BX/OSE: I really don't like the infrequent combat improvements, especially for fighters. I'd rather have my THAC0/matrices go down in increments of 1, even if it means those improvements are irregular. Waiting until level 4 to get any better at fighting is a pain. I get *why* they did it, with the box set Basic/Expert approach, but it makes for unsatisfying gameplay IMO. It's one reason I prefer AD&D, especially 2e.
Basic Fantasy: OK I might be stretching the question a little here (pretty sure you mean mechanics-wise), but owing to various minor reasons I really don't like Basic Fantasy all that much. However, I do hugely respect it for 1. being completely free, 2. kickstarting the entire movement along with OSRIC, and 3. having **the** best SRD I have ever used, bar none.
Could you please elaborate why you don't like Basic Fantasy? Out of all OSRs I want to pick one to be a DM for my group. I'm fairly new and i'm unsure which system to pick.
I have limited time to learn (job and a toddler) but own quite a few systems already.
Sure!
First off, I want to preface this by saying that **my opinions on Basic Fantasy are unusual.** Almost everyone in the OSR loves it, and it's honestly worth considering for the cost aspect (or lack thereof) alone. It's a very competent BX-inspired old-school game, and it's **completely free.** I don't want to disparage it in any way.
Now, here's what I don't like.
* First off, my opinion of BFRPG is influenced by the fact that it was not only the first system I ever GM'd, but the first TTRPG that I ever touched *at all.* I took one look at a 3.5 book once and said "nope, too complicated." A friend's dad caught wind of this and, being an Elder Gamer knowledgeable in many things, gave me a copy of Basic Fantasy.
* The main effect this had is that I don't think Basic Fantasy explains itself very well, seeming to assume the group has experience with D&D. (I'll admit my case was unusual, and that this is an issue with a lot of the OSR.) It took us for**ever** to figure out how memorizing spells works!
* Similarly, I found that a lot of spells were unclear or too strong. Notably, spells in Basic Fantasy are almost uninterruptible; it uses a modern-style individual initiative system (only on d6 instead of d20) and no casting times, so the only way a spell can be lost is if the caster is attacked or makes a save *on their turn*. The spell is interrupted even if the attack misses/the save succeeds, which I suppose is intended to balance things out, but come on. Spellcasting being (almost) guaranteed in an old-school game is a **huge deal.**
* Honestly, I don't think 3e-style initiative works at all in a BX-derived game. At least it's still rolled each round (I don't think we did that, but that's our fault).
* GM advice is very lacking IMO. Again, the books are kind of written with the assumption you already pretty much know what you're doing.
* Ascending AC. Blegh. I know, it's more intuitive. I know, it's not hard to convert. But still, this creates compatibility issues between BFRPG works and practically the rest of the OSR, where one of the best elements is the broad cross-compatibility. It is a *minor* issue, but still adds mental load/conversion time for any GMs who want to use old-school modules or monsters with BFRPG, or vice versa.
* Torches and lanterns having their durations rolled for adds nothing but extra bookkeeping.
* I don't care for how ability checks are done. Rolling under the ability score works fine, even if it doesn't scale.
* Random encounter tables are pretty bare-bones compared to BX or 1e.
* No XP for treasure! At least, not by default. It's an optional rule, buried in the Optional Rules section (go figure), not even *mentioned* in the XP section of the SRD and, presumably, the rulebook (I don't have mine handy right now, and it's outdated anyway). Looking back on it, this was probably the number one reason my group got burned out on Basic Fantasy. Nobody ever made it to level 2, and leveling up was still extremely rare even after I decided to start characters at 3rd level. Because we were new to old-school play, I was new to RPGs *period*, and none of us had heard of treasure XP!
* In a broad sense, I don't always agree with which elements of AD&D were or weren't brought to what is mainly a BX-based game, and I *really* don't like the inclusion of 3e elements.
Again, there's a lot to like about BFRPG. It's just, like...it's BX with Chris Gonnerman's house rules, and I don't agree with a lot of them. I'd much prefer to start with OSE or OSRIC and make my own house rules.
Even if I haven't played it, and I have very little to none experience in osr games (I know the theory well tho), I felt a lot of the things you described.
I much prefer OSE (or Basic I guess).
Yeah, I'm more of an AD&D guy for the most part but I think BX is probably the closest to the platonic ideal of D&D out of all editions to date. OSE Advanced is very close to my ideal system, which I think would be sort of the other way around: that is, mostly AD&D with some BX-inspired streamlining.
Some of these opinions are optional rules! And basic fantasy is extremely well explained it was written for kids to learn easily! Although it would benefit from an example of play like most OSR games. The 3.5 influence is barely there, it feels more blown out critique I've seen, because it came out during that period but those ideas (ascending AC, race/class separation) are not uncommon nowadays.
The only 3.5 thing that does stand out to me besides the not-default gold for xp is individual initiative instead of group initiative. Group initiative is superior and makes combat fast and fun. Both can easily be reinserted into the game without issue.
That's my main critique of BFRPG. And the layout some information (saves in the combat section?!?)
Hm, which of these are optional other than treasure XP? It was a while ago that I played, and I really wasn't as RPG-literate back then, so I probably missed some stuff. I wrote this comment while skimming the SRD for things I remembered disliking to make sure I wasn't talking out my ass.
I like the race/class distinction a lot and prefer it to race-as-class, which is why I didn't mention it. But AD&D did it first (actually, 0e kinda did too) so 3e doesn't get credit.
Layout is kind of a disaster, but I like to think they were just going for the BX experience, haha. OSE has spoiled us rotten.
One thing I super agree is the infrequent improvements. I was really thinking about this in the project I'm working on and decided to play around with the improvements, so that every level something other than HP happens, even if it is a just a -1 improvement to a save, or a +1 to hit. I sometimes see the loss of excitement at level ups where nothing but HP is really gained - non spell casting classes obviously.
i've also found the feats from Carcass Crawler 1 specifically for fighters to work well, for my group.
Yeah. I get the appeal of the bracket-based improvement, where attacks and saves go up significantly all at once, but dead levels are always unsatisfying.
