Incline OSR Games - Official thread

[Bara]

Cool news to weird news.

First off Troll Lord Games apparently convinced the estate to put Gygax's Castle Zagyg Yggsburgh back on market which is sweet.

Along with... another turnabout, Dan Proctor has decided to drop the idea Labyrinth Lord 2E and is now going back to it just being a retro-clone again.

And Dan has now also sent a cease and desist letter to Greg Gillespie for that Dragonslayer kickstarter so I'm told.

 

[Melan]

By Greg's account, Dan sent a C&D about a manuscript he could not have read.

It is hard to see it as anything else but a panic move. He had a clone system that filled a niche successfully, stopped publishing it for years, and first enabled the OSE juggernaut, then Greg deciding to make his own system if LL was no longer an option. What did he expect?

 

[Sacibengala]

It is hard to see it as anything else but a panic move

He did something like that last year (?) when he asked Gavin Norman to take out his conversion table for the LL stats to OSE.

 

[Trithne]

Welp next Without Number kickstarter is up already funded


I wonder if he'll do a cuthulu based game next and call it Horrors Without Number

I do wonder what this will include that Stars doesn't already have. Other than world building tables specific to cyberpunk tropes, but most of what thus would need, stars already has.

I do wonder how he'll fit his fighter-thief-mage class structure in without turning hacking into not-magic, which doesn't feel appropriate to how he generally does things.

It turns out the answer to this question was - He didn't. CWN dispenses with Classes entirely in favour of a selection of more powerful Foci that define the character. The difference between a Class and an Edge seems pretty academic, but Edges are more customisable since you get 2, and everyone then follows the same character progression track.

It's also much more designed around progression via gear/cyber over level growth, and gameplay is more focused on "The Heist" than more open-ended content. Hacking is more detailed than the SWN version, appropriately.

As usual, it's all cross-compatible, but CWN definitely needs more work to mesh with the others than SWN and WWN do with each other.

 

[Melan]

The Kickstarter has started for the Fantasy Adventure Builder, the digital version of The Tome of Adventure Design - integrated into an app that lets you generate all the stuff in the book. Basically tons and tons and tons of intricate, useful random tables to use in making adventures, from basic scenario/room concepts to the nitty-gritty like trap types, magical effects, or even as niche as weird thrones. This should be of interest to a lot of people here. It is certainly one of the most useful single game product I have had, and I have been using it continuously for more than a decade. When it comes to random inspiration table books, nothing compares.

The good news is that according to Matt, the app is basically done and functional, and will be delivered right after the Kickstarter.

Highly recommending this one!

 

[Catacombs]

The Kickstarter has started for the Fantasy Adventure Builder

Steam page: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2537290/Fantasy_Adventure_Builder/

 

[Casual Hero]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

 

[Alex]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

OD&D has non-variable weapon damage, as does OSE as a side rule. It's actually quite common. As to the why, well it's a matter of a) streamlining rules b) making it so that damage output does not come from choosing the greatsword, but rather having some kind of magical weapon or being high level. Works well in OD&D.

 

[Alex]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

OD&D has non-variable weapon damage, as does OSE as a side rule. It's actually quite common. As to the why, well it's a matter of a) streamlining rules b) making it so that damage output does not come from choosing the greatsword, but rather having some kind of magical weapon or being high level. Works well in OD&D.

Thanks for the reply. I never understood the desire to oversimplify stuff in so many people in the OSR, but then again my favourite system is GURPS...

 

[Catacombs]

And then I discovered Whitebox!

Could Swords & Sorcery work, too?

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

OD&D has non-variable weapon damage, as does OSE as a side rule. It's actually quite common. As to the why, well it's a matter of a) streamlining rules b) making it so that damage output does not come from choosing the greatsword, but rather having some kind of magical weapon or being high level. Works well in OD&D.

Thanks for the reply. I never understood the desire to oversimplify stuff in so many people in the OSR, but then again my favourite system is GURPS...

