|
I really like this because it coincides with my vision of what a D&D party looks like (according to the books and movies I've consumed), but doesn't match my actual experience with D&D. I feel like I'd have a hard time selling this to a group of players, but I'd really enjoy it.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
I've been wanting to run a Basic game for a while now, and I may actually try and sell that system as a "let's tell a story that could be an Epic" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
WIth some minor juggling of roles, it almost looks like an Order of the Stick RPG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:WIth some minor juggling of roles, it almost looks like an Order of the Stick RPG. If you change some of the characters from their very classic roles in stories from a variety of cultures to meet the archetypes of things like "elf" or "dwarf", it's basically just making you assemble your party from some really well conserved tropes in mythology and oral storytelling. That it would get reused elsewhere isn't surprising in the least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:WIth some minor juggling of roles, it almost looks like an Order of the Stick RPG. You could model Record of Lodoss War off it as well. It'd be excellent for pick-up games where you don't have a ton of time to do all the "how do we know each other" background stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:You could model Record of Lodoss War off it as well. It'd be excellent for pick-up games where you don't have a ton of time to do all the "how do we know each other" background stuff. Record of Lodoss War was one of the first things I thought about while reading it as well, especially with the Fighter being the leader and the Elf being their most trusted companion. The fact that their own interpretation of the Elf is less Fighter/Magic-User with the serial numbers filed off and more of a nature-focused magical warrior makes it even clearer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Oh man that sounds really amazing to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:I've been thinking about it since I asked about an Immortals set reprint... has anyone ever done much with the Immortals set? Everything seemed really really cool., but the amount of bookkeeping required to maintain and level your character always turned me off of actually using the rules. I asked Frank Mentzer about this at OSRCon (which was really a bunch of people sitting around in a condo's party room playing games like Mutant Future and BECMI) and he said that he never intended the Immortals set to be used for playable characters, but to be for DMs who felt the need to quantify gods. Marketing just told him to refrain from saying that in the product.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I asked Frank Mentzer about this at OSRCon (which was really a bunch of people sitting around in a condo's party room playing games like Mutant Future and BECMI) and he said that he never intended the Immortals set to be used for playable characters, but to be for DMs who felt the need to quantify gods. Marketing just told him to refrain from saying that in the product. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Thanks for asking Mentzer and clearing that up!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Just ran my first Hackmaster/AD&D2e session, and it went great! Many many thanks to AlphaDog for helping out a while back with his streamlined Hackmaster suggestions - so far it's worked great. I'm running Hackmaster rules with the very jokey Castle Greyhawk module, which is a perfect fit. The players still talk about the HM game I ran last time and expected 'treasure' of socks and sweaters and came with characters full of attitude, and the module spits that attitude right back at them, from the forced bribe to get past the front gate all the way to the massively inflated prices for gear, hirelings and absolutely everything. We even role-played contract negotiations for the taxes on the loot they take out of the dungeon! The players want to see an actual contract! Brilliant. Of course (luckily for me, since I barely read the rules, I only had time to read the module) all the negotiations and everything took up that much time that we didn't have time to get into combat, so we'll see how that goes next session. But so far, so good! We had to pause several times just for the laughter to subside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Ok, this thread has been in my bookmarks for a bit and I was finally curious enough to read the entire thing. Now I have a couple of questions if you guys wouldn't mind clearing them up. 1. If I wanted to play D&D as a pseudo-board game, sorta like recreating HeroQuest but with a little more depth, which version should I look into? B/X, BECMI (RC), one of the clones, AD&D? 2. What did the Rules Cyclopedia do wrong that really needed changing in the clones? Would I be better off using one of those rather than buying the RC PDF? 3. Why all the hate for AD&D 2E? Forgive me, I know some of these have been answered before. My background is that I was introduced as a kid to AD&D 2E. I played a few games of that and then basically fell out of D&D (went the Palladium route unfortunately), and didn't rejoin until 3E. We played a lot of 3E but never for much contiguously and never gained the vaunted System Mastery. I did hate that as a melee character I usually was worthless, but it took me a bunch of games to realize it. I have a soft spot for 2E because that's where I started. All of my memories of being devoured by bowls of pudding and wondering who Bigsby and that weirdo Tenser were start there. I've been tempted repeatedly to sit down with the 2E rules and see if I could learn them well enough to gain system mastery and then start houseruling it until it seemed more fun. I've never gotten very far, my last attempt ended up with me selling or giving away all my 3E stuff and buying a shitton of 4E, which I quite like. However, something keeps calling me back to 2E and sparks my interest in the older editions as well. So, a little guidance if you please!