/osr/ - Old School Renaissance

Addition is mentally easier than subtraction.

How important do you want attributes to be? I personally think that straight-out ability checks, while easy and straightforward, give too much importance to good stat rolls. A guy with an 18 has virtually no chance of failing, while a guy with a 3 has little better chance of succeeding. So you could always use a roll + ability modifier vs. some target number system. For the range of stat modifiers in Basic, I think a d12 is about right: something like modifier + d12 vs. target of 6 (or over).

White Box doesn't do the -3 to +3 range of modifiers like Basic does, of course, so I don't think that's really works. Given White Box's -1 to +1 range, I think I'd favor a d6 roll. Modifier + 1d6 vs. target of 4 or over (3 if easy, 5 if hard).

I hardly ever call for ability checks: I have the player describe how his character would perform an action. If it's plausible or better I'll usually just grant him the action right away. If it's downright nonsense, I'll not allow it (which is never frowned upon because we can all agree it's bullshit reasoning). If it's shady, I might go with a ability check but preferably I ask questions until the story becomes either plausible or bullshit.

>/osr/
Dropped.

>The cannon rules are not.
Progress!

>

>How would you feel if instead of a thread question, these threads had a short design challenge?
Sounds fun

fuck yes

Unrelatedly, which set of saves is best? the traditional five (and if so, what are each of those 5?), f/r/w? single save? one per stat?

>how to start a war in one easy step
Thread too slow for you?

It's either the traditional five (I like the one's in lamentations) or a single save. Both are satisfactorily abstracted, but f/r/w is weirdly in the middle and doesn't work for me.

Either the traditional five (because as a DM saying "Save verus Death" is cathartic, because it leaves the interpretation of how you save up to you, and because it means that characters are better at saving against things that are worse) or FRW (because it's very easy to use).

The five saves, at least as I use them, are:
>death/poison
>petrification/polymorph/paralysis
>wand/staff/rod
>dragonbreath
>spell
Although I've seen them rearranged or with one of the device saves included in spell instead. But this arrangement makes the most sense to me personally.

I kinda like f/r/w but I think it needs to be rethought. Some user in these threads a while back had an alternative: Combat/Hazards/Magic, and I kind of like that approach.

Some variant of single-category saves. F/R/W saves can fit into the same broad category, if they're just differentiated by your ability modifiers.

Hey guys, I just found this OD&D reference, it looks pretty good:
tametick.com/dnd/
What do you think?

I like what's going on in that jpg. I'm partial to F/R/W because of its simplicity. Fortitude for poison and paralysis, Reflex for traps and firebreath, Will for magic effects.

What's the diff between that and ability/based saves though? I guess I can see INT saving from traps, but STR for poison? If all abilities have their own save, CON is for poison and cold, DEX is for dodging, STR for avoiding being pushed, WIS against mind affecting magic. The only problem then is that INT and CHA are very rarely used - INT for illusions and brain eaterd, CHA for banishment. But I guess you could rebalance that by making CHA save vs. polymorph and petrification, while retaining hold person, fear etc. for WIS.

I dunno how others run it, I have a base save chance based on the class you have? So the actual stat only adds its modifier.

Single save with Combat/Hazards/Magic as class bonuses. If you're using 4 classes just make the 4th bonus for clerics Save vs Death.

Do you actually enjoy random stats?

Do you think it would really negatively impact the game at all to use a random but fair array system, or another type of equal system that is random but not point buy?

>Do you actually enjoy random stats?
Yes, if characters are not wholly dependent on having good ability scores. I like that characters in B/X don't even need above-average scores to succeed, which is in contrast to WotC editions where you're practically worthless if you don't have at least a 17 in your primary ability score.

>Do you think it would really negatively impact the game at all to use a random but fair array system, or another type of equal system that is random but not point buy?
Not really. If you want to do the card draw method or have a program spit out random ability scores that total up to the same point value, and your table is okay with it, that's fine by me. That said, there is something fun about leaving the dice where they fall and trying to make a completely hopeless character work.

The traditional five is the best; I have yet to see an alternative save system which actually understands that saves are based on the severity of the effect, and are and should be unrelated to ability scores. All alternatives are half-functional at best and FRW saves are garbage.

I also wish we could stop having this conversation over and over and over and over and... every time a new crop of 3.X players gets interested in "OSR but nothing that's actually different from the broken system I'm used to".

