|
Thanks. I'll check it out. In the meantime I've already started reading the Night's Dark Terror. Man, they really didn't mess with it back then. There's a fight around every corner and the proliferation of treasure, items and magic is incredible. First area, inhabited by a small clan of horse herders... several healing potions and a decent armory. The first big fight earns them a +2 weapon. After the next encounter, the characters get ten free horses. And we've only just begun!
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Last night, I decided to read through that series of blog posts on OD&D's setting. I got to say that I found the setting to be surprisingly non-generic. It really is telling how much Gygax liked taking stuff from his favorite media and throwing it in a blender. Remember hearing there was an adventure where you could accidentally fight the crew of Star Trek, for another example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
DnDClassics / DTRPG just put up the AD&D 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual. At this rate I'm expecting the DMG to be up by this time next week, Sep 2, and that would leave just OD&D, 4th Edition and 5th Edition as the ones still lacking the corebooks for full play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Covok posted:Last night, I decided to read through that series of blog posts on OD&D's setting. I got to say that I found the setting to be surprisingly non-generic. It really is telling how much Gygax liked taking stuff from his favorite media and throwing it in a blender. Remember hearing there was an adventure where you could accidentally fight the crew of Star Trek, for another example. Yeah, OD&D managed to make its own pretty distinct mythos from real-world mythology before they got into the big campaign settings. Being designed as a multiverse of infinite worlds left a lot of stuff open to do cool poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Don't know if this is kosher or not but I am getting rid of some of my modules. They have been gathering dust and I would rather them go to someone who will appreciate them. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3738435 Advanced Dungeons and Dragons boxsets. My group was going to play them and they just sat there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Questions about AD&D 2e: 1. Since proficiencies are supposed to be optional, it should be okay to drop non-weapon proficiencies entirely and use whatever other skill resolution system, right? Especially B/X-style "roll under attribute", since NWPs are really just that but with more limitations? 2. Any strong opinions on Combat and Tactics? The additional combat actions and crit tables (usable only by players I'm thinking) seem nice, even if I don't go full battle grid. As well, it should be possible to use these books without using the other Player's Option ones, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
1. Yeah, dropping proficiencies shouldn't be an issue, they even give you another option right there in the text with secondary skills, which is basically an early form of 13th age's way of doing skills. I would probably just use a modified 13th age setup now that I think about it. 2. I loved combat and tactics when 2nd edition was my game of choice, and I still do like some of it. Weapon weights are still off, but crossbows are way better than vanilla, and it just has the best and most complete weapons list in D&D, so even throwing everything else out I would use the weapon tables from this. Combat itself is basically 3.0+. Rounds are shortened so five combat rounds equal 1 old minute round. Facing exists and initiative is very in depth and complicated. There are dedicated critical hit tables, but I never use them except possibly to flavor how monsters go down. It's martial arts styles are pretty simple and don't seem overpowering so if I were to play close to by the book I would use them. I like it because I like to play with mini's, and aside from a few differences, it really isnt so different from what came in the next edition, better I would actually say, because second edition classes are better balanced on the whole than 3rd, thief aside of course. E:You definitely don't need the other player's option books, as whatever else you can say about them, they are all pretty self contained. Where they did interact there were sidebars explaining how you could use them together if you wanted alongside options to use them with the core rules. E2: Skills and Powers was the only real game changer in the bunch, the others just added stuff that worked pretty seamlessly with the core game. The magic one had some pretty fun additions if I remember correctly, like the Chaos Mage, but aside from that it pretty much just added more spells. Just avoid Skills and Powers. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Questions about AD&D 2e: 1: Sounds reasonable to me. (I do think having some kind of 'named' skills written down that are semi-specific gives some players something to think about when they are problem-solving or RPing.) 