Lol… I bought the latest off DTrpg without realising I had the linked version.
The Complete Revised? Yep, that is the one I have also.
Well I might be interested in running a short Harn/Gurps game with maybe 4 players just to see how it goes....
I would be game for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you ARE willing to play 5e! Kinda :P
Two things about me you probably have already sussed out:
1: I’m a lunatic
2: I’m adamant about stuff until
3: I change my mind
4: See 1
Honestly though, Old Swords seems much more like S+W or even old skool Basic with some plug-ins to me than 5e. Though maybe 5e really is just Basic with plug ins.
Well I might be interested in running a short Harn/Gurps game with maybe 4 players just to see how it goes....I would be game for that.
Much as I’d like to see a game run by Daniel, the game mechanic approach of GURPS doesn’t do it for me.
And not a fan of World of Darkness or CoC in terms of theme. Just not enough of a fan of Cthulhu and never really grokked the WoD pip system. Had a roommate who used to play a game of WoD with a bunch of people including a priest!
So you ARE willing to play 5e! Kinda :PTwo things about me you probably have already sussed out:
1: I’m a lunatic
2: I’m adamant about stuff until
3: I change my mind
4: See 1Honestly though, Old Swords seems much more like S+W or even old skool Basic with some plug-ins to me than 5e. Though maybe 5e really is just Basic with plug ins.
Hahaha, fair enough!
I have a very knee-jerk reaction to Feats, coming from PF1e and all, but at first sight Olde Swords seems to put these to good use and allow for character diversity? I found myself mulling over how I would adjudicate 'general' Feats - I like (maybe all at once):
- Let all players take an extra feat at levels 2, 6 & 10;
- Let the players roll a hindrance at character creation and take a feat as a reward;
- Make learning a non-class related feat costs 2,500gp, requires a teacher and takes 10 days (or more);
- Limit feats to 5 (or less, maybe 3?) additional feats on top of those granted by their class.
Starting to think we should give Olde Swords Reign a try :D
After a quick read through it seems to be a mix of 5e and OSR... which is not a bad thing. Again, the system is not a big deal to me, but I'm good with playing whatever you decide. Just anxious to get started. Let me know if I need to redo Darcy under Olde School Reign and I'll knock it out.
Now I am curious to see how Darcy would look under Old Swords Reign rules (you already have the rolls anyway) :P
What I like about OSR is the WFRP feel of character creation when you lock in the feat awards that you listed on GM Obermind.
An "average score" everyman can gain a bunch of feats and flavour that builds them into something special. Tie in a background that actually fits and flavours said feat/hindrance picks and you've got something I don't think vanilla 5E can replicate.
I'd defo be up for Old Swords Reign before I roll it out proper. The Night Below is becoming something far bigger - with a homebrew setting and much more sandlot adventuring above ground...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, I looked at Warlock! a while back as the art looked fantastic. Definitely brings back the Warhammer and Fighting Fantasy feel of early British gaming. The author even calls out Hawk the Slayer as an influence when asked about his inspirations. A terribad fantasy film from the 80’s that nevertheless holds a place in my grognardy heart.
Just ordered OSR and should have the books by this week...I hope. Will explore it but if it is anything as cool as you are all saying it is, then I would be ok to play that as well!!
The PDF of Olde Swords Reign is free on driveThruRPG, so you can check it out…
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.
I think I am beginning to sense a trend :)
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.
I actually prefer S&W (or DCC) as a system and not really feeling the desire to learn a new (5e) system.
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.I actually prefer S&W (or DCC) as a system and not really feeling the desire to learn a new (5e) system.
As much as I’m not really seeing a great deal of difference between 5e, DCC, S+W or other OSR games (Olde Swords Reign to me being well and truly part of the Old School Renaissance) I’m just as happy to stick with S+W so we don’t lose anyone!