Yeah that's the thing, two different philosophy. We're used to variable weapon damage because it evolved out of 1st AD&D as an optional rule too IIRC. That's one of the issues that stem from the fact that D&D never made it clear if it was totally an abstraction ("HP are just plot points", etc.) or totally a realistic take. Sure people have said that it was X or Y throughout the year, but the reality is that even Gygax and Arneson had no clear ruling on that (conceptually) in the beginning. It tended, with the years, to go more the "realistic" route (Dex giving AC, variable weapon damage, etc.), but always in a weird way.

 

[Alex]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

OD&D has non-variable weapon damage, as does OSE as a side rule. It's actually quite common. As to the why, well it's a matter of a) streamlining rules b) making it so that damage output does not come from choosing the greatsword, but rather having some kind of magical weapon or being high level. Works well in OD&D.

Thanks for the reply. I never understood the desire to oversimplify stuff in so many people in the OSR, but then again my favourite system is GURPS...

Yeah that's the thing, two different philosophy. We're used to variable weapon damage because it evolved out of 1st AD&D as an optional rule too IIRC. That's one of the issues that stem from the fact that D&D never made it clear if it was totally an abstraction ("HP are just plot points", etc.) or totally a realistic take. Sure people have said that it was X or Y throughout the year, but the reality is that even Gygax and Arneson had no clear ruling on that (conceptually) in the beginning. It tended, with the years, to go more the "realistic" route (Dex giving AC, variable weapon damage, etc.), but always in a weird way.

HP can't be "plot points", otherwise the healing spells couldn't be used to restore it. HP can be rather abstract, but it needs to be in some way directly linked to how hurt you are.

 

[Casual Hero]

I began to modify OSE (B/X) recently to fit my campaign setting, and I realized I was stripping out a lot of things.
Alignments, variable weapon damage, weapon restrictions...
And then I discovered Whitebox! Wow, what a pretty little set of rules. A lot easier to build on, I think--- as opposed to stripping things out, I can just focus on adding mechanics that I think matter.

Why would you want weapons to do all the same damage? I mean, the way (A)D&D does it is far from making each weapon particularly unique, but it is something.

I first started to get annoyed with Cleric weapon restrictions. Why can't they use edged weapons? The best answer I could find was for "balance purposes". I guess it made people nervous to have a character who could wield a 1d10 two-handed sword and heal themselves.
I started to have the same issue with Magic-Users as well. If all they can use in melee is a staff (or a dagger, if you're thinking AD&D), then this creates a very specific kind of character. It really limits the role-playing factor, I think. Now we have a world with these strange rules that you have to explain in-game somehow. Trying to use mental gymnastics to explain why Magic-Users can only use staves and Clerics can only use blunt weapons in my campaign just got to be too much.

At first I used class-based damage. Fighters attack with 1d8 regardless of their weapon type, and Magic-Users attack with 1d4--- even if they use a polearm. This works fine, but it still didn't feel quite right, and I think it really has to do with the strange D&D combat and HP systems. As you guys were talking about, HP has always kind of been a weird place where people can't decide if it is an abstraction or an actual representation of your physical health. Abstraction almost works, but then we have things like health potions and "cure light wounds".

For me, I go with the simple line that OSE offers: All characters and monsters have a hit point total, which represents their ability to avoid death.

Once I tried playing around with Whitebox, a lot of things just clicked into place for me. Not only is variable weapon damage gone, but also variable hit dice. Everyone starts with 1d6 HP, and everyone is capable of dealing 1d6 damage. Combat is lethal, and very even.
With this system, I feel like weapon choice can actually matter for once. Weapons become tools, and I think it forces you to think about the utility of your weapon a lot more. There is a big difference between fighting with a spear and a sword, and now that matters more than just a different damage rate.

