TheRPGSite

I am happy to admit I am probably rusty - I haven't run a BECMI/AD&D campaign since the 80s and 90s. Still, I am finding OSR (specifically OSE Advanced) spellcasters super-fragile coming from 5e.  They have low hit points; if they lose initiative, they are demolished. The usual solution, I am guessing, is a lot of defensive spells and mooks to soak up some of the initial attacks, but a "boss" type spellcaster seems mechanically unworkable using standard OSE rules.

Any advice on this, or does it boil down to the spellcaster needing to be pre-buffed and with mooks all the time?

The alternate solution I was toying with is using the concentration mechanic from 3e and 5e - if the spellcaster is hit, make an ability check (roll 1d20 below INT, or, more easily, make a spell-saving throw). Upon success, the spell is not interrupted.  But I'm not sure what long-term effects that would have on an OSR game. It also adds an extra step to combat, which starts to add time, so I am not 100% sold on this idea.

Thanks.

It's working as designed. 

I don't think any classed NPC alone is going to stack up well against a party of PCs as a boss fight under OSR rules. Action economy is king, so in order for a boss monster to work it needs to have multiple attacks and a massive health pool. If you want a wizard to challenge a party by himself, he's going to either need to be about 15 levels above them, or you're going to have to give him custom rules.

Dealing with casters in OSR games more generally: Yeah, they're glass cannons by design, and cannons with very limited ammunition at that. To maximize their combat potential they need not just meatshields, but also good magic items (wand of fireballs, ring of teleportation, etc.) and advantageous terrain. I played in a Hyperborea campaign where one of the tougher fights was against a wizard and a gang of skeletons in maze of narrow corridors. The guy kept hitting us with wand spells and ducking away around corners. The skeletons blocked the melee fighters from chasing him, and he kept moving out of line of sight of our archers. Super annoying fight, but it was the closest we got to a TPK in the entire campaign. Later in the campaign, my thief-wizard got wings of flying, a laser crossbow and a wand of fireballs, and essentially turned into a fragile A-10 Warthog.

On the subject of terrain, one thing I notice a lot of people get wrong when running OSR games is encounter distance. The game plays a lot better if the parties have a round or two to maneuver before they actually come into contact. If you never roll initiative until the belligerents are within one round's move of each other, that's naturally going to hurt magic users (and thieves and archers, but less so). This is an easy fix in overland encounters. In dungeons, I find you have to drop the number of encounters and let them sprawl over more of the dungeon. The problem is the "this room has this monster, and you fight it in the room" attitude. One encounter that sprawls over an entire dungeon level, with enemies retreating to ambush players, doubling back to harass them from behind, etc., is more memorable and challenging than a dozen "'there's a troll in this room" encounters. Goblin Slayer kind of made this a meme, but it's undoubtedly effective, and this kind of mobile warfare plays to the strengths of the thief and magic-user in a way that stand up fights in an enclosed space really don't.

Basically as Steve Mitchell said above, working as intended.

At higher levels a wizard is breaking rules all over the place, so it very much balances out, like an asymptote to the y-axis. How is usually dependent upon the spells learned along the way, the options are so varied. A common wizard battle start is Magic Missile (often by rods for speed factor) to see if they have Shield up or otherwise guarantee spell disruption, then it just gets uglier from there...

Typically it is element of surprise and going nova in that advantage, but you eventually run out of time, resources, spells, ablation, etc trying to do it all your lonesome. And to resist that you hire in the help, give them gear, lay low, use trickery, and run long term enchantments. Which explains the magic economy on all sides; even at high level having the alliance of other named level classes who can field many more people buys you time to protect yourself, harass competing others, and research. Having allied fighters and their entourage be able to use protection scrolls, heal potions, and weaponry you couldn't use makes a lot more sense in this milieu.

I'd sum up what the others explained as:  The wizard has to play it smart.  That means making full use of whatever allies, terrain, misdirection, magic items, etc. that can be managed.  This is true whether it is a PC wizard or a party foe.  What you can't do, usually, as a pre-WotC wizard is just line up and let the opponents have it.  The wizard may be able to get off an alpha strike that softens them up.  Occasionally, giving enough of a mismatch or bad luck on saving throws, the alpha strike may due the job or send the survivors running.  However, a smart wizard doesn't count on it.

Thanks all, this makes sense.  It's something I noticed in particular because I am converting a Pathfinder adventure path back to OSE Advanced and there is a lot of "wizard in the room" boss fight. And I am looking at it thinking - this isn't work.  I'll have to rework them a bit more.

That was a good callout on encounter distances. I have been ignoring these and will start using them. Hit and run also makes sense for a wizard who has had his tower invaded - no need to wait at the top of the tower for the showdown (which is how much of Pathfinder battles work out).  Interesting to see how much mechanics influences even basic stuff like running an NPC.

Quote from: solomani on February 11, 2024, 10:20:37 PM
Thanks all, this makes sense.  It's something I noticed in particular because I am converting a Pathfinder adventure path back to OSE Advanced and there is a lot of "wizard in the room" boss fight. And I am looking at it thinking - this isn't work.  I'll have to rework them a bit more.

That was a good callout on encounter distances. I have been ignoring these and will start using them. Hit and run also makes sense for a wizard who has had his tower invaded - no need to wait at the top of the tower for the showdown (which is how much of Pathfinder battles work out).  Interesting to see how much mechanics influences even basic stuff like running an NPC.

Happy if it helps!

Out of curiosity, which adventure path are you adapting? I ask because Pathfinder 1 was based on 3.5, and despite all the extra stuff bolted on top of it, 3.5 was still based on the structure of AD&D. Admittedly it's been like 15 years, but my memory of 3.5 is that a lot of the same principles applied to wizards, at least below around 10th level. I would think that even in Pathfinder, a lone wizard is going to get absolutely mulched by a competent party if trapped in a room with them.

Also if you end up finding that the gulf between Pathfinder and OSE is too much design-wise, and you still want to run the adventure path, Pathfinder for Savage Worlds is a decent alternative for a rules-lighter system to run the same adventures.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Out of curiosity, which adventure path are you adapting? I ask because Pathfinder 1 was based on 3.5, and despite all the extra stuff bolted on top of it, 3.5 was still based on the structure of AD&D. Admittedly it's been like 15 years, but my memory of 3.5 is that a lot of the same principles applied to wizards, at least below around 10th level. I would think that even in Pathfinder, a lone wizard is going to get absolutely mulched by a competent party if trapped in a room with them.

Reign of Winter. The Baba Yaga adventure path.  You are right about 3e. However, a big difference is the "get hit, interrupted" rule, which isn't automatic in 3e (get a concentration check).  And the "meta" for 3e was pre-buff out the wazoo before a battle, but there are a lot more spells to buff within 3e than 1e.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Also if you end up finding that the gulf between Pathfinder and OSE is too much design-wise, and you still want to run the adventure path, Pathfinder for Savage Worlds is a decent alternative for a rules-lighter system to run the same adventures.

No familiar with it, will check it out.  Thanks.

If you want to cheat a little.....

Start the PCs at 3rd Level, give them max HP for Level 1, and roll for the other 2 levels.  If you still believe the casters are getting clobbered too often; allow those 3rd Level PCs to team up with a 5th Level caster.

Gary Gygax wasn't running Level 1 old school PCs at his table, and he also wasn't running AD&D at home either.  He was running something closer to White Box OD&D, and starting PCs out at Level 3.

