File: file.png (87.2 KB)

>>98123600
>>98124593
>>98124616
The Dragonsfoot thread that was promised:
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94237

The post is excellent but a bit scant on the explanations, the interesting tables are in the second half of the thread.

For treasures, see picrel. Something Justin didn't explain or comment on is how the percentages for non-magic treasure on each row add up to 100%,so you can convert those back to a single d20 roll in the style of appendix A, so you could do
>1–5: copper
>6–10: silver
>11–13: electrum
>14–16: gold
>17–18: platinum
>19: gems
>20: jewels
Plus an additional role specifically for magic items.

The tables toward the end of the post are also interesting: You have single-roll tables for monsters by level, with numbers appearing scaling according to Justin's own scaling law, basically doubling every two levels.

Both treasures and numbers appearing double every two dungeon levels on Justin's tables.

>>98125246
>Plus an additional ROLL
kill me please

>>98125250
You're allowed to roll more than one set at once and colour code them. Its not rocket surgery.

>>98125266
Sure, I was referring to my spelling mistake (role instead of roll)

>>98125277
My bad, proceed to your preferred sphere of annihilation or grimtooth outlet.

File: file.png (1.2 MB)

>>98125282

>>98125206
>What's the highest level that's been reached at your table?
8. Oddly enough not a Thief.

File: 1742933185953271.gif (2.0 MB)

Disaster!
Ruin!
I need advice anons.
Mistakes were made and bad die rolls happened.
We encountered some bandits in the dungeon and attempted to negotiate, the party was split up, the negotiations were going nowhere and the decision was made to attack treacherously to take them off guard. Bad rolls happened, the surprise was wasted and we killed almost no one. The bandits are lead by basically a chaotic adventuring party who have a room full of zombies we didn't know about and we didn't see the thief hiding in corner who managed to interrupt the casting of important spells and take down our mage and witch.
The short version of where we stopped for the night is 2 PCs and 2 henchmen down, the dwarf and elf PCs are surrounded and cut off from my PC and a henchman who are engaged by a few zombies but have the two of us could flee towards the reinforcement party.
The henchmen waiting outside made short work of the door guards but were held up several rounds bashing the door in. Once the got through the door they made short work of the opposition left behind and a pack of armored war dogs is making best speed towards where the PCs are.

My question is once my PC makes to the henchmen should I rally them to grind out the fight where I think we would be at a disadvantage or have them cut our losses and flee with what little gold we found so far and leave behind our fallen comrades and thier magic items?

>>98125246
Thanks for the responses

>>98125837
Run!

>>98125246
Sweet, thanks anon.

>>98125837
If you have to ask, it's time to retreat.

>>98125206
>What's the highest level that's been reached at your table?
Currently the fuck-ass druid

File: 1740166256359371.png (694.9 KB)

>>98125880
>>98126195
>Leave behind the other 4 PCs
>Leave behind 2 magic weapons, a magic shield and possibly a staff
It is probably the correct call but I am having difficulty accepting it.
Hmm...if I feed the other PCs henchmen into the meat grinder and it doesn't work then the treasure and xp split after is more favorable. Since they will mostly leave anyway.

>>98125206
>What's the highest level that's been reached at your table?
7th for MUs, 5th for fighting men.
No clerics in the game so it's impressive they even got to that.

>>98126285
>the fuck-ass druid
Which one, Hatsuko or Naruko?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlwCCjNs0A8

>>98126456
yes yes leaving is probably the safe and responsible option, but since when do grave robbers and tomb crawlers such as you are choose the safe and responsible?
fortune favours the bold anon, god has placed within your reach an opportunity to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, I suggest you take it!

>>98126718
Anon is neither a graver robber nor a tomb crawler, he's a D&D player, and taking suicidal actions for the sake of theaterfagging is not how you win at D&D.

>>98127288
Anon, I would be ordering NPCs to take suicidal actions. Get it right.

>>98127288
>Taking risks is Theaterfagging
May the Lady peg you at every possible opportunity for taking such a self-evidently faggy position.

>>98126456
You can always regroup and find a defensive position that your fellows could retreat to. Getting routed is not a good thing, but pulling back and getting your feet planted is a good thing.
Once you are reinforced, try holding a lower risk position and if your fellows can't follow you can assess how you feel about pushing to them. But again, if there is any doubt there is no doubt.

>>98127502
NTA, but your suggestion did carry a whiff of "it's what my character would do!", which is to say, playing the game poorly on purpose because you've got a new-school distaste for "metagaming."

Is there any good table roller / generator for dungeon room description?

>>98127554
Yeah! Here in /osrg/ we the true meaning of roley play is to play exactly as if you are playing a board game.

>>98127979
t. retard

>>98127554
Meta gaming is gay

>>98128532
Your character should want to be successful, and that should align with play. "Metagaming" means your faggy roleplaying goals for your character have became out of sync with the intended gameplay goals of acquiring lost treasures and rising in the world without dying.

It's a game, and you should want to play it well, and your in-character motivations should align with the "meta" level of the game. If they don't, then you have fucked up. Metagaming should never be a concern in old-school play.

Are there any good zombie apocalypse modules?
Out of all the cliche ideas I wonder why I cant find any. It seems obvious

>>98128839
Death Frost Doom, sort of?

>>98127609
Not sure if it is exactly what you're looking for, but I always liked Tricks, Empty Rooms, & Basic Trap Design by that Hack and Slash guy

File: thank-you-bytee.png (416.2 KB)

Any news from Bytee? The Koofr link returns a "not found" error.

>>98127554
>NTA, but your suggestion did carry a whiff of "it's what my character would do!"
Wiffing Touts.

I love playing 3LBB so much. The additional combat rules from Chainmail make this D&D truly one of a kind. The ability to choose between multiple combat modes on a case-by-case basis is perfect for handling every situation in the best possible way.

I know this is gonna sound retarded but can someone actually walk me through how to play and GM OSE properly or link me a good video
Im fucking terrible at reading rule books cuz im a brainrotted zoomer

>>98129443
Will you share some stories? How did you players take to the Chainmail rules?
>>98129524
You cannot engage in this hobby if you can't read a book. Moldvay Basic is the whole game (not 3 separate books like later editions of D&D) and incredibly short, including play samples. Just do it.

>>98129553
>You cannot engage in this hobby can't read a book
I retain infomation better when explained too me vocally rather than reading it
Part of engaing with this hobby is communication with other players

I will not derail this thread into argument about this
But if you have any video resources or guides i'd appreciate that <3

>>98129553
We usually do it this way, even though at the start of each combat, my players and I (the Referee) negotiate which set of rules to use. I use the man-to-man table against humanoid monsters using weapons. For unarmed humanoids, I use the d20 and the grappling rules. For non-humanoid monsters, I use the d20. If the players wish, they can resort to the Chainmail mass combat rules (it happened once that a Hero-level fighting-man in heavy armor took on nearly a dozen kobolds practically by himself). The players are thrilled and always try to avoid the d20 slop.

File: IMG_0683.jpg (229.8 KB)

Daily reminder to make / steal weird monster ideas.
Nothing engages players quite like “what the fuck is that thing?”

>>98128839
>Out of all the cliche ideas I wonder why I cant find any.
Zombie apocalypse is a fundamentally reactive scenario: shit hits the fan and you have to cope with it. OSR modules are almost all active: the adventurers are trying to obtain treasure, here's where it is, how do they go about it? So a zombie apocalypse isn't a great fit for that; if anything, the aftermath is a functional setting more than the situation is a functional module. I can definitely see a CDDA-style aftermath setting working as a basis for an OSR game.

Also, reactive scenarios tend by their very nature to be more railroady, and this is no exception: the ongoing disaster is severe enough that it will inherently force the players' choices in many situations. THat again isn't a great fit.

>>98129443
LBB + Chainmail is indeed one of the all-time great D&D forms.

>>98129297
>>98089862

>>98129563
No, learn to play the game by reading the fucking books, it's not that hard.
If you ae not willing to put in this work, you are not willing to DM either.

>>98130126
Sorry you feel that way i thankfully found some good guides on my own to help me
Thank you regardless <3

>>98130121
>>98089862
@Bytee
Stupid question perhaps, but from the landing doc:

>"If you'd like to help out and expedite our return, you can buy me a Koofr gift card with Crypto at app.koofr.net/app/admin/account/giftcard"

I don't do crapto, can't I just buy a regular gift card? Does it make any difference for you?

Also, how much space does the whole archive take up?

What would be the pros and cons of OSR vs third edition?

>>98130185
NTAYRT
If you have with brain rot or ADHD or dyslexia or whatever, making the effort to learn the game on the rulebook is actually healthy and therapeutic for you. Put in some effort, it'll pay off.

