Welcome to /osrg/ – a center for pre-WotC D&D and all things related

Should just be +2 to [class]y thing tobehonestfamily

>mods start deleting threads

Attached: 1521015166006.png (650x950, 524K)

We didn't need 5 OSR generals with 4 shitty topics

I agree - but that's not the point. That thread was not the only one that got deleted.

Horizon is 3 miles from the viewer at sea level. So the radius of a hex can be 3 miles. Hence six miles diameter. Or 5 if you'd rather.

What do people think of level 0?

Yes - you can see the BORDER of other hexes - but not far enough into them that you would see what is inside (like the tower example)

It's for NPCs, not PCs.

>Climb a tree
>see well into neighboring hex

1.22*SQR(height in feet) = miles to the horizon

A modest 20 feet up gets you out to 5.45 miles, or almost to the center of the next hex over.

Hey user, did you finish your post about shitting on the party?

Can someone please share some pdfs or link websites that talk about gems, stuff like names, specific colours and values? I think I am missing out on a good chunk of my game by just outright telling my players how much the gems they find are worth.

Attached: 12998461_1733422216879584_2561823997478537604_n.jpg (648x486, 15K)

There's a great section on gems in the 2e DMG, Appendix 1.

Where muh Lamentation Boys at!

Never mind hills. Even fairly mild elevation changes grant a fair bit of distance. Adjacent hexes have height too. Mountains can be visible far enough away they're more likely to be obscured by humidity than the horizon.

Is 5e OSR?

No.

Attached: NO horse.png (276x347, 56K)

Of course not.

AD&D was what Gygax intended OD&D to become, FOE.

AD&D was made for the tournament scene. The last page of TU&WA was his vision of OD&D.

That doesn't say anything about OD&D's legitimacy as OSR, nerd.

Attached: Fred.png (350x500, 232K)

No. AD&D was OD&D mashed up with the accumulated feature creep of several bad supplements. AD&D as written is a bad game. Variablde damage dice was an afterthought and if I recall correctly even Gary himself didn't use that rule in his own games.

Variable damage dice makes sense for one-handed vs two-handed weapons, as two-handed weapons don't allow shields to be used.
Just because Gary didn't personally use them doesn't mean it was wrong to use them.

>every weapon does 1d6 damage
>but there's no mechanical differentiation between a dagger and a greatsword
Y'know I'm not even okay with that in storygames.

It doesn't. Give 2-handers +1 to hit or damage or adjudicate shields with the help of fictional positioning but introducing another type of die to the game just for the sake of it is dumb. Variable damage dice makes the game more complicated for absolutely no gain.

>choosing a weapon based on what's best
Disgusting.

Not everything needs to be codified in mechanics. That way lies 3.PF/5e.

>"dude a tiny little knife will hurt a dragon's thick hide just as much as a greatsword lol"
>Give 2-handers +1 to hit or damage
A base polyhedral die is better than getting too many pluses and minuses all mixed up with each other. At a certain point you get 4 or 5 different numerical modifiers to damage, which is retarded.
A +1 to damage on a 1d6 has the exact same same average damage as a flat 1d8 anyway.

The way I differentiate between weapons is by using weapon vs. armour modifiers, length and space required. It's a bit more complicated but doesn't slow combat down and adds more variety than variable dice damage ever could.

Attached: 0f8f4118607703.562cc4be6178b.jpg (600x450, 374K)

>A +1 to damage on a 1d6 has the exact same same average damage as a flat 1d8 anyway.
But 1d6+1 is a lot better in terms of simplicity. If you need only one thing why use two? That's not rational.

>At a certain point you get 4 or 5 different numerical modifiers to damage, which is retarded.
No. This simply never is the case unless you're playing 3.PF/5e.

>not using fixed damage
Damage dice were a mistake.

>"dude a tiny little knife will hurt a dragon's thick hide just as much as a greatsword lol"
>implying damage dealt has anything to do with AC
I would call you a FOE but I don't think you've even played WotC editions.