To me, DCC seems to have a slightly more complex and interesting spellcasting system and a Luck stat. Apart from that, most of these OSR clones seem to pretty much hinge on only rolling 3d6 for stats, and then they have…a…few…rules. And that’s pretty much it. I’ll break up my next point so it is distinct from this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I will note about the 3d6 for stats process is that it tends to create characters that often have a definite disability - a 4 or 6 or 7, and sometimes more than one. Which makes for interesting characterisations but perhaps not exactly….well, take your pick: “good”, “useful”, “effective” or, to look at some of my characters, who are less hampered by low stats, as they tend to be martial types….and the low stats are put into less “combatcentric stats” typecast into either “socially stupid/awkawrd” etc or “smelly, horrifically ugly” etc… Which is completely fine in and of itself, but the frequency of these characters is somewhat problematic.
Personally it makes a certain kind of verisimilitudinous sense that adventurers would be drawn from outcasts and castoffs, the deranged, the odd-bods, wounded healers etc, but it also makes for a certain kind of crazed band of hobos with all kinds of limiting factors that almost necessarily tend to be one sided or one dimensional. Ok, I could give my Fighter a 5 in Dexterity or Constitution and make him cack handed or asthmatic, but perhaps I’m already only rocking a 14 in Str, and putting that 12 in Intelligence instead isn’t really going to make much more of a “character” out of him, much less a character who’ll live any longer for being “average intelligence, can read” rather than “trips over own socks” or “has no discernable physiognomy, or for that matter, hit points.”
Now obviously, you can, as Daniel did, not roll terribly, but it’s fairly likely that you’ll have at least one, if not more “dumped” stats. Hit me with all the statistics you want, I’m just going by lived experience.
And I’m not really into the curated version of point buy a la PF1, or the build points of PF2 where you get an almost homogenous cast of veritable social nice guys with all the right Diplomancy and Interridation plus Lore: Puffy Sleeves and Knowledge: Correct Tea Party Etiquette doing a derring do of investigation and being real sweet to the other kitsunes and then mashing bodies and horribly and without a whit of compassion eviscerating bad guys before going back to being cooking besties in between combats.
It’s a neckbeardy way of saying: 4d6. Drop the lowest. Arrange as desired. It’s how occasionally you qualified for a Paladin and with nothing under 14 or that one Thief who had an 18, a 15, an 11 two 10s and an 8.
I mean, I’m all for hard mode, but occasionally I like to have choice. Admittedly in OSR there isn’t exactly a lot of that choice but still. Do folks think these are incompatible in OSR generally? Am I overgeneralising here or does anyone agree? Or to put it another way, what does anyone like about the 3d6 method?
Nah chief - don't think you are overgeneralising.
The 4d6 option works from my standpoint - like you said it does give a degree of flexibility and would hopefully rule out the need to "reroll" a complete set of abilities again.
One thing I always liked back in the day - and again forgive me if this was a house rule or actual thing - option to drop a stat by 2 points then add a single point onto any ability.
Meant if you were hellbent on playing a cleric and rolled 18 Int, say 12 Wis then you could drop the 18 to a 10 and add +4 to Wis. Caveat here is you roll abilities in order, not assign them as you see fit (which actually works better lol)... see OSW's adamant changeability is catching lol.
Regardless the 2 for 1 was something I'm mulling for my OSR game, but wanted to sound out the thinktank on if this is pointless or even a thing!
Warlock looks ace btw - totally missed that somehow. And anything that references Hawk the Slayer is right up there with mighty Robin of Sherwood tv show in the grognardia stakes.
From my end, I don't remember if I ever played 3d6 down the line or assign at will. I think I must have, for the brief period while I played Basic and Expert. But the fact is since we hit AD&D2e onward, we never went back to 3d6, and always preferred other ability generation methods.
I am not a particularly huge fan of 3d6 either, but I wanted to take it out for a spin, and see how it turns out. Even though I am not a stickler for backgrounds, I do like characters with some depth, and my hope is that higher and lower stats can provide some inspiration for it, by creating unusual combos, like maybe a Wizard with a above average Str and Con, or a Fighter with 'unusually' high Intelligence and Charisma.
