|
Bob Quixote posted:How do people feel about Saving Throws in general? Because in the various retroclones that I've checked out the ones that aren't trying to do a 100% faithful recreation of 'Edition X' almost always simplify them from the original tables. I prefer the idea of a simpler save myself, but good saves is one of the Fighters distinguishing traits on the older editions and giving everyone the exact same target numbers would sort of strip them of that. That's a good change. With that last part though... is applying more modifiers to rolls something you actually need to do? How do you determine the stat to use?
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
I found these really cool 2nd Edition Random Encounter decks that I didn't even know existed at a game store in Michigan when I was visiting my in-laws over the holidays. They're an official TSR product from the early 90s, and each set has hundreds of these index cards with encounters on them. I haven't even really dove into them yet, but the handful I looked at seem interesting--one involved a dog that follows around the party in this small town that's actually a dragon in dog form who sort of looks out for the town. One was these 4 dirty looking gnomes hanging around a fire outside a cave passing a bottle back and forth and having a jovial time; they invite the PCs to share the drink with them, and if they do, it turns out it's a potion of Diminution, so the PCs will shrink to half size if they drink it. It turns out the gnomes are evil giant-sized Spriggans, so when they drink it, they just look like normal Spriggans, so they can beat the poo poo out of people passing by I guess. One had the PCs wake up unable to make any noise, no longer casting shadows, and with an odd compulsion to go in a certain direction. If they do, they arrive at some weird wizard who was experimenting with Shadow Magic or something. Anyway, they seem pretty fun and idiosyncratic, with enough meat on the bone to improvise and customize them, and there's so many of 'em. Certainly beats things I've found like the Book of Encounters that's basically just a dozen mini adventures. And of course 2nd Edition is pretty painless to convert to a retroclone. I love this kind of thing, so I was ecstatic to find this product I never knew existed--really made my holiday!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I love this kind of thing, so I was ecstatic to find this product I never knew existed--really made my holiday! I lost mine somewhere between the 90s and here. They were (are) pretty neat products, although I recall that there were a few dumb/sameish cards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:How do people feel about Saving Throws in general? Because in the various retroclones that I've checked out the ones that aren't trying to do a 100% faithful recreation of 'Edition X' almost always simplify them from the original tables. I prefer the idea of a simpler save myself, but good saves is one of the Fighters distinguishing traits on the older editions and giving everyone the exact same target numbers would sort of strip them of that. I usually just run it RAW for whatever particular retroclone I'm running. I don't see the need for trying to simplify it too much because it's just "number you roll against" which is already really simple on its own. If I have one number as a saving throw but then I apply a modifier depending on the effect I'm saving against, I don't really have just the one number and I'd still be writing down "saving throw vs spells" and "saving throw vs other stuff" at least. My other reason is that I can't always grok how the Fighter's supposed to have better saves than everyone, so I just take everyone's word for it and don't muck around with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I lost mine somewhere between the 90s and here. They were (are) pretty neat products, although I recall that there were a few dumb/sameish cards. Yeah, I suspect they'll be some crap in there, but it's nice to just pull a card out and work with it. I mean, the original random encounter tables were basically just 1d8 Bugbears, and these have to be more interesting than that. I also got the set of magic item cards at the same shop. I thought instead of rolling on a treasure table, I could just grab some cards out of the box and hand them to the players. All the rules and stuff are on the cards, so it should be fairly painless. I actually have all the 2nd Edition spell cards as well, so I thought those would be cool to hand out as scroll treasure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's a good change. Well, applying the ability modifiers wouldn't really be strictly necessary, but at really low levels your saves suck pretty bad so being able to possibly bump your success chances up between 5-15% could be helpful. The stat that gets used would probably get determined by the DM... I think it would go along the same lines as trying to eyeball whether a particular situation was more of a "Save vs. Death Ray" or "Save vs. Wands" thing. I think RAW you got to apply CON modifiers to saves vs. poison & WIS to saves to disbelieve illusion spells, so I think that would be a good guideline. gradenko_2000 posted:I usually just run it RAW for whatever particular retroclone I'm running. I don't