I guess I was just asking if we should start "roleplaying" between ourselves in the gameplay thread at this time or if we should keep it in the Discussion thread. Wasn't clear... and some GM's are adament about keeping the gameplay thread clean.
Calhoun grew up Yolbiac Valley and recently has made his way into the bigger world (whether he wanted to or not!!). Calhoun traveled down a hidden path to the empty town of Yandek. From there he found himself in the village of Deadfellows, on the Garlon River. A very short stay in Deadfellows had him "running" from the village to the Town of Grimmsgate.
If anyone else might have followed this path, then it is quite possible Calhoun would have met up with them.
Actually my character Lewill Deray (the magic-user) would definitely hire a guide to travel to Grimmsgate so perhaps Calhoun could be his guide
Maybe we met up in the village of Deadfellows...from what I have read, you would most likely not want to be there alone!!!
Deadfellows is too far away from any roads, or centers, and not ‘on the way’ from anywhere. So it is not just some place you would have ‘passed by’.
Also from there to Grimmsgate it would be hundreds of miles through wild, untamed lands, since there is no direct route. So not the best option for level 1 characters ;)
I’m happy to “retcon” and have Ärwulf yet to arrive in Grimmsgate and can have met the others on the road. His disappointment and ire at the decrepitude of Grimmsgate can form just about anywhere, and if it helps coalesce our “merry” band to appear at the front gate together, all the better.
I’m sure there will be plenty of time to roleplay with Ms Sparrow…and happy to be travelling on the road with her before we get to Grimmsgate.
Also, only his grandparents call him Ärwulf. “Wulf” will do. Or “Hey, what did you say?” Maaaaaybe “Stop, thief!” depending on how events pan out.
I figured he came out of the vale by 'hidden' ways to the village of Yandek then following the river traveled to Deadfellows and not wanting to stay in such a lawless place, moved on downriver to the ruins of Deep Wake where he turned south on the old track to Grimmsgate. So maybe on the road to Grimsgate from Deep Wake. By the map, it would be only around 100 miles or so between the two places...at 24 miles per day would only be about 4 1/2 days
Oh...background and such was added to my alias
Hey Calhoun, that would be about the most dangerous way I can imagine to get from the Yolbiac Vale to Grimmsgate (I will go along with the existence of that 'hidden' passage for the time being) :D
The vale has two main accesses - either the Coelum Pass to the south, which connects to Metzel and the King's Road (this would be probably the safest and most direct route to Grimmsgate), or the Ghostwind Pass to the north, connecting to the town of Elet and the Eastway Road. This would be a longer trek, but still much safer through well established roads.
That being said, we can assume you were just extremely lucky, and made it alive through all that expanse of wild, untamed lands, outlaw settlements, haunted ruins and so forth, until you got to Grimmsgate. I am perfectly fine with it.
Just want to make it clear that, the fact you somehow managed to get here via that route does not mean you can safely go back the same way, but then again you ARE a brave band of adventurers! ;)
Found a really good combat tutorial for Swords & Wizardry. Well worth watching, as it also brings up some of the things we might want to houserule.
Ok, I must be a complete tragic. I, sadly, watched the entire thing. Again. Please Obermind, don’t do this to me again. These Americans on YouTube are so incredibly slow and stolid in how they explain things, and…maddeningly dumb.
Here are some thoughts about the vid:
Definitely not a fan of the 2 in 6 chance to drop one or more items held in my hand because I am Surprised. Who am? Shaggy in Scooby Doo? Maaaaaybe for 1st level characters, but after that I say remove this completely. It is almost as if some in the ODnD community think that making things “perilous” at each and every die roll or event or participle of combat is some sort of badge of honour. The game is already deadly enough, not need to get…needlessly punitive. I do like that Monks and Rangers reduce your Surprise chance to 1 in 6. I kinda feel Assassins and Thieves should do likewise, or like that other OSR game that had goblins in it, some race…ancestr….heritag….ummm…folk.
I also take exception to the dude generally saying things like “I’m not rooting for anybody…I’m impartial”…blah blah blah. That kinda goes without saying, but the very fact that he is saying it right after things start to look…grim for the adventurers leads me to suspect he is secretly taking a certain amount of satisfaction from the events, like a grim overlord of a forgotten reality where adventurers [now in a grim voice] “should be aware that the grim world is perilously grim!!!! Mwahahahaaaa! Grim I say!!!”
