/osr/ - Old School Renaissance

Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General!

>Sweet Sweet Trove:
pastebin.com/QWyBuJxd
>Not Paper Tools:
pastebin.com/KKeE3etp
>Talking Heads:
pastebin.com/ZwUBVq8L

>Previous Thread:
What are some obscure OSR games you've played?

Other urls found in this thread:

enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles
files.meetup.com/1571284/A Quick Primer to Old Skool Gaming.pdf
dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1874051#p1874051
melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html
rte.ie/news/munster/2017/0914/904841-walkers-rescued-rhododendron/
melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.ca/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html
coinsandscrolls.blogspot.ca/2017/09/osr-medieval-price-list.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>No I didn't,
You clearly did. He just cast a magic spell, which seems to be a Magic-User spell. Meaning you found a way to cross that over, right? I mean, surely you didn't just write down "super powerful not!MarySue dwarf mage" on the sheet and have rules for what happens if we talk him into coming with us. So why can't I use those same rules.
>If he were, he'd be pushing the limits of a dwarf's natural lifespan and far too old to take up the path of a warrior.
That's fine, I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie.
>You've been talking about a hypothetical bad DM that doesn't let you use race-and-class for an hour
Incorrect. I'm talking about the shitty DM that uses Race as Class (which I've stated multiple times is perfectly fine) who suddenly uses Race AND Class for an NPC with no justification for it. This is inherently bad DMing, bad game design, and all around just being a shitty person to be frank, for the multitude of reasons I've listed.
>There are no elven clerics and no elves can use the cleric spell list
Absolutely fine and dandy so long as I don't see an Elf cast bless, we're gold.
>dwarf mages have no actual magic-user class levels
Not fine. If there are dwarf mages, I should be able to play a dwarf that has those capabilities so long as dwarf is an option.

>He cannot go there as a PC, because there is no PC Dwarf Mage since Dwarf Mage is not a character class a PC can select.
So classic "That Guy" response of "muh spechul NPC class only" which is the shitty thing to do that I've been arguing about the whole time?

Well, when Billy at your table comes to a local That Guy thread to talk about how his DM put in his shitty DMPC that could learn magic when the DM was using rules that said they couldn't learn magic, well I'll just have no real sympathy for you when he tells us your table fell apart.

>game has descending AC

>shitty DMPC that could learn magic when the DM was using rules that said they couldn't learn magic
NPC != DMPC, user, how many times does it need to be said?
A duke has a souped up Fighter class feature as a part of being a 0th-level NPC, a learned sage can identify magic items without casting Detect Magic, a human witch is a 3d8 HD NPC who can cast spells X, Y, Z each once per day as a 1st level Magic-User, a sorcerer is a 5th level Magic-User who is built like a PC, a dwarven loremaster is a 4d10 HD NPC who can identify magic items and cast spell X once per day as a 2nd level Magic-User and keeps a spellbook full of strange signs in a drawer. PC can be like a sorcerer, but they cannot be like a duke, or a learned sage, or a witch, or a loremaster - those are all NPC character types.

I'd much rather not bring it to the new thread.

Oh my fucking god. Autistic people are telling you that you need to relax.

Look, deities exist in most settings, but that doesn't mean that that you play can make your PC a god. Dragons and trolls also exist, and again, you can't necessarily play them as PCs. Do you think that the sum totality of what any of the player races can do is properly represented by the 7 classes in B/X? That's ridiculous. Why can't you play a dwarf magic-user? Maybe if you talk to the DM, he'll let you. But maybe not. The scope of the game is necessarily limited. There are many more things than are represented in the rule books. There can be more spells out there that aren't freely available to PCs, at least as a base-level thing. Stop being a spazz.

>That's fine, I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie.
Okay, but they don't get any spells until they reach level 2, and that takes 900,000 XP.

>NPC != DMPC, user, how many times does it need to be said?
It's not a matter of what's being said, it's a matter of how it's coming off. You present the players with rules, then you throw out a character that breaks those rules. And when questioned, you then try to railroad and force character motivations unjustly to prevent them from just wanting the game to be fair, which is damaging to your player-DM trust relationship, until when you've cornered and trapped yourself, you finally just say "Rule 0 fuck you"?

For what? You've done all of these negative things for what exactly? So you could throw out a shitty gimmick of an idea without thinking about how it affects your game world, ruling, the tables trust in you as DM, or your narrative? Sorry, but this is a textbook case of That Guy DM, and like I said, when your table falls apart because your answers to rational questions are "fuck you get back on the railroad", I'll have no sympathy for your side of the case when reading about it in the local green text thread.

>Do you think that the sum totality of what any of the player races can do is properly represented by the 7 classes in B/X?
Well, frankly, yes. Why shouldn't they be? A Magic-User represents everything that a spell-caster can be, a fighter represents everything a fighter should be, why should Dwarfs suddenly and magically be immune to this? The Dwarf class is loaded with things that are specific to dwarfs, such as infravision, ability to detect slopes and recent stone construction, and are representative of the race. If they can physically, within your universe, learn magic, then if you allow a PC to play a dwarf, they should be able to learn magic. This is really basic stuff mate.

>Why can't you play a dwarf magic-user?[...]
You're getting off track here. Again, as I've stated before, I am absolutely NOT above limiting my players from certain things, and never have been. What I AM above is limiting my players in a way that is unfair to them, which damages our player-DM trust relationship for little benefit.

>Okay, but they don't get any spells until they reach level 2, and that takes 900,000 XP.
I mean, if you think your players can't detect when you're being an asshole to them, you'll be surely shocked when all of them "suddenly" have schedule changes and can't make it.

My players can detect when I'm being an asshole to them but can you detect when you're sounding like a total dip?

Have you guys ever run a Diablo-esque game where the PCs venture through a literal hell? How did it go?

If "being someone who is trying to demonstrate your flaws and why they're wrong so you can fix them" is a dip to you, I'll gladly be your dip forever, user. I will not rest until you die or see the light of reason.

