Little List

t. grognard

I'm not wrong

>1: How would you react to your character permanently dying?
Breakdown = New school, DGAF = Old school
>2: Are you here to roleplay and talk, or roll dice and kill stuff?
Former = NS, latter = OS
>3: Do you like trains? Railroad vs Sandbox.
F: NS, L: OS
>4: Are you ok with political intrigue? Or are you playing games to get away from politics?
Any answer: NS; I'm playing the game for dungeons & dragons and maybe late game keepbuilding and shit: OS
>5: Are you fine with grim settings and unhappy endings? Or would you rather have something more noble?
F: OS, L: NS
>6: Do you want to start at the bottom and go from there, or play a big damn hero/villan?
F: OS, L: NS
>7: What kind of pacing are you looking for? We can go fast-onward and upwards, or we can go through a slow slog.
Any answer: NS; Pacing isn't up to the DM: OS
>8: Do you want to be serious, or silly?
F: NS, L, but I prefer the term "gonzo": OS

>2.
Plenty of NS pick the latter, c 4e, etc.
>3.
2e is arguably not OS, but it's mostly railroading.
>5.
"Gritty realism" NS to the former.
OS occasional does the latter, especially if they forget to retire before high levels.
>7.
That's a good player mentality, the the DM *does* control OS pacing.
>8.
OS tends to avoid gonzo, only taking it rarely and episodically.
NS sometimes picks the latter, but over does it and starts beating dead horses.

I believe this is true of all human strife. I'm not saying it's solvable, just the truth.

>Plenty of NS pick the latter, c 4e, etc.
That's complete bullshit. Even in 4e players are very alarmed to lose their PC's, if only because it takes so long to roll up a new one. This is evidenced by the huge power buff, moving level 1 PC's from fragile tomb robbers to almost-heroes. Breakdown might be exaggerating, but normalized PC death is certainly one of the dividing lines between OS & NS

>2e is arguably not OS, but it's mostly railroading
It's not, or mostly not depending who you ask, but railroading is definitely its new school side showing.

>"Gritty realism" NS to the former.
It's the old school option not because they prefer it but because they're fine with ANY 'ending' since they don't give two shits about story, I don't even know what an "ending" is supposed to mean. New school would have an opinion because apparently they do know

>OS occasional does the latter, especially if they forget to retire before high levels.
Yea, but starting from the bottom.

DM doesn't control pacing. The group does, it'll come naturally out of their own dynamic. If they choose to waste their time either IC triggering encounters in the dungeon, or OOC getting nowhere before the session is up, so be it. And OS doesn't avoid gonzo, it's more like considered better as spice than the main dish. It's a very prevalent element in low doses in OSR modules though - Greyhawk and Blackmoor were extremely silly, no one can be OS and uncomfortable with cheese.

it's not even possible to start from the bottom in 3e+ relative to TSR D&D

>2e greatly expands the amount of XP awarded for defeating monsters
Only if you happen to be the Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger (or other Warrior-block class).

>the NWP system
You mean the one that comes from 1e? The one that is optional?

It's also worth noting that Dragonlance is five years older than 2e.

>furry=disgusting
I never understood that. Like, what's even The big difference berween a man and man with animal head?

>Even in 4e players are very alarmed to lose their PC's
Notice how question 2 is not question 1. I had conceded question 1.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(policy_debate)
>but railroading is definitely its new school side showing
We both find 2e murky but I really don't want to start nitpicking that, So I guess I'll take argument off the table.
Here's a slightly worse, but valid, argument: There are plenty of NS who *want* sandbox.
They don't tend to execute it well, but they're certainly willing to look silly trying.
>It's the old school option not because they prefer...
You've moved the goalposts just now.
If that's what you're going for you would have said it that way at first, with your "Any answer" framing from 4 and 7.
There are NS who like things gritty and NS who like things noble.
There aren't many who like both, but as written () a NS could give either answer to question 5.
>Yea, but starting from the bottom.
I'm not trying to disprove you by showing "for each", I'm trying to disprove you by showing "for any."
There *are* OS campaigns where characters reach high levels and go around doing idealist shit.
There aren't very many OS games where that happens, but it can and it does happen. Period.
>DM doesn't control pacing.
Sure they do. As written () that question is about character advancement.
In OS, that is *entirely* a matter of how much treasure the DM deliberately hands out.
Even if you meant from a "narrative" point of view, OS DMs can still steer (though not as well as NS).
>or OOC getting nowhere before the session is up
That's wildly deviating from the question as written, by neither NS nor OS has any power over that.
>And OS doesn't avoid gonzo
True, it isolates it off on an island then visits every few weeks.