And his assertion that the kobold “Garu” making an “astounding, amazing surprisingly amazing” *decision* to….shoot the fighter already hit is *not* some amazing feature of the wild and dynamic ODnD game. Man, this guy is really starting to irritate me. If anything, combatants making sour of the moment decisions about who to attack is a basic function of combat. Trying to claim it as an ODnD thing is like saying soldiers killing each other in wars today comes from the mists of time where combatants once…killed each other. Yes, yes they did. To quote that not-so great overlong preachy work that I never know whether to classify as sci-fi or fantasy “there ain’t much new under the sun”. But long winded boring folk seem to be legion on the interwebs….
Why can you move during the movement phase, and then melee during the “melee and spells” phase BUT you can’t move during the movement phase IF you are casting a spell during the “melee and spells” phase. Basically Malfak should have been able to move 5 feet to the left if he wanted to…similarly Pendor could have moved 5 feet to the right if he wanted to shoot/throw at the kobold “menacing” the dwarf cleric. Just because he “might” engage the dwarf cleric doesn’t mean he needs to be classed as “in melee”. The kobold directly adjacent to the dwarf? Sure. But the one on the diagonal, not so much. I’ve never been a fan of the Pathfinder “-4 to shoot into combat AND your ally provides cover so another -4 AND…..” schtick. As this dude says, this is an abstraction. Pendor should have a simple, straight shot at the kobold, and not need to step into melee. Gah.
I’m really starting to hate this. Only fighters getting their strength bonus in combat? No thanks. I’m not sure only Fighters only getting the bonus to damage is even palatable. Give strong characters the bonus to hit and damage, thank you.
Pretty sure he has Pendor’s AC wrong. Should be 15, not 13.
Oh. Ascending AC, or my brain will burst.
No idea what they are talking about regarding “within 10 feet”. In fact none of their melee stuff makes sense. I would say if you are adjacent, you are engaged in melee. Yes, I think attack of opportunity should be a thing. No I don’t think moving away should give a free attack, or at +2 unless you are actively turning tail and fleeing.
A critical hit of a natural 20 gives….+1 to damage?!? Are these guys brain damaged zombies? Double damage. It’s rare. It’s a 20. Do the big damage. I hate Matt Finch’s whole approach.
Yes, I know he says it later, but why have the kobolds leave when it isn’t their turn or before the dwarf or halfling even get to attack?!? He even says it’s “because it is a tutorial”, which seems to fly in the face of giving a tutorial, where you show people how to do things correctly.
A last word of advice Obermind. There are seven of us in this thread. I suggest making the rulings you want to be consistent, and don’t engage in any back and forth. Especially with that *one guy* in the thread who always watches the videos and has all the “opinions”. Let us know the rules and that is that. We’ll all be dead after a few combats anyway. And please….no more videos. I now have to try to get that 38 minutes back…and I should have been making my monk character for Brainiac’s PF2 game…
Hey OSW, thanks for taking the time to watch the video, and for the thoughts!
Two questions:
- What did you think of it as far as rules explanation go?
- Are you sure you want to play S&W? Doesn’t sound like you will be a happy camper, because I am planning on going RAW in the beginning for most of the stuff. Ok, perhaps not the dropping held items part :D
As rules explanation? Like I said, overlong, overwrought and kinda slow. But he covered all the bases. I must didn’t want to sit through extra explanation of how many 6’s go into 60 or how to calculate encumbrance. Which by the way he seemed to get wrong. He reduced the weight of his items’ encumbrance by 10, instead of increasing his allowed carrying capacity by 10. The math ends up the same, but he arrived there incorrectly. And I’m not really good at math…just….observant. And often dead wrong.
As for S+W - I’m here for the roleplay. Until Wulf dies. Then I’ll….roll up a new character. ;) And RAW is fine, as well as any other changes you make. I’ll accept them. As the annoying guy said - keep any changes consistent.
Here’s more ranty thoughts, spoilered so the rest of the players don’t tar and feather me. Not for what I’m saying, but how much. Honest.
The OSR rules are needlessly archaic, and they don’t promote any of the things they say they do. The abstractions are pointless - how is increasing the “outside” range of missile weapons to what they should be anyway a good idea? Or to put it another way - how often is the reduced range for the “indoor version” actually going to matter?