>I have yet to see an alternative save system which actually understands that saves are based on the severity of the effect

You mean like all the single save systems where a penalty is simply applied depending on the effect? Hmmm.

tfw gaming group is a bunch of princesses who only want to play 'roleplay heavy games'

>Do you actually enjoy random stats?
Yes.

>Do you think it would really negatively impact the game at all to use a random but fair array system, or another type of equal system that is random but not point buy?
Yes. "Fair" is a dumb and undesirable trait and anything that makes players expect it is bad. I want the players to have to deal with rolling shitty ability scores; I don't want players who whine about shit like that in my game.

Put it this way: what do you WANT fair ability scores for? I'm pretty sure there's no answer you can give to that that wouldn't make me sigh and facepalm.

What can you tell me about this thing I'm doing?
I was doing a minimalist ruleset with only fighter and mage as classes (thieves are, mechanically, people with high Dexterity; and by definition people who steal, which every PC is in a Dungeon Looting game).
But having only two classes made them a little pointless. So I thought on mashing them up into the abilities (below). The idea is that you use 1d6 + the relevant mod (-1 to +3).

STRENGHT (heavy weapons, encumbrance, lift gates)
DEXTERITY (armor bonus when reactive, sneak, acrobatics)
WEAPON (the warrior ability. Is tied to your favored weapon, and increases damage, number of attacks and maybe even initiative)
WISDOM (perception and intelligence all in one. If you have a relevant background such as farmer, hunter or trapper, you roll this to perform)
MAGIC (how many spells you get, bonus damage to them AND magic armor, all in one)

I plan on generating characters randomly, so balance is not an issue (no magic stat means you're not a mage; no weapon stat means that you're never been in serious battles, etc; but having good dex can make you survive for a while)

I'm facing two problems right now:

1. Conflicting abilities
There are no to-hit rolls, but you're supposed to roll higher than the target's armor & dex bonus to score any damage.

Strength and Weapon both increase the damage done with heavy weapons; so if you use a hammer as a weapon, you might not want to increase the Weapon score in favor of Strenght (that grants you carrying higher loads, better armor, etc). That's what I put Initiative under the Weapon ability, though IDK if it makes much sense.

On the other hand, i like that however dexterous you are, you still need to get Weapon (bow) to be good with a bow. Prowess with weapons are better reflected for me as a refined skill than anything else, and this reflects it better.

Cont

>Basilisk Replacement
I was gonna go with a mech with a freeze gun, try to keep to the idea of "some enemies have unconventional attacks"

>You mean like all the single save systems where a penalty is simply applied depending on the effect?
That's not an alternative system in any meaningful sense though, is it? If you use a single save but apply bonuses or penalties, to the roll, as well as different effects of a successful save, depending on whether the effect is a poison, dragon breath, wand and so on, it's just a different way of writing the same system. Personally I consider it a less convenient and straightforward way than to just write out the five different possible save values, but if you disagree, then sure, whatever, that's fine. It's the same system, though.

2.
Leveling up.

Stats are rolled randomly at the start. (roll 3d6 for each: +1 for each six. No sixes =0, no sixes and at least one 1 = -1)

So then, every level they can only level up stats and HP as they have no other mechanical parameters to tackle.

I wonder if giving them a +1 ability bonus on every level is too much, or if I should give them +1 hp on every level, and +1 ability bonus on every even level only.

It's not the same, since different classes don't get bonuses to different categories

A DC 2 is impossible to fail if you have a +1 at least. A DC 7 is impossible if you don't. The granularity between DCs is a 16.6 percentage point difference in success ratio, over triple the granularity of a d20 system. Thus a +1 to a modifier is far mor powerful.

traditional 5 or single save

>Put it this way: what do you WANT fair ability scores for?

It avoids any kind of arguments, defeatism, and general feelings of unfairness in the players, regardless of how important it actually is.

>I'm pretty sure there's no answer you can give to that that wouldn't make me sigh and facepalm.

Well, considering you've already closed your mind to any other potential opinions, I doubt you won't "sigh and le facepalm" at how bad my reason is. I question why you defend your own position; your only reasoning is "I want the players to have to deal with rolling shitty ability scores;", but you never explain why. Can YOU give me a satisfactory answer?

what do they think you're doing in an OSR game instead of roleplaying?

What is that screencap from?

It's from a game called TABS or "Totally Accurate Battle Simulator".

Meme indie game sold way too early in development with way too little polish or content but was relatively famous and popular due to silliness and streamer appeal.

youtube.com/watch?v=2jhC92ZFCkI

>Can YOU give me a satisfactory answer?
NAYRT but it doesn't give false expectations of everything always being fair.