-Dress up as a baggage carrier, keep your wand hidden, cower a bit, nuke when its right

-Cast shield

Give the thieves a d8 hit die at levels 1 and 2. Give the magic-users a d8 hit die at level 1 and d6 at level 2. Explain it by saying these are the levels at which they are younger, healthier and rely more on their physique than the craft they're still learning.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 12, 2024, 04:28:49 PM
-Dress up as a baggage carrier, keep your wand hidden, cower a bit, nuke when its right

-Cast shield

This right here is what an intelligent person would do.  If he were utterly ruthless, he would wait at the camp with some guards and just collect the treasure at the end. Even more intelligent would be to wait in town and get other people to invest in equipping the expedition, then taking a "modest" cut...say 10-15%, for being a broker.  You could run multiple parties and send them to different dungeons.  Then sit safely in town as you collect your fees. 

Before you know it you'll be 9th level from all that xp for gold you are getting.

Quote from: Jam The MF on February 12, 2024, 03:32:24 PM
If you want to cheat a little.....

Start the PCs at 3rd Level, give them max HP for Level 1, and roll for the other 2 levels.  If you still believe the casters are getting clobbered too often; allow those 3rd Level PCs to team up with a 5th Level caster.

Gary Gygax wasn't running Level 1 old school PCs at his table, and he also wasn't running AD&D at home either.  He was running something closer to White Box OD&D, and starting PCs out at Level 3.

Its not my PCs having an issue (we have one wizard who the rest of the party protects), its my NPC casters getting hosed :)

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Also if you end up finding that the gulf between Pathfinder and OSE is too much design-wise, and you still want to run the adventure path, Pathfinder for Savage Worlds is a decent alternative for a rules-lighter system to run the same adventures.

I looked at the DriveThru entry for this. Am I right in saying it's a rules/mechanics/monster conversion you can use to convert an adventure path, or do they also convert adventure paths directly?  Best I can tell they only converted rise of the runelords and crimson throne directly.

The only advice I know for Basic D&D wizards is to carry a chainmail shirt in your pack and put it on when the magic is gone. 

You may suck as a swordsman, but not as bad as a dead wizard. 

Save Tenser's Transformation for your last spell and get in on the melee!

Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 12, 2024, 06:41:23 PM
The only advice I know for Basic D&D wizards is to carry a chainmail shirt in your pack and put it on when the magic is gone. 

You may suck as a swordsman, but not as bad as a dead wizard.

Hah! What a great point.

Quote from: El-V on February 12, 2024, 06:54:02 PM
Save Tenser's Transformation for your last spell and get in on the melee!

Another great option.  I recall in 2e days I had a fighter/wizard who did exactly this.  Used spells to buff, turned on tenser, and away he went in melee.

Quote from: solomani on February 11, 2024, 11:49:45 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Out of curiosity, which adventure path are you adapting? I ask because Pathfinder 1 was based on 3.5, and despite all the extra stuff bolted on top of it, 3.5 was still based on the structure of AD&D. Admittedly it's been like 15 years, but my memory of 3.5 is that a lot of the same principles applied to wizards, at least below around 10th level. I would think that even in Pathfinder, a lone wizard is going to get absolutely mulched by a competent party if trapped in a room with them.

Reign of Winter. The Baba Yaga adventure path.  You are right about 3e. However, a big difference is the "get hit, interrupted" rule, which isn't automatic in 3e (get a concentration check).  And the "meta" for 3e was pre-buff out the wazoo before a battle, but there are a lot more spells to buff within 3e than 1e.

Neat. I've read through a couple of the Pathfinder adventure paths (though not that one), and they're quite cool. If I have a beef with them, it's that they don't appear well set up to adapt to the players going off script.

Converting non-OSR modules to OSR games would be an interesting thread of its own. I've been doing a lot of converting modules for my Dolmenwood campaign. Generally finding the biggest challenge to be converting the skill checks, since OSR games often don't have comparable skills to a lot of newer systems, and even when they do, they presume skill checks are made less often, but have a much lower success rate.

Quote from: solomani on February 12, 2024, 05:56:01 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Also if you end up finding that the gulf between Pathfinder and OSE is too much design-wise, and you still want to run the adventure path, Pathfinder for Savage Worlds is a decent alternative for a rules-lighter system to run the same adventures.

I looked at the DriveThru entry for this. Am I right in saying it's a rules/mechanics/monster conversion you can use to convert an adventure path, or do they also convert adventure paths directly?  Best I can tell they only converted rise of the runelords and crimson throne directly.

Sort of. Savage Worlds (often abbreviated SWADE) is it's own universal game system with a bunch of settings published, but part of the schtick is that each setting book is usually a full core rulebook in it's own right. So the Pathfinder for Savage Worlds core book is a full game, designed to let you play the Pathfinder classes/races/setting under the Savage Worlds system. It doesn't include a conversion guide, but you can easily find fan-made ones online. And then they've done some official conversions as well.

I'd describe SWADE as a middleweight rules system. Definitely less chunky than Pathfinder, but still more involved than something like OSE. The highlights are that it's a dice-ladder system, so attributes are ranked from d4 to d12, instead of a number and a bonus. Attacks are made against a "parry" stat or a target number based on cover etc. Damage is done on a wounds system based on how far the damage is rolled over the target's "toughness" score (which includes armor). The core system is pretty simple, probably one of the simpler skills-based systems out there,  but there's talents and things to add on top of it that make it a bit more complex.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm telling you things that are obvious to you. You never know what someone else knows.

My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Converting non-OSR modules to OSR games would be an interesting thread of its own. I've been doing a lot of converting modules for my Dolmenwood campaign. Generally finding the biggest challenge to be converting the skill checks, since OSR games often don't have comparable skills to a lot of newer systems, and even when they do, they presume skill checks are made less often, but have a much lower success rate.

Interesting, I am running a Dolmenwood campaign and my PCs dislike the sandbox, hence me moving it to a more adventure path type game and scrambling to find something as I have nothing prepared.  Regin of winter fits the bill IMO.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Sort of. Savage Worlds (often abbreviated SWADE) is it's own universal game system with a bunch of settings published, but part of the schtick is that each setting book is usually a full core rulebook in it's own right. So the Pathfinder for Savage Worlds core book is a full game, designed to let you play the Pathfinder classes/races/setting under the Savage Worlds system. It doesn't include a conversion guide, but you can easily find fan-made ones online. And then they've done some official conversions as well.

Nah, all good, not familiar with it apart from I've heard the name before.

Quote from: Mishihari on February 12, 2024, 09:46:55 PM
My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

Don't disagree.  I was just caught by surprise.  Happy to go with it.

Quote from: solomani on February 12, 2024, 10:02:14 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:45:38 PM
Converting non-OSR modules to OSR games would be an interesting thread of its own. I've been doing a lot of converting modules for my Dolmenwood campaign. Generally finding the biggest challenge to be converting the skill checks, since OSR games often don't have comparable skills to a lot of newer systems, and even when they do, they presume skill checks are made less often, but have a much lower success rate.

Interesting, I am running a Dolmenwood campaign and my PCs dislike the sandbox, hence me moving it to a more adventure path type game and scrambling to find something as I have nothing prepared.  Regin of winter fits the bill IMO.

What are the odds! What level range are your PCs in? I've been putting together a list of modules I thought I could slot into the Dolmenwood setting. Might be useful to you.

Quote from: RPGer678 on February 12, 2024, 04:38:40 PM
Give the thieves a d8 hit die at levels 1 and 2. Give the magic-users a d8 hit die at level 1 and d6 at level 2. Explain it by saying these are the levels at which they are younger, healthier and rely more on their physique than the craft they're still learning.

My solution for the HP issue is that all PCs get their entire Con score plus regular roll plus Con bonus at 1st level.  It helps a lot then and evens out down the road.  I also use the AD&D hit dice for OSE (so thieves get d6, fighters d10, etc.).  As for the original question, yeah, tactics matter a lot more I'd say, than in later editions of the game.  This applies to players too.  But using allies, traps, environment, etc. can be huge.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 12, 2024, 11:07:45 PM
My solution for the HP issue is that all PCs get their entire Con score plus regular roll plus Con bonus at 1st level.  It helps a lot then and evens out down the road.  I also use the AD&D hit dice for OSE (so thieves get d6, fighters d10, etc.).  As for the original question, yeah, tactics matter a lot more I'd say, than in later editions of the game.  This applies to players too.  But using allies, traps, environment, etc. can be huge.

