Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General thread.
>Links - Includes a list of OSR games, a wiki, scenarios, free RPGs, a vast Trove of treasure!
pastebin.com
>Discord Server - Live design help, game finder, etc.
discord.gg
>OSR Blog List - Help contribute by suggesting more.
pastebin.com
>Webtools - Help contribute by suggesting more.
pastebin.com
>Previous thread:
THREAD QUESTION:
>Have you ever had dogs or other pets in your games that people grew very attached to?
3rd night in the dungeon:
>Oh, guys! By the way, did I mention I had a hireling?
>hireling
>equipment
I like the cut of your jib, user.
That's how hirelings usually end up being desu.
thanks for the real answers that actually helps a lot.
also a beginner question in Basic it doesn't seem that many of the attribute scores actually suggest or synergize with class abilities, except DEX and STR for to-hit and damage bonuses. CON is useful no matter what you play but the other half of the attributes seem pretty menial. am i missing some rule elsewhere in the book that would lead to the idea that characters with high WIS should play clerics or INT play wizard?
A magic-user with high INT gets bonus XP, and in any case can sacrifice the other stats to boost up their INT. A Cleric has the same with WIS, a Fighter with STR, and a Thief with DEX.
It's a soft encouragement rather than a hard one, although Basic also has some pretty strict experience penalties if you want to play a low-INT magic-user so that's something to watch out for.
A 16-INT magic-user just needs 2273xp to reach level two - but a 5-INT magic-user needs 3125xp!
>am i missing some rule elsewhere in the book that would lead to the idea that characters with high WIS should play clerics or INT play wizard?
Eh, maybe or maybe not, depending on how you count. The prime requisite XP bonuses/penalties incentivize high scores, but not in the same way that STR (in particular) works by synergistic reinforcement of the abilities. That's more of an AD&D thing, getting bonus spells and such.
The thing is, in LBB OD&D, the three prime requisite abilities (STR, INT, WIS) didn't do anything at all *except* grant that XP mod; only the three secondary abilities (DEX, CON, CHA) gave direct mechanical benefits. Of course, that was spoiled right away when the Thief showed up in Greyhawk and had Dex for a prime requisite -- I'm not trying to repeat the "Thief: boo or yay?" argument here, just point out that originally and for about five seconds, each given ability was either tied to one class or affected a specific non-class system. (Greyhawk also introduced the concept of to-hit and damage bonuses for high Strength -- originally it was a Fighter class ability, not something everybody got, but still, damage done.)
Basic retains that outline, as well as the confusion from Greyhawk, which is why INT and WIS look shit on: the XP-bonus thing just looks like a quibbly optional subsystem instead of the entire reason for three of the abilities to exist at all.
>am i missing some rule elsewhere in the book that would lead to the idea that characters with high WIS should play clerics or INT play wizard?
Check the magic section, the part about learning spells, for wizards. In addition, you get a 5-10% bonus to EXP as a cleric with high WIS or mage with high INT. Mechanically, in Basic and OD&D anyway, the stats did a lot less heavy lifting in the game.
Also, this soft encouragement means that while they're not actual class features, characters tend to have higher prime requisites.
A Cleric could have a higher Strength score, but you get more goodies from being a Fighter - so Fighters get a weird out-of-left-field bonus to hit and damage. Similarly, Clerics have better saving throws against magic, Magic-Users know more languages, and Thieves are dodgier and better suited to ranged combat.
Especially since you're somewhat encouraged to dump any above-average secondary scores to boost your prime requisite.
This isn't locked in (you can have a high-strength Thief, or a Fighter who knows a bunch of languages) but it's interesting how it reinforces archetypes.
Charisma is the best stat in the game actually, because it determines how many henchmen you can have. And you're going to want henchmen.
Don't forget! It also determines henchman morale, how loyal they are (in some editions), *and* monster reaction checks!
Yeah. Charisma is the god stat of old school.
Has anyone played the stonhell megadungeon? Thinking of using it as my game's primary dungeon and using isle of dread as the overworld
Is there an event/encounter table for a space fantasy game knocking around? Im looking for something that's basically warp encounters, it's for a space fantasy game i'm running.
Probably something in here. I only browsed through it though.
>swordplusone.com
Its a rogue trader inspired chaotic warband osr game, seems like a place with warp related tables.
Also Stars Without Number has a lot of interesting tables just on its own for scifi/fantasy, and the supplement Dead Names has a lot of tables for generating ancient aliens, ruins, etc. that I've found very useful.
Any OSR systems that use opposed roll under?
What, Eclipse Phase-esque "roll under, highest wins"?
Not that I can think of. Most OSR games have very few if any opposed checks, really.
>"roll under, highest wins"?
what if both roll above?
Depends on exactly what's going on. If two people are trying to do something, they both fail.