I like it because it's fun and doesn't hold your hand. If you get high rolls, good! Now you'll be able to perform more and take of challenges that will help the whole group. If you get low rolls, good! Now you'll learn to think of the game beyond the base mechanics, now you'll have to get creative.

Fuck you for spoilering links and making me click them on mobile.

>you never explain why
I explained it in the preceding sentence:
>"Fair" is a dumb and undesirable trait and anything that makes players expect it is bad.
The purpose is to avoid
>players who whine about shit like that in my game,
in other words, I want players to have deal with stuff like that so I know I have players who CAN deal and don't expect to be spoiled by the rules at every turn; players who are on the same page as me about what's fun in a game.

Plus, PCs with shitty stats are hilarious AND a great player challenge.

>dumb furry has dumb opinions
What a shocker.

captcha: 3500 blackmoor

>DC 2 is impossible to fail if you have a +1 at least.
not a problem. In combat the surpassing range means the damage you do. Out of combat, it means that the task is so piss easy that you do it automatically.

>A DC 7 is impossible if you don't.

not a problem either. In combat, it means that this specific monster is way up your ability to hurt him. A peasant can never hit a fully armored golem straight away.
But maybe if you can sneak behind him, you can deal a strike while he's unaware, so the dexterity bonus doesn't apply to the armor and you can hit him.

A door with a DC 7 to lift can only be done by a strong guy.

If you are playing well, your rolled stats don't matter.
A fighter always has a good to-hit chance, and always has good AC if they buy armour.
A wizard's spells always work. They might scale off the wizard's level, and their victim's make saves based on the /victim's/ hit-dice, but your wizard's rolled stats don't affect their spells. Same for clerics
Thieves' skill chances are again only determined by their level and the fact they chose to be a thief at all.

The stuff your stats tend to affect are often things that only matter if you fuck up (HP, retainer morale, etc etc), and are almost always less important than your choice of class.
So, really, a character with shit stats just needs to /git gud scrub/, and then their stats won't matter.

The advantage of rolled stats is that it makes character gen unpredictable. Rolling stats means you're finding out what the character is like, not building them to fit your particular vision. This, I find, helps promote the high-lethality fiction-over-mechanics style of game that OSR is all about.

Thoughts on 3D6 ability scores but let characters spend money to train and increase them.

Spend money and train to increase HP (up to potential max) as well.

Yes, but make the cost so high that the players will have reached a sufficient level by then that proves to them that ability scores really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.

I'm thinking of making it easier to train to at least 9 to remove negatives (newbie gym gains).

>Yes. "Fair" is a dumb and undesirable trait and anything that makes players expect it is bad.

Surely this is hyperbole, because there are tons of small parts of the game that reveal fairness. Better armor and weapons cost more. Brand new characters are weaker than max level characters. Some classes have different exp requirements. These are by some degree levels of balance and fairness.

Why?

These are rewards for playing well. Ability scores are neither rewards nor penalties from playing, they are merely the building blocks of the character.

>Do you think it would really negatively impact the game at all to use a random but fair array system, or another type of equal system that is random but not point buy?
Nope. I'm a big proponent of that sort of thing.

LotFP does it better than any TSR version.
5e does saves better than 3e, but I don't like either.
A unified save seems the best thematically, but I'm not set on it mechanically.

How about this for a saving throw system?
>there's one save that is the same for everyone, it only changes based on level
>there's one save for each class, which is specified to be against a certain number of things, clerics use theirs against EHP death rays for example
>there's a similar one for race too if you play race-and-class
>the player uses the best one of these that he can use

I also like roling for class and background.

>understands that saves are based on the severity of the effect
That half the venomous AD&D monsters modify the poison save they call for pisses me off to no end.
A failed save will fuck you up regardless of what it is, if it isn't that serious it wouldn't call for a save.
High level characters are larger than life and are better at pulling out of tight spots.

Underrated.

...

Some classes get a significant boost from having better saves, something that gets lost under that system. (I mean, you can have broader special save categories with better numbers, but that's still probably gonna leave you with a bulk of saves the same as everybody else.) If you're playing something like Basic, where excellent saves are one of the key strengths of dwarves and halflings, that could necessitate some rebalancing. Otherwise though, I don't know that I have an issue with your idea. For simplicity's sake, however, you might want to just assign a flat bonus for your class and race special categories. That way you don't have to keep track of multiple progressions.