>>98130194
Obviously im following along with the book but yeah i got all the typical tard stuff that makes it hard for me to read stuff
Hence why vocal guides like yt videos are very helpful for me and how i digest a lot of ttrpg content
Atm in grasping it a lot, ive never touched DnD before only ever rules lite TTRPGs so im learning all the mechanics from the ground up

File: file.png (1.8 MB)

>>98130192
They're radically different games. If you want to build a charop RPG based on railroading and story arcs, and the DM guaranteeing that every encounter and obstacle is balanced for your party, go for "D&D" 2e/3e/5e.

If you want to play real D&D, that is a competitive player-led fantasy wargaming campaign in a world that exists independently of the characters, in which the DM is a referee and not a storyteller, and that you can actually win or lose at, play O/A/B/X D&D.

>>98130208
I can't recommend any youtube video, but did you read the n00b guide in the OP? It has a list of "fundamental procedures" that ought to be helpful for someone in your predicament. Go through the list step by step, make sure you understand each procedure, then try to play solo to see how those procedures work and interact with one another. You can make it!

>>98130222
Tried that
All the sendspace links are dead

>>98130252
n00b DM guide link updated
https://www.sendspace.com/file/lgjfr4

>>98130192
Contrary to most people ITT I play both albeit I prefer OSR in this period and probably in the next future.

You don't have to necessarily optimize and railroad in 3e, they still kept SOME procedure for wilderness + weather as an example, etc. Is not as bad as what came later.
However, the volume of options, many of those not as effective as others, WILL create noise/paralysis and inject a philosophy of "I can do X if I have a feat/rule for it". Not as bad as bespoke attacks from 4e but still pretty bad.
If you DO pay attention to these things, you will have fun with progressively very powerful characters and deadly monsters*, but the latter may not scale up sufficiently. 3e had actual fixed monster math (with a lot of caveats, see problems with maneuvers) only in PF1e.

* a huge misconception is that 3e is not lethal because of HP bloat. Environment, paralysis, spells still have plenty of SoD, critical hits can be devastating and damage output of some enemies can be horrible.

OSR doesn't over-charge the characters with options, and often concepts you would find in a single class you will find it split in several in some OSR products. Say in Hyperborea between Ranger, Druid, Scout, Huntsman only the latter has a sort of animal companion mechanic. Less is more.
DM's judgement is prioritized, Ruling not Rules is a continuation of this Less is More philosophy.

>>98130211
That made zero sense, I doubt you have played any of those editions.

>>98130387
Indeed, as someone who DM's an hexcrawl in 3rd I can say there's more than some procedure for generating stuff, there are actually a ton of them. Every weather can be generated depending on biomes, every encounter can be generated depending on region and weather and the encounters can be generated down to a random's npc equipment, its attitude etc etc.

I also second that there's no HP bloat, that'd be 5e

>>98130192
Imo the main pro about OSR is how easy it is to pick up, and you could argue 5e is also easy to pick up but OSR tend to be significantly less faggy, which is a big plus.

>>98129161
Yeah was looking for map dressing for empty rooms. Been reading through a slew of them.

Adventures Dark and Deep and tome of adventure both have decent tables as well.
Was kinda dissapointed with thinganomicon.

>>98130501
>Imo the main pro about OSR is how easy it is to pick up, and you could argue 5e is also easy to pick up but OSR tend to be significantly less faggy, which is a big plus.

OSR is substantially easier to pick up and make characters for. Hard part I've run into is that people need to unlearn Hero DND.

>>98129524
The main problem with OSE is that it's a reference book for B/X. None of it teaches you how to play the game, that's all in B/X, so you need that to learn the game.
And beware of guides on youtube, many of them are stupid and wrong.

begging people to just read the Basic rulebook, use the provided tables to roll up a few floors of dungeon, and play a session with their friends. You'll get some things wrong but still have fun, and then after you can figure out how to address what was awkward. This is not a game type that benefits from meticulously trying to get "understanding" perfect, just play the fucking game.

Has anyone ordered the Basic rule book off Drivethrurpg? I kind of want a physical copy of it but I don't have access to a home printer or a library near me.

>>98131572
Yep, I got it. It's not very high quality. Some of the pages are visibly blurry and I don't like the cover. But it's fine, gets the job done.

>>98131591
If it's not that high of a quality should I just go to like Officemax or some place like that to print it off?

>>98131638
NTA, but blenty of anons have done print-on-demand. There's even a nice ready-to-print black-cover B&X combined pdf that's passed around now and then.

has anyone played the Crows playtest yet?

>>98131638
For sure, get it on rings if you have the option.

>>98131661
From the authors of Draw Steel? lmao

>>98130208
Popping into the thread to say you should
ignore the "n00b" guides they're super fucking skewed and push one guys biased vision of the OSR. read the Principa apocrypha for something impartial and reflective of the actual OSR.
https://friendorfoe.com/d/Old%20School%20Principia-Apocrypha%20Mobile.pdf

>>98132237
Kill yourself, Fishfag.

>>98130208
Read it along while solo gaming. Best way to learn.

>>98132237
Fuck off fishfag

>>98131686
>get it on rings
What are rings? Punched with two or three or five holes for a ring binder? Spiral? Wire-O? Comb? I can't see any of those as a good option at all so I hope you mean something else.

I'm doing ose but making a dungeon with appendix A. Should I use appendix A for the contents of the room or roll via the OSE encounter chart?

Is there a general preference over less or more shit in rooms?

>>98132905
Shouldn't say encounter chart, but more the d6 for monsters/traps/special etcetera

>>98132905
>Should I use appendix A for the contents of the room or roll via the OSE encounter chart?
As you wish.

>>98132905
I've grown quite fond of OD&D charts for filling dungeons. It's all on d6 and the results get wacky.

>>98125246
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2025/12/osr-treasure-for-dungeon-room-stocking.html
What do you guys think of Skerples's treasure stocking method?

File: file.png (80.7 KB)

>>98133288
You mean the bottom table in picrel? The first one is the same as in B/X if I remember correctly.

>>98133308
>per Dungeon Level
linear treasure doesn't scale well at deeper dungeon levels. I prefer James not Justin the Just's revision discussed here: >>98125246

>>98133308
Minimal improvement for no particular reason. Mechanics are not skerp's strong suit. Never have been.

Any rules of thumb for adjusting no. appearing when a monster is outside of its HD level? In both directions.

File: file.png (189.6 KB)

>>98134115
>Any rules of thumb for adjusting no. appearing when a monster is outside of its HD level? In both directions.
No need for rules of thumb: DMG page 174 has you covered, Picrel. The rules there tend to create stupid high number at the very deep dungeon levels, though, so you might want to use the rule from ACKS or from Original Edition Delta.

File: file.png (269.8 KB)

>>98134115
>>98134181
ACKS rule (from JJ page 36)

File: file.png (64.0 KB)

>>98134115
>>98134181
>>98134184
Original Edition Delta rule

>>98134181
>>98134184
Thanks! Gary's rule is probably good enough. Let the players figure out how to deal with the kookiness!

>>98134115
>>98134181
>>98134184
>>98134193
>>98134195
>outside of its HD level
Notice that all of these adjustments are based on the difference between dungeon level and monster LEVEL (not monster HD).

anyone ever been in a campaign and you can see the writing on the wall that the referee wants to shift the direction from old school gameplay to trad storyfagging?
yeah... that was this weekends session for me.

>>98134988
I feel for you, Anon. Do tell us more if you need to vent

Is the n00b player's guide just gone? Link in the OP doesn't appear to work although the n00b DMG is there. I was looking for a quick bullet list of stuff I could write down for my new players. I've got resource tracking, the importance of time, XP for treasure, not sure what else I should write that will apply to my campaign (maybe a blurb about "You are not THE heroes" or whatever).

>>98135449
c >>98130263

>>98135449
Sadly since 4chan doesn't allow PDFs everything is very fragile. Hopefully n00b player Anon will see this and reupload.

>>98135498
Yes, that's the DM's guide, I am looking for the PLAYER'S guide, but thank you anyway.

>>98135510
Here's hoping. I'll come up with my little primer list anyway and if the guide is uploaded then who knows, maybe I'll have some comments to add.

>>98130252
>>98130263
>>98135449
>>98135498
n00b DMG Anon here. Don't know about the other Anon, but I just realised that the version I had shared earlier in this thread was an outdated one (2.20, but the current one is 2.22). Also, I've uploaded it to MEGA as well now, hopefully it'll be a more stable link. Current links are:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/nli2pv

https://mega.nz/file/8MAWzD7Z#3QVw6GFgpeGQeQ-9Xc0hW9iRiMUQSKfLApQST_AyQaw

>>98135544
I thought I had saved a copy of the n00b PHB, but I can't find it anymore. Perhaps I purged it by mistake in my last HD clean up.

File: Screenshot_20260601_083955_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1.1 MB)

>>98135544
NTA
Here's the dot point section from the player's guide pdf

>>98135449
Found this. It's not the latest version, though.
https://www.scribd.com/document/931844838/Another-osrg-OSR-Primer-v1-1

>>98131643


Maybe a dumb question, but just how legal is it to pass along something like that B/X combined pdf to lulu or whatever for printing? Is there anything to watch out for?

