|
Why did two hit matrixes fall out of style? They didn't seem too bad from what I saw. That said, it did feel like all the math was just sort of there. Like things didn't feel like there was a system behind it. Am I wrong? Things like save bonuses, your to-hit vs AC, and, especially, ability score bonuses.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Covok posted:That said, it did feel like all the math was just sort of there. Like things didn't feel like there was a system behind it. Am I wrong? Things like save bonuses, your to-hit vs AC, and, especially, ability score bonuses. At its heart, pre-2E AD&D is just a garbled mess of unrelated tables, vaguely formulated rules exceptions, wonky subsystems, needless percentile rolls and dense Gygaxian prose all crudely bolted together. It's not without its charms, but it helps if you see it more as a "build-your-own-D&D"-kit than a complete and thought-out roleplaying system. 2E didn't fix all of this, but it got rid of the worst excesses and made the core books actually readable. You often hear grognards praise AD&D1E as the Perfect Holy Grail of gaming, but 99 times out of 100 that's just the nostalgia talking. With the amount of well-written, playtested and streamlined retroclones out there, I'd actively advice against using it for retro-D&D/OSR type stuff unless you've got a previous emotional attachment to it. Comrade Koba fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:At its heart, pre-2E AD&D is just a garbled mess of unrelated tables, vaguely formulated rules exceptions, wonky subsystems, needless percentile rolls and dense Gygaxian prose all crudely bolted together. It's not without its charms, but it helps if you see it more as a "build-your-own-D&D"-kit than a complete and thought-out roleplaying system. 2E didn't fix all of this, but it got rid of the worst excesses and made the core books actually readable. Yeah, the readability was very low. Like, for example, according to you guys, that very important rule for understanding multiclassing is in a completely different books and only on one line. There were more instances of this issue like "clock of displacement" being called a "displacer cloak" yet being the same thing. What's the best AD&D retroclone, out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Covok posted:Why did two hit matrixes fall out of style? They didn't seem too bad from what I saw. e: OSRIC is imo the best AD&D retroclone. It's certainly the most faithful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Covok posted:What's the best AD&D retroclone, out of curiosity? Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Companion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Covok posted:What's the best AD&D retroclone, out of curiosity? If you want straight-up, no-frills AD&D, go with OSRIC. It's a very faithful reproduction of the 1E rules, but in a single rulebook that's actually edited and properly organized. It's pretty dry and doesn't evoke any particular feel, but AFAIK it was originally written simply to make it possible for people to publish new 1E material without having to deal with trademark or copyright issues. For a better old-school feeling, you can't go wrong with Labyrinth Lord. It's really a clone of Basic/Expert D&D and not technically AD&D, but there's a free companion volume that contains optional rules to make it play a lot more like 1E.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Some friends of mine ran an AD&D campaign for a while, with the idea being that they would actually take a full look at the rule-book and play completely RAW. They kept at it for a while, but the game sounded like it was basically a parody-game--despite the fact that everyone in this group but me is a classic "I learned to play D&D in the 70's from my older cousin" OSR-type, the game seemed to quickly devolve into people playing up the misery of all the dumb little subsystems for groans & laughs. One of the players even drew up a "complete" flow-chart to AD&D combat to really underline how insane AD&D is that I think has popped up on this subforum a few times. I think the campaign fell apart when they all started hitting level 2 and had to start dealing with training costs and downtime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Hackmaster 4e (the first one) deserves a mention here. It's a "parody" of AD&D but it's playable and fun if everyone's on board with the kind of meta-roleplaying that goes with playing an over-the-top AD&D clone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