2: I cant remember the book clearly enough to say too much right now, but I definitely do not remember any reason you would need to use any specific mix of the Options books together. I personally keep class/level type actions* restricted to players and "special" levelled npcs/monsters. (Was that the book** with the over-complicated crit system where you had to count up some kind of points, and then check damage type, and then roll and add them and find the right chart to find out what happened? If so SIMPLIFY that stupid poo poo if you go with it is my opinion...) I remember there being some ok ideas in the spells Options book too. "Specializing" in a spell by permanently losing a memorization slot (which is a bigger deal in 1e/2e), and some other interesting things that were not just "power up" for casters. * Skimmed through a bit of it. We didnt grid, so the stuff I would pull in were quality-of-life things for the players. Shields-as-weapons, "weapon familiarity", special formation stuff if a player(s) wanted to do it (I just did this in a hand-wavey way), weapon mastery and styles (which are also in the CBoFighters I think), the "special talents" (most of which are NWPs in other books), the expanded weapons charts, and a basic simplified version of the unarmed fighting. (As usual unarmed was made too complicated.) ** It was. That system was slow and un-fun for everything except the occasional OH poo poo YEEEAH! moments when someone pulled a crit at a crucial moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
I didn't use the "2.5" books much but I think I remember Combat & Tactics having some stuff that required you to also be using stuff from Skills & Powers. Not much stuff, but I remember it being there. Those are some of the books I've managed to lose though, so I'm not sure. You can definitely just drop NWPs and use roll under attribute in 2e, we did it all the time. From memory, doing it like that will interact badly with parts of Skills & Powers though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I didn't use the "2.5" books much but I think I remember Combat & Tactics having some stuff that required you to also be using stuff from Skills & Powers. Not much stuff, but I remember it being there. Those are some of the books I've managed to lose though, so I'm not sure. It also had some easy dice rules/ways to minimize "18 str fighter failed to break through the wall, but the 6 str wiz got lucky".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Thanks for the input, guys. I know the crit tables are potentially overcomplicated, but the players want to use something after seeing the d10,000 tables from HackMaster and we agreed that these were a good compromise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks for the input, guys. I know the crit tables are potentially overcomplicated, but the players want to use something after seeing the d10,000 tables from HackMaster and we agreed that these were a good compromise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
They look like these:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I always figured critical hits were just a more mechanistic way of explaining just what happened when someone was defeated in battle, rather than just narrating, so I just used them for flavor when enemies went down. Using them as intended seemed to mess up the way combats worked in D&D. My favorite version is 4E crits, as they don't do anything extra, just replicate the best possible damage roll.
remusclaw fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:They look like these:
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I always figured critical hits were just a more mechanistic way of explaining just what happened when someone was defeated in battle, rather than just narrating, so I just used them for flavor when enemies went down. Using them as intended seemed to mess up the way combats worked in D&D. My favorite version is 4E crits, as they don't do anything extra, just replicate the best possible damage roll. I view them as another layer of "ending a battle", similar to morale checks, when you score a particularly great crit that kills a dude instantly instead of having to grind through their HPs, although I've never allowed monsters to use crits against players for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
I can see that viewpoint. My issue with crits as tables in D&D is how they change the game when the fight isn't over. Putting aside the fact that most critted creatures who take a substantial effect should probably be removed from the fight regardless of whether they die or not,. suddenly there are modifiers to attacks and movements that have to be remembered for any critted enemy, where with the straight hit point system they just go as they go until beaten. It is the same problem I have with slow acting poison or diseases done to enemies, unless they are major villains likely to stick around for a while, it's an unneeded complication that last until whatever few rounds later when the fight ends. Edit: that last line makes crits sound exactly like status effect spells, so never mind, the martial, the merrier. I kind of like them better when