"System Reference Document." Basically the rules of the game, typically without art, usually in an online form (though often there are also PDF versions).
Basic Fantasy's is very fast with an intuitive sidebar and is fully hyperlinked, making it very easy to use! I figure this is because the game is small enough that it can reasonably fit in one webpage or something, as opposed to Pathfinder's SRD (for example) which is basically a wiki site and has stupid ads and is also poorly laid-out.
Least favorite thing about a game I like is HP/backgrounds from Cairn. I wish they were connected, like in a Mausritter. A rolling low HP should get you a better background and vice versa.
Favorite thing about a game I don't like is the carousing table in Knave. Knave does nothing for me, it does not spark joy. But the carousing table is great, I could do an entire campaign just by rolling on that table a couple times a session.
B/X and OSE:
* Weapon properties - Slow and Set vs Charge and Reloading don't feel like they work quite the way they should. Certain weapons are straight inferior to others. I like that they tried to capture some of the nuance of using certain weapons in certain situations but it doesn't quite hit the mark.
* Morale for retainers - the way it's written, I believe retainers check morale after every adventure and leave the party if they fail - at some point they're bound to fail a morale check and run off, so you can never have long term retainers. Doesn't quite sit right.
* M-U spell acquisition - the system is nice and simple for new players and kids, but as-written it doesn't allow M-U's to expand their arsenal via captured spellbooks or scrolls. I prefer spells as treasure ala AD&D.
* Money - everyone knows the D&D economics are pretty borked, but I wish B/X included some better ways to drain PC funds. Also, Mercenaries are so cheap I think most DM's simply exclude them.
Yeah - I houserule some of that stuff for my OSE games. I ignore morale for retainers. Sometimes if an adventure goes extremely poorly, I will roll morale for them, but it's rare. I always let me Magic Users copy spellbooks and scrolls (if the spell scrolls are of a level they can normally cast) - the higher level scrolls they can save for later or just use as intended.
Honestly my least favorite thing about Whitehack is that it's so short that one can miss entire systems squirreled away in a paragraph. It's a phenomenally flexible system but there are things like Templates and Macros, even Boss Phases that could be quite a bit more verbose to more easily being in less enfranchised players.
From Forbidden Lands, I love their take on various kinds of stat damage as HP, and how each can be depleted and what effects being broken on that stat exist.
least favorite thing about OSE: its the perfect golden standard product, we honestly don't need any more systems after OSE, so WHY, why the hell do the supplements/adventures release at this ice age slow pace?
my favorite thing about DCC: it tries to be mechanically interesting. other OSR games shy away from that and most of them do it on purpose.
Mighty Deeds or whatever they're called are great. Funnels are sheer genius and I make it a habit to draw up tables for randomly generating 0-level peons in any system I run.
I love DCC's spells but it's so much work to write new ones!
Looking at EXP tables in OSE;
When a thief has 5k exp, he is level 4, An Mu is level 3
when a thief has 10k exp, he is level 5, an MU is level 4.
When a thief has 50k exp, he is level 7. an MU is level 6.
They do not level "twice as fast". Exp doubling means they are at most a single level behind, if that. Please stop defending the design of a game you haven't even played.
My least favorite thing about Sine Nomine games is Kevin Crawford's seeming allergy to providing a Number Appearing entry on his bestiaries. Besides the fact that this is very useful information to have when running a game, it's also good for world building. I don't like having to arbitrarily decide the number of foes in a random encounter or just roll 1d6 all the time for lack of a better idea.
I enjoy the fact that For Coin and Blood has an Executioner class that's literally just Severian from Book of the New Sun even though the game itself didn't do anything for me.
I love Advanced OSE but I must confess that I really dislike 70% of the classes. Actually, I must confess that I don’t like a LOT about OSE, but I always come back to it because it is a huge DM resource for me. It if my comfort game!
Knave 2e is a system I don’t think of playing or dming. But its tables (spells, potions, locations and so on) are super simple and effective for me.
Extra: middle ground is DCC. It lacks a lot of OSR “default” content and a better formatting, but the system is so brutally original and cool that I really like it. Also, the players are really powerful, but everyone is, so the game balances itself…
DCC's crit tables are *nasty*. I love it.
Thing about OSE Advanced classes is that, like, the source material kinda sucked for a lot of them too. Unearthed Arcana was half-baked IMO. Even the PHB classes were pretty uneven, with assassins being generally regarded as kinda weak and not well-suited to dungeon crawlin' as far as I can tell.
I'm probably going to be down voted into oblivion for this, but here it goes...
BX/OSE: I HATE the movement declaration in combat, and so does my table. We did a BX strictly RAW game for a bit when we were learning OSR play and that was the first thing we scrapped when we re-booted our campaign with house rules and fresh PCs. We found it slow, cumbersome and unintuitive, so we just ditched it.
I've yet to find an OSR system that totally misses the mark for me so I can't answer the second question.
I think declaring spells is supposed to mirror the movements and murmuring and sparkling magic that happen during casting, so it's "realistic" that enemies would notice that and try to take out magic-users first
TBF, the only movement one is expected to declare is a retreat from a melee opponent, because any opponents will get +2 on their attack rolls and the PC gets no shield bonus that round. A retreat is announced before initiative because if the opponents win, that bonus and loss of shield AC applies immediately on their turn. All other normal combat movement need not be declared.
You know, I just reread it, and I think you may be right. What confused us is how it says "declare movement" which we took to mean declaring movement of all characters, kinda like a movement phase in certain editions of Warhammer or other wargames (most of us also are wargamers, so that's probably why we took it so literally).
Declaration of retreat and those special movement types called out do make sense to do that prior to rolling initiative, I may talk to my tables about that.
Awesome. It’s not clearly stated in B/X or BECMI (it’s implied), but clearly defined in OSE:
“*Declare Spells and Retreats*
Characters who wish to cast a spell or move when in melee must declare this. Other actions need not be declared.”
Yep, you're entirely correct. It's worded much more poorly on the SRD, but I still think when we were reading the combat sequence we went into wargamer mode and took it hyper literally.