I also love that Magic-Users aren't as squishy an lame at level 1. Combat is lethal, but it is lethal for everyone and you probably shouldn't rush into fighting as your first response. Some people hate that, but I love the gameplay it creates. And now I can play as a scrappy Magic-User who wields a short sword and gains their spells by raiding crypts and finding ancient scrolls.

It just really works for me, and I guess that is because I lean further into abstraction and I have a very free-Kriegspiel style of DMing (although procedures still form the foundation of my games).

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

I first started to get annoyed with Cleric weapon restrictions. Why can't they use edged weapons? The best answer I could find was for "balance purposes". I guess it made people nervous to have a character who could wield a 1d10 two-handed sword and heal themselves.

I started to have the same issue with Magic-Users as well. If all they can use in melee is a staff (or a dagger, if you're thinking AD&D), then this creates a very specific kind of character. It really limits the role-playing factor, I think. Now we have a world with these strange rules that you have to explain in-game somehow. Trying to use mental gymnastics to explain why Magic-Users can only use staves and Clerics can only use blunt weapons in my campaign just got to be too much.

Weapon restrictions for non-fighter classes stem from the archetypes used to generate those classes. Clerics are based in part on semi-historical or legendary tales involving Christian priests, and also upon vampire-hunter / monster-slayer characters from certain horror movies that typically employed religious imagery. This is why clerics possess the ability to turn undead with a holy symbol, why wolfsbane and holy water exist in the item tables, why clerics are able to cast Biblically-inspired spells, and similarly why they are restricted to blunt weapons from an apocryphal prohibition against shedding blood. Similarly, magic-users are inspired by fantasy characters that did not have weapons training and did not typically engage in melee combat.

 

[Casual Hero]

Which is all fine and good, but that's exactly why I don't like them. They add lore to the game and demand that your setting conforms to those archetypes.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Which is all fine and good, but that's exactly why I don't like them. They add lore to the game and demand that your setting conforms to those archetypes.

Roll barbarian. Can't bother conforming to archetypes if you think archetypes are how arches are catalogued.

 

[Alex]

Which is all fine and good, but that's exactly why I don't like them. They add lore to the game and demand that your setting conforms to those archetypes.

Well, any class is going to add some lore to the setting; the issue is how much you are willing to accept (or how much works with what you have in mind).

 

[Casual Hero]

Which is all fine and good, but that's exactly why I don't like them. They add lore to the game and demand that your setting conforms to those archetypes.

Well, any class is going to add some lore to the setting; the issue is how much you are willing to accept (or how much works with what you have in mind).

That's true. In my Whitebox hack, I'm really leaning into vague archetypes over traditional class roles. Being a "Fighter" will define your character growth and immediate abilities, but this archetype can encompass anyone from an Assassin to a Barbarian.

 

[NwNgger]

I've been flicking through Cities Without Number. I have to say, I want to like it. But it's taken my favourite version of DnD in B/X. And made it way more crunchy. You have two different kinds of AC to keep track of, armour has hitpoints you need to keep track of that can soak damage, you need to add or subtract skill bonuses from your skills which you roll 2d6 on as opposed to a d20. In addition to adding or subtracting stat bonuses, you need to keep track of things like shock, morale, a whole bunch of other shit that completely ruins the core appeal of B/X to me. It was simple and no nonsense. Roll your D20. Add stat bonus. That's the majority of rolls. Very simple and easy to keep track of. I don't mind maths as the GM. But when I need to add and subtract 3 or 4 things per character per turn just for basic hit rolls before we even do saving throws or damage the game can start to clunk and drag in a way I am simply not interested in. Others might be more interested in all the little details the game tries to simulate. But I want simple and succinct mechanics with potential for depth.

There are bits of the game that intrigue me and I like that they include rules for magic and other Shadowrun adjacent stuff. So I might lift that and the world building tables and use them on another game.

 

[KainenMorden]

I first started to get annoyed with Cleric weapon restrictions. Why can't they use edged weapons? The best answer I could find was for "balance purposes". I guess it made people nervous to have a character who could wield a 1d10 two-handed sword and heal themselves.