I give PCs max hp at level 1; I have been doing that since 1982.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2024, 10:31:31 PM
What are the odds! What level range are your PCs in? I've been putting together a list of modules I thought I could slot into the Dolmenwood setting. Might be useful to you.

So, I started the campaign in September with the preview books.  My game plan was to have many hooks the PCs could pursue. They ended up visiting the Abbey but then retreating once they got to the lower level (from Wormskin), and then they did the Black Wyrm of Brandenburg (set it in Galblight), and now they are in the Incandescent Grotto.  But they don't seem interested in any of the main bad guys - nag lord and the Cold Prince - nor in randomly exploring hexes (though they are great, IMO), and they asked me to go back to the old "campaign arc".  They don't want to be railroaded, but they like the idea that every adventure is part of a larger meta-plot (like Temple of Elemental Evil or Against the Giants).  So will take them off to the far NE of the Imperium/Dolmenwood to Kislev (aka Russia) and run Reign of Winter. 

My PCs range from level 1 to 5 (some deaths have occurred) - I think it goes level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5 (one of them is the ghost of her dead character - long story!).

This is the first non-5e campaign my group has played (though I've been playing since 1981/82, all my players, bar 1, came into the game via 5e).  I picked Dolemenwood because the classes are a bit closer to 5e with some class abilities.  One of the sticking points for migrating was my players didn't like the super basic classes of BECMI/OSE.  Dolmenwood seems like a good compromise.  So, I will stick with the classes but otherwise use OSE Advanced rules.

A B/X MU with fireball (or even sleep, charm, etc.) is extremely powerful at first; it makes sense he would also be fragile.

Of course, when he runs out of spells...

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 02:26:16 AM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 12, 2024, 11:07:45 PM
My solution for the HP issue is that all PCs get their entire Con score plus regular roll plus Con bonus at 1st level.  It helps a lot then and evens out down the road.  I also use the AD&D hit dice for OSE (so thieves get d6, fighters d10, etc.).  As for the original question, yeah, tactics matter a lot more I'd say, than in later editions of the game.  This applies to players too.  But using allies, traps, environment, etc. can be huge.

I give PCs max hp at level 1; I have been doing that since 1982.

I wound up giving my Dolmenwood players their Constitution attribute score as HP at level one. Might have been overkill, but they'd never have survived the first adventure without it. Dolmenwood characters are kinda weedy even by OSR standards.

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 02:26:16 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2024, 10:31:31 PM
What are the odds! What level range are your PCs in? I've been putting together a list of modules I thought I could slot into the Dolmenwood setting. Might be useful to you.

So, I started the campaign in September with the preview books.  My game plan was to have many hooks the PCs could pursue. They ended up visiting the Abbey but then retreating once they got to the lower level (from Wormskin), and then they did the Black Wyrm of Brandenburg (set it in Galblight), and now they are in the Incandescent Grotto.  But they don't seem interested in any of the main bad guys - nag lord and the Cold Prince - nor in randomly exploring hexes (though they are great, IMO), and they asked me to go back to the old "campaign arc".  They don't want to be railroaded, but they like the idea that every adventure is part of a larger meta-plot (like Temple of Elemental Evil or Against the Giants).  So will take them off to the far NE of the Imperium/Dolmenwood to Kislev (aka Russia) and run Reign of Winter. 

My PCs range from level 1 to 5 (some deaths have occurred) - I think it goes level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5 (one of them is the ghost of her dead character - long story!).

This is the first non-5e campaign my group has played (though I've been playing since 1981/82, all my players, bar 1, came into the game via 5e).  I picked Dolemenwood because the classes are a bit closer to 5e with some class abilities.  One of the sticking points for migrating was my players didn't like the super basic classes of BECMI/OSE.  Dolmenwood seems like a good compromise.  So, I will stick with the classes but otherwise use OSE Advanced rules.

Gotcha. Yeah, there's a definite culture shock for players coming from 3e/4e/5e/Pathfinder to OSR games. Some OSR games mitigate it a bit by having chunkier classes and more options (Fantastic Heroes and Witchery for example), but I don't blame a player for feeling a bit deflated at how limiting a lot of OSR classes can be. For my money, OSR games are actually more difficult to DM than newer ones. The lesser mechanical depth on the player side requires you to make up for it with more engaging scenarios and non-mechanical challenges.

My players are a bit more veteran than yours from the sound of it, so luckily they're ok with not having a big campaign arc or villain to aim for. But they're still less than enthused about just going out hex exploring.  I've been stringing together modules (mostly from Dungeon Crawl Classics and WFRP), re-writing them to lead into one another as I go along. It's working well enough so far, and should get easier as the campaign goes along and there's more history to tie things into.

I find that the totally open sandbox is one of those things players say they want until they actually get it. Rather than plopping them down in the middle of a big map and saying "go nuts", I tend to see better results from giving them either a defined goal, or a menu of a couple of potential ones, and then a lot of freedom in how they achieve them. I don't really like big plot arcs myself, but after this campaign I'll probably go to something with a mission-based or a-to-b journey structure.

I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

Players do what they are conditioned to do.  A GM can lead them to water, but can't make them drink.  Of course, video games put a giant thumb on the scale, too, that has to be overcome. 

It can be overcome. I get younger players (and some older ones that never have known any different) to change.  But you can't expect it to work exactly the same way it did 40-50 years ago.  Instead, I've found it helpful to be explicit, both negative and positive.  No, you can't roll on your "history" skill to figure something out without investigating.  No you can't roll "perception" to see if you can discover something until I call for a roll.  Repeat the current scene info.  Ask again "What do you do?"  If they are really stuck, say, "Would you like to do X, or Y, or Z or something else?"  (Make sure to include the "something else").  Stay after it, and the light bulb will go on.  Once it goes on, it pretty much stays on, with maybe a little positive reinforcement.

There are some habits so bad an ingrained that you can't break them by giving alternatives and waiting for action.  You have to push.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

Players respond to incentives the same as anyone else. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a player try a creative solution and get shot down by their DM. I'll use one of your examples:

--Player decides to cast silence on a stone and throw it at the enemy spellcaster.
--DM rules that this will take them two rounds, either because spells take a full round to cast, or because throwing the stone is an attack and you can't cast and attack in the same round (depending on edition).
--Player sighs, but takes two rounds to go ahead and do it anyway.
--On the enemy caster's next turn, he steps 16 feet away from the stone and goes back to what he was doing.

The player now realizes that he's wasted either one or two rounds doing nothing productive. When this kind of thing happens, you can see the wheels turning in the player's head as he thinks "Ok, guess I'll go back to either casting damage spells or doing my basic attack every round". This is not unique to WOTC-era editions. In fact, my experience has been that OSR DMs are more likely to be hidebound to the RAW, rather than less. It's doubly damaging when OSR DMs do it, too. In 3rd-5th edition the player can at least try to come up with a creative use of their feats/spells/powers and rely on the RAW being on their side. An OSR character is stuck with a handful of spells per day and their basic attack action.

I don't even always blame DMs for this. A lot of these creative solutions are either game breaking or highly unrealistic, and encouraging creativity without allowing for videogame-esque exploits is a delicate balance. I recently had my players fighting a big plant monster, and one of them wanted to light a torch to throw at it. Great idea, but I couldn't in good conscience let them pull a torch out, light it and throw it in one round. Using the Create Water example, both the third and 5th edition SRDs specify that you cannot create water inside a living creature, and I think that rule was in effect in 2nd edition, too. There's an obvious reason for that. If you could just teleport a gallon of water into the enemy's lungs with a first level spell, you've got an easy instant kill on any air-breathing enemy. It'd become the first way you tried to kill every single enemy you came up against, and get just as boring as a regular attack. I suspect that even in the early days, most DMs wouldn't have allowed it. 

