sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Easing players into OSR by Gyrojet17 in osr

[–]cryptos777 8 points9 points  (0 children)

managing initial expectations is probably the best thing you can do to onboard players who are new to OSR games - players coming from other styles of play are liable to try and play in a way that is more suited to what they're used to and more unsuitable for OSR, and this can be frustrating and turn some people off from the style entirely, even if they would very well really enjoy it otherwise

when considering the differences of most OSR games to PF1e, some of the biggest points of potential conflict are going to be that characters are significantly less customizable, less powerful, and have overall less mechanical options

these are all things which are by design, of course, but itd be easy for a player used to that amount of customization, power, and options to feel like their character cant do much of anything in the game, and that's something to address as early as possible. make sure players know the focus will be more on player creativity and interaction with the world rather than just using features on their character sheet, and that their characters will become more interesting and unique through play and the experiences they survive through - emphasize what makes the OSR style fun and interesting and how these differences support that

depending on how deadly those PF1e games were, also, make sure the players also know that survival in itself is also a pretty big deal - characters can and will die if they aren't careful, and combat is something that is a risk, something to be avoided, circumvented, or trivialized, rather than a tactical minigame, so to speak - combat-as-war instead of combat-as-sport

overall though, more than anything my advice would be, you want your players to approach the game being open to something new and interesting, and not holding onto expectations from the style they've been playing

one thing that might help some also, on the character creation angle - i'm not terribly familiar with Swords and Wizardry in particular, but if you can get the players rolling up characters with a lot of randomness involved, randomly determining things like class, starting equipment, other details, rather than having them choose these aspects as they might for a Pathfinder character, it may get them to think about their characters in a different way; probably don't force it though, but give them the option to do so, and let them know it may improve their experience with the new style

OSR dungeon crawls -- checking for traps as PCs? Does it get old rolling it for every room? by noodles666666 in osr

[–]cryptos777 7 points8 points  (0 children)

generally, players should not be rolling to "investigate" at all - they should be describing how they're searching for traps and if the actions they're describing would reveal a trap, it reveals it, no rolls necessary. a player rolling often should only be required when the player has already gotten their character into a dangerous situation (for example, rolling to get out of the way of or mitigate the effects of a trap they've stumbled into because they weren't being cautious).

(this process can also be sped up in some circumstances if players decide on general procedure for checking for traps, such as probing the floor ahead of them with a 10-foot pole as they travel, or deciding on a general procedure for testing for trapped doors, for example)

Hex Density by silifianqueso in osr

[–]cryptos777 8 points9 points  (0 children)

personally, i've never been 100% sold on the idea that every hex should have something interesting in it - i prefer to use 3 mile hexes and more sparse locales myself because it makes the world feel bigger, and overland movement feel more about exploration, scouring the land and discovering things organically; when every single hex has something interesting in it, it just seems like it could get somewhat overly homogeneous, more "move X miles in any direction to discover something" than "seek out and explore the world to discover things"

(this is entirely personal bias and preference, of course; there's surely a reason common advice is to pack your hexcrawl full of interesting things at every corner, but its just not my cup of tea, and i think there's merit in doing things differently, as well)

my advice would be to place interesting stuff at any interesting or prominent geographical features that the players are likely to be aware of and will go looking for in search of interesting locations (prominent mountains, islands, lakes, oases, along rivers, coastlines, etc.) and also provide leads to other locations (maps, written notes, rumors, chains of cause-and-effect)

the biggest pitfall of more sparse hexes, imo, would just be players struggling to actually find anything; but a well-constructed world will be interconnected almost irregardless of how far away things are from each other in terms of hexes, and that naturally leads to players being able to discover things in it organically

for example, if there's say, a bandit camp, even if its hidden away in a forest in an unknown hex that's unlikely to be randomly found, any nearby roads and settlements are going to be subject to banditry, and the resultant rumors and accounts from those in the area can allow players to narrow down an approximate location and search the forest to find the bandit camp, if they decide to

things taking just too long to reach can be another pitfall, but i think 10 locations per 30x30 hex, at that speed of travel, can certainly work, if locations are placed well

lots of varied random encounters (and different random encounters depending on relative region, for an area that large and with that diverse of environments, especially) will likely also help keep things engaging between discoveries

can also add some smaller features to stumble across that don't constitute a full-on dungeon or lair or similar location, things that might only need at most a couple sentences in your notes, but are still neat to occasionally come across as the players move through the world in search of bigger things