I get where you're coming from, and I don't usually like to restrict player freedom with a reason to do so either, but honestly, the basic tenets of the game are that you will play a character in the world that I as DM am creating for us.

If that means you can't play a dwarf mage because they don't exist in the world, then that's the rules. If that means that you can't play a lawful good character because "GOOD" isn't a thing in my world, then that's the rule. If that means you can't play a character who is from another planet, even though other planets exist in the game, then that's the rule. If that means you can't play an orc, even if orcs aren't actually evil or stupid in my setting, then that's the rule.

You're drawing a distinction between world building and framing for and saying, "The DM is allowed to make rules about what exists in his world, but not about what characters players can make within it." but that's not actually a good way of running a game.

If I want to run a game made of only of foreigners who crashed in a lost archipelago then it's ok to say that all the characters need to have been sailors together. That doesn't mean they will never meet any NPCs who aren't sailors, it just means that the DM has put a restriction in play on what the Player Characters can be.

That's totally fine, but pretending that limiting the PC's in any way other than through the world logic is awful isn't gonna accomplish much. After all, I doubt you're gonna let my PC's start as emperors, dragons or gods, but all those things may exist in your setting and may even be achievable for NPCs whether or not you actually want them to be achievable for the PCs.

>You're drawing a distinction between world building and framing for and saying, "The DM is allowed to make rules about what exists in his world, but not about what characters players can make within it." but that's not actually a good way of running a game.
No, that's not what I'm saying.

Here, let me frame this in a completely different way to help dispell some confusion.

If you as DM said that we were not allowed to pick the dwarf class, that NO player whatsoever could be a dwarf, and THEN you threw out a dwarf mage, I literally would not even think of starting an argument about this and I would even think that would be clever and a good reason why you barred the dwarf class to begin with.

The problem is this: If you as DM present to me an option, then I as player should have the full functionality of that option. That is good game design 101. There should never be a time when you present me an option and then deny me functionality of that option which is available to others, or even worse, give others special privileges of that option without an inherent reason why it's physically impossible to access that privilege.

To paint another example, one of the consistent complaints people have with video game design is when an NPC has infinite items/MP/bullets/resources as an NPC, but then if they ever become a PC, they lose those resources or even extra power. It doesn't make sense, it's not fair to the players and drastically limits their potential strategies and tactics, and ultimately is a sour note in whatever game its in and seen as a hallmark of lazy game design. I know people who refuse to play JRPGs specifically for this reason, and I know a reason why people play Tabletop RPGs is because this type of double-standard shit doesn't happen except with bad DMs.

I'm pretty sure that what you're basically getting at is that one of the core tenets of the OSR is to dispense with rules for the sake of rules and to have the players play the situation and/or world rather than play the rules of the game, is that correct?

So I assume you're saying that the main problem with restricting players in that way is that it becomes an arbitrary rules distinction that is different in kind from "You can't start a player who is an emperor" because you are saying, "through play you can't ever try out something that should logically be available to you."

However, in practice, I think you'll find both that those arbitrary distinctions are made all the time in the assumptions of the game, and that players are usually less upset about them then DM's.
For example, there is absolutely no logical reason you shouldn't be able to start learning some amount of magic as a fighter, but DM's tend to disallow it either outright or with a justification or "Blah blah, too much study and focus blah blah."

You are correct in pointing out that where this starts to break down is when players start seeing other people in the world doing that thing after they've been given a pretext. The thing of it though is that you are comparing different DM's.

Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing" and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic, but other DM's might say "Only the elder councils of dwarves can use magic through both law and most ancient custom, so if you're playing a dwarf you can't use magic, although there may still be dwarven renegades out there who do."

I don't think its an issue even to say, "as a DM I am saying with DM fiat that this game is not about business management so you are not allowed to invest money into business." Even though I would never do it.

I think that as long as the DM is upfront with players, it's not really an issue.

Oh, so you are up

Guys, listen me up
How the FUCK I'm supposed to run oldschool game that doesn't feel like waste of time for my players and me myself

To elaborate. We spend last year or so doing collectively reading, talking and what not, to prepare our asses for the past summer break to run "old school". But the conclusion after most of July and entire August was simple: either we suck at running/playing this, we are doing something terribly wrong (and everyone, not just one person in a group) or this is simply not for us

My players end up bored to tears in games, mostly because everyone is aware we are basically wasting time on a boring dungeon crawls, instead of roleplaying anything at all. Instead the game feels like group use of a 3-yard stick
Then comes the lethality of traps. If there are traps, people just keep dying in an almost absurd pace, despite taking precautions and being really careful, while traps themselves aren't anything special. If there are no/only one trap in entire dungeon, the game still crawls into a stand-still, because everyone is paranoid to the point of inaction
And after dealing with dungeon crawl as such and then traps, with the n-th group of characters finally going through first 2 rooms and single short corridor...
... they die in combat, despite enemies being literal rats most of the time

What the FUCK we are doing wrong? Everyone is still eager to try oldschool, but it feels like increasing waste of time. I mean we spent entire summer break on NOT playing games we could have, because we were trying to figure out why it just doesn't work for us. We tried playing Tunnels & Trolls, 0D&D and Metamorphosis Alpha. Neither of them worked out for us

And do add something that probably should be mentioned earlier - we have absolutely zero problems with narrative games or role-playing as such. And yet oldschool feels dull.

Ironically, when I picked a scenario we had as oldschool and run it "newschool", everyone was engaged

>I'm pretty sure that what you're basically getting at is that one of the core tenets of the OSR is to dispense with rules for the sake of rules and to have the players play the situation and/or world rather than play the rules of the game, is that correct?
No, actually. While a core tenet of OSR play is "rulings before rules", and of course I agree with this, you still have to set down rules and adhere to them in a fair manner and be consistent about them. That's very basic good DMing 101.