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Xir posted:1. If I wanted to play D&D as a pseudo-board game, sorta like recreating HeroQuest but with a little more depth, which version should I look into? B/X, BECMI (RC), one of the clones, AD&D? You're going to have to do a bit of a hack to make the board game thing work in any of them, but it actually seems probably pretty easy to pull off--they're all designed to be hacked. I'd personally vote for either B/X or RC. B/X and RC are basically clones of each other--the first two letters of each are both '[B]asic / [E][X]pert'. BECMI just takes things to slightly higher levels. I haven't played RC itself yet, but I get the feeling you could easily run a campaign where half the players were using RC and the other half were using B/X. The clones are just there for publishing reasons. The first wave of clones were just so that you could publish a D&D module without needing to call it a D&D module. Later ones tend to be more about focusing the game on a specific type of play--ACKS is basically a empire-building splatbook for Basic that includes Basic's core rules within it. If you can find cheap RC/BX books on ebay there's no reason not to use them, though. I just don't like running from a PDF. I think I actually just have some hate (not really hate--both are really fun games) on AD&D in general more than on 2E in particular. Basic is just amazingly streamlined, and with 1E you started getting a bunch of bloaty extra rules that bog the game down too much for my taste. The reason some people who like 1E didn't like 2E wasn't really related to rules things, though--the rules are pretty similar. It's that 2E was where a fairly big mindset shift happened with the game. It became much more about playing through stories and creating a much larger (and less focused) world to live in, and a lot of people felt like this made the game too railroady and took too much focus away from the one thing that D&D really shined at (dungeon crawls).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:The reason some people who like 1E didn't like 2E wasn't really related to rules things, though--the rules are pretty similar. It's that 2E was where a fairly big mindset shift happened with the game. It became much more about playing through stories and creating a much larger (and less focused) world to live in, and a lot of people felt like this made the game too railroady and took too much focus away from the one thing that D&D really shined at (dungeon crawls). That, and the core rules cut out a chunk of prominent content that had been in the 1e core rules (notably half-orcs, monks, assassins, demons and devils). The fiends were reintroduced to the game pretty early in its lifespan, and half-orcs were reintroduced as playable in a few sources, but monks and assassins never really had one specific canonical incarnation in 2e, either as a class or as as kit. And while I've never heard anyone ever relay a story about an assassin in their game that couldn't have instead been about a thief/rogue with zero relevant details changed, and half-orcs and monks were always kind of a vestigial part of the game even when they were in the PHB... but demons and devils were and still are a pretty major part of the game's bestiary and lore, and cutting them from the game entirely (at least for a couple years) was definitely a noteworthy change. A lot of the hate for 2e is really a hate for the shift in the game's flavor and character in the late 80s through the early 90s, the post-Gygax and pre-Planescape era. Certain grognards like to lump 2e as a whole in with Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms and the hyper-conservative reaction to the Satanic panic that influenced TSR's decision-making in that period (never mind that the flavor that characterized core 3e also characterized the last ~4 years of 2e material writ large).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
I haven't seen any references to Tunnels and Trolls in this thread. Ken St. Andre, the original author, claims that his system is the second tabletop RPG next to D&D. I have the 7.5 rules box. It's a well put together package, but I've only read through it and not actually played. I've also supported their Kickstarter for the next edition. Any opinions? BTW, thanks for the tip on Labyrinth Lord. Bought the PDFs as soon as I read up on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
McGlu posted:I haven't seen any references to Tunnels and Trolls in this thread. Ken St. Andre, the original author, claims that his system is the second tabletop RPG next to D&D. The only thing I've heard about T&T was something vaguely about how the combat could be condensed into some small series of rolls. I have no idea if that is accurate, or some weird houserule I'd caught wind of. What is the system like?