>>98136450
You could potentially be sued, so don't put up a website registered under your real name and charge people money for copies.

But if you send PDFs to a couple of friends and/or have them printed out somewhere then literally nothing's gonna happen.

>>98136450
As long as you don't put it up as publicly accessible, the most that's going to happen is that the book gets taken off your Lulu account. Even that's highly unlikely.

File: tumblr_omveyfyjrd1rtynt1o1_1280.jpg (571.6 KB)

This is the anon that regularly posts the progress of a his weekly BFRPG campaign. I ended on session 65. Recently I've been having a lot of responsibilities and "real life" stuff coming up, so it was becoming more and more frequent that I had to postpone my games. Enough of it stacked up that I went ahead and just ended the campaign (At least for now.)
The highest levels that players in the group achieved was level 5, (A Dwarven Fighter and a Fighting-Woman.) They had many different adventures, explored a wide variety of dungeons, got a lot of treasure and loot, built two bases of operation in two towns and set up a sort of trade/messenger route between them. Overall, I think the campaign was a success, and I hate to see it go. But it's just a lot to organize and run for my local community right now. We played weekly, in person, with a community of 14 or so people each week (With a rotation of 4 or 5 different players each session. Whoever could make it each week.)
It was a lot of fun and maybe I'll run another campaign in the future. But I don't think I'll use BFRPG next time. I think I'd use BX, OSE, or ShadowDark.

>>98136473
>>98137520

Maybe I worded that poorly. To be specific, I was wondering about the legalities of taking an existing PDF (like the frankensteined B/X book, which is clearly not an official thing, or the 1e PHB, or, for a greater counter-example, Alice in Wonderland), going to Lulu (or any other site that does print-on-demand), and having them print one physical copy for personal use. I could see it going several ways, from "who gives a shit?" to "do you have written permission to do so?" to "we're calling the cops, the CIA, and your mom". It's claimed that anons have done so, but I'd like to know I'm not shooting myself in the foot if I were to try.

>>98137661
I covered that under "have them printed out somewhere" -- the answer is "no one gives a shit."

I've been running my friends through a starter town/dungeon with OSE and I'm looking through material to stock hexes since it seems like they want to keep playing beyond this starter module. Do I need to adjust ADnD material for BX or can I mostly use it as is?

>>98137739
Most of the time it's more or less fine in terms of stats and encounters. However, details will differ, and sometimes they're important, so spare a glance at the relevant sections while prepping.

For example, a skeleton in B/X can be damaged with any weapon just fine, but the AD&D variant takes half damage from non-blunt weapons (and OSRIC adds that piercing weapons only do 1d2).

This goes for magical treasure hauls too; for example, by the book, the Staff of Healing in B/X can affect any number of people, but any one person can only benefit 1/day, and it has infinite charges. In AD&D it's now the Staff of Curing, it has limited charges, can still be used 1/person/day in particular and 2/day for each individual effect, of which it now has several aside from HP restoration.

This might make little difference, or it might be a big deal, depending on the intent of the encounter/haul.

>>98137661
As for the legality, it's legal *if* you bought an official PDF e.g. from DrivethruRPG. Then you have a right to make copies for personal use, and that includes print copies of an electronic book. Since the B/X Omnibus is literally just B/X you can print that legally if you own PDFs of Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert.

In practice you can print whatever damn thing you like on Lulu and nobody cares unless you make it publicly available. *In theory* they might have the right to call the cops, the CIA, and your mom but for a private copy they won't.

Alice in Wonderland has been out of copyright for like a hundred years.

File: file.png (44.4 KB)

Reason #8,762 why the DMG is the best RPG book every written:
>BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!
The campaign is more important than the players.
Based Gary.

>>98137567
You are cool anon
in fact you are so cool I'm kinda glad I checked out osrg for the first time in months out of boredom at work, so I can tell you how cool you are.

>>98137739
>it seems like they want to keep playing beyond this starter module.
Nice.
What did you run?

>>98127609
DMG Appendix I

>>98139380
nightmare over ragged hollow

>>98130753
There's a lot of jank tables.
DM's misc dungeon book is okay. Seconding Tricks, Empty Rooms & Basic Trap Design by Courtney Campbell.
D30 DMs Companion is spare if you're into that.
Can't upload pdfs anymore but 100 Dungeon Room Descriptions has some stuff in it that's not bad.
Elf Maids and Octopi is a blog of tables that has the short descriptions style and will have a lot of material you can pour through.
D4 Caltrops is a different blog that has shorter tables but better descriptive content ime.

>>98127609
>>98130753
The Dungeon Alphabet was a product for more or less this which was widely liked by the early OSR. IIRC it doesn't have random rolling though.

File: Under the Caustic River Ahnd.jpg (296.5 KB)

>>98125206

Hi there,

Humbly requesting "Under the Caustic River Ahnd" module, published by Duck and Crow Press.

Thanks Grognard Hackers Anons !

>>98136450
in general, they don't check what you upload as long as its not something blatantly illegal or you contact support about something in which case they have to look

>>98139832
>Under the Caustic River Ahnd
Just checked, it's in the usual place.

>>98139522
Something about that art style kills it for me but I'll give it a read anyway. Thanks anon.

Update from Gavin Norman
https://necroticgnome.com/blogs/news/ose-2026-update-timeline
>Much of the revised text of the OSE 2026 Update is already available in the online rules reference! https://www.oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/rules/doku.php?id=start
I don't notice any difference with the current SRD at first glance
https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Dungeon_Adventuring#Searching

However, a switch in the underlying license was made: It is based on the 5e CC SRD rather than on the 3e OGL license:
https://www.oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/rules/doku.php?id=start
>Compatibility: The online rules reference is 100% compatible with the B/X D&D rules and consists solely of material present in that version of the game.

Last but not least, OSE-Classic is not Necrotic Gnome's flagship anymore, but the revised version will still be available as Print on demand from DTRPG.

I think that this good news, I was concerned that Gavin might fuck OSE-Classic up in some way. The switch to the CC license is a good move, and it looks like he's doing it the right way. For instance, he's still using the word "race", so OSE-Classic won't be as cucked as Disneywood is.

>>98140320
This is how the revision is presented on the old OSE SRD main page:
https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Main_Page
>A new online rules reference for the 2026 printing of the OSE core books is online here: >https://www.oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/rules
>The re-edited text in the 2026 rules reference includes a number of minor fixes for increased compatibility with the 1980s B/X D&D rules.

Minor fixes?
Increased compatibility?
I'm curious what he's referring to!

>>98138456
Thanks for the more comprehensive answer. I chose Alice in particular to make a spectrum: based on a copyrighted work (omnibus), an original-form copyrighted work (PHB), and one that is now public domain (Alice).

Either way, I think I understand how to frame the question better now and will look into it futher on my own. Thanks again everyone.

File: 17768385619996404007881453984941.jpg (30.7 KB)

Hi anons, I have never played OSR-type games so I need some intel.
1. Are OSRs fit for running megadungeon games?
2. How prep-heavy are these systems usually?
3. Can they handle big parties well?

File: 8675d0d1d0a27e92e956628c14afe059.jpg (279.0 KB)

>>98138948
Thank you. I appreciate you guys being so kind to me and showing interest in my posts for the past year. I thoroughly enjoy your posts and the wisdom you all have shared with me, and I hope that you all have success running and playing your own games in the future. I look forward to having many more adventures at the table someday, it just isn't in the cards right now.

>>98141881
In the OSR space there are no "megadungeons," that's a term invented later. What modern games call a megadungeon is just "the dungeon" in the original games. Castle Greyhawk had 18+ floors of over 60 rooms apiece, and Blackmoor's dungeon was similar.
The modern "dungeon" is properly called a lair, a small site usually with a single inhabitant type. So yes.
2. It requires a fair bit of prep up-front, but then runs easily after that. To start, you want to have a starting town, a dungeon of at least 3 floors, with room to expand further, and a general idea of the surrounding wilderness. Placing the dungeon under the town or right next to it is traditional, and avoids players having to deal with the wilderness before they're ready.
3. Yes, combat is fast and easy to handle, and having clear game procedures helps a lot with keeping the game running smoothly, as does having the players elect a caller.

>>98141881
>1. Are OSRs fit for running megadungeon games?
No other games are better for running megadungeon campaigns. Old-school D&D was written with the assumption that this is what you would be doing.

>2. How prep-heavy are these systems usually?
Pretty heavy. The systems range from fairly light to quite crunchy, although to a 3e and up player they're liable to all seem very rules- light; however, prep is the big time well in these games, insofar as you have to draw the dungeon levels, key the dungeon levels, draw your overland hex map, or get, read and learn somebody else's (which I personally find takes even more time, but is sometimes worth it due to the high quality of design).

>3. Can they handle big parties well?
Yes. Again, no other games are better at this. The expectation back in the day was 8-10 players and there are table tools (e.g. the dedicated caller) for handling this.