players are effected by them as they at least have permanence and become memorable in a way when bob the Elf is suddenly Bob the one eyed elf. Maybe I could remove the death problem that way, instead of dying, the player could take a random critical hit to save their life. vvv To be very clear, I would only use player affecting critical hits as an alternative to death, and then only if they wanted that alternative. I value my players more than I value the thought of Bob the one eyed elf. vvv remusclaw fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I kind of like them better when players are effected by them as they at least have permanence and become memorable in a way when bob the Elf is suddenly Bob the one eyed elf. Maybe I could remove the death problem that way, instead of dying, the player could take a random critical hit to save their life. If those hurdles are overcome then the universe is telling you to take that fuckers eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Thought about an old houserule I had been kicking around for years on Clerics. Whatever they are in 3E up, in prior D&D they do pretty much end up the healer, and some people hate to play them. My change to the Cleric to fix this is to take away healing magic spells, and replace them with Holy water. The Cleric has a certain number of vials of water they can bless in a day per level, and a maximum amount in total equal to the amount they can bless in a day.The vials can lose their blessing if the cleric makes more than allowed, starting with least recently blessed. The Holy water heals 1 HD roll per level of the character drinking it. Any thoughts? E: Got the idea from reading about Dave Arnesons pre D&D game, where in it magic was all potions. A Wizard created spells as potions in a laboratory, and depending on that wizards capability, the spell potion had a percentage chance to fail. I figured Clerical healing could benefit from such a system, minus the failure chance of course. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:(Hackmaster Crits) In actual play, these end up being a combination of remusclaw posted:I always figured critical hits were just a more mechanistic way of explaining just what happened when someone was defeated in battle, rather than just narrating, so I just used them for flavor when enemies went down. when the crit takes someone out of the battle, and this FRINGE posted:Make some kind of confirmation roll (like the orc rolls a 20, and then rolls a second d20 to see if the crit was really a crit, on a 20 it was) and/or allow saves/con/dex checks to avoid the terrible damage. because getting up to "you hack his leg off" is actually pretty hard to do because of the way "severity" works and a lot of the time you're gonna end up with something like "+1d6 damage" or whatever. The crits are overcomplicated and presented in such a way as to make them seem even more so (  ), but they actually work pretty well for the implied style of game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Thought about an old houserule I had been kicking around for years on Clerics. Whatever they are in 3E up, in prior D&D they do pretty much end up the healer, and some people hate to play them. My change to the Cleric to fix this is to take away healing magic spells, and replace them with Holy water. The Cleric has a certain number of vials of water they can bless in a day per level, and a maximum amount in total equal to the amount they can bless in a day.The vials can lose their blessing if the cleric makes more than allowed, starting with least recently blessed. The Holy water heals 1 HD roll per level of the character drinking it. Any thoughts? If you're going that far why not just detach the mechanic from the Cleric altogether so there's no longer the pressure that "someone has to play the Cleric". Although then you are coming very close to reinventing healing surges, which you might see as a good thing or a bad thing. Edit: Also the potions as you describe them seem extremely powerful, since they will (on an average roll) heal all of a PC's hitpoints in one go. Sailor Viy fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
I always figured the old school issue with clerics was that they have all these interesting spells to cast yet need to set aside that potential for healing. So this is an attempt to keep healing a part of their domain, yet open them up to being able to use everything they have but are forced to ignore. I like healing surges, 4E is a great game. This is pretty much a way of replicating healing surges through giving the team a steady and reliable access to healing potions. It does have the problem of still tying healing to the Cleric, but I do think it makes the Cleric more enjoyable to play in game, as they aren't expected to turn combat medic at a moments notice, they are free to be what they are otherwise, a magic fighter. If no one wants to play the Cleric even then, well I suppose I may have to go further. Or I could just play a different game. For some reason though, old D&D is the game I most feel like messing around on the rules with, probably because it is the one I grew up playing, and as such am most familiar with. E: On potion strength, it comes from the weirdness related to the abstraction of hit points. 