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:The fiends were reintroduced to the game pretty early in its lifespan, and half-orcs were reintroduced as playable in a few sources, but monks and assassins never really had one specific canonical incarnation in 2e, either as a class or as as kit. There was a actually a monk class presented in the Scarlet Brotherhood supplement for the revised Greyhawk setting (The Adventure Begins and related supplements) that was released in the late 1990's. Regarding the eternal discussion on 1E vs 2E AD&D, I've always preferred 2E. 1E has a lot of "flavor", sure, but it's a disorganized mess of separate rules system that don't play well together most of the time. 2E didn't fix this altogether, but it was a lot easier to learn for someone without previous D&D experience. As for 2E being a "cleaned-up" version, I don't see why that has to be a bad thing. Then again, I don't consider random prostitute tables and gender-based ability modifiers to be absolutely essential in order to enjoy the game. To be honest, the only thing from 1E that I really missed in the 2E books was the random dungeon generator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The only thing I've heard about T&T was something vaguely about how the combat could be condensed into some small series of rolls. I have no idea if that is accurate, or some weird houserule I'd caught wind of. What is the system like? I played it once a long while ago and it was pretty fun, but something I'd have trouble running a campaign in. If I remember right (I'm sure I'm not) it's something like everyone gets a combat value, each team adds everyone's values together to make some score, and somehow this turns into both sides rolling buckets of dice and one team getting obliterated. The other team gets a little blowback for, like, every 6 rolled on the losing team's dice, but I think suffers no other problems. The one time I played it I somehow ended up with a dwarf with 50 STR (in a system that generally used the D&D 3-18 curve). There was some weirdness with a stat multiplier for certain races and exploding stat dice. It was pretty fun for a one-shot, but I felt really bad that I was stronger than literally the rest of the team put together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Xir posted:2. What did the Rules Cyclopedia do wrong that really needed changing in the clones? Would I be better off using one of those rather than buying the RC PDF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The only thing I've heard about T&T was something vaguely about how the combat could be condensed into some small series of rolls. I have no idea if that is accurate, or some weird houserule I'd caught wind of. What is the system like? From Flying Buffalo's website: "The combat rules for the T&T fantasy role playing system are really quite simple. You get to roll a certain number of six sided dice, according to what kind of weapon you are carrying/using. [A scimitar, for instance, gets 4 dice]. You get to add a number to your total called "adds" [which can be a negative number] which is based upon your personal characteristics: strength, dexterity, and luck. For each number over 12 on each of these, you get one "add" and for each number under 9 you deduct one "add". Thus if your strength is 6, and your luck is 12, and your dexterity is 18, your total "adds" would be +3. [Deduct 3 because you are pretty wimpy, and don't add anything for your somewhat average luck, but add 6 because you are extremely agile]. You also could get bonuses for a magic weapon, or poisoned weapon; and there are special rules for magical combat, ranged weapons (bows) and for "going berserk" but ignore them for now. The monster gets to roll a certain number of dice depending on his "monster rating." He gets one six sided die for each 10 points of monster rating, plus one. [i.e. for 1-9 he gets one die. For 10-19 he gets 2 dice. For 20-29 he gets 3 dice, etc]. Plus he gets "adds" of one half of his current monster rating (which may change during the combat). Thus a monster with a "rating" of 24 gets 3 dice, plus add 12 to whatever he rolls on those 3 dice. You roll your dice, and add the "adds" to it for a number. The monster rolls his dice and adds his "adds" to that roll. Subtract the smaller number from the larger, and the difference is the number of "hits" taken by the fighter who rolled the smaller number. Any "hits" taken against the monster reduce his monster rating [and thus his future combat rolls]. If you get his monster rating to zero, you have killed him. Any "hits" taken against you reduces your constitution by that number of hits. If your "CON" gets to zero, you are dead. However, you may be able to reduce the number of "hits" you take by wearing armor. [For example, leather armor will reduce the number of "hits" against you every combat round, by 6. If you are wearing leather armor, and the monster gets 4 "hits" on you, you take no damage. This doesn't damage the armor either, so you could take up to 6 hits every combat round and never get hurt at all.] You will notice that whoever wins the first round of comat is probably going to continue to win, which makes combat in T&T very quick. If the monster is losing, he will lose even faster as his monster rating goes down. And if you are losing, you probably should run away, or try something else [such as magic, if available]. Questions? e mail to rick at flying buffalo dot com" What throws people off about T&T combat is the collective combat system: You basically just add the sides up and roll them off against one another. 4 MR 30 monsters would roll 12d6+60. If for example the party could only muster say 10d6+47 from their 3 guys, chances are they'd lose this fight. To upset those odds, they'd have to come up with some daring and appropriate stunts, but that's another story involving what T&T calls 'saving throws'. Oh and another thing: When damage is scored, it is assigned arbitrarily by the TM. If, using the example above, 25 points of damage went through to the party, the TM could assign it as justified by the fiction. That really threw me off at first, but these days I see it as a proto-Dungeon World feature. :0
