|
Harrow posted:The other way of looking at it? Well, stop thinking of the grid as if it represents the objective physical reality of the battle that's happening. Adding in piles of rules to "Older D&D and Retroclone(s)" so that they act more like MMOs doesnt seem to be in the spirit of "Older D&D and Retroclone(s)".
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
obeyasia posted:This guy knows whats up. I too run DCC regularly, and we don't use minis yet. I might introduce them later when AoE attacks/spells become a thing, but at low levels its awesome not loving with grids and counting squares and poo poo. Its not hard to do, but it just eliminates something our group doesn't find necessary or something to abuse. I personally love minis for the sake of visualizing combat and getting to push little plastic dwarves around, but like you I don't enjoy playing with the grid. If I could I would by all of Otherworld's minis and use them to visualize dungeon fightmans no matter what system I was using.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:Edit: We also allow a couple of particular "held" actions - anyone can declare their action for the turn to be "Waiting to attack the 1st person who comes within range". We decided on that after a session where nobody thought it was right to be able to run up to a line of alert pikeman without some danger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
To DCC players (and others): How are you handling XP and level advancement? DCC RAW gives 0-4 XP per survived encounter (whatever survival might mean), with scaling XP for how dangerous it WAS, not how dangerous the GM/Judge EXPECTED it to be. Obviously, XP required to level up is much less (10 XP total to get from 0 to 1, 50 total to get from 1 to 2), but it still makes for some weird incentives around the general (and generally appropriate!) player impulse to make an encounter (combat, trap, navigating a dungeon) as safe as possible with the tools they have at hand. I've considered just giving fiat level-ups when it feels right (my crew is pretty mature about that kind of stuff), but I'm always happy to hear other ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Man Dancer posted:To DCC players (and others): How are you handling XP and level advancement? DCC RAW gives 0-4 XP per survived encounter (whatever survival might mean), with scaling XP for how dangerous it WAS, not how dangerous the GM/Judge EXPECTED it to be. Obviously, XP required to level up is much less (10 XP total to get from 0 to 1, 50 total to get from 1 to 2), but it still makes for some weird incentives around the general (and generally appropriate!) player impulse to make an encounter (combat, trap, navigating a dungeon) as safe as possible with the tools they have at hand. So far ive been giving the prescribed 2-4 XP per battle, puzzle, etc... Its gone well. We've got a group on the cusp of level 2 and there havent been any issues to come of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
obeyasia posted:So far ive been giving the prescribed 2-4 XP per battle, puzzle, etc... Fair enough. If it ain't broke I won't try to fix it ahead of time. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm sorry are you mad that we're not stuck in the 1970s? Are you mad that black people want equal rights and women don't listen to their husbands, too? How much of your "entirely different line of thinking" is from A Voice For Men and Stormfront? You don't think that's a little far?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:You don't think that's a little far? Nope. Not really interested in coddling whiny cis men.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Nope. Not really interested in coddling whiny cis men. I agree that CountingWizard's post was an absolutely idiotic one. I mean not only is this forum the home of grogs.txt but clearly, the pile of retroclones that do an exceptional job of replicating older editions of D&D exist already. I can play Swords & Wizardry as is if I want to, and I do. But I don't think creating a variant where Fighters can slice mountains in half because I'm interested in injecting some mythological energy into one of my favorite games and then bouncing these ideas off like-minded people is some kind of Crime Against the Ancients. Oh, and there has already been tons of discussions about how say, Night's Dark Terror is totally rad, so again, idiocy there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm sorry are you mad that we're not stuck in the 1970s? Are you mad that black people want equal rights and women don't listen to their husbands, too? How much of your "entirely different line of thinking" is from A Voice For Men and Stormfront? Ah yes, preferring to not mix crunchy 4e-style mechanics in with older editions' simpler mechanics is basically the same thing as being an MRA/Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Ah yes, preferring to not mix crunchy 4e-style mechanics in with older editions' simpler mechanics is basically the same thing as being an MRA/Nazi. An assumption around here is "retrograde opinions on games = retrograde politics" . It's a little unfair, I guess, but then again anyone who's spent any time in the grog mines is probably used to people who are mad (not people who just dislike the kinds of mechanics we're discussing here) enough to actively rant probably also supporting gender caps for strength and thus reacts accordingly. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Watch out dudes. This is what she imagines is her Stalingrad. Dungeons and Dragons grognards are her line in the loving sand. Dungeon crawls are, apparently, a metaphor for rape culture. I wonder what Arivia thinks about disco? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Watch out dudes. Can we not turn this thread into another grogs.txt style meltdown where people are just giving each other the finger through waves of sarcasm? This last page or so just kind of came out of nowhere. Sorry if I've been taking up too much thread time asking about peoples ideas about different sorts of house rules - I didn't know that it was going to cause such a fuss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Can we not turn this thread into another grogs.txt style meltdown where people are just giving each other the finger through waves of sarcasm? Don't apologize, CountingWizard is clearly obnoxious as gently caress. I understand Arivia's frustration with a sucky dude who is clearly around to poo poo up a thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
