OSR General

>Trove -- mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!jJtCmTLA
>Useful Shit -- pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
Previous thread: →

How does one decently and fairly determine a rare item's price value?

Other urls found in this thread:

autarch.co/blog/pricing-magic-items-acks
deltasdnd.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/contra-counterspells.html
lomion.de/cmm/_index.php
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Personally I just check how much XP they have to level and use that as a basis since I use XP = GP rules.

Well, this has less to do with leveling and more for rare items with benefit.

I'm working on a post-apoc thing and if a character finds a Gasmask [+1 AC, +2 Poison Saves] what is a good way to determine it's monetary value? It's not some thing that can be bought from just anyone anywhere, thus isn't in the standard equipment/armor/weapon list I have.

Anybody have their hands on Strange Magic that'd be willing to share? I don't think it's in the trove.

Read this and see if you agree with the design goals, if so check out ACKS pricing of magic items:
autarch.co/blog/pricing-magic-items-acks

It's $1.00 you broke fuck.

I'd still like to try before I buy.

Look, I don't want to sound like a total bread-head, but like, 5p is 5p!

Underrated Caveman gem.

> How does one decently and fairly determine a rare item's price value?
Randomly.

If it's rare item, there is no fixed price. It's some random amount of money the party can get for it.

Oh, fuck you.

So for those of you that have cannibalized different OSR games for elements you like (for example, the single save or encumbrance rules) from other games, have you made your own custom character sheets?

If you have, I want to see them, along with your thought process for what you borrowed and why.

In a post-apoc game especially I just wouldn't bother with assigning it a fixed value. I mean, there isn't going to be a currency anyway, right? So it's all a question of barter.

>Gasmask [+1 AC, +2 Poison Saves]
I'd probably just do "immune to gas effects" since it seems wacky that the mask makes it easier to deal with getting stung by a scorpion.

What's the difference between silk and hempen ropes?

Hey, /osr/. I'm working on a turn-based space opera cRPG based loosely on old school D&D rules. I was going to try to sell it, but I think since it's my first real game (besides pong clones, etc.) and I don't know much about the legal side of things, I'll probably make it free. Assuming it's free, I don't ask for money on here or anything, and I don't spam the fuck out of the thread, do you all mind if I talk about it here like people might talk about a homebrew class or adventure they're working on?
Weight, I believe.

I can't speak for anybody else but myself, but it seems like if a system is based on old school D&D rules, it's fair game for this thread.

Go for it. Though there was some sort of GameDev thread around.

Silk is simultaneously tougher and lighter, which means that a given weight of cord can support much more weight on it compared to a hemp rope of the same thickness.

In LotFP-style encumbrance terms, I'd have a coil of hemp rope take up slots as a large/unwieldy object while a silk rope only counted as a normal item.

So I just got a hold of the AD&D DMG. What do you guys think is the dumbest thing in it? And what is the most useful thing in it?

>rolling for stats
Yes, it's OSR and all, but some things are done away with for a reason.

So can anyone describe for me in non-vague terms what constitutes as an "old school" RPG?

>some things are done away with for a reason
Unless you can actually say what that reason is (and note that "rolling for stats is stupid" is not the reason), and know enough about 's game to say that the reason applies to it, you're just talking out your ass.

Old school D&D is everything before 3e. All the editions share the same core system and are various degrees of compatible. The OSR category includes those "authentic" editions and, more narrowly, games based on those editions (retroclones like Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry that hew closely to the original material, and more loosely based games like Castles & Crusades). As to what mechanics exemplify old school D&D, that's a long discussion. Suffice it to say that there are many different traits prevalent in old school D&D and which ones are more essential to the experience will vary according to who you're talking with.

Nah.

I.e. someone probably can, but it's not like everyone will agree. Blasphemer! 2e is no longer Old School!

Not him but rolling stats in a CRPG typically means hitting reroll over and over until you get stats high enough to satisfy yourself or you become too restless to continue and settle for what you've got.

Rolling for stats is stupid. Especially in a videogame, where the GM isn't expected to salvage a dysfunctional mechanic by consulting every character sheet before starting the adventure. So you have a pre-built adventure that is playtested with some predetermined stat spreads, but generates your characters randomly. And is there any reason not to pick character #3 over the other two?

And no, inb4 is not a reason to discard something you disagree with.

>I want to be in /osrg/
>But I hate the mainstays of old-school play
I think you missed your exit for the 3.pf general.