I started to have the same issue with Magic-Users as well. If all they can use in melee is a staff (or a dagger, if you're thinking AD&D), then this creates a very specific kind of character. It really limits the role-playing factor, I think. Now we have a world with these strange rules that you have to explain in-game somehow. Trying to use mental gymnastics to explain why Magic-Users can only use staves and Clerics can only use blunt weapons in my campaign just got to be too much.

Weapon restrictions for non-fighter classes stem from the archetypes used to generate those classes. Clerics are based in part on semi-historical or legendary tales involving Christian priests, and also upon vampire-hunter / monster-slayer characters from certain horror movies that typically employed religious imagery. This is why clerics possess the ability to turn undead with a holy symbol, why wolfsbane and holy water exist in the item tables, why clerics are able to cast Biblically-inspired spells, and similarly why they are restricted to blunt weapons from an apocryphal prohibition against shedding blood. Similarly, magic-users are inspired by fantasy characters that did not have weapons training and did not typically engage in melee combat.

That's true but it also comes down to game balance. They didn't want the cleric to be too powerful it was already a fighter mage. You could go fighter/cleric and use all the weapons of a fighter in 1e but then you also had limited progression. Same thing with magic users, elves could wield weapons and cast spells and even cast spells in armor but had limited progression. You could also dual class but in the early days, players retired their characters at lvl 10 typically.

 

[Trithne]

I've been flicking through Cities Without Number. I have to say, I want to like it. But it's taken my favourite version of DnD in B/X. And made it way more crunchy. You have two different kinds of AC to keep track of, armour has hitpoints you need to keep track of that can soak damage, you need to add or subtract skill bonuses from your skills which you roll 2d6 on as opposed to a d20. In addition to adding or subtracting stat bonuses, you need to keep track of things like shock, morale, a whole bunch of other shit that completely ruins the core appeal of B/X to me. It was simple and no nonsense. Roll your D20. Add stat bonus. That's the majority of rolls. Very simple and easy to keep track of. I don't mind maths as the GM. But when I need to add and subtract 3 or 4 things per character per turn just for basic hit rolls before we even do saving throws or damage the game can start to clunk and drag in a way I am simply not interested in. Others might be more interested in all the little details the game tries to simulate. But I want simple and succinct mechanics with potential for depth.

There are bits of the game that intrigue me and I like that they include rules for magic and other Shadowrun adjacent stuff. So I might lift that and the world building tables and use them on another game.

Have you read Stars/Worlds Without Number? Cities does seem to stack on the variables a lot more than the other Nouns Without Number games, but it's gone for a much more gritty, high-lethality one-bullet-can-kill-a-man style.

 

[NwNgger]

I've been flicking through Cities Without Number. I have to say, I want to like it. But it's taken my favourite version of DnD in B/X. And made it way more crunchy. You have two different kinds of AC to keep track of, armour has hitpoints you need to keep track of that can soak damage, you need to add or subtract skill bonuses from your skills which you roll 2d6 on as opposed to a d20. In addition to adding or subtracting stat bonuses, you need to keep track of things like shock, morale, a whole bunch of other shit that completely ruins the core appeal of B/X to me. It was simple and no nonsense. Roll your D20. Add stat bonus. That's the majority of rolls. Very simple and easy to keep track of. I don't mind maths as the GM. But when I need to add and subtract 3 or 4 things per character per turn just for basic hit rolls before we even do saving throws or damage the game can start to clunk and drag in a way I am simply not interested in. Others might be more interested in all the little details the game tries to simulate. But I want simple and succinct mechanics with potential for depth.

There are bits of the game that intrigue me and I like that they include rules for magic and other Shadowrun adjacent stuff. So I might lift that and the world building tables and use them on another game.

Have you read Stars/Worlds Without Number? Cities does seem to stack on the variables a lot more than the other Nouns Without Number games, but it's gone for a much more gritty, high-lethality one-bullet-can-kill-a-man style.