You're right. I actually bought Torchbearer. It seems to have all of the boring routine caving crap that I'm interested in, how many torches are you carrying? etc. I haven't actually finished reading the book yet, because of priorities, but I might be able to run a game sometime this year. I guess... I'm less interested in trying to play the exact same mechanics of that boxed set D&D with the fold-out cardboard tokens that I used to run for my cousins, or Hero Quest, which I'm sure many of us played the hell out of as a kid. My goal is to have a little more of that boring realism poo poo that I enjoy while playing roguelikes. That stuff is the reason why I'd rather play dungeon crawl than Diablo any day. Are there any other sources for that kind of game? Arivia, for the record, I canvassed for HRC for three months, and set some fundraising records in the process. So gently caress off with your conspiracy theories that involve my preferred RPG milieu and right-wing misogynistic conspiracies. Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
CountingWizard posted:The recent talk about what a great idea it would be to have more defined class roles (as opposed to fantasy archetypes) is the last straw for me, count me out of this discussion. I will say that this last line is pretty funny, given that the core class roles in the game basically boil down to/came out of 'infantry' and 'artillery', with 'healer' catching on once people realized how well it smoothed out gameplay. Like, seriously, D&D-style fireball-chucking wizards aren't really a good match for almost any pre-D&D fantasy archetype, and the cleric is just super weird on a conceptual level (fantasy magical Van Helsing medic in plate armor?). This thread might be a little guilty of coming up with rules mods that are more trouble than they're worth, but that's more of a product of being a discussion forum and a place for brainstorming than anything else. These things are worth thinking up, saying, testing out, and then either keeping or throwing out as play results dictate. osirisisdead posted:I actually bought Torchbearer. It seems to have all of the boring routine caving crap that I'm interested in, how many torches are you carrying? etc. I haven't actually finished reading the book yet, because of priorities, but I might be able to run a game sometime this year. Torchbearer is. . .weird. It has a bunch of really cool ideas, and I'm pretty into Mouseguard and so on, but it does a really good job of stripping out all the stuff that I love about old-school games. B/X, to me, is all about going outside the rules to escape from mechanically unwinnable situations. Turning stuff like 'having a clever plan' or 'winning in a battle of riddles' into mini-games that can't really be well influenced by the narrative kills a lot of the appeal for me. On the other hand, I think that having 'killing your opponent' and 'forcing your opponent to flee' should be a way more distinct set of possibilities in way more other games, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
If someone wants to hack B/X into (more of) a tactical wargame, if someone wants to skip the RP and just have lots of combat, or the reverse, I'm pretty sure it's in the spirit of the OSR to let that someone do what they want to the game as long as they have players willing to participate. I'm not going to draw any conclusions about a person's politics based on demanding that this is what D&D should be!, but that still makes you an rear end in a top hat either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Sorry if I've been taking up too much thread time asking about peoples ideas about different sorts of house rules - No, that's not something to apologize for - making GBS threads up the thread on your way out and accusing someone of being a paleoconservative bigot for being rude and having different opinions than your own about elf games are both loving stupid, but it just makes my ignore list swell like the grinch's heart. I mean, I do kinda of get CountingWizard's general point that's buried underneath his tantrum. I like playing D&D and sure, some of that is nostalgia for playing D&D, but I play loads of other games too and like to steal ideas from them. Still, if you change enough things about the game you're playing, sooner or later you're still playing an RPG, but you're not playing D&D. And where is the magical point of no return that means you're not playing the same game just with house rules? gently caress if I know, it's in the eye of the beholder and its not worth getting snippy with other people because they see it differently than you do. Anwyay, I'm also enjoying the discussion about house rules. Bolting on weird rules, stealing entire sub-systems from other games and discussing the how things work out at other people's tables are time honored traditions. I played a lot of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with the Rolemaster Arms Law books grafted on wholesale, and knew a guy who actually tried to get DMs to allow poo poo from a tattered copy of Arduin Grimoire. One of the neat things about the older systems is how well they keep working on a basic level even as you pile on lots of chrome. Man Dancer posted:To DCC players (and others): How are you handling XP and level advancement? DCC RAW gives 0-4 XP per survived encounter (whatever survival might mean), with scaling XP for how dangerous it WAS, not how dangerous the GM/Judge EXPECTED it to be. Obviously, XP required to level up is much less (10 XP total to get from 0 to 1, 50 total to get from 1 to 2), but it still makes for some weird incentives around the general (and generally appropriate!) player impulse to make an encounter (combat, trap, navigating a dungeon) as safe as possible with the tools they have at hand. I've been giving out 0 - 4 xp per encounter and it's working well for style of game we're playing, which is episodic and with no overarching story. We did discuss borrowing the Savage Worlds practice of giving a few xp per session based on whether or not the characters had advanced toward their stated goal and thought it'd be better for a more story focused game. I also considered giving out a flat level advancement every few adventures, but I've really enjoyed running the occasional adventure for the groups "B Team" of lower level replacement pc's to get them nearer to the party average and don't want to sacrifice the variety in levels. I also really dig the DCC Modules and its another way to use more of the lower level ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
