|
RC or Dark Dungeons for BECMI. I'd go with BECMI, because that makes fewer things concrete (for instance, dark dungeons says that weapons are based on class, while RC doesn't actually specify that when using the weapon proficiency rules...)
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
I'm assuming that if I get Darker Dungeons, it still works with BECMI stuff and just has less archaic rules?
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I'm assuming that if I get Darker Dungeons, it still works with BECMI stuff and just has less archaic rules? Generally yes. You just need to be able to translate count-down attack tables into count up bonuses which are helpfully included in Darker Dungeons.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
There are a handful of copyrighted monsters missing, but just a handful.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:So wait, if I want to get into BECMI should I seek out the individual BECMI books, or is the Rules Cyclopedia the way to go? The differences between the box sets combined into the complete BECMI game and RC are small enough that you won't notice them. The big one is that each box set had random treasure charts that differ. RC folded them into one and matched the class of treasure with level equivalent threats. This is not a big deal at because remember, random treasure is the icing. You place the treasure that is part of the adventure first. Not doing this is the number one mistake people make that can turn the game to poo poo. I've played random treasure only, but that was part of the deal; making a horribly punishing meat-grinder with martial classes only. Even then, you'll have to nudge the weapons towards things people are good at. On differences between Dark Dungeons and BECMI (and I think RC too): Dark Dungeons removes my favorite class in the history of D&D the Avenger in favor of making alignment matter less. A good idea in general, and the Avenger might be on the over powered side, but it is very, very fun to play and busted in an interesting way vs. the way d20 spellcasters are broken. At name level, fighters get to be a landed knight, lawful guys can be a paladin, and chaotic can choose Avenger. Avenger casts spells as a paladin, detects evil and turns. What it gets is: they can't get hirelings, instead they can get chaotic monsters. As long as they aren't hostile, and they usually aren't if you made charisma your secondary skill, you can bribe them or beat them into submission. As normal, the rules give you another reaction roll. If that one comes up friendly, they are charmed as per the spell. You can't re-up the charm effect, but there is no reason you can't still be on good terms. The other difference is that while a paladin can ask for sanctuary in a feudal castle, an avenger can ask for sanctuary in a castle, ruin, or dungeon ruled by an intelligent chaotic monster or person. Remember, you can actually talk using your alignment language instead of communicating like E.T. and Elliot. This will flip the game upside down, where most dungeons become the safe place, and the outside world is the danger. The loophole is that like anyone else, you can pretend to be a knight and having the same skills and abilities should make it pretty convincing (remember, charisma is vital to a fighter in BECMI, especially if your party isn't running a druid.) So that's the Avenger for you. In summary, Dark Dungeons is awesome, the pdf is free, the print version is impressive. RC is also cool, if you can get the pdf on the cheap, I would, even if you have DD. The print version of RC is usually ungodly expensive, and the box sets vary in price widely. Halloween Jack posted:There are a handful of copyrighted monsters missing, but just a handful. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Basically, it's a variation of Next's Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, with the intention of getting rid of +/- modifiers on d20 rolls entirely. As I'm sure you can see from the anydice charts posted above the probabilities are completely different in the more powerful direction. Give a shot at comparing the most common modifier changes you'll probably see, magic sword +1 becomes Bo2, and Backstab becomes Bo3. It's an idea worth trying, but it won't look that much like B/X. Actually there's one even more common modifier that will probably be your biggest hurdle if you're trying to remove all the +/- modifiers from the game. What will you do about Armor Class?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Thanks for all the probability help. If I take the game down the road I'd thought of, it definitely won't look much like B/X, then, but what I've got now is veering away from it already. (It's meant for short one-shot games with a defined victory objective for each adventure/mission, so characters are built from set templates with a small amount of customisation, and there's no experience progression; playing at a higher level just involves using the template from the next tier up.) I hadn't realised that Advantage/Disadvantage produced such a big difference. I'd thought that its use in Next would be really swingy, and so it is! DalaranJ posted:Actually there's one even more common modifier that will probably be your biggest hurdle if you're trying to remove all the +/- modifiers from the game. What will you do about Armor Class?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Kick historical questions, how many editions of D&D had Tolkien material in them before the estate of JRR had them removed? The first one or two two editions of Chainmail and the first few printings of the original D&D little brown booklets had Hobbits, Balors, Ents and so on. The Tolkien estate stopped that well before AD&D and the original blue box Basic Set came along.