Also, not really part of my arguments but:
>I don't even know what an "ending" is supposed to mean.
Quit being trite. Death or retirement, when your character finally gets to rest.

>railroading is definitely its new school side showing.
Is this 2e the system, or just modules released when 2e was the current version? Because one of those is a legit reason to eclar ethe game not OSR, and the other is not.

>That's complete bullshit. Even in 4e players are very alarmed to lose their PC's, if only because it takes so long to roll up a new one. This is evidenced by the huge power buff, moving level 1 PC's from fragile tomb robbers to almost-heroes. Breakdown might be exaggerating, but normalized PC death is certainly one of the dividing lines between OS & NS

Seeing a PC fall is a lot more common in 4e than it was in 3.5. Mostly because while it DID cut down on rocket tag, it did also make enemies a lot nastier in damage and effects. I've seen a lot of 4e PCs end up below 0 very quickly in a fight.

Hey, buddy....
Your later posts show a dearth of empathy, but you understand that people aren't stereotypes... right?
Don't get me wrong, stereotypes are a great tool. There's a reason we're predisposed to use them.
But similar people can have different opinions.
c also, >and the other is not.
Have fun running that by /osrg/

You don't need to talk to the man with an animal head because his emotive hears give all his thoughts away?

>Have fun running that by /osrg/
It's just simple logic: How can you declare a system non-OSR when (most of) the non-OSR elements are found in the modules? Does the existence of DL1-14, I6, and I10 somehow reduce the OSR-ness of AD&D?

It's not like they don't trot out a similar argument whenever somebody shits on LotFP as being edge central.

Have fun running that by /osrg/

All right then, I shall.

This list is far less "little" but it helps flesh out a character overall by adding consistent quirks and nuance choices.
its designed for shit like GURPS and tristatdx, but you can basically use it with any system
its more of a template from which to work with while you also build your backstory

>What would your Little List look like?
Without thinking too much about it, probably something like this:

1. What are your hobbies?
2. What is your most difficult subject?
3. What is your family like?
4. Who or what is most important to you?
5. What is your worst memory?
6. What are people keeping secret from you?

1. Benevolent Dictatorship or Corrupt Democracy?
2. When do you pray?
3. Who will carry on your legacy?

You mean, it's designed for 5e D&D, Chronicles of Darkness and Monsterhearts.
A lot of that sheet is written in a way intentionally designed to bring out "special" traits like mental illnesses or gender-specialness, and it assumes that the player knows and believes in several types of pseudo-psychology common on Tumblr (and don't get me started on the shoehorned-in Harry Potter parallels).
It's bad because it forces you to write your character as a much more "complex" and mentally atypical person than a lot of people actually are, and gives numerical values for too many and too specific traits that bad players will be shackled to and bad GMs will shackle the player to.
It encourages perspectivating to other characters and works instead of properly fleshing out the character, resulting in potential unwanted leaks of other settings' themes and moods into the character, and once again it has an extremely heavy focus on creating characters with "X cards" who are defined by their perceived traumas and lack of privilege.
It's a bad sheet that could have been much better if half of the questions had been left out. A sheet that size dictates characters instead of giving them a framework, resulting in demanding and stiffly unchangeable characters with little room for development or improvisation who're defined by their perceived lack of privilege and their martyr points.