I think this is why I like Pathfinder 1 and 2 - I’m much happier having all the options in the world - the stories aren’t less gritty, less dynamic or any less “true” for having modern approaches to rules. Sure there can be a lot of “bloat” but that is a function, to me, of sheer capitalism and the urge to sell books.
Even now, looking at PF2: almost every 1st level fighter feat I would allow any character to access whenever they want, regardless of class. Why do you need a feat to use both the weapons in your hand, or put everything into one attack? And so many “feats” are just…activities. The only cost should be the action economy. And the action economy is the key. You want abstraction and dynamic combat? Action economy is both there for you to be abstract AND give you options. Anyway, /end PF rant…
Saying the winners/losers initiative is a way to make dynamic combat is ridiculous. It’s merely one way to run the combat. And I have no problem with it. It’s like block initiative, only broken into segments and using turns. Another abstract way to resolve combat. As arbitrary as any other.
Look, I’m totally fine with S+W. It’s another simulation for combat and resolving activities. It doesn’t matter to me in the long run, but I will have an opinion, especially where I see shortcomings, and doubly especially where I see them being championed as features instead of categorised more properly as bugs. Everyone’s mileage will vary, obviously.
I’ll now say something positive, I love morale. Loved it back in the day, and think it could easily be added to more modern systems. It makes a lot of sense that creatures will run when the threat is overwhelming. The game designer in me would make an adjustment that gives a range of exactly when different creatures (or even more granularly, different morale values*) roll depending on what conditions are met - superstitious creatures might run from magic; callow creatures might run when numerical superiority is lost etc etc… I particularly like the “creatures are possibly helpful”. I love the idea, much lost in modern games that the denizens might be persuadable or even become allies. Am currently in a PF2 game where not one character other than mine has tried to reason with or question the dungeon denizens. It was pretty much “see bad guys, wipe ‘em out”. So….go oldskool!
I love the continuation form the good old days of two shots for bows per round. We just accepted it as a thing back in the ADnD days, and even now I’m not sure if it was actually described in the rules anywhere. Must check my PH and DMG… BUT, I should say, it would be madness to try and breakup two shots into two parts in a PbP environment. Just roll both the shots and move on. PbP’s can die by characters confronting a door, so anything to speed up the game has to be a virtue…
*OR, to get even more granular as in my upcoming work “Therein lies the rub; or which way does the granularity lie?” you could combine values and species - some creatures might have a Morale of 8 generally, but 6 if magic has been expressed recently, or certain elf-hating species might have a morale of 10 or 12 if knife-ears are present. Pretty sure some of the original modules had stuff like that in them.
There, I said some nice things as well. There’s more I should and could say, but I have a PF2 monk to make. Human, of course…
Gents - still getting my head rattled by the rona so not made any headway with character or reviewing the system.
Might be worth factoring my assassin in at a later segway in the game - least I come out of this malaise with little or no creative energy.
Regards the rules - I'm in the same longboat as OSW - seems some of those rules make feck all sense.
Edit: Spoilered my own thoughts below
Dropping items is meh - see little merit in having either PCs or foes suddenly go all butterfingers on surprise rounds. Leave that to a 1 in combat.
Speaking of which - natural 20 should be double vandamage. Like OSW says rolling a 20 in combat was a thing of beauty to be revered and celebrated. Netting a +1 only is hardly worthy.
Also agree on the STR damage. Surely that's why Fighters used to have access to percentile strength back in the day. 18 Str cleric still hits hard. 18/91 Str Fighter... I'd keep it everyone can use bonus on melee damage and Fighters maybe doubly so? Maybe too much?
Sorry - am only really now digging into the system and comparing against AD&D proper, but would be interested to hear what everyone else thinks.
I am perfectly fine with rants OSW :)
By now you probably already know how much I do like PF1e at its core, so not point in even going there - no argument from me. And we have also discussed my attempts at playing 2e a couple of times in the past without much success, so I am not denying it or approving it until I get a chance at a real PF2e game.
I will add a third, which is 5e - I would also love to play in a 'Core-only' kind of 5e game, just to test how fun/easy/challenging it might be.
So yeah, I am always looking around for systems/ideas which bring things I like to the table - in this case I decided to start with the simplest one I could find and take it from there.
@BD: Thanks for chipping in, I hope you are at least feeling slightly better?