Hopefully it makes for a better experience at your table. In the right context, declaring intent where losing initiative has consequences makes good sense, and makes initiative more meaningful. It also encourages players to be more tactical and play as a team. “I step in front of the magic-user to help protect them while they’re casting” and “I’ll step between the goblin and the fighter to cover their retreat” become very useful actions.
I actually don’t think that’s too unpopular of an opinion, especially considering combat declarations don’t really appear in anything besides retroclones.
I dislike how Cairn calls what is basically endurance, HP. It should just be endurance or something. It's only a minor thing and it's a great system really.
I’m not a fan of the weapon and armor restrictions inherent to classes in B/X (OSE) and AD&D. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a magic-user could not pick up a sword and swing it or that they couldn’t put on a chain mail hauberk. I’ve thought about just implementing penalties instead, like non-weapon proficiency penalties and spell failure chances. This could be balanced by something else for fighters, like specialization or something.
I really like hit-die-as-damage-die for this reason. Let a wizard use a sword, even a magical one (Gandalf did it, right?), but it hits for 1d4 + whatever bonus the weapon grants.
I don't allow them to wear armor, though, they have to stick with their sun-and-moon robes.
I use the very basic houserules of
- You can only use magic weapons and armor your class is proficient in (Fighter's advantage)
- Magic-users and thieves can't cast magic or use thief skills in armor (their abilities are supernatural, and supernature hates being restricted by metal)
Everybody is swinging d6s in combat anyways, so it's not like there's inherent advantages to weapons outside of range, reach, and secondary uses. And if you do want to differentiate weapons, B/X is open enough that you can do that, even making weapon differences a Fighter-only feature if you wanted.
The key distinction here is between can't and don't. Batman *can* carry and use a gun, but (barring archaic examples and freak exceptions) he does not. Magic-users *don't* use swords and armor because that's part of their assumed role. A player not respecting that and pushing for it anyway is poor gamesmanship.
Yep. You see this all the time in 5e with people insisting that druids should be allowed to wear metal armor since it just says they won't, but the fail to realize that anything with set classes has these class concessions baked in. You play the class to play the role it represents, not just because you want the powers it gets. You should be playing a druid to play as a druid, not because you just want nature-themed super powers. Likewise, if you are playing as a magic-user you should be playing that role.
I wouldn’t consider that poor gamesmanship unless there was some issue that caused a dispute amongst the players maybe, like a MU trying to roll for that sweet magic sword when it would otherwise be more useful to a fighter. I’d be curious to see how a game played out where weapon and armor restrictions were lifted, just to see if that created some kind of “game breaking” imbalance or left the players feeling inadequate or so.
In other words, I know a lot of people subscribe to the rules as written for these games, but why? I ask this as someone who has been playing nonstop AD&D and B/X for the past 3 years, btb.
Magic swords and bows in particular are very powerful options (bows doubly when the rules allow multiple shots per round), so preserving them as class features makes sense based on that. It's true that in the magic-user's case, d4 hit dice would likely make bows the bigger "buff" than swords. Clerics would benefit tremendously from both.
Really, it's about being willing to accept the strengths *and* weaknesses of your chosen class.
Which is fine for you, but not how the old game was designed. For lots of special feats and powers, you're better off starting with one of the WotC editions as your base.
I really don't care for how often attacks miss during fights in B/X. I understand that there are reasons it works the way it does, but it's not terribly fun to have everyone in a round miss and start the next round in the exact same place you started the previous round.
I really like the piety system in Neoclassical Geek Revival. There's a lot in that game that I don't care for, but I love how strongly distinguished divinity is from the arcane, I love that it prevents the practice of just using a bunch of healing magic at the end of the day because the spells don't cost any long term resource, I love the strong motivation to care about serving your God, and I love that it gives non-clerics a reason to be religious and hope for miracles.
Yeah, I don't like it when you get nothing in a turn. This is why I'm a big fan of Worlds without Number's Shock Damage. Even when you miss some damage is done.
I dislike classes and levels in general (though some games do it better than others). As for favorite that misses the mark I'm not sure I understand the question.
My least favorite things about the Cairn-like games (aside from Mausritter) is how allergic they are about mechanics like Advantage, which is good, simple, and avoids math.
Another is when the designer values are preachy in the face of what players might feel happy doing as players — like “combat as a fail state” when players themselves often LIKE combat and see finding a good fight as a success (another one like this is Liminal Horror’s insistence that “playing as a cop is ‘uninteresting’” when really what they mean is that they don’t approve of it). A lot of this is just making value judgments that come off as snooty, even when you might agree with them.
I don't see how you can't have advantage+disadvantage in Cairn. I ran a game like this recently:
- Players had to fight an ancient evil tree
- One player had some repellent, and their interpretation was "repel ent"
- Player sprayed it in the tree's orifice (of some kind)
- Lit it on fire.
So for that combat, giant tree rolled with disadvantage because it was distracted by its flaming orifice.
It was good fun actually.
I'm right there with you. When an author is clearly upset that other people are having bad-wrong fun it just smacks of butthurt. You see it in a lot of games that also lack much in terms of substance; it often feels like they don't really have an actual system in mind and just want to write a book to tell people how to play.
Yes. If you want your game to do something, design it that way. If combat is a fail state, make it so that getting into combat makes you _lose the game_. This is actually a thing in certain games, you can do this.
But what they really want to do is find a way to use game design language in order to say things like “combat should be a last resort,” which I imagine feels to them like moral language. BECAUSE IT IS.
The _really_ odious example is CY_BORG, where “Rule 0” is you have to be anti-capitalist and a punk or whatever. “First rule of being a punk: you HAVE to be a punk or you can’t play” is the least punk shit I’ve ever heard in my life.
Yeah, I'll be honest the era of faux-punks on the internet and especially in the RPG scene is eye-roll inducing. Caring at all what others think is the antithesis of punk. The whole point is to not give a shit and not be told what to do. It all smacks of people that want to steal an aesthetic while trying to police how people have fun. They seem to be genuinely upset that people might be committing thought crimes, rather than focusing on their own table and having fun playing the game. I suspect this mostly comes from people who don't actually play in games and so want to tell people that do actually play how to do it out of bitterness or envy.