1. Describe your Coat of Arms
2. Family Motto
3. Personal Motto

That should be the bare minimum for a noble.

It's just a thought experiment defending my initial joke assertion. You don't need to take it so seriously

When discussing editions in D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, etc. is used both to describe the ruleset as well as the respective period its associated with, all surrounding work, which in general can inform the intentions of the ruleset and how play was intended. 2e is (generally) considered not OSR for both reasons, its rules and everything else TSR was encouraging at the time, though many will argue the shift started with 1e's later supplements - but then, even the Thief, introduced in the very first Greyhawk supplement, carries the decidedly new school element of skills, so if your goal is to find an edition completely free of NS taint, your only option is OD&D + Chainmail, no supplements besides maybe Perrin conventions. But what you should be looking for is nothing more than mechanics that encourage OS play and spirit, however hard that is to provide a technical definition of.

>Notice how question 2 is not question 1.
My mistake. In general, it's noncontroversial to claim "roleplay" is something the new school values much higher than killing shit; it's arguable that the old school doesn't even have a concept of role-play as the OP would've intended to question to be asked, making the latter the default answer. There will always be exceptions but the questions aren't intended to define OS vs. NS, just feel out what the player is expecting and into for the campaign. And just because a game is "new school" doesn't mean it can't have old school elements; 4e's encouragement of high-level play (treating PC's as pawns etc) would be an example.

>Here's a slightly worse, but valid, argument: There are plenty of NS who *want* sandbox.
Addressed above.

continued.

>When discussing editions in D&D,
>1e
You're not Old School at all!
We call that edition "AD&D"

>If that's what you're going for you would have said it that way at first, with your "Any answer" framing from 4 and 7.
You're right, though in this case OS' answer would've been better written as "DGAF," or maybe, "WTF dude? IDGAF." That seems like the appropriate reaction to someone actually in 1975 to 5 or 10 as it comes from new school assumptions of story gaming. Any: NS, WTF?: OS

>You've moved the goalposts just now.
Nope, I adjusted my points. The goalpost is nothing other than defending >There *are* OS campaigns where characters reach high levels and go around doing idealist shit.
Yep, and it's also more common than you think, many OS campaigns start you off high level - most convention games will do this, and OSR titles like Scarlet Heroes or Exalted happily let you play as literal Gods and shit. But as noted, the new school's low boundary is the old school's midgame in normal play (most people will never play a character past level 6 in OD&D, but a level 1 fighter in WotC editions is said to be around as powerful a level 3 in D&D). So I suppose it should've been written "Any answer: OS, Former: NS."

>that question is about character advancement
Ah, I see, I saw it as referring to advancing through the narrative of a campaign. I'll concede this one as worth joining furries and horror as a discreet question.

...

>Any answer: OS, Former: NS.
Ahem,
>You could narrow that list to three questions and not lose anything
When either NS or OS can give "any answer," you lose the answer by not asking.

Nobody comes back to a dead thread in the morning to spend 4000 words continuing a debate with a lone user as bait

You're right. A slight shift in the phrasing of the question without eliminating its content could remedy this (and allow its content to be safely eliminated) - e.g. 5: Are you fine with grim settings and unhappy endings? Or do you not care? - but now that would be moving the goalposts.

Just throwing some ideas here:

1) You need to leave your house in one minute to catch the train/carriage and can only get one item with you. What is it?
2) What does your average lunch look like?
3) How do you spend your downtime?
4) On what situation would you commit a crime?
5) What's your favorite animal?

I guess these are more character-centric though and less defining of the campaign.

AD&D has a 1e but that 1e is not itself "D&D 1e" as both editions of AD&D together basically form what could more accurate be described 1.5e/2e respectively - you gotta start talking about the badly written "chromatic books" that preceded both BD&D and AD&D if you wanna be talking about actual 1e D&D.

