|
I found that the RC even has rules for starting high level campaigns, complete with wealth by level, and consequently for pricing magic items if you want to be able to sell +1 swords for straight gp. Such a complete book and resource.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
I'm really starting to like Swords & Wizardry. The lack of extensive tables and special rules as well as the fact that it's somewhat intended to use as a toolkit to create your own variant is starting to grow on me. Now, I've got a couple of questions. First, are there any noticable differences between the "Core" book and the "Complete" rulebook that's being published by Necromancer Games? The Complete edition has a bunch more classes (paladins, rangers, monks, etc), but did they change anything else? Also, is there anything lacking from the book that would be useful? So far I'm only missing rules for morale, which can turn out pretty important in old school dungeons. I sort of want to run a Keep on the Borderlands-variant as a PbP game, with a "Fantasy Vietnam" feel. Still haven't picked a system, but S&W is in the lead so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
S&W White Box is based on the original three brown books only, and correspondingly only has Fighting-Man (not even Fighter), Cleric, Magic-User, and the Elf, Dwarf and Halfling races-as-classes. The effect of attributes is very muted: only +1 or -1 either way, with most falling to no bonus. S&W Core expands the scope a little by separating out races and classes. S&W Complete Rules includes material from the other OD&D supplements such as Greyhawk and Blackmoor, so you get Thieves, Assassins, Druids, Monks, Paladins, Rangers and attribute modifiers that are much wider.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Such a complete book and resource. Then again that would probably undercut 5e sakes so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I do wish there were more retroclones out there that emulated the whole RC experience. Fighter maneuvers, upgraded core classes, domain management...there's a lot of stuff in there that most retroclones just seem to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:I'm really starting to like Swords & Wizardry. The lack of extensive tables and special rules as well as the fact that it's somewhat intended to use as a toolkit to create your own variant is starting to grow on me. Now, I've got a couple of questions. gradenko_2000 posted:I found that the RC even has rules for starting high level campaigns, complete with wealth by level, and consequently for pricing magic items if you want to be able to sell +1 swords for straight gp. Personally I think ACKS and DCC handle High Level shenanigans the best out of any OSR games, ACKS from a Domain perspective, and DCC from a personal power one(as a Level 10 DCC character is pretty much equivalent to a Level 20 character in most other OSR games)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Moldvay basic is a fine, rules light game, but Rules Cyclopedia isn't bad either now that Dark Dungeons exists. I understand the game inside and out and I can barely read the actual factual RC. You can get a giant, as in page size not number, paperback of the thing from lulu for under 20 bucks and it's easy. The players won't even need to read 3/4 of the book. Maybe give Mentzer D&D a shot, then look at the RC again after you have a good grasp of the central rules presented in B/E. Mentzer red box is hands down the best D&D teaching tool too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Really? I found the RC easy to read, but I despised the organization in Mentzer's set. Mentzer gets a lot of props for the CYOA-type introduction to the game, but IMO Moldvay (and most other editions) is the better version for actually being reference material once you already know how to play. It's just that you need both, but no one has ever done a Mentzer-type thing for any other edition, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
I agree with that. You aren't going to read the first half of the player's book ever again after you learn the game. It's not really a reference book. I don't know why I can't parse the RC very well. AD&D 2e also made my eyes gloss over. I think after 3e, I have no patience left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I agree with that. You aren't going to read the first half of the player's book ever again after you learn the game. It's not really a reference book. I don't know why I can't parse the RC very well. AD&D 2e also made my eyes gloss over. I think after 3e, I have no patience left. it's probably cause RC and 2e are both very dry books, Dark Dungeons and a couple other retroclones suffer from this issue as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