"Old-School" systems are really of secondary improtance to the old-school playstyle. Old-School RPGs in this sense are those that support that style, which is basically only OD&D and its nearest derivatives — the Basic/Classic line, and AD&D through the early years of 1e.

OSR (Old School Revival) games are those which try to clone or emulate the play style of those early editions so people can still buy that type of game new in print today.

> "Old-School" systems are really of secondary improtance to the old-school playstyle.
This.

DnD and all is nice, but the core idea is this. It's more of a OSS (Old School Style which is also vaguely defined) and RPGs that support it, rather than specific qualities of DnD-derived systems compatible with old modules.

The plan is to make it clear ahead of time that there's bonus starting money for not rerolling over and over and over.

An old school RPG is one where the primary means of determining what happens in the game is done via negotiation between the players and the game's judge, rather than between the players and the game's mechanics.

There was that one website with oldschool stats for monsters. Does anyone have it at hand?

And what is the play style here?

So... it's a narrativist game?

>So... it's a narrativist game?
No. It means that instead of saying "I roll to disarm traps," you say, "I wedge a log under the pressure plate so we can move across without activating it," and the DM makes a reasonable determination as to the result of you doing so.

>So... it's a narrativist game?
No, it's the literal opposite of Narrativism. It's more like a loose-rules squad-level wargame adjudicated by an impartial referee to allow participants to try anything.

Like, did you ever play a strategy game as a kid and wish you could try other stuff than the rules allowed you? Maybe you grew attached to one particular squaddie and wanted to be able to follow his adventures between the battles?

>So... it's a narrativist game?
Kind of. I'm not that user, but I'll try to explain.

Old school games were purposely rules light, while still providing rules for how one passes or fails at something, and still making it possible to make characters who are better at certain things than other characters. This was the main reason for the class system. The thief picks locks and sneaks around. The fighter kills shit. The cleric heals, scares off undead, and/or buffs himself/herself and others.

But ultimately, much of the purpose was to combine rules-lightness with simulation such that players could get lost in the world of the game, which in most cases, meant feeling like you were really trudging through a dangerous-ass dungeon with monsters whose shit you were trying to steal. It's possibly the single most immersive fictional thing I've ever experienced with other people.

So success is based around being clever. "I want to get to the high ground," or "I want to hide behind the tapestries then stab him when he comes close." Rather than "I want to use my power attack feat" or "I can't even try to tackle him because I lack the requisite abilities."

If the DM thinks it's reasonable that you'd succeed, you do. If the DM thinks it's impossible, you don't. If the DM thinks you have a chance, you have a chance.

It's a resource management/narrative combo where the resource management element feels like ACTUALLY having a limited number of torches and food, and trying to scour a hole filled with nasty critters so you can steal their shit and get the fuck out of there.

Oh so it's more like Freeforming between stategy battles?

isn't that was 4e was?

4e has extensive rules for disarming traps and no guidelines to improvising their removal or finding.

You're closer but still not quite there. It's like a really tough computer RPG, but one where you can attempt literally anything that a person could physically attempt in that situation.

> much of the purpose was to combine rules-lightness with simulation such that players could get lost in the world of the game

See that just makes it sound like you're in that state when you just started playing tabletop games and didn't understand the rules so you just described things, made up stuff on the fly and rolled what the GM told you to roll.

>and no guidelines to improvising their removal or finding.

... pretty sure it did tho...

>NGS

Forgers are cancer, and ignore how and why people play games

>See that just makes it sound like you're in that state when you just started playing tabletop games and didn't understand the rules so you just described things, made up stuff on the fly and rolled what the GM told you to roll.
So? That tends to be better than having an absurd number of rules, 99.9% of the time.

But computer RPGs are the reason why adapting D&D and AD&D into videogames never worked, since they give you an extremely limited number of options in any given situation and no way to improvise whatsoever.

No I agree with you. I'm just wondering why this needs to be its own seperate category when the only games I can imagine that do have a stupid amount of rules for shit are like, Onyx Path/White Wolf games and D&D 5e/3.pf

>... pretty sure it did tho...

Nopers. Their removal is usually defined only in the context of what skill is used and perhaps a brief description.

>I can imagine that do have a stupid amount of rules for shit are like, Onyx Path/White Wolf games and D&D 5e/3.pf

5e is not particularly rules heavy, especially not compared to, say, 4e.

Because OSR refers to games that attempt to simulate old school D&D specifically because, despite what many people think, it did what it was designed to do really, REALLY well and the flaws in the games were generally minor and easily fixable. In other words, it just refers to clones of the old D&D games and other related games.