Like a lot of other things in life, it's not enough to want to allow "creative" use of spells.  It has to be facilitated by the situation.  Fortunately, setting up more interesting situations is a good GM skills to have, whether the players take "creative" advantage of it or not.  So many of the "creative" uses (and thus the scare quotes) are really things that someone tried, it worked once, and then they try to ride it into the ground.  It's a game of gotcha between GM and players.

Instead, it works a whole lot better if there is some interest in the location, arrangement of the rooms, things to hide behind, etc.  Sometimes, even if this wouldn't exactly make sense in a medieval location.  If the GM gets in the habit of doing this, then sometimes the players will come up with things that are good for that location, but they wouldn't even expect to work elsewhere.

I once had players toss kegs of oil down a long shaft to kill some intelligent giant bugs going after them.  I didn't setup that "scene", let alone force it.  Instead, I'm in the habit of finding ways to have:

1. As many chances for vertical movement as I can plausibly fit.
2. Will leave things lying around in odd places that fit what is going on.
3. Make sure that things are tough enough that the players can't just fight through everything.

So when the players had to retreat up that shaft in hurry, knew the bug had reinforcements that were going to be on them in a few minutes, remembered the strange pool of oil they had spotted on the way in, and were desperate--they gave it a try.  It almost didn't work, because they almost blew up a keg on the brink before they could get everything going. If they had missed a few key rolls, I'd have let it happen, too, and they knew it. 

When I put that oil there, I had some vague idea of it potentially becoming a trap.  The party getting involved in a fight in the cavern where the pool was, and it getting lit during the fight.  Instead, I got a memorable retreat, followed by a memorable desperate fight, followed by a decision to go in again after that success.  With no chance that they would try to "game" that solution in the future.

Just because some adventuring "ingredients" work well over and over again, it doesn't mean you must let them lapse into formula.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 13, 2024, 03:25:54 PM
Instead, it works a whole lot better if there is some interest in the location, arrangement of the rooms, things to hide behind, etc.  Sometimes, even if this wouldn't exactly make sense in a medieval location.  If the GM gets in the habit of doing this, then sometimes the players will come up with things that are good for that location, but they wouldn't even expect to work elsewhere.

This is a good point about environment.

I find that fire-and-forget is also pretty key mechanical nudge toward creative spell use. When every spell is always available, solutions requiring creative spell use are much, much rarer in my experience.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 13, 2024, 11:23:03 AM

I wound up giving my Dolmenwood players their Constitution attribute score as HP at level one. Might have been overkill, but they'd never have survived the first adventure without it. Dolmenwood characters are kinda weedy even by OSR standards.

As a new DM in the OSR space, the Dolemenwood characters don't seem any weaker than standard OSE Advanced characters or am I missing something?

I will keep the idea of using 1e HP progression in the back of my pocket if I feel it's required.  So far the group seems OK.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2024, 10:31:31 PM
Gotcha. Yeah, there's a definite culture shock for players coming from 3e/4e/5e/Pathfinder to OSR games. Some OSR games mitigate it a bit by having chunkier classes and more options (Fantastic Heroes and Witchery for example), but I don't blame a player for feeling a bit deflated at how limiting a lot of OSR classes can be. For my money, OSR games are actually more difficult to DM than newer ones. The lesser mechanical depth on the player side requires you to make up for it with more engaging scenarios and non-mechanical challenges.

I would be keen to see some kind of write-up of how you ended up doing it, even if it's just a workflow example.  I am falling back into an adventure path because of time constraints.

Regarding the other comments/commentators, yeah, this all makes sense.  I think I am just rusty as an OSR DM.  In defence of my players, they are fairly creative since I ran 5e in such a way as to make it more like 1e.  So that helped restrain some of the craziness of high-level play in 5e (all my campaigns were 1 to 20).  But running anything above level 6 or so becomes progressively more exhausting let alone at level 20 with 8 PCs.

I think the big gap is they are not used to hex crawls, and I had never run a big one before for them, except for the one that was in Tomb of Annihilation, which left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.  So when I dumped a 600-hex crawl on them and said have at it, it wasn't exciting for them it was daunting, and bad memories of Tomb came back. So that's on me as the DM.

In fact, it's all on me since 5 of my 6 regular players I taught to play (my family)! Having said that, I do have older veteran players who attend, but they are not consistent. It's always good to have them to help steer the party more towards creative thinking and trying things out.

I also don't think it's just 5e; video games have affected younger generations in how they see D&D. And in retrospect, the other mistake I made is I didn't stick with BECMI/AD&D but jumped to 5e, which set a different baseline and set of expectations more in-line with video games.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 13, 2024, 02:34:29 PM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

Players do what they are conditioned to do.  A GM can lead them to water, but can't make them drink.  Of course, video games put a giant thumb on the scale, too, that has to be overcome. 

It can be overcome. I get younger players (and some older ones that never have known any different) to change.  But you can't expect it to work exactly the same way it did 40-50 years ago.  Instead, I've found it helpful to be explicit, both negative and positive.  No, you can't roll on your "history" skill to figure something out without investigating.  No you can't roll "perception" to see if you can discover something until I call for a roll.  Repeat the current scene info.  Ask again "What do you do?"  If they are really stuck, say, "Would you like to do X, or Y, or Z or something else?"  (Make sure to include the "something else").  Stay after it, and the light bulb will go on.  Once it goes on, it pretty much stays on, with maybe a little positive reinforcement.

There are some habits so bad an ingrained that you can't break them by giving alternatives and waiting for action.  You have to push.

Indeed, the conditioning of past experience is strong but it can be overcome with enough patience and invitation to laterally explore the world. Hence why descriptions of the interactable world around them, and asking as you say, '[...]X, Y, Z, or something else?' is so important. We are asking players to step out of the safe AND see it as an opportunity. It's a hard job to coax, but oh so rewarding when it happens.

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 13, 2024, 11:23:03 AM

I wound up giving my Dolmenwood players their Constitution attribute score as HP at level one. Might have been overkill, but they'd never have survived the first adventure without it. Dolmenwood characters are kinda weedy even by OSR standards.

As a new DM in the OSR space, the Dolemenwood characters don't seem any weaker than standard OSE Advanced characters or am I missing something?

OSE is probably the OSR game I am the least familiar with, but Dolemwood classes mostly have a step lower hit die compared to their DCC or Castles & Crusades equivalent. They seem to have slower attack bonus progression as well, and there's no weapon multi-attack ability for fighters. The available spells seem to be a bit less fighty to me, too, and healing spells less readily available.

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 12, 2024, 10:31:31 PM
Gotcha. Yeah, there's a definite culture shock for players coming from 3e/4e/5e/Pathfinder to OSR games. Some OSR games mitigate it a bit by having chunkier classes and more options (Fantastic Heroes and Witchery for example), but I don't blame a player for feeling a bit deflated at how limiting a lot of OSR classes can be. For my money, OSR games are actually more difficult to DM than newer ones. The lesser mechanical depth on the player side requires you to make up for it with more engaging scenarios and non-mechanical challenges.

I would be keen to see some kind of write-up of how you ended up doing it, even if it's just a workflow example.  I am falling back into an adventure path because of time constraints.

I guess it depends. If you mean how to ease 5e players into the OSR, I'm probably not the guy to ask. I'm one of the younger people in the group I play with, and since I'm playing online, anyone who comes into the game is already on board for playing OSR stuff.

If you mean how I pick out modules and use/convert them for my game, then I got plenty to say: I started out for this campaign skim-reading a bunch of modules from systems I thought might match up well with Dolmenwood. I'm lucky in that I have a ton of pdfs that have just accumulated on my computer over time, but if you ask for specific recommendations around here, you can usually get pointed in the right direction.