You don't need to play new-D&D to be a FOE, you just need to be posting in this thread and yet obviously not understand the old school. Or just play in a way I don't like

>But 1d6+1 is a lot better in terms of simplicity. If you need only one thing why use two? That's not rational.
Why use a die and a modifier when you could use just a die? That's irrational. You act like balanced polyhedral dice aren't utterly ubiquitous these days.

Damage dealt does have to do with AC in the example I gave. Are you actually suggesting a dragon will be just as hurt if a knife was plunged into its skin as if a bastard sword were?
Stop dancing around this point.

>AD&D as written is a bad game
Sure, sure.
I get it.
Now be productive

"Plunging into its skin" is where you're going wrong in the first place. OSR is abstract, it does not simulate things like target locations or skin thickness. You just want to roll more types of dice for the sake of uniqueness rather than actual play at the table.

>Arguing over Gygaxian drivel
Everything except Dragons at Dawn is FOE.

>you can't have different weapons stats because 3.PF
>you can't have different classes because 3.PF
See how retarded that sounds. Certain weapons are more suitable for certain situations, and adding in some mechanical codification--even if it's something like Fate Aspects or Apocalypse World tags--goes a long way to bringing the game to life. I'm not saying you need to go overboard, but yeah, saying, "Greatswords do 1d6+1 damage because you wield them in two hands" makes a lot of sense.

>Are you actually suggesting a dragon will be just as hurt if a knife was plunged into its skin as if a bastard sword were?
You don't seem to understand the abstract nature of D&D combat because you probably play tactics simulators like Pathfinder and 5e.

When a dragon is succesfully attacked upon by a weapon, be it a dagger or a greatsword, the resulting degradation in the combat ability of the dragon should be similar. How easy it is to to degrade the dragon's combat ability (amount of HP) with a type of weapon is a different matter. Hit points are not meat points.

Just to remind you that an attack roll is not a singular swing.

>you can't have different classes because 3.PF
This is true, however. You really don't need more than three classes.

>You just want to roll more types of dice for the sake of uniqueness rather than actual play at the table.
Your definition of "actual play at the table" is using d6s only? Holy shit, you ACTUALLY think that polyhedral dice are some kind of rare new phenomenon. That's hilarious to me, but mostly I just feel sorry for you.
The reason weapons have different damage values depending not just on size of the weapon, but size of the creature they're hitting, is because certain weapons are just not as effective as others when fighting larger creatures.
For example, a wooden club in your view should strike a dragon for 1d6 damage even though the club does blunt damage yet would never in a million years bruise a dragon with any kind of effectiveness.

The only thing pointless mechanical fuckery brings to life is minmaxing and rules-lawyering.

Why have mechanics at all in that case?

>For example, a wooden club in your view should strike a dragon for 1d6 damage even though the club does blunt damage yet would never in a million years bruise a dragon with any kind of effectiveness.
You still don't understand what abstract combat means. You are not supposed to be simulating singular blows that "strike a dragon" or "bruise a dragon".

search dndwithfecalpornstars, my shit appreciating dude

Because games have mechanics. Bad games have bad mechanics.

Abstract combat would also mean, "this weapon is not going to cut it for fighting something like this" as well. It doesn't mean a weapon has to deal appreciable damage to something by virtue of it being "a weapon".

What do you define as bad mechanics, other than "things I don't personally like"?

A single attack roll still falls within a set period of time. An equal number of blows with an axe is going to accomplish a hell of a lot more in that period than a number of blows with a club on a dragon (or a tree, or plenty of large targets). Being abstract doesn't change relative effectiveness.

Abstract combat is a bullshit excuse of a term for "I know it doesn't make sense shut up"

You don't need more than one class, MOTHERFUCKER.

>pointless mechanical fuckery
This is point-ful mechanical fuckery tho.

"It makes sense" is the mantra of bad mouse-throwing game designers.

>having classes

Why not just freeform everything? If it sounds like it works it does, if it sounds implausible then it doesn't. Everyone is just who they are in real life except in a hole in the ground.