This is more of a general problem with RPG writing, especially for crunch-heavy books, that it is difficult to hit that sweet spot between: 1. This is the minimum amount of knowledge you need to play the game, ordered in the way you'd need to learn them as you're starting 2. These are the more specific rules for edge cases you're sure to run into while playing 3. These are the rules organized in such a manner as to make it easy to be referenced when all you need is a single specific look-up Mentzer does #1 well, but isn't good for the latter two. Pretty much all other RPG books try to do a mix between #2 and #3 and usually end up on the "too much detail" end of the spectrum, such as always covering character creation first before you even know what combat is like, or what a feat is. And because book organization is done so poorly and/or is so misunderstood, players tend to enter two camps: 1. They want "rules light" games just so it's faster to read the book from cover to cover and so they don't have to cram as much information in their head in one go. Which is fine, except when they start filling in the rules-less gaps with pages and pages of houserules. Houserules that would normally be covered by more crunchy games. It's sort of like how you might want to play B/X or OD&D so you don't have to memorize AD&D all at once, but after you've grown comfortable with B/X you start making up your own rules instead of drawing them from or completely migrating to AD&D. In an ideal world, both sets of rules would exist within the same game, but taught to the player in such a pace where the transition is gradual rather than all-at-once. 5th Edition is another example: it feels very much like a simplified 3rd Edition, but the designers never "moved on", so to speak. People love it because it plays fast and is (relatively) easy to understand, but once you're plugged in and familiar with the system, the lack of rules becomes ugly because now you keep asking for specifics that just aren't there. 2. They never want to move away from established systems. The "it took me so many years to learn d20, I don't want to have to learn something else!" type of sunk cost fallacy, which leads to things like d20 Call of Cthulhu or the OSR White Star rather than something that's dedicated to the genre/setting you want to try. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:AD&D 2e also made my eyes gloss over. gradenko_2000 posted:It's sort of like how you might want to play B/X or OD&D so you don't have to memorize AD&D all at once, but after you've grown comfortable with B/X you start making up your own rules instead of drawing them from or completely migrating to AD&D. In an ideal world, both sets of rules would exist within the same game, but taught to the player in such a pace where the transition is gradual rather than all-at-once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:It has long struck me as the damnedest shame at both Glorantha and Tekumel missed the limelight that D&D got in terms of the breadth of having people get in on the lot of it and mess around in full the world over---though Glorantha is at least faring far better in terms of that giant/amazing "Guide to" book and the King of Dragon Pass / forthcoming Six Ages on the computer game front versus that one new Tekumel edition KS that made it awhile back. They each have such jam-packed settings and have been hard at it for decades now. I haven't read Bethorm, the new version of the game, but based on all the preview material available, I'm going to say that it's unbearably dry. It's a fairly straightforward stat+skill, roll-under system, but it's the kind of horribly pedantic skill system that has separate "Cosmetics" and "Fashion" skills and makes skills like "History" into macro-skills that require you to choose a focus. "It's the kind of game where you can put points in 3 different History skills" is the incantation for a magic spell that makes me never play a game. I've heard it described as a game for long-time Tekumel nerds to have a less baroque system to play Tekumel in, rather than actually draw a new audience. I don't want to make generalizations about a fanbase, but I do sometimes get the impression that Tekumel material is in the hands of oldheads who are happy to gatekeep it mainly for one another. I wish fans like Brett Slocum or "Chirine ba Kal" owned Tekumel; they'd probably do something a lot more fun with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
So I'm going to run a Darker Dungeons game after looking at some rulesets. Are there any actual resources out there that are like, quick reference sheets or things that I should keep a printout of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:As someone who's been trying to get into Tekumel lately, I'd like to speak to this: Tekumel might have missed the limelight because its publication history is a loving shitshow. After the TSR version, the next version was published as a set of three boxed sets. You needed the first to understand the world, the second to create and play characters, and the third one (for GMs) was never finished. The third version of the game was published as a boxed set, but you needed the first supplement to create new characters. Tekumel was around for decades before Guardians of Order gave it a comprehensive published game that isn't a pain in the rear end to read. That seems in line with much I've seen---agreed so hard on "Chirine ba Kal" being somebody that'd "get it" in a big way compared to the general trend to seemingly not have any real ambition to boldly get things out there and raise a clamor especially considering how perpetually hamstrung D&D proper has/presently is when it comes to modern conveniences and risk taking. I guess the overarching "problem" is true for most, if not all, of the Old Big Other projects(Is there an actual list of these someplace? I keep discovering them seemingly at random and usually without any explicit context as to where they fit in the historical fray...)---Talislanta is another that has been around a long time seemingly becoming an ever more majestic frog in sum inside an ever shrinking well while only rarely becoming visible in the grand scheme of things to take a peek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