>For example, there is absolutely no logical reason you shouldn't be able to start learning some amount of magic as a fighter, but DM's tend to disallow it either outright or with a justification or "Blah blah, too much study and focus blah blah."
Also not what I'm stating. Again, Dwarf as class is fine. I have no problem when you run a game and say "this person is a magic-user and these are their skills" because your world is consistent with the rules and narrative you have set up for your world. The problem comes in when you break these rules you have laid down for your own sake without consideration of what it means to the players, your narrative, or the player-DM trust relationship involved with consistent rulings as DM.

The problem is NOT "I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages", the problem IS "I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages...and then included a dwarf mage". Again, it's setting up rules of how the world and it's characters function, and then being inconsistent about it.

>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing"[...]
See, I find this argument to not hold up to scrutiny either. Because you're essentially making contrived rulings just to keep up the rules of the game on their face value. There's no reason why one of those dwarves that DO know magic can't just go out on adventure. Laws and tradition are the LEAST likely suspects to stop someone from doing what they want.

cont

There's a lot of advice I could give you, but honestly, I think the best I'm gonna do here is stop playing OSR games if you don't like them.

Why are you and your p[layers so eager to try old school? What aspects of it appeal to you? A major part of old school play is the creativeness and roleplaying that comes along with having fewer rules. have you made sure to roll monster reactions rolls and morale for enemies whenever they're encountered?


Are you running prepared modules? Have you been making your own adventures? It sounds like you as a DM may not have a knack for dungeon descriptions and making dungeon play dynamic, but If you don't like dungeon crawls, then you can still use the OSR rules to play games outside of dungeons (especially OD&D.) Have you tried anything else?

As for traps, you mentioned playing OD&D for example. The way traps work in OD&D is entirely descriptive. How did that go?

What aspects of the game ran better when you played old school dungeons as newschool? Was it more interesting because there were more rules and crunch for the players to interact with? If so I suspect one of two things happened:
1. You removed aspects of the game (crunch) without adding anything else back in to make up for it. This led to a static boring game of, "We move to the next room. There's a poison dart in the door, save vs poison or die." instead of fun dynamic situations governed by the DM like negotiating with monsters for passage etc.
Typically DM's create interesting situations to replace the interesting rules of newschool play.
2. You're players prefer crunchy games or games with tangible game mechanics, in which case, don't play OSR games.

cont

>I don't think its an issue even to say, "as a DM I am saying with DM fiat that this game is not about business management so you are not allowed to invest money into business." Even though I would never do it.
I actually completely agree with this, and in regards to this statement and this one
>I think that as long as the DM is upfront with players, it's not really an issue.
I also think that's mostly fine. The first one is the DM setting the tone, and I don't think that's nonequivalent to, say, setting up the genre of the world. "This is the tone of the adventure and this is where we're going" is fine and I myself use that.

In regards to what I would think of a DM who said "Look, guys, you can pick this Dwarf as a class and they can't learn magic, but there ARE magic-using dwarfs in this world, they're not available for play", well, frankly, I still think that would be a strange move and one that is born of bad game design, HOWEVER, I would find far, far less fault in this DM because at the very least he is self-aware that this isn't good game design and is giving players a heads up. I actually would applaud this DM, even though I would probably subtly recommend him after session to switch to OSRIC or AD&D.

>What the FUCK we are doing wrong? Everyone is still eager to try oldschool, but it feels like increasing waste of time[...]
>Ironically, when I picked a scenario we had as oldschool and run it "newschool", everyone was engaged
>... they die in combat, despite enemies being literal rats most of the time
I think the problem here is you and your friends are still somewhat bound by the rules and traditions of modern games and have yet to "free" yourselves. I'm gonna close this post and then tell you of a story I had of some recent beginners I had to a game of mine.

Traps are, for the most part, bullshit. I tend not to put many, and when I do, I either give pretty decent hints in my room / corridor description, or I give folks a passive sixth-sense check to discern that there's probably a trap somewhere in the area, because it just makes sense (but then they have to search for it the old fashioned way, by poking and prodding and asking questions).

>mostly because everyone is aware we are basically wasting time on a boring dungeon crawls, instead of roleplaying anything at all.
I've been gaming since the early '80s, and I've never, ever excluded role-play elements. The only difference with dungeon crawls is that the focus of everything is, you know, dungeon crawling, and that includes role-playing. So, if somebody has a cool idea about becoming an investment banker, they put that aside and don't do that. But we absolutely role-play in the dungeon, even if shit is a bit more business-like than later-style role-gaming, and characters tend to be a little closer to the players' personalities because it's more player-vs-dungeon and less "that's not what my character would do", because the latter will get you killed.

Aside from the issue with traps, what seems to be gumming up your games?

So my players were playing in morgansfort. One was a modern gamer, the other was someone completely new to TRPGs in general, and they had NO experience in OSR whatsoever. They had been attempting to get through this dungeon and were having the same problems your team were. Their PCs were dying at an alarming rate, they were failing to every trap, and were being susceptible to paranoia.

At one point, they got into a fight with some carrion crawler babies, and wound up successfully killing them. However, their large bodies were blocking the west corridor which was the path a pack of wolves used to go in and out of this dungeon to hunt for food. They left for the week to resupply and heal. However, when I looked over this and noticed the blockade, I wondered what happened to the wolves.

Well, I decided that the wolves had a nice new supply of food right there, and fuck it. If they can't make it home, they'll just HAVE a new home and took camp right there in the middle of the entrance. Which was trouble to some goblins outside who were also out hunting for their tribe that took up residence in the dungeon.

So after the party hears the details of this travesty from the group of goblins, they ask the goblins to bring back some fresh hunted rabbit, and then started sprinkling oil all over the ground right outside of the entrance. Once they got the rabbit, they smeared the blood of the rabbit by the stair case, tossed it in the center of their oil spill, then they hid with lit molotovs nearby. When all 6 of the pack of wolves came out to inspect the rabbit for a meal, they tossed the molotovs and lit up all 6 of them and did massive damage, killing 4 of them and putting 2 of them so near death that they couldn't fight back and had to be put down.