If The Manse or anyone else willing to help is around I have a few questions about the Sage class.
themansegaming.blogspot.com/2017/08/sages-sage-magic-system.html

Is Warning a detect trap spell? Also, could you explain the Revive power? It seems to assume a death system present in the game, and I'm having trouble understanding how to calculate difficulty of the spell.

NAYRT
Warning makes no sense as written to me. You seem to need a target in mind?
For Revive, you roll against how dead they are. It's [2d6 + 2*(sage_level - 7) - negative_hp]

All magic and divine spells are from items with charges (or potions) and week long cooldown (or fed a unique resource). Some are riskier then others and can cause negative magical effects, you roll on a table.

Any character can use them. Characters that invest in knowledge get bonuses on the roll to use such items.

reposting my Dragon class idea from last thread;

>Fighter HD
>uses 1.5x Elf XP requirements(replace Elf with whatever class in your system has the highest XP requirements as needed)
>has natural armor equivalent to Chainmail at level 1(which improves as it levels)
>teeth and claws count as a 1d6+1 weapon(damage improves from leveling)
>can use a Breath Weapon 1dX+2 times per day(with X being equal to level), Breath Weapon varies depending on selected dragon type
>can glide an unlimited distance(can fly starting at Level 5)
>is able to Cleave if that ability is in your system(if Cleave has HD restrictions, Dragon characters ignore those)
>upon reaching level 6 Dragon characters can learn spells like a Level 1 Magic-User(or equivalent class)
>require triple the amount of food that human characters do
>can't use regular weapons or armor(or any magic items designed for use by a humanoid user), can acquire specially made weapons and armor at quadruple the regular price
>Dragon characters are Large size(about that of a very large horse) with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails(Dragons reaching larger sizes happens at a time scale beyond that of almost any regular campaign)
>Dragon characters can't hire Human or Demi-Human Hirelings, Henchmen, Mercenaries, or Specialists(they can do so with Monstrous Humanoids and intelligent Monsters, but that is both rarer to find and will be either more expensive or the quality will be worse)
>Dragon characters can't have domains or strongholds populated by Humans or Demi-Humans(they can have them populated by Monsters and Monstrous Humanoids, but that both costs more to establish and maintain, and you get reduced income from it)

What is this, Veeky Forums has no opinions? :o

>tametick.com/dnd/
Fuck me this is useful

It's a reference? There's not much to talk about. It's accurate, I guess?

It is the first time I come across a web reference of book 1 to 4 even though it has supposedly been around since the year 2000

Eh, I prefer a front-loaded Dragon that starts level 1 with like 3-HD, minor spellcasting (like 3 1st-level spells per day), and flight but takes a lot longer to level than any other class

It's definitely an OD&D reference. What, do you want a medal?

Is there a way to get the Swords & Wizardry Complete Rulebook on Lulu or some other publishing site not including the offical website Frog Lord Games?

>first time I come across a web reference of book 1 to 4
It's my first time seeing 4. ddo.immersiveink.com/dd.html

How is LotFP saves different from any TSR saves?

The "leftmost relevant save" thing is (mostly) how things play out in TSR games, but isn't actually written out anywhere.
Also the order of TSR's saves isn't consistent between systems and a handful of things call for really arbitrary saves.

>Eh, I prefer a front-loaded Dragon that starts level 1 with like 3-HD, minor spellcasting (like 3 1st-level spells per day), and flight but takes a lot longer to level than any other class
see from my perspective I hate it when non-human classes have ridiculously screwy leveling up requirements, that's why I went with Dragon characters still being pretty strong, but overall close enough to standard that one doesn't need to give them too much of an increase to their XP requirements

How do you handle traps, /osrg/? If they get triggered do you call for a save, a roll-under ability check, or some other sort of roll? Or does the victim just have to take their lumps one the trap is sprung?

>How do you handle traps, /osrg/? If they get triggered do you call for a save, a roll-under ability check, or some other sort of roll? Or does the victim just have to take their lumps one the trap is sprung?
probably depends on the kind of trap more than anything

>How do you handle traps, /osrg/? If they get triggered do you call for a save, a roll-under ability check, or some other sort of roll? Or does the victim just have to take their lumps one the trap is sprung?
The method I use was recommended in one of the old DM manuals (don't recall atm which), and is basically a 4 step process:

1) If I have a PC with some kind of trap detecting / disarming orientation (usually either a thief / rogue type or a spellcaster with a detection spell active), I will give a free roll for them to notice it (behind the screen) first.