Yes I do know some players will do that by themselves, but (and maybe I am just to pessimistic from playing PF1e around these boards) mostly will not - they will (in general) not do anything really out of the ordinary or unusual, unless the randomness of the dice put them up to. We have all seen it happen over and over again. They will optimize. And while I am definitely NOT against creating my character as the best he can be, recently I have started to realize that for me giving up coherence and flavor for the sake of efficiency does not cut it. I don't like my characters like that, and I am not motivated to DM if the characters I am presented with are like that - mechanically amazing, but having sacrificed all possible fluff for its sake.
Now, of course I do like my characters to have high stats (who doesn't like an 18/00 Fighter?), so I also like that my players have them. But I think three should be tradeoffs, otherwise we are all 18s across the board and that's that. And therein lies the rub - I have not yet found an ability generation method that I am fully satisfied with (but see below), thus the 3d6 + arrange to taste experience, in a system where stats do not make as much a difference as in more modern ones.
Off the top of my head, I feel like 4d6 provides very little in terms of tradeoffs (VERY low probability of a below average result. Example: a 5.7% chance for a score below 8) - I know experiences will vary, but this IS math after all, and this method provides 12+ average results, which will throw out characters 'without' any weak points, except for those players build into them regardless of stats. Like I said above, I don't think that is very common.
--------------------
One of the ideas which I have been toying with, ever since that first interest thread last year or early this year, is to simply use a standard array. As an example, the S&W Organized Play uses 18, 15, 13, 10, 8, 6. I like it for a couple of reasons:
- I can build any character, and make him 'good/strong', but
- There seems to be enough distribution to allow for some weaker points also;
- There is a balance (two scores have a bonus, two scores have a penalty, two scores are kinda 'neutral')
- Having an 18 is always cool, and it feels good!
- No one is stuck with a 'crappy' character, which lets be honest, is almost never nice unless it is a funnel :D
- There isn't that awkward situation of someone rolling stupidly low, while others run ok or high, and you as a DM need to come up with excuses to allow that player for a better set of rolls or something;
- You get the positive thing of 'no randomness' in character creation, which is you know exactly what you can count on to build your character, and it is the same for all. You also get the negative of 'no randomness' though.
So I am not saying this is the best ability generation method, or the best stat spread out there - obviously it can still lead to dump stats in some form of another (not sure, but I think D&D5e based systems kinda discourage this by having Saving Throw types associated to all Abilities? I like that) - of course you can also offset some of it with racial bonuses I guess, so there are some considerations before using this option. But I do not dislike the idea of a stat spread of some sort. And you can adjust it to the 'power-level' of the game you are looking for. Grittier? Ok, make it 16,14,13,8,8,6. More powerful? Do 18, 16, 14 12, 10, 8. And so forth.
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.I actually prefer S&W (or DCC) as a system and not really feeling the desire to learn a new (5e) system.
DCC rocks
Tried DCC as player and as DM - was firmly convinced it would be my go-to game. It was fun, and it definitely has some amazing mechanics, but.... It didn't grab me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Happy to switch to Olde Swords reign if that is the consensus.I actually prefer S&W (or DCC) as a system and not really feeling the desire to learn a new (5e) system.
DCC rocks
Tried DCC as player and as DM - was firmly convinced it would be my go-to game. It was fun, and it definitely has some amazing mechanics, but.... It didn't grab me.
What I am liking about Olde Swords Reign so far (I never played it) is that it feels simple, but has a lot of the features I like, and which contribute to a 'richer' game. Yes, I agree with you all of course that the players and the DM are the ones who make a game better or worse. But:
- You have simple characters, but then add a dash of complexity and variability with Feats (optionally);
- You have simple monster stat blocks, but then add special abilities to give them an edge;
- You have an extremely simple combat and range system, but then you had several tactical options we have learned to live with, like simplified attacks of opportunity and handling ranged attacks in close combat, stuff like that;
- So that means it is possible to adjudicate combat easily with Theater of the Mind if we want;
- You have a 'Rests' system (different from 5e), but with an interesting twist to make it more challenging (like needing Provisions), and more OSR like in terms of resource management;
- You have simple, but clear guidelines on Dungeon Adventuring and Wilderness Adventuring;
Feels like a nice balance within a framework of sorts. Above all, it offers some guidance in adjudicating game situations with more clarity than S&W seems to do (as much as I love it).