By the by, if you're interested Brett Slocum has a blog and he is all about using Labyrinth Lord and related retrogames to run Tekumel and Barsoomian sword-and-planet games. He's working on a set of LL-based Tekumel rules right now, although it's currently just available in bits and pieces and you have to hop around his blog posts and G+ posts to find the files. He runs Tekumel at conventions and, get this, he actually hands out simple 2-page packets that tell newbies what they need to roleplay in Tsolyanu! We have to stop this maniac before he lets any more barbarians through the gates. Completely unrelated: I don't want to sound one negative note after another, but I skimmed a copy of Silent Legions and I really was not impressed. I'm just not sure what this game is trying to be. It sort of converts classic Call of Cthulhu over to use D&D style mechanics. It has a character creation system that lets you pick almost everything, but not your ability scores, which are D&D style and still use the 3-18, derive a bonus as in B/X method. It has a skill system with a skill list that would be fine in straight CoC, but is way too long and specific if the goal was to convert CoC over to an OSR D&D retroclone. I also don't get the sense that the game is deliberately hearkening back to early editions of CoC, when everybody was still figuring out how to do games that weren't derivative of D&D, and they put out some adventures that were dungeoncrawls with a 1920s Lovecraftian coat of paint. I just really don't know what Crawford's design goals were at all. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
My impression was that he was really just in it for the "make your own Cthulhu mythos so people don't automatically know what to do when you throw a Shantac at them" factor, just that he also needed to form a game around it. I did buy the game with the intention of running it, but I myself admit that the conversion of horror mechanics to OSR D&D seemed like a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
It feels to me like he's sold now on using his SWN game blueprint for all of the games he puts out, and he sees it as a strength because you can easily port from one game to another. He even has a section in Silent Legions about porting to SWN, or vice versa. He's using his OSR DnD-with-skills ruleset as a generic ruleset at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I backed Silent Legions for the various mythos/cult/artifact creation things, and didn't even think about the actual game system. I mean, the system is workable but it's not lighting any fires under anyone. I guess the best thing you can say about it is that it does the job and gets out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:It feels to me like he's sold now on using his SWN game blueprint for all of the games he puts out, and he sees it as a strength because you can easily port from one game to another. He even has a section in Silent Legions about porting to SWN, or vice versa. He's using his OSR DnD-with-skills ruleset as a generic ruleset at this point. It's in a way a repeat of the how everyone and their mother ported everything to d20, except with B/X or OD&D trappings rather than 3rd Edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Tolan posted:I backed Silent Legions for the various mythos/cult/artifact creation things, and didn't even think about the actual game system. I mean, the system is workable but it's not lighting any fires under anyone. I guess the best thing you can say about it is that it does the job and gets out of the way. Which, to be fair, is the best thing you can say about BRP Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Traveller posted:Which, to be fair, is the best thing you can say about BRP Call of Cthulhu. Well, yeah, though the BRP rules did lead to some hilarious (at the time) incidents like the 75+ year old Civil War vet 1920s character (the edition we were playing didn't actually have rules for aging, or we misread them--there was an EDU bonus but no penalties, so why not be ancient?), pistols unable to fire across an average street, surviving a "death trap" encounter through the judicious use of land mines and tripod-mounted machine guns, etc. Masks was a blast but it's always been more about the story and the world and the god-drat fantastic handouts than it was the rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Speaking of Crawford, he released issue 2 of The Sandbox. New Scarlet Heroes class, SWN lifepaths, and some quick-roll stuff (temples and religious wars).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
OSRIC seems like my favorite retroclone right now and what I will probably be using, except that I'm not a fan that it's an optional rule that Paladins and Rangers can get weapon specialization if Fighters get them. I'd probably stick to 2e and just have Fighters be the only ones who can get it. Anything I should be aware of with OSRIC or things I should keep in mind?