|
I haven't checked on LotFP in 3 years but it's disappointing to see the guy totally stick his ego into the work. The original version was a good extension to the 0E rules that actually made it into playable game that didn't feel completely generic. I guess he got pissed off about people calling it a "retroclone", and defenders of LotFP will bite your head off if you dare call it that, so it turned into something completely left field with this lovely "Grindhouse" thing. If you asked about monsters or magic items the conversation turned into "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO."VacuumJockey posted:I'm mostly a BECMI and AD&D man, so I can't really tell you much about what S&W is like in play compared to OD&D. FWIW it's supposed to be 99% restated OD&D with much better organization and layout. In any case, the core rules are available for free so you can always check them out. It's difficult to say because 0E was never a concrete thing as it relied on Chainmail for its combat and supplementary rules. S&W and Labyrinth Lord are closer to Holmes Basic which is essentially a revision of 0E to appeal to people who weren't wargamers. al-azad fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Aug 17, 2012 |
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
moths posted:That looks like it will be useful, I was more hoping for a quick overview. I saw some other people asking about what made it stand out from the crowd earlier in the thread, but maybe I missed replies. Swords and Wizardry is a strange beast. It cherry picks from all the books released on 0e but it's closer to Holmes Basic in design than 0e as it was written. It has the three original character classes but they all use linear HD progression (0e had a strange stacked progression). It uses varied weapon damage and newer spells like magic missile from the later supplements, but it doesn't include any of the new character classes like monk and thief. They released a "White Box" edition which tries to be more true to the original spirit, but S&W's biggest problem is that it completely lacks the wilderness rules from 0e! And this is big because that was an entire book on adventuring. People like to say 0e was "rules light" but it wasn't, it was pretty drat heavy. Getting lost, being chased, naval combat, wilderness and underground exploration, how dungeons and monsters behave (the dungeon was treated almost like a living creature), building strongholds, and mass battles: those were all there from day 1 but S&W completely ignores them. To me, S&W is too bare bones to enjoy even though the developers have often compared themselves to 0e's "barebones-ness" as a positive feature but in truth they completely cut about 50% of the rules. Labyrinth Lord is a clone of Basic/Expert but it has all the wilderness stuff S&W leaves out and it feels closer to 0e both in spirit and by the rules. e: After some research, the new edition does finally add wilderness rules. I haven't looked it over but I can call it a proper 0e clone now. al-azad fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:So I'm preparing to run my first 1st Edition AD&D game in a two-session romp at the second half of the month. I'm still going through the amazing Dungeon Master's Guide, but I had some questions that I don't think I'll find the answers to within. Keep in mind that older editions stressed hirelings and henchman. You were expected to have a full entourage of followers to help you out at lower levels. Many beginning modules like Keep on the Borderlands would have a page devoted to the random mercenaries chilling at the local tavern.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
The First Fantasy Campaign is grognard city. Arneson kept track of so many minute details from economy to military throughout his world. It also details a really awesome experience mechanic where PCs only gain experience if they spend their wealth on frivolous things: booze, prostitutes (male and female, Arneson makes sure to mention), bards to boast about your exploits, and... church stuff, if that's your boring fancy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:This sounds ideal, but it looks like all of the links to the guy's website are dead. I wrote it so I'll see if I have a backup floating around. I honestly can't remember if it was designed specifically for tabletop wargaming style play, the actual conceit behind the design was "what if "funny dice" were never invented" so it's D&D with D6s only.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
The first decision I made in writing For Gold & Glory was to remove all the "optional" stuff, specifically proficiencies, and it was a pretty controversial decision among the community. But gently caress it, I hate skills and percentiles (leave that to Chaosium) but after the thief class was introduced you can track this snowballing effect of D&D creating an exception for everything. And I agree, the thief's abilities are (or at least should be) special. Anyone can climb, but only the thief can climb a shear vertical wall etc. I can't remember if it was AD&D DMG or 2E PHB but either Gygax or Steve Winters, maybe both, warned against occupations for adventurers. Your fighter shouldn't be a blacksmith, he should have to deal with blacksmiths. That's what you're spending your gold on. 2E kind of ruined it all because proficiencies assume that if you're not trained, you are literally inept. I remember long arguments about characters being illiterate -- and by RAW you're illiterate unskilled -- and most DM's I knew hand waved it so that if your class could take the skill then you were literate even if you didn't pump points into it. Those arguments were never fun. No, my wizard isn't a skilled swimmer but he shouldn't immediately sink in static water over his head! As for me I just made every skill "roll under your stats" modified as I saw fit. I believe RAW if you didn't use proficiencies then the DMG actually said skills were tied to saving throws e.g. maintaining your balance was save vs. breath weapon or something weird like that. 5th edition made me drop the old stuff pretty hard as it was the most like 2nd edition in my eyes without me having to rewrite 2nd edition.