So I guess we could all agree that dropping items if you are surprised is... Meh :D
But I would stick to the Str RAW for Fighters. I like my Fighters to be special!
----------
In any case, and having said that, this is supposed to be not only a game preparation thread, but also a discussion forum among us. So I would not be averse to running the game using a different system (say PF1e Core only, for example), if we arrive to the conclusion it would be more enjoyable. Thoughts?
All good Obermind - am on the mend, but still testing positive. First day back @ work (albeit working from home) and energy levels are flagging somewhat.
Agree on the forum for discussion - right now its probably more valuable to me as a resource given how my brain is fried from C19.
Did spend some of my wakened time more valuably while off - settling on sidequests and mashups for my Night Below game to come. More worldbuilding - which will also affect options for the game regards races/classes/backgrounds or whatnot.
Regardless appreciate the collaborative forum we have going here :)
The rules for S&W don't really excite me, but as OSW said, I'm here for the RP. I'm fine with any system as long as there's some fun interactions between the PCs.
The rules for S&W don't really excite me, but as OSW said, I'm here for the RP. I'm fine with any system as long as there's some fun interactions between the PCs.
Exactly. I’m not going to talk about the rules anymore. I’ve said my piece. Happy to vote wherever asked, but happy to play RADBO (Rules as Decided by Obermind).
Oh, Obermind, just saw your comment re: PF1. Well, given we have already made characters (most of us?) lets roll with S+W, until after our first foray/adventure. See how we all like it, Obermind included. Then maybe we revisit, and if we want to, convert to PF1.
I will work on my magic user sheet/BG this weekend, he should be ready to go on Monday. Need to brush up on the S+W rules first.
My thoughts on PF1, I suggest keeping it Core book for starters. That way power creep is greatly reduced.
Ok then, lets stick with S&W for now - we can always change after.
-- Roster --
OSW: Fighter - Ãrwulf Stenn
Eric Swanson: Magic User
Daniel Stewart: Ranger - Calhoun
scranford: Rogue - Darcy Sparrow
Brainiac: Cleric - Cordelia Jerrell
Black Dow: Assassin - Slyghov Fell
Helaman: Fighter? - Hodor kinda guy
I will be on vacation from the 12th to the 19th October, hopefully under the Sun, but still reachable. So I guess we can aim at starting 'officially' after that?
Which gives everybody time to put their finishing touches on characters, create PF2e Monks, etc. We can continue with the discussions though :D
Definitely looking for a chance to play some 5e Daniel - tried a couple of times at D&D Beyond and even via discord PbP, but all those games fizzled out for one reason or another. So if you know of one which has an available spot, do let me know ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got the same opinion as most on S&W. Not my favorite system, but this is a good group of role-players and that's the key take away.
From my experience I've found it's difficult to keep an OSR game running in a PbP environment, and quite a chore for the DM. I've been in a few and none of them have lasted long. You would think with the lack of a battle grid, and light rules it would play easier on PbP but I've found the opposite to be true. With a less structured rule set you have to often wait on "judgement" calls to see if something works, which serves to slow things down for everybody. In PbP you are almost forced to work in a vacuum and things often bog down in the details... because there aren't any details.
I switched to 3.0, 3.5, and 3.75 (AKA Pathfinder 1) when they came out and found the progression from one to the next a good thing... but for various reasons I was ready for a change when each came out. Often for these systems it became the bloat that naturally occurs as systems age. I however never felt the desire to go back to an earlier system when I became familiar with the rules of the new system. The biggest problem with adapting these to PbP... and believe me I've played / ran a lot is the dependence on a combat map to truly maximize the characters potential, and no matter who/what is run the map is a PITA for all involved. It's the main reason I don't run more games in PbP.
Then came 5e and I was an instant convert. Still like "playing" 5e, but not a fan of running it anymore. It simplified things (Maybe too much), and I was able to move away from the combat map... until my players, who were raised on d20 demanded I return to it. After a few years the bonded accuracy which I so much liked in the beginning became a bit stale. Only being able to affect things by "Advantage/disadvantage" became a bit limited and repetitive. I believe Also, this became a more Heroic individuals working together game than a heroic group working together which is what I liked about OSR.
Then there is Pathfinder 2... which after my initial shock at the size of the rulebook has become my "Go-to" system of choice. Having said that I'm not sure it will adapt well to PbP. One of the advantages to PbP is that you can prepare things you plan on doing, then execute them. PF2 makes that more difficult, as well as still relying on a battlemap. So where does that lead.