I always end up giving fiat and milestone level-ups in every level based RPG I ever run, just because my players always, always forget to record their XP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:the cleric is just super weird on a conceptual level (fantasy magical Van Helsing medic in plate armor?). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Not that bad. The Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller seem like they might have been an inspiration, with the addition of results-based magic of course. I think I'd be way more into the Cleric if Paladins didn't exist. Clerics/paladins and fighters/thieves are really classes that don't make sense both existing, in a thematic sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
"This is/Isn't OSR" is not a discussion particularly worth having. And, having both been there for a lot of "Old School" and having played "OSR style" and "Modern" style, I'm going to push the totally radical opinion that there's not qualitative difference between them whatsoever and that what some "old school" folks believe to have been an age of freeform never existed, nor that there's a distinctly "modern" mechanics first take that never existed after the eighties (good lord did you even play AD&D with all the rules? Do that and try to tell me that's not mechanics first). But that's why this thread is here. We play old games, we all have different takes on games, let's hear all the different takes and ways in which people do it. Except the ones that are just kinda lovely from the top down for reasons not to do with games but with poo poo. If someone's offended by that, bye.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
For the class discussion, I've sometimes considered what would happen if "multiclassing" was the norm for the game. No such thing as a single class fighter: if you want to play a Paladin, you get the Cleric and the Fighter, if you want to be the swordmage you're Fighter/Mage and so on. I used to think you'd need two classes for each "theme" so people could double up if you wanted, like a Sorcerer and Wizard class that you could "double up" on if all you wanted was to do spellcasting. I've become less sure of that over time. Making every single class combo into a multiclass would also let you simplify some of the mechanics and include a lot of character customization without having to make a unique class for everything. Have a list of titles for specific multiclasses if that's your thing (cleric/ranger? You're a Druid). I'd even write it, given some time and thought into it. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I think I'd be way more into the Cleric if Paladins didn't exist. Clerics/paladins and fighters/thieves are really classes that don't make sense both existing, in a thematic sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:what would happen if "multiclassing" was the norm for the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Speaking of bolting unnecessary rules onto a simple framework... I seem to be making a habit of getting involved in discussions way after they're over, but here goes: there was talk a while back about house ruling ability increases into B/X. Personally, I like the idea of ability increases, but just giving ability boosts at certain levels doesn't quite feel right to me. However, injecting a bit of randomness to increasing ability scores gives it just the right feel of baroqueness that I expect in my old school games. (For the record, I know that going by feel is a terrible idea when designing a product on a professional level, but since this is a house rule for my barely recognizable FrankenD&D I'm okay with this.) The Cavalier from Unearthed Arcana can already train their physical scores and although I'm no big fan of the class it gives the exact framework I want for increasing ability scores while having a degree of randomness to it. Yes, I'm bringing percentile stats to B/X. I might be going crazy at this point. Anyway, how this works: everyone rolls their stats, 3d6 in order, doing whatever switcharoos the DM lets them. Each player then rolls 1d100 for each of their abilities, except for 18. 18 shall remain the cap above which no amount of training will be able to take you. For the purpose of this roll, a result of 000 will be read as a 0. This percentile is a measure of how close the PC is to attaining an ability score increase. Then as the PCs level they get to roll a die and add it to their ability score's percentile. If the percentile hits a hundred the character has now increased said ability score and reaps all the benefits thereof. Any points in excess of a hundred are carried over to the new ability level. Say a Fighter with a Strength of 13/97 rolls an 8 or improving that ability, that roll would bring them to 14/05. At this point I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I'm certainly not the only one who's thaught of this: there are lots of variants of this idea floating around the internet, and after some searching I decided to adopt the version outlined here: http://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.fi/2013/01/hacking-hackmaster-part-3-on-fractional.html?m=1 I merely added the demihuman classes into the equation. In