What's the pros of Labyrinth Lords vs the pros of OSRIC? Just curious. Edit: Sorry, let me rephrase this because it sounds like an already answered question the way I originally worded it. I meant "how much does the Advanced Companion make Labyrinth Lord like AD&D and how does this compare to OSRIC's emulation?" Covok fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Hackmaster 4e (the first one) deserves a mention here. It's a "parody" of AD&D but it's playable and fun if everyone's on board with the kind of meta-roleplaying that goes with playing an over-the-top AD&D clone. And I'd recommend the comic that spawned Hackmaster, Knights of the Dinner Table. The comics are 90% hilarious tales of dysfunctional gaming groups with a large cast (eventually) of people who take role playing too seriously while the tone plays it straight, as though these players didn't lead broken lives and massive city wide campaigns were the norm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:And I'd recommend the comic that spawned Hackmaster, Knights of the Dinner Table. The comics are 90% hilarious tales of dysfunctional gaming groups with a large cast (eventually) of people who take role playing too seriously while the tone plays it straight, as though these players didn't lead broken lives and massive city wide campaigns were the norm. Yeah, KotDT used to be hilarious but I have no idea about what's been going on with it (or Hackmaster) these days. The whole plot arc with the bag of holding was gold and carries over into the Hackmaster rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:And I'd recommend the comic that spawned Hackmaster, Knights of the Dinner Table. The comics are 90% hilarious tales of dysfunctional gaming groups with a large cast (eventually) of people who take role playing too seriously while the tone plays it straight (Although I havent looked at it for years... wasnt even sure they were still making them.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Looking over the to-hit matrixes, I began to wonder how long low level combat was in older games. Your chance to hit was always pretty low for most creatures at 1-3 (or 1-2 for fighters) and Wizards and Clerics have only 1 level spell. How much of low level combat was just missing? I guess that is mitigated by only sending monsters of ACs of 8-9. I suppose the very, very low health of that level sped things up, in one regard. Then again, that probably spun both ways. Also, the number appearing on the lower monsters is a little high. Edit: Of course, AC is not a good number to base things off of because even high AC monsters can wreck people pretty hard. Probably best to use XP as a base. Which still sort of works out, but makes me wonder how often people just miss. Covok fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Covok posted:Looking over the to-hit matrixes, I began to wonder how long low level combat was in older games. Your chance to hit was always pretty low for most creatures at 1-3 (or 1-2 for fighters) and Wizards and Clerics have only 1 level spell. How much of low level combat was just missing? I guess that is mitigated by only sending monsters of ACs of 8-9. I suppose the very, very low health of that level sped things up, in one regard. Then again, that probably spun both ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
I'd say that players hit about half the time in early B/X combat, while monsters hit frontline PCs maybe 10-20% of the time. I actually like the dynamic pretty well--you're surprisingly tough, but also never more than a short burst away from being in a bad place (although PC health is set up so that if you get hit real bad from non-critical health you'll usually pass out instead of die). Combat tends to a baseline as a sort of reverse slot machine--lots of very quick turns in which generally the expected happens, but in which something significant is almost always a possibility. When something weird happens generally a more interesting and problem-solveish situation (a PC has a clever idea, a key PC falls and the goblins are now in melee with the mage, the gargoyle grabs the unconscious halfling and tries to run off with him, the second to last goblin gets one-shotted so hard his friend immediately surrenders, etc) organically starts up and things get more interesting. If nothing like that happens, combat usually ends in five or so minutes, which tends to feel pretty good from a pacing perspective even if nothing too interesting happened. I think it works because it's fast and it's simple. A big part of why I don't like AD&D is because it takes this not-super-tactical system and tacks just a few tactical elements onto it, creating something that manages to be both pretty shallow but also not nearly as quick and elegant to move through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Covok posted:What's the pros of Labyrinth Lords vs the pros of OSRIC? Just curious. Basically, OSRIC is a clone of AD&D as written, so if having all the rules be the same is an important thing for you, OSRIC is the way to go. Labyrinth Lord with AEC is a faithful adaptation of one particular playstyle: using B/X rules and bolting on the rules for characters from AD&D. It doesn't have weapon speeds, separate to-hit bonuses for using a particular type of weapon against a particular type of armor and all that jazz, but it's fast and simple while allowing for AD&D style classes and race and class separated from each other. If you want to run AD&D with all the stuff like initiative segments (remember, ranged attackers have a chance to attack first if they have a high enough Dexterity!) and such, OSRIC is the way to go. If you just want the aesthetic of AD&D with elf Fighter/Magic-Users and Dwarf Clerics and don't want to worry about strict adherence to the rules, go with Labyrinth Lord.