I've tried many systems for PbP and for various reasons they didn't work out. I love Savage Worlds for tabletop for PbP not so much. Same with Warhammer, Basic Roleplaying, DCC and others. I'm liking what I see with Castles & Crusades at the moment and might give that a try running something on the boards. More modern mechanics, but simple combat and adventuring. Also, a big fan of Worlds Without Number... but again am concerned with this, as with any OSR game being long term successful in a PbP.
In a nutshell I'd be less concerned with the rules system, and concentrate on the story, which I'm convinced this group will be successful with. Just don't let the rules get in the way of the roleplay.
|
Gurps and Traveller are two systems that I feel are easy to understand but can go as deep as you want into extra rules and such. I have purchased all the newest Harn books and am itching to play a Gurps system game on Harn...but it would be a fairly gritty system limited in race choice and magic...which I think many people would not like. but rich in character development and history!!
Chiming in on the systems chatter.
OSW hit the nail on the head earlier with PF1 - yeah it is bloated but to my mind it essentially allows you the flexibility to run the game (and characters) that you want - no question. Trimming off the unwanted fat works - but I'm not a fan of these Core only games per say - they overlook many of the options (archetypes, traits etc) that adds so much to the game (especially traits - love 'em).
5E I've only played a few times. Liked what I saw, but do see the pure limitations on Advantage v Disadvantage only. Simple and easy granted - and I really like the Backgrounds. Currently my Night Below game will be likely be 5E with house rules to give it more flavour.
OSR games seem to never quite nail it. Some have good features, others not. I've back the Dolmenwood Kickstarter, which essentially builds on OSE system. Looks super flavoursome which I love more than mechanics and am plan to run it as a PBP.
Guess Scran has the crux of it. Story over system. He ran a great home-brew setting for Zweihander and if any game I run can capture some of that lighting in a bottle, then I'll take that :)
Even though I started with TSR and BECMI (well B and E, not the rest) and ADnD, there is no way I can in any conscience play 5e. I tried a couple games here on the boards when they were playtesting 5e, and couldn’t stomach how bland it was, and absolutely hated the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Coupled with the sheer and culpable evil of WotC I’m a never-player.
Got a few more thoughts (as always) but need to walk the hounds…
Was thinking I could run a game if there was some interest. I also have the Advanced 5e system from Level up. It is basically the same with certain 'new' additions to expand rules.
Well, count me as interested ;)
I've got the same opinion as most on S&W. Not my favorite system, but this is a good group of role-players and that's the key take away.
From my experience I've found it's difficult to keep an OSR game running in a PbP environment, and quite a chore for the DM. I've been in a few and none of them have lasted long. You would think with the lack of a battle grid, and light rules it would play easier on PbP but I've found the opposite to be true. With a less structured rule set you have to often wait on "judgement" calls to see if something works, which serves to slow things down for everybody. In PbP you are almost forced to work in a vacuum and things often bog down in the details... because there aren't any details.
I am sorry to hear that scranford, as I admit I would expect an OSR system to be easier to run in PbP, because maybe you can get rid of grids (perhaps use Index Cards?), and also because the game itself is less complex - just compare a PF1e stat block with a S&W stat block and... Yeah... There is a lot more to juggle when DMing PF1e monsters + player Feats, skills, bits and bobs. Of course you can just ignore complex monster stats, and run them 'simple', but conversely that feels like a disservice to PF1e to me.
I switched to 3.0, 3.5, and 3.75 (AKA Pathfinder 1) when they came out and found the progression from one to the next a good thing... but for various reasons I was ready for a change when each came out. Often for these systems it became the bloat that naturally occurs as systems age. I however never felt the desire to go back to an earlier system when I became familiar with the rules of the new system. The biggest problem with adapting these to PbP... and believe me I've played / ran a lot is the dependence on a combat map to truly maximize the characters potential, and no matter who/what is run the map is a PITA for all involved. It's the main reason I don't run more games in PbP.
I have been trying, but it has been hard to get my old pen and paper RPG group to get together remotely (some of us have moved to different countries), so PbP is currently my main 'RPG source'. Either I find a way to make it work 'better', or I'll have to drop out from the hobby. Of course, I could look for new people to play with but... I am too old and grognard-y for that (just kidding, or maybe not).