If you were OS, they'd be "AD&D" and "2e"

My GM asks the group a question at the start first 7 sessions or so to help flesh out the characters.

It helps quite a bit to get into the feel of things.

"What's your favourite meal?"
"If in trouble, who would you seek help from?"
"Your character's been accused of a crime. What does he do?"
"What's your character's earliest memory?"
Things like this.

2e is AD&D 2e, there's OD&D before both BD&D and AD&D 1e, but then there's XMLD&D and the various other numberwangD&Ds plus the Blue Book/Red Book/Green Book divisions.

You pleb.

>potentially good thread
>edition war autism

Isn't that pretty much Veeky Forums's banner?

Not sure why you linked me, you seem to be trying to argue with Here's the definitive list of OSR D&D editions:

>OD&D
LBB (3 Little Brown Books + CHAINMAIL)
OD&D (LBB + supplementary material)
Holmes Basic

>Basic Line
Moldvay Basic
B/X
Mentzer Basic
BECMI
Rules Cyclopedia

>Advanced Line
AD&D

and every other D&D is NS.
NS gets the numberwang treatment.

It's not that anyone has a problem with anthropomorphism, they have a problem with furries, and if you allow any anthropomorphism, they'll sniff you out like rats and bring with them all the heretical pestilence they make bed in.

top tier here

>1. Benevolent Dictatorship
>2. When facing death
>3. My killer

This is a nice thread.

sith get out

It's literally not though.

D&D fanboys shit up yet another thread by making everything about them.

I really like this idea. Games can be awkward before characters are 100% fleshed out. I guess questions would really depend on the setting.

>but now that would be moving the goalposts.
No, that would be conceding a point.

My goal in this argument is to persuade you. Not to say, "I can't make these generalization" but to say "I can't make most of these generalizations."
Several of the questions, and especially the first question, can be folded into "New School or Old School?" If they answer OS, you can even cut a few follow up questions.
But those questions are there for a reason, and you lose something by doing away with 7 of them. At the point that you admitted that, I won the argument.

Here, let me contribute to the thread: Boom,
>What circumstances surrounded your learning (of class, skills, etc.)?
>Have you ever had a friend with experience robbing tombs?
>Is there anyone relying on you?
>If you were a hireling being paid on dubious credit, what's the least you would accept?
>If you were drafted for the militia, would you run away? Why or why not?
content. Now please look the other way.

FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE NO LIST BUT I WILL BE STEALING Y'ALLS LISTS JUST FYI.

actually, lots of game manuals have some variation of this concept that just gets glossed over. but this is a good thread for bringing this point up to talk about...

>I'm actually having a hard time thinking of a problem that doesn't ultimately stem from poor communication.
I say that while looking at ALL OF THE MEDIA.
anime, TV shows, books, etc.
IF PEOPLE WOULD JUST TALK ABOUT SHIT IT WOULDN'T BE SO SHITTY.

>SPOILER
Fetishists UNITE!
...someplace other than the gaming table

unless you have a broad spectrum of kinks and play with vanillas that know that.
"my rogue ties up the prisoners so they cannot escape"
>THE GAMING TABLE IS NOT FOR INDULGING YOUR FETISHES BRO

...not sure if troll...

I don't condone the "radical honesty" movement, but even then. telling too much truth bugs people(and is funny as shit if you have a sarcastic dude in the group to contrast with)

the most vocal minority of furries are creepy and weird enough to be off-putting, even for other hardcore fetishes...
that tiny group poisoned the public opinion, for the rest of furies...

eh, the autism keeps the concept on Veeky Forums and in the thoughts of those watching it.

it seems pretty good.

It's not a bad start, there's just a lot that different people would cross off. It's useful in the sense that there's a lot of ideas that are getting explored, but it would be downright silly to even include a quarter of that sheet, let alone half.

>"X cards"

I see a lot of complaining about this recently and i honestly have to wonder what people are so worried about getting carded over.

They're afraid of being exposed for having no common decency

bumping for interest

1) What is best in life?

getting a good dicking?