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Just looked up OSRIC, it sounds like it is a retroclone of 1e, but it also sounds like it doesn't have the Monk class, which is actually in 1e. And a later addition was made, in a separate pdf, for the 1e style Monk. Which is actually nerfed compared to the actual, already super weak starting out, 1e Monk. They go on to say that they made it tougher at early levels, and well it does use D6 instead of D4 for hit points, and the AC bonus does not actually say that Dex isn't added in, though it also doesn't say that Dex actually is added in so who knows there. But otherwise they reduced the damage and number of attacks for the Monk. That just seems weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:If you want to run AD&D with all the stuff like initiative segments (remember, ranged attackers have a chance to attack first if they have a high enough Dexterity!) and such, OSRIC is the way to go. If you just want the aesthetic of AD&D with elf Fighter/Magic-Users and Dwarf Clerics and don't want to worry about strict adherence to the rules, go with Labyrinth Lord. Did anyone ever play with those? Like all those little optional things I saw -- like weapon speeds --, while fine for a computer game, seemed poor for a tabletop game. Ryuujin posted:Just looked up OSRIC, it sounds like it is a retroclone of 1e, but it also sounds like it doesn't have the Monk class, which is actually in 1e. And a later addition was made, in a separate pdf, for the 1e style Monk. Which is actually nerfed compared to the actual, already super weak starting out, 1e Monk. They go on to say that they made it tougher at early levels, and well it does use D6 instead of D4 for hit points, and the AC bonus does not actually say that Dex isn't added in, though it also doesn't say that Dex actually is added in so who knows there. But otherwise they reduced the damage and number of attacks for the Monk. That just seems weird to me. My guess is that they really didn't like how, in their view, the monk didn't "fit in" with the western fantasy motif D&D goes for and excluded it. Then, under some form of pressure, included it, but passively aggressively nerfed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Of course part of the reason this matters to me, is well I like Monk classes, and I am actually playing in a 1e game now. Admittedly with some houserules. And that is how I found out that the 1e phb actually had the monk, and that the monk has d4 hit dice, starting with 2, and goes up to 18 hd at 17th level, more than any other class. Which is another thing the OSRIC version doesn't get, while it uses d6s and still starts with 2, it maxes out at 11 dice. Of course my Monk in the 1e game doesn't really get any benefit out of having so many hit dice, since I did not have a 15+ Constitution. Luckily I have managed to get a Ring of Protection +2, surivve until level 2, and get some, possibly homebrewed, blessing from my god that grants me +1 to Dex, increasing my Dex to 17, and allows me to actually add my Dex to AC, which Monks in 1e could not do so they started with 10 AC. The blessing also makes my fists +1 weapons which is pretty cool. No idea if 1e actually has any blessings like that or if it is homebrewed. But I have been finding that magic items are kind of bonkers in 1e, coming from a 3.5/4e/5e background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Of course part of the reason this matters to me, is well I like Monk classes, and I am actually playing in a 1e game now. Admittedly with some houserules. And that is how I found out that the 1e phb actually had the monk, and that the monk has d4 hit dice, starting with 2, and goes up to 18 hd at 17th level, more than any other class. Which is another thing the OSRIC version doesn't get, while it uses d6s and still starts with 2, it maxes out at 11 dice. Of course my Monk in the 1e game doesn't really get any benefit out of having so many hit dice, since I did not have a 15+ Constitution. To clarify, I actually really like monks too. I'm just explaining what I think happened, not that I agree with what they did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Covok posted:Did anyone ever play with those? Like all those little optional things I saw -- like weapon speeds --, while fine for a computer game, seemed poor for a tabletop game. Well, Gygax does explicitly state in the 1E DMG that if you're not playing by the rules as written, you're not playing AD&D at all. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I'd say that players hit about half the time in early B/X combat, while monsters hit frontline PCs maybe 10-20% of the time. I actually like the dynamic pretty well--you're surprisingly tough, but also never more than a short burst away from being in a bad place (although PC health is set up so that if you get hit real bad from non-critical health you'll usually pass out instead of die). Combat tends to a baseline as a sort of reverse slot machine--lots of very quick turns in which generally the expected happens, but in which something significant is almost always a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