Then came 5e and I was an instant convert. Still like "playing" 5e, but not a fan of running it anymore. It simplified things (Maybe too much), and I was able to move away from the combat map... until my players, who were raised on d20 demanded I return to it. After a few years the bonded accuracy which I so much liked in the beginning became a bit stale. Only being able to affect things by "Advantage/disadvantage" became a bit limited and repetitive. I believe Also, this became a more Heroic individuals working together game than a heroic group working together which is what I liked about OSR.
My experience with 5e is very reduced, but I have the feeling it might be suffering from the same issues PF1e is? Bloat, and unbreakable immortal characters. I want to try and play it some more first, before I can really attest this is so. On a side note, I have recently came across a ruleset which seems pretty well put together, and which tries to make 5e more OSR-like (it is called Olde Swords Reign, and it is free on DrivethruRPG) - maybe it is worth a look?
In a nutshell I'd be less concerned with the rules system, and concentrate on the story, which I'm convinced this group will be successful with. Just don't let the rules get in the way of the roleplay.
On this we fully agree ;)
Gurps and Traveller are two systems that I feel are easy to understand but can go as deep as you want into extra rules and such. I have purchased all the newest Harn books and am itching to play a Gurps system game on Harn...but it would be a fairly gritty system limited in race choice and magic...which I think many people would not like. but rich in character development and history!!
I played a TON of GURPS, but I think my group started it all wrong :D
We mixed and matched everything, and ended up with crazy 500 point characters, playing using GURPS Supers, Powers, Cyberpunk and a bit of Ultratech. We had tons of fun, but there were so many moving parts it was just nuts.
Recently I started revisiting an old blog called Roleplay Rescue - I have been listening to it starting on season 5 (around 2019), and the author (Peter Webster) is a firm believer in GURPS (for the episodes I am listening to, he DMs for characters with 75-100 points in a Fantasy-esque environment).
Now, in one of the episodes he interviewed I think it was Sean Punch, the writer of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy RPG, and Sean said something that really stuck with me. GURPS is a game about options - you start with endless possibilities, and then you narrow it down to 'manageable' portions (not these exact words, but that was the gist of it), and this is what supplements like Dungeon Fantasy, or Black Ops, or Cyberpunk do.
I would love to play GURPS again, but I would start much simpler than 500 point characters - I would probably like to go with something with a much lower power level, to really comprehending the rules. Another important thing Sean pointed out is that much of the stuff in GURPS is optional - you can start REALLY simple, and then just build on top of that. Don't want to use directional combat with front and rear, then don't. Don't want to use directional blocking for shield bearers, then don't. Don't like Fright checks, just drop them. The rules are there, but you are not forced to use them.
Bottom line yeah, I really like GURPS - it is also on my list hahaha.
I've tried many systems for PbP and for various reasons they didn't work out. I love Savage Worlds for tabletop for PbP not so much. Same with Warhammer, Basic Roleplaying, DCC and others. I'm liking what I see with Castles & Crusades at the moment and might give that a try running something on the boards. More modern mechanics, but simple combat and adventuring. Also, a big fan of Worlds Without Number... but again am concerned with this, as with any OSR game being long term successful in a PbP.
Just remembered something else while I was typing - I think there are two systems (there are probably more) which I think may port well into PbP just due to their nature:
Call of Cthulhu - there is a lot of investigation and RP, and less combat (of course you can have shootouts against cultists, those are fun!), and even the very pace of the game I think lends itself very well to PbP;
Vampire, the Masquerade - I have played VtM many times, and we used to face it like a D&D game, lots of Brujah and Gangrel around, fights breaking at the drop of a hat, Malkavian psychos and Tremere slinging spells like they were a Wizard or something. BUT VtM is a lot about intrigue, plots within plots, deception, misdirection, loss of humanity and descents into madness, etc etc. I think the pace and structure of VtM games lend themselves very well to the PbP medium, with the right group of people.
On C&C - it is definitely on my list, but I still have not been able to wrap my head around how strong magic becomes as you climb in levels, and resisting its effects gets disproportionately harder - as someone who usually plays characters with some form of martial bent, I resent that :) I have seem some house rules suggestions on it though.
Chiming in on the systems chatter.