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:RC made clubs do more damage than maces, which is kinda silly. Also, a big thing that people really gently caress up with BECMI and RC is that they think weapon specialization is only for high level characters because it was contained in the Master set. It wasn't. It plainly said that if you are adding weapon skills to a game in progress to give the players the appropriate weapon skills to catch up. Also, RC got rid of the Avenger, a chaotic fighter path that was the most dominant melee character in D&D history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
Xir posted:1. If I wanted to play D&D as a pseudo-board game, sorta like recreating HeroQuest but with a little more depth, which version should I look into? B/X, BECMI (RC), one of the clones, AD&D? 1. I'd stick to the race-is-class-based nature of B/X or any clone thereof. It seems right for this type of game. 2. IMO the BECMI RC is the one-book solution you're looking for. The one thing I don't like about the RC is weapon specialization - I find it far too overpowered - but WS is a freestanding rules module and easily discarded or modified. It is in no way a dealbreaker. Also, check this out. It's a set of extra classes that worked very well for our RC campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Nah, the Avenger's in there. Why was it so dominant? All I see is the ability to detect evil and have monster followers. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:You can charm monsters, and whenever you enter a dungeon, ruin, or castle you can ask to parley with the leader if it is chaotic. This flips the game upside down because you can ask for sanctuary in dungeons, then pretend to be a knight and do the same at castles. On top of this, you get cleric spells, turn undead, and it doesn't slow your fighter progression in the fighter supremacy edition. Smash is pretty ridiculous too. If you've been specializing in the same weapons, the -4 to hit is trivial and lets you add your strength to your damage. It ends up being drat near triple damage. If you have a good charisma, your reaction rolls will be rocking so hard that just about any intelligent creatures leave you the hell alone and you can pick the cream of the crop to be your valet. I fail to see any problem with this! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:To be honest, the only thing from 1E that I really missed in the 2E books was the random dungeon generator. And 2e even had an expanded version of that in the form of the Dungeon Builder's Guidebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:There was a actually a monk class presented in the Scarlet Brotherhood supplement for the revised Greyhawk setting (The Adventure Begins and related supplements) that was released in the late 1990's. That supplement had rules for an assassin class as well, if I remember correctly. It's been ages since I've read through it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Xir posted:1. If I wanted to play D&D as a pseudo-board game, sorta like recreating HeroQuest but with a little more depth, which version should I look into? B/X, BECMI (RC), one of the clones, AD&D? Microlite20. Xir posted:2. What did the Rules Cyclopedia do wrong that really needed changing in the clones? Would I be better off using one of those rather than buying the RC PDF? Nothing, the clones usually just swap out Thac0/combat matrices for 3e style ascending AC and BAB. Xir posted:3. Why all the hate for AD&D 2E? Idiots with bad taste  2e supremacy
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Xir posted:1. If I wanted to play D&D as a pseudo-board game, sorta like recreating HeroQuest but with a little more depth, which version should I look into? B/X, BECMI (RC), one of the clones, AD&D? RC. quote:2. What did the Rules Cyclopedia do wrong that really needed changing in the clones? Would I be better off using one of those rather than buying the RC PDF? Descending AC? Beyond that not a lot. quote:3. Why all the hate for AD&D 2E? It's neither fish nor fowl. Gygaxian D&D was a hacked tabletop wargame, quite literally. And the game presented was one of dungeon looters who gained 1XP for every GP they gathered. The game talked about in the 2e DMG is an encounter based game of epic quests - but if you want to do too much of that using (non-4e) D&D rules you're going to need a lot of dice fudging or something like the Obscure Death Rule from Dragonlance. But with the relegation of XP for GP to an optional rule, you gained XP for two things; killing monsters and behaving like a stereotypical member of your class. Also when 1e launched it was almost the only game in town (Traveller is I think the only real surviving rival). 2e launched post-GURPS and not long before Vampire: the Masquerade. It was showing its age badly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
I started with 2e, went to 3e, then tried 4e as a player and then as a DM. It didn't fit the way I wanted to play (sandbox), so I dragged my players back to 2e. I've ran a campaign for the past few years in a homebrew 2e setting. I pick and choose rules from the PO:C&T and PO:S&M, skipping Skills and Powers entirely as it's terrible. Class handbooks are in, race handbooks are out. Kits are used on a 'let me double check that' basis. It's been great fun. Plus, I wrote a bunch of c++ programs to help me run the game and make the world, including a quick and deep character generator, terrible random name generator, book name generator, weather generator, treasure generator exactly from the DMG with tons of options, and my favorite, my Inngoers program, that spawns groups of NPCs of many types in different groups, originally meant to represent the people found in the inns in my campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