If one person is trying to stop another from doing something, the one trying to do something fails.
either reroll or lowest difference wins
I have no idea but you or someone else has asked enough times I'm curious too. I
haven't played/ran any megadungeon. It doesn't seem to get talked about as much as hexcrawling or dungeons of normal or one-page size. There's a lot to chose from though. Anyone have opinions?
>stonehell
>barrowmaze
>dwimmermount
>deep carbon
>maze of the blue medusa
>castle gargantua
>castle zagzy
>castle of the mad archmage? it seems big, but is it mega?
>If one person is trying to stop another from doing something, the one trying to do something fails.
I don't think this is fair, I would rule "the on closest to his score wins"
>either reroll or lowest difference wins
which one do you think is faster? Both have potential depending on players, but I think reroll would be better in general
Whitehack has something along those lines.
How is deep carbon observatory a megadungeon but your unsure if castle of the mad archmage is?
> I don't think this is fair,
The justification is "if they fail, it doesn't matter whether or not you succeed at stopping them", but whatever floats your boat.
>castle of the mad archmage? it seems big, but is it mega?
Yeah, it is. It's an attempt to recreate Castle Greyhawk based on available notes, tidbits and maps, IIRC, so should be at least 13 levels deep.
I think PX1 Psionics uses opposed roll-under for some powers.
They both fail. In some cases this is pretty much identical to just the "attacker" failing (if you fail to hit, there's no need to roll for dodging), but IIRC there's some more intricate cases as well.
It works that way because EP is a d100 system and the alternative is that you work with margins of success. And the reason it works that way is because they want someone with 60% in a skill to be better than someone with 30% in a roll-off - the first guy can roll higher than the second, while if you were just going straight roll-under then you'd need to find margins of success to figure out who rolled the lowest under their score.
I'm probably not explaining this well.
I see it as ties going in favor of the defender, feels natural.
I had a look, I didn't see anything for what I was looking for.
>I'm probably not explaining this well.
It's easier to understand if you think of it like blackjack: you have to score higher than the other guy while not going above a certain number, which is the skill rating in this case. If Characters A and B have a Interest: OSR skill at 61% and 42% respectively and are arguing about whether rocks are overpowered or not, as long as A rolls over 42 but equal to or under 61 they will win the argument, but if A blows it and B succeeds then it's B's victory.
Not either of those Anons, but
>as long as A rolls over 42 but equal to or under 61 they will win the argument,
isn't the best wording.
If they roll in that range, they're *guaranteed* to win. But they can roll below 42 and still win if Character B rolls poorly.
>I have no idea but you or someone else has asked
It's because the question is ultimately drowned out by stupid thread-to-thread topics.
You're right. My bad!
I want to buy a physical book to run tabletop RPG campaigns for people. These are my criteria:
>Ideally based on OD&D
>Well-written with clear rules
>No assumption of prior knowledge (I intend to run games for a lot of people who've never played OSR before, and for some who've never played any RPG at all)
>Good physical quality so I can use it for years to come
Off the top of my head, that's it.
>reading dragonsfoot
>"If one of MY PCs decided to dual-wield shields then I'd just kill him."
>"Dual wielding shields isn't realistic, as history shows."
>"wtf Paladins need to give any treasure they find to the group, he falls"
Dungeon World
Dungeon World isn't OSR, isn't based on OD&D, and is shit.
>isn't OSR
True
>isn't based on OD&D
Also true
>and is shit
Your mom is shit.
>"If one of MY PCs decided to dual-wield shields then I'd just kill him."
>Implying you could kill shieldwall masterrace.
>dwimmermount
Have been playing it for almost a year. The first few levels are generic and boring as fuck, but it gets better as you go down.
>deep carbon
Started running it two weeks ago. Works well, very flavorful and produces interesting situations. It's not easy to run, though: you'll have to read it two or three times just to understand what it is about, and there is a lot to keep in mind during the game, especially concerning the opposing party.
>maze of the blue medusa
I read it and plan to run it after DCO. You have to like weird and surealist stuff to enjoy it. There is a heavy emphasis on the "social" aspect of the dungeon: players will spend more time talking to people than planing fights. It looks promising.
Ah Dragonsfoot, where fun is forbidden and making any changes to the rules labels you as a bad person. I hate Dragonsfoot.
There is a hidden link on Lulu for printed OD&D, some anons might have it and share.
Sup friends. I've been curious for a while about OSR stuff so I'm rolling a character in Swords & Wizardry so I can get a feel for how it works. I have a few questions for people who are more familiar with the game than I:
1. What happens if you roll poorly enough that you don't meet the requirements for any class? I'm assuming you would just reroll.
2. Why the fuck is Thief emphasized as the optional class instead of the Cleric? The classic trio is fighting man, magic-user, thief. Not really a concrete question here, but what gives?