OSW hit the nail on the head earlier with PF1 - yeah it is bloated but to my mind it essentially allows you the flexibility to run the game (and characters) that you want - no question. Trimming off the unwanted fat works - but I'm not a fan of these Core only games per say - they overlook many of the options (archetypes, traits etc) that adds so much to the game (especially traits - love 'em).
I love Traits also BD, but nowadays almost no one uses a trait because it makes sense for their character. They don't choose Fey Foundling because they were found in the wilds as a child, bearing a mark of the First World. Nope, most just want it for the benefits of extra healing on a self healing character, or the saving throws. They don't choose Magical Lineage because one of their parents was a gifted magic user, they do it because they are focusing on a spell, etc.
When I say PF1e Core for me is the way to go, I mean something along the lines of sure, you build your basic Paladin or whatever character, and then you gain options as you level up. What happened to the good old days when you started as a straight up Barbarian, who midway his adventuring career got marveled with the Knights of Solamnia so decided he wanted to be one? Why can't a Paladin discover ONLY at level 3 that he actually IS a Fey Foundling, and gain the trait then. Same reasoning regarding Feats, Archetypes, you name it. Classes have features, but who says you cannot gain other game features as you level up, and still go toward the monster build you want, or maybe not, and instead go toward something different altogether, motivated by the game you are playing? Wouldn't that be cool as heck?
Gurps and Traveller are two systems that I feel are easy to understand but can go as deep as you want into extra rules and such. I have purchased all the newest Harn books and am itching to play a Gurps system game on Harn...but it would be a fairly gritty system limited in race choice and magic...which I think many people would not like. but rich in character development and history!!
As I get older, and the hairs on my neck get more beardy (note to self: you didn’t make whiskers for breakfast, you need to shave…) the less interested I am in strange races and …magic and …gods. I mean I’ll still play and run more regular games, but these days I mostly want to play humans, and mostly fighting types. Again, with respect of my own bias, I’ve never really played casters. I’ve never played a Wizard and only rarely a Magic User back in the day. So a game of gritty not-so fantasy is something I do occasionally think about and might enjoy. Right up until my character has dysentery and dies of gangrene after an amputation went sour.
Even though I started with TSR and BECMI (well B and E, not the rest) and ADnD, there is no way I can in any conscience play 5e. I tried a couple games here on the boards when they were playtesting 5e, and couldn’t stomach how bland it was, and absolutely hated the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Coupled with the sheer and culpable evil of WotC I’m a never-player.
Got a few more thoughts (as always) but need to walk the hounds…
I can see the blandness of 5e seems to come up with some recurrence. All the more reason for me to try it, and see for myself. I played a level 1 Paladin and... I liked it :D
If you want complexity and features (I would say on par with PF1e), just take a look at this channel - it will blow your mind.
Not watching any more videos, and definitely not any about WotC’s game! I am literally the stick in the mud.
@ Obermind: I do like the idea of options as you level. For me, feats and traits etc are akin to treasure - you might learn a combat style from an old grognard, thus gaining a feat or class feature from another class over and above your regular advancement, or grow into your eldritch powers learning a spell from a completely different class or ancestry. It’s also another way to make the reliance on magic items less heavy.
And while I’m looking for my lawn…what happened to interesting magic items? Or even super minor magic items that gave you little power but were narratively interesting. Ah. My lawn. Now get off!!!
Hahaha I have also been looking at my lawn for a couple of weeks now. But it keeps raining so…
|
|
Well, mine would be at a max of 100 pts. with -30 max disadvantages and, of course, 5 quirks. I would also limit social class to, at the most, an unlanded knight but all would start minimally as free men, not serfs or villens. Guilded individuals would be journeyman status. As Religion would be limited to the priest level as well and anyone wishing to use magic would need to take Magery 1 at minimum to be able to cast any spells.
I think GURPs would work best for a Harn game as it can be easily decreased in power and has a much more gritty feel than PF1 or 5e.
Just my 2cp worth
Chiming in on the systems chatter.
OSW hit the nail on the head earlier with PF1 - yeah it is bloated but to my mind it essentially allows you the flexibility to run the game (and characters) that you want - no question. Trimming off the unwanted fat works - but I'm not a fan of these Core only games per say - they overlook many of the options (archetypes, traits etc) that adds so much to the game (especially traits - love 'em).