Mind you, this was just two level-1 PCs, and they managed to take out 6 wolves with 2HD each, because they thought of a tactic, and it worked out pretty fucking well.

What I've noticed in general in my group is panic-inducted inaction every time they are in danger.
And the less rules and more things are descriptive, the easier it is to get in harms way, as you can't exactly make a roll for something that doesn't have mechanics. And this grinds them to a halt.
What's funny that if we are playing purely narrative games, with no rolls whatsoever, there are zero issues like that, because they know EVERYTHING is descriptive.

Creativity and roleplaying aren't an issue, really. It's more of reverse. When we tried old modules, we quickly concluded they are railroady as fuck and ended up first using their premise and then dropping them entirely.

And neither of described situations happend. My players absolutely hate crunchfest, and that's how oldschool feels most of the time for us - everything is governed by stacked odds and random rolls for EVERYTHING.

And why we want to play them? Honestly, I don't really know, everyone was selling us OSR as a way to get into "more narrative". It's less. And there is zero fun in dying on random. I feel bad about killing my players every five steps and it generally feels BORING when they have to make new characters time and again, often few times in a row. Lethality is fun, when it's not entirely random.

And my biggest grief as GM is how so many helpbooks for OS games are about what OS games are, but not how to run one without it turning into proding everything with a stick from a safe distance.

I've got 12 years of GMing and can't handle this. My players, not counting single new guy, are all in similar range of experience. We were even taking turns in who is going to GM another scenario and it also didn't work out in any sensible fashion.

>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing"[...]
>See, I find this argument to not hold up to scrutiny either. Because you're essentially making contrived rulings just to keep up the rules of the game on their face value. There's no reason why one of those dwarves that DO know magic can't just go out on adventure. Laws and tradition are the LEAST likely suspects to stop someone from doing what they want.
I think you [...]ed over the relevant part of that sentence.
>Some DM's will say, "Dwarven magic just isn't a thing" and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic.

I actually think we are pretty much in agreement at this point, the main thing is just that I don't think there are that many DMs out there doing this
>"I can't have a dwarf mage after the DM said no dwarf mages...and then included a dwarf mage"
without either being upfront with the players about it being a game boundary or having some kind of mitigating factors going on in their game world that make sense internally and are probably unique circumstances.
And I strongly suspect the vast majority of DMs who use race-as-class aren't doing it at all, but are doing "No dwarven magic-users. None for players, none for NPCs, they just don't exist."

I really hate "no damage on a missed attack roll." It's really boring to whiff round after round. Thinking combatants engaged in melee should inflict half damage on a miss. BE CAREFUL FIGHTERS.

Second game of Caverns of Thracia is finished. Lessons learned:

* Combat is really boring. Do everything in your power to escape the "I attack with my sword"-slog. Make sure that the enemies are intelligent. They should attack with overwhelming force if they are favored and retreats if unfavored.

*The PC:s are really strong. 10 Stirges are nothing. 5 cultists are nothing. Once again, make the enemies smarter and meaner. Tuckers kobolds.

*Read the rooms beforehand. There's a difference between 2 lvl4 fighter and 4 lvl2 fighters.

*Don't tell the players what their characters do, especially if it is a really obvious thing. Let them figure it out for themselves. The feel smart and stay in control.

*Short-rest healing is too effective. I should change it up to two random encounter rolls per short rest.

*4 players is a lot. It's a lot easier to play with three or two players. And I think I enjoy it more. Player get more room to strategize without taking up too much space. Maybe I should scale down my games? Anyone have experience with non-standard party sizes?

The reason I told you this story is because this was probably the key moment for them in realizing what they had been doing wrong before. They had been running head first into combat to just hack-n-slash without thinking, treating this like a video game when it's the furthest thing possible. Once they figured out that "impossible" things game-wise were easily doable with quick thinking and use of their skills, it started to change the way they played.

Encourage this mentality. Let them just DO shit and think up ways to solve puzzles. Fuck, let them have a NPC follower who can teach them how to find traps. Just get them to start actively trying to engage in finding solutions to situations.

Oh, auto-update
Yeah, you definitely have a problem where you are trying to make more rules and focus on the crunch aspect instead of just going with what sounds logical. Tell you what, here's what you do next time you try OSR.

Lock up your books. All of them. You can have the map of the dungeon of course, and you can read the books before or after the session, but all your rule books go into a cupboard and get locked until everyone leaves once a session starts.

When someone tries to do something, YOU come up with how they resolve it. Protip: Avoid reaching for the dice. Forget a rule? Nobody else knows it? Okay, make up the new rule. That's the rule now, just go with it.

Doesn't Into The Odd have a nice take on this were you always hit and only have to roll damage? Might be Maze Rats. Worth checking out.

I also find that combat has to many misses. Anyone here that runs LotFP? How do you handle AC12, it must make things even worse?

Sorry, I just realized you were responding to the second half of the sentence. My bad.

I mean, in my game world, all dwarves the characters can make respect this taboo. There may be crazed evil chaos cultists dwarves who have traveled into the lowlands and become corrupted who don't, but any PC dwarf will start from with having just come down from the mountains. I think that's a fine example of a way to do things, but honestly, in my game dwarven magic-user are called gnomes, are born that way, are super rare and are one of a couple consolation classes that I have for players who roll shitty characters (along with goblins. There are no halfings.)

>4 players is a lot. It's a lot easier to play with three or two players. And I think I enjoy it more. Player get more room to strategize without taking up too much space. Maybe I should scale down my games? Anyone have experience with non-standard party sizes?
Have you tried using a caller? You know, single person in the party collects the decisions from all players, sum them up to DM and DM reacts?
Sounds like a hassle, but really speed things up and keeps everyone really engaged.

>and then those DM's aren't likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic.
You are absolutely right, I actually read that "are" likely to use NPC dwarves that have magic, which I ignored for your benefit. But the mistake was on my end. I apologize.