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Oh man you wrote FG&G too?! That's really cool - it's a well-written retroclone. I've been planning to pick it up in print to round out my collection. Thanks. I want to say that whatever edition is on DriveThru and Lulu are legit but a year ago I had a falling out with some people working on it and they basically threatened to scrub my name from future releases. I've long washed my hands of it. It was fun going through like 10 years of Dragon magazine looking for all the "patches" that were published for 2E. I want to say more was written for 2E than any other single edition. If I ever get back into the RPG hobby it's going to be campaigns and adventures (compatible with the other clones) which is IMO the 2E era's greatest strength.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats interesting to hear. I have felt that way, but only read a bit of 3rd and 5th, and just skimmed the core books for 4th. I should modify that with "more has officially been written for 2E." I can't account for the mountains of stuff D20/OGL produced.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
So something that just popped up in my head, Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign book (not the brown book) mandated that adventurers spend a good chunk of their money to level up. This being a neat spin on OD&D's system where money = experience just like you don't get experience from fighting easy monsters, you don't level up in Arneson's world without sacrificing money. You could bank what you needed to maintain your army and stronghold, a feature Arneson carried over from his wargame days, but adventurers weren't poo poo unless they were partying or donating to their religion. And it has to be frivolous spending, it can't be an investment or gift to another player. I've only seen it in one other game (the D20 Conan game) but admittedly I haven't kept up with RPGs the past 7 years. It's something I've always tried to adopt into my games but naturally there's some push back from players. Treasure is really contentious and most players are red dragons in that they will hoard every copper to save up for that shiny wand but refuse to spend any of it even if it means getting something that would save their life. My middle ground has become the "wealth level" where I just scratch out any numbers and let them buy whatever the gently caress they want at any time unless it's super rare. "Yeah, you can buy 10 third level potions until you have to start sleeping in the lovely inn by the harbor." al-azad fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've definitely seen that "spend everything in a class-related manner in order for it to count as XP" mentioned in other OSR RPGs before, also using Arneson as an inspiration, and it's a good, evocative touch that I wouldn't mind implementing, but you're also right that players are probably going to not want to "spend" all their gold without getting some kind of benefit out of it, so I feel like you'd also have to be prepared to come up with a reward for the Fighter's carousing, even if it's something like a new plot hook or whatever. The reward is a new level 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
WiiFitForWindows8 posted:Nope. Conan definitely had his ups and downs throughout Howard's original stories although much of the character people associate with today came from the other authors much like Lovecraft's work. The important thing is he almost always starts every story poor, on the run, or in a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:What do you think is the minimum number of rooms for a dungeon that allows it to have typical logistics problems for the players to solve? Maybe it just depends on the obstacles in the rooms? It really depends on paths and hallways, whether or not your dungeon is linear or branches around. I'd say 10 generic square rooms arranged in some kind of web pattern is enough to worry about egress and approach.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I was going to ask a question about a specific resolution mechanic I wanted to use, but I think it would be more interesting if I ask this question instead. 1) It's tricky to nail down. It was there since the original box set with the "stuck doors" rule. It got more complex with the introduction of the thief and I believe the first true skill system showed up in Dragon Magazine. But I believe it was 3E that actually implemented the difficulty class/target number system. In previous editions the challenge was based on the individual's skill. One person could have open lock at 1% and another at 50%, and then it would be modified maybe +20% for an easy lock. 2E's suggested method, provided you didn't use the optional proficiency system, was based on your saving throws e.g. save vs. breath weapon was keyed to dexterity and acrobatics. I can only assume they changed this the same reason they got rid of THAC0 and combat results tables: it's easier to modify a flat number. 2) The DM ad-hocs scenarios. Some RPGs encourage a "yes, but..." approach so given enough time you'll always be able to kick a door down but you wake up the whole dungeon. This ad hoc approach seems to be the preferred method in the early days considering entire monsters were created to gently caress with players who had a contingency for everything ("I run my fingers through the grain of the wood, knocking, licking, and smelling for anything out of place" "the door is actually a monster and eats you"). 