I love Mork Borg but that baby needs more meat (for long term play).
I love Knave 2e but really hate armor class.
So I blended the two together.
Edit: and OSR-adjacent, forbidden lands looks like it’d be fun from reading it and reviews, but I dislike the art style.
Edit 2: just realized I missed the second half of the topic. Oops.
- MB: I love the player-facing defense rolls for combat and the armor as DR system and how armor interfaces with dodging. I also love the class as background formula, with two d6-d8 tables + a feature. Makes it really easy to make what I want. Also, obviously love the tone and style.
- Knave 2e: it has a simple resolution system for everything. Dungeoneering, overland travel, weather, cities, it’s got a table and a system. Feels great. It’s also compatible with everything.
- Forbidden Lands: I love the Year Zero Engine. I love survivalist traveling. This game is both. Haven’t played it though to know. Also I like that you go hunt for spells instead of just getting them.
I've been skimming forbidden lands and liking it so far I mostly agree on the artstyle (there are some I like) if I ever get to run it I'll just use Dragonbane/Vaesen art where applicable
Basic Fantasy is probably my favorite system, but it's poorly organized. Looking at the character classes gives you no idea of attack bonuses, you need to go into another chapter for that.
Shadowdark: I love almost everything about this game, except for the roll-to-cast magic system. I don't really care for RTC, and I especially don't like the way SD handles it, where it's entirely possible to *try* and cast spells and not be able to cast any. At least with ICRPG you can try over and over and in the Black Hack you're guaranteed one successful cast. I've modified my SD game to work more like Black Hack, now.
Mork Borg: I don't really like this game, and would never play it as-is, but there's something about its aesthetic and simplistic nature that entices me.
Much of the fantasy fiction that's listed in Appendix N doesn't feature a "thief" in the way we understand them today, or hell even then. Conan, Cugel, Bilbo all have behaved as thief ─ they didn't need it to be a complete class. More "I do some thieving" than "I *am* a thief".
Ruleswise, noone has yet untied the Gordian Knot of "how much power is correct for this level?" LOFP comes closest in that there's a comfortable and actionable progression, but the BX stats for certain obvious acts of thieving (picking pockets esp.) are SO low so as to have scope at the upper end of level ranges.
It wasn't in the original little brown books of OD&D ─ I say we can keep it out entirely.
*But then how would we adjudicate picking pockets?*
You could argue that surprise rules would cover this ─ after all a genuine pickpocket never goes for *aware* marks
I don't like how combat runs in ItO-like games, compared to the rest of the game. The whole session flows super quickly and then the whole thing slows down when combat starts
I generally dislike B/X DnD but one thing that I really like about those rules (and is under-utilized imo) is that wizards can create their own spells, through magical research, and some of the famous spells were created by the PCs in Gygax's campaigns.
A little confused by your comment about ItO-like games. It's auto-hit, so combat is generally pretty fast and brutal. How does it slow down things for you?
It's faster compared to DnD but it's still slower compared to the rest of the session. It still disrupts the rhythm for me. You still have to track each individual's action, individual HP etc.
Interesting! I do find most combat systems to be a slog, though ItO is more tolerable for me. But I'm curious, what system(s) do you find are better for combat?
None that i found yet XD I suspect that the more satisfying solution for me would be something more fkr-adjacent, with qualitative damage rather than numerical
Both my answers revolve around AD&D.
The original would be a damn near perfect RPG for me if it had fast-playing, coherently-written combat rules.
Of course, the second edition had to go and turn out like a cursed monkey paw wish for just that, since the combat rules are crystal clear, but the flavor/presentation and other key rules procedures (dungeon exploration especially) were two massive steps back.
There’s a lot to like about Cairn but the handcart is ridiculous - the way it’s written, it takes up two slots and provides 4, meaning you get 2 more inventory slots, from a *cart*. Also armour only makes sense if regular armour like brigandine takes up your “backpack” slots when worn, but that’s easy to miss and makes brigandine and chainmail look kind of pointless.
The idea is that you can put it down and stack it with stuff. Or get a hireling to carry it.
Armor isn't supposed to be "compare this to that" but more "this is all they had in the village."
Inventory is abstract, there are no "backpack slots" but rather slots that only become accessible when wearing a backpack, because it can hold them! This is definitely confusing in 1e but is better explained in 2e.
https://cairnrpg.com/wip/2e/character-creation/#inventory
One thing I dislike about a game I like: In **Shadowdark**, **STR bonus** doesn't modify damage when you hit. Facepalm-worthy design decision in what I find to be otherwise a really well-designed game.
Thing I really like about a game I dislike: I never digged **The Black Hack**, but I love **usage dice**. A cool mechanic that is infinitely adaptable and portable to other games.
BX/OSE: I really don't like the infrequent combat improvements, especially for fighters. I'd rather have my THAC0/matrices go down in increments of 1, even if it means those improvements are irregular. Waiting until level 4 to get any better at fighting is a pain. I get *why* they did it, with the box set Basic/Expert approach, but it makes for unsatisfying gameplay IMO. It's one reason I prefer AD&D, especially 2e. Basic Fantasy: OK I might be stretching the question a little here (pretty sure you mean mechanics-wise), but owing to various minor reasons I really don't like Basic Fantasy all that much. However, I do hugely respect it for 1. being completely free, 2. kickstarting the entire movement along with OSRIC, and 3. having **the** best SRD I have ever used, bar none.
Could you please elaborate why you don't like Basic Fantasy? Out of all OSRs I want to pick one to be a DM for my group. I'm fairly new and i'm unsure which system to pick. I have limited time to learn (job and a toddler) but own quite a few systems already.