1 damage to a ten hit point fighter is roughly equal to 10 damage on a 100 hit point fighter. In an earlier post I did a similar thing with natural healing times, because I always thought it strange that a higher level character took longer to heal naturally from an equivalent amount of damage as compared to a lower level character. In truth, my initial thought, and what I wrote before changing it was just one hit die of healing, and I changed it on a whim and still waffle on it. My other thought was that the number of hit dice healing would rise as the Cleric leveled. Another thought is that maybe the blessings per day could be measured in hit dice, so if the cleric wanted to, they could bless a vial to heal more than one hit die. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Sailor Viy posted:If you're going that far why not just detach the mechanic from the Cleric altogether so there's no longer the pressure that "someone has to play the Cleric".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
An idea I saw from an OSR blog to get away from Vancian casting was using the Cleric's Turn Undead table as a spellcasting table. Going off the B/X tables, a level 1 Magic User (first row) would roll a 2d6 and need a 7 or better to successfully cast Magic Missile (a level 1 spell being equivalent to the left-most column, or the Skeleton) Going off the AD&D tables, a level 3 Magic User (third column) would roll a 1d20 and need 7 or better to successfully cast Mirror Image (a level 2 spell being equivalent to the second row, or the Zombie) A result of T would be considered a 3+ on a 2d6 or a 2+ on a 1d20, and a result of D would be considered an automatic success. You might still want to limit the maximum level of spells that a spellcaster has access to according to RAW, because otherwise a level 1 B/X Magic-User can cast Fire Ball by rolling 11+ on a 2d6, as well as continuing to enforce a limit on only casting a spell once per encounter so you can't cast two Magic Missiles in the same fight, or possibly even one spellcasting attempt per encounter so you can't try to cast Sleep more than once in the same fight. EDIT: By the by, is it true that the "you can only memorize a spell once" was an important omission from early D&D that Gygax only managed to clarify years after the fact? remusclaw posted:Thought about an old houserule I had been kicking around for years on Clerics. Whatever they are in 3E up, in prior D&D they do pretty much end up the healer, and some people hate to play them. My change to the Cleric to fix this is to take away healing magic spells, and replace them with Holy water. The Cleric has a certain number of vials of water they can bless in a day per level, and a maximum amount in total equal to the amount they can bless in a day.The vials can lose their blessing if the cleric makes more than allowed, starting with least recently blessed. The Holy water heals 1 HD roll per level of the character drinking it. Any thoughts? I think this is an okay houserule. Making it heal a percentage of health, ala healing surges, is also something, but then that really only works in 4e because 25% of max HP isn't going to be 1-2 HP Other ideas I've seen to improve the Cleric action economy would be 1. Grant them heals (or whatever small subset of spells) whenever they hit a target in melee 2. You can cast a heal (or spell) and have it resolve immediately and that's your action, or you can declare you're casting it and you can still move and attack, but it doesn't resolve until the start of your next turn/start of the next round. I've also seen it with a further qualification that it only resolves if the Cleric doesn't get hit between the declaration and the resolution. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:EDIT: By the by, is it true that the "you can only memorize a spell once" was an important omission from early D&D that Gygax only managed to clarify years after the fact? Intentional or not, it's a super useful rule. It does a lot to help with the cleric problem, too--you can't be a heal-bot if you can only memorize each heal spell once. It turns healing into more of a 'get enough health that you won't be one-shotted and then play real careful' thing than a 'get back to full power' thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Intentional or not, it's a super useful rule. Depends on how much bookkeeping you/they are up for, but mix-matching them all adds a lot more randomness to what the wizard manages to "master" and forces more inventive play than "of course I have sleep, invisibility, fly, and fireball".