I don't even want to imagine how long a fight would have taken to play out using the 1e rules as written. Things that were ignored when I played it: weapon non-proficiency penalties, damage adjustment for enemy size, weapon speed, the different to-hit adjustments based on AC for every single weapon... and anything related to the "pummelling, grappling and overbearing" rules.  Basically, I was playing B/X with AD&D classes and spells, and I'd guess that was the case for the majority of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Covok posted:Looking over the to-hit matrixes, I began to wonder how long low level combat was in older games. Your chance to hit was always pretty low for most creatures at 1-3 (or 1-2 for fighters) and Wizards and Clerics have only 1 level spell. How much of low level combat was just missing? I guess that is mitigated by only sending monsters of ACs of 8-9. I suppose the very, very low health of that level sped things up, in one regard. Then again, that probably spun both ways. In older D&D, the players are encouraged to avoid combat, especially when they are low levels. That's why there's not levels or challenge rating assigned to monsters. Combat was a messy affair that often resulted in one of your party dead, quite different from your 3.x systems and 4e. If you really must go into combat, bring some hirelings, or become part of a bigger band.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
To elaborate on my earlier post, Labyrinth Lord + Advanced Edition Companion is significantly more playable and well-written. LL is technically a B/X retroclone and then the Companion gives it a bunch of additional AD&D 1e-based mechanics, but that's probably a lot more representative of peoples' actual experience with playing AD&D. OSRIC is the go-to if you value faithfulness to the original text over gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Yeah nobody fought at lower levels of AD&D. 2 good hits on the fighter at level 1 and he's dead. One average hit kills the level 1 Magic User, and a good hit could kill a level 3 - 4 MU if you're playing RAW and rolled for HP. Etc. etc. etc. D&D was the game of heroic ambushes. Covok, sorry to hear about your tourny not working but honestly a midnight Tomb of Horrors run for unknowing, unprepared neophytes sounds like a nightmare. And also AD&D rules are not completely awful or unuseable (although they are bad in a lot of ways), it was the way they were applied. Look at the original Monster Manual 2 and you'll start to get some of this philosophy - plenty of dungeon "gently caress yous" scattered all around, including monsters that look like dungeon floors and engulf the player, monsters that look like stalactites and fall on the players, monsters that look like cloaks and strangle the players, and worms that live in the garbage and, if the character sorts through the trash/refuse looking for treasure (which a lot of modules have!), burrow into their skin and dig into their heart and kill them. And this was in an official product! The tacit message behind all this (and Tomb of Horrors and such), of course, is that the DM should be loving with the players and making the game as Fantasy Vietnam as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Which is not to say there were bad modules or adventures, Castle Ravenloft, for instance, has a lot more thematic or story elements. That in turn spawned Forgotten Realms and Planescape. Plus there is Dark Sun. Honestly, if you want a hardcore retro experience and don't mind not being all wizards and clerics, run Dark Sun for 2e. It's a great sandbox setting with tons of cool lore and options. If you want something a little tighter with a narrative focus, run Planescape (cool and triply planar travel) or Forgotten Realms (much more typical D&D swords and sorcerers.) I'm not sure if you can play those with Labyrinth Lord, but that seems like the main appeal of a retroclone, so I imagine it to be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Don't run Planescape in 2e. It doesn't work very well. Run it in FATE or something. Dark Sun is pretty much the best AD&D 2e setting because the mechanics and narrative line up correctly. The worst clash of mechanics is probably Al-Quadim, because it's based on the cool tales of Scheherazade and should be very loose and kick rear end like the stories, you know? Instead you get an INCREDIBLY