>And I strongly suspect the vast majority of DMs who use race-as-class aren't doing it at all, but are doing "No dwarven magic-users. None for players, none for NPCs, they just don't exist."
You're right, but the whole argument came up because someone said they were going to and people were trying to justify it, so I had to inform them "no, I believe this is a bad idea that will reflect on your poorly".

But yes, I think we are in agreement at this point. It was a pleasure.

>Sorry, I just realized you were responding to the second half of the sentence. My bad.
Nah, it's fine. We both made mistakes.

Traps are great! If done well. I had a lot of fun playing Tomb of the Serpent King. (Yes, my palyers enjoyed it too) It has a lot of traps and does them right. You just have to be nice with them. Tell the players "You notice that the floor looks kind of weird here" when they approach the 5d6 no-save lightingbolt-from-hell. They will have fun with it, and they might even manage to die regardles of your warning.

But it's not about any of this at all. The issue comes from
>"Here is a table for random encounter, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for random effect, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for random loot, roll for it"
>"Here is a table for next tile on the map, roll for it"
It's annoying at best, disruptive at worst.

Considering how there are barely any rules, it's hard to forget them. But there is a lot of "random" elements and most of them can derail any sort of game into boring "oh look, you yet again ended up marooned in shallow river", which happend to me when running a river expedition quasi-module. Literally 1/3 of the game was spend on the boat constantly getting stuck in sand.

A Caller sounds like a good idea. I will try it next game. Do you rotate callers? How often? I figure I would go with 1 hour per player, anyone have experience with that rate?

See, I like the Old Skool Gaming take on this. Don't just let your hits be hit or miss. If the players roll low, throw their weapon out of their hand. Have them knock the enemy flat on their ass after a 17 on their dice roll. Toss the furniture around. Have the orc take a stool and chuck it at the PC to give the PC a negative modifier on their attack roll. Let the PC do a shove if they roll high. Give them a modifier for standing behind the couch as they attack. Do SOMETHING. I mean, I know most fights take place in caves, but still have them do SOMETHING. Shove them against the wall. Wrestle them to the ground and shove their face into water. Get fucking dirty about it.

And there is also lethality in sense of randomly dying. No matter how hard players plan around - and the more, the bigger annoyance in the end - single roll and entire party is dead.
Dying can be fun, if it's, say, Paranoia. But we aren't playing Paranoia.

You don't have to change caller duing single game, but what's important is to make sure that the "natural leader" of your players is the last one to be a caller. This way players won't just consider him or her being a caller "for life".
I make breaks to fresh out during my games and when certain player is in my group - for smoking. After each break, new person is the caller.

>>"Here is a table for random encounter, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for random effect, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for random loot, roll for it"
>>"Here is a table for next tile on the map, roll for it"
What the fuck? What game are you playing?

Look, if that's a problem, why don't you just roll up all that shit in advance? What I do with my random encounters even. I roll them up ahead of time, and make a singular list to go down. When a wandering encounter happens, I go to the next item on the list.

But I NEVER roll for loot or map spaces while in the middle of the game. That's just bad prep work.

Dying should be teaching them a lesson. Sometimes they get fucked, and that's just the natural dangers of the job which should be keeping them tense. If they're dying too often, either they aren't learning how to avoid danger, you're being too aggressive with creatures, or you're players are frankly, well, dumb.

I mean, lets not mince words here. If your players just simply don't think of how to improve or where they went wrong, or even how to engage each situation safely and quickly, then there's not much else to it. You might just have dumb players. And frankly, if you find a solution for that, tell me, because oooh boy have I run into those.

Thanks for the tip! A Caller is a really good idea, I can't believe I couldn't figure it out on my own. We take breaks every hour, so we'll switch each break (or maybe each second break). Thanks again!

Why are you so passive-aggressive?

The players are fine. The randomisation of everything isn't. The Killer DM mindset annoys me, and yet ALL oldschool games put it front and clear as how it "should be done".

Guess I'll be better just convcincing my players we are wasting time.

Lol nigga what the fuck? I just gave you a LIST of ideas and you're just like "eeewww, you're being mean and 'passive-aggressive', I hate you guys and I'm going to run away"? I JUST gave you solutions to the randomization and killer DM mindset. If you aren't open to suggestions, then nigga get the fuck outta here.

Given that they've been playing together for years, I think it's more likely that they're all playing strangely or something as he suspects, rather than that his players are DUMB AS FUCK.

Honestly, you're players characters should be dying occasionally, but not all of them every game. That's indicative of something going wrong with your game.

I actually do think that this guy is making a good point though. It's important to distinguish between random aspects meant to be used in play and random aspects that are there to spur DM creativity and meant to be used before the game and modified at your leisure.


Have you read this before?
enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

And I know some people around here don't like it, but I suspect you may be the exact kind of players that it was written for, try checking out Matt Finch's OSR primer.
files.meetup.com/1571284/A Quick Primer to Old Skool Gaming.pdf

Not him, but calling players you never met and routinely described as well-handling heavy narrative "dump" is fucking rude, man.
And since that user clearly came here to find validation to drop old-school, you've just provided him with all he ever needed. Congrats, you wanker.

Fucking autocorrect. Dumb, obviously

How about constantly putting the blame on unfit players or bad GMing, but in the same time not providing any REAL solutions, just "maybe ya guyz too stupit for dis" bullshit.
"Thanks", I guess.

The Primer is where the idea to even try oldschool came from. Been there, read that, one of those "Oldschool is cool, but we are not going to explain shit, just figure it out by yourself" texts I've mentioned earlier.

Let's just drop the subject, it's almost 4 AM anyway

dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1874051#p1874051
Looks like Frank Mentzer has reached his final form...
Attached is a PM he sent to one of the "trolls".

You really are an idiot, though. You're not playing a perfect simulation of reality. Not if you're in the DIY gonzo camp, and not if you're in the Grognard True AD&D camp. If that's your goal, I hear GURPS will let you do quadratic equations to calculate the to-hit value for a boat.

The players are playing as character archetypes. That's why the Fighter and Magic-User can be so generic and flavorless -- it's just a skeleton that your character is built around. More generic is better.