see the need for trying to simplify it too much because it's just "number you roll against" which is already really simple on its own. If I have one number as a saving throw but then I apply a modifier depending on the effect I'm saving against, I don't really have just the one number and I'd still be writing down "saving throw vs spells" and "saving throw vs other stuff" at least. I would see it more like treating the single Save the same as the characters Attack modifier is usually treated & any relevant Ability bonuses to a particular roll being the same as the little bonuses or penalties that may come up in specific situations. It probably wouldn't be necessary to apply them to every saving throw, but only for really specific ones where it's clear what exactly is being tested by the situation. gradenko_2000 posted:My other reason is that I can't always grok how the Fighter's supposed to have better saves than everyone, so I just take everyone's word for it and don't muck around with it. I think it's just a legacy thing to make them better at their "front line combatant" role, since you probably wouldn't want your battletank to fold up like a wet napkin against the first special attack aimed at them. Really though it only amounts to a few points difference as far as I can see, so its not that big a deal I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I think it's just a legacy thing to make them better at their "front line combatant" role, since you probably wouldn't want your battletank to fold up like a wet napkin against the first special attack aimed at them. Really though it only amounts to a few points difference as far as I can see, so its not that big a deal I guess. Oh no, I totally get why they have better saves, it's just that I see tables of 5 different saving throws spread out over the classes, spread out over the levels, and my eyes just glaze over. If you guys tell me that theirs are better I'm just going to roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Oh no, I totally get why they have better saves, it's just that I see tables of 5 different saving throws spread out over the classes, spread out over the levels, and my eyes just glaze over. If you guys tell me that theirs are better I'm just going to roll with it. Yeah, I get kind of the same glaze-over factor myself which is one of the reasons I was really digging the unified save idea. I'd probably just have Fighters start with +7 to their Save roll & Magic Users start with +5 (with a bonus of +2 vs. Spells) & then have it improve by 1 at each level since the max level in my setup is 10. Almost all of the mods I've been working on are subtractive in nature really - trying to clean up messy bits and trim some of the extraneous chaff from the game and replace it with more unified things. Anything that I can possibly do to eliminate a table and still have the math hang together is a major priority. Converting Attack rolls, Ability Checks & Saving Throws all into the same Target20 system gets rid of the whole bit where sometimes rolling high is good and sometimes rolling low is good and replaces it with "roll die, add number -> a total of 20+ means you win" which is easier on the eyes and brain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
I had another idea for using How to Host a Dungeon with whatever old-school dungeon crawler you're playing. So, I've prepped an underworld and overworld map of the region using HtHaD. It's pretty interesting if a bit vanilla: I started playing with both Dwarf and Dark Elf civilizations in play. Since the dwarves started form the top of the page and the dark elves from the bottom at first the two were just doing their own thing, not paying each other any mind. However, once they did run into each other due to a tunnel connecting their civilizations it was all out war. I fudged the die rolls here to get a more interesting narrative: at first the two civilizations clashed, both taking casualties, just so I could add a couple of tombs into the dwarven civilization. Then the dark elves came on top, capturing many dwarves as slaves during the war. This had the cascading effect of bringing the dark elf civilization over their capacity of slaves, resulting in a number of slave revolts that destroyed all the dark elves. I still kept playing as the dwarves who happily expanded downwards until they dug too deep. The Age of Monsters was characterized by the following civilizations: some gnomes took residence in one of the former dark elf colonies, founding a city of their own. Another delver group appeared in another dark elf colony, and I fudged the die rolls here to have them be duergar, as it made sense that the former dwarven slaves of the dark elves would've become twisted and evil dwarves, and a new group of dark elves took residence in the old dark elves city (probably exiles from the colonies reclaiming their old digs). Also, the dwarven civilization was overrun by two factions: a tribe of goblins and a dragon. The dragon managed to subjugate the goblins who started paying him yearly bribes to keep him off their back while they claimed all the treasure from the dwarven halls. Finally, the human civilization kept expanding, eventually building a city and a wizard's tower, and one lucky roll yielded an artifact! A group of adventurers eventually