3) You create a binary situation. You either succeed or you don't. There's also a disconnect between your character and the game world. E.g. you, the player, know you roll poorly on your stealth check but your character believes they're hiding well. The DM is supposed to make these rolls on your behalf but that means half your skills are now being rolled in secret by the DM who is also making opposed rolls in secret and it's kind of poo poo. On the other hand, this system allows for passing things you couldn't reasonably fail at. The "take 10" or "take 20." Given enough time with no pressure, there should be no reason you couldn't chop down a wooden door. In an ad-hoc system a DM can become too literal. "The key was in a secret latch under a seamless, perfectly flush tile that could only be discovered by someone of elven lineage on the full moon while dancing the jitterbug." Yeah, or I can roll against DC 20.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:For Gold & Glory is a free 2E retroclone. I’ve got the print version, it’s a bit dry and uninspiring but at least it’s a handy 2E rules reference in a single softcover book. Mission accomplished!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Hypnobeard posted:What's the 2e retro clone that was done by a goon? For Gold & Glory? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
What’s wrong with the cleric? It fits much better than the Druid which was stripped of all politics in later editions and just became nature priest. slap me and kiss me posted:Dumb question - how does osr licensing work? They're all more or less Basic D&D, right? OSR isn’t a license, that’s OGL which specifies you can use certain terms and passages provided you include the license. Most people modify the license to include what is “open” and what is intellectual property. For example last time I checked Swords and Wizardry let you copy the monster entries but you had to include their alternate attack and armor modifiers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
To me the cleric, prior to the focus on deities and their domains, represents superstition. Turning the undead, blessing and laying on hands, and wielding "bloodless" blunt weapons. They were vampire hunting warriors first, the move to magic tanks with strict adherence to their deity came later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
I just woke up from a Homer Simpson rear end dream where I came up with a design for a new old school inspired RPG system except in this case I actually saw a bit of the design document and now I need to put it to paper before the memory fades. I don't know if I'm subconsciously ripping it off from something else but gently caress it: Each of the classic D&D stats is rated by a funny dice value (d4, d6, all the way up to d20) called talent and also a proficiency value. The dice represents your natural born ability through genetics/magic/lifestyle/etc. while the proficiency is how trained you are at honing it. Whenever you are "challenged" you roll a number of dice equal to your proficiency, the max die value being your talent. You can roll dice lower than your value, but with the exception of d4s you can't roll the same die more than once per challenge e.g. a person with 2d10 could roll a d10 and a d8 or 2d4. This pool of dice is what you use in a particular challenge. Now you may be asking yourself "why wouldn't I want to roll like d20s all the time?" Here's the caveat, you're not trying to roll higher than a target number or something you're trying to match it as close as possible. TN's are rated as VALUE(MARGIN) e.g. 10(5). The target is a solid hit while the margin is the margin of error plus or minus, and a way to adjust the challenge. Going too low or too high and you miss the mark. You can combine your dice and allies can aid each other by creating a shared pool although some tasks obviously can only be done solo (you can't group lock pick naturally). So if a lock's TN is 10(2) then who's better, the twitchy farmhand with 1d20 or the sure handed thief with 3d8? The make or break for this system, and what I conveniently covered up with my hand in the dream, is keying the player in to what they're trying to roll if you're no longer trying to get the highest roll possible. I think for skill challenges the DM can just tell the number (keeping the margin secret). After all, once you do a thing enough times you know how challenging it probably is but what you don't know are the external factors. The "science" behind the value is that it's a representation of knowable factors (sneaking in broad daylight is a 20 while sneaking in moonlight is 10) and the margin is a representation of external, unknowable factors (a 5 margin means the lock is old and rusty or the guards are asleep at their post). The players, unless you're charging ahead blindly, almost always know the value but never the margin. As for monsters, this is something that'll need development as monster values should be kept secret. However, they are almost always static. My idea here is that the DM responds to attacks by just saying "higher or lower" except with a bit more dramatic flair of course ("you over swing or the monster ducks under your blade"). I like the idea of the opening portions of combat being this careful dance of poking and prodding for an opening and once you find the sweet spot you know exactly how much finesse is needed to hit the mark. This can also lead to surprises like you've been fighting goblins for a while so you know how easy they are to hit but when your 12 whiffs and the DM smiles the players are like "oh poo poo, who