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yeah, the same for max spells per level/int, max spells per book, and rolling to successfully understand new spells. Yeah, I might be making this up but I recall reading some version of DnD where the wizard rolled for each spell in a given spell level to determine if he could EVER learn that spell. Seems to offer more variety between wizards at the cost of less player choice I guess. I've always been tempted to just abandon the notion of knowing spells permanently at all and adjusting the treasure tables to provide scrolls more often. So a wizard is the only class that can read and cast from magic scrolls found randomly but can never have a book to memorize from permanently. Would force inventive play and resource management (is this the encounter I should use my last Sleep spell in? I don't know when I'll find another) and would let me use all the 2nd edition wizard spell cards I have as treasure handouts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:Yeah, I might be making this up but I recall reading some version of DnD where the wizard rolled for each spell in a given spell level to determine if he could EVER learn that spell. Seems to offer more variety between wizards at the cost of less player choice I guess. I've been messing around with a system that treats a MU's base magic as "X times per day you can read from a scroll without destroying it", to make the spells you get more explicitly a type of treasure you find. It requires a fair number of semi-unintuitive or fiddly side-rules to make it work, though--stuff like not being able to cast the same scroll twice in a day without destroying it, or maybe rules about needing to attune to a scroll overnight in order to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:An idea I saw from an OSR blog to get away from Vancian casting was using the Cleric's Turn Undead table as a spellcasting table. How about hand out a spell allotment with pseudo-vancian setup? You can try to cast every spell you have memorized, but only once before you have to meditate/study/whatever for (an hour? ten minutes? idk.) You can "memorize" X spells of X level and Y spells of Y level each day. This allows you to keep the current stepped spell availability. Casting a spell is like turning undead. I'd prefer the AD&D tables to make the M-Us on equal footing with the fighters. I don't see any reason to "privilege" them with the curved 2d6. When you successfully cast a spell, it's cast at the default spell level. Once you get to the "Destroyed" automatic cast result, it's cast *at your level* - so spells don't start to scale until you're higher level. If you use a scroll, you make your roll: If you make your roll for that level, you cast the spell and you don't consume the scroll, letting you use it again after a meditation. If you don't make the roll, the scroll is consumed. You can learn spells from scrolls as usual, but it consumes them. This is kind of goofy and has weird eccentricities but I like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
The DMG for AD&D 2nd Edition is now available on DTRPG, completing that edition's corebooks.gradenko_2000 posted:EDIT: By the by, is it true that the "you can only memorize a spell once" was an important omission from early D&D that Gygax only managed to clarify years after the fact? Found the answer to my own question: A spell used once may not be reused in the same day. Page 19, (Original) D&D Book 1: Men and Magic A Strange Aeon posted:Yeah, I might be making this up but I recall reading some version of DnD where the wizard rolled for each spell in a given spell level to determine if he could EVER learn that spell. Seems to offer more variety between wizards at the cost of less player choice I guess. The "minimum number of spells" thing showed up as early as OD&D's Greyhawk supplement, but it was never really explained until the AD&D 1e PHB. Interpretations of Gygax's writing abound, but it seems like the accepted one is: At the start of the game/during character creation, roll percentile dice against every spell in the game (at least of spell level 1) to find out if you could ever learn that spell, provided you find it in a spell book or as a scroll or some other means. If a given spell passes the "chance to know" check, then the M-U can learn it if they ever find a scroll for it in the wild. If you've gone through all the spells in a spell level and you have not yet hit the minimum number of "knowable" spells for that level, you can start going through the list again. If you've gone through the list AND you've hit your minimum, then any spells that haven't passed the percentile check cannot ever be learned. JonBolds posted:How about hand out a spell allotment with pseudo-vancian setup? You can try to cast every spell you have memorized, but only once before you have to meditate/study/whatever for (an hour? ten minutes? idk.) You can "memorize" X spells of X level and Y spells of Y level each day. This allows you to keep the current stepped spell availability. I like this idea. It reminds me of Heroes of Might and Magic, which was described as having a pseudo-Vancian casting mechanic. A hero's Knowledge stat determined how many "copies" of a spell they could cast. If you had a Knowledge of 2, you could cast every spell in your spellbook twice, and then you'd have to return to the town/Mage Guild to "recharge" gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The DMG for AD&D 2nd Edition is now available on DTRPG, completing that edition's corebooks. I like that