>>98137567
Sucks that you don't have time anymore, Anon, but I think you did the right thing at least temporarily winding down your game. Have you considered seeing if someone else could run a game and just being a player? Maybe that isn't feasible with your schedule either, but for my part I find that playing is just going there and back home and takes up a lot less time than running the game.

File: 488657887_672420602397970_5469224347979750339_n.jpg (190.2 KB)

>>98142048
Well, there are still two other GMs that are running their campaigns at the same place (With an overlap in some of the players.) And we will still occasionally play board games/card games/one-shots of other games. So it's not like this is "The End".

But as far as the BFRPG campaign, it's been noted by my players and the other GMs alike, nobody else can run that like I do. Plus, only I have the notes for my game's world and underworld. I would never let another soul look upon them, lest they lose their eyeballs. Heck, maybe with some downtime, I can correct some things and expand upon other things in my game's world.

So... The PDF share thread is gone it seems.
The OSR trove is also gone, apparently. The dik.si folder with instructions is outdated.
Has the community died or moved somewhere else?

>>98142131
>Plus, only I have the notes for my game's world and underworld.
Oh, that's definiutely fair. I was thinking of someone else running his own OSR game, not taking up yours. And yes, you could definitely spend some free time you do have revising your campaign, maybe preparing for a changeover to B/X, adding content etc. for the future. I hope you get to go back to it one day!

>>98142156
PDF share thread's doing fine.
iirc last week or so the trove operator had to rehost it or upgrade the account type. Stay tuned.

File: file.png (29.6 KB)

>>98141881
Welcome, Anon! Nice cat.

>1. Are OSRs fit for running megadungeon games?
They're the only way to run a proper "mega"dungeon.

>2. How prep-heavy are these systems usually?
Can be pretty low, for example if you run Stonehell.

>3. Can they handle big parties well?
Absolutely. First decade D&D could handle party sizes that are unthinkable with modern systems. Picrel is from the first printing of the first RPG book ever published.

>>98142156
>So... The PDF share thread is gone it seems.
No? >>98130506

>The OSR trove is also gone, apparently.
Just checked, it's up.

>The dik.si folder with instructions is outdated.
The current "landing page" is a PDF on mega. You should be able to find the link in the Share Thread docs.

>>98142309
That quote is a little misleading, the expectation was what is now called an "open table," those 20-50 players would be all the players involved in the campaign, it wasn't expected that you'd have that many show up to a particular session. 5-10 players is more normal, though with a skilled ref and a good player caller you can handle more.

>>98142353
Fair, but groups of 10-12 in a single session were considered unremarkable early on.

>>98141881
>1. Are OSRs fit for running megadungeon games?
Not only fit for megadungeons but literally designed to run them.

>2. How prep-heavy are these systems usually?
I'm going to give you a non-answer and say that it depends on (you). Strictly speaking you can get away with virtually zero prep if you let RNGesus take the wheel (which is fully supported, unlike in later editions) but on the other hand you can go room by room in your dungeon hand-populating them with unique encounters and appropriately themed treasures and hazards and details if you feel like it.

>3. Can they handle big parties well?
Large parties are explicitly supported and in fact, a lot of classic modules assume 6-8 PCs/DMPCs in a combat situation plus about as many non-combatants so if you're running those modules with less players you're going to have to de-tune the encounters or find some way to pump up the party's numbers, with the common method being players controlling 2 PCs or adding DMPCs. If you decide to try playing with a large group (or a small group, honestly), for the love of GOD please assign some meta-roles. At the very least you should have a player who makes executive decisions when needed and speaks for the group (the caller), have a player whose job it is to track and distribute loot and supplies (the quartermaster) and have a player in charge of mapping (the mapper). This makes life as a DM incomparably easier.

>>98142492
>DMPCs
BOOO! Pure faggotry.

>>98142696
NTA but I'm pretty sure that what he really means to say is "henchmen", which are run much like DMPCs but without the associated mary-sueism.

>>98142885
NTA. Are they really though? Henchmen are there to fill out ranks, tend to sit below the player's level, are explicitly subservient to PCs but may turn based on loyalty and morale. DMPCs are usually at the same level as players, if not higher, are often as not involved with a/the story in narrative focused games, and answer solely to the whims of the DM running them ratjer than loyalty/morale.

>>98143031
You're not wrong, but what we (or at least I) meant is that they are PCs controlled primarily by the DM, which could arguably give one, such as the other anon, cause to call them DMPCs; they do usually follow the PCs orders (and thus get penalised in XP), but the DM explicitly controls their reactions to things, both with the loyalty mechanic and in ensuring that the PC can't use them to cheese, like taking spells from a fellow Magic-User employed as a henchmen, or trying to use them as guinea pigs for trying out magic items. The DMG has a fair bit to say on keeping PCs from abusing their henchmen, surprisingly, including meta-game penalties like gaining a reputation one way or the other.

>>98143052
>which could arguably give one, such as the other anon, cause to call them DMPCs;
nta
grasping at straws here

>>98143093
I'm sorry you are unable to see the parallels, but I am not interested in arguing semantics. The original post's points are valid, even if there is disagreement over the precise terminology.

>>98141926
>RE Megadungeon.
The term is on-brand, and classical D&D are the right systems for them
It was coined by Gary to describe how his Castle Greyhawk was different from module dungeons like the Caves of Chaos that had just been published. Please read the era appropriate ancillary texts before making definitive statements. Don't overlook interviews such the one in White Dwarf.

>>98143052
>they are PCs controlled primarily by the DM, which could arguably give one, such as the other anon, cause to call them DMPCs
PCs are player character, DM controls NPCs, there's no middle ground there. DMPC is traditionally a pejorative term for when those two categories get confused and the DM starts playing with himself.

>>98143100
I'm sorry you're unable to see the context and have to pretend being wrong and doubling down is
>semantics
The original post has some valid points and gets some things wrong. There's no sense being this disingenuous about it.

File: 504189754_729889316376859_7181401779930694799_n.jpg (63.4 KB)

I have an idea, but I don't know how to implement it. Specifically, I want my players to be able to collect pieces of a map that let them travel between different planes when arranged in different orientations. These pieces of the map would be hidden in treasure like anything else, and only after you acquire 9 of them, can you activate them. There would also actually be more than 9 of them, allowing transport to even more planes depending on how they arrange them.

How could I go about doing something like this?

>>98143460
First, figure out what you want to do with these alternate dimensions before you cook up another Planescape where you can go literally anywhere, but nowhere interesting to visit has been laid out.

You may then find you need to reassess whether your cool idea is worth all of the effort it requires.

>>98143504
Okay, well let's say that I've done that. And I've come up with 30 or more cool, interesting locations that the players can be whisked away to. How should I go about making that initial idea work?

The DM controls the hirelings, but never should he play any henchmen.

File: outerplanes_front_2500x3638.jpg (6.1 MB)

>>98143460
>put a piece in a treasure horde more like a damaged or incomplete regular map like you otherwise would
>have another piece in another horde near by but not too obvious
>linked descriptions or cues like language or images
>faction with 3rd section tries to take parts 1 & 2
Do your players use sages?
Could have a rumour about it at some point, depending on how you distribute those.
I'd be inclined to have it activate after 3 or so parts but have more range or to different planes with more parts so its still a back burner but doesn't take gathering all 9 to pull off. Might cut it down to 5 or 6 pieces.
I like little hand crafted things so I'd print out a cool looking map on sepia paper and add some paint then fragment it.

>>98143526
Hmmm... That does sound like a step in the right direction. I may make it 3 to 5 pieces required, and orienting them in any given position sends you to different places.
To give more details, in the bottom of a dungeon near the player's hub town, there is a magical cartographer's table, and long ago the most powerful sorcerer drew a bunch of maps on it. Those maps opened portals to different planes of existence. The thing is, opening all of these portals at once basically turned his dungeon into an interdimensional traffic jam and a warzone. So he ripped the maps to shreds. They couldn't truly be destroyed, but they were all given to adventurers, explorers, and travelers who would take them to different corners of the world... Now they're all shuffled in with various loot in treasure chests.
I want this to serve as a sort of side-quest or "back-burner" idea. I originally got the idea from Path of Exile's first endgame.

>>98143513
Figure out where the maps came from, and how they got torn/cut into pieces and scattered. Then you toss the pieces into treasure lists, and drop the instructions in a wizard's tower or a book or something, whatever suits their origin, and let players either stumble across it by chance or, far more likely, find out about it via investigating one or more of these weird torn images they've found. A bit of research into what it is, maybe they find some reference that mention the name of a wizard who made something like it, and then they can go look for his tower or sanctuary if they want.

>>98143556
Sounds like it works fine.
I'd start with the cartography bit as part of the dungeon rumours and have a faction that's antagonistic also interested in the map, good excuse for a rival NPC party.
Sages. If you haven't read that section of the DMG its good stuff and I recommend it.
Also being ready for the players to not care at all and that being okay. Its their adventure.

>>98143513
>get advice
>disregard advice
Tiresome, Anon.