As well as it does what it does, I wish they got rid of variable weapon dice. They could chop out so much bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I'll do some more pondering before I start building a board game that will consume the last of my sanity. I quite like 2e, but I suspect it's rose colored glasses from my youth. Oh well, I'll probably buy the three basic core books off of Amazon and see if nostalgia is enough reason to play it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Compared to 4e, 2e low level characters are much weaker, able to die in a blow or two, so a lot more planning, and perhaps running or diplomacy, are in order. Plus, DMs are encouraged to make the world a bit more realistic, in that not everything that is encountered is meant to be defeated. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's of an even level with the characters and a balanced fight. I like it. I'd start everyone off at 2nd level to pad them out a little bit, and remind the mage that his main job isn't flinging two Magic Missiles then falling asleep, it's more of using his NWP's to help figure things out, and use his magic to do things that no one else can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
I've always been tempted by 2e. I was able to "justify" running 1e as a sort of hardcore "back to the beginning" trip, but the truth is my first exposure to D&D was Baldur's Gate. And that means 2e. Every fantasy RPG I've run or played has been a failed attempt to recreate the experience of playing BG in a social tabletop context. However, I suspect that playing or running actual 2nd Edition AD&D is a fair bit different from playing Baldur's Gate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I've always been tempted by 2e. I was able to "justify" running 1e as a sort of hardcore "back to the beginning" trip, but the truth is my first exposure to D&D was Baldur's Gate. And that means 2e. The DM will get mad if you try to rest after every fight and send waves of random monsters to gently caress with you. Wait a minute, that's just like BG.  To be serious, playing 2E can be a lot like BG. The only rules that will really get used are the combat rules, and the key to surviving combat is hanging back with ranged weapons and making liberal use of buff spells and potions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The DM will get mad if you try to rest after every fight and send waves of random monsters to gently caress with you. Wait a minute, that's just like BG. Wow, that's astoundingly spot on. drat, why did I like Baldur's Gate again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Ravendas posted:I pick and choose rules from the PO:C&T and PO:S&M, skipping Skills and Powers entirely as it's terrible. Class handbooks are in, race handbooks are out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:Wow, that's astoundingly spot on. Because it loving owns. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Because it loving owns. Pauser's Gate (as a franchise) is Hall of Fame good (and, like Bard's Tale-influential). Without it, probably no Planescape:Torment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
About Carcosa, I'm aware of the horrible nature of it, but I read that it has "one of the best old school psionics systems ever" somewhere, and I'm wondering if that is true? Like, is it worth ripping out, or would I be better off just using Mutant Future or Stars Without Numbers rules in my Basic clone games instead? I suppose the latter would also mean that terrible people wouldn't get any of my money. I know it gets some poo poo in these corners but Dungeon Crawl Classics is a great game. Just tell your players that you're going to do a game where they have to have 15 guys, who will probably all die save one and that casting Magic Missile can make you grow an extra head and you'll be golden. Also ignore the goofy "thou musteth be familiareth witheth the scribblings of the Appendix N authorseth" claptrap. OtspIII posted:ACKS is basically a empire-building splatbook for Basic that includes Basic's core rules within it. If you can find cheap RC/BX books on ebay there's no reason not to use them, though. I just don't like running from a PDF. ACKS has also added new racial classes, so instead of just being an Elf or Dwarf you can be an Elven Spellsword, Elven Nightblade, Dwarven Vaultguard, Dwarven Craftpriest, etc. It's a pretty cool compromise between Race as Class and later style of Race and Class being distinct. Also I generally run from a PDF - I just have my hard copies floating around the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:About Carcosa, I'm aware of the horrible nature of it, but I read that it has "one of the best old school psionics systems ever" somewhere, and I'm wondering if that is true? Like, is it worth ripping out, or would I be better off just using Mutant Future or Stars Without Numbers rules in my Basic clone games instead? I suppose the latter would also mean that terrible people wouldn't get any of my money. Here's how the psionics system works: 1. If you have high Int, Wis, or Cha, you have a (cumulative) chance to be psionic. 2. Each day, psionic characters roll 1d4 to see how many powers they have. 3. There are 8 powers, so roll 1d8 to get your powers. These range in usefulness from "hearing through walls" to mind control. 4. The number of uses/day is based on your level. Like many other things in Carcosa, it's "balanced" because everything is randomly rolled, over and over again. If I were going to single out anything in Carcosa for praise, it would be some of the totally wacky results you can get from the random tables, like a tank that can cover everything in a mile radius with ooze. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Here's how the psionics system works: It sounds pretty lightweight, but I don't think it's worth putting money in Raggi's pocket. I wish those tables could be made available separately from the book, though. On that note, what's a good, solid psionics system for old school D&D clones? I'm thinking about doing ACKS Dark Sun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 22:43
|
|