interpretation you described of determining if you can ever learn a spell, assuming you find it in the wild. That's what I was thinking of. I never understood casting from a scroll in the first place because copying it into your spell book is a million times more advantageous unless you already knew the spell. Is the point that casting from a scroll gets around the level limits or just allows you to cast more in a day than your given number of memorizations? Like I'm level 3 but find a level 5 spell on a scroll and my choice is to copy it into my book and wait many levels to use it or to cast from the scroll one time? Or do you have to meet the level requirements even on a scroll? I just never experienced wizards who could cast a handful of spells a day having a bunch of same or lower level scrolls to get around the per day casting limit, but maybe that was their intended use? tl;dr: Under what circumstances would a wizard cast a spell from a scroll?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
I believe the point, at least in the early levels, is that you can use it to get around spells-per-day limits. I share the same perspective that I've never seen or heard of it happen in a game, but it makes sense that if you get out of your first dungeon alive with a couple hundred gp and nothing to spend it on (because you can't use any weapons nor armor), then you might as well blow on a bunch of extra Sleeps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
The July mega month continues! I have always toyed with the idea of limiting spell casters to one major school and one minor school, like a very limited specialization. So you could be an Evoker with a side of necromancy for instance. Full spell progression on the major school and maybe level 6 on the minor. Maybe bring it up to three schools with a split of 9/6/3. Certain spells would be made universal, like read magic and such. Thing is, I don't think caster supremacy is really that much of an issue in old D&D, and I think this sounds more useful for 3rd or 5th. If I were to implement this in <=2nd ed, would spell casters warrant some other boosts to make up for it? E: Cleric progression could be 7/5 or 7/5/3
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I just never experienced wizards who could cast a handful of spells a day having a bunch of same or lower level scrolls to get around the per day casting limit, but maybe that was their intended use? I did it only once, when I hadn't had time or resources to copy the spell yet, and the party was in a panic. 3rd edition, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I never understood casting from a scroll in the first place because copying it into your spell book is a million times more advantageous unless you already knew the spell. Is the point that casting from a scroll gets around the level limits or just allows you to cast more in a day than your given number of memorizations? Another limitation that fell by the wayside was weight. Each spell used to take between A and B pages (there was some calculation/roll that told you how well you managed it) and a book only had a certain number of pages in it. The books were heavy. Wizards are not strong. There was intended to be a limit on the number of spells you had access to when you were not in the home/castle/tower/guild you presumable dumped money into to store your library, spare scrolls, and decorative skulls. Wizarding was loving expensive in ways the rest of the classes were not. (Except for the good old Paladin tithing I guess.) gradenko_2000 posted:Found the answer to my own question:
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
So this thread's still stuck in July; perhaps this is some meta-commentary about OSR gamers being trapped in the past?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:So this thread's still stuck in July; perhaps this is some meta-commentary about OSR gamers being trapped in the past? Real OSR gamers are stuck in April.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
I've been working on-and-off on a document to merge RoleMaster's combat system with D&D. I don't know if I'll ever get to use it, but it's an idea that I haven't been able to get out of my head ever since I discovered ICE products. So far I think this should allow you to play through the Basic/Red Box set (as in levels 1-3) with any edition of RM's Arms Law supplements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Can someone give me the nitty gritty on Lamentation of Flame Princess? I guess one of its modules won an award recently? Why is it under NOPE in the OP? Is it GrimDark? Some research on the people behind it made them sound like turds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
obeyasia posted:Can someone give me the nitty gritty on Lamentation of Flame Princess? I guess one of its modules won an award recently? Why is it under NOPE in the OP? Is it GrimDark? Some research on the people behind it made them sound like turds. IIRC, it's very rape-y and is full of sexual violence. I could be mixing things together in my head so take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:55
|
|