How do you handle getting lost during hexcrawling? The procedure for it seems weird.

File: Screenshot_2026-03-06-16-36-28-55_680d03679600f7af0b4c700c6b270fe7.jpg (32.0 KB)

>>98141926
>>98142030
>>98142309
>>98142492
Thank you anons, seems like I will be visiting this general more often from now on.

>>98143818
If lost roll d6
1-5 is how many sides of the hex I count clockwise from the Party's intention, this is the travelled direction. 6 is no ground gained in any direction.

File: hq720 (2).jpg (42.4 KB)

Session 5
And my players have yet to enter a dungeon or seen a dragon. I've made a town for them they were planning to go to, and then swapped to go elsewhere. Now the dungeon they were planning to go to got cut short due to an argument between players involving RP.
I just wanna make stuff for my group and have them experience it.

>>98142885
>"henchmen", which are run much like DMPCs
Wrong. Henchmen are run by the hiring player unless a loyalty roll is failed.

>>98143052
>PCs controlled primarily by the DM
1. Not henchmen, the players control henchmen.
2. The DM does not control PCs.

>>98143100
>there is disagreement over the precise terminology.
No, the disagreement is on the way to run the game.

>>98143123
>It was coined by Gary
Link to source, please.

>>98143513
>I've come up with 30 or more cool, interesting locations
Why gate each one behind nine pieces of maps that you'll end up storishittily handing out to them anyway because there's no way players are gonna stumble upon those exact same nine pieces, none excluded, by pure happenstance in a whole wide campaign world?

If you have interesting locations just let players access them reasonably easily. One map or magic item or gate location each is perfectly fine.

>>98143517
>The DM controls the hirelings
Does he, though?

>>98143818
>How do you handle getting lost during hexcrawling?
By the book.

>The procedure for it seems weird.
Which procedure are we talking about? What edition?

>>98144229
>an argument between players involving RP
Eugh. Gross. Sorry to hear that, Anon.

>>98144229
>didn't start them at the gates of the dungeon
There's your first mistake.

>>98144268
Yes, when you go to a sage are you RPing with yourself or the DM? If you have men-at-arms hirelings in the dungeon they are controlled by the DM and he makes a loyalty check everytime you tell them to do something.

>>98144229
>Session 5
>And my players have yet to enter a dungeon
Start the campaign in front of the starter dungeon silly.

>>98145091
>Campaign doesn't start in a tavern
Sloppy

>>98145227
Get the fuck out of here.

>>98145051
>If you have men-at-arms hirelings in the dungeon they are controlled by the DM
Wrong

>>98145227
WotCtard detected, opinion discarded.

>>98145750
Cite the page number or counter my argument, retarded faggot.

File: TSR 2011A - Dungeon Master&#039;s Guide -NPCs.png (542.3 KB)

>>98143517
>but never should he play any henchmen.

>>98145764
>>98145750
I tend towards player directed while I keep track of morale and roll for that as necessary based on player actions. There's a summary of the hireling's disposition and a phrase or two for characterization, they do the thing unless the morale check fails.
At which point I run them like other monsters.
How FOE is this?

>>98145764
NTAYRT. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You've made the claim first, the burden of proof is on you.

>>98145836
NTAYRT. That looks more like semantics than anything else: The point of the paragraph Gygax is warning DMs against allowing players to abuse Henchmen by making them do stuff that obviously goes against their best interests, but he's implying that the structure of the interaction is that PCs tell their henchmen what to do, and the henchmen generally comply unless the order is dangerous or retarded or some such.

This is very different from a flat out "DM controls henchmen". It's more like "DM has veto power, and can take control if necessary".

>>98145960
The claim is that men-at-arms are hirelings, therefore they are controlled by the DM as any other hireling would be. Players never control sages or alchemists, so why would they control men-at-arms or torchbearers?

>>98145989
>play them for their liege just as if they were your player characters, modified by whatever circumstances and special characteristics are applicable
>semantics
Anon, go read the whole section. It literally tells the DM to run the henchmen. It suggests a minimum of 3 general tendencies for their personality.
>semantics
The fuck you think
>You are also actively engaged in actual role playing throughout the course of the campaign, from game to game, as you must take the persona of each and every henchman and/or hireling involved.
means?

>>98146122
Yeah, I've understood your claim, but you've provided no evidence for it. The fact that the DM controls sages doesn't logically imply that he controls mercenaries as well.

In fact, there's cases in which the DM controlling mercenaries is a bad way to run things. If the players have hired 300 light infantry and are going against a small army of 200 hobgoblins, does the DM control both sides while the players sit back and do nothing? In adversarial play, if two players have a field battle between their armies, does the DM control both sides while the players sit back and do nothing. That's definitely not the way Gygax & friends ran the wargaming side of D&D. In fact, adversarial battles between PC armies are often best solved by the players themselves in a separate session without the DM even getting involved.

(The claim that the DM controls alchemists, blacksmiths, and armourers when they are hired long-term is also debatable, by the way.)

>>98146375
Let's take a concrete scenario, because I feel that we're talking in very abstract terms. There's a battle between 6 PCs and their 20 henchmen on one side, and 30 ogres on the other. How do you run this?

(A) Each player controls their own PC (one per player) and their henchmen. If they order the henchmen to do something requiring a loyalty check, a loyalty check is rolled (let's say the DM does). If they order something idiotic or suicidal, the DM vetoes and overrides the order. But under standard circumstances, which is 90% of the time it's the players controlling the henchmen directly.

(B) The alternative is the DM controlling 30 ogres and 20 henchmen.

In my experience (A) is the optimal way to run things, and (B) is is both boring for the players and an unnecessary burden on the DM.

Two questions:
1) In your experience, don't you agree that (A) is better than (B)?
2) Assuming you do agree with me, do you think Gygax ran it like (A) or like (B)?

>>98146422
No, the actual words in the written format aren't abstract at all. Its absurd you can't admit this and have to make up a strawman argument from no actual example of play.

You can't even read the rules enough to know
>20 henchmen
as a blanket statement is retarded. They're all necessarily individuated characters and you're stuck on whatever bullshit argument in your head you're having with a different anon.

Neither of those are the actual in play functional method and no amount of
>wouldn't you agree
bullshit changes that. It just highlights how fucked you are when you accuse other anons of semantics.

>>98146481
Genuinely puzzled why you are not telling us how you run things when that kind of scenario comes up. I'm still curious to hear it if you feel like sharing.

>>98146496
You haven't been genuinely anything in your life.
My method was already posted.
Your example is made up and you can't answer questions about a game you don't play.

>>98146520
No worries, I can live without knowing how you run that kind of scenario. But if any other Anon feels like sharing it, I'm curious to know.

>>98146541
While you can live, its obvious everyone would be better off if you didn't

>>98146481
>>98146520
>>98146560
Hi, Saltanon! >>98109688

>>98146640
>everyone who disagrees with me is one person
>it can't be that I'm retarded enough everyone notices!
lol

>>98146378
DMG pg. 28
“If henchmen are defined as the associates, companions, and loyal (to some degree) followers of a player character, hirelings are the servitors, mercenaries, and employees of such player characters…”


Hirelings are EMPLOYEES, the PC bosses them around but the DM determines the outcome.

DMG pg. 36

“Once the DM decides that an NPC is a henchman, he should make two copies of the NPC’s character sheet, one for himself and one for the player. … Ideally, the player should not have to ask the DM, ‘Can my henchman do this?’”

The player gets a copy of the sheet and directs the henchman’s actions in play. The DM keeps the full sheet with hidden info like alignment or secrets and steps in for loyalty checks.

PHB pg. 39
“At any time, a character may attempt to hire various different sorts of workers, servants, or guards.” (hirelings)
Henchmen are described as “non-player characters who will serve as permanent retainers of the player character.”

As for the wargaming, can you point me to the mass combat rules in AD&D?

File: file.png (68.7 KB)

>>98147077
>As for the wargaming, can you point me to the mass combat rules in AD&D?
Sure, PHB page 39. It's just figure scaling, usually 1:10 or 1:20.

So how do you run those? Do you control all armies, or do you let players control their own army? (Subject to DM veto and morale checks, of course.)

>>98147159
>The player gets a copy of the sheet and directs the henchman’s actions in play. The DM keeps the full sheet with hidden info like alignment or secrets and steps in for loyalty checks.
Anon fuck off, we know you can't read.

>>98147189
We're talking about mercenaries and mass combat here, not henchmen:

>>98146378
>If the players have hired 300 light infantry and are going against a small army of 200 hobgoblins, does the DM control both sides while the players sit back and do nothing?

and

>In adversarial play, if two players have a field battle between their armies, does the DM control both sides while the players sit back and do nothing. That's definitely not the way Gygax & friends ran the wargaming side of D&D. In fact, adversarial battles between PC armies are often best solved by the players themselves in a separate session without the DM even getting involved.

I'm curious how you (or anybody else for that matter) run these two scenarios.