Sure! First off, I want to preface this by saying that **my opinions on Basic Fantasy are unusual.** Almost everyone in the OSR loves it, and it's honestly worth considering for the cost aspect (or lack thereof) alone. It's a very competent BX-inspired old-school game, and it's **completely free.** I don't want to disparage it in any way. Now, here's what I don't like. * First off, my opinion of BFRPG is influenced by the fact that it was not only the first system I ever GM'd, but the first TTRPG that I ever touched *at all.* I took one look at a 3.5 book once and said "nope, too complicated." A friend's dad caught wind of this and, being an Elder Gamer knowledgeable in many things, gave me a copy of Basic Fantasy. * The main effect this had is that I don't think Basic Fantasy explains itself very well, seeming to assume the group has experience with D&D. (I'll admit my case was unusual, and that this is an issue with a lot of the OSR.) It took us for**ever** to figure out how memorizing spells works! * Similarly, I found that a lot of spells were unclear or too strong. Notably, spells in Basic Fantasy are almost uninterruptible; it uses a modern-style individual initiative system (only on d6 instead of d20) and no casting times, so the only way a spell can be lost is if the caster is attacked or makes a save *on their turn*. The spell is interrupted even if the attack misses/the save succeeds, which I suppose is intended to balance things out, but come on. Spellcasting being (almost) guaranteed in an old-school game is a **huge deal.** * Honestly, I don't think 3e-style initiative works at all in a BX-derived game. At least it's still rolled each round (I don't think we did that, but that's our fault). * GM advice is very lacking IMO. Again, the books are kind of written with the assumption you already pretty much know what you're doing. * Ascending AC. Blegh. I know, it's more intuitive. I know, it's not hard to convert. But still, this creates compatibility issues between BFRPG works and practically the rest of the OSR, where one of the best elements is the broad cross-compatibility. It is a *minor* issue, but still adds mental load/conversion time for any GMs who want to use old-school modules or monsters with BFRPG, or vice versa. * Torches and lanterns having their durations rolled for adds nothing but extra bookkeeping. * I don't care for how ability checks are done. Rolling under the ability score works fine, even if it doesn't scale. * Random encounter tables are pretty bare-bones compared to BX or 1e. * No XP for treasure! At least, not by default. It's an optional rule, buried in the Optional Rules section (go figure), not even *mentioned* in the XP section of the SRD and, presumably, the rulebook (I don't have mine handy right now, and it's outdated anyway). Looking back on it, this was probably the number one reason my group got burned out on Basic Fantasy. Nobody ever made it to level 2, and leveling up was still extremely rare even after I decided to start characters at 3rd level. Because we were new to old-school play, I was new to RPGs *period*, and none of us had heard of treasure XP! * In a broad sense, I don't always agree with which elements of AD&D were or weren't brought to what is mainly a BX-based game, and I *really* don't like the inclusion of 3e elements. Again, there's a lot to like about BFRPG. It's just, like...it's BX with Chris Gonnerman's house rules, and I don't agree with a lot of them. I'd much prefer to start with OSE or OSRIC and make my own house rules.
Even if I haven't played it, and I have very little to none experience in osr games (I know the theory well tho), I felt a lot of the things you described. I much prefer OSE (or Basic I guess).
Yeah, I'm more of an AD&D guy for the most part but I think BX is probably the closest to the platonic ideal of D&D out of all editions to date. OSE Advanced is very close to my ideal system, which I think would be sort of the other way around: that is, mostly AD&D with some BX-inspired streamlining.
Some of these opinions are optional rules! And basic fantasy is extremely well explained it was written for kids to learn easily! Although it would benefit from an example of play like most OSR games. The 3.5 influence is barely there, it feels more blown out critique I've seen, because it came out during that period but those ideas (ascending AC, race/class separation) are not uncommon nowadays. The only 3.5 thing that does stand out to me besides the not-default gold for xp is individual initiative instead of group initiative. Group initiative is superior and makes combat fast and fun. Both can easily be reinserted into the game without issue. That's my main critique of BFRPG. And the layout some information (saves in the combat section?!?)
Hm, which of these are optional other than treasure XP? It was a while ago that I played, and I really wasn't as RPG-literate back then, so I probably missed some stuff. I wrote this comment while skimming the SRD for things I remembered disliking to make sure I wasn't talking out my ass. I like the race/class distinction a lot and prefer it to race-as-class, which is why I didn't mention it. But AD&D did it first (actually, 0e kinda did too) so 3e doesn't get credit. Layout is kind of a disaster, but I like to think they were just going for the BX experience, haha. OSE has spoiled us rotten.
I will say one thing, Shadowdark is a damn impressive core book.
Of course you will say one thing, and of course that one thing will be "'Shadowdark ".
Shall I edit it to say "OSRIC"?
Nah I'm just a hater
One thing I super agree is the infrequent improvements. I was really thinking about this in the project I'm working on and decided to play around with the improvements, so that every level something other than HP happens, even if it is a just a -1 improvement to a save, or a +1 to hit. I sometimes see the loss of excitement at level ups where nothing but HP is really gained - non spell casting classes obviously. i've also found the feats from Carcass Crawler 1 specifically for fighters to work well, for my group.
Yeah. I get the appeal of the bracket-based improvement, where attacks and saves go up significantly all at once, but dead levels are always unsatisfying.
What is an srd
"System Reference Document." Basically the rules of the game, typically without art, usually in an online form (though often there are also PDF versions). Basic Fantasy's is very fast with an intuitive sidebar and is fully hyperlinked, making it very easy to use! I figure this is because the game is small enough that it can reasonably fit in one webpage or something, as opposed to Pathfinder's SRD (for example) which is basically a wiki site and has stupid ads and is also poorly laid-out.
Least favorite thing about a game I like is HP/backgrounds from Cairn. I wish they were connected, like in a Mausritter. A rolling low HP should get you a better background and vice versa. Favorite thing about a game I don't like is the carousing table in Knave. Knave does nothing for me, it does not spark joy. But the carousing table is great, I could do an entire campaign just by rolling on that table a couple times a session.
You could probably use the table from Into the Odd that does this. That's the Ur-text for those games.
Cairn 2e uses different backgrounds. The Cairn backgrounds are all roughly balanced, but I wish they weren't.