First priority is setting compatibility. Dolmenwood is pretty specific tone-wise, with the whole medieval England/catholic church/elves and fairies thing, so right out of the gate you can write off a lot of modules. I'm willing to do a little re-skinning, but if a module focuses on fighting a band of orcs in the snowy mountains, I'll just disregard it.  Fortunately, the more historically authentic, fairytale tone has been pretty popular with OSR games, so there's a lot of Modules that fit it. Plus there's games like Pendragon and Dragon Warriors that are specifically designed for it. I advanced the tech level of Dolmenwood to a late renaissance/early modern one, so I can bring in some material from Warhammer Fantasy and Lamentations, too.

Within that framework, I'm trying to avoid certain things, particularly modules that require a very specific political/social dynamic or location to make sense. I also prefer modules with some amount of a character/investigation focus, rather than pure "go here, kill this, get the thing" adventures. Personally I think the best modules in any system are ones that set up a relatively complicated situation, with lots of different players and motivations (and preferably a timeline), and then drop the players into the works. That's partially just personal preference, but they're also easier to stitch together to make a campaign out of.

Once I have a module I think makes a decent candidate, I put it on an excel spreadsheet that categorizes by source system, recommended level, environment, and what kind of quest hook is recommended (i.e., is there a quest-giver or is it something the PCs just blunder into). The idea is that if my players decide to go explore the High Wold, I can look for an on-level adventure that takes place in farmland or downland, and then look at how to drop it in their path.

In terms of practice, I try to have two adventures sort of half-prepared at any time, based on what direction I think the players are going. That way I can keep up enough player options without getting caught totally unprepared. I also advance roll random encounters between sessions, so I've always got some content ready to go if I need to fill time.

On the subject of random encounters, you want to have as few "a troll attacks you in the woods" encounters as possible. Dolmenwood has a table for what the NPCs are doing when you encounter them. Even without the table, it's best to decide that for your encounters. Even if it ends in a fight, an encounter with some roleplay potential can serve as a mini-adventure by itself. There's a trick I've used in prior campaigns, though not in this one, that I call "local legends". The idea is that you write up a bunch of mini-adventures, just one or two encounters long (kind of a midway point between a random encounter and a full adventure), that can be dropped pretty much anywhere on the campaign map. The way I did it before was that whenever the players stopped in an inn or tavern they had a chance to get told about some event or local myth  that they could then decide if they wanted to go investigate. It's a great way to fill time while giving the illusion of the setting being full of stuff going on, and my players pretty much always went for it. If you can get a hold of the book The Atlas of Magical Britain by Janet and Colin Bond, it's chock full of little bits of local folklore you can use for mini-adventures.

I actually do most of my rules conversion in real-time while running the module. If you're running another OSR game or something with a similar enough structure, you shouldn't need to do more than tune a couple of numbers. THAC0 can be quick-converted on the fly by just inverting the numbers. For games like DCC that use a For/Ref/Will save system, I usually come up with a fixed save target of somewhere between 12-15 and roll NPC saves against that using their listed modifiers and common sense for which one fits a given effect. For games where the stats don't match up as neatly, I don't really try to convert, so much as just restat the NPC for the game I'm playing. This is a lot easier with human NPCs, of course, but you can do it with monsters by referencing comparable power-level monsters in the system you're converting to. I don't rewrite the module, just put my homebrew stats on a word document and keep it open alongside. For stuff like skill tests, as often as not you can skip them if your players make the right decisions. If not, I'll decide between the built in skills system Dolmenwood has, or just rolling under the appropriate attribute. Generally I do roll under the attribute if the check should be pretty easy, and the Dolmenwood skills if it should be more difficult. 

Beyond that it's really just a question of being willing to change the module to make it fit the campaign. As an example, I just got done running a Warhammer Fantasy adventure. One of the subplots involves a lawyer who is an ex-chaos cultist being blackmailed by his former compatriots. There's no stats for a lawyer in Dolmenwood, and no chaos cults to speak of, so now he's a magician who is being hounded by Druun agents over a magic item he stole from them. I didn't have to change anything else about how the module plays out, and I can use the magic item as a McGuffin for further adventures. It also pays when reading multiple adventures to look for NPCs that can be combined between them. In the aforementioned WFRP module, there's a countess who's being targeted by an assassin. In one of the DCC modules on my list, there's a kidnapped princess. So I made it that the princess is her ward, and the kidnappers were trying to assassinate her to prevent her interfering. That sort of thing.

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 06:38:50 PM
I think the big gap is they are not used to hex crawls, and I had never run a big one before for them, except for the one that was in Tomb of Annihilation, which left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.  So when I dumped a 600-hex crawl on them and said have at it, it wasn't exciting for them it was daunting, and bad memories of Tomb came back. So that's on me as the DM.

Frankly I'm iffy on a pure hexcrawl working on it's own in any case. I watched a couple actual plays of Dolmenwood before I started on it, and both of them were doing the same as I am (and it sounds like you were), using the hexmap as a framework to slot adventures into. Hexcrawl campaigns I've played in have done the same. The problem IMO is that hexcrawling by itself doesn't offer any incentives beyond gold and XP. In my experience, a surprisingly large number of players are not motivated by that. A well-written hexcrawl will have lots of potential for adventure and intrigue written into its hex descriptions and encounter lists, but a) it demands a huge amount of improv from the DM to keep it interesting, and b) it can be hard to get to that point if your player's don't feel they have a reason to go hex-crawling in the first place.

I suppose you can chalk it up to player conditioning to an extent. Videogame sandboxes have that "go here to get a quest then go do the quest" formatting, and people have gotten used to it. But again I don't really blame people. I also am not much motivated by imaginary money, and prefer a clear objective to just bumblefucking around the countryside looking for something to do. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 16, 2024, 04:53:49 PM
OSE is probably the OSR game I am the least familiar with, but Dolemwood classes mostly have a step lower hit die compared to their DCC or Castles & Crusades equivalent. They seem to have slower attack bonus progression as well, and there's no weapon multi-attack ability for fighters. The available spells seem to be a bit less fighty to me, too, and healing spells less readily available.

It seems about on par in terms of HPs as BECMI/BX, but, yeah, spells seem a bit "Weak".  For everyone except the enchnater, I went back to just using the OSE (and the expanded list from Labyrinth Lord) for spells.  Easier when someone says "I cast sleep" instead of "vapors of dream"

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 06:38:50 PM
If you mean how I pick out modules and use/convert them for my game, then I got plenty to say: I started out for this campaign skim-reading a bunch of modules from systems I thought might match up well with Dolmenwood. I'm lucky in that I have a ton of pdfs that have just accumulated on my computer over time, but if you ask for specific recommendations around here, you can usually get pointed in the right direction.

Yep, the latter, for example, which actual adventures did you use, and how, if any, did you weave them into a story?  Thanks for elucidating.  There is an excel sheet floating around on the internet with a long list of Dolmenwood-compatible OSR adventures (that is, fairy tale adventures, ones that would fit in easily).  If you don't have that I can look for the link and share it.

Quote from: solomani on February 13, 2024, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 16, 2024, 04:53:49 PM
If you mean how I pick out modules and use/convert them for my game, then I got plenty to say: I started out for this campaign skim-reading a bunch of modules from systems I thought might match up well with Dolmenwood. I'm lucky in that I have a ton of pdfs that have just accumulated on my computer over time, but if you ask for specific recommendations around here, you can usually get pointed in the right direction.

Yep, the latter, for example, which actual adventures did you use, and how, if any, did you weave them into a story?  Thanks for elucidating.  There is an excel sheet floating around on the internet with a long list of Dolmenwood-compatible OSR adventures (that is, fairy tale adventures, ones that would fit in easily).  If you don't have that I can look for the link and share it.

