/osrg/-Old School Renaissance General

>I'm a big believer, from a game design perspective, of the choreographed threat. Death by door knob is humorous for the GM, but for a player it's just a gotcha, in a module full of gotchas.
Of all the Stargazer traps the doorknob one bothers me the most. It's so petty and pointless: it's not going to stop a party of looters, and it's useless against a larger group of attackers. It's just "here, -1 PC, ARE YOU LEARNING YET NUSCHOOL SCUM"

This is what I do when making hexmaps by hand, shitty splayed fork + green afro.

>What is your favorite adventure that you have actually played or run?
B4 The Lost City, although Night of The Walking Dead was close.

Careful, the Raggidrones will be here any minute with the REEEEE YOUR RETARDED PLAYERS SHOULDN'T TRY THE FRONT DOOR spiel.

Just post The Lichway at them until they leave.

>playtest your rules
I've playtested the "roll for multiple encounters at once" random encounter rules pretty extensively. It had the desired effect. The players started managing their resources and paying attention to time.

Whenever people complain about the handles they never mention that there is supposed to be a enormous KNOCKER right in the same doors that makes them open by themselves. It doesn't kill you for using the front door, it kills you for using the snake-shaped handles rather than knocking first.

Of course, you'd know that if you actually read the module properly rather than glean memes about it on Veeky Forums

desu if you ever just enter a wizard's tower rather than undermining it and picking through the rubble you probably deserve whatever happens to you.

>there is supposed to be a enormous KNOCKER right in the same doors that makes them open by themselves
Yes, I'm sure a party of looters wants to LOUDLY ANNOUNCE THEIR PRESENCE rather than QUIETLY TURN A DOORKNOB. Raggidrones gonna Raggidrone.

Indeed. He's probably the type who'd actually follow the ridiculous amount of effort you'd need to actually play DFD.

First of all, they're not doorknobs you mong. They're handles. Second, it's not even a particularly harsh trap. The referee can easily play up how suspicious the handles look, and the module itself suggests a solution: not touching the handles with your actual hands. A lot of players are bound to know the 10ft pole meme even if they've never played anything old-school. Third, you get a save vs poison, it doesn't instakill you.

You're still not explaining why anyone would use a knocker to announce their presence instead of just opening the door.

>First of all, they're not
>doorknobs you mong. They're handles
>Second, it's not even

I made a haiku. I could probably even turn that into a dungeon which would have better game feel then a Save-or-Die trap as the first thing most characters encounter in what is labeled the "Introductory Adventure".

Lamentations has some really good things going for it, and in fact I use it's specialist class in place of Basic's thieves. However, the modules have a tendency of turning into linear slogs where the players are forced into dwindling party scenarios with no way to go but into stupid.

I'll take the Caverns of Thracia, which is a rough dungeon for newbies due to a brutal random encounter table instead of Tomb of Horrors style dickery, because if a TPK happens the players can always find a different route.

Alright, I'll try that, thanks. If it looks shit it's probably just because I'm obsessive and perfectionist while also sucking at drawing so that's probably the real root of my problem.

Can someone confirm that the way I'm doing it now (the leftmost hex) is retarded, so that i can erase those and move on? Or do they look okay? I guess was my main question.

That doesn't even look like hatching. I hope your walls aren't done in a similar manner.

It's like, curlicue hatching. I think hatching is the wrong term. It's meant to emulate the "carpet" look of deciduous treetops. But, if it looks like shit to you, then it probably will look like shit to most other people who look at the map. So I'll focus on making the trees look good.

One tree like the drawing right? Not several?

Because you're in the entrance to a wizard's tower, the corpse of a famous thief known for "impossible" break-ins is nearby for everyone to see, and the alternative is to use the evil looking snake-shaped handles which, accordingly, turn into actual snakes if you use them without knocking (and which, thus, can reasonably be described as being "astonishingly lifelike" or something like that, which is a pretty classic hint for statues which come alive or petrification traps)

is a more valid criticism than spamming "raggidrone", even if I sitll disagree that the trap is a very big leap of logic at all

Why run Basic D&D over just AD&D?

Just one tree, I don't bother differentiating between sparse and dense woods.

The proper question is why run AD&D rather than just Basic. AD&D has a lot of dumb bloat, and even back then people ended up playing something more similar to Basic than perfectly RAW AD&D, even considering than Basic outsold AD&D in the first place

Because AD&D is kind of a clusterfuck.
All the tables and extra rules.
When my friend ran AD&D for us I was really excited but my PathFinder group got pissed at all the rules that they didn't understand. Although, they'd probably hate basic too.
I like basic more because it's simpler and after learning to play 3.5 and GURPS I'd rather play a simpler system.