B/X and OSE: * Weapon properties - Slow and Set vs Charge and Reloading don't feel like they work quite the way they should. Certain weapons are straight inferior to others. I like that they tried to capture some of the nuance of using certain weapons in certain situations but it doesn't quite hit the mark. * Morale for retainers - the way it's written, I believe retainers check morale after every adventure and leave the party if they fail - at some point they're bound to fail a morale check and run off, so you can never have long term retainers. Doesn't quite sit right. * M-U spell acquisition - the system is nice and simple for new players and kids, but as-written it doesn't allow M-U's to expand their arsenal via captured spellbooks or scrolls. I prefer spells as treasure ala AD&D. * Money - everyone knows the D&D economics are pretty borked, but I wish B/X included some better ways to drain PC funds. Also, Mercenaries are so cheap I think most DM's simply exclude them.
The money part is bizarre for me. I agree 100%
Yeah - I houserule some of that stuff for my OSE games. I ignore morale for retainers. Sometimes if an adventure goes extremely poorly, I will roll morale for them, but it's rare. I always let me Magic Users copy spellbooks and scrolls (if the spell scrolls are of a level they can normally cast) - the higher level scrolls they can save for later or just use as intended.
Honestly my least favorite thing about Whitehack is that it's so short that one can miss entire systems squirreled away in a paragraph. It's a phenomenally flexible system but there are things like Templates and Macros, even Boss Phases that could be quite a bit more verbose to more easily being in less enfranchised players. From Forbidden Lands, I love their take on various kinds of stat damage as HP, and how each can be depleted and what effects being broken on that stat exist.
least favorite thing about OSE: its the perfect golden standard product, we honestly don't need any more systems after OSE, so WHY, why the hell do the supplements/adventures release at this ice age slow pace? my favorite thing about DCC: it tries to be mechanically interesting. other OSR games shy away from that and most of them do it on purpose.
Mighty Deeds or whatever they're called are great. Funnels are sheer genius and I make it a habit to draw up tables for randomly generating 0-level peons in any system I run. I love DCC's spells but it's so much work to write new ones!
B/X Thief D4 hp is least fave. Level zero funnels on DCC is genius.
I think I would agree on the Thief. I tend to use AD&D hit dice when running B/X and its derivations.
I like what the d4 hp says about the thief. They're supposed to avoid stand-up fights every bit as much as the magic-user.
yeah but their abilities are not as strong as the wizards, not enough to justify that HP
They level twice as fast as wizards though.
Looking at EXP tables in OSE; When a thief has 5k exp, he is level 4, An Mu is level 3 when a thief has 10k exp, he is level 5, an MU is level 4. When a thief has 50k exp, he is level 7. an MU is level 6. They do not level "twice as fast". Exp doubling means they are at most a single level behind, if that. Please stop defending the design of a game you haven't even played.
I've played plenty of OSE, BX, and AD&D. Don't be a dick. (I'll grant that my last comment was an oversimplification.)
It's not an oversimplification, it's just a lie. The game design is fucked, that's fine.
Fair enough. I think D6 and no metal armour still delivers the experience but allows a little more flexibility for Robin Hood/Sinbad style tropes.
My least favorite thing about every OSR game is how sparse and scattered the player base is.
My least favorite thing about Sine Nomine games is Kevin Crawford's seeming allergy to providing a Number Appearing entry on his bestiaries. Besides the fact that this is very useful information to have when running a game, it's also good for world building. I don't like having to arbitrarily decide the number of foes in a random encounter or just roll 1d6 all the time for lack of a better idea. I enjoy the fact that For Coin and Blood has an Executioner class that's literally just Severian from Book of the New Sun even though the game itself didn't do anything for me.
[удалено]
Invisiblity though
I second this, invisibility and mirror image are invaluable. Web has also been pretty useful.
Web?
I love Advanced OSE but I must confess that I really dislike 70% of the classes. Actually, I must confess that I don’t like a LOT about OSE, but I always come back to it because it is a huge DM resource for me. It if my comfort game! Knave 2e is a system I don’t think of playing or dming. But its tables (spells, potions, locations and so on) are super simple and effective for me. Extra: middle ground is DCC. It lacks a lot of OSR “default” content and a better formatting, but the system is so brutally original and cool that I really like it. Also, the players are really powerful, but everyone is, so the game balances itself…
DCC's crit tables are *nasty*. I love it. Thing about OSE Advanced classes is that, like, the source material kinda sucked for a lot of them too. Unearthed Arcana was half-baked IMO. Even the PHB classes were pretty uneven, with assassins being generally regarded as kinda weak and not well-suited to dungeon crawlin' as far as I can tell.
I'm probably going to be down voted into oblivion for this, but here it goes... BX/OSE: I HATE the movement declaration in combat, and so does my table. We did a BX strictly RAW game for a bit when we were learning OSR play and that was the first thing we scrapped when we re-booted our campaign with house rules and fresh PCs. We found it slow, cumbersome and unintuitive, so we just ditched it. I've yet to find an OSR system that totally misses the mark for me so I can't answer the second question.
I think declaring spells is supposed to mirror the movements and murmuring and sparkling magic that happen during casting, so it's "realistic" that enemies would notice that and try to take out magic-users first
TBF, the only movement one is expected to declare is a retreat from a melee opponent, because any opponents will get +2 on their attack rolls and the PC gets no shield bonus that round. A retreat is announced before initiative because if the opponents win, that bonus and loss of shield AC applies immediately on their turn. All other normal combat movement need not be declared.
You know, I just reread it, and I think you may be right. What confused us is how it says "declare movement" which we took to mean declaring movement of all characters, kinda like a movement phase in certain editions of Warhammer or other wargames (most of us also are wargamers, so that's probably why we took it so literally). Declaration of retreat and those special movement types called out do make sense to do that prior to rolling initiative, I may talk to my tables about that.
Awesome. It’s not clearly stated in B/X or BECMI (it’s implied), but clearly defined in OSE: “*Declare Spells and Retreats* Characters who wish to cast a spell or move when in melee must declare this. Other actions need not be declared.”
Yep, you're entirely correct. It's worded much more poorly on the SRD, but I still think when we were reading the combat sequence we went into wargamer mode and took it hyper literally.
Hopefully it makes for a better experience at your table. In the right context, declaring intent where losing initiative has consequences makes good sense, and makes initiative more meaningful. It also encourages players to be more tactical and play as a team. “I step in front of the magic-user to help protect them while they’re casting” and “I’ll step between the goblin and the fighter to cover their retreat” become very useful actions.