So my campaign is still pretty young, so the only modules I've used so far are:

--Prince Charming: Re-Animator (Dungeon Crawl Classics). I'll be running the sequel, Creeping Beauties of the Wood, but I'm holding it for a little bit.
--A Rough Night at the Three Feathers (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
--Bride of the Darkened Rider (Dungeon Crawl Classics)

The next module on deck is The Queen of Elfland's Son (Also DCC)

If I could recommend one module product for Dolmenwood, it'd be the book Sleeping Gods for the Dragon Warriors RPG. Dragon Warriors is not OSR, but it is very similar in tone to Dolmenwood, and it's another class-based 80s game, so it's an easy conversion. The book presents a 7 adventure mini-campaign, and 5 or 6 of those adventures could be easily slotted into Dolmenwood by just changing a few character names. The only reason I'm not using it is I used most of the adventures running Dragon Warriors for the same players a year ago. A lot of the material in the Elven Crystals and Prince of Darkness adventure books would probably work as well.

Another adventure I ran for my Dragon Warriors campaign which would work extremely well for Dolmenwood is the Pendragon adventure The Adventure of the Fairie Road, which is in the book Tales of Magic and Miracles. Several of the adventures in that book would work well for Dolmenwood.

Other modules on my list of candidates include:
--The Witch of Monte Rosa (OSRIC)
--Lands of the Dark Wicche (Oneshotadventures.com)
--A Thorn in the Side (For Gold and Glory)
--Of Beasts and Men (For Gold and Glory)
--The Sepulchre of Seven (Indy, but statted for OSE)
--Hell Rides to Hallit (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
--Come Drown With Me (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
--The Siege of Walen Temple (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
--The Haunting Horror (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
--The Adventure of the Rosebriar Knight (Pendragon)
--Red Vengeance (Savage Worlds Solomon Kane)
--The Cursed Chateau (Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
--Tales of the Scarecrow (Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
--No Rest for the Wicked (Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
--No Salvation for Witches (Lamentations of the Flame Princess)
--The Knight's Tale (Dragon Warriors)
--The Black Monastery (Swords & Wizardry)


If you can find that list, it'd certainly save me a lot of work, and I'd be grateful.

Cool, thanks.  Here is the list:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bR8j8akOPQ5qZMcRlvuf-cbGaAo9kW6q/edit#gid=91902735

Another thing to remember about OSR is that it consciously emulates the early D&D experience and Garry Gygax HATED magic users as PCs and wanted to actively discourage them--by making them suck most heinously until very high level. If I recall correctly he had to be badgered into including the option at all, feeling that PCs using significant magic spoiled the mystery of it. He was very invested in early pulp fantasy where the heroes were always fighting men.

Yep. Makes sense. Especially when you see pulp stories like Conan where magic is always bad.  Or at least deeply untrustworthy.

Quote from: solomani on February 18, 2024, 03:05:07 AM
Cool, thanks.  Here is the list:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bR8j8akOPQ5qZMcRlvuf-cbGaAo9kW6q/edit#gid=91902735

Thanks. Some crossover with my list there, but lots of new stuff to look into. Should be a big help.

Quote from: DocFlamingo on February 18, 2024, 01:20:32 PM
Another thing to remember about OSR is that it consciously emulates the early D&D experience and Garry Gygax HATED magic users as PCs and wanted to actively discourage them--by making them suck most heinously until very high level. If I recall correctly he had to be badgered into including the option at all, feeling that PCs using significant magic spoiled the mystery of it. He was very invested in early pulp fantasy where the heroes were always fighting men.

He was kind of right. Readily available player magic is antithetical to trying to replicate the tone of Howardian or Leiberian fantasy. On the other hand, you could strip the Magic-User class out of D&D entirely, and the players would still have tons of magic at their disposal (not the least of which being Clerics). And intentionally making one of your core classes bad is possibly the worst of all solutions to the issue. 

(https://y.yarn.co/3c70ddf8-3845-47c2-ba30-444239daf033_text.gif)

It also depends on which game is used.   Many alternate magic systems exist that won't have this issue.

Palladium Books uses magic points instead of spells slots.   You can spam ranged attacks with magic, but only for so many times. 

Also, Palladium magic was more about crowd control and circumventing obstacles.  Got a big river to cross?  One Wall of Ice spell, and instant ice barge big enough for everyone and the horses & carts. 

OSR is tough because simple unlimited use cantrips are not in these OSR games.  I've only seen it once in Olde Swords Reign, and there are two. Prestidigitations (weak telekinesis), and a small fireball (1D3 damage). 

It's one of the reasons I gravitate to lesser know games.  I don't enjoy Vancian magic. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 20, 2024, 08:09:46 PM
He was kind of right. Readily available player magic is antithetical to trying to replicate the tone of Howardian or Leiberian fantasy. On the other hand, you could strip the Magic-User class out of D&D entirely, and the players would still have tons of magic at their disposal (not the least of which being Clerics).

I definitely feel this, and it's only gotten worse as editions go on. Even just in 3e, because classes are supposed to be at least kinda balanced, sorcerers and the like get a significant amount of magic out of the gates, and being able to pick your class at character creation makes just having magic as simple as picking your character's clothes. It makes the whole setting feel different, since magic is made so mundane. I like the approach of making wizards total scrubs early on, and having to earn the good stuff.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 21, 2024, 01:03:14 PM
Also, Palladium magic was more about crowd control and circumventing obstacles

Utility magic is where it's at. I'd be fine with the only damaging spell anybody gets until medium to high level is magic missile, which is basically just an unerring crossbow. Everything else should just be utility.

Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

Two of my favorite games use non-Vancian magic.

Pocket Fantasy wizards have two things going for them. They get 2 spells per fight, but are limited to the six "combat spells" listed in the rules.  However, each new fight gives them two more uses.  Second, they start play with a wimpy staff of ranged attacks with unlimited ammo.

Dungeons & Delvers Dice Pool wizards all start with a fireball spell, but it's no more effective than a throwing dagger.  If you put a wizard vs an archer, the bow and arrow is twice the range and double the damage, with the only wizard advantage being unlimited ammo. 

But, as I said before, and Tenbones also just brought up, bring along armor and conventional weapons.  You can use them after the magic is gone dry. 

Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

Bottles of flaming oil are always a nice thing for your spell-less Magic User to toss at enemies.

Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

;) I always reminded my D&D players about the value of darts, knives, and slings. Not only are they cheap and smaller (thus easier to hide), they are also ranged! And darts, knives, and daggers have a higher rate of fire! Oh sure, they pooh-poohed it at first, but a few hirelings showing them up with action economy, or being the armored front line for other hirelings to pepper darts into melee, and the lesson was learned. Buying a high AC for your hirelings and a hamper of darts is not a waste of cash!  8)

Quote from: Opaopajr on February 22, 2024, 09:46:41 PM

Quote from: tenbones on February 22, 2024, 01:37:49 PM
Don't forget bows. You can always shoot an arrow.

;) I always reminded my D&D players about the value of darts, knives, and slings. Not only are they cheap and smaller (thus easier to hide), they are also ranged! And darts, knives, and daggers have a higher rate of fire! Oh sure, they pooh-poohed it at first, but a few hirelings showing them up with action economy, or being the armored front line for other hirelings to pepper darts into melee, and the lesson was learned. Buying a high AC for your hirelings and a hamper of darts is not a waste of cash!  8)

Player Character: "Yeah I used to be a mage.  But I started carrying around a bandolier of darts to throw at my enemies after I used up my one spell.  It turns out that I can throw several darts a round so I just switched over to being a fighter and specialized in Dart.  Now I can stop other mages from casting spells!"

 ;D Be like Oprah, "You get a dart. You get a dart! And you get a dart! Darts for everybody!"