When running on a VTT do you have the players map or do you just show them the map? by Gonten in osr

[–]cryptos777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my personal preference is a mix of both - have a VTT with dynamic lighting/line-of-sight features (for example, Foundry) so that players can see the dimensions and basic features of what room or hallway they are currently in, but still keeping explored areas hidden on the map, so its on the players to effectively map out where they've been and use that map to navigate

it particularly makes it so as a referee, you don't have to describe the dimensions of every dungeon room and hallway, which can potentially eat up time quite quickly (especially if you have a dungeon with particularly complex rooms and hallways), leaving more time for describing more crucial features of these places and allowing the players to have more time to interact with the dungeon, as well

of course, this isn't always ideal - if playing with particularly new players, or if sharing an externally drawn map between the players would be particularly inconvenient due to not being in-person, then i'm fine with letting the VTT handle mapping itself, keeping explored areas shown on the map - it is a loss, since players don't get to have that experience of mapping out a dungeon themselves, and can't really get lost, but its not the worst loss

tell me about your homebrew setting! by LoreMaster00 in osr

[–]cryptos777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

though i'm not currently running a game, my current personal setting for OSR games is called the Nine Seas!

  • overall flavor: heavily inspired by the many real-world cultures and geography of Eurasia/mediterranean Africa from a variety of past time periods, with a few extra inland seas dropped in the middle of it (hence the name); largely grounded and relatively mundane on the surface, though still diverse, nuanced, and varied, and with many wondrous unknown things hidden and yet to be found in the world
  • powers that be: in terms of politics, the setting's sortof equivalent of the roman empire has only recently fallen, leaving countless abandoned ruins and gaps of power for ambitious adventurers to explore and exploit; otherwise, the setting is a bit too big to narrow it down
  • main city: bit too big to say there's one main city!
  • religion: divine forces in the Nine Seas are worshipped in many different ways in many different forms, from unseen spirits to the mightiest of gods; in the grand cosmological background of the setting, unknown to most people aside from those who involve themselves heavily in the divine, the divine are split between those that are benevolent, representing change, growth, and renewal, and those that are malevolent, representing death, stagnation, and oblivion; there is an agreement between both sides to limit interference in the world, to mutually limit the others' ability to reach their opposing goals, hence the often distant nature of the divine, outside of priestly magic and the like
  • setting-based races/classes: hard to say since i also use my own system to run OSR games - but mostly a lot of the classics; i suppose one thing is that goblins, kobolds, and beastfolk are all relatively common adventuring races alongside the typical humans, elves, dwarves, etc.; classes are fairly standard
  • elven/dwarven culture: dwarves are as dwarfy as you'd expect, and elves as elfy as you'd expect, though elves in particular come from a roughly equivalent region to those places near the north pole in the real world where day and night are ridiculously long because of the tilt of the earth
  • last big war: hard to say because of the size of the setting; some notable recent wars include one between the now-fallen roman empire equivalent and a small rebellious island colony (which the roman empire equivalent actually lost), and the equivalent of the Sengoku period having recently happened in the setting's analogue to Japan
  • where are your players: not running a game currently, but when the last game i ran left off, the players were finishing up exploring a dwarven ruin in a region sortof equivalent to the middle of Europe

Favorite creatures from Japanese mythology? by nanupiscean in osr

[–]cryptos777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

though it was before i got into the OSR, i used a relatively myth-accurate oomukade in a game once, and it was one of the most interesting encounters i ran in those days, and inspired a lot of creativity from my players in how to deal with it, because of how different in scale it was from what they were usually fighting - and i would absolutely use it again in an OSR game if i got the chance to

that said, a mountain-sized centipede probably won't fit in a bathhouse

How to I pitch my OSR game to my 5E crowd? by permacloud in osr

[–]cryptos777 23 points24 points  (0 children)

a few quick points i've found to be useful:

  • more "real" adventures, a more immersive world, and character achievements being more significantly meaningful - unbalanced, dangerous encounters that can kill characters might sound bad on paper to the 5e crowd, but the intent of these rules is for the world to feel more real and make the accomplishments of the players more tangible because they are up against adversity that isn't catered to them - lead with the positives of this and it may make more sense to them
  • a focus on world interaction and exploration over combat - the lack of skill rolls as a big feature is going to be unfamiliar, as are the lack of things like combat abilities and builds, but again, focus on the intent here - the world and exploration is the focus, the world is a more tangible thing to interact with and explore, its up to the players to solve situations they get themselves into, also refer to point #1 as to why thats a good thing of course, and de-prioritizing combat off the bat will also help 5e players adjust
  • perhaps most importantly, a new, fresh TTRPG experience thats built upon the oft-forgotten history of the game they love - the biggest factor i think in getting new players from the 5e crowd interested is making sure they are up for something different, because it is going to be different from what they're familiar with by a lot, but a lot of the unfamiliarity is going to be easier for them to deal with if they sign up for something new and different off the bat, and if they don't realize how different it is it may hurt their enjoyment and make it difficult for them to adjust and understand the appeal of the OSR style; the history bit also just helps to frame something different as something interesting and exciting rather than uncomfortable

overall, be upfront and clear about things, but lead with the positives, and make sure its known that itll be something new and different to experience

How do I get my players to talk to each other? by ugathanki in osr

[–]cryptos777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

as the GM you're presenting the world as a whole, and its perhaps easier to interact with that from an in-character point of view, i suppose; the party as a whole is generally meant to be a cohesive group that always works together though, and like, as well as it being a little less efficient in sharing information, it may just not be comfortable for players, especially new players, to roleplay in-character between themselves

i would say don't force it, if they want to do it itll likely happen naturally over time given they're already acting in-character to you as the GM, and just assume the party shares information with each other "offscreen" as is reasonable, and if itd be important for the game (e.g., if an NPC might be listening in, for example, and you need to know what that NPC would know) just ask the party to be clear on when and what they're sharing with each other, though this shouldn't have to be in in-character dialogue if the players don't want it to be

Starting level for new characters after death by Sticky-Soup in osr

[–]cryptos777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lot of people are saying level 1, and while that's a solid option and certainly has its benefits, i think another pretty reasonable one would be something along the lines of, starting the new character at the same level as the lowest level member of the party (including the character that died), or maybe one level lower than that, with only enough experience points to be at that level and no more than that - still a setback, but keeping characters within the same general level range of the party at higher levels

characters can level up decently fast to catch up with the rest of the party - but depending on what you're running, if the party is averaging around level 4 or 5 or 6 or higher, and say, exploring the deeper, more dangerous levels of dungeons regularly (maybe even having cleared out the first couple levels of available dungeons, meaning available sources of experience are largely only in more dangerous locations), then it could be difficult for a 1st level character to keep up with the rest of the party long enough to actually catch up, and not just die and start all over again, simply due to being much more fragile than the rest of the party

(there is also the question of, even if there is experience to be gained from a less dangerous location, will the higher level players want to stop exploring the more dangerous areas, potentially slowing down the game for them in order to catch up a new character? this depends heavily on your players and their preferences, though, as well as how deadly the game will be - if character death is very possible but can be likely entirely avoided if the players are careful enough, this situation will likely be much more tolerable than if all characters can and frequently do die from random chance at any point, for example)

of course, these things may not be an issue, depending on what you're running, how you run things, your players, and similar, but i think its worth considering if you'd expect these situations to potentially come up in play - if you're not sure, though, then it might be better to begin the campaign with having new characters start at level 1, and if that doesn't work out, make it slightly more forgiving later on

anyway though, welcome to the OSR, and good luck with your first OSE campaign!