Even though most Old School Gaming defenders will advocate that having the DM adjudicating by himself in most situations makes the game easier/faster/more fluid, and I agree to some extent. I would also argue there is a downside to it, since you can easily fall into endless discussions about how situation A or B was adjudicated by the DM, because it is all a matter of opinion and interpretation. Heck!, Even with my old TTRPG group, and playing PF1e which has a rule for absolutely everything, we ended up having looooong debates about bits and bobs. So if you are going with a system which relies heavily on DM decisions on the fly, you need a very special balance between players and DM to not get dragged into it.
Please understand none of this means I do not want to play S&W. (Sometimes) I just think I like talking about games as much as I like playing them :D
@Black Dow - I totally forgot, but yes, we did use the drop something by two to raise somehting else by 1, but I think it was only to raise your “prime stat”, like Strength for a fighter or Strength or Charisma for a paladin. And I don’t think we did it more than once per stat array. There may have been some wiggle room about the prime stat thing.
As for Robin Hood there was one on TV in the 80’s I loved, they even had an Arabic dude with a bow join the gang - immediately made an Archer (NPC class from Best of Dragon I had) based on him as an….GMPC. It’s true. Yes, I was always the DM, and sadly…yes…I always had a bunch of GMPCS. I was an adolescent!!! Was it that Robin Hood?
@ Obermind - I think you’ve made a good point there. Depth. I was always making weird characters like the smart fighter who was smarter than he was strong (although not by that much) or the “strange mystic warrior” (a concept I had for an Illusionist - forgot they were totally a class back in the day!) who had high Strength and used illusions to “be strong and a good fighter”. Sadly, my general lack of playing (as opposed to GMing) and laziness regarding casters meant I never saw it through. But the point is that the arrays we used allowed me to, obviously, a) prioritise at least a modicum of usefulness, while being able to b) explore some different options.
I’m still not a fan of that first S+W array. And now that I think about it, I think arrays tend to make for too much similarity. I think I like the difference in rolled sets. We aren’t equal in the real world, and being able to explore and understand, and ultimately accept those inequalities in the fantasy world should help us to understand and accept those inequalities that necessarily pertain here, in the real. Again, back in the day, we used to field vastly different levels in the one party, usually because some folks were multiclassed, some single class, some died and had new characters that started at completely arbitrary levels, and then there were the henchman and hirelings of various levels. There’s a party in the ol’ Rogues Gallery that has about 20 members, and a wild set of levels. I’ll dig it up for funsies.
@Helaman: while I should say I have little time for exploration of homebrew visa vis Warlock!, it is abundantly clear that I have quite enough time to noodle about a game we aren’t even playing.
The real reason I can’t help you much is that while I like the *look* of the game I haven’t ponied up the requisite not-quite-nine-dollars that DriveThru wants for it. There’s something about having to part with my hard-laboured-for cash for something I’m not likely to play much of that stops me. But who knows? Maybe I’ll feel expansive and…lash out!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, I do like the background concept as a more major way of developing who and what your character is almost over and above your class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got the Link to the pre-release of the Dolmenwood Players Guide. I'll peruse it over the next few days. My two cents on OSR.
My biggest problem is that the character growth is somewhat stunted. Sure, you get more Hit points, or spells, or thieving abilities, but you pretty much just play an advancing version of what you start with. I'm a big fan of organic growth. If you start out as a cloistered cleric, but end up fighting a lot more than turning, then I like the ability to add abilities to support your fighting instead of becoming more priestlike. With OSR you don't have this flexibility. Sure, you can play your character that way... but they don't really get better at what they're focusing on actually doing.