rigid setting where you not only play a class but are forced to play a kit on that class. For example if you play a Thief you have to pick a kit and some of the kits are: Barber (yes, exactly what it sounds like, you cut hair at the bazaar between adventures and eavesdrop on stuff), Holy Slayer (you are a drugged up assassin crazy who must do whatever his cult demands) etc. etc. so it is pretty tough. Would you like to play a fighter that is also literally a slave? The game tries to downplay this but uh...yeah. This is A Thing. I mean, I really like Al-Quadim but it just doesn't give a gently caress about players at all. One of the mage kits is Sh'iar, you're a cool mage guy with a mini-genie helper, but you have a limited amount of spell slots compared to a regular Wizard and you have to send the helper out to get spells for you and it takes him like 10 minutes per level of the spell or something crazy! So you're just really good at overcoming DM obstacles by having him fetch Passwall or Fly or whatever when there's no time pressure but during a fight you kind of suck rear end, which means more skulking and more ambushing and such. Not exactly 1001 Arabian Nights, here. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:In older D&D, the players are encouraged to avoid combat, especially when they are low levels. That's why there's not levels or challenge rating assigned to monsters. Combat was a messy affair that often resulted in one of your party dead, quite different from your 3.x systems and 4e. Since I imagine this puts bigger emphasis on traps and diplomacy, does this give the Thief class and charisma attribute some utility. Also, to be honest, if I was going to run a game in an OSR title, I'd probably do a OS dungeon crawl with all parties aware of the intent. What I mean is I'd do fantasy Vietnam since that isn't something I usually run nor play in. I know that playstyle gets a bad rap among more modern audiences, but I had fun the time I played in it before. I think making it works comes from all parties involved knowing the score and the GM not actively being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Covok posted:Since I imagine this puts bigger emphasis on traps and diplomacy, does this give the Thief class and charisma attribute some utility. Then you should really read the Dark Sun books, it's a very oppressive atmosphere, and everything really is trying to kill and eat the players. It's also just a really cool setting, and few things are funnier then someone's first run in with Dark Sun's Halflings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Covok posted:Since I imagine this puts bigger emphasis on traps and diplomacy, does this give the Thief class and charisma attribute some utility. My big tips for running a dungeon crawl (even a pretty grim and FFV one) are to treat each dungeon as a sort of mini self-contained setting and to go super easy on the traps. Treating a dungeon as a mini-setting basically just means to include a lot of NPCs with agendas and relationships to each other. These can be super super simple, but can really open up play into being more than just going into a room and stabbing a guy over and over again. I've been trying to scale way down on the number of encounters I have in which combat is semi-unavoidable--it's way more fun to have the PCs meet an ogre who tries to shake them down with unreasonable demands than to meet an ogre who immediately rolls for initiative. In the first the PCs have a chance to trick the ogre, or try to hire him as a guide in exchange for some reward, or to just give him what he wants and avoid the fight if they're feeling beat up, and combat will always be an option if all else fails. I usually try to think of NPCs in a dungeon crawl as open-ended social puzzles with combat as a fail state, not as combat encounters. As for traps, I'm strongly against deadly traps that don't have a fair bit of foreshadowing. Traps are fine on things that scream out "this is probably trapped", like locked treasure chests or pedestals with idols on them or rooms where the floor is made up of a bunch of tiles with letters on them or doors with "STAY OUT!" notes attached to them. Traps are terrible when they're on nondescript halls or doors. A possible exception to this is with traps that you pretty much balance things around the PCs getting hit by--a pit trap that only does 1hp of damage but makes a bunch of noise and alerts nearby guards is fine even if there's pretty limited foreshadowing for it. A pit trap that leads to a 80' fall onto poisoned spikes would basically need to be placed so obviously that you're convinced nobody would ever be so stupid as to fall into it (at which point it either becomes an amusing story about how John jumped on the sagging obviously-trapped rug even though everyone else was yelling for him not to or a tool that the PCs can use to trick a dragon to falling into or something).