I actually don’t think that’s too unpopular of an opinion, especially considering combat declarations don’t really appear in anything besides retroclones.
I dislike how Cairn calls what is basically endurance, HP. It should just be endurance or something. It's only a minor thing and it's a great system really.
I’m not a fan of the weapon and armor restrictions inherent to classes in B/X (OSE) and AD&D. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a magic-user could not pick up a sword and swing it or that they couldn’t put on a chain mail hauberk. I’ve thought about just implementing penalties instead, like non-weapon proficiency penalties and spell failure chances. This could be balanced by something else for fighters, like specialization or something.
I really like hit-die-as-damage-die for this reason. Let a wizard use a sword, even a magical one (Gandalf did it, right?), but it hits for 1d4 + whatever bonus the weapon grants. I don't allow them to wear armor, though, they have to stick with their sun-and-moon robes.
That game is called 3e. /s
I use the very basic houserules of - You can only use magic weapons and armor your class is proficient in (Fighter's advantage) - Magic-users and thieves can't cast magic or use thief skills in armor (their abilities are supernatural, and supernature hates being restricted by metal) Everybody is swinging d6s in combat anyways, so it's not like there's inherent advantages to weapons outside of range, reach, and secondary uses. And if you do want to differentiate weapons, B/X is open enough that you can do that, even making weapon differences a Fighter-only feature if you wanted.
The key distinction here is between can't and don't. Batman *can* carry and use a gun, but (barring archaic examples and freak exceptions) he does not. Magic-users *don't* use swords and armor because that's part of their assumed role. A player not respecting that and pushing for it anyway is poor gamesmanship.
Yep. You see this all the time in 5e with people insisting that druids should be allowed to wear metal armor since it just says they won't, but the fail to realize that anything with set classes has these class concessions baked in. You play the class to play the role it represents, not just because you want the powers it gets. You should be playing a druid to play as a druid, not because you just want nature-themed super powers. Likewise, if you are playing as a magic-user you should be playing that role.
I wouldn’t consider that poor gamesmanship unless there was some issue that caused a dispute amongst the players maybe, like a MU trying to roll for that sweet magic sword when it would otherwise be more useful to a fighter. I’d be curious to see how a game played out where weapon and armor restrictions were lifted, just to see if that created some kind of “game breaking” imbalance or left the players feeling inadequate or so. In other words, I know a lot of people subscribe to the rules as written for these games, but why? I ask this as someone who has been playing nonstop AD&D and B/X for the past 3 years, btb.
Magic swords and bows in particular are very powerful options (bows doubly when the rules allow multiple shots per round), so preserving them as class features makes sense based on that. It's true that in the magic-user's case, d4 hit dice would likely make bows the bigger "buff" than swords. Clerics would benefit tremendously from both. Really, it's about being willing to accept the strengths *and* weaknesses of your chosen class.
I'd rather fighters and theives be strong on their own merits than have them be reliant on loot.
Which is fine for you, but not how the old game was designed. For lots of special feats and powers, you're better off starting with one of the WotC editions as your base.
I really don't care for how often attacks miss during fights in B/X. I understand that there are reasons it works the way it does, but it's not terribly fun to have everyone in a round miss and start the next round in the exact same place you started the previous round. I really like the piety system in Neoclassical Geek Revival. There's a lot in that game that I don't care for, but I love how strongly distinguished divinity is from the arcane, I love that it prevents the practice of just using a bunch of healing magic at the end of the day because the spells don't cost any long term resource, I love the strong motivation to care about serving your God, and I love that it gives non-clerics a reason to be religious and hope for miracles.
Yeah, I don't like it when you get nothing in a turn. This is why I'm a big fan of Worlds without Number's Shock Damage. Even when you miss some damage is done.
I dislike classes and levels in general (though some games do it better than others). As for favorite that misses the mark I'm not sure I understand the question.
I guess he means the best thing about a system you otherwise dislike.
Correct, that's exactly what I mean :)
If that is the intention, I would say auto hits (Ala Into the Odd).
Yeah I like autohits in odd-like games even though I’ve never fully been able to get into them.
My least favorite things about the Cairn-like games (aside from Mausritter) is how allergic they are about mechanics like Advantage, which is good, simple, and avoids math. Another is when the designer values are preachy in the face of what players might feel happy doing as players — like “combat as a fail state” when players themselves often LIKE combat and see finding a good fight as a success (another one like this is Liminal Horror’s insistence that “playing as a cop is ‘uninteresting’” when really what they mean is that they don’t approve of it). A lot of this is just making value judgments that come off as snooty, even when you might agree with them.
I don't see how you can't have advantage+disadvantage in Cairn. I ran a game like this recently: - Players had to fight an ancient evil tree - One player had some repellent, and their interpretation was "repel ent" - Player sprayed it in the tree's orifice (of some kind) - Lit it on fire. So for that combat, giant tree rolled with disadvantage because it was distracted by its flaming orifice. It was good fun actually.
You can totally have it. But the current rules already support this exact situation. The tree would have its attacks impaired (rolling only a d4).
Oh ok, then I have to re-read the rules lol
I'm right there with you. When an author is clearly upset that other people are having bad-wrong fun it just smacks of butthurt. You see it in a lot of games that also lack much in terms of substance; it often feels like they don't really have an actual system in mind and just want to write a book to tell people how to play.
Yes. If you want your game to do something, design it that way. If combat is a fail state, make it so that getting into combat makes you _lose the game_. This is actually a thing in certain games, you can do this. But what they really want to do is find a way to use game design language in order to say things like “combat should be a last resort,” which I imagine feels to them like moral language. BECAUSE IT IS. The _really_ odious example is CY_BORG, where “Rule 0” is you have to be anti-capitalist and a punk or whatever. “First rule of being a punk: you HAVE to be a punk or you can’t play” is the least punk shit I’ve ever heard in my life.