made an excursion into the dwarven ruins, only to get killed by the dragon. The dragon was now sitting on a huge hoard and also had the artifact added to their hoard to boot. I decided to stop playing at this point, because I already had a big enough underworld to last me many sessions of play, So, I have a pretty interesting setup here: a dragon sitting on a hoard in the ruins of a dwarven city with a big tribe of goblins paying him tribute. The dragon also has an artifact on their hoard, meaning that there's an immediate plot-hook there: the humans of the surface kingdom probably want their artifact back. Also, the new dark elf colonizers probably want to reclaim their old digs from the gnomes and duergar, so there's conflict for the PC's to get tangled in there as well. I've yet to start the Age of Villainy, but here's my plan: once I get round to running this thing, I'll run HtHaD in tandem with the campaign: every time the players make a successful excursion into the underworld I'll remove whatever monsters and loot they cleared and play a new round of HtHaD to account for shifts in power and new groups of monsters arriving in the underworld. Also, I'll introduce a big villain through this somehow. I'm thinking either alpha villain (the dragon definitely fits the bill) or dungeon master (since I've got a wizard's tower and it'd be fun to run him as a kind of mad wizard intent on taking over the over and underworld. No scans yet, but once I get back to my place I might post a couple of phone quality pictures of the map I've got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I had another idea for using How to Host a Dungeon with whatever old-school dungeon crawler you're playing. This is sounding great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Any recommendations for retroclones in the vein of Gamma World? Post-apoc, pulp sci-fi, that sort of thing? I already saw Mutant Future from the Labyrinth Lord guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I've yet to start the Age of Villainy, but here's my plan: once I get round to running this thing, I'll run HtHaD in tandem with the campaign: every time the players make a successful excursion into the underworld I'll remove whatever monsters and loot they cleared and play a new round of HtHaD to account for shifts in power and new groups of monsters arriving in the underworld. Also, I'll introduce a big villain through this somehow. I'm thinking either alpha villain (the dragon definitely fits the bill) or dungeon master (since I've got a wizard's tower and it'd be fun to run him as a kind of mad wizard intent on taking over the over and underworld. Please report back on this. I've been thinking of using HtHaD exactly like this, but i've not had the opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any recommendations for retroclones in the vein of Gamma World? Post-apoc, pulp sci-fi, that sort of thing? I already saw Mutant Future from the Labyrinth Lord guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any recommendations for retroclones in the vein of Gamma World? Post-apoc, pulp sci-fi, that sort of thing? I already saw Mutant Future from the Labyrinth Lord guys. The same guy who did Stars Without Number has done a similar and compatible game called Other Dust. It doesn't seem brilliantly gonzo out of the box, but it's a solid foundation to build up on. You can take OSR modules and adventures and hammer them until they fit thematically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any recommendations for retroclones in the vein of Gamma World? Post-apoc, pulp sci-fi, that sort of thing? I already saw Mutant Future from the Labyrinth Lord guys. I am really grooving right now on Into the Odd. The free version is here. You can get the pay for version by checking this link out and doing what it says. It's at press right now, I think. I pre-ordered it when it went up. Basically it is an open field, somewhat close to OD&D mechanically speaking, and the setting has been called salvagepunk. The designer behind it is really great about posting things on his blog and/or G+ and there's a community for it on G+ It takes generation/random creation to a new level, having you roll up everything for your character in what feels like a matter of seconds. It does magic in a way that is cool to me if you are gonna do things D&D like (No Vancian magic, in other words, but still within D&D framework). Characters are very fragile, by design. Earlier editions of it were called "survival horror" because you leave the comfort of the major city and venture into the wilds, and poo poo is really wild out there. I kinda wanted to talk about it here earlier but kept forgetting to, so this was the perfect way to mention it. Gasperkun fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Hulks and Horrors seems pretty cool. It's pretty similar to Stars without Number to the point that I think it is broadly compatible with other OSR games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