If a rules-light game is designed to feel like a "the four of us against the world in a hellacious environment" simulator, then it's probably pretty close to the old school style of game.

Does b/x have counterspell rules?

Counterspell rules have a weird history in D&D. Here's an exhaustive study, by good old Delta, the D&D math nerd:

deltasdnd.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/contra-counterspells.html

But 4e's rules were most centered around combat which is where D&D has always had its primary focus. It was rules heavy, sure, but it was at least focused in where its rules were.

> it did what it was designed to do really, REALLY well

Did it really?

>which is where D&D has always had its primary focus.
Much of old school D&D was about avoiding combat where possible, and only fighting when you had a huge advantage because combat was quite lethal.
>Did it really?
Yes.

I'm high listening to dungeon synth, lol

>But 4e's rules were most centered around combat which is where D&D has always had its primary focus.
Revisionist bullshit. Someone in one of these threads long ago said it so well: the first roleplayers didn't need to create a game where they could fight; they were wargamers already. D&D may have grown out of wargames, but the focus was on something else entirely.

When dealing with Henchmen (and other Hirelings), do you guys let the PC's know their stats, or no? Also, who controls the Henchmen, is it the DM or the PC's?

Anybody have the full PDF of Vornheim? The OSR trove seems to only have a very short 3-page kit and map.

Okay, new analogy. It's like Nethack but a version that lets you leave the dungeon and makes regular Nethack's object interactions seem few and stale.

4E had Skill Challenges, although I suspect that "freeform roleplaying" was probably what most groups ended up with between encounters due to the quality of the Skill Challenge rules.

>An old school RPG is one where the primary means of determining what happens in the game is done via negotiation between the players and the game's judge, rather than between the players and the game's mechanics.
I don't know that that's what I'd call the "old-school playstyle", really - there's a grain of truth to it, but it's just the way that most RPGs inch into the freeform once you go outside of the rules and how OD&D doesn't have much in the way of rules.

Hell, OD&D doesn't even go that far in that. It's got plenty of concrete rules, be it for combat (albeit in an entirely separate product) or exploration or negotiation with monsters. It's still very close to a wargame in some respects, and it shows.

No, if you want a game that's REALLY 'a negotiation between players and the judge' you should really go towards the more narrative games - and I don't mean the ones with strong universal mechanics like, say, FATE. I mean weird-ass indie shit like Wisher, Theurgist, Fatalist or We're All Going To Die. The stuff that's only a few steps removed from freeform, only separated by having a clear goal or structure and some few rules to hammer shit down.
Hell, WTF is actually lacking mechanics and notes that in the book. The mechanics for lacking mechanics is for players and DM to negotiate over what exactly those mechanics should be (not to be confused with negotiating over what is true in the game world, or negotiating over how to play the game.)
Weird-ass games.

>Did it really?
Yeah, it's just that what it was designed to do was logistical megadungeon exploration/mapping with a side dish of mass combat.

Which isn't exactly the norm these days. With "these days" meaning any time from late 1E onwards. Perhaps earlier.

The DM.

I usually don't roll for henchmen stats, and just assume a 10 for everything.
As for control, the PCs can direct them, but if they give them some foolhardy directions, there's going to be a morale roll or the henchmen will say "Nope!"

This is the best way to do it. Let the PCs effectively control them until conflict occurs, then roll or just tell them the henchmen refuse. That highlights that they're following orders, not under direct control, while also not bogging the referee down with a ton of unnecessary interactions.

Have any of you ever tried running an OSR module with Burning Wheel (sometimes called Burning THAC0)? How were the results? Any tips?

The full thing is in the Trove.

Try using Torchbearer? I hear it's based on the system, and it seems to lean pretty hard on the whole OSR thing.

Uh, where? I only saw the kit under the LotFP directory. Is the 3-page kit the whole thing?

Definitely not. My copy is 9 megs, and 75 pages long.

I've tried it a bit, and there's something about the pace, and level of micromanagement I'm not too keen on.

Attached is Burning THAC0. It's old and pretty clumsily put together, mostly because it was made from a bunch of forum posts scrapped to make a small book.

Hunh. THe file must have gotten corrupted when I downloaded it the first time. Now I can see the whole thing. Weird.

Thanks a lot, this helped a lot!

Does a game HAVE to have a "this is the standard" race at all?

I was thinking of doing a game that's basically "what if the world of Redwall was more like Nehwon in tone," and I thought of basically doing race-as-class, but having no classes that aren't races, so you choose, "Okay, I'll be a mouse," or "I'll be a squirrel," or whatever.