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I'd say just make sure you use OSRIC as exclusively as possible. That is, it's juuust different enough from 1e that it's going to be confusing if you closely compare from one to the other, so only deviate from OSRIC if it's really not in the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:It has long struck me as the damnedest shame at both Glorantha and Tekumel missed the limelight that D&D got in terms of the breadth of having people get in on the lot of it and mess around in full the world over---though Glorantha is at least faring far better in terms of that giant/amazing "Guide to" book and the King of Dragon Pass / forthcoming Six Ages on the computer game front versus that one new Tekumel edition KS that made it awhile back. They each have such jam-packed settings and have been hard at it for decades now. The problem that Glorantha has is that it's almost utterly impenetrable for people who are new to the setting. It's different, and it's probably a blast to play in, but because I've never played any games in that setting, I don't feel like I understand it near well enough to run any games in it. I'd much rather run a game in a simpler setting from which I can easily expand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Glorantha is honestly not that complex and I think people might be thrown off by all the cosmology and myth stuff that glorantha fans like to talk about. the basic setting if you're sticking with Orlanthi cultures is basically iron age celts in fantasy land, fighting creatures of chaos. Most people know some magic, so there aren't dedicated D&D wizards and most spells hew towards the practical (bless crops, warriors casting swordsharp on their weapons, etc) This is all you really need to go on to start with and the more unique elements can be introduced gradually (bring duck people in immediately because death cultist duck warriors are the best)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Man this reminds me that I need to get the Guide to Glorantha as soon as I can
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Speaking of Crawford, he released issue 2 of The Sandbox. New Scarlet Heroes class, SWN lifepaths, and some quick-roll stuff (temples and religious wars). The Blademaster class is interesting as far as its use of once-per-fight and once-per-day definitions for activations of its powers, not only because it's a martial class, but also because it's an OSR game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Tulpa posted:Glorantha is honestly not that complex and I think people might be thrown off by all the cosmology and myth stuff that glorantha fans like to talk about. the basic setting if you're sticking with Orlanthi cultures is basically iron age celts in fantasy land, fighting creatures of chaos. Most people know some magic, so there aren't dedicated D&D wizards and most spells hew towards the practical (bless crops, warriors casting swordsharp on their weapons, etc) This is all you really need to go on to start with and the more unique elements can be introduced gradually (bring duck people in immediately because death cultist duck warriors are the best) In which case, the setting sorely needs summarising, because the stuff I read always gave me the idea that I was expected to actually learn all that poo poo before even thinking about running a game. If the common conception of Glorantha is that it's ridiculously hard to get into for new players and GMs, then frankly that's the fault of the people writing books for the setting. Maybe there's some better books now for introducing new players and GMs to Glorantha, but I was introduced to it via Mongoose's Glorantha: The Second Age. This book starts from the very first page about myth and cosmology; it describes each culture in first person, starting with myths, then history, then daily life and finally why one might go adventuring, when frankly the opposite from an out of character perspective would be a much better choice. When giving advice on how to play a given culture, it gives such advice as (for playing an elf): "Have your character detour to forests. Once there, it lingers, listening to the song of Seyotel. Require sustained prompting from other Adventurers before you move or pay attention to pressing matters at hand."; "Bring a few dried leaves to the game session in a plastic bag; occasionally take them out and rustle them." and "Talk so quietly others must strain to listen.". Honestly, I'd prefer to see a collection of shorter books that each focus on a different culture; something akin to Runequest Vikings (also from Mongoose), which starts off with an introduction to the setting (in this case, the part of Glorantha that the culture inhabits), a detailed outsider's view of the culture, including the way they view other cultures, advice for creating characters from that culture, religious beliefs (including a few important myths), a section on commonly used magic, including descriptions of any spells not included in the core rules and a bestiary containing the most likely creatures to be found in the bit of Glorantha that that book is focussing on. Maybe there'd be a little bit about heroquesting, but only as it pertains to that one culture. Then, a separate book just about the cosmology, more detailed information about heroquesting, the importance of myth and how all of the religions are correct; all of it, completely separate from the stuff that would allow a newcomer to the setting to actually start getting used to the setting. It might be a little more expensive than having a single book for the entire setting, but it'd certainly do a better job of introducing people to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