2) If the trap isn't caught that way, or there isn't an appropriate PC, I will describe the room typically with some kind of (small) hint that something might be afoot. Should the players make the decision to take their time and search for a trap, they get to roll for that.

3) If they notice the trap in either step 1 or 2, they can attempt to figure out how it works and disarm it. I will give them a description of whatever of it they can see, and the difficulty of the roll is based on how good they are at describing how to disarm.

4) If they don't notice the trap at all, or fail at trying to disarm it, the trap is triggered and roll for whatever the consequences are. Typically the easiest way is to just treat it as some kind of powerful attack for resolution purposes.

At the end of the day, I would really prefer that my players DO find the "right" way to deal with a trap room. Just like with monster encounters, you often want to give them the option of an easy-but-tricky solution, a dumb-but-hard way through, and a failure condition. If they figure out the easy way, they have an additional sense of accomplishment in addition to just getting through it.

>That half the venomous AD&D monsters modify the poison save they call for pisses me off to no end.
I am the user you're replying to and I agree. I'm okay with things like a magic stone against poison (i.e. a bezoar) modifying the save, but that's about it.

Delving Deeper is an OD&D derivative, though

Like the other user said, it depends on the trap type. You trigger a pit trap, normally you just fall in -- what are you going to use as leverage to jump from? The floor just gave way. Dart, arrow, spear or poison needle trap? Attack roll. Flame thrower tube in the ceiling? Dragon Breath save. Giant deathsmash stone block as big as the corridor, falling down and blocking it off? I'd give that a save vs. death just because it's so fucking cheap to get deathcrushed with no save or damage roll. And so on.

Any good way to tackle Weapon expertises?

I'm still trying to make that weak but skilled samurai character

>depends on the kind of trap
This.

Are there any largish dungeons with a "you get thrown into a hole, find your way out" set-up?

Haven't looked too close. What's different?

It'd be easy enough to adapt any largish dungeon under the sun.
Just pick a room and start them there.

IIRC Castle Caldwell has a setup like this. That module is shit, though, so just take 's advice, pick a dungeon you like and then put them in a suitable room, converted to prison cell.

Thanks.

youtu.be/WfnKghUCd3A
Drafting ≠ Drawing, and you're not a real potato.

I wouldn't call it largish, pretty much the opposite in fact, but there's a one-page dungeon premised on the players literally getting thrown in a hole as punishment for their terrible, terrible crimes. Maybe you could do something with that?

I bet Dyson has some dungeon with a chimney or cistern leading to the surface you could key, too.

>Yes. "Fair" is a dumb and undesirable trait and anything that makes players expect it is bad.

It's funny how this is the sort of thing I usually hear from 3.pf players.

What are some SMALL dungeons with that set-up? It seems like a solid goal for a one-shot. Pic related is too linear and too tiny.

In your case, dump them in the middle of a megadungeon? Or find an excuse to invert the levels?

Link to the OSR discord channel pl0x. I feel like playing online.

>Pic related is too linear and too tiny.
Build more dungeon at the end.
One Page Dungeons, those cyan maps that guy posts here, etc. usually make great "Special" features for Appendix A.

The imbalance in 3.pf is different from the imbalance of OSR in kind and magnitude. Due to the bell curve most of the time you're going to see characters with at most a +/-1 or 2 penalty or bonus to damage/accuracy/AC/HP/opening doors and depending on system maybe specific saving throws. That isn't really the same as the wizard's summons being better melee fighters than the fighter. Besides that, even B/X has guidelines to determine when a character is too shitty to play (more than 1 score of 6 or lower, or below average ability scores across the board, which is a pretty rare situation)

“The use of the term “fantasy adventure game” (fag) over the more often used “role-playing game” is intentional. Strikingly, the term “role-playing” appears nowhere in the original 1974 texts. Ideally, we who like this sort of game are interested in adventure— cooperatively exploring a fantastical world of strange terrors and fabulous treasures—not perfectly simulating the attitude and behavior of some grumpy dwarf, or whatever. In- deed, too much “role-playing” should be discouraged. “We don’t explore characters; we explore dungeons,” someone once said. Or as C.S. Lewis explained, making a point about good science fiction that could apply equally well here, “To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much; he who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange.”

-Foreword to Seven Voyages of Zylarthen

So fellow FAGs why did this term never catch on?

Same reason we don't call 5e NIGGER, standing for New and Improved GGame Edition -
Roleplaying.
>I tried

>Same reason we don't call 5e NIGGER

I thought I was the only one that called it that!