This is one reason we switched to Runequest after a few years as you got better at what you actually are doing. The later versions of d20 (3.0, 3.5, PF1) allowed you to do some of this with prestige classes, and multiclassing, but these had their own drawbacks as well, including rules bloat as you needed a separate class or something to capture what you want your character to become. Then 5e came along and added backgrounds but as many have stated here, the original choices you make don't allow for the growth of the character based on their role in life. This kind of made it more attractive to spend your background choice on mechanical benefits, as it really doesn't have much effect on what you're doing currently.
O-Swords-R seems to be an attempt to take some of the good things about 5e and apply some of the old school principals to it. You are able to take "Feats" later as you progress to aim your character towards what he wants to become... that is good. However, I have concerns about any system that tries to "marry" two different rules approaches, mainly from my fear that as a GM unless you write your own stuff, you are going to be caught in the paradox of converting adventures, which often requires a lot of work to make sure that the current version is power level equivalent to the characters.
I know there isn't much PF2 love on here, but after several months of play I'm finding it fits much of what I want, particularly if you go with a couple of Gamemastery guide options, namely Free Archetype, and Ancestral Paragon. You're Barbarian wants to sing while he rages... just take Bard Archetype at level 2. He wants to administer poisons, take an Archetype that supports that. You want your PCs to man a pirate ship, have them all take the Pirate Archetype. Combine that with the Downtime retrain ability, and your character can grow into whatever direction you choose.
Having said that I'm not sure PF2 lends itself well to PbP due to the always... at least to me... mapping issue. In real life I have a virtual tabletop with "Fog of War" so it's pretty easy to keep things moving as they should. With PbP I've always struggled with finding an easy way to do this.
There is no "perfect" system, as there is no perfect system in real life. You just make the best choices you can and attempt to make it work for everybody's enjoyment... so let's get this thing rolling and we'll adapt as we go.
@Black Dow - I totally forgot, but yes, we did use the drop something by two to raise somehting else by 1, but I think it was only to raise your “prime stat”, like Strength for a fighter or Strength or Charisma for a paladin. And I don’t think we did it more than once per stat array. There may have been some wiggle room about the prime stat thing.
Yeah, think you are right on the prime stat - do (vaguely) recall something on those lines, but agree it was only ever implemented once per array creation.
As for Robin Hood there was one on TV in the 80’s I loved, they even had an Arabic dude with a bow join the gang - immediately made an Archer (NPC class from Best of Dragon I had) based on him as an….GMPC. It’s true. Yes, I was always the DM, and sadly…yes…I always had a bunch of GMPCS. I was an adolescent!!! Was it that Robin Hood?
Haha. Great minds and all that. I too oft had GMPCs - was a Duellist and then a Deathmaster from Best of Dragon for me... Those halycon days eh! As for Ol' Robin of Sherwood - absolutely was the best. Soundtrack by Clannad (which was by default our go-to soundtrack when playing), Ray Winston as Will Scarlett - the archtypical East End hardman in tights lol and Naseer - the group's Saracen assassin. Thrown in mixes of Pagan worship and Satanic cultists and it was a heady melting pot of inspiration as teens. Our first Warhammer game as essentially a "not-so-merry-men" inspired by the show. Great times and timeless stuff.
@ Obermind - I think you’ve made a good point there. Depth. I was always making weird characters like the smart fighter who was smarter than he was strong (although not by that much) or the “strange mystic warrior” (a concept I had for an Illusionist - forgot they were totally a class back in the day!) who had high Strength and used illusions to “be strong and a good fighter”. Sadly, my general lack of playing (as opposed to GMing) and laziness regarding casters meant I never saw it through. But the point is that the arrays we used allowed me to, obviously, a) prioritise at least a modicum of usefulness, while being able to b) explore some different options.