After thinking about player survivability, especially at low levels, I started looking up different house rules on the subject and came across this one: http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/06/playing-with-death-and-dismemberment.html It's a death and dismemberment kind of table, but its intended to actually make characters last longer than they normally would. If you use it then when a character hits 0 HP instead of being killed you roll 2d6 on the table. 2 is instant death 3 is a "fatal wound" which will kill you in 1d6 turns (but which you can heal with cure wounds), 4 is a severed limb of DM's choice (you bleed out in 3d6 rounds unless you can cauterize, tourniquet or use magic healing to stop the bleeding) 5 or 6 is a broken bone which will take a few weeks to heal on its own 7 or 8 you are knocked out for 2d6 rounds 9 you are stunned for one round 10 you are just knocked to the floor 11 nothing happens 12 adrenaline surge and regain 1d4 hp +1d4 for every other level. It wears off at the end of the battle and you pass out for a few rounds. Since the most likely result on 2d6 is 7 most characters will just be knocked out for a bit rather than flat out killed and if the rest of the party can pull through or drag them to safety there's no reason they won't survive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:After thinking about player survivability, especially at low levels, I started looking up different house rules on the subject and came across this one: I came up with a similar injury table for my Conan ruleset, but I abstract the results far more and split physical injuries into minor injuries and major injuries. Each possesses certain effects and risks for continued adventuring. These systems mainly make sense only if you remove clerics from the game. Village healers and such take on the role of helping characters heal, and the journey back to town is more about managing your injured characters. With clerics the threat of death is nearly negated by resurrection, so there is no need to give players even more ways to survive. The OD&D campaign I'm running is at about levels 5 through 8 in party composition. Only party wipes, corpse stealers, and other threats that make a person's corpse inaccessible are scary to my players. That and level draining undead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
CountingWizard posted:I came up with a similar injury table for my Conan ruleset, but I abstract the results far more and split physical injuries into minor injuries and major injuries. Each possesses certain effects and risks for continued adventuring. These systems mainly make sense only if you remove clerics from the game. Village healers and such take on the role of helping characters heal, and the journey back to town is more about managing your injured characters. I was gonna use the death/dismemberment rules in conjunction with the big weird list of houserules I've been gathering (that's practically its own little game at this point), and it doesn't include Clerics in the setup. Healing magic in the form of the Cure Wounds spells are still available (and castable by Magic-Users), but there is no Resurrection spell. Dead is Dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Gasperkun posted:Earlier editions of it were called "survival horror" because you leave the comfort of the major city and venture into the wilds, and poo poo is really wild out there. Removing attack rolls is a rather ingenuous way of modifying the genre of the game, if you ask me. Edit: From reading his blog it seems that on the surface the setting seems to bear strong similarities to Chuubo's, which is, unsettling? DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Hulks and Horrors seems pretty cool. It's pretty similar to Stars without Number to the point that I think it is broadly compatible with other OSR games. Shame the dude has (been) retired now, though hopefully he'll get up to something cool else work on his Roguelike adaptation of it---wish he'd made it to the expansions. http://www.bedroomwallpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any recommendations for retroclones in the vein of Gamma World? Post-apoc, pulp sci-fi, that sort of thing? I already saw Mutant Future from the Labyrinth Lord guys. Encounter Critical is a goofy but totally playable game. It was a hoax played on the then nascent old school gaming internet community about a lost game from the 70s but the developer came out and said that he just made it all up. drrockso20 posted:There's some stuff for Dungeon Crawl Classics that deals with this sort of thing I was around for one of Jim Wampler's playtest sessions for Mutant Crawl Classics at UCon. I was running another game, so I couldn't play, but what I saw during our break looked really fun. Keep an eye out for it, there's even already cover art by Doug Kovacs: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Here's a fun run down of some of the things that make Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC RPG) a fun an unique experience: http://www.thewordofstelios.net/blog/the-top-10-things-to-love-about-dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I've been wondering if I should make Called Shots/Combat Stunts a Fighter-only thing? (a la DCC) So far they have Deadliness (+1 damage to all attacks per level), Precision (Critical Hit on a roll of 19 or 20) & Cleave (can attack a number of times per round equal to their level IF each attack drops an enemy - a miss or a hit that wounds but doesn't kill an enemy ends their attacks for the round). All of that stuff makes them good at the 'hitting