Monsters aren't character archetypes. They're specific challenges to be overcome by the players. Now sure. You can try to stretch those challenges to fit onto a framework. Maybe, if you like, it can be a framework where it helps to create a consistent milieu.

But if I'm running a game where dungeons are literally an extension of Hell, then the things that live there don't have to follow the rules of the mundane world.

Even when we're talking about Lamentations, with its defined setting of Real World Europe, there are dozens of examples of enemies who have powers the players literally cannot ever have access to, without asking me the GM, like 'pretty please can I sacrifice my mom to Satan in exchange for unfathomable sorcery?'

So I don't need to JUSTIFY my NPCs or my enemies. I don't need to sit there and roll for them like I'm playing some kind of solo board game every time the players make a move.

The players have rules because they're playing a game, and it's interesting and fun to see how they can solve the problems that those rules present to them.

The GM doesn't have to abide by those rules, because it's not interesting or fun. Not for him, not the for the players.

There's 3 possibilities here, though.

1) You're doing it wrong as the DM. For example, you're running absolute death-traps like ToH, or you're not telegraphing danger well enough, so your players are being hit with stuff with no warning.
2) You're doing it great, but the players are interacting with it wrong. For example, getting really attached to characters. In FATE, they're a narrative agent who does cool stuff to forward the story. In OD&D they're a figurine on a board game. Or, for example, they're charging in without thinking.
3) The style of gaming isn't for you.

None of those are personal critiques. I've been playing in a GURPS game for like 2 weeks, and I really am not jiving with it. It feels so fiddly, and character generation was a huge clusterfuck, and I mean... I'm willing to give it a shot but I don't like it so far.

That doesn't mean I'm a bad player; it just means that I should, you know, maybe try something else next time. But if someone said, oh, user, you're just doing it wrong, here, try this? Well, that's still not personal. Maybe I try it and still don't like it. That's fine, I gave it the old college try.

Ultimately it's a different game, and some people are going to like that, and some people aren't, and there's nothing wrong with it either way as long as you can get comfortable with it.

But it seems like you're taking all these comments super personal and I don't think anyone's trying to be that way towards you or your players.

Who are you responding to?

NPCs run on different rules than PCs. You can play your dwarf magic-user if I roll your character's morale every combat and his reaction every time he meets someone.

Opinion on requiring an XP cost for crafting magic items? I hated in back in 3.X, but the more I think of it the more I like it. Makes magic items more special and the idea of paying what's effectively your life force into your craft gives a very cool "Sauron and the One Ring" vibe.

It shouldn't be the only option, but it's definitely a nice method.

>I'm gonna put your site in my game and say it smells like BUTTS 'cause everyone was mean to me, The Game Design Prince!

I think it also gives a nice way for higher level characters to spend money and XP, and motivates them to get out there and explore to get more.

>Fellow Dragonsfooters, it is with great sadness that I must inform you that we have been compelled to end our relationship with TSR luminary Frank Mentzer. We thank him for everything that he has done in the past for this website and our hobby, but it has become clear over the course of the last year that there are growing irreconcilable differences between him and the ideology of this website. This has been divisive and problematic for us, but we have concluded that it is in the best interests of Dragonsfoot not to play host to such acrimony. Naturally, we wish him no ill will, and encourage those of you who wish to interact with him to do so at the many other websites he frequents.

wew

Once upon a time

(in a little village in the realm of Empyrea on the continent of Aquaria, on the eastern shore of the great sea called the Solnor, in the constellation of the Whale on planet #4 of the star some call "Tau", about 5 millennia after the birth of a famous Terran religious figure and a few centuries after the Interregnum)

...the mayor of Dragonsfoot village held a referendum. The people then decided that Freedom and Truth were more important that Unity or Friendship. Thus they began a great experiment with profound philosophical implications. As long as they didn't attack one another, they could say anything, to anyone.

Over a decade, the people of Dragonsfoot were conquered by the dominant among them, some of them half-Trolls. These half-breeds were almost identical to the good, faithful local folk. But they placed Freedom above all else, at the cost of Community. (Trolls are always suspicious and hostile, and are really quite easy to spot.) And so Truth reigned, and hospitality and respect nearly vanished.

One day, a minor Prince came to visit the village. He didn't bring his Aides or his Guards; he came himself, wanting to truly meet and learn of the people. The Prince thought they would be like normal citizens of the realm -- cautious but welcoming, self-interested but offering friendship. Instead, the Trolls pressed him with personal questions, and pelted him with garbage. They were not interested in the welfare of the Town, nor the Realm itself; they were only interested in themselves, and keeping control of others.

And so the Prince rode back to his castle and pondered the situation. Truth was a good thing, as was Honesty. But when they combine to destroy Community, they become a Problem.

The People of the Village of Dragonsfoot have a Decision to make:

If their village continues to be inhospitable, suspicious, and unwelcoming, then they will be cut off. They cannot interact with the Realm, lest they undermine its huge and magnificent community. But they cannot be destroyed, for they are living beings, worthy of the universal pursuit of happiness. So they will be left alone, to wither or rise, as they see fit... but Alone.

The town of Dragonsfoot, on the Dragontail peninsula of the continent of Aquaria in the Realm of Empyrea, is about to rise or fall. Their fate is yours to choose.

The appearance and description of the village of Dragonsfoot in the Empyrea campaign set (release Summer 2018, featuring a dozen of the biggest names in RPG history) is up to you, local residents. Will you remain overrun by Trolls (and their leader Bote), or will you rise up and place Community first?

The Empyrea design team will watch, wait, and write up the result by February 2018. The future of the village is in your hands. We will not interfere; this is YOUR problem, not ours. :)

>what did Frank Mentzer mean by this?

The silly old tart is saying he was now hacked and that private message was not from him. Total bullshit as confirmed by the forums administrators who say all posts and PMs came from Franks IP.

Forum culture is crap.

It is but this is juicy stuff.
Watching these idiots devour themselves is great.