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The worst clash of mechanics is probably Al-Quadim, because it's based on the cool tales of Scheherazade and should be very loose and kick rear end like the stories, you know? Instead you get an INCREDIBLY rigid setting where you not only play a class but are forced to play a kit on that class. For example if you play a Thief you have to pick a kit and some of the kits are: Barber (yes, exactly what it sounds like, you cut hair at the bazaar between adventures and eavesdrop on stuff), Holy Slayer (you are a drugged up assassin crazy who must do whatever his cult demands) etc. etc. so it is pretty tough. Would you like to play a fighter that is also literally a slave? The game tries to downplay this but uh...yeah. This is A Thing. The only Al-Qadim kit that actually mechanically suffers from linking the setting to the mechanics is the Sha'ir, and that's only because, like you said, they have to sit around with downtime waiting for their genie to fetch them a spell. I think the only time the holy slayers were even hinted at being drugged up was a specific NPC faction in the Assassin Mountain adventure; beyond that, they're no more inherently crazy than, say, a paladin or druid. And the barber as it's actually implemented is one of the kits that works best, I think: the socially adept yet notoriously brusque rogue who specializes in uncanny rumormongering and dabbles in chirurgery is a much more interesting and evocative niche than most thief archetypes, and is distinct enough that it doesn't infringe on the merchant's design space despite both kits serving the same classes and encompassing broadly similar character concepts. Likewise, the priest kits are actually one of the better ways that I've seen a cosmopolitan D&D setting distinguish priests and faiths from one another: instead of having a priest subtype for every deity, the priest kits cover how priests practice their faith. And if you don't find any of the thematic kits interesting, or think they're too specific for what you want to do, you can just pick the generic kits (sa'luk rogue, askar warrior, pragmatist priest). The only class that's forced to take a non-generic kit is the wizard, who has to specialize in one or two elements (or be a sha'ir or an outlander barbarian), and considering how overly generic the default D&D wizard tends to be, I don't personally consider that to be a downside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
I just came across the Red Tide Campaign Sourcebook on Drivethru, and I'm seriously considering picking it up. It's published by the company as Stars Without Number and Spears of the Dawn, and it's essentially the sandbox mechanics from those games ported over to Labyrinth Lord, as well as a random dungeon generator with worked example, new classes and races, and some other interesting looking stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Red Tide should be compatible with B/X, Scarlet Heroes, BECMI, Dark Dungeons, and Moldvay Basic too, like Black Streams was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:I just came across the Red Tide Campaign Sourcebook on Drivethru, and I'm seriously considering picking it up. It's published by the company as Stars Without Number and Spears of the Dawn, and it's essentially the sandbox mechanics from those games ported over to Labyrinth Lord, as well as a random dungeon generator with worked example, new classes and races, and some other interesting looking stuff. Red Tide is an interesting setting, although personally it doesn't feel very appropriate for use with most OSR systems, feels more like it would work better with Runequest or some other BRP variant
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Red Tide is an interesting setting, although personally it doesn't feel very appropriate for use with most OSR systems, feels more like it would work better with Runequest or some other BRP variant Seeing as I rather like Runequest, that would certainly not be a problem. Just as soon as I have money, I'll have to pick this up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
FASERIP the Not!Marvel Superheroes retro clone has been completed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
I heard DCC's Peril on the Purple Planet is out. Does anyone who was in on the kickstarter want to talk it up for us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
LashLightning posted:FASERIP the Not!Marvel Superheroes retro clone has been completed. How does FASERIP stack up to modern offerings in the superhero genre?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I heard DCC's Peril on the Purple Planet is out. Does anyone who was in on the kickstarter want to talk it up for us? The box set is very content rich. You could easily get 4-5 entire adventures out of it, even starting with a level 0 funnel. The amount of background info on the people, monsters, artifacts/items, and lore is amazing. Well worth the price of admission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:49
|
|