I was anticipating something a little different, but that *does* give relevant information about your character.

Fair enough

>and you lose something by doing away with 7 of them.
You lose detail in general, but what if we assume the player is officially OS? Which questions are still relevant? Not 1, 2, 3, or 5. They range from obvious answers to bewilderment at the question.

4, 6, 7 and 8 are relevant + aforementioned 9 & 10. (4) Do you want to start name level or no? (6) Do you want an exalted style game or standard? (7) Do you prefer faster pace, or slower? (8) Gonzo or no?

Assuming NS? They seem to all remain relevant given that NS allows for more variation (some players might prefer railroads but also dislike role-play; some players might hate PC death but be happy with a sandbox). I suppose then the conclusion is that the questions are designed with NS in mind and would in that case illuminate player deviation from NS standard (1, 2, 3, 8) as well as nonstandard questions of taste (4, 5, 6).

The only route to efficiency is beginning with a question of "OS/NS?" and given the former answer, only provide omit 1, 2, 3 & 5; given the latter, provide all 10. Given my new concessions, do you disagree that nothing is lost?

Feel free to substitute with "giving a good dicking". I feel like those two responses probably cover most characters, right? Deep down everyone only wants to be loved.

Yeah, I suppose. Although, that it was part of your answer may suggest the character wants love more than Wealth, Knowledge or Power or Crushing Enemies.

>Given my new concessions, do you disagree that nothing is lost?
Still a bit iffy on question 5, but only a bit. That's an agreeable question setup.

This is true. I guess it is a very revealing question. Good one.

Imo, 5 is applicable to OS only if it's adjusted/assumed to describe setting and not any kind of narrative. An 'unhappy' ending is a failure of the party (or sometimes the DM), but not a decision made by the DM; the question of setting is of course up to the DM and also subject to questions of taste.

>What do you like to do in your free time?
>What dou you plan to do after adventuring?
>Your favourite book/song/food/drink
>One advice you would give to your kid.

1: Where do you wanna hang out after work?
2: What do you listen to before you're about to go do something important?
3: when it snows do you wanna build a snowman, go for a walk with the fresh snow underfoot or stay inside and watch it snow outside?
4: It's halloween; sexy outfit, funny outfit or well made monster outfit?
5: Which do you prefer; The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings or Conan the barbarian?
6: A friend of yours has fallen asleep on your couch after a party, do you shave their eyebrows, draw a dick on their face or rape them?
7: Your friend has died and left you his farm and all his farm animals to take care of, do you sell the animals for meat, become a farmer or rape them?
8: When you want to be scare do you go on a rollercoaster, watch a horror movie or visit an abandoned hospital at night?
9: You wake up groggily on your friends couch to find him trying to rape you, do you pretend you're still asleep and let him finish, kick and punch and fight him off or start humming the sesame street theme song in the hopes that weirds him out and makes him stop?
10: You are a horse and wake up in your paddock to find a small stranger trying to fuck you in your horse anus with his smol dick, do you ignore this and eat some hay, shake him off and demand some sugar cubes, or kick him through the wall and escape into the wild?

Obviosly the most importamt question/s

- Tits or Ass (or both?)
- Bacon or no Bacon (No means you don't play with me)

But considering OPs question:
- Omnivore or Vegetraian?
- Alcohol or no alcohol?
- Marriage yes/no?
- like reading books?

>What advice would you give to past you?

I have absolutely no idea what kind of games you play.

>he doesn't even Catan

This should be standard for all Veeky Forums games. Fuck this list is good. Make a couple changes yes depending on specific game and target players and you're in business.

bacontards are the worst

tfw you like bacon but don't get why it's become a meme food

>Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again.
The fuck is this shit?

It makes me sad, because I think this was the image that made me suddenly aware that there's a good chance people didn't really like bacon as much as they said they did.

People lying on the internet is old news, but people lying about things like how much they like bacon?