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Balors have been a thing as recently as 3.5, I remember they looked really badass in Neverwinter Nights.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Balor is the public-domain name taken from Irish mythology, so it's still used; the issue was a demon called a Balrog in the D&D books back then.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Payndz posted:AC in TAAC is ascending and applied to a target number (the character's relevant stat) before the roll, so if you've got STR 15 and are attacking an AC5 enemy, you have to roll 10 or lower to hit (15-5). That would still apply in this system, but then you might make the roll with Bo/Wo 2 or 3 rather than having additional +/- modifiers. This is the response I expected (, there's a more radical direction you could have gone by breaking AC done into layers of disadvantage but I can't imagine that working very well with a d20 base mechanic). I think of any version of D&D I've played TAAC is one of the best fits for a roll X, keep 1 style. Payndz posted:(It's meant for short one-shot games with a defined victory objective for each adventure/mission, so characters are built from set templates with a small amount of customisation, and there's no experience progression; playing at a higher level just involves using the template from the next tier up.) I'm actually most excited about this idea. I'm toying with something similar after I first discovered this blog post a couple weeks ago: http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/90-minute-dd/ Last Christmas, I actually had a couple of family members, independently, ask if I could run something for them, which was a bit confusing because one of them hasn't played anything in ten years, and I'm not even sure the other one even knows what a role-playing game is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I'm also experimenting with a different combat system for my new 'clone. At the start of each round, the PCs declare if they're Attacking, Defending or Supporting. Attackers automatically hit their target, but they still make a roll; if they fail it, their victim manages to get in a counter-attack that also auto-hits. Either way, Attackers add their Hit Die to the damage roll - since it's based on TAAC, this means Fighters add a d10, Clerics a d8, etc. Fighters having the TAAC version of Cleave should encourage them to get right into the action. Defenders attack as normal - no bonus damage as above, but they don't run the risk of being counter-attacked either. In addition, they can "intercept" an attack on a Defending or Supporting character by making a DEX roll. If they succeed, the original target takes no damage, and the hits go to the Defender (I'm still debating whether to have them take all the damage, half of it, or make an extra roll to save somehow). If they intercept, that uses up their action for the round whether they succeed or fail. Support characters can make ranged attacks, use spells, heal, or do any other action that isn't combat. So if a Thief had to open a complex lock while the party was attacked, he'd go in Support - and hope the others will Defend him while he works! Next, the monsters make their attack rolls. "What? You mean they always get the initiative?" you cry. Nope; combat is simultaneous on both sides, so even if a participant is killed, they still get in their attack. The reason for doing it in this order is to let Defenders decide whether or not to intercept attacks; if none of the Support characters are hit, they can fight as normal without worrying about other team members. Finally, the PCs make their rolls, and all the damage is totted up. Repeat. I wanted to do something that was slightly more tactically involved than TAAC's "you're either in melee, or you aren't" approach, but without any kind of requirement for grids, range bands, positioning or the other stuff that slows combat to a crawl. Does it seem like a system that would work?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Kick historical questions, how many editions of D&D had Tolkien material in them before the estate of JRR had them removed? The Acaeum page for the original box set shows that they didn't remove the Tolkien material from the rules until the sixth printing in 1977. Apparently the earlier printings of the supplements as well as the original printing of Holmes Basic also used Tolkien references.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:The first one or two two editions of Chainmail and the first few printings of the original D&D little brown booklets had Hobbits, Balors, Ents and so on. The Tolkien estate stopped that well before AD&D and the original blue box Basic Set came along. Servoret posted:The Acaeum page for the original box set shows that they didn't remove the Tolkien material from the rules until the sixth printing in 1977. Apparently the earlier printings of the supplements as well as the original printing of Holmes Basic also used Tolkien references. Very interesting. Thanks a lot for the answer...especially since I didn't realize how auto correct massacred the question was. I'm surprised they lasted so long...then again I guess I'm surprised at the same time the Tolkien estate even managed to hear about it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Attack, Defend, Support It's a bit like Dungeon World, I think. Do defenders have to make an attack roll to hit? And do monsters always choose attack or does the DM choose for them in secret before the player's declare? I'd give the dwarf some sort of defense bonus to push it further into a different roll than the fighter. I've been giving the Basic RC character maths a once over as I try to come up with classes for my own retroclone. This stuff is probably obvious to some of the oldtimers but I totally didn't know any of these findings until tonight. First off, saves all increase at the same rate for a single class (until they taper off at high levels), the only exception is the magic user's weird bonus against spells. And stranger to me, for the non-demihumans the growth rate of the save bonus is identical to the increase rate of their attack bonus. Edit: Removed some shameful, shameful math that failed to take into account geometric experience requirements for level ups. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 06:42 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:It's a bit like Dungeon World, I think. Do defenders have to make an attack roll to hit? And do monsters always choose attack or does the DM choose for them in secret before the player's declare? There will only be six classes (halflings?  ), so I'm going to try to make them as distinct as possible and give them different things to do in combat.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Wrong thread
Name Change fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
The DCC Chained Coffin Kick starter is ending in a few days. Its grown from a high level adventure into a full fledged campaign since stretch goals have added funnel and 1-4 level adventures. Its got an almanac to give depth to the region. First real campaign designed specifically for DCC, so that's cool. One of the updates has them offering flasks, belt buckles, beer cozies, and a cube of 36 custom dice to drum up money. I'm retarded for neat trinkets like that so this has been a real treat. You can just pledge for the $7 PDF and then add on whatever you want after that. Can't wait to run this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Okay, here's one of the ideas for the retroclone I'm working on. Whenever a player performs a regular attack they gain a point. Then you can spend a certain number of points to use powers (based off of RC Weapon Mastery rules) Fighters get a bunch of powers options, thieves and clerics get a few. What do you guys think of that idea? I had another idea that basically involved characters accumulating fate aspects base don their setting ties, but I'll probably try to take this one step at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Hey, I have a question about Darker Dungeons myself in the wake of some of Cirno's posts in the Next thread--does the ascending scale create errors or imbalance in how the success rates scale, or are they tightly pegged to how everything was in the RC proper? Also, have any of you tried Blood & Treasure? Somebody said that it looks like the author combined all their favourite stuff from every pre-3rd edition, and that's true, but it has some neat innovations. I'm extremely disparaging of OSR games which look like they're pretty much just some guy's house rules for AD&D, or the SRD with a bunch of AD&Disms injected back into it. I've only skimmed B&T so far, but if I had to peg it to any edition...I guess I'd say 3rd but with a Basic design ethos. It has 3 saving throws, and a really neat way of handling skills using the saving throw system. 1d20+ability score modifier, and try to roll over 18 (if your class doesn't have that skill) or over your saving throw (if your class does have that skill). It's one of those things that looks inelegant on paper but it seems like it would play smoothly. The game also has a pretty flexible multiclassing system. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Hey, I have a question about Darker Dungeons myself in the wake of some of Cirno's posts in the Next thread--does the ascending scale create errors or imbalance in how the success rates scale, or are they tightly pegged to how everything was in the RC proper? I don't have Darker Dungeons on hand at the moment, but both scales should be the ascending and descending results methods are effectively the same. It's possible to make an error when turning the system around, and put no armor at 9 asc. instead of 10, but I doubt that occurred in DD. It's more the type of mistake I'd make if I was trying to convert a monster as quickly as possible. Even when that it occurs it's only a difference of 1 AC point. My takeaways from that conversation were: Descending AC is a bit more complicated to remember because subtraction. (I believe this line of reasoning used to be called "THAC0 is Wacko".) And one benefit or roll under saves (and the like) is that it clearly exposes success probabilities to the player so that the know what they're in for. i.e. They can make tactical decisions based on their chances. Another perspective on this would be that if, say, I always give my humanoid NPCs a Dex of 10 (which I do because I don't care to waste time stating up NPCs) then the player's can determine their AC without me directly telling them, whereas if they're looking at a dragon they basically have to guess at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Somebody on RPG.net made a Palladium retroclone. I... I don't think he gets it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Descending AC is a bit more complicated to remember because subtraction. (I believe this line of reasoning used to be called "THAC0 is Wacko".)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Now here's a question for those of you who are fans of ACKS - how would you hypothetically handle a player who was playing a mage, and wanted their character to learn how to use a weapon that isn't on their weapon list. The way I'd be tempted to do it would be that they'd have to find a trainer in game. The trainer would have to have both the Manual of Arms and the Weapon Focus proficiencies (similar to the requirements for training archers and the like), with the latter being in the type of weapon the mage wants to learn how to use. Then, after training for however long, the mage in question would be allowed to take the Martial Training proficiency (similar to that available for clerics) for the type of weapon they've been learning to use. Alternatively, I might let them train for one to three months, depending on the weapon, and then just be proficient in that one weapon, but not the others of its kind. I only ask, because saying that somebody can never learn to use a given weapon seems overly restrictive. That's why my personal interpretation of the BECMI weapon proficiencies is that while a mage can only be proficient in two weapons at level 1, they can be any two weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