>When my friend ran AD&D for us I was really excited but my PathFinder group got pissed at all the rules that they didn't understand. Although, they'd probably hate basic too.
AD&D is simpler than PF, your friend is retarded

Pathfinder in some (but not all) respects is arguably less arcane and sloppily organized than AD&D, though. Yes, the rules themselves are not that hard, but they're pretty fiddly, not very logically consistent and very hard to reference from the actual book to top it off

The DM knows the rules (and the user probably too), any problem from the shit explanations can be solved asking a question

>retarded GM is too lazy to read rules before game and too stupid to make rulings instead mid-game
>retard players are too dumb to understand that rules-autism is bad
>"3.PF is so easy to understand!"
You're like those brainlets who hate GURPS because they're too dumb to read it.

>AD&D is simpler than PF, your friend is retarded
True, but the key difference here is: they already know Pathfinder. How does AD&D provide any benefit to them, besides being a more messily-organized version of D&D without feats, traits, and all that other shit they use to make their "build" work?
I'm seriously asking, I don't know how to sell them on OSR. I know the player-skill,
rulings-over-rules and all that but they will still be like "b-b-b-but muh builds" and continue to make the most exotic stupid characters ever that I can hardly relate to, to the point where if one of them actually plays a normal race or class, I'm so addled by years of GMing for them that I can't even envision them as normal.

Could go the middle path and play 2e with all the splat bloat

Despite my opinions on the actual system, the writing in GURPS books is crystal clear and the rules are rarely completely arbitrary. It's the opposite from what I am saying about AD&D. AD&D is a simple system with a rulebook that is written very badly, and with a lot of really arbitrary rules. GURPS is a pretty complex system that, all in all, at least makes sense and is easy to reference.

The only major modern systems that are badly written to an extent comparable to AD&D are likely the WoD splats

Delightfully devilish, user.

>AD&D
Why do keep saying this when you're only talking about 1e? 2e is better organized, that's whole reason 2e was made.

The trap has clues and PCs get a save.

Plenty of official Basic traps and attacks are "the room fills with poison gas save vs poison or die" or "you get stung save vs poison or die".

More bullshit is that PCs can get struck by lightning and die, even if it is unlikely.

2e discussion tends to stir up shitstorms around here so mostly I say AD&D when referring to 1e and 2e when talking about 2e. That said, I would argue that 2e still has the same problems, just to a lesser extent. I just wouldn't recommend it over just using Basic or a retroclone.

I've heard good things about that Advanced companion for Labyrinth Lord too, but I've honestly never read it.

They'd see no point. That's the problem. OSR, to them, is literally "less stuff." And if I take away skill checks they'll just whinge and bitch.

Yeah I meant 1e, sorry. We were given the books as a gift by a group member's father. I really didn't have an issue with it, other than the fact that Dex stacked with AC infinitely. And that the rules for 1e seemed to contradict themselves as to exactly what happened when you reached 0 hp (which led to retcons when we had a party wipe cause we thought 0 hp = death, which I didn't mind honestly).

NAYRT, but while Pathfinder is far more complicated than AD&D because of all the moving parts, the relevantly standardized system means that you don't have as many subsystems that you need to reference.

Also, well, it's a bit better edited. ADDICT is a thing for a reason, you know, and it took me something like ten times to understand all that Weapon Speed Factor does - and I'm still not entirely sure how it interacts with spellcasting, because it's worded weirdly!

The big offender, though, is that AD&D is just complicated enough that it's tricky to learn as a new player. In that case, it's no wonder that players prefer the complicated system that they already understand!
(Basic and OD&D and the like get around this by being dead simple.)

Pop Quiz: if I am unarmed, what tactics should I use as an AD&D PC?
Beyond "don't get in fights", the answer is probably to Overbear and then either Grapple (if the opponent is armored) or Pummel (if the opponent isn't). Did you remember that this subsystem existed?

"The DM knows" isn't enough for the typical PF player. They won't feel comfortable without the full toolbox. That's why the generally don't like rulings either.
Different strokes for different blokes but they should probably stick to boardgames.

>I'm seriously asking, I don't know how to sell them on OSR. I know the player-skill,
>rulings-over-rules and all that but they will still be like "b-b-b-but muh builds" and continue to make the most exotic stupid characters ever that I can hardly relate to, to the point where if one of them actually plays a normal race or class, I'm so addled by years of GMing for them that I can't even envision them as normal.