Does this seem reasonable?

Not the first time this has been done, so you should be fine.

That sounds more than reasonable to me.

I'd say one of the major features of an OSR game is that they generally try to model the acquisition of wealth via dungeon diving.

In many OSR games (though not all), this is incentivized by the use of a "gold for XP" system - it doesn't matter what you kill down there. Ironically, this means while combat may often be *necessary* (since something's guarding the pile of gold), it's also disincentivized. This sort of incentive isn't strictly necessary with the right group, of course, but it does show what the games are focused on.

Since OSR is about acquiring wealth rather than just explicitly combat, many OSR games are equally concerned with rules regarding the procedures and logistics of venturing into dark ruins with lots of treasure (or alternately hauling that wealth back to town over expanses of wilderness). Things like the amount of time it takes to grope down a dark 10' hall are also given rules treatment.

This leads to the second hallmark of OSR style - an attempt to create emergent encounters based on the interactions between several rules systems, rather than consensual agreement (as is the case in "narratavist" games like Burning Wheel). In a narrative game, you might decide by group consensus it's more dramatic that the thief encounters a goblin patrol while trying to pick a lock in a dark tunnel. On the flip side, you might instead have a goblin encounter from a confluence of rules (the thief fails his lockpicking attempt a few times, which takes enough time for a random encounter to be rolled, which indicates a goblin, and the behaviour/reaction roll indicates a hostile patrol).

In practice GMs will probably use a bit of both and some games considered "OSR" will not neatly fit either - the whole point behind categories like this is they identify rough trends and movements, rather than some sort of purely Platonic ideal form.

lomion.de/cmm/_index.php

>Does a game HAVE to have a "this is the standard" race at all?
As the others said: Nope!

>Does this seem reasonable?
Yes. I'd say that's one of the two main ways of doing it, the other being "I'll be a fighter" and then just picking mouse or badger or whatever for race and having it not affect stats or class at all, just a cosmetic thing.

Personally I prefer your method, though, just because I like mechanical differentiation, especially when it comes to animal-men that can be wildly disparate in size.

I predict that your main problem will be players whining "but I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!".

>This sort of incentive isn't strictly necessary with the right group, of course
It's not necessary, but it's not /in the way/ of that group either. That's the key, really. The mechanic's all gain and no drawback.

>"but I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!"
Badger = barbarian.

This is because I'm including two NPCs you can hire on who you have to hire together, who are nods to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

Hatcher and the Gray Mouse.

Hatcher is a red and white badger from the arctic badger tribes, who gets to reroll morale checks once per battle due to his "Red Badger Courage" ability.

Yeah, I'm on board with that, I'm just saying that whenever you use race as class, some faggot always has to try and break the mold.

It's for this reason I like how ACKS approaches things; providing different racial class options to represent different archetypes. You can't be a dwarven Fighter or Cleric, but you can be a dwarven Vaultguard or Craftspriest.

If you go too far of course it ends up being unnecessary complexity, but giving two race options helps represent/inspire a wider variety of archetypes associated with the race.

Asking this again. Would love to hear /osr/'s views on the DMG and what are the worst and best parts of it.

as long as most Races have multiple classes attached to them, like for example say Hares get two classes, one is basically a Fighter with some of the non-magical bits of Ranger mixed in, and the other is pretty much a Bard(albeit one that fights better than Bard equivalents for most other races)

agreed, more OSR games should borrow from how ACKS does things

Shit, I don't know. The DMG is such a hodgepodge of information that trying to apply it all would lead to an unworkable disaster of a game. Really, it seems to me that--aside from a few key parts integral to the game (combat tables, magical treasure...)--you just grab the bits that interest you and work with your current campaign, and those are going to vary depending on what you're trying to do. I'm never going to use a lot of the crunchier combat stuff, but I might glance at it for reference to guide some decision I'm trying to make, so I wouldn't consider it worthless to me.

I do think that alignment languages are one of the stupidest parts of AD&D in general, and the DMG has a small section on that, so I suppose that counts. I guess if I had to pick a favorite part, I'd go with the magic items section, since it's extensive, very useful, and can be ported into other games as well.

Assuming the 1E DMG, the best part is probably how it's jam-packed with ideas for practically fucking everything, there's just a shit-ton of stuff in there. An encyclopedia of gaming advice. Worst part's the whore table. /osrg/ will rip me a new asshole for saying so, though.