I love Traits also BD, but nowadays almost no one uses a trait because it makes sense for their character. They don't choose Fey Foundling because they were found in the wilds as a child, bearing a mark of the First World. Nope, most just want it for the benefits of extra healing on a self healing character, or the saving throws. They don't choose Magical Lineage because one of their parents was a gifted magic user, they do it because they are focusing on a spell, etc.
When I say PF1e Core for me is the way to go, I mean something along the lines of sure, you build your basic Paladin or whatever character, and then you gain options as you level up. What happened to the good old days when you started as a straight up Barbarian, who midway his adventuring career got marveled with the Knights of Solamnia so decided he wanted to be one? Why can't a Paladin discover ONLY at level 3 that he actually IS a Fey Foundling, and gain the trait then. Same reasoning regarding Feats, Archetypes, you name it. Classes have features, but who says you cannot gain other game features as you level up, and still go toward the monster build you want, or maybe not, and instead go toward something different altogether, motivated by the game you are playing? Wouldn't that be cool as heck?
This. +100.
Agree mate - HUGE pet peeve when building characters w/ traits is seeing folk whole crowbar the mechanics in rather than pick them based on the background/flavour etc. In that sense I get the Core only stance - chop out any chance of misuse I guess.
I used to give out bespoke "Achievement Traits" that would tie in with character or party achievements and would be tied to the story etc - but completely traits shouldn't just be locked in as a beginner build element - should be prevalent in how and who the PC is as they develop etc.
RE: Olde Swords Reign - good catch. Have downloaded and will peruse - first glance looks quite interesting
I think GURPs would work best for a Harn game as it can be easily decreased in power and has a much more gritty feel than PF1 or 5e.
Just my 2cp worth
Fully agree. You can manipulate this though. Dungeon Fantasy RPG templates are 250 points worth, and that goes a long way. You can also juggle around extra HP and such to make characters more durable. But definitely, GURPs is grittier than PF1e or 5e.
RE: Olde Swords Reign - good catch. Have downloaded and will peruse - first glance looks quite interesting
Lemme know your thoughts on it, since you are WAY more familiar with 5e than I am.
I was sure d20PFSRD and co had a S+W srd but I can no longer find it.
Hadn’t looked at the S+W rules for a long time. Kinda brings back a lot of ADnD vibes. Monks are…powerful though. Druids are cool. Assassins too. I still don’t think they answer their own question “why would someone play a Fighter or Cleric” on page 25…
Needless to say, I’d still absolutely play a fighter. But the thought of old style multiclassing as an Elf or Half-elf is enticing.
Hey Helaman, no worries and no hurries. OSW linked the rules above ;)
RE: Olde Swords Reign - good catch. Have downloaded and will peruse - first glance looks quite interestingLemme know your thoughts on it, since you are WAY more familiar with 5e than I am.
So having given it a once over I'm impressed on a number of levels but the handling of Feats and counterbalancing Hindrances are a great mechanic - again I like Traits in PF1 and this is essentially that +/- approach - nothing new but ticks my boxes and enhances the whole character building mechanic when aligned with Backgrounds. If the players are onboard then its a mechanic that can create some very interesting and varied PCs (anyone can have an animal companion or favoured enemy for example).
It's been paired back in terms of complexity across the board and has some nice rules relating to encumbrance, levels of movement (Slow, Normal & Fast), Rests (Breathers, Short & Long) and combat.
For me it ticks a bunch of boxes and firmly believe it will translate well to PBP. The rules being available free is a huge plus in that regard.
Already applying it to my home-brew version of Night Below that I'll be running... so I'm a convert :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Checked out Olde Swords Reign - i’d play that. For the art alone. ;) But it looks nice and simple. Might even bust out a cleric again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Already applying it to my home-brew version of Night Below that I'll be running... so I'm a convert :)
Hahaha, good to hear BD. I would have to see it in play before I can have a better opinion on the system, even though it looks good to me. And it seems versatile enough to allow enough character 'diversity' to keep it interesting.
One of my doubts is if you also need to simplify the bad guys in terms of abilities (on top of the toned down HPs), to make up for the lower 'power level' of the PCs.
For example, a simple 5e thug has:
and
I wonder if these can remain 'as is' or if they need to be dialed down in some way.
Checked out Olde Swords Reign - i’d play that. For the art alone. ;) But it looks nice and simple. Might even bust out a cleric again.
So you ARE willing to play 5e! Kinda :P