Seriously though a well placed spell often ends an encounter, and sometimes by avoiding it entirely. But wizards don't always have the right spell for the occasion, let it be not found & learned yet, or not currently memorized. It's a great power to skip encounters or laterally skip whole problem areas, but it takes time to get enough options and then enough good guesswork to choose the right ones to memorize.

It's really a different approach to play, like dungeon crawling with a Game Genie and a handful of temporary wonky cheat codes (I know, old reference, maybe one could call it 'mods' that are finite and only turned on at special times).  8) But typically the adventure should be mostly doable without such wonky cheat codes, so playing like a warrior is fine. Thieves are sort of like another set of 'always on' cheat codes that grow in power over time. This conceptualization helps me avoid bad adventure design -- regular elbow grease and appropriate gear should complete most adventures -- and makes magic & thieves' skills feel like an alternate speed run while hunting for Easter eggs with some fun counterbalancing handicaps.  :)

Quote from: Mishihari on February 12, 2024, 09:46:55 PM
My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

The rule from AD&D is that once you enter melee range (10 ft) of an enemy, you are engaged and may not move until you either defeat the enemy or complete a tactical retreat.  There is no getting past the fighter to tackle the Wizard if he is positioned properly.

Quote from: JRR on February 25, 2024, 07:57:39 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on February 12, 2024, 09:46:55 PM
My recollection from AD&D etc is that much of the strategy both for the players and the DM revolved around protecting the magic-user from interruption so he could nuke the enemy.  I think this produced more interesting tactical play by far than later editions where it was not needed.  So I consider it a feature, not a bug.

The rule from AD&D is that once you enter melee range (10 ft) of an enemy, you are engaged and may not move until you either defeat the enemy or complete a tactical retreat.  There is no getting past the fighter to tackle the Wizard if he is positioned properly.

Yes, with up to three front-facing enemies held at bay per person. Over that number you get to flank (one per each side) and finally rear (one). So each individual can be surrounded by six individuals before it goes to second ranks. Further it applies to everyone that individual is aware of in combat that they know is opposed to them -- which gets into useful things like remaining hidden out of combat or backstab betrayals.

So two fighters can flank a wizard on both sides and tie up 3 combatants on each side (3 frontal attackers kept at bay per) and make the wizard essentially unreachable unless using 2nd rank weapons (polearms) at 1st rank (CH:F polearm reach optional rules, GM purview) or ranged into melee.

I've successfully had a wizard hireling NPC defend a druid player like this in the hopes the spell cast was a combat ender -- it was. It also drove home the danger that the wizard and druid were exposed when the wizard had to run melee interference to ensure the spell goes off. Later magic users stayed much closer to the fighters during potential combat situations.  ;)

I don't really feel like most of OSR is suited for "boss fights", because the boss fight in early D&D was the dungeon itself. Monster boss style gameplay was more of a later edition thing and probably really came into its own in 4e. In B/X all monsters are fodder and fairly pointless to fight. The dungeon is what you want to defeat.

Quote from: Dracones on February 25, 2024, 11:13:41 PM
I don't really feel like most of OSR is suited for "boss fights", because the boss fight in early D&D was the dungeon itself. Monster boss style gameplay was more of a later edition thing and probably really came into its own in 4e. In B/X all monsters are fodder and fairly pointless to fight. The dungeon is what you want to defeat.

What about dragons?

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

Quote from: mightybrain on February 26, 2024, 05:38:48 AM
I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

Part of this is a natural evolution of GM skill.  First the budding GM is anything goes because they want to please the players and it is funny to do all kinds of crazy stuff.  Then they realize that some of their rulings are causing a lot of trouble in the campaign, and the pendulum swings hard, way too far, the other way.  Giving time and encouragement, eventually the GM learns to strike a balance.

The other part is largely attributed to "sage advice" being increasingly terrible, and then the internet magnifying that trend.  This is "rules lawyer" GMs and players stagnating in the second phase, thinking that they can collectively set up a body of rules that removes the problem.  Then the game gets more legalistic to cater to them, and the whole process becomes a negative feedback loop on the game.

The cure is a hard break from "sage advice" and all that kind of thinking.  Or, that's the cure for the GM.  For the players, you need more than that.  That's why when I rewrote all the spells for my game I deliberately kept the rules minutiae to a minimum, and even went so far as to deliberately introduce options into as many spells as possible.  Some options are obvious, some are subtle, and some are only emergent once the players have gotten into the style. 

That's not as hard as it sounds, either.  For example, I've got a level 2 fire spell that leaves a ball of fire in the caster's hand, that acts more or less like a torch, except that the player can snuff it/light it with an action, and it is easier to throw than a torch.  At higher levels, it gets a little more damage.  It's a straight-forward "light" spell that you can also use to attack (though the attack is not typically as good as using a weapon).  Can you set things on fire with it?  Of course, it's a ball of fire in your hand.  Does getting doused make it go out?  Of course, it's a ball of fire in your hand.  Does it give off smoke and light and possibly warn others of your approach? You guessed it!  It's easy to remember my rulings, because all I'm doing is ruling on how "fire works" in the game (mostly like real world, with a few elemental magic tweaks). 

Using spells and items like that, I'm slowly weaning players new to my group off of this distrust of GM rulings.

I just stopped using systems where you can't choose to both have magic and be able to take a punch without exploding.

Quote from: mightybrain on February 26, 2024, 05:38:48 AM

Quote from: Persimmon on February 13, 2024, 01:48:17 PM
I do think a lot of players of later (post-TSR) editions of D&D have been conditioned in a totally different way in terms of approach and problem solving.  Instead of using your limited abilities to creatively solve challenges, like, for example, casting create water in the villain's throat or casting silence 15' radius on an object and tossing that at the enemy caster's feet, they're always looking for specific situations to use their cool abilities or signature moves.  I saw this firsthand in a game where all of us except one (the son of one of the other players) were 30 plus year D&D vets.  The whole time we played the teenage kid was just reading the rulebooks, trying to wait for scenarios when he could use very specific powerful abilities.  So rather than adjust tactics to situations, they wait for the situation to fit their preferred tactics, if that makes sense.

I've also been in games where the DM disallowed that kind of creative casting. As in they just flat out say it doesn't work and your spell is wasted. Do that a couple of times and players soon learn not to try anything creative. Ever.

"Note that water can neither be created nor destroyed within a creature."

Having played many OD&D Wizards (both as PC and NPC), they are perfectly fine as RAW and far better if you allow them to scribe scrolls regularly and easily at low levels.

A smart OD&D wizard uses hirelings as meat shields. Charm Person means that you regularly get enemy NPCs as disposable warriors and at higher levels, Charm Monster means a wizard can have scary hirelings.

Also, low level wizards are dagger throwers and in OD&D, they really aren't THAT much worse in combat than Clerics or Fighters. So it's common for Wizards to toss daggers and flank foes when the shit goes down so they can do some stabby stabby. 

But that's an advantage of OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry, etc) where weapons are base 1D6 and monsters are based 1D6 per HD. AKA, a lucky wizard can stab a 2 HD monster to death in one hit! (Or vice versa).

A buddy of mine in an OD&D game recently got incredibly lucky with a Troll failing its magic save vs. Charm. Totally unbalanced? Sure, but in OD&D that's a FEATURE not a BUG.

Quote from: Spinachcat on March 02, 2024, 09:13:25 PM
Having played many OD&D Wizards (both as PC and NPC), they are perfectly fine as RAW and far better if you allow them to scribe scrolls regularly and easily at low levels.

A smart OD&D wizard uses hirelings as meat shields. Charm Person means that you regularly get enemy NPCs as disposable warriors and at higher levels, Charm Monster means a wizard can have scary hirelings.

Also, low level wizards are dagger throwers and in OD&D, they really aren't THAT much worse in combat than Clerics or Fighters. So it's common for Wizards to toss daggers and flank foes when the shit goes down so they can do some stabby stabby. 