If it's the 2E DMG, the best part's... I guess... that if you leave it in the bathroom you can wipe your ass with it in an emergency.

picked up a decent Dark Sun haul at a used bookstore

all of these were 8 dollars canadian, 30% off

City on the Silt Sea(everything but map, inclu box)
Rulebook for dark sun(map incl)
lorebook journal thing for Dark Sun(map incl)
Valley of Fire and dust
Dune Trader


Looks like most of it's from the original pre-1995 printing but Im a huge fucking faggot when it comes to collecting old shit like this so Im down. who /collector/ here?

>Red Badger Courage

What's your favorite OSR Game?
What do you like about it?
What do you dislike about it?

Has anybody run the Grimmsgate module for S&W? Thoughts?

Forgive me for interrupting this glorious thread, but some chucklefuck over here: Wants to know exactly how many of you beat the 13th level wizard at the Tower of the Stargazer

You can tell the AD&D DMG was written by someone who had run a lot of games rather than a 'games designer' per se.
It's full of stuff you invariably end up needing but no one ever includes in rulebooks.

The Potion Miscibility table for example. The section on how long it takes to dig through various substances. Effects of Alcohol and Drugs. Chances of Evading Pursuit.
There's a section on mirrors that just says 'It is important for DMs to remember that in order to be reflective, a mirror must have a light source.'. One can only imagine what prompted that insight.

It's very much a book by a DM for DMs. Not well designed, but drawn from experience.

>best parts
Gygax hammering in the importance of Time.

The bit where Gary says that players reading the DMG are less than worthy of an honourable death. It's like it didn't occur to him that some players might also want to DM.

I think there's been like two parties mentioned over the last few threads who did it in actual play?
The big deal is that spellcasting is interrupted in most OSR games if a magic-user is hit.
I allow saving throw against it but with a party of maybe 6 people attacking him it would definitely have a negative modifier added to it.

>"But I wanna be a *sneaky* badger!"
Then take off your noisy armor and start skulking around. You may be big but that doesn't mean you can't be quiet.

>What's your favorite OSR Game?
Dungeon Crawl Classics
>What do you like about it?
The aesthetic, the simplicity of the ruleset, the funnel.
>What do you dislike about it?
CHARTS.

>Fav
DCC
>Like
It is oozing with style
>Dislike
Too many roll-adjustments

Who /cyclopedia/ here? I'm using it with some lads for a megadungeon like campaign.

>that feel when Lankhmar boxset, Mullen reprint of the Core rules, Judges Guild reprint of their old stuff is making me sell off a fair bit of my old RPG collection to pay for it all

Tower of the Stargazer is an introductory LoTFP module for 1st level players. The module has players explore a wizard's tower that is long abandoned, and as it turns out he actually accidentally imprisoned himself in a magic circle for almost a hundred years, and the players can stumble across him and free him.

As noted in the previous thread, the difficulty of wizard in OSR games often depends entirely on how you handle initiative. LotFP, if I recall correctly, has all casters declare spells *before* rolling their initiative, which determines when in the round the spell goes off. If hit prior to that the wizard loses the spell prepared.

Secondly, constitution bonuses are nowhere near as big in most OSR games as they can be in 3.x; and most games tend to emphasize 3d6 in order stat arrays anyway. Most wizards are stuck with d4 hit die, and hit die caps out at level 10. So at the very most a level 20 wizard only has 40+10= 50hp and is more likely to have closer to an average of 20+10=30hp; that's not a whole lot and even a 1st level 4 man party can output enough damage in a couple rounds to kill him.

What's your favorite OSR Game?
ACKS
>What do you like about it?
Does all the math for me.
>What do you dislike about it?
No one ever talks about it; it seems Labryinth Lord and LoTFP are the go-to B/X clones. I guess the concern with domain play just isn't all that necessary for the majority of groups?

don't forget Mutant Crawl Classics!

Rulesets like Swords & Wizardry combat is even meaner, making any missile attack (like a thrown weapon) occur before Spells so even if he wins initative he could still be fucked out of his spell in a lucky to-hit roll. (hence why I allow saving throws for magic-users)

>Favorite OSR Game?
Basic Fantasy RPG
>What do you like about it?
It's easy enough to teach to newbies, the text is written well-enough for newcomers to approach it, and you can supply the entire table with books on the cheap.
>Dislike?
The layout of the book is atrocious for character creation (the cleric's Turn Undead table appears in the encounter section for example) and thief skills are implemented somewhat poorly.