I have not. I usually love high lethality games but I feel adding all these variables makes it far too easy for a player to wiggle out of danger. And having to rule lawyer 3 to 6 players every turn is not my idea of fun. I'd rather just roll the d20, check ac, roll damage. That worked for 90% of situations. Even Cyberpunk. Why not just have one AC and multiple kinds of damage clearly labeled? "This gun does shock, this armour is resistant to shock +3 to AC for shock attack." Clear language for simple mechanics.

 

[Trithne]

I've been flicking through Cities Without Number. I have to say, I want to like it. But it's taken my favourite version of DnD in B/X. And made it way more crunchy. You have two different kinds of AC to keep track of, armour has hitpoints you need to keep track of that can soak damage, you need to add or subtract skill bonuses from your skills which you roll 2d6 on as opposed to a d20. In addition to adding or subtracting stat bonuses, you need to keep track of things like shock, morale, a whole bunch of other shit that completely ruins the core appeal of B/X to me. It was simple and no nonsense. Roll your D20. Add stat bonus. That's the majority of rolls. Very simple and easy to keep track of. I don't mind maths as the GM. But when I need to add and subtract 3 or 4 things per character per turn just for basic hit rolls before we even do saving throws or damage the game can start to clunk and drag in a way I am simply not interested in. Others might be more interested in all the little details the game tries to simulate. But I want simple and succinct mechanics with potential for depth.

There are bits of the game that intrigue me and I like that they include rules for magic and other Shadowrun adjacent stuff. So I might lift that and the world building tables and use them on another game.

Have you read Stars/Worlds Without Number? Cities does seem to stack on the variables a lot more than the other Nouns Without Number games, but it's gone for a much more gritty, high-lethality one-bullet-can-kill-a-man style.

I have not. I usually love high lethality games but I feel adding all these variables makes it far too easy for a player to wiggle out of danger. And having to rule lawyer 3 to 6 players every turn is not my idea of fun. I'd rather just roll the d20, check ac, roll damage. That worked for 90% of situations. Even Cyberpunk. Why not just have one AC and multiple kinds of damage clearly labeled? "This gun does shock, this armour is resistant to shock +3 to AC for shock attack." Clear language for simple mechanics.

Shock in Nouns isn't a separate damage type so much as it's a secondary source of damage - it's to represent weapons that even if you don't land a "true" hit on, will still cause some damage. It's generally unique to melee weapons and is modelling the idea that while you may not have managed to get through their armour, some force is still transferred. That said, Shock is pretty simple imo:

If you miss, and your weapon’s Shock rating is equal or higher than their Armor Class you still inflict Shock damage as explained on page 36. Normally, only melee weapons have a Shock rating.

Trauma, Armour Soak, and different Melee/Ranged ACs are new to Cities, and they do certainly add a few steps I'm not entirely happy with having exist. I don't think they add ways to "wiggle out of danger" though, particularly since you should be applying the same rules to PCs and NPCs.

The Stars combat process is:

1d20 + Attack Bonus + Skill Bonus + Attribute Bonus vs target's AC
If hit, roll Damage + Attribute Bonus ( + Skill Bonus if it's a Punch attack)
If missed, check Shock rating of weapon vs target's AC, deal Shock damage if AC is less.

Note that the (Attack Bonus + Skill Bonus + Attribute Bonus) should be precalculated and on the character sheet since it will very rarely change except on the occasional level-up. There shouldn't be any need to "rules lawyer" anyone, the modifiers are right there and that's it. This isn't nu-D&D where there's weird cascading triggers that players can invoke to nu-uh their way out of something.

That said, I do recommend the Nouns books if only for the world/story/character building tables, they're the real meat of his books.

 

[Sacibengala]

ACKSII Kickstarter is on https://www.kickstarter.com/project...onqueror-king-system-imperial-imprint-acks-ii