general the process of how a character improves their ability score can be handwaved: should a Magic-User increase their Strength you can retroactively assume that they've been hitting the gym at the Young Men's Heathen Association with the Fighter. However, each class is assumed to have a training regimen which is focused on particular ability scores at the expense of others. This is represented by the dice you get to roll for ability score improvement. The dice, in order of priority, are: d20 - d12 - d10 - d8 - d6 - d4 And each class's priorities are as follows: Cleric: Wis - Con - Str - Cha - Int - Dex Dwarf: Str - Con - Dex - Wis - Int - Cha Elf: Int - Str - Dex - Con - Cha - Wis Fighter: Str - Con - Dex - Cha - Wis - Int Halfling: Dex - Str - Con - Cha - Wis - Int Magic-User: Int - Wis - Con - Dex - Cha - Str Thief: Dex - Int - Cha - Str - Con - Wis As you can see I used the exact schemes presented in the article linked above. The demihuman classes caused a bit of a headache: at first I considered giving the Dwarf priority in Con over Str, but I decided against it since Str is still the Dwarf's prime req. With the Elf and Halfling I chose to prioritize their non-Strength primes, since Strength was already prioritized by two classes. I'm still crunching the numbers on this: I might change the progression scheme to something else, and I'd be happy to get some feedback on this. Also, while doing this I realized that under B/X's system there really isn't much of a difference between, say, Str 13, 14 and 15, so what I'm thinking of introducing alongside this system is a system of staggering the benefits of ability scores so they line up more smoothly. But that's another effortpost to come in the future. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I always end up giving fiat and milestone level-ups in every level based RPG I ever run, just because my players always, always forget to record their XP. Our group members don't give a flying gently caress about what the XP count is, we care about levels. We're lucky if one person records.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats basically how 3e ended up as far as I ever saw. Well, I mean multiclassing that actually WORKS. And isn't totally broken at its core by designers who don't know what they're even trying for. e: Here's a "increasing ability scores" houserule I've tried for B/X: on every level, you may choose one of your Prime Requisites and roll 3d6. If it's equal to or higher than your current stat, raise your stat by one. If your current level is higher than your chosen Prime Requisite, raise the stat by one automatically. If your Prime Requisites are at their maximum level, choose any other stat, but those stats do not increase without a roll. This does mean that "every high level character has the same stats" syndrome rears its head, but it already did via magic items and wishing and so forth. It also mitigates really bad early rolls you go with anyway and presents a clear path of progression for your character. Stars Without Number uses a similar system for HP rolls, where you roll all your hit dice every level and raise your HP total to your roll if you roll higher than your current total. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 10:26 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:e: Here's a "increasing ability scores" houserule I've tried for B/X: on every level, you may choose one of your Prime Requisites and roll 3d6. If it's equal to or higher than your current stat, raise your stat by one. If your current level is higher than your chosen Prime Requisite, raise the stat by one automatically. If your Prime Requisites are at their maximum level, choose any other stat, but those stats do not increase without a roll. I really like this! It's much simpler than my proposed system and it has an inbuilt staggering effect on account of the fact that the higher your stats go the less likely you'll be to roll above your prime! I might use this in favor of my more math-intensive version (which I still sort of like, because percentile ability scores have a certain degree of pedigree in old-school D&D).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
There's a point where you want to leave class based systems behind, and y'all are at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I really like this! It's much simpler than my proposed system and it has an inbuilt staggering effect on account of the fact that the higher your stats go the less likely you'll be to roll above your prime! I might use this in favor of my more math-intensive version (which I still sort of like, because percentile ability scores have a certain degree of pedigree in old-school D&D). I'd still love to see how your math works out compared to how it works out with my idea. Keep thinking about this stuff, I'm all for this and always want more mechanics to steal. osirisisdead posted:There's a point where you want to leave class based systems behind, and y'all are at that point. If we wanted to leave class based systems behind we wouldn't be having an entire thread about them. Put up something substantial or creative for once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:There's a point where you want to leave class based systems behind, and y'all are at that point. I have plenty of non-class systems available to me, and I do play them. I'm not a 13 year old who has no choice but to play D&D because it's all there is, using a system with classes and levels is an active choice. For once and all, messing around with mechanics isn't a horrible crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
If someone does want to post an angry rant about how multiclassing destroys the game despite having been in D&D games since '81 I'm not going to stop it, mind. I'm just not going to stop people from pointing and laughing either. e: Oh, more on topic: did someone write that better overview of DCC yet for me to put in the OP? I understandably could have missed it in the confusion. It's still a standing offer and I'm not the person to write it for reasons of "stop bugging me about DCC already".