You could let him take it as a proficiency maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Not really. You add the attack bonus, the AC, and the Roll; if that is 20 or greater it is a hit. No subtraction needed. I never had the chance to play 2nd. Did it actually suggest doing THAc0 the simple way? I assumed it was like later editions, "Hey got your armor bonus? Cool. Now (seemingly) arbitrarily add 10 to it!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:Now here's a question for those of you who are fans of ACKS - how would you hypothetically handle a player who was playing a mage, and wanted their character to learn how to use a weapon that isn't on their weapon list. The way I'd be tempted to do it would be that they'd have to find a trainer in game. The trainer would have to have both the Manual of Arms and the Weapon Focus proficiencies (similar to the requirements for training archers and the like), with the latter being in the type of weapon the mage wants to learn how to use. Then, after training for however long, the mage in question would be allowed to take the Martial Training proficiency (similar to that available for clerics) for the type of weapon they've been learning to use. Alternatively, I might let them train for one to three months, depending on the weapon, and then just be proficient in that one weapon, but not the others of its kind. I think the most important part of the weapon limit is restricting mages to d4 damage dice. I'd probably say that for a bit of gold they could find a trainer to let them be competent with the weapon, but that since fighting isn't their focus they'll never be able to use it well enough to do more than base 1d4 damage. That way they can use an interesting magic weapon the party finds, but they won't be cutting into the competencies of other characters too hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
On the one hand, I can see what you mean with limiting their weapon damage; after all, it's the fighter's job to be good at fighting, and it's the thief's job to either shank stuff in the back or lob arrows from a safe distance - and of course to disarm traps and pick locks. The priest's job is a combination of providing backup to the fighter if needed and healing people after the fight. But what's the wizard's job - particularly at low level? It certainly isn't anything combat related, because with only one spell per day, and only the shittiest of weapons as a backup, they're basically completely loving useless in a fight until about fifth level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Somebody on RPG.net made a Palladium retroclone. Do you have a link? I'd like to check it out. (Unless there's something I'm missing ... Palladium is a company not a game?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:On the one hand, I can see what you mean with limiting their weapon damage; after all, it's the fighter's job to be good at fighting, and it's the thief's job to either shank stuff in the back or lob arrows from a safe distance - and of course to disarm traps and pick locks. The priest's job is a combination of providing backup to the fighter if needed and healing people after the fight. But what's the wizard's job - particularly at low level? It certainly isn't anything combat related, because with only one spell per day, and only the shittiest of weapons as a backup, they're basically completely loving useless in a fight until about fifth level. I generally do two things(or would if I had ever successfully ran an RPG, seriously I've tried running an RPG at least a dozen times since 2008 in at least 8-14 different systems and not once have we managed to get past character creation, and this is with one consistent group too  ); 1.) doubling if not tripling the amount of spells a class gets at the first level it gets spells(so for example a first level Mage in ACKS gets 2-3 spells plus whatever ones it might get from it's INT bonus) and 2.) I give level 1 Mages/Wizards/Magic-Users(depending on system) equivalents to the level 1 At-Will spells from 4th Edition D&D that as the name implies are under normal circumstances unlimited use(for example the two I've already thought up of are Magic Bullet which works like Magic Missile except it only does 1d4 damage, and Magic Touch which is a melee use spell that does 1d4+1 damage and both spells can be fluffed up in whatever way is most appropriate for that given Spell-Caster), I'll admit both of these ideas would need playtesting to see if they're any good
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
That seems a pretty good idea to me, and capping the maximum damage means that the low-level wizard always has something they can do in combat rather than casting their one Magic Missile and then standing around with their thumb up their arse while everyone else battles around them, yet can't dominate things (whereas Next gives Ray Of Frost as a cantrip; 1d8 damage plus slowing the target means that wizards are going to be out-damaging almost every simple melee and ranged weapon and delivering a no-save suck effect every round).