Curses! Mutations! Hideous Table Formatting! Me Shirtless and Flexing!
melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html

I ran pic related and it went pretty well. People returned back to the living world alive

I don't like PC's making their own magic items even like potions, but I do think it would be a good balance if I do ever decide to let them do that.

I'll take it over twitter, tumblr or facebook.
Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic for the old days.

Alright M'lads, I am about to embark on my journey into OSR gaming. Scoured amazon and lulu and picked up:

Basic Rantasy Role-playing Game
Basic Fantasy Field Guide
CC1 Creature Compendium
Lamentations of the Flame Princss
White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game
Deep Carbon Observatory
Fire on the Velvet Horizon
Yoon-Suin

And also got that Drivethru bundle with a bunch of reputable OSR adventures.
Wish me luck in getting my groups to stop being pathfinder shitters and have fun with agonizing save or die rolls.

It has its upsides and its downsides. Flavour-wise I like the idea of putting your life force into it (and in fact I saw an article on 3E with a variant rule where you can put extra XP into making a ring to decrease money cost, I liked that). But in 3E it doesn't really feel like it's thematically used --- when my character brews potions for the party, or when another party member enchants his own weapons and armour, it's kind of more like a tax. Particularly since 3E had the magic item economy that it did.

It has potential, definitely. But the rest of the system needs to match it. (Which is mostly a given in OSR from what I can tell.)

bump

What's a good initiative method?

I kind of thought to use a simplified method where melee weapons go first, small guns like pistols go second, and then rifles go last. Enemies and characters with the same type of weapon resolve their actions at the same time, meaning you could both shoot and kill each other in a gunfire standoff, but the guy with a knife could run in real quick and slash someone before they had time to draw their pistol.

Does this make sense or is it stupid? Obviously I'm letting melee weapons go first to try and balance them, though I could see the argument of making them go last just to make gunplay even more important.

>ranged weapons going after melee weapons
t. Dex 3 fighter

You know, I used to be unequivocally in favor of new blood in this general, being helpful to anons just starting out and so on, but after three threads in a row getting shit up by a sperglord (or god forbid multiple sperglords) who has so much new-edition brain damage he can't stand the thought of referee adjudications and thinks it's his human right or some shit to play whatever he wants, I'm starting to reconsider whether it's a good idea.

"I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie", what the fuck. I guess it's a consolation that no sane referee would let him join the table.

You don't have to be insulting to him. After the whole round of discussion it seemed to me like there was a lot of miscommunication and misunderstood assumptions there.

Anyway, this isn't really a new school/old school problem as it was a DM saying explicitly "I think it's wrong to DM a game this way for these reasons." not a player saying "I want to be able to play whatever kind of special snowflake character I can imagine."

And on top of that his reasons were pretty good. "I think it messes up the social contract of the game to say arbitrarily Player Characters can't do x, but them immediately have them run into NPCs that can do that thing."

I mean personally I disagree with his assessment, think that as long as DMs are upfront it's okay and I can think of a lot of ways DMs might want to implement restrictions on PC's while not having them on NPCs that make sense within the fiction of the game.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna call him a sperglord for having the opinion that if PC's can't play a dwarf mage, then there shouldn't be dwarven mages running around. (Although he should probably be a little bit less flippant about the whole "I wanna be a dwarf mage. Gimmie" thing, but considering all the shit that gets flung around here, I still consider that well with respectful behavior lines.)

Not only are you restarting the argument by posting this, but you are actually so arrogant as to think anyone cares that you're "starting to reconsider" letting in new people, as though you or anyone here has the authority or power to stop people from entering at their own free will.

Then, to top it off, you seem to think your opinion is somehow better then everyone elses opinion, or more correct. If the referee says the guy can play a dwarf mage, then he can play a dwarf mage. If he plays with you and you're the ref, then you can just say no. Does it really offend you people have fun in a different way?

Fuck off shitposter.

t. assblasted 3.pf kiddies trying to remake the OSR

>That doesn't mean I'm gonna call him a sperglord for having the opinion
Honestly I agree with you on this part, it's not the opinion but the multi-thread het-up shitposting that brings me to call him a sperglord.

>you are actually so arrogant as to think anyone cares that you're "starting to reconsider" letting in new people
It's not arrogance, it's a comment on the discussion. How are you constructed that you think three threads' worth of shitposts are fine but one post of "down with this sort of thing" in response is arrogant and bad?

>Then, to top it off, you seem to think your opinion is somehow better then everyone elses opinion, or more correct. If the referee says the guy can play a dwarf mage, then he can play a dwarf mage. If he plays with you and you're the ref, then you can just say no. Does it really offend you people have fun in a different way?
Bruh, this is pretty >reading comprehension. I agree with everything you just said, but that's not what the dude was talking about, he was saying that if there are Dwarfs who use magic, and you can play a Dwarf but not a Dwarf Magic-User, that makes the referee a bad referee who has to "see reason". That's dumb as fuck.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this stupid, but I wouldn't use it. Shots should go first in the round, both because if you both have readied weapons and are at some distance it's clear a guy can shoot at you before you reach him but also because you can't safely fire into a melee. Drawing a weapon is different, but any readied firearm should shoot first.

Plus, unless you're using some odd setting like Weird Adventures where the firearms are basically modern, you're looking at single-shot pieces that take a long-ass time to reload. In practice it'll probably be one shot per fight in the typical case; I don't think the guns need balancing beyond that fact. (Especially if you still have Magic-Users with fireballs and lightning bolts, which will easily upstage any gun for pocket artillery effect, especially in wand form.)

>mfw Jeff Rients has let people play whatever the fuck they want in his B/X games for at least 10 years and nobody has given a fuck and then suddenly it's revisionist

I agree with you that in flavor terms it's very nice, but in practice (like energy drain, I might add) the effect will be trivial; since XP required to gain a level doubles with each level, even if making a magic item dropped you right the fuck down to level 1 you'd be back up to just one level behind your buddies by the time they level up next.