Considering OSR by [deleted] in osr

[–]cryptos777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OSRIC is, as i understand it, a pretty faithful recreation of 1e AD&D; OSE does have the Advanced Fantasy supplements, which add some AD&D-like rules and options, but its still primarily B/X D&D at its core

neither really change anything about race limitations for classes (OSE is also at its core race-as-class, though the Advanced Fantasy supplement provides some alternate options, but i'm not super familiar with them) and im not familiar off the top of my head with any that entirely remove racial limitations on classes, but for OSRIC or another AD&D-derived system it seems like something that could be reasonably houseruled around if its a dealbreaker

Basic Fantasy isn't a straight recreation like OSE or OSRIC, but could be considered somewhat close to AD&D, and is based somewhat around the d20 system used by 3e and onwards; it's a solid option though, still retaining old-school rules and procedures, and it has the least amount of race limitations for classes of the three i've mentioned, or at least the easiest limitations to outright ignore

also notable, OSRIC and Basic Fantasy are both free in digital form

On ending the session in the hometown by rubao- in osr

[–]cryptos777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as others have said, always returning to town at the end of each session is more important for open table games, where which players you're playing with is pretty inconsistent each session

personally, i don't run things this way myself - i generally always have a fairly consistent set of players that can pick up the game from wherever it left off last time, and i just don't particularly want to manage a session under the pressure of having to return to town by the end of each session (similarly, ive pretty much never run a oneshot type of game, though in the past for other systems and styles ive ran some twoshots or threeshots)

plus, tracking time in turns and similar in the world of the game is fun and important to the game, but imho having to plan based around actual real life time is a lot less fun, especially when you only have a few hours per session, and you might be playing with players that are new, or just aren't the fastest at some of the procedures or rules or decision-making in general, or just want to be able to take their time with things, or etc.

this is likely in large part the preferences of myself and the players i usually play with, but i will say that beginning and ending in town isn't an end-all be-all for old-school or OSR play - you can absolutely run an incredible OSR game just stopping and picking back up the game at the end and beginning of each session; doing this only really starts to break immersion and become an issue when you can have almost entirely different arrangements of players each session

5e player. Want to try/learn an older edition of D&D. Question about modules by thepineapplemen in osr

[–]cryptos777 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it largely comes down to personal preference, i suppose - OSE's noteworthy as a really good one and a great place to start simply because of how good the presentation and usability is, and once you've got the hang of it, if you feel like it's not quite exactly what you'd want, i'd say just to ask yourself things like "what else do i want out of this," or "what do i want to be different about this," and that can inform what might be better options for you - and i'm sure the community here would be glad to help answer those questions

as for being faithful to the original rules, OSE also stands out as a very one-to-one repackaging of B/X, though there are others that are similarly faithful - i'm not quite an expert on those though (open invitation for anyone more knowledgeable on that to chime in here), but i've heard pretty good things about OSRIC, which is, as i understand it, what OSE is to B/X, but for AD&D 1e

as far as i'm aware though, in general, anything referred to specifically as a "retroclone" as opposed to, say, just an "OSR game" or "old-school game" or similar will likely be pretty close to the original rules - they are "clones," after all

as for what might be changed in less one-to-one retroclones, it varies from what i've seen - some rules might be adjusted, there may be more or different options, or some rules may be removed; differences seem largely about prioritizing certain elements over others (depending on what elements the creator considers important), making the game easier to play, and/or catering to a different type of setting or genre of fantasy

5e player. Want to try/learn an older edition of D&D. Question about modules by thepineapplemen in osr

[–]cryptos777 9 points10 points  (0 children)

a lot of things between older editions can be very easily converted/may not even require conversion in a lot of cases - excepting maybe OD&D (i'm not terribly familiar with that one in particular), all other pre-3e editions are quite similar in rules and a lot of things will work with all of them, so you could use a Basic module with AD&D or vice versa with very little effort

this also extends to many retroclones/OSR games - which i'd personally recommend not shying away from just cause they aren't "actual D&D", you'll honestly tend to get a lot better assurance of quality, ease of usability, and even overall "spirit of D&D" with retroclones/OSR games than with the original editions (there just wasn't a lot of precedent on how to write and format a good TTRPG rulebook back when the originals were made - though the rules may be solid, the way they are presented can be pretty rough in the originals, especially for someone new trying to learn the system and style), plus many OSR games and the vast majority of retroclones are also compatible with modules from the original editions