I finally figured something out: One of the reasons Erol Otus' art is so weird is that no matter what he was hired to work on, he draws Tekumel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Man this reminds me that I need to get the Guide to Glorantha as soon as I can Act now while supplies last!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the 13th Age in Glorantha book; I'm hoping it'll provide a nice introduction to the setting that's a bit pared down from the Guide to Glorantha. One of the hard parts about trying to play RuneQuest (in any of its iterations) is that it feels like everyone in the group has to have the same dedication to absorbing the background that the GM (or whoever is advocating it) has. It feels like Gloratha requires more effort on the part of the group to use all this mythical stuff that's floating around. I agree that it's probably a failure on the part of the writers to realize that while the myths and cultural stuff is interesting and fun, it's not immediately useful to people trying to sit down and play the game for the first time. I think that a huge reason (and this is not a controversial opinion) most fantasy settings are "vikings, with elves!" or "Rome with orcs!" is that it's very quick to explain that to people and have them be able to pitch in. Glorantha doesn't have that immediacy, which is a strength and a weakness. It's a shame, because I'm a guy that loves all that nitpicky worldbuilding bullshit that never really comes into play (and so is p. useless in terms of gaming). Maybe I'm just bad at pitching games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Man this reminds me that I need to get the Guide to Glorantha as soon as I can Uh, yes, you do. I asked how well it had sold at Gen Con and they said they had like 35 left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Tolan posted:I'm looking forward to the 13th Age in Glorantha book; I'm hoping it'll provide a nice introduction to the setting that's a bit pared down from the Guide to Glorantha. I believe they will have a separate Glorantha sourcebook specifically for this purpose. It's meant to be for people like me who have little to no knowledge of the setting. There's always the Guide to Glorantha for finer details, but it's a bit much to sift through at the outset. From the 13th Age in Glorantha Kickstarter page: quote:We are also introducing The Glorantha Source Book, a 128+ page full-color hardcover book that is the perfect companion to the the 13th Age in Glorantha rulebook. Containing no gaming rules, it is a wonderful resource for people wanting to begin their journey into the mythic world of Glorantha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Danoss posted:I believe they will have a separate Glorantha sourcebook specifically for this purpose. It's meant to be for people like me who have little to no knowledge of the setting. There's always the Guide to Glorantha for finer details, but it's a bit much to sift through at the outset. Yep. Backed it, just waiting for them to finish it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Dumnbunny posted:Act now while supplies last! JonBolds posted:Uh, yes, you do. I asked how well it had sold at Gen Con and they said they had like 35 left. Well it looks like I know what my big purchase for either September or October will be(don't think I'll be able to afford it this month)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Well it looks like I know what my big purchase for either September or October will be(don't think I'll be able to afford it this month) Yeah, and with the outlay for a second print run being like $40k they might not get them back in circulation for a while since now-united Chaosium/Moon Design are focusing on fulfilling other Kickstarter obligations that will probably run into the red. Anyways! I am working on a set of rules for Gloranthan rune magic in old school D&D systems - would you all be interested in going over them for me when I'm done?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
I was reading through the AD&D 1e PHB and I think it's true what they say that there's always something new to discover in these tomes because today I learned about the 1st Edition Bard * Uses the Fighter's attack table * Has Thief skills equal to their level-1 * Can cast Druid spells, and has full spell progression starting from level 1 (eat that Paladins/Rangers!) * Can cast Charm * Uses the best saving throw between Thieves, Druids and Fighters * Can provide a +1 attack bonus aura by playing music Their armor only goes up to Chainmail, but they can even use most weapons including swords, and notably magical swords. The drawbacks are that they use a d6 for their hit points, the minimum ability scores are brutal if you're playing the game straight (15 STR, 15 DEX, 10 CON, 12 INT, 15 WIS, 15 CHA) and they're probably going to miss out on a few Fighter-specific goodies depending on how you interpret the rules (exceptional STR, CON bonus, weapon specialization). Still though, Gygax tucked this baby away in an appendix at the very back of the book and warns players/DM that they shouldn't introduce this class lightly because of how powerful it is, but the whole time I was reading it I instead was thinking 'what a perfect generic Adventurer class!', and the bit about it "subsuming" the Rogue and the Fighter made me think that yeah, a class that fights well AND rogues well AND has some battle magic available would remedy LFQW and self-justifying Rogues by quite a bit (setting aside how AD&D doesn't suffer from LFQW as much, but on a conceptual level)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Bards begin play as fighters, and they must remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience. Anytime thereafter, and in any event prior to attaining the 8th level, they must change their class to that of thieves. Again, sometime between 5th and 9th level of ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage. Bards must fulfill the requirements in all the above classes before progressing to Bards Table 1. They are the proto prestige class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:58
|
|
