restrictions and rules.

Im not trolling im curious what the appeal is?

Check out Moldvay/Cook Basic. It has the same core system as AD&D, but AD&D adds a bunch of clutter on top of it. I mean, it's still an organic system that developed through play (kind of like the unplanned twisty streets in an old town) and so it can feel like a hodge-podge of different subsystems, but it even given that, it's much simpler than modern D&D. And the minimalism of the rules promotes a different sort of play, without the emphasis on mechanical character building and with a focus on thinking outside the box, role-playing out exactly what you do instead of just relying on skill rolls, and improvisation on the DM's part that allows for a more adaptive and creative sort of play.

most of us prefer BX/BECMI/RC D&D over AD&D in these threads, the latter is indeed a mess as you mentioned

The AD&D rulescyclopedia looks pretty good.

Rules Cyclopedia is actually derived from Basic D&D not Advanced, and yeah it's pretty good

Rules Cyclopedia is Basic. It's just an expanded Basic compared to B/X. It's essentially the first four letters of BECMI (without the I) consolidated into one rulebook that it's actually possible to reference.

I guess that chart doesn't really say, but Moldvay Basic is also called B/X (since it consists of two sets: Basic and Expert), while Mentzer Basic is BECMI (consisting of Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals sets).

AD&D 2e is my favorite thus far.

This chart always bugs me. Holmes to B/X isn't really "rewritten but generally compatible" - hell, that should probably be the arrow between OD&D and Holmes!

I'm not entirely convinced that Holmes->Moldvay is the thing, either - it kind of feels like Moldvay looked back at OD&D to make his own version of the game, meaning that you'd technically have three "branches" ever-so-briefly.

IIRC the New, Easy to Master D&D Game is also based on the Allston's RC rather than Mentzer's BECMI in general?

I'd also argue against having a "major rules changes" arrow between the RC and 3E - I'm not really sure that Wizards looked at Basic at all during the development of that edition, to be honest! It's very much a follow-up to AD&D.


I'm also a little irritated that "Braunstein and other wargames" is a label, since the bit of Braunstein that was a major inspiration was that it was the "first" role-playing game. If anything, the "other wargames" bit should probably be a "inspiration" arrow pointing to Chainmail!
Although Fight in the Skies/Dawn Patrol and Don't Give Up the Ship seem to have been direct inspirations for OD&D as well, so perhaps an arrow is merited after all.


5E would be what, a "Major Rules Changes" arrow from 4E with a "rewritten but generally compatible" arrow to the new Basic Rules which in turn has an explicit "inspiration" arrow from the RC? I guess you could also have another "inspiration" arrow from the Red Box to the new Starter Set, since apparently the 4E Basic Set counts. Probably a black arrow from the Basic Set to the Starter Set as well, I guess, although that feels a bit dirty.

>1e ADnD

Is pretty much the worst of all worlds. Just find a more modern ruleset. It'll have cleaned up math, layout and still retains some of the simplicity.

Are there any D&D/OSR books with a more realistic/plausible economy, or at least prices? For example, ranged weapons (bows, xbows and even primitive guns) not being roughly as expensive as steel swords.

ACKS had some economy, IIRC

> For example, ranged weapons (bows, xbows and even primitive guns) not being roughly as expensive as steel swords.
I'm not sure I understand.

In 3.5, a "longsword" is 15gp while a longbow is 75gp. That makes no sense even from a common-sense perspective.

> common-sense

> The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years

I should've put quotes around longbow, but you're still being a faggot. Not all longbows were english composite longbows made from yew wood.

For actual OSR games, there's the AD&D supplement Wilderness Survival Guide, and a number of modules are a large wilderness area that you can wander about in.

The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are DL1, DL4, and DL14.

bump

Has anyone experimented with combining the Cleric and Magic User into a single class (ie, "Sorcerer").

Base rules are LotFP.

I was thinking there might be schools that teach their spells as religious mysteries, but I've never liked the conceptual divide between divine and arcane magic...

Maybe I'd keep the elf racial class as "warlock" or something.

>(ie, "Sorcerer").
Arcanist?

Aren't you basically describing Dragonlance?

>Aren't you basically describing Dragonlance?
No? Wizards and clerics are different classes in DL.

That's done for mechanical reasons; Lore wise they both receive their powers from the Gods.

I don't think so...

Problems I can imagine are
>MU becomes indispensable/OP
>MU becomes shitty because overburdened trying to balance buff spells and utility/attack spells
OTOH it'd be possible to play a "white mage" or a "black magician", depending on what you study. Maybe I'd divide the spell list into schools or white/black/grey alignments.

I imagine I'd also include a Medicine skill and/or inexpensive alchemical healing, to make it possible for specialists to play healbot.

Alright, did chargen with my players last night for LotFP. Running Stargazer.

Got a sneaky/tinkery specialist (who is not a thief)
a forest elf (who's name is the sound of nature)
a mule riding wizard in plate armor (AC 20 goddamn)
and a chaotic cleric who worships the fire that burns forests (and has 10 dogs)

gimme some ideas to fuck with these people. i'm not out to 'get them', but I've only DM'd a few times and want some creative fodder to help me with this.

Well first of all, check and make sure the wizard is not more than lightly encumbered. I would have thought that plate armor and a weapon would put him right over, but I can't be fucked to pull out the book.

If you want to be a real cunt, don't tell him he's overly encumbered til he tries to cast a spell.

Anyways, just prep the module and take some notes--the module itself is full of gotchas.

The magic user has plate armor? He can't be carrying around much else then if he wants to cast spells. And aren't clerics forced to be lawful in the LotFP rules?

Anyway, did you already play Stargazer or are you planning on doing it? Because the tower already has a lot of fun stuff that fucks with the players.

> Has anyone experimented with combining the Cleric and Magic User into a single class (ie, "Sorcerer").
I thought about it, but the class would be too generic. I'd rather combine all spells and then split them into disciplines, having 5-6 Magi (of Life, Death, Fire, etc)


By the way, if class has spontaneous casting and knows all his spells (a la beguiler 3e), how many spells should the class have in each spell circle, so as not to be too unwieldy? Not interested in balance at the moment

I.e. at first level know all 1st level spells (6 spells), at 3rd level knows 2nd spell circle spells (12 = 6+6) and so on. But by level 9 there will be 30 spells.

So - how many spells should there be so as not to get overwhelmed?