3. It appears that the Wizard picks up spells by finding them as loot and rolling to see if he understands them. What happens if the Wizard doesn't find any spells as loot? How do you run this as a Referee? I've heard of this idea before but I've never played in a game that didn't just handwave this away, but it sounds like more of an important concept here.
Lastly, the character I'm rolling right now has the following stats:
>STR 5
>DEX 12
>CON 13
>INT 14
>WIS 14
>CHA 11
Should I make him a Cleric or a Wizard?
>dungeon world
>for beginners to RPGs
Stop it.
Sword & Wizardry Whitebox looks like the best choice, with those criteria.
Dungeon World is fine for beginner players, but not so fine for beginner gms.
>1. What happens if you roll poorly enough that you don't meet the requirements for any class? I'm assuming you would just reroll.
Most likely, yes.
>2. Why the fuck is Thief emphasized as the optional class instead of the Cleric? The classic trio is fighting man, magic-user, thief. Not really a concrete question here, but what gives?
Historically, the thief was added after the cleric in OD&D.
>3. It appears that the Wizard picks up spells by finding them as loot and rolling to see if he understands them. What happens if the Wizard doesn't find any spells as loot?
He looks for another dungeon, hoping that it will yield better loot.
>How do you run this as a Referee? I've heard of this idea before but I've never played in a game that didn't just handwave this away, but it sounds like more of an important concept here.
You just add spell scrolls to the loot? I'm not sure I understand the issue, here.
>Should I make him a Cleric or a Wizard?
Just pick the one you to play. Stats don't matter much.
>he took the b8
wew
He was advocating a "no save Bolt from the Blue", an old Gygax trick of having a player take Xd6 damage for not following the railroad.
>The classic trio is fighting man, magic-user, thief.
You almost got me, great b8 my dude
Requests for encounters?
But it makes perfect sense, they all have their own specialized approach to problems. One of them fights things, one of them does thief stuff, the third one casts magical spells. Apparently the "original" trio was just one guy who fights and two people who cast spells, which isn't a trio at all. The name "magic-user" doesn't even make sense then, either, because there are two people who use magic, just different kinds. It's like the party from the Hobbit without Bilbo for heaven's sakes. Wasn't one of the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser duo more of a thief, too? I haven't read those books so I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure neither one was a magic-user of any sort.
Man, if that really is what's original then fuck original. Thieves are cool as shit. Fighting man magic-user thief is the CLASSIC trio, and I'll die saying it.
Thanks for the advice anyway!
The idea is that OD&D characters are all thieves, regardless of class: they are here to plunder riches and run away as fast as they can.
The concept of "you need a thief class to do thief stuff" does not realy hold any ground.
I disagree, I ran it the first time I ever GMed, and it went great.
We had enough debate about the "essential core classes" meme in the last thread, quit trying to stir shit up.
>Historically, the thief was added after the cleric in OD&D
Threadly reminder that OD&D only contained things common to both Greyhawk and Blackmoor. The reason the Thief wasn't in it is that Greyhawk thieves were mechanically different from Arneson's version in Blackmoor.
Also virtually nobody saw OD&D prior to Greyhawk's release, as the time period was short and the first print run was truly tiny.
There are solid arguments against the thief, but the argument that OD&D didn't have them sucks.
The Grey Mouser was a Wizards Apprentice. A better rogue, tho.
Thieves weren't part of the OD&D Whitebox. They were added in a supplement (Greyhawk IIRC?)
All adventures are generally assumed to be semi-competent at all adventuring activities.
Trap disarmament (etc.) was handled with the same central resolution mechanic as everything else,
describing how you plan on doing it, and letting the referee arbitrate a reasonable outcome.
Even with a thief, you were expected to do it that way (up 'til 2e, at least).
Thief abilities are basically just insurance. The chance of success is terrible, because you aren't supposed to rely on them.
And they're outright supernatural powers, to boot. You could tap dance through the halls blindfolded and still get your stealth bonus.
stonehell has the same problem as Dwimmermount, but magnified. Namely, too much verticality, and not enough means to use it in a meaningful manner.
There are a lot of floors where there are floor-factions, who might have reasons to interact, but no links up or down. There aren't enough stairs, chasms, lifts or other ways to move up and down through the dungeon. There aren't enough 'shortcut' entrances to deeper within the dungeon- you'd have to really encourage the players to just take over the upper floors of the dungeon for it to be at all bearable.
Beyond that, there are a LOT of very dull rooms. This is sort of normal for megadungeons, but it's still going to bite when you hit the 10th 'this is a room full of dusty, ruined furniture'. Encounter tables and general usability are better for stonehell than they are for dwimmermount. Dwimmermount is much more cohesive however, and has more interesting 'unsolved questions' and campaign leads.