I’m still not a fan of that first S+W array. And now that I think about it, I think arrays tend to make for too much similarity. I think I like the difference in rolled sets. We aren’t equal in the real world, and being able to explore and understand, and ultimately accept those inequalities in the fantasy world should help us to understand and accept those inequalities that necessarily pertain here, in the real. Again, back in the day, we used to field vastly different levels in the one party, usually because some folks were multiclassed, some single class, some died and had new characters that started at completely arbitrary levels, and then there were...
Back to the business at hand (apologies for the trip down memory lane, but I'm amongst likem-inded travellers so I'm sure you'll indulge me)...
Wondering if a combination of random rolls and an assigned max & min would work? Locked in 16 & 8 then roll the rest? Means worst case you're guaranteed a 16 prime stat. You're luck enough to roll a 17 or 18 then all good...
If we still wanted an element of randomness then could be 14+1d4 and 10-1d4 as the locked options, before 3d6 gets popped for the rest.
I just got the Link to the pre-release of the Dolmenwood Players Guide. I'll peruse it over the next few days. My two cents on OSR.
Yep, just got mine also - I already see some big changes in there, specifically for the class I always check first: the Fighter. I will let you evaluate for yourself, but I found it... Disturbingly similar to Old Swords Reign in some ways :O
My biggest problem is that the character growth is somewhat stunted. Sure, you get more Hit points, or spells, or thieving abilities, but you pretty much just play an advancing version of what you start with. I'm a big fan of organic growth. If you start out as a cloistered cleric, but end up fighting a lot more than turning, then I like the ability to add abilities to support your fighting instead of becoming more priestlike. With OSR you don't have this flexibility. Sure, you can play your character that way... but they don't really get better at what they're focusing on actually doing.
Agreed - I also like to feel progression on my characters based on what they do along their career. Makes everything much more interesting.
O-Swords-R seems to be an attempt to take some of the good things about 5e and apply some of the old school principals to it. You are able to take "Feats" later as you progress to aim your character towards what he wants to become... that is good. However, I have concerns about any system that tries to "marry" two different rules approaches, mainly from my fear that as a GM unless you write your own stuff, you are going to be caught in the paradox of converting adventures, which often requires a lot of work to make sure that the current version is power level equivalent to the characters.
This is real, and also a concern of mine. I don't have time for major conversions and whatnot. But again, this is all an experiment, right? It is ok if things do not pan out perfectly the first time around?
I know there isn't much PF2 love on here, but after several months of play I'm finding it fits much of what I want, particularly if you go with a couple of Gamemastery guide options, namely Free Archetype, and Ancestral Paragon. You're Barbarian wants to sing while he rages... just take Bard Archetype at level 2. He wants to administer poisons, take an Archetype that supports that. You want your PCs to man a pirate ship, have them all take the Pirate Archetype. Combine that with the Downtime retrain ability, and your character can grow into whatever direction you choose.
I am not against PF2, simply the experiences I had were not very satisfying. Would still give it another chance, but for now I am focusing elsewhere. Focusing might not be the right word :P But I think there are others in this group who like and play it.
Back to the business at hand (apologies for the trip down memory lane, but I'm amongst likem-inded travellers so I'm sure you'll indulge me)...
Of course :P
Wondering if a combination of random rolls and an assigned max & min would work? Locked in 16 & 8 then roll the rest? Means worst case you're guaranteed a 16 prime stat. You're luck enough to roll a 17 or 18 then all good...
Yep, this also sounds like a good option.
scranford is right, we need to get the ball rolling. So I want to know if anyone feels strongly one way or another, because I don't want to lose any of the players here.
Is anyone strongly opposed to S&W, and will leave if we go with it?
Is anyone strongly opposed to Olde Swords Reign, and will leave if we go with it?
I will start with my own perspective - I am leaning toward OSwR myself, but will not leave either way.
Speak up :D
Lots of conversation here! Hard to keep up with it, but in a good way. :)
PF2 has been my bread and butter since its debut. I really enjoy the system, especially as a GM, and I have run several campaigns to completion with it. There have been a few lackluster experiences but overall it is has been largely positive.