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:e: Oh, more on topic: did someone write that better overview of DCC yet for me to put in the OP? I understandably could have missed it in the confusion. It's still a standing offer and I'm not the person to write it for reasons of "stop bugging me about DCC already". If no one else appears with a ready to go overview, I will absolutely write it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:
Then play the goddamn class system instead of whining about how multiclassing isn't good enough. There's a point when you want to go with classless systems, and if multiclassing is "totally broken at it's core by designers who don't know what they're even trying for" then maybe the entire idea of a class-based system can be left behind, while still having the requisite skills and abilities to meet appropriate challenges available to the party as a whole. And I quote, Rulebook Heavily posted:Well, I mean multiclassing that actually WORKS. And isn't totally broken at its core by designers who don't know what they're even trying for. Lightning Lord posted:I have plenty of non-class systems available to me, and I do play them. I'm not a 13 year old who has no choice but to play D&D because it's all there is, using a system with classes and levels is an active choice. There's a point where you want to leave it behind, and if the idea is totally broken at it's core, maybe you're looking at the problem the wrong way. That's what I'm saying, maybe if you're unhappy doing rigid class games, play a game without them, instead of trying to modify a class game into a pseudo-classless game and insulting people who suggest otherwise. Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Then play the goddamn class system instead of whining about how multiclassing isn't good enough. So "Let's see if we can make this mechanic work" is the same as "WELL THIS GAME IS poo poo AND I SHOULD LEAVE IT BEHIND". When discussing the flexibility and potential of a mechanic that's almost as old as the game we're talking about. And it automatically means we're unhappy with our games, too, apparently. Are you a human being? Can you interpret words in a way that makes sense and doesn't conform to your biases? Please demonstrate this capability by being less of an idiot. Or just get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Then play the goddamn class system instead of whining about how multiclassing isn't good enough. Uh, RH is saying 3e's multiclassing system specifically is broken. No one in this thread is unhappy with class games at large, they're just messing around with rules ideas. No clue how you got the idea I was insulting you from anything I said, but ok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Lightning Lord, you're being alright and constructive. It's Rulebook Heavily who is being some kind of self-righteous prick about elfgames. They're taking an offhand suggestion and returning with shrill shrieks of rage because I'm criticizing their ideas on a level that are somehow UNACCEPTABLE!
Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
The 3e multiclassing system is a hot mess of disconnected ideas that don't function as intended by its designers due to how the mechanics they made actually work. I don't think this is even a controversial statement, it straight up doesn't work the way the designers wanted it to. Fighter/mages were intended to be able to be replicated by taking one level in fighter, then one in wizard, etc etc and get a character of roughly the same capability: anyone who knows the system it just isn't that way, at all. It also led to some very strange interactions, perceived "OP"ness (although a straight Druid 20 is more powerful than any multiclass I can imagine and I used to frequent charop boards) and a whole mess of other things. And it also led to people imagining that 3e somehow invented multiclassing. The term "multi-classing" is older than AD&D, the system that had the first official D&D version of it (if you don't count how Elves worked in literally the first D&D game ever made where they had the ability to act as two classes), and discussing game mechanics when talking about games is like, basic level discussion. And the idea that it's somehow not old-school is bonkers when it's a concept discussed in the little brown books. osirisisdead, you can't even handle people talking about game mechanics when discussing games. You're a loving idiot. Go away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:I used to frequent charop boards. That's something to be proud of?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 11:47
|
|