The day I finally became too fed up with 3rd edition to continue running it, the day I finally vowed to never again allow my ears to be befouled by hearing the word "feat" uttered in my presence, I had to convince my players to change editions. It went something like this:

"We're playing 2nd edition now. I've already converted your characters for you."

And when that campaign ended, I didn't start a new one with 2nd edition. I used the Rules Cyclopedia. I've never looked back.

Not him, but I did purely because I read the AD&D DM's guide because I'm interested in running the system at some point. Even though B/X is definitely much better as a complete system rather than a book of rules.

Would it be better to just incorporate AD&D rules in Basic for things such as life sim,
or does the Cyclopedia got you covered?

>OSR, to them, is literally "less stuff."
It is less stuff, PF players love the "character building mini-game". After that there's barely any difference in actual game

I'm just saying that they could read the book, and if they find anything confusing at all, they can ask the DM or other players how it works. It's not about houserules, really

Drop them into the deep end with a oneshot.

They all make level 3 human fighters at the start of the session. They start on level 3 of the dungeon, under a pitfall, with half a map of level 1.
Play something dead simple (OD&D with Gary's houserules maybe?) and don't give them a rulebook.

Either they'll like it or they wont, stop pressing for it afterwords.

The Cylcopedia doesn't cover what the 1e DMG covers, not by a long shot, but for what it's worth I've never actually cracked open a 1e DMG in the context of actually running a game. I've read it for fun, but I can't imagine actually using all of it.

>roll for multiple encounters at once

As in roll for the entire day's encounters at once or have two groups of wandering monsters show up at once?

Personally I'm of the opinion that you're better off using the base system of your preference (OD&D represent!) and then slapping on whatever 1E DMG subsystems catch your fancy.

Use it as a toolkit rather than a holy writ, basically.

Things on my personal wish list: AD&D disease table, AD&D monsters-wandering-into-your-barony rules, possibly also the AD&D morale rules.

>using the base system of your preference (OD&D represent!) and then slapping on whatever 1E DMG subsystems catch your fancy.

NO YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RULES OF ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS TO THE LETTER REEEEE FUCK ARNESON

>when BECM is a better system through and through
Gygax btfo

Gygax return to your sleep

NOOOO I'M NOt yet done buy lejendary adven- . . .

Gygax was big on OD&D being a free-for-all homebrew environment, though - he just wanted to make sure that if you were playing AD&D you were actually playing AD&D (and not diluting the brand and/or making things difficult for tournament play).

Like, I'm pretty sure there's quotes from him that outright say that "if you want to homebrew, play (non-Advanced) D&D"?

How did they even do tournament play when the rules were so all over the place?

Have you read any anecdotes about OD&D tournament play?

With great difficulty and trained referees, I guess.

Hence why they needed to introduce AD&D and actually standardize the ruleset. Back in the OD&D days you had as many versions of the rules as you had groups (remember, combat rules weren't even in the box!)

How many tournaments did they do, anyway? G1-3, Tsojconth, was there anything else that came that early?

I once saw an autographed copy of Lejendary Adventures at an acquaintance's game store. Didn't know who autographed it, though.

>It is less stuff, PF players love the "character building mini-game". After that there's barely any difference in actual game
You're forgetting the skill checks used as a substitute for thinking. That, and the lack of snowflake race/classes, are the main thing that draws me toward OSR. Is it something I can reasonably expect you to do? Then it's your responsibility to describe how you do it. Is it something your character would actually have to do? Then you can roll for it. No more 38 Perception checks that don't even have any meaning. Or rolling craft checks to make a longsword, what is the point of that?
You are right, in a sense, though. What they are thirsting for is a chargen minigame they can abuse to make stupid characters.

Can you post some favorites? Just search terms is fine. Different user, I'd really like to read that stuff.

I was thinking of the one where the first 8 teams died to a spike pit at the entrance and the final team immediately got the farthest by not doing that.

>You're forgetting the skill checks used as a substitute for thinking.
Capital, friend!

There's no authority on OSR, but if you're going to post a not-quite-right primer then at least post Webb's.

>Old Man Finch's primer
Not going to even give that trash a (You)

>the lack of snowflake race/classes
I dunno, the greater OSR scene has a lot of weird classes and races and if you're using 2e's class system as base there's some weird stuff like nerd wizards who turn into bird or fighters and thieves who know secret but sucky magic.

>That, and the lack of snowflake race/classe
Complete Book of Humanoids

That's a weird way to spell Council of Wyrms.