are these goblin ninjas?!?!" Also in a Monster Hunter esque way the bigger monsters have multiple hit points. So a 20 gets its head but a 5 stabs its foot which doesn't really do any damage but slows it down so lovely fighters can at least pin a monster down while the more skilled ones land sure strikes. Other vague ideas I remember Gold = experience. It is the only thing that matters. Players are rewarded for spending/donating treasure, not killing monsters. This means circumventing monsters is the name of the game (putting a focus on skill challenges and clever plans) but some monsters have trophies that are worth gold (therefor experience) or can be worn to look badass/impart magic properties (healing unicorn horn necklace that also pisses off elves and faeries on sight?) Time is integral. At a micro level basically doing anything happens in 10 minute chunks. The DM rolls for all encounters in a given day and checks them off in a grid as time passes. When the players hit one of those boxes an encounter happens. Encounter doesn't always mean you're attacked either, it could just be something harmless (but nasty) splats on a player or it could be the tax collector sees you pass with your cartload of shinies. Mapping is integral and players are encouraged to map. The game is more strategic than tactical meaning exact details are unnecessary not unlike a FATE game. You're more concerned with areas and areas-within-areas. To incentivize mapping the DM should reward mapping. Having a map means less time moving through a dungeon and remember, time is money and money is experience! You can buy a map from the DM that's as complete or incomplete or accurate/inaccurate as they want but players can also sell their maps at the end of an adventure to some other sucker adventurers (experience!). Egoism vs. altruism. Good and evil, law and chaos are the domains of deities while the eternal struggle of mortal creatures is the self. Spending gold selflessly is how you gain experience and it truly has to be spent on something impermanent. Buying a round on the house does have the benefit of getting you drunk, but there's no permanent gain, no profit from doing so and is thus worth experience. Buying a sword for your friend may seem selfless, but the end goal is still something material (you're expecting a continued service from your friend in return). Now if you purchased new swords for the town militia, that's a different story. They're not going to explore the depths of Mt. Doom with you but you'll feel safer in the event of a bandit attack. Indirect benefits like these don't count against you. If the priest shows some appreciation by blessing you for donating to the church you'll still get full XP because it was the priest's selflessness that lead to it, not a request on your behalf. And then I woke up. Time for breakfast. al-azad fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
I've been playing a lot of Gloomhaven lately, it's a massive board game designed to feel like a D&D campaign. Something the game does is separate campaign "achievements" from party "achievements" and then opens/locks content based on them individually. So if the global achievement "military rule" is in effect but the party doesn't have "killed a dragon whatever" then they could encounter a scenario that's like "military asks you to kill a dragon." There's an emphasis on pick up and play games, creating new parties to get different achievements, and running guest characters. So I'm sitting here thinking how this would work in a Gygaxian setting that's very lethal and uncaring about individual people. The party as an entity is the focus with the achievements, reputation, and exploits being played out as if it were a character and the dudes you play are just vessels by which the party is characterized. I need to find some books or other RPGs that take a more macro level approach, where the players represent both an individual but also a collective.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Something that fell away from new editions (let's say 3.5 and beyond) is that there was an expectation you would graduate to more administrative stuff. BECMI largely kept this but even by 2E you were an adventurer from level 1 to 20, just now exploring the planes and fighting gods instead of dungeons and dragons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I got this impression when I read about OD&D castle hex reactions. Oh, hey let’s visit that castle, we could either get geased or stabbed through with a lance. I think TSR wanted to distance themselves from the wargame roots, or probably more accurately they wanted the core material to be as simple as possible. There was no shortage of first and third party supplements to expand on kingdom management and Dragon magazine was a dumping ground for simulationist ideas that no new player should be exposed to out of the gates. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't think anyone shows up to a dnd campaign expecting a kingdom management game instead of dungeon crawling/world saving/what have you. If they wanted kingdom management maybe they'd play a game designed for it where you do it from level 1. I don't know, strongholds are cool. No, it's not fun to spend every session with a spreadsheet in hand as you count every coin in the coffers but making broad decisions about a central spot, a hub location if you will, is fun. It's funny that there are a handful of video games that use RPG "stronghold" concepts like Suikoden, Dragon Quest 5, Baldur's Gate 2, and Dragon Age Inquisition (hell, even Metal Gear Solid 5) yet it's still such a rarity that whenever a game includes one (like the recent Ni no Kuni 2) it ends up becoming front page news.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 20:52
|
|