Desert encounters?
Ethereal plane encounters?
Outer space encounters?
Elfland encounters?
not!Russia encounters?
kitchenworks of the megadungeon
Has anyone managed to get a copy of ASE #2-3?
Sorry, I honestly had no idea. I just like rogues, specifically lovable ones, as opposed to edgy ones. My first character was one, in AD&D, back in high school. Not trying to start shit, I swear.
>Apparently the "original" trio was just one guy who fights and two people who cast spells
It was originally a duo, Clerics were added near the end of development and almost certainly after Thieves.
But we *just* had this argument, go jack off to the old thread () if you're so inclined.
>What happens if you roll poorly enough that you don't meet the requirements for any class? I'm assuming you would just reroll.
I thought Fighting-Men didn't have prereqs? Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.
>I thought Fighting-Men didn't have prereqs? Maybe I'm remembering that wrong.
It says "prime attribute: Strength, 13+ (+5% experience bonus)" which is, I think, the same as what all the other classes say about their prime attributes. Maybe I was wrong in assuming it was a requirement.
What character sheets are the best for BFRPG? My group dislikes the default one, problem is there's a whole bunch on the main website I don't know which one to pick. Any suggestions?
>You could tap dance through the halls blindfolded and still get your stealth bonus.
or not, because that's fucking stupid and any reasonable DM would say so
>Have you ever had dogs or other pets in your games that people grew very attached to?
One of my players in an AD&D 1e game had a pet rat. Said player was able to find a few scrolls of "Speak with Animals" and they had a blast using the rat as a spy.
>Maybe I was wrong in assuming it was a requirement.
Yup. That's saying Fighters with at least 13 Strength earn 5% extra xp.
I suppose you don't let people roll to Open Locks against stuck doors, either.
If you aren't playing AD&D® by the book then you aren't playing AD&D®
Go away Gygax
That's what your open doors check is for.
Even worse, it's Corporate Mouthpiece Gygax, the least collectible one!
I thought that was "I'm going to Hollywood and pushing a horrible movie so thank God it never got off the ground" Gygax.
Yes, AD&D is a long dead system. Instead consider purchasing Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure™, an infinitely more balanced and polished system for discerning enthusiasts of fantasy role-playing.
No amount of fiddling with the lock is going to get that swollen wooden panel unstuck from the stone frame, user. Then again, I bet you're the kind of player who forgets to bring a crowbar, too.
Incidentally (speaking of tools), I love how you can see that the knife blade in that Roman one was really damned good steel, and the rest of the thing is basically pot metal.
>I love how you can see that the knife blade in that Roman one was really damned good steel, and the rest of the thing is basically pot metal.
You mean like every multitool?
Speaking of movies, what would be considered OSR-tier in terms of fantasy film?
>game bill itself as OSR
>uses 3.x ability modifiers and saving throws
[doubt]
Wizards.
Big Trouble in Little China has several literal dungeoncrawls.
The Thing and Alien are both about being trapped in dungeons with a killer monster.
Escape from New York has a mega-dungeon.
But which ability modifiers are the best modifiers?
Rappan Athuk?
>If you aren't playing AD&D® by the book then you aren't playing AD&D®
I'm not playing AD&D.
What should an evil sentient star be capable of doing to the populace of a planet?
Eternal day/night
Induce madness
Fuck with magic/laws of reality if you wanna.
Anyone ever play that?
...
Disintegration. Drought. Blinding brightness. Cause disease (cancer). Heat metal. Evaporate water (or induce scalding). Bleach everything.
Oh, nevermind then. But do recall that the D&D® Basic Set™ is only for women and children, who are by nature too simple-minded to grasp the mechanical superiority of AD&D®
...
OD&D
Labyrinth Lord
BFRPG
Swords & Wizardry
I would like this.
These, particularly BFRPG
Filling their day-dreams with malevolent lore and blessings of seeing what others may not. This comes with the sun's brand, glowing eyes that eventually burn through the head.
Alternatively solar flares that fuck up satellite god reception.
4e Dark Sun
How well would this work for the system/campaign I am working on?
There are races with perks, but no set classes (ala Skyrim or something). You basically flesh out your character by choosing one of 3 options when leveling: AB, Skills or Saves.
why not play gurps
Never really tried it. I have the 3rd edition corebook that I picked up at a Goodwill a few years back, but it always seemed so crunchy.
It's weird that only Hobbits have a disadvantage.
It's also weird that Hobbits can hold their breath for hours.
It's also weird that not all hit dice are the same.
And considering there's free choice of race, Humans seem really weak.
Orcs in particular shit all over everything everyone else gets.
Not sure how good mutations are, but I'm predicting:
1-2 Elves per party (scouts), and everyone else rolls an Orc.
why not shit up pf general