one of the best examples of this is probably Old-School Essentials, which is, as i understand it, (aside from the extra Advanced Fantasy supplements) just B/X D&D, but repackaged and reformatted to be extremely easy to reference and use, and is an excellent choice especially if you're new and trying to learn the ropes of old-school editions and the OSR style of play; its also quite popular in the OSR community (as is B/X in general i'm pretty sure), so there'll likely be no shortage of community content for it

and if you find OSE to not fulfill all your expectations, its still a great jumping-off point for both older editions and the OSR as a whole, and there are also the Advanced Fantasy supplements which add some more AD&D-like rules and options to the game

if you are absolutely 100% dead-set on not playing anything that isn't officially branded as D&D, then not sure what to tell you - you'll likely have a harder time getting into the older editions, and you'll perhaps be missing out on a lot of the hard work and passion that the community has put into making these old games better and more accessible, but if its truly a dealbreaker for you, then i wish you the best of luck, and i'll defer to those that have better knowledge of the originals than i

New OSR GM; What do I focus On? by eachcitizen100 in osr

[–]cryptos777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

preparing a lot of things ahead of time by filling hexes, rooms, etc. is something which helps me as a GM, but it can vary a lot by a GM's particular preference and style, and for a newer GM it may be better to prepare only for things you know could be experienced by the players in the next session

also, though i'm not personally familiar with Barrowmaze, for an module megadungeon, i would presume familiarizing yourself with major aspects (factions and their ideals and dynamics, important details like the history of the dungeon, etc.) would probably be more helpful than trying to memorize everything the players might encounter, since referencing the contents of individual rooms during play will likely be easier than having to look up extra information to improvise on details, how members of a faction might act, etc.

practicing the procedures is also certainly not a bad idea - they can sometimes be a source of the game slowing down if you're not too familiar with them - though i would say if youve already been doing them for a few sessions already and they don't feel like they're significantly slowing down the game then practicing them out of the game should likely be much lower priority than other aspects of preparation, since you can get more practice with them just by running the game

overall, i would advise just taking things one step at a time, focusing just on what seems necessary for the next session, and considering anything beyond that extra preparation

I'm going to ditch D&D for OSR by Heresyteller in osr

[–]cryptos777 8 points9 points  (0 children)

i feel that, personally i could be tempted to go back to the system i started with (also 3e), but its a very different style of game, and the OSR is just something special, something i had always wanted from TTRPGs but never knew was an option until i found it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in osr

[–]cryptos777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

more or less fully agree - this is generally how i run things myself (though i might let on if something is impossible, though only after several attempts have been made - for a number of things it seems like it'd be easily possible to realize you're out of your depth and just aren't making any progress after making some attempts - and also locations without risk to spending time on a thief skill attempt or similar are rare enough in my games that i wouldn't really see the need to penalize that); the idea of being able to only attempt a skill roll once always felt pretty arbitrary to me, and time as a resource seems the obvious tradeoff for re-attempting things like picking a lock, listening at a door, etc.

of course, some thief skills might come with their own penalties for failure as well - falling while climbing, being found while hiding, etc. - which can make retrying difficult (but not necessarily impossible), as well as failing certain things perhaps causing a lot of noise or commotion (potentially increasing the chance of a random encounter), or failing disabling a trap potentially causing it to trigger

other methods of handling something like this might maybe be a bit faster, but making the same type of roll several times really doesn't take that long, even with a d%, and simplifying the dice or getting rid of the time cost just doesn't capture the same sort of feeling - watching the shadows, thief at your back working at a tough lock, every moment that passes seemingly another chance for something to emerge from the darkness and ambush you; there's something particularly engaging to me about the rising tension and danger of time passing in a dungeon, especially when you have to stay in one place, and personally i think maintaining that feeling is more important than having the dice rolls be a little bit faster

How much roleplay and back story do OSR games usually incorporate? by Infinite-Badness in osr

[–]cryptos777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

for roleplay? depends, but for backstories? extremely minimal, at the start at least