That being said, it’s nice to have a change of pace now and then. That’s why I started my DCC game which I am greatly enjoying, and that’s why I”m here to try a different system.
I’m fine with whatever rule set we settle on. I won’t leave regardless of the system. I’m just happy to be here. :D
Agreed. I'm here for either system.
I'll stick with S&W if that's OK with everyone.
Happy to stick with it. S+W!
@scranford: I’m a big fan of Pf2, and have pretty much given up on PF1 in general even though zi absolutely love it. I guess I just like the modern attunements PF2 has made, and while I don’t think it has all the versatility of PF1, especially in classes, or a system as moddable as evidenced by the explosion of 3PP options for PF1 (what I see for PF2 seems lacklustre, and sadly I think the system engenders that) I really like the combat and action economy.
That isn’t saying I won’t heavily mod my own PF2 games….the more I look at a lot of early fighter feats the more I think those are options anyone should be able to do…
One question: what about PF2 makes PbP any more difficult to run/play than say, PF1? I mean I see a *little* more need for tactical battlemaps, but I think it could run theatre of the mind just as well as any system. Sure, some classes/abilities might necessitate a combat map, but then I always felt PF1 was the same.
@Brainiac - do you find big differences between PF1 and PF2 via PbP?
Good question. I think maybe it's more a matter of there aren't a lot of GM"s really familiar with the rules of PF2. To me the three-action economy is just so easy to grasp, and if something seems unbalanced, you're probably doing it wrong.
Perhaps all the secret checks might also make the players feel a little disassociated... especially if they're coming from a system where they players make the majority of the rolls.
I'm in a couple of 2e PbP's now and they're running okay, so we'll see how it develops.
And honestly except for a game I've been in for 12 years on these boards I really don't play PF1 either. Some 5e, but it doesn't rely as heavily on movement as either version of Pathfinder.
I haven't found a whole lot of difference between running PF1 or PF2 games on PbP. I run the majority of combats through theater of the mind, as I find it easier and faster to adjudicate. Only if a combat is quite complicated, such as against numerous opponents or against enemies whose positioning affects their abilities will I resort to a battle map.
I also tend to eschew most secret checks and let the players roll them. I trust them not to metagame by knowing the results of their rolls and to keep player knowledge separate from character knowledge.
Even though I am a big fan of tactical maps. I think theatre of the mind is definitely the way to go for PbP - mapping can be simultaneously a fun and a daunting endeavor.
Conversely, I have found that it can be a great aid in dungeon exploration, in helping players keeping track of their whereabouts. And yes, in the 'olden' days the players would draw their own maps, but I don't think that is practical in PbP. Never tried it though, who knows?
I am liking the 'intermediate' solutions I have come in contact recently, like the range system used by Professor Dungeoncraft, which I think in turn are an adaptation from the one in Index Card RPG? And the one from Olde Swords Reign.
Heh, I was just thinking about the oldskool “players draw their own maps” the other day.
But that is another good point - the difference between “dungeon/locality maps” and “tactical/encounter representation”. I definitely think in PbP the former is almost mandatory so I absolutely agree with you Obermind - for any building/complex/castle/dungeon etc - given the time lag of concentration where you might be in a dungeon for weeks or months in real time, being able to reasonably consult where you have been, what turns you didn’t go down, what you want to go back and check is nigh impossible without a visual aid.
As for combat representation, yep, love the range system or combat grid ideas where an abstraction of the encounter is created based on a fairly uniform range or circular representation. Helps to simplify and speed up combat.
Having said that, I do love me some accurate tactical combat on a map, but it is by no means a deal breaker. Some combats need a map, others are over before some characters get to blink… (in joke with Brainiac where my Monk has now gone two combats without even acting).
Given one of the only things stopping me from running a game is my seeming inability to create maps in a simple googledoc, can some kind soul give me a tutorial via PM?!? I’d prefer using googledocs to google Slides, but it probably doesn’t matter in the long run.