I actually prefer the Rules Cyclopedia variant where you *gain* XP from making magic items, for game purposes. At the point where M-Us can make them, Fighters are ruling domains and pulling in XP from that, so it's reasonable that M-Us (and Clerics I guess) should have a parallel.

Jesus Christ, what even is this. That's fucking sad. How did Mentzer come to this? Does anyone know what made him flip out so hard?

A, everybody loves Jeff and 2, nobody's saying that the referee arranging his own game according to his own preference is revisionist. Well, the dwarfsperg was saying that, but nobody else.

It's really simple: if you want to let players play dwarf magicians, do it, that's fucking great, nobody opposes it. If you don't want to do that, but still want to have dwarf magician NPCs, that's fucking great too. You're the referee and it's your call.

That's not what the argument was, though

>How did Mentzer come to this? Does anyone know what made him flip out so hard?
Well I know this might cause a stir here, but here's what I've gathered:
He's recently gotten pretty heavily into politics, writing on g+ and other places about how the industry needs to be more diverse and how he is just an old man who needs to learn his place. Since a part of that side of the OSR community has been clamping down very hard on trolls or "toxic people", I assume he took it upon himself to do that to some rando he didn't like.

Well in that case I misunderstood what this was about. Still, who cares what that guy thinks? He'll probably never play with you anyway and he'll probably find some group that'll let him play a dwarf wizard.

That guy has been absolutely losing his shit over several miscellaneous issues since last thread

Then don't respond.

There are only 21 unique posters in this thread.

That seems like a very good start. Read everything with a stack of post-it notes. Write down stuff, stick it in the book, move on, come back later or cross-reference.

Arnold K ran a Meat-Hell setting that's scattered all over his blog. It's pretty great.

When hexcrawling, how do you handle getting lost in a justifiable way? I see the occasional mention of it, and certainly I'd like to have getting lost as a mechanic, but I can't justify people getting lost in the way that some suggest given how easy it is to tell roughly what direction you are travelling.

Pic related is an example of what I mean.

> given how easy it is to tell roughly what direction you are travelling.
Roughly, yes, but then you have to go around a mountain or find a river to cross or it's overcast near noon and you're fucked.

People get lost all the time in cities on a grid system. The wilderness is scary as hell.

Lets say you leave your camp and walk 6 miles east. You then walk six miles west and arrive at camp.

But if your path is off by a few degrees, you'll miss your camp... and keep walking. Or go in a circle.

I usually put it as an Intelligence or Wisdom test for the party's leader or guide. If pass, then you're fine. If failed, then you actually end up in hex (d6) (for the 6 faces of the current hex). Elevation, time, and experience negate or add bonuses.

Plus, each hex is HUGE.

Remember, compasses probably don't exist. Navigation is all line of sight and dead reckoning.

Hmm... That has potential. I'll try it out.

Compasses might not exist, but the sun sure does.

>Compasses might not exist, but the sun sure does.

Done much outdoor hiking/orienteering?

The sun is really handy for telling *sort of* where you need to be going. It's useless near noon and sometimes worse than useless. You can't always see if if you're in the trees, and if the sky is overcast completely, you're right fucked.

Getting lost is easy.rte.ie/news/munster/2017/0914/904841-walkers-rescued-rhododendron/

Good. Dumb people should drop the hobby altogether.

>How about constantly putting the blame on unfit players or bad GMing, but in the same time not providing any REAL solutions, just "maybe ya guyz too stupit for dis" bullshit.
How about fucking reading the posts before dismissing them as being "mean" and then whining that you wanna drop something without putting in any effort to realize your flaws? Fucking shit, you probably are legit too dumb if that's your first response to some criticism.

Shit DM detected.

Pick up LotFP and pick a module out by whatever sounds nicest. Boring dungeons are boring.

>'s not the opinion but the multi-thread het-up shitposting that brings me to call him a sperglord.
Half of a thread and then the opening, what, 10 posts of this thread? I think you should calm down and relook over the facts. People having discussions is not "shitposting", and that mentality is what breeds websites with upvotes.

Also, I have to agree with the other user, you're being insanely arrogant in your assumptions here. Nobody gives a shit, this is Veeky Forums. If someone wants to state their opinion and other people want to discuss it, they should. That's basically what makes people better, even if they don't improve right away.

Everything he said sounds solid to me. The entire idea that the GM and his NPCs should "play by the rules" that bind the PCs reeks of 3e entitlement. The rules are a tool for the GM to use, not a set of laws given from on high which he must follow.

Who is the swolest OSR blogger? It might be Lungfungus: melancholiesandmirth.blogspot.ca/2017/09/a-plague-o-both-your-houses-curses-and.html

>The entire idea that the GM and his NPCs should "play by the rules" that bind the PCs reeks of 3e entitlement.
The fuck? Absolutely not. I know /osr/ likes to jack off over the concept of "rulings not rules", but DMs should always remain consistent and upfront with what rules they are applying and stick to it.

Also don't bother replying, I have no interest in kicking up this shit anymore, so I'm gonna not reply after this.

>nobody's saying that the referee arranging his own game according to his own preference is revisionist. Well, the dwarfsperg was saying that, but nobody else.
Oh I'm still here. And no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you present a ruling, you should stick to that ruling. If you present a race and say race can't do X in your world, then don't present a member of the race doing X. That's just shitty of you.

lolwut? Are you attributing every single argument to a single poster?

>I'm not passive-aggressive!
>I'm just aggressive
This is getting better and better - getting so fucking assblasted, because someone didn't consider your advices valid

>LotFP
Which stands for...?

Last thread some guy was asking for a price list and design principles.
Well here's mine.
coinsandscrolls.blogspot.ca/2017/09/osr-medieval-price-list.html

Design principles are:
1. I should be able to eyeball values of things I don't list based on a simple rule and not direct comparison to other stuff on the list
2. The list should contain lots of things to get the PCs thinking about solutions, worldbuilding, estate management, and spending money

Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Art-less rules are free.

Memes of the Hipster Princess.