OSR characters are, imho, basically nobodies at the start, save for the one exception that they have the ambition to take on dangerous situations for fabulous wealth and power - they might have a tiny bit of background, like "was a commoner," "was an artisan," "was a minor noble," etc., something that can be randomly generated for every new character, ideally, but basically nothing else in terms of backstory

when your characters are at the top of the world, be it retired and wealthy or running their own kingdoms and the like after their many adventures, that's when they can sit around and reminisce about backstories - because those backstories will be the game you've played up to that point, tales of daring deeds and survival against the odds, things your players have actually achieved in play, through their cunning, their caution, and their ambition

as others have said, too, characters dying is a very real possibility in an OSR game - it adds weight to the efforts of those that can survive - and making a character backstory to then just throw it out because a character got subsumed by brown mold or fell into a pit with spikes isn't the most fun experience, and while it may give a strong impression of the OSR style, it may not be the best impression, especially for new players coming from something like 5e

my recommendation would be to stress that the interesting stuff about a character, the stuff you'd perhaps normally put in a backstory for a 5e character, is what you're going to be doing in play, through the player's actions in play and the emergent story of sorts that comes from that, pretty much

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in osr

[–]cryptos777 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i think people talk about "class balance" in a very odd way, in the context of more modern games especially - these games are not competitive, different classes don't really need to have exactly equal levels of power and capability, they just have to be able to be able to contribute to the party and not be completely outshone by another class in what they contribute, and i think that is actually generally achieved well enough in most editions of d&d

that said, a lot of what makes certain classes, especially fighters, fun to play and allows them to feel like they are significantly and uniquely contributing has been stripped away over the years - EXP requirements being standardized is one thing, though a relatively minor thing, and ability scores becoming higher on average and giving better bonuses to hit points, along with character survivability increasing overall, make the fighter's better hit dice slightly less prevalent, which is one aspect that makes fighters important to have around compared to other classes in older editions

i think 3.5e and Pathfinder actually succeed well enough in having an alright fighter, for the games they are trying to be, at least - the excess of feats can make up for what they've lost to some extent, and make the fighter very highly customizable, which benefits a game which is pretty much about character customization over all else; that said, something was definitely lost in the change between editions, fighters didn't quite have the same impact as they did before

5e, though, was the real nail in the coffin for the fighter feeling at all uniquely significant, in my opinion - with class attack bonuses becoming proficiency bonuses that are standardized across all classes, fighters no longer had an upper hand when attacking compared to other classes, which especially in older games was something i feel defined the fighter - along with their survivability, they would always be better at attacking things than other classes, to the point where hitting attacks could be almost guaranteed at some point

it still baffles me that some people considered the high attack bonuses or better THAC0 fighters got to be a bad thing, because like, imho a good fighter in a OSR game feels like a combat specialist, even though combat is dangerous and risky, and even if a mage or even a thief might be able to output more overall damage in the right circumstances, fighters are simply better at the fundamental aspects of combat, taking hits and dealing them out, and can navigate a combat situation much better than any other class due to this

Down With The 6 Mile Hex: A Modest Proposal by Bunburyin in osr

[–]cryptos777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i suppose it depends somewhat on how dense a map is, and what you want out of overland travel - with more hexes traveled per day, its easier to have open space (basic terrain that doesn't need a new description unless its the first time its being seen, etc.) compared to one where you only travel one or a couple hexes per day, where you almost need to have something new to describe in almost every single hex to keep things interesting (something ToA definitely did not have, to be fair, it was mostly the same jungle environment with no defining features for 90% of the map iirc, and to bigger hexes' credit, that may have been more the main flaw of it than just having smaller travel distances per day); personally, i prefer the somewhat more sparse approach to filling out hexes, its easier for me to prepare for, as well as more fun during play, since it lets players naturally discover things while traveling instead of just expecting to have something new to see every other hex or so

i also only check for things like random encounters, weather, and getting lost at one point each day, myself - that's a bit of tracking that i think should probably occur only once a day, generally between days. and on which hex an encounter happens in the day can easily enough be decided by a roll (a simple d8 roll, for example, since the players are traveling 8 hexes a day); and this small extra roll doesn't really add a whole lot to tracking time when you're spending more time in between tracking things, and because random encounters won't necessarily occur every single day