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I never had the chance to play 2nd. Did it actually suggest doing THAc0 the simple way? While yes, THAC0 is pretty janky, it still wasn't that hard. Take THAC0 and subtract your roll to get the AC you hit. If you are the DM and know the AC, THAC0 minus the AC gives you the number they need to hit. It's not that graceful, but it's not as arcane as it's made out to be. I usually converted THAC0 mentally to attack bonus though. That's just 20-thac0. Similarly, converting AC to ascending is just 20-AC, but I never had a problem with descending AC because of the trick I mentioned earlier. It seems to me that with any amount of DMing, you know all the ways to add up to and down from 20 pretty quickly in a d20 based system anyway. It really helps with OSR games because they all use something different and being able to quickly convert lets you use tons of material from different systems interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:(Unless there's something I'm missing ... Palladium is a company not a game?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I generally do two things(or would if I had ever successfully ran an RPG, seriously I've tried running an RPG at least a dozen times since 2008 in at least 8-14 different systems and not once have we managed to get past character creation, and this is with one consistent group too Not to say this is a bad idea, but when you're talking about at-will spells it seems like it's real easy just to end up reflavoring throwing/stabbing with a dagger; there isn't a huge difference between a ranged attack for 1d4 damage with a knife or with a minor spell. You could always make it a bit different by saying that the spell always hits or can easily be fired into melee or something, but that very quickly begins to overshadow the classes who don't get to have crazy once-a-day abilities; between a 1d4 damage attack that always hits and a 1d6 bow attack that misses half the time, I'd pretty much always take the 1d4 one. Hell, since front ranks and stuff are so important in early D&D I'd even probably take a 1d4 ranged attack that I can fire freely into melee over a bow. What I think might be interesting are minor control at-wills, though. Shine light in a goblin's eyes to give it -2 to hit for the round, or halve an enemy's move speed by icing the ground. Let the mage influence the fight without giving them access to both encounter-enders and reliable all-day damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I think the real problem is that at early levels, a mage has neither. Letting them use a light crossbow, at least, means that they can actually do something useful in a fight, rather than just hurl bad language at the foe. I mean, it's not like their weapon use is in any danger of outstripping any of the other classes, and by the time their magic becomes powerful enough to do so, they'll have probably stopped using weapons anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Not to say this is a bad idea, but when you're talking about at-will spells it seems like it's real easy just to end up reflavoring throwing/stabbing with a dagger; there isn't a huge difference between a ranged attack for 1d4 damage with a knife or with a minor spell. You could always make it a bit different by saying that the spell always hits or can easily be fired into melee or something, but that very quickly begins to overshadow the classes who don't get to have crazy once-a-day abilities; between a 1d4 damage attack that always hits and a 1d6 bow attack that misses half the time, I'd pretty much always take the 1d4 one. Hell, since front ranks and stuff are so important in early D&D I'd even probably take a 1d4 ranged attack that I can fire freely into melee over a bow. A large part of the idea behind the At-Will attack spells is that they give the Magic User a way to contribute to combat and still be magical(since a wizard rushing up to try and stab a goblin with a dagger comes off as silly, and I've never liked wizards using crossbows on a thematic level) without overshadowing the other more directly combat capable classes(also a detail I forgot to mention about Magic Bullet & Touch is that they can be keyed to various elements besides the standard Force for various effects[at the cost of doing one less damage on all rolls above 1], for example Fire and Acid cause a successfully hit enemy to take 1 damage per round for the next 1d4 rounds, while Ice halves an enemy's movement speed for 1d4 rounds), although again this will need playtesting to see if it's viable without breaking the game(another house rule of mine is to use ACKS' Cleaving rules in all OSR systems that aren't DCC[which has the Mighty Deeds of Arms rules instead], this gives Fighters a much needed bit of oomph)
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:Do you have a link? I'd like to check it out. Evil Mastermind posted:Palladium has a house system that they use in all their games, regardless of how well it'd fit. The system also hasn't been updated in 20-odd years. Yes-ish. Here's a bit of history before you get the link. Palladium has a "house system" that it uses for each of its games. However, a lot of subsystems and fiddly case bits get added, removed, and otherwise inverted depending on the game line. Some of these bits do not play well with each other at all, even if they do claim to have "universal" mechanics. Their president/head designer/main writer/re-writer will never say so again, but the whole system basically came from his AD&D 1st Ed house rules. (He admitted this once in an interview, and subsequently recanted/will never mention it again) Furthermore, anyone that actually plays in games he runs will tell you he doesn't even follow his own ruleset. It's mostly freeform, with rolls against ability scores and sometimes skills when he feels the need for them. That's why the idea of making a Palladium retroclone is hilariously fascinating to me. You're making a retroclone of a heartbreaker made of house rules. So here it is! https://docs.google.com/document/d/110nW40UALjiGBuoKgPu_eIpsz0HsFcNx-H1tuybVpjU/edit
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
God help me, but I actually skimmed Machinations of the Space Princess. It actually does have some neat traits for building alien races. The promised "sleaze" is just this weird tendency to mention sex or aliens with three breasts from time, and other than that it's a pretty unsurprising clone of the LotFP rules, but in space. It actually comes across much more like a cheesy sci-fi TV like "The Lexx" or "Farscape" than Heavy Metal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Honestly, I could totally get down with Heavy Metal: the Elfgame if it was sufficiently ridiculous. I don't trust Raggi to make it sufficiently ridiculous, though. ninja edit: basically it would have to be written tongue-in-cheek instead of hand-in-pants.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Still nothing of worth produced, still nothing lost by me not inviting him to the party. For actual sci-fi D&D, you could do worse than Stars Without Number, which has a free version available if you search on Drivethru.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:57
|
|