Fuck this newschool, snowflake "mechanics" bullshit

>classless
Go back to the Runequest general OH WAIT

"It makes sense" is the entire purpose behind abstract combat in the first place.

Nah. It very much makes sense in the old editions before the feature creep of supplements started diluting the design. Modern editions don't even care anymore as they're filled with contradictions.

You know what doesn't make sense? Getting strong enough to shrug off sword blows just because you hauled an arbitrary amount of wealth from a dungeon.

Because you'll have everyone arguing with the DM every 5 minutes unless you all agree to a base set of mechanics, you disingenuous shit.

You're either contradicting yourself or not getting the point

Exactly. That's player skill right there, your ability to present your argument in a reasonable way

Steve Perrin did nothing wrong. Except for autism and converting to a d% system for some reason.

>Getting stronger
>>>/5eg/
>>>/PFG/
We don't do that here

Leveling up is getting stronger, go play WFRP or a storygame if you want to be perpetually worthless.

Underrated.

If you're not distinquishing the fictional qualities of a wooden club and a sharp axe you're not doing your job as a DM.

>He lets his players level up
I bet you let them start at level 1, too

Attached: 1521328620034.jpg (696x392, 34K)

>the fictional qualities
Get out of here with your Forge bullshit. The """""fiction"""""" doesn't matter.

Get a load of this newschoolfag.

Leave if you're intent on just shitposting.

Of course they start at level 1, I'm not a FOE that runs DCC for them

The fiction does not matter, dumbasses. You can run a randomly generated dungeon for level 1 PCs without the slightest excuse for their being there as a pure exercise in player skill and tactics and that's as OSR as it gets.

>muh fickshun
>muh verisimilitude
>muh speshul karactur
Fuck off

You too. I'm sick and tired of you faggots infesting this hobby

Attached: 1521558826403.jpg (460x276, 47K)

Butthurt 4rry liberal that got told off now trying to falseflag

Being a cunt won't make anyone want to play tabletop games with you.

>WFRP
It's more OSR than the OSR desu.

>buzzwords

Attached: 1521167962086.png (500x337, 87K)

Fantasy Flight is about as far from OSR as it gets.

The sort of storygaming, pathfaggot pinkhair shitters that might get scared off were never welcome at my table

You don't seem to get what I meant by fiction. Of course fictional positioning matters. It matters very much because old school D&D is very loose a system in terms of rules. The game is adjudicated based on what's happening in the fiction.

Apparently you have more than just a problem with pink hair furry PF shitters. Stop being evasive.

You may be legitimately retarded. Being able to cut rope with an axe but not with a mace is a "fictional quality"

>what is fictional positioning
You can't run the game if you don't know what's actually happening in the game now can you?

I'm talking about the original. You're a pig farmer who is probably going to end up with an arrow through his eyesocket, and that's the fun of it.

You don't have to give a shit about fikshunwurld to understand what's happening.

I would agree with you if I didn't have the distinct impression that the pig farmer isn't the type of person who would want to go on an adventure where he could get an arrow through the eyesocket.
You kind of have to have some initiative that makes you want to do dangerous things, and pigfarmers don't necessarily meet that description.

Your statement contradicts itself.

How do you know what's happening in the game (IN THE FICTIONAL SPACE) if you don't know what each character is doing, how they're doing it, with what equipment etc?

The funny thing is that WFRP 1E's intro fiction answers that: the POV character used to be a Fisherman, but now he's an adventurer! He's got a sword!

Chess doesn't need "fiction" to understand the positioning of the pieces. And that's what OSR dungeon crawling is: pieces on a board, to be moved and discarded as the players see fit under the rules. Let's not pretend differently here.

>player skill
The things which allow for the most player skill (interesting puzzles and traps, "factions" or at least somebody to interact with, engaging map design) are not handled by a randomly generated dungeon, and a dungeon that makes thematic sense (even if the theme is making no sense) is far more flavorful than a bunch of plain rooms stuck together. I'm not sure if you're baiting or if you really swalloed the falseflagging grog kool aid this hard