>>98147189
For one, unless you’re fighter class, NONE of the PCs command the mercenaries, it’s their lieutentants giving the commands under the directive of the PCs.

>>98147261
>We're talking about mercenaries and mass combat here, not henchmen:
>he doesn't know
>>98147281
>unless you’re fighter class
...are you not?

>>98147261
By the books, rules as written, the PC issues directives to his captain, lieutenant, or sergeant, the DM checks their loyalty and adjudicates the actions of the mercenaries they command which fight at 1:10 scale. The player has control of their character, and any henchmen which fight at 1:1 scale. If a majority of one sides units have died or routed from morale failure, the battle is over.

If a player wants more control over his army here are some BtB suggestions: Be a fighter class and command your own army. Have fighter henchmen loyal to you issue the commands to their units.

>>98146422
I think the best scenario is the PCs control them until they don't, if you know what I mean.

None of the Anons below. Is there any difference between

>>98146422
>>98146378
>(Paraphrasing) "players control, DM makes loyalty checks and vetoes/overrides"

>>98148138
>PC issues directives to his captain, lieutenant, or sergeant, the DM checks their loyalty and adjudicates the actions

and

>>98148363
>PCs control them until they don't

It seems to me that you three(?) are saying basically the same thing.

>>98148496
The player doesn’t “control” his mercenaries, their commander does. If the commander fails the loyalty check, the orders given by the PC may be disobeyed.

I.e you tell the captain, “Send in the cavalry to flank!” but you got his brother killed and don’t pay well, so he fails his loyalty check he ignores your command and sends in the heavy footmen to the center instead.

File: megadungeon polyhedral144.jpg (228.8 KB)

>>98144260
>In the OSR space there are no "megadungeons," that's a term invented later.

>invented later
OSR began around 2004.
Megadungeon, at least mega-dungeon, first used no later than 2000.
That's earlier.

Megadungeons, like those in The Caverns Of Thracia and The Lost City are from the 1979 and 1982. The concept of published megadungeons existed a long time ago even if not popular enough to have a term invented for it.

Saying that megadungeons didn't exist until someone invented the word would be like saying 40k wasn't grimdark until someone contracted "in the grim darkness of the far future" to succinctly describe a thing that already existed.

>>98144260
>It was coined by Gary
I too would like a source on that please.
>superdungeon
>mega-dungeon
>"Mega Dungeon"
The article uses all those terms inconsistently with regard to hyphens or even the prefixed adjective but mostly it uses superdungeon. That lack of consistency and the preferece for super not mega says that megadungeon in 2000 was not the well established term one would expect had Gygax introduced it around 1979.

>Don't overlook interviews such the one in White Dwarf.
I didn't find the interview to which you referred, and neither did I find "megadungeon", "mega-dungeon" or "mega dungeon". I ponied up and showed everyone my most salient result, how about you do the same? We already know the magazine title, all you need to do is type in two numbers, page and issue.

>>98148660
left out this link >>98143123

>>98148660
>OSR began around 2004.
Don't be obtuse. OSR is a movement to revive old D&D, which is much older than 2004

>>98144828
>>98145091
I wanted to give them options to go to multiple different dungeons and talk shit out in town. I had a dungeon ready, they stepped in for like 3 turns of combat, and ran off the moment they rushed in and got their asses beat.
The rest of the sessions have been them fucking around trying to get information or uhh roleplaying. They got the one dungeon in the town invaded by guards because they saw it as an imposing threat. Then they were running short on funds and found this new dungeon. But two dudes got in a scuffle ic which bled ooc and now we're thinking bout calling it.

I thought it was pretty neat and they were respectful with the setting I wrote up. But man I just wanna throw them in a dungeon and go find some treasure n shit.

>>98148825
>OSR is a movement to revive old D&D,
That's right, it is a movement, and it began around 2004. OSR is not synonymous with old school.

>much older than 2004
Even if you want to restrict, falsely like you did, OSR to a revival of muh game as it was played I listed two megadungeon modules by two different publishers from the first decade so they're already much older than 2004.

>>98149140
>OSR is not synonymous with old school

It's not, because it literally is old school

File: Capture.png (761.3 KB)

Hey guys just wanted to say that I'm gonna be releasing a book pretty soon. It's about catgirls in OSR. As a race, as a race/class combo, as a story hook, a lair, and a monster. For all your catgirl and/or OSR needs.

>>98149140
>two megadungeon modules
No, you listed two dungeon modules.

>>98148567
That's effectively what all three Anons are saying.

>>98149079
>uhh roleplaying
Are you sure you aren't encouraging or enabling that with stuff like funny voices and direct speech?

Are 3 mile hexes a meme or actually worthwhile?

>>98150196
There's at least one Anon here who swears by 3 mile hexes.

There's a few reasons I don't use them. One is that, because of horizon distances, in most situations I'd be forced to describe not only the hex that the party is in, but all adjacent hexes as well, which is an annoyance. Another one is that they are far too granular for my typical density of features.

So for me it's 5 or 6 mile hexes (depending on whether I'm playing AD&D or BX).

>>98150037
No they lost the argument that the DM controls all hirelings and are too chickenshit to admit it.

>>98150419
I don't see how. Can you provide any actual example of an actual situation that happens at the table in which the three formulations are run differently?

>>98150354
I kind of like the idea of 3 miles because it gives a more European scale. I'll just experiment with it I guess.

>>98150516
They think it’s a wargame where the player has direct control of his army. The only thing the player has control over is his character, and semi-control over their own henchmen. The HIRELINGS merely take suggestions, they do not move around like pieces on a game board to the whims of the player. If you want that kind of control over an army you must play the fighter class with a domain, or have loyal fighter HENCHMEN take the place of the EXPERT HIRELINGS.

>>98150609
>3 miles gives a more European scale
What do you mean by this?

>>98150637
That's not what they said, though. They said that everything the player does is subject to the DM vetoing or overriding.

So, again, I don't see how the formulations are different in practice. Can you provide a concrete example?

>>98150672
It's easier to represent a European-like country. 6 mile hexes are huge.

>>98150686
So you're talking about settlement density, not just the scale of the map. That changes everything.

If your plan is to increase the actual population density in the mileu fourfold, that IS going to alter your game profoundly, and not in a good way. For starters, it's going to fuck up the wilderness exploration portion of the game thoroughly.

>>98150707
Well not that much. 3 mile hexes just seem more natural but I'm not trying to mess with the game balance.

>>98150727
I guess I'm not following what it is about 6 mile hexes that you think makes them unsuitable for European countries, then.

This idiot >>98146378 told me I was wrong. Yes IDIOT the DM controls both sides unless certain criteria are met. The default state of EXPERT HIRELINGS is to be controlled by the DM. But the strawman of ‘do the players sit and do nothing!?’ doesn’t stand, because uhh the players controls their character like they always have.

It’s like this, if I hire an EXPERT HIRELING captain and his company of mercenaries I could suggest to them, ‘I want you to do X’, they can disobey due to limiting factors.

If I make my fighter class HENCHMAN into the commander of my army, I can tell the DM, ‘My henchman commands his troops to do X’ he could disobey in theory but far less likely. This is how non-fighter class characters can control an army.

If I am a fighter class with a domain and my own army I can say, ‘I command my troops to do x’ like I am playing a wargame.

File: 50998768510_707d0a62ee_c.jpg (330.8 KB)

>>98150727
>>98150736
E.g. this is Greece with 6-mile hexes overlayed on it. What's wrong with it?

>>98150744
>if I hire an EXPERT HIRELING captain and his company of mercenaries I could suggest to them, ‘I want you to do X’, they can disobey due to limiting factors.
They also said that the DM can prohibit and overrule at any time. So, again, it seems that you run things the same way in actual practice.

>>98150419
>too chickenshit

>>98150744
>This idiot
>Yes IDIOT
Why are (You) always acting so angry, aggressive, and unpleasant, Saltanon? You're taking yourself far too seriously.

>>98150777
No they didn’t, retard. They said you have to play AD&D like a heckin’ wargamerino and move units around like it’s Warhammer 40k. If you’re too stupid to not understand the difference between direct control and suggested directives then maybe you should try Candyland.

If you're not a sufficiently high level fighter, you don't command your army. You paid for it, but you have no idea what you're doing. That's why you hire experts.
>whahwhah why isn't my wizard a general?
lmao
You're such a nogames.

>>98151002
>No they didn’t
They did, though:

>>98146422
>(A) Each player controls their own PC (one per player) and their henchmen. If they order the henchmen to do something requiring a loyalty check, a loyalty check is rolled (let's say the DM does). If they order something idiotic or suicidal, the DM vetoes and overrides the order. But under standard circumstances, which is 90% of the time it's the players controlling the henchmen directly.

>>98151002
>play AD&D like a heckin’ wargamerino
O/AD&D is a wargame, though. It's right on the cover page of the first D&D game ever published.