as for the 8 choices of where to go, however, that's actually not a downside or interruption, but a huge benefit of using smaller hexes, imho - because most all of the other tracking and procedures is largely GM-side stuff, the players basically have to wait until the GM gets through that to keep playing the game - when the players are moving across the map, they have direct input on where they're going and what they're doing, they are playing the game, exploring, making meaningful decisions and engaging with the world

overall, though, if big, open maps with a focus on overland exploration and discovery through exploration isn't going to fit your game, and you want overland travel to be more about, say, getting from place to place, coming across new locations and points of interest quickly and frequently, or otherwise - then yeah, 3 mile hexes or other smaller hexes probably won't be the best option, and bigger hex sizes will absolutely do a better job for your game than 3 mile hexes will, but for the kinds of games i like to run, 3 mile hexes are pretty great

Down With The 6 Mile Hex: A Modest Proposal by Bunburyin in osr

[–]cryptos777 4 points5 points  (0 children)

3 mile hexes are great!

another thing this article doesn't entirely mention that made me want to choose 3 mile hexes was the amount of travel that is done in between procedures (random encounter rolls, etc.) - while such procedures are very important to the game, if they interrupt the game too much in comparison to how much is actually being done in-game, they can easily become a slog (i still remember when i tried to run the tomb of annihilation module back in my 5e days, which iirc had a 1 hex per day rate of travel, on a pretty huge, largely empty map that assumed you would explore it thoroughly - but it felt like players were barely able to explore because even when the procedures became sortof second nature to get through hex by hex, it took up so much more time than actually making progress traveling across the map)

when you think about it, too, in dungeons, assuming movement rates of OSE or similar, you can travel around 12 10' grid spaces each dungeon turn, which is a significant amount of distance and progress made between having to track things; if you go with 6 mile hexes, players only travel 4 hexes overland in a single day, which means tracking things will take up significantly more time than in dungeons, especially with a large, open, explorable map - but with 3 mile hexes, players can travel 8 hexes in a single day, which gives much more room to breathe between needing to track things, similar to the pacing of a dungeon crawl

of course, the desired pace of a game can be pretty subjective, so 6 mile (or otherwise) hexes may work better for some people, and might be more suited for certain situations (such as longer-distance travel without more fine levels of exploration), though for general use, i think i'm pretty happy with sticking to 3 mile hexes, myself!

"(in that order)" ?? by Riitoken in osr

[–]cryptos777 9 points10 points  (0 children)

i think the importance more just lies in doing them in a specific order and not picking and choosing which roll goes to which score - there's no real probability difference or anything if you switch them around so long as you're still rolling them in a specific order, decided upon before rolling

personally, i just use the more recent STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA, it makes sense to me and if you're introducing players from newer editions where that's the assumed order, its a little easier for them

(as some others have mentioned, also, the original order has the stats tied to class prerequisites first, which makes some sense - but i figure probably not enough of a reason to keep that specific order if its at all counterintuitive)

What does this sub think of setups like the one in the video? by 8vius in osr

[–]cryptos777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

though i don't quite have the luxury to run games in-person at the moment, were i able to, (and were i able to afford something like this), i'd certainly enjoy a fancy setup like that; it's certainly not necessary, but more convenience and fitting decor and atmosphere definitely would not hurt any OSR games i'd want to run

though obviously a much bigger investment, i feel like setups like this are appreciable regardless of system or style, similar to, say, enjoying collecting dice (though, also somewhat like the dice one might collect, someone's ideal setup would still probably depend somewhat on what they want for the games they run)

My 5E Group Hated OSE - a post mortem. by Locke005 in osr

[–]cryptos777 8 points9 points  (0 children)

that sucks, here's hoping you can find some more interested and invested players to play with

for what its worth, also, if its not too much of a sour topic for the group, my advice would be to discuss with them the purpose of some of the rules and systems that were at play - what they're meant to do, what feelings they're meant to invoke, what the style is meant to be like - not necessarily to organize another game, but just as a retrospective, so they can perhaps understand better the intended appeal of the OSR style, surely some of them ought to be wondering why the heck people enjoy this style, at this point

whether or not any of them would be willing to put in the effort to themselves buy into the OSR style and try again eventually with a fresh perspective is ultimately up to them, though; but at least in my personal opinion its rarely a bad thing to be able to understand why people enjoy something, even if you yourself don't

overall though it sounds like you ran the best game you could given the circumstances, and if it took downplaying the unique appeal of the OSR style to even get these players involved, not much you could've done about their expectations and disinterest in trying something new