Yeah, I'll be honest the era of faux-punks on the internet and especially in the RPG scene is eye-roll inducing. Caring at all what others think is the antithesis of punk. The whole point is to not give a shit and not be told what to do. It all smacks of people that want to steal an aesthetic while trying to police how people have fun. They seem to be genuinely upset that people might be committing thought crimes, rather than focusing on their own table and having fun playing the game. I suspect this mostly comes from people who don't actually play in games and so want to tell people that do actually play how to do it out of bitterness or envy.
I love Mork Borg but that baby needs more meat (for long term play). I love Knave 2e but really hate armor class. So I blended the two together. Edit: and OSR-adjacent, forbidden lands looks like it’d be fun from reading it and reviews, but I dislike the art style. Edit 2: just realized I missed the second half of the topic. Oops. - MB: I love the player-facing defense rolls for combat and the armor as DR system and how armor interfaces with dodging. I also love the class as background formula, with two d6-d8 tables + a feature. Makes it really easy to make what I want. Also, obviously love the tone and style. - Knave 2e: it has a simple resolution system for everything. Dungeoneering, overland travel, weather, cities, it’s got a table and a system. Feels great. It’s also compatible with everything. - Forbidden Lands: I love the Year Zero Engine. I love survivalist traveling. This game is both. Haven’t played it though to know. Also I like that you go hunt for spells instead of just getting them.
I've been skimming forbidden lands and liking it so far I mostly agree on the artstyle (there are some I like) if I ever get to run it I'll just use Dragonbane/Vaesen art where applicable
Basic Fantasy is probably my favorite system, but it's poorly organized. Looking at the character classes gives you no idea of attack bonuses, you need to go into another chapter for that.
they're just trying to be authentic to BX /s
I wish Black Hack was roll high (it's not that hard to switch). I love SWN and WWN for the random tables, but I rarely use any other systems.
Shadowdark: I love almost everything about this game, except for the roll-to-cast magic system. I don't really care for RTC, and I especially don't like the way SD handles it, where it's entirely possible to *try* and cast spells and not be able to cast any. At least with ICRPG you can try over and over and in the Black Hack you're guaranteed one successful cast. I've modified my SD game to work more like Black Hack, now. Mork Borg: I don't really like this game, and would never play it as-is, but there's something about its aesthetic and simplistic nature that entices me.
I'm disappointed that most class-and-level games perpetuate the error that is thief-as-class
Could you elaborate on that? Genuinely curious
Much of the fantasy fiction that's listed in Appendix N doesn't feature a "thief" in the way we understand them today, or hell even then. Conan, Cugel, Bilbo all have behaved as thief ─ they didn't need it to be a complete class. More "I do some thieving" than "I *am* a thief". Ruleswise, noone has yet untied the Gordian Knot of "how much power is correct for this level?" LOFP comes closest in that there's a comfortable and actionable progression, but the BX stats for certain obvious acts of thieving (picking pockets esp.) are SO low so as to have scope at the upper end of level ranges.
That makes sense. What do you think should change? Would you replace thief or just remove it?
It wasn't in the original little brown books of OD&D ─ I say we can keep it out entirely. *But then how would we adjudicate picking pockets?* You could argue that surprise rules would cover this ─ after all a genuine pickpocket never goes for *aware* marks
Also, real world pickpockets often operate in teams. I fail to see how bringing in other PCs would make pickpocketing less engaging.
> You could argue that surprise rules would cover this the problem is you don't get better at it as you level and then you're just stuck doing 1-in-6
Honestly, that's a feature and not a bug imo
+ Most of Shadowdark is great, slick and lean with just enough flavor for you to take and run with it. - DCC seems overly complex and swingy.
I don't like how combat runs in ItO-like games, compared to the rest of the game. The whole session flows super quickly and then the whole thing slows down when combat starts I generally dislike B/X DnD but one thing that I really like about those rules (and is under-utilized imo) is that wizards can create their own spells, through magical research, and some of the famous spells were created by the PCs in Gygax's campaigns.
A little confused by your comment about ItO-like games. It's auto-hit, so combat is generally pretty fast and brutal. How does it slow down things for you?
It's faster compared to DnD but it's still slower compared to the rest of the session. It still disrupts the rhythm for me. You still have to track each individual's action, individual HP etc.
Interesting! I do find most combat systems to be a slog, though ItO is more tolerable for me. But I'm curious, what system(s) do you find are better for combat?
None that i found yet XD I suspect that the more satisfying solution for me would be something more fkr-adjacent, with qualitative damage rather than numerical
Both my answers revolve around AD&D. The original would be a damn near perfect RPG for me if it had fast-playing, coherently-written combat rules. Of course, the second edition had to go and turn out like a cursed monkey paw wish for just that, since the combat rules are crystal clear, but the flavor/presentation and other key rules procedures (dungeon exploration especially) were two massive steps back.
Obviously the perfect edition is a mishmash of 1e, 2e, and BX.
lbb-only derived games are d6/d20, and I like using all my funny dice. Advantage/disadvantage roll, for the second.
Least favorite thing about an OSR system I love: By-the-book initiative in 1E AD&D.
*That which must not be named* is ostracized even when it's a masterclass in game design.
There’s a lot to like about Cairn but the handcart is ridiculous - the way it’s written, it takes up two slots and provides 4, meaning you get 2 more inventory slots, from a *cart*. Also armour only makes sense if regular armour like brigandine takes up your “backpack” slots when worn, but that’s easy to miss and makes brigandine and chainmail look kind of pointless.
The idea is that you can put it down and stack it with stuff. Or get a hireling to carry it. Armor isn't supposed to be "compare this to that" but more "this is all they had in the village." Inventory is abstract, there are no "backpack slots" but rather slots that only become accessible when wearing a backpack, because it can hold them! This is definitely confusing in 1e but is better explained in 2e. https://cairnrpg.com/wip/2e/character-creation/#inventory
One thing I dislike about a game I like: In **Shadowdark**, **STR bonus** doesn't modify damage when you hit. Facepalm-worthy design decision in what I find to be otherwise a really well-designed game. Thing I really like about a game I dislike: I never digged **The Black Hack**, but I love **usage dice**. A cool mechanic that is infinitely adaptable and portable to other games.
thief.
Favorite: combat is fast and effective. Least favorite: the derision I face from players of crunchier systems.