Frankly, it looks like you don't know much about wargames, are triggered by their mention, and are throwing a melty for no valid reason. The fact that you bring up 40k as the prototypical wargame is telling from this point out view: 40k is what WotC retards think about when somebody says wargames, grogs think WRG 6th.

File: file.png (53.5 KB)

>>98151002
>They said you have to play AD&D like a heckin’ wargamerino and move units around like it’s Warhammer 40k.
The DMG discusses the use of miniatures at multiple points in the text.

Picrel is PHB page 7, in which Gary explicitly talks about "battles actually fought out on the tabletop with miniature figures". The PHB also discusses using miniatures and "figure ratios" of 1:10 or 1:20.

Not only are you being unnecessarily rude and aggressive but, like >>98151171 said, you're also showing that you don't understand that AD&D includes what you just called "a heckin' wargamerino", Saltanon.

>>98151171
AD&D is a RPG firstly. Nowhere in the text is it suggested to use Chainmail, or OD&D. In fact, AD&D was designed to replace OD&D outright. So if it was so important to Gary why didn’t he include a chapter on it? The only ‘wargaming’ rules given are a brief mention of figure scaling. It looks to me you don’t know much about AD&D!

File: file.png (289.0 KB)

>>98151247
>AD&D is a RPG firstly.
Doesn't mean it's exclusively an RPG, and that wargaming isn't part of it.

>Nowhere in the text is it suggested to use Chainmail, or OD&D.
Because what it suggests is to use the AD&D rules with figure ratios.

>if it was so important to Gary why didn’t he include a chapter on it?
He did discuss it at multiple points. From how he writes about it he's obviously assuming that people already knew how to play wargames. The problem is that you don't, and so you've never realised it.

PHB page 7:
>And perhaps a war between players will be going on (with battles actually fought out on the tabletop with miniature figures) one night [...]

PHB page 39:
>IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT OUTDOOR SCALE BE USED FOR RANGE ONLY, NEVER FOR SPELL AREA OF RFFECT (which is kept at 1” = 10’) UNLESS A FIGURE RATIO OF 1:10 OR 1:20 (1 casting equals 10 or 20 actual creatures or things in most cases) IS USED, AND CONSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS BUILDINGS, CASTLES, WALLS, ETC. ARE SCALED TO FIGURES RATHER THAN TO GROUND SCALE. Note that the foregoing assumes that a ground scale of 1” to 10 yards is used.

DMG page 10, use of miniature figures with the game.

DMG pages 107 to 110 has rules for construction, sieges and structural damage, see the image in picrel. These are obviously rules to be used with mass combat.

Also the very fact that you can hire whole companies and battalions of mercenaries... how do you propose those are meant to be used, if not in some kind of wargame scenario?

Not to mention how the first Greyhawk folio has army sizes for every polity (see picrel). What do you think those are for?

AD&D is (also) what you called a "heckin' wargarmerino".

>>98151332
I never said you can’t play a wargame in AD&D. I said you can’t control your mercenaries like it’s Kriegsspiel. You are just too obtuse and ignorant to admit defeat. THE DM CONTROLS THE HIRELINGS AT ALL TIMES YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

>>98151506
What you are saying is, in practice, equivalent to what the other Anon(s) were saying when they were talking about vetoes, overriding, and loyalty checks.

You can prove me wrong by coming up with any specific example of a situation that would be resolved differently under your formulation vs under theirs. I've already asked this half a dozen times, and you've never answered, so I have come to the conclusion that you've got nothing.

>>98151606
>I've already asked this half a dozen times
Yeah, we noticed. At some point you just have to ignore Saltanon, your point was clear and reasonable.

>>98151606
>>98152015
I already gave an example, you just don’t care or are too much of simple-minded dullards to even comprehend it. Here let me spoonfeed you like the stupid idiot baby you are.

The correct method: A PC orders his commander to send 30 mercenary heavy footmen to hold a bridge against an approaching enemy force while the PC retreats to safety.

The DM controls the mercenaries. The DM can decide:
1. Whether the commander/men obey promptly, sluggishly, or disobey. (Loyalty check)
2. Whether they hold the bridge or break once casualties begin (morale check).
3. Whether some desert or demand more pay mid-battle.

The player gives a directive, but the DM resolves the outcome. They are “employees”.

The incorrect method: The player would run the mercenaries like extra figures on the table, moving them up to the bridge, deciding their tactics each round, unless the DM steps in with a veto or loyalty check. This treats hirelings like they are henchmen.

They are not the same. The rules explicitly put hirelings in the DM’s hands as NPCs/employees. The player does not get a character sheet for hirelings, nor the assumption of automatic control that henchmen receive on DMG pg. 34.

>>98149392
What separates them from other races?

File: Capture.png (124.3 KB)

>>98152325
I can show you a preview, sure. This is the generic catgirl that can be slotted into any OSR system with some minor tweaks obviously. The book itself is going to have 3 full classes, 1 monster entry, a bunch of magic and mundane items, and some general catgirl ideas. It's gonna be PWYW on DTRPG as soon as I'm happy with the cover.

>>98152183
The two methods give the exact same results.

>>98152325
>>98152549
Buy an ad, samefag

>>98152561
>how DARE this Anon make OC?!?!?!?!
>i am outraged by this and also fat
ftfy

>>98140343
>>98140320
https://necroticgnome.com/blogs/news/ose-2026-update-faq
ctrl + F "game rules"

>>98142696
DMPCs are a staple of low level old school play. what true simulcrum enjoyer hasn't felt the betrayal from priest during their delve into the Caves of Chaos or wowed by Ramne's impressive magic while raiding the lair of Explictica Defilus in the swamp outside Orlane?

>>98152549
Not bad, though I'm not a fan of feline agility. I suspect that could lead to arguments at the table. Saving throws are serious business, and "I should get a bonus to this because I'm agile [subtext: I won't live if I don't]" is gonna be a sticking point for somebody at some point.

>>98152715
Show me where the rules define this "DMPC" thing you're talking about, dude.

>>98152557
Maybe for an idiot. Here’s another one for you.

The party is on the 1st level of a dungeon. A PC orders a group of 10 mercenary heavy footmen (hirelings) to guard the stairs while the PCs go deeper to level 2. Unknown to the players, a strong wandering patrol is approaching from behind.

Incorrect method: The player directly commands the mercenaries round-by-round like a tactical skirmish game. (Something only henchmen should do).

Correct method: The player gives one broad directive (“Hold this position and guard this point of egress.”)
In secret the DM decides how diligently the men follow it. When the enemy patrol arrives, the DM makes morale checks (DMG pp. 36–37). The mercenaries might hold briefly, then break and rout because they are employees who don’t want to die for a distant employer while the PCs are elsewhere looting. Some might desert or interpret “hold the position” conservatively (e.g., they retreat to a better defensive spot).

You have a severe misunderstanding of hirelings and henchmen.

File: file.png (42.6 KB)

>>98152782

File: file.png (38.1 KB)

>>98152795

File: Thulsa Doom.jpg (15.2 KB)

>>98152795
>>98152801
So you can't do it, huh?

File: file.png (22.9 KB)

>>98152823
Ramne is as GMPC as it gets. he lore drops the real situation in Orlane, he solves the players problems, he has written cutscenes, he has a spell that;s the spirit naga's weakness and the GM is told to use it if he is threatened and he automatically takes first dibs on magic items in the treasure horde at the end of the module
this in a 1e introductory module written in the first decade of the game and is far from the only example of such bullshit in early TSR published modules

>>98152912
Okay, so you're going in a different direction than I thought. Yeah, you're right, there's some awful stuff in old modules. As /osrg/ likes to say, the new-school rot started very early. It spread like a weed until it ate the original game, and shit like that became the standard.

>>98152675
>ctrl + F "game rules"
Ah, cool. Missed that, thanks.

>>98152715
>the betrayal from priest during their delve into the Caves of Chaos
Not a DMPC.

>>98152793
>A PC orders a group of 10 mercenary heavy footmen (hirelings) to guard the stairs while the PCs go deeper to level 2. Unknown to the players, a strong wandering patrol is approaching from behind.
>Incorrect method: The player directly commands the mercenaries round-by-round like a tactical skirmish game.
I don't think anybody ITT said, let alone implied, that that's the way they play it.

>>98153083
The idiot I started the argument with thinks he can control his hirelings like little henchmen, because he doesn’t read his DMG. And your ignorant babbling about ‘concrete scenarios’ of 20 henchmen or whatever idiocy you were spouting didn’t help at all. Do you even know the difference between henchmen and hirelings, or are you a B/X kiddie that plays with retainers?

>>98152774
Demis are OP as fuck tbf

>>98153239
>The idiot I started the argument with thinks he can control his hirelings like little henchmen, because he doesn’t read his DMG.
Didn't look like that was the case to me.

>Do you even know the difference between henchmen and hirelings
It's not rocket science, Anon. Stop acting like you're the only one who's read the DMG, it's cringe. Not to mention false, given how you showed you were unaware that both the PHB and DMG give rules on how to run wargame-style mass combat using miniatures.