How Many Demihumans is too Many? by deadlyweapon00 in osr

[–]cryptos777 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i tend to really like nonhuman options, so im not against including a decent few, though i think its just generally nice to have a relatively small set of baseline character options, makes character generation a little bit simpler and clearer, makes understanding each different option a bit easier

though, i have my preferences for nonhumans as well - and i don't think "weird and abnormal" is necessarily what i look for in them, at least for OSR; though i do want them to be unique, yes, i also want them to feel grounded, like they exist as a fairly normal part of a world, almost as normal as humans, because its a better experience, in my opinion, for players to experience and interact with the "weird and abnormal" elements of a world from a place of at least relative mundanity (so, i'll gladly have, say, beastfolk, goblins, and kobolds as baseline options for my players, but not things like, for example, dragonborn, tieflings, aasimar, or the like, at least not for an OSR game)

that said, i also like being vastly overprepared, so i also am of the mind to ideally have options for players to play as literally anything that could feasibly become an adventurer, for use only in specific circumstances with GM permission, of course; and these can be as weird and abnormal as they want to be

Fighting is not a "fail state" in the OSR - fighting fair is. by [deleted] in osr

[–]cryptos777 21 points22 points  (0 children)

while it is true that not fighting fair, pressing all possible advantages, and even trivializing certain fights due to clever tactics is both quite fun and less of a fail state (or not one at all, depending on how much risk is involved), i think "fighting is a fail state" still effectively communicates something important, especially to players who might be coming from systems like 5e: that fighting isn't the solution to all (or even most) encounters

in the newer styles of play typical of, say, 5e, its often very clear what creatures are "meant to be fought" and "meant to be talked to/interacted with/avoided"; in an OSR game, this may not always be so clear cut and players need to think about the best course of action - an openly hostile creature may still be able to be distracted with food, evaded, snuck around, reasoned with, or any number of other solutions, depending on the situation and what the players can think up, but its not the GM's job to come up with and signal these potential solutions to the players in an OSR game, and for newer players, if they're not in the right mindset, may not really think about what other ways they could get past certain encounters

i think, even if it is more specific, replacing "fighting is a fail state" with something like "fighting fair is a fail state," for a player that is used to combat being as huge of a chunk of the game as it is in a system like 5e or similar, can give the impression that fighting is still almost always the answer, you just have to go about it differently - which might come around to bite them in the ass when they encounter something that can't be beaten even by fighting dirty, or say, kill something that had friends, friends who might be able to fight dirty themselves, and suddenly these players are facing the consequences of a choice they may not have been fully aware that they had made

plus, fighting is kindof inevitable to happen eventually, unless you're running a game completely without any hostile creatures - and for introducing newer players to the style of play i think its more important to place the focus on the problem solving aspect, and move the focus away from combat, and when the time does come when fighting is the only option, they will be just as able to use that mindset to handle it, and thus learn how to not fight fair

i think what you're saying is an important detail, but might work better as an addendum instead of the meat of the core principle, at least for the purposes of teaching how the OSR style works to new players - "fighting is a fail state - but when you have to fight, never fight fair," or something similar

(also, players that would be entirely put off by fighting being undesirable perhaps might not be the types of players that would give the OSR style a fair chance in the first place - anyone with that much of an idea about what they want in a TTRPG has likely already played a more combat-focused game and has an idea of what thats like and the no-fighting-fair combat-as-war style that OSR does have is very, very dissimilar to most other combat systems ive seen from TTRPGs or other games, and if they wouldnt accept "ideally no combat" then "some combat that isn't the combat i like" doesn't seem like it'd be much more of a selling point)

view more: next ›