I seem to have an aversion to Roll20 etc, given I do almost all my posting (for playing, at this stage) via a smartphone or tablet which tend to wig out when trying to manipulate such things. Even googleslide sometimes panic my devices.
Having said that, I do love me some accurate tactical combat on a map, but it is by no means a deal breaker. Some combats need a map, others are over before some characters get to blink… (in joke with Brainiac where my Monk has now gone two combats without even acting).
Don't want to jinx it, but the last time I played PF2e (did not go over level 3), most of the times the combats were either over, or my character was unconscious before I got a chance to act :/
Was (trying) to play a good old switch-hitter Ranger by the way.
Given one of the only things stopping me from running a game is my seeming inability to create maps in a simple googledoc, can some kind soul give me a tutorial via PM?!? I’d prefer using googledocs to google Slides, but it probably doesn’t matter in the long run.
I haven't DMed here on the boards for a while, and now I am not planning on using many grids, mainly if we are going S&W. And I usually have a distaste of anything that is announced like an 'online converter' or online this or that, where you upload a file and then the converter does stuff with your file. So I never use those.
However, maps and images are not 'sensitive information' per se, so one of the options I was planning to explore to create grid maps is this.
Disclaimer: I never used it myself, apart from some experiments with images drawn from the www (so nothing sensitive), but those seemed to work out pretty smoothly.
I was tempted to get that one also since I am going on vacation today, and the tablet is not the perfect tool to read in the sun. But I controlled myself and stuck with the pdf for now.
Just wondering when we're planning of kicking this thing off... and if we've decided on S&W for sure. I'll finish up Darcy's equipment once the system is set.
Just wondering when we're planning of kicking this thing off... and if we've decided on S&W for sure. I'll finish up Darcy's equipment once the system is set.
I am back from my vacation on the 19th, so the tentative plan is to start on that weekend, or Monday 23rd October.
As for the system, let’s check our poll :D
Old School Obermind - prefer OSwR, but will DM any
Brainiac - any
Scranford - any
Eric Swanson - S&W
OSW - any
Daniel Stewart - no vote?
Helaman - no vote?
Black Dow - no vote?
In case we go with S&W and you are interested in taking a look, I have been adding some notes to the Campaign Info tab. A mix of house rules, and details on how we will handle this and that, including combat order and spellcasting.
It ain’t bad at all
Incidentally, this is also free, and for an alternative running 5e is fun as a doc. Would I run it all? No but some house rules stuff are worth it.
Go to Darker Dungeons..
I preferred his slightly earlier editions but this seems to be the final. The pdf link gives you the pdf.
I have Dark Dungeons, but it is another one I haven’t had a chance to peruse fully. I like the fact the author details his reasoning on house rules, which helps others better understand their purpose, and decide on whether they would want to use them or not.
I have to admit I was blown away by the Weapon Mastery tables for INDIVIDUAL weapons. It provides a LOT of flavor, but I am not sure about how much bookkeeping it might mean, and also how power creep-y it might turn in the long run.
Also, after OSW pointed it out some time ago, I am now more and more inclined to agree with him, and hesitate in using systems in which all classes are by default non-proficient (or similar) with all weapons, unless they spend proficiency slots, or skill points in whatever weapons individually (or groups, or any other combo).
I feel like this further penalizes Fighters, which are already some of the most featureless classes in most OSR systems*, even if they have lower penalties than the other classes when non proficient. I prefer it when the baseline is ‘all weapons and armor’ for Fighters :D And then we can discuss about weapon specialization, mastery, and whatnot.
——————————
*So far, I have found a few exceptions: OSwR has feats (without going bat crazy like PF). Shadowdark has those… Class features you gain as you level? But they seem very limited in scope. In fact I think they got the idea from Five Torches Deep, which in my opinion may actually implement it better, since they use this idea of ‘features’ gained as you level to also define your archetype - I like it. Do you guys know any other OSR kind of system which has Fighter classes ‘richer’ in options? 3.0 and beyond doesn’t count :P