>>98153395
That's not the problem, it's when the DM says
>"You failed your save, you die"
the player has every incentive to argue and say
>"But I'm really agile, I should get a +2 to that save because I could, like, move out of the way of the poison gas cloud!"
and that means either the DM caves and gives him the bonus for just about anything, or he stands firm and the player feels like his character was killed unfairly.

The bonus requires a level of interpretation that invites problems

>>98153458
That’s what I thought. You’re an idiot that doesn’t even know what a hireling is!

>>98153578
If it's not a dex roll it's not an agility roll

>>98153458
The weird thing with Saltanon is that it's so important for him to show his superiority that he will attribute wrong claims to other Anons just so he can correct them. And of course he never admits it when he's wrong, nor does he thank other Anons when they point out to him things that he didn't know.

Heh, we get all sorts on 4chan.

SotB s30 - The party went and asked the Rocky Oracle how to defeat Fulkth (subterfuge, betrayal), what spell he would cast first (Shield).
They then charmed their way to his front door and when he didn't immediately greet them as honoured guests they tried to force their way in.

Init went against them and F slammed the door in their face & cast Shield before the melee PCs forced open the door. On the next turn F killed 60% of the party with a fireball.
The MU PC negotiated a surrender (they had cast ESP round 1 & were able to be incredibly persuasive, playing to F’s sense of self-importance) and the 2 remaining PCs (Fighter 4, Halfling 3) were taken prisoner.
The MU got a tour of the Hall of Lenses & got as much info out of Fulkth as possible.

1 of the 4 players who needed new characters picked up a lvl 2 Cleric Henchmen, and I ruled that they felt a disturbance in the force that motivated the new PCs to come to the aid of the Prisoners.
This reserve team came to Parley and negotiated the ransom of the prisoners. I ruled a ransom of 1k gp per level. They were not able recover any magic weapons, but the MU was able to pocket some magic rings from the dead under the guise of praying over them.
I was split 3 ways: roleplaying the MU & F’s conversation, the Prisoners trying to figure out an escape, and the new party making their way down to negotiate.
Once everyone was more or less back together, the players spent a long time deliberating how they were going to kill everyone and get their magic items back.
Eventually I had to step in and remind them that a core tenet of OSR play is retreating.
They were stuck in this mindset of assuredness that victory could be snatched from the jaws of defeat, but I convinced them to appraise the situation logically and take the L.

We wrapped up kinda early, as the players didn't really want to spend the last hour of the session exploring somewhere else. I do think they're motivated to seek revenge.

>>98149079
Either the players are very unfit for OSR-style play, or you've failed to explain to them properly what the game is about.

>>98149392
I don't really have any catgirl needs, sorry.

>>98150196
Meme. OD&D's 5-mile hexes are the original and best.

>>98150744
>>98151002
This mad is way too mad, especially over something you're just too autistic to understand.

>>98150777
>What's wrong with it?
NAYRT but I assume he dislikes it because e.g. Arcadia is about 6 by 8 hexes on that map and so it would have to have a town in about every other hex and that doesn't look visually like a sparsely populated rural area.

What a horrible map, by the way. That's about the worst way I can think of to do a hexmap of a region.

>>98151171
>grogs think WRG 6th
>6th
Newfag!

>>98151247
>AD&D was designed to replace OD&D outright
Not really. I mean, kinda, but not really. The transition to AD&D was actually a lot more gradual and both the MM and PHB functioned more like expansions or addons to the OD&D booklets when they were released, hence why the Monster Manual's stats are better in line with OD&D than with AD&D standards, for example. Even the DMG ultimately refers back to and reflects OD&D procedures, some of which it entirely omits (although purely by accident, admittedly). For example, the AD&D rules on hexcrawling are cumbersome and abstruse, and they make good sense *only* in their presumed context on release of someone who is *already* familiar with basic OD&D hexcrawling procedures; the DMG text is basically a look under the hood and extensive guidelines on how to generalize the rules to other scales, add modes of conveyance and so on: a set of advanced rules for expansion of the game, in other words, which made a lot of sense at the time *if* the reader was coming from a background of OD&D. Taken as an artifact in isolation, they're very unsatisfactory instructions on running a hexcrawl, whereas the OD&D rules are smooth, simple and fun.

Even later on, Gary would refer to OD&D ("the D&D game", in his words) as a different more freewheeling game.

>>98154206
>>98153979
Did we learn something new about AD&D today, B/X kiddies? Yay! I humbly accept your concessions.

>>98152715
>what true simulcrum enjoyer hasn't felt wowed by Ramne's impressive magic while raiding the lair of Explictica Defilus in the swamp outside Orlane?
Large numbers have not, I imagine.

>>98154255
Buddy, I don't even have a dog in your weird fight (not that is seems like anybody else does either). You're just bizarrely pissy in a way that just about anybody notices, and it seems incomprehensible.

>>98154245
>” ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a different game. Readers please take note! It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game, it is a new game. A number of letters have come to me, the writers expressing their surprise at or voicing their disapproval of this fact. John Mansfield, in SIGNAL, cautions his readers to be aware that an ongoing D&D campaign cannot be switched to AD&D without major work or actual scrapping of the old game and beginning a fresh effort. To prevent any further misunderstandings, it is necessary that all adventure gaming fans be absolutely aware that there is no similarity (perhaps even less) between D&D and AD&D than there is between D&D and its various imitators produced by competing publishers.
Just as D&D was the instrument which made adventure gaming what it is today, it is envisioned that AD&D will shape the future of fantasy adventure gaming. Where D&D is a very loose, open framework around which highly imaginative Dungeon Masters can construct what amounts to a set of rules and game of their own choosing, AD&D is a much tighter and more structured game system. The target audience to which we thought D&D would appeal was principally the same as that of historical wargames in general and military miniatures in particular. D&D was hurriedly compiled, assuming that readers would be familiar with medieval and ancient history, wargaming, military miniatures, etc. It was aimed at males. Within a few months it became apparent to us that our basic assumptions might be a bit off target.” - Gary Gygax, June 1979, Dragon Magazine #26

>>98154267
You’re just another idiot poseur pretending to know what the fuck he is talking about while poorly playing a board game for 10 year olds.

>>98154431
See, this is what we're talking about. You seem very mad. Disproportionately mad.

>>98150196
Not a meme. I swear by them for all of my games.

reminder that SHADOWDARK IS A SHIT GAME

>>98154547
That's true, but it's also off-topic here. Shadowdark has nothing to do with the OSR.

File: 1775949708908203.png (2.6 KB)

>>98154547
further reminder that 2e is not OSR

>>98154560
bull crap. its advertised as an OSR game.

>>98154563
wrong

File: moonlight.png (109.8 KB)

>>98154574

File: 1767248919716047.jpg (81.5 KB)

>>98154577
wrong, 2e is not OSR
>>98154574
>its advertised as an OSR
kill yourself

>>98154597
your opinion doesnt matter

>>98154602
>im going to come to /osrg/ just to bitch and moan that they don't like 2e!
fuck off, faggot

>>98153961
>a dex roll
So you'd just take out the saving throw bonus? Or are you a WotC-tard who thinks there are "Dex roll" saving throws?

File: athly4.jpg (25.0 KB)

>>98154606

>>98154606
>thing nobody said
k

>>98154635
you dont need to sign your posts with a selfie
>>98154656
2e is not OSR

>>98154696
For real, stop replying to trolls. Just report and ignore.

>>98154702
>if you disagree you are a troll
gave yourself away

>>98154714
disagree in a different thread, troll

>>98154627
Depends on the system frankly.
I didn't realize it said (saving) rolls though.

What's the reasoning anyways that 2e isn't osr. I know why I wouldn't consider it OSR, but I'm more curious what officially makes it not osr.

>>98156840
Two good explanations are the one in the n00b DMG guide in the OP, and this one by Melan:
http://beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2022/10/blog-osr-module-o5-2e-is-still-not-old.html

>>98128548
You don't play games.

>>98156835
I designed it to be a sort of class that can be inserted into any OSR system. It would be up to the GM to put the finishing touches on it.

>>98135074
Little late to reply. Implementing a deaths door house rule a few months ago should have been a red flag.
The lair we had been delving (the burial vault of a dead branch of minor nobles) was something we initially passed following up on but went back to a few sessions ago. As we reached the apparent end, the site was tied to another player and led to a two hour conversation between him and three NPC ancestor ghosts while six of us sat in the cuck chair and watched. He was handed a +2 longsword, the party was given ~7,000 coin weight of mixed treasure and then whisked about 10 hexes away for a "some time later" moment with our PCs.
In the after session chat, the referee said this was the first of several small character stories he had planned months ago and was excited to get to the others but it's kind of like... this isn't exactly what I signed on for. Maybe the other players liked it but the whole minuta of the world being casually tossed aside completely took me out of it and left a bad taste in my mouth. And this was the first??
I might have to start look for other online sessions but I'm pretty hesitant to jump into another groups ongoing campaign.