>Council of Wyrms.
That's something I really want to play someday

Fair enough. I just feel like the culture is biased against those being the standard fare for player parties. Like you don't have drow warlocks or aaorcrka cleircs as a common thing in OSR games. Whereas in Pathfinder people pick whichever race best fits their "build" so you end up with 5 different races in the party and none of them are core.

>Alright, a red dragon, wood giant, and a crawling claw walk into a tavern . . .

...

...

Thanks to whoever extracted this part.

Is there a PDF of OD&D that has all of the extra classes and charts from the later supplement books mixed into it? I know there is one for the original 3 booklets. Thanks!

Someone please come up with a better OSR primer or at least a few bullet points.

roll1d100.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-is-osr.html

This is close but clearly comes from a story games perspective.

greyhawkonline.com/grodog/gh_tourneys.html

>booklets
When will they learn?

What's a good reason to play OD&D instead of Cyclopedia?

what perspective would you like it to be coming from?

Cyclopedia isn't OSR

Tower of the Stargazer or Tomb of the Serpent Kings?

Tower of the Serpent Kings.

People have been trying to define the OSR for almost as long as the OSR has been a thing and no one has managed to please everyone or even a majority of the community, yet this hasn't done the community any damage.

I don't see the need to have some sort of OSR manifesto like we were a political affiliation. Explain to your players your personal reasons for switching to a OSR system and that should be enough

Tower of the Stargazer is more coherent.

Why wouldn't it be?

You mean Tower of the Star Kings

Tomb of the Serpent Gazer is better.

>BEBG
ugh

B4 The Lost City

Is Microlite74, Microlite81, or something else the preferred choice for a short babby's first OSR? I'm a DM for a 5e group and feel like one of these games might be a better fit for us. Labyrinth Lord looks cool but I'd prefer a short one I can print out and basically memorize.

The Rules Cyclopedia is bogged down in a whole bunch of somewhat unnecessary rules, and OD&D is a more focused product.

OD&D's also a lot simpler once someone in the group actually knows it (the editing is worse, though), and overall the math is a lot lower than the somewhat bloated stuff in later D&D. For example, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to get a permanent AC below -1.

Oh, and OD&D is weirder. That's a big selling point. It's also a more difficult game, in some aspects.

>What is your favorite adventure that you have actually played or run?
Recently? TotSK has been a lot of fun, but I did write it, so that's hardly fair. If I didn't enjoy runnng it then what'd be the point?

I had fun running this adventure too: blog.trilemma.com/2015/09/the-full-dark-stone.html
with a more vigorously random effect table and lots of scheming.

Connect them both if you'd like. Tower of the Tomb of the Keep of the Moors of the Swamp on the Hill of the Steading of the Serpent Giant Lizard Kings of the Borderlands. But I'm biased.
Coherent as in...?

It really isn't OSR but pretty much.

Not exactly. For overland, I roll all three encounters at the same time and then they run into them at morning evening and night. For dungeons, it's basically once every hour (at the hour mark you roll 6d6 and if there's at least one 1, you get ONE (1) encounter) plus more for noise. If you've been in the dungeon for a while and make a noise, you're more likely to have an encounter than if you enter the dungeon with a bang. It's just a way to reduce bookkeeping by compressing all the probabilities into one event.
But if half of the dice come up as 1, I might whack them with two encounters at once

What kind of unnecessary rules? I think each rules most certainly has it's place and everything not required for play is pretty much labeled as Optional. I think Cyclopedia is the best way to run old school D&D personally, as it's comprehensive, yet very flexible for a book meaning to compile the BECM rulesets.

On another note, what books would you say are needed to run OD&D smoothly? All of them? Might be interested to check them out for reading if nothing else.

>full dark stone
Can you post the magical disaster table you used for that one? Seems like it would be a generally useful thing.

why don't you do it, jerk

Oh, shit, I got the numbers wrong, you get an encounter on a 1-2. That way you have a 90% chance to get an encounter every hour, not a 66%.

>Can you post the magical disaster table you used for that one? Seems like it would be a generally useful thing.
Oh jeeze, let me check my notes. I mashed it together in a hurry from a bunch of other tables online.
The d500 Mutation Table is almost done though, if it's any consolation.

And for the usual shilling: coinsandscrolls.blogspot.ca/2018/01/osr-illithids.html

Mind Flayer stuff! Post-apocalyptic junkies. Squid people with weird tools, weird tech, and an unstable culture.

>That pic
Holy crap that kind of fits.