stuff till it dies' side of the combat game but doesn't give them anything unique in the realm of narrative/tactical stuff. Granted, with their much higher attack bonuses the Fighter is at least 2x as likely to pull off Called Shots (as I've worked them out) in combat as any other class, but if they were the only ones able to attempt them maybe it would give them a little more oomph? It might also serve as a more solid line between character roles - the MU is more worried about not being skewered if he ends up in melee combat with an enemy while the Fighter is keeping his cool and thinking of ways to use the terrain to his advantage (knocking a guy over a ledge) or how to neutralize an opponents threat factor (disarm, blind, cripple,etc.). I was also thinking about Magic, specifically thinking about ways for it to be used outside of the spell-memorization framework. I like the idea of implementing both slow-to cast 4e style Ritual magic that anyone can attempt (with very little risk) & also allowing anyone to try and cast a spell from a scroll (with an Intelligence roll that has its difficulty modified by the spell level). I thought it would be fun to use something like the "Klaatu Barada Nikto effect", where botching your roll to cast a spell scroll by too-low a number might result in a reversal of the spell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Gasperkun posted:I am really grooving right now on Into the Odd. The free version is here. You can get the pay for version by checking this link out and doing what it says. It's at press right now, I think. I pre-ordered it when it went up. Into the Odd is in the top 5 for OSR RPGs. As in, it's one of the only five things out of the OSR worth playing. It ranks just below Whitehack and Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I've been wondering if I should make Called Shots/Combat Stunts a Fighter-only thing? (a la DCC) I like the "Fighters affect the world through narrativism and wizards affect the world through a list of specific powers" method of lazy man's balance. It isn't perfect and it obviously relies a lot on GM largess, but it's sure better than "Wizards are the Great Gazoo and Fighters are Fred Flintstone-esque dumdums."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I like the "Fighters affect the world through narrativism and wizards affect the world through a list of specific powers" method of lazy man's balance. It isn't perfect and it obviously relies a lot on GM largess, but it's sure better than "Wizards are the Great Gazoo and Fighters are Fred Flintstone-esque dumdums." Yeah, I agree it's not really a perfectly balanced setup but I'm hoping that along with a few limits and changes to the classical MU that it may work out alright (wizards are now almost like pokemon trainers). I think if fighter narrative control is baked right into the rules it would make the GM-Permission aspect of that less finicky than usual, but still done in a simple way so that there don't need to be huge lists of specific situations. Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
I think what people sometimes miss is you also need the dice's permission. A spell caster gets to choose when they use their most damaging attack. You can't count on criticals for anything, and enough of them will be wasted on minions and mopping up creatures that are already near death that improving them is pointless. Per-encounter powers help make fighters much more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think what people sometimes miss is you also need the dice's permission. A spell caster gets to choose when they use their most damaging attack. You can't count on criticals for anything, and enough of them will be wasted on minions and mopping up creatures that are already near death that improving them is pointless. Per-encounter powers help make fighters much more interesting. I'm talking about a specific thing that says "Fighters get to do cool stuff that the player makes up"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think what people sometimes miss is you also need the dice's permission. A spell caster gets to choose when they use their most damaging attack. You can't count on criticals for anything, and enough of them will be wasted on minions and mopping up creatures that are already near death that improving them is pointless. Per-encounter powers help make fighters much more interesting. You still need the dice's permission to some extent as a spell caster though too. In a setup with linear saving throws like the older editions of D&D, save or suck spells become less effective as you start to encounter more powerful enemies, and if you prune out some of the more bullshit spells from the spell-list and leave casters with mostly artillery and utility spells then you get rid of the flying invisible untouchable wizard problem. I thought giving the Fighter a flat damage buff that scaled evenly with their level was an alright solution to the scaling up of spell-damage. Being able to hit for +10 damage at level 10 isn't the same as dropping a 10d6 fireball on an area, but combine it with cleaving and you can potentially chew your way through up to 10 enemies in a single round of combat (3 or 4HD ones too, not just 'enemies of 1HD or less'), which I would say is a marked improvement. Lightning Lord posted:I'm talking about a specific thing that says "Fighters get to do cool stuff that the player makes up" Also that too - its a good thing to have a simple unified combat stunt rule that lets the player of the Fighter try out cool poo poo like slicing off a giant scorpions poison stinger or hamstringing a dragon. Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:You still need the dice's permission to some extent as a spell caster though too. In a setup with linear saving throws like the older editions of D&D, save or suck spells become less effective as you start to encounter more powerful enemies, and if you prune out some of the more bullshit spells from the spell-list and leave casters with mostly artillery and utility spells then you get rid of the flying invisible untouchable wizard problem. It's not that difficult for a fighter to succeed on an attack roll, and if you make that a requirement for something interesting to happen, most likely it will happen. The reason old fighters generally leave much to be desired isn't that they fail on their rolls, it's that what the successful rolls allow to happen is super boring. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:It's not that difficult for a fighter to succeed on an attack roll, and if you make that a requirement for something interesting to happen, most likely it will happen. The reason old fighters generally leave much to be desired isn't that they fail on their rolls, it's that what the successful rolls allow to happen is super boring. I completely agree - that's why I would want to have the special attack/combat stunt thingy work using regular attack mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Tulpa posted:Into the Odd is in the top 5 for OSR RPGs. As in, it's one of the only five things out of the OSR worth playing. It ranks just below Whitehack and Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. That's a pretty drat bold claim that only a handful of OSR products are any good, got anything to back that claim up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:That's a pretty drat bold claim that only a handful of OSR products are any good, got anything to back that claim up? What, do you think there's some kind of scholarly article describing the 'goodness' of OSR products or something? People are allowed to have preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
My metric is just 'does this do something interesting that B/X D&D doesn't'. You can probably guess the other OSR games I like based on that criteria alone. As usual, you can probably add a disclaimer when someone makes a bold claim that they're talking about their opinion and preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:That's a pretty drat bold claim that only a handful of OSR products are any good, got anything to back that claim up? The sadly high amount of racism/sexism/transphobia in the community? You throw a rock, you hit 3 oppressors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The sadly high amount of racism/sexism/transphobia in the community? You throw a rock, you hit 3 oppressors. I'll admit I can't think of many examples of that, besides The Escapist and Autarch being connected, and LOTFP and some of the content made for it being pretty skeevy in nature Tulpa posted:My metric is just 'does this do something interesting that B/X D&D doesn't'. You can probably guess the other OSR games I like based on that criteria alone. As usual, you can probably add a disclaimer when someone makes a bold claim that they're talking about their opinion and preferences. That makes sense, I mean it's one I partially disagree with(although comparing an OSR game with the version of D&D it's closest too is never a bad idea), especially since a decent amount of OSR content can't be directly compared with BX/BECMI era D&D since they either use original systems(Mazes & Minotaurs, Castles & Crusades, and Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG all fall under this for example) or emulate a non-D&D system(admittedly not too many of these, and I can't remember the names of any off the top of my head right now)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I'll admit I can't think of many examples of that, besides The Escapist and Autarch being connected, and LOTFP and some of the content made for it being pretty skeevy in nature Here's just two off the top of my head: The "good" publisher, Dungeon Crawl Classics, has a set of dice that were "magically charged" by rubbing them on a black woman's hair. The worst of the worst was the creators of Castles and Crusades talking about how projects are like "modern dungeons" and people should be given licenses to go monster and treasure hunting inside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The worst of the worst was the creators of Castles and Crusades talking about how projects are like "modern dungeons" and people should be given licenses to go monster and treasure hunting inside. I've never heard of this, can you expand this please?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:I've never heard of this, can you expand this please? I think by "projects" he means government subsidized housing and or the "ghetto". Not so thinly veiled classist or racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 15:24
|
|