But that's an advantage of OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry, etc) where weapons are base 1D6 and monsters are based 1D6 per HD. AKA, a lucky wizard can stab a 2 HD monster to death in one hit! (Or vice versa).

A buddy of mine in an OD&D game recently got incredibly lucky with a Troll failing its magic save vs. Charm. Totally unbalanced? Sure, but in OD&D that's a FEATURE not a BUG.

I don't follow you. It's unbalanced that a monster failed its saving throw? should monsters not fail their saving throws?

I never got the whole "Daggers only" rule for Magic-Users.  Wouldn't a guy with a high intelligence and no armor want to keep thier enemies as far away as possible? 

Daggers are difficult weapons to throw, requiring lots of practice.  The range sucks.

Can you imagine the wizard acadamies teaching young apprentices how to fight with daggers?

If you ask me, Magic-Users should be training with the sword and buckler, and the quarterstaff.  Since these were the weapons often used by medieval university sturents.  Of course daggers would be an option.  And also maybe the crossbow since it required a bit of intellect to maintain.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 04, 2024, 11:19:36 AM
I never got the whole "Daggers only" rule for Magic-Users.  Wouldn't a guy with a high intelligence and no armor want to keep thier enemies as far away as possible? 

Daggers are difficult weapons to throw, requiring lots of practice.  The range sucks.

Can you imagine the wizard acadamies teaching young apprentices how to fight with daggers?

If you ask me, Magic-Users should be training with the sword and buckler, and the quarterstaff.  Since these were the weapons often used by medieval university sturents.  Of course daggers would be an option.  And also maybe the crossbow since it required a bit of intellect to maintain.

I always thought that light crossbows should be the most common ranged weapons for a magic user since it is the most simple to actually use. Far easier than bows. Slings and daggers are much harder to become sufficiently trained with to be effective.

Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 04, 2024, 04:15:32 PM
Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree. But I would also add one possible variant I've been using:

I prefer tying damage output to class but let any class use any weapon.
So instead of limiting mages to only use daggers (and staffs depending  in edition)  in melee they may use any one-handed weapon, but still roll 1d4 for damage. 1d6 for two-handed (like when useing a staff). Apply same principle with both melee&ranged weapons to the others classes as well.

I let any character use any weapon, but large amounts of iron in near contact with your skin inhibits casting spells.  It doesn't prevent it, but it does make it slightly more difficult.  Then I'm fairly generous on where the limits are.  Iron arrow heads or spear points?  No problem.  Big end of a battle axe?  Problem.  Short sword with an ivory hilt in a leather scabbard?  OK!  Great sword slung on your back?  Too much.  Arming sword with a bronze blade (and about the longest you can go with bronze even magically enhanced), also no problem.  Brigandine and scale tunics made of bronze that weigh even more?  If you have the "strength" to haul it around, knock yourself out. 

All of that is with my casters being a bit more useful with weapons than D&D wizards, too.  It's designed so that a high-level enchanter or sorcerer is a better weapon user than most extremely low-level creatures, but spells gradually outstrip their weapon use, as they finally get some spells that can punch.  Meanwhile, warriors are quickly picking up bonus damage with all their weapons, along with a better base chance to hit and more options to improve their general weapon use.  This gives the casters a chance to use pretty much any flavor of weapon they want, while leaving some of the heaviest hitters out of their league.  Since they don't have nearly as many weapon special abilities, they can't maximize their weapon use either.  Then there is one caster class that combines magic and weapons at the expense of adventuring skills, so you can have "cleric" or "paladin" or "blade singers" or other such caster/melee concepts, if you are willing to pay for it. Meanwhile, elves go the other way, naturally better at magic but even more adverse to iron than everyone else.  You'll rarely see an elf with any kind of axe in my game.

The original abstraction in D&D that limits the wizards so hard on weapons is in the service of specific details with underlying reasons.  I've just shifted the reasons and the abstractions around to allow a little more customization, while "strongly encouraging" wizard-types to stick to simple weapons and little armor.

Quote from: Teodrik on March 04, 2024, 04:32:51 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 04, 2024, 04:15:32 PM
Greetings!

I tend to think that Mages and weapon usage comes down to a training issue. Mages are not Warriors, and never benefit from a host of special Warrior abilities, skills, and powers. Thus, let Mages use whatever melee or ranged weapon that they like, if they can gain the basic training in the style of weapon.

Allowing a Mage to thus carry around a shortbow, or a crossbow, to use alongside a Mage's more traditional weapons of a dagger, quarterstaff, and darts, really is not going to break the game. In a similar manner, let the Mage carry a shortsword, or a longsword, scimitar, Saex, bearded axe, hand axe, club, or light mace. Whatever kind of basic melee weapon, as appropriate to their culture and training. Again, a Mage using such a weapon in combat as needed whenever they cannot cast their spells, really is not a big deal. Embracing this also deals effecively with any angst about realism and making sense using a frigging hand axe as an emergency or what have you.

Mages are not any good with using such weapons anyways--as the aforementioned comparison with Warriors. Thus, again, it won't break the game. Likewise, it adds realism, and also provides the Mage character with a bit more utility and effectiveness beyond just standing there helplessly whenever they run out of spells for the day, or have a spell failure.

If a DM is desperate to avoid any kind of perception conflict, stepping on class toes, whatever, just reskin the ability. Instead of using whatever ordinary, normal weapon as the Mage character may have gained training in--if that is too much of a stretch for the campaign's comfort zone, make it a special Mage Ability to "Summon Weapon"--and innate special ability that Mages learn as Apprentices that allow them to summon forth a magically-created, magically-empowered weapon, which has a temporary spell duration. Five minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, at will, whatever seems most appropriate. There you go. They get to do 1D4, 1D6, or 1D8 normal damage per attack. Again, melee or ranged, as appropriate. It really is that simple.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree. But I would also add one possible variant I've been using:

Tie damage output to class but let any class use any weapon.
So instead of limiting mages to only use daggers (and staffs depending  in edition)  in melee they may use any one-handed weapon but still roll 1d4 for damage. 1d6 for two-handed (like when useing a staff). Apply same principle with both melee&ranged weapons to the others classes as well.

Greetings!

Nice, Teodrik!

Yeah, in my experience, being more flexible and open-minded with the classes and weapon usage--like in the example "problem" here of Mages--embracing that, biting that bullet so to speak, merely adds realism, provides the Mage characters with less of a "Stupid Factor"--and allows the game to move on smoothly, all the while, nothing game-breaking ever happens. In my campaigns, Mage characters know full well that they suck in hand-to-hand combat, or ranged combat, compared to Warriors, Hunters, Rogues, and what have you. However, they can at least contribute in desperate fights when their spells are not up, and not look at you with that frustrated look that combines "I'm so fucked!" with "Why the fuck did I roll a stupid Mage character again?". ;D

It reminds me of an old tidbit--my Mage character can use a hand-axe to chop firewood for the camp, or he can use a shovel to help dig a latrine pit--but he can't use either weapon or tool to fight off the hungry wolves in the camp, or the Goblin scouts that attack the camp at dawn?

I don't like what I call "Stupid Factors" like that, things that rub my brain the wrong way with a lack of realism like some kind of fucking sandpaper. So, I changed it ages ago, and have never worried about it. Players don't mind, there is no character upstaging or toe-stepping, the genre is preserved--and the Players as well as myself, don't have to wrestle with that nagging feeling of being stupid. ;D

And, as you may know, I'm an OSR guy. I like the traditions, the old ways, the old styles and old approaches. However, some things are just stupid, and need to be changed. Some new ideas and changes to the game and the hobby through the years have in fact been positive, and very welcome. Questioning and reviewing some Class restrictions, weapon usage, and embracing more flexibility is certainly one of those positive improvements.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK