Topic: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

I have seen something about a future edition of LotFP on the internet. But with Eldritch Cock, I finally see it in actual print. So I thought I would give my feedback. The various editions of D&D produced by WoC are very different from each other and very different from anything TSR produced. In comparison to anything WoC produced, the various versions of D&D and AD&D that TSR produced are near Identical. Sure there are some differences. That’s why we prefer one edition over another. But they are all so much alike that you can use modules made for one edition and use them for another with little or no modification needed. In some versions no armor is AC10, in others, it’s AC 9. But in all TSR versions chainmail is AC 5 and Platemail + Shield is AC 2. The same goes for the various retro-clones of TSR games. They are all basically the same game.
So when I first looked at the current rules of LotFP I saw the same game I had been playing for decades, with a few minor, but important, rule changes. The familiarity of LotFP is what made me willing to give the system a try, rather than play lotFP modules using (1st ed) AD&D rules, which is totally doable.

So in the front cover of EC is the weird magic system that had already been using for a year ever since VAM came out. One of my complains about most games is that Magic Users never reach high enough level to use the really cool spells. This fixes that. I only have a couple of quibbles with it. First of all, I don’t like all the spells being the same level for research costs. Players should have to make that choice about which spells they can afford to research. Are they going to spend all their money on Time Stop? Or will they instead, research: Detect Magic, Identify, Magic Missile, Sleep, Invisibility and Haste for the same cost? Also, when I play with New School players, they gripe a lot about not getting to pick their spells, even if the randomly rolled spells are high level.

So, on to the back cover . . .

In the introduction, you make a point about LotFP being a game where characters rarely progress beyond 1st level. And these new rules appear to be built on that assumption. They appear to be making a game like Holmes Basic where characters never progress beyond 3rd level. My experience with OSR games and LotFP is that 1st level characters do have a high death rate. For that reason, players, especially New School players don’t like to start at first level. Also, when sitting around a table, rolling up an OSR character is quick and easy. When playing online, rolling up a character is more complicated and can take an hour of referee time. (though the roll time for the player is much shorter) For this reason, when playing online, I start all new characters at 12,003 XP which is 4th level for most classes. At this level, the death rate is not so high, characters don’t die on the first encounter very often and often they live to progress in level. Still, I can’t see 1st level characters surviving for very long in a Red and Pleasant Land or Frostbitten and Mutilated or Broodmother Skyfortress.

Ability Scores
New School players like a point buy system for choosing Ability Scores. And they tend to make the same choices over and over, so all characters of a particular class tend to be pretty much the same. Everyone makes a Hercules. No one makes an Odyseus. For this reason, I prefer some variation of “roll in order” and LotFP uses a modified “roll in order” as it’s standard. Six attributes are the standard that LotFP inherited from older game systems. But my time playing Mazes & Minotaurs has made me question why there needs to be 6 attributes and why Strength and Constitution need to be separate attributes.
So now you are making Charisma affect Magic Saving Throws. I certain that this makes sense to New School players who are used to playing Sorcerers and Bards. But LotFP does not have either of those classes. Why do Chr and Int even need to be separate Attributes?
Hit Dice size is now based on Con and not class? I Predict we will see a lot of Magi with high Constitutions with this rule, and Fighters with d4 HD.
Dex Increases initiative roll size? I already use individual Initiative. This rule will prevent certain characters from always being first because they are +3 on initiative. I predict Magi will pick this ability often.
Intelligence increasing skill points? This was already true for Languages. It makes sense for extending it to all skills.
Strength now helps encumbrance. The simplified encumbrance system was one of the strengths of LotFP. This makes it more complicated.
Wisdom. . . . with no Clerics, why even have separate saves for Magic and Other? Why not merge Wis, Chr and Int?

Character Classes
The classes have been reduced to Fighter, Magic User and Specialist. I like that in LotFP each class is unique. But in making this transition Elves and Clerics have been hurt the worse. Elves have lost too much of their fighting ability in LotFP and their XP per level has been lowered too much. Many players who try to game the system chose to play Elves instead of  Magi. So I am not sorry to see elves go.
Clerics, on the other hand have been the biggest losers of the conversion to LotFP. When the spells were divided between Magic and Clerics, the Clerics got fewer and weaker spells. They also lost their almost-fighter combat abilities. Still, I can’t see running a game without Clerics.  England Upturned devotes a lot of space to Clerics of various religions. And World of the Lost has that Cleric Spell generator.
But I really, really like the LotFP rules for Dwarfs and Halflings! I would like to see those classes survive, even if not as little non-human people. Replace Architecture with Leadership and Dwarfs would make a good Pikeman Class. And Halflings as Humans could make good Explorers/Rangers/Poachers/Savages.
Also, there are certain players that are very attached to Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. (And New School Players who are very attached to Dragonborn and Teiflings)

Attack Bonuses
I don’t understand why Firearms and Ranged attack are different. Or, if there are no to-hit bonuses for Str and Dex, why there needs to be more than one kind of Attack Bonus.

Weapon Damage
The old system of variable weapon damage is fast and easy. You just roll the die. With LotFP, I can easily negate 5 AC for firearms. But I have trouble remembering to do it for crossbows. The new system of variable armor seems like a nightmare to implement unless  you were playing online and someone had already made you a character sheet with imbedded macros.

Skills
Not rolling a 1d100% roll for skills was the biggest change for me. But I quickly grew to love the LotFP method of rolling on a d6.
I don’t like this new way of rolling skills. Having a 1 in 4 chance and rolling seemed quick and easy. Filling in the dots on the character sheet made it easy to see how much of a chance you had to succeed.  I’m pretty sure this new method was come up with because New School players were complaining about not being able to roll high for skills. If I make this change, it will take some getting used to. And it is not backwards compatible. Large sections of Veins of the Earth will have to be re-written.
Giving some skills to the non-specialists undercuts the whole idea that only Specialists are good at skills. Also, I think that Specialists start with too few skills. They should have a decent chance to succeed with dangerous skills like Climbing, disarming traps (that will go off if you fail) or stealth (against someone who will attack you if you fail) If you don’t have at least a 50/50 chance of success, the skill is too dangerous to attempt. For this reason in my game I start Specialists with 12 points, and have them progress 2/level after 1st.
Looking at the list of skills . . . I see Sneak attack has been removed. Even though I enforce the rule that the victim must be unaware of the Specialist and Surprised, I disagree with this removing this Skill. My Players don’t use it a lot. But it is satisfying when they succeed. (Also, have this skill makes them attempt Stealth more often)
Leadership is a good idea for a skill for warrior or priestly types. It does not seem a good fit for Specialists to be the best at.
Luck - This seems like a good new skill.
Medicine -  This also seems like a good skill. I have already been using something similar I got from a website. This makes the Specialist, not the Cleric the go-to guy for healing. And when they have to look outside the party for healing, my party trusts the swamp-witch more than any Clerics they meet.
Seamanship - Thus far LotFP has not done much with seaborne adventures. The Underdark Swimming skill from Veins of the Earth should be folded into this.

Saving Throws
I don’t at all like this new method of rolling Saving Throws! Although it is more advantageous than the existing system for 1st level characters. You get stuck with the same Saving Throws forever, never improving. Besides, I have spent decades rolling a d20 for Saves. If you insist with going with this, perhaps you could make ability score increases one of the perks of leveling up?
And speaking of Saves, There is no reason to stick with the 5 different kinds of saves. One of the few things I like about WoC is their division of Saves into 3 categories. You could easily pare that down to two.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Clerics will be gone entirely (or relegated to the appendix, along with Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings).

I think Firearms and Ranged are different because during this time period more commoners were using firearms. They were easy to learn how to manage and fire. You have to actually be pretty good to use a bow.

I agree with the weapon damage. After I finished my playtest, I went with my own system.

I also agree about the saving throw system, although, in the playtest rules there should only be two saves: Magic and Non-magic. I also went back to a d20 roll, but now I do a half save on even rolls and a full save on odd rolls (assuming they roll equal to or under the relevant ability score). I also provide ability score bumps when leveling up so that saves can be improved.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Wanted to write a short message about Playtest notes in EC, but Character classes and gaining levels section scared the shit out of me.

    One thing that is the biggest issue of mine with LotFP is the lack of character options (races, classes). I do think that 5e went overboard with classes and races and their special features (so many of them, and most of them are more or less variations of the same traits, skills), but the proposition to leave only 3 classes and no other races is extremely worrying for me.
    Do I understand correctly that the available option for race and class under the new model would be Human Fighter, Human Magic-User and Human Specialist? If that is so then it completely destroys the fantasy aspect of LotFP for me. These changes would definitely make LotFP something different but also almost completely separate and alien from other fantasy rpg games. Can it be compatible with others or its own adventures and supplements? If other races and classes are gone what is left is basically plain old Earth with some mysterious/horrible stuff happening. I don’t want LotFP to turn into “Basic Bitch” rpg with some weird fantasy stuff added.
    Decision to leave only Human Fighters, Magic-Users and Specialists would take away from the essence of fantasy rpg so much meaning, lore and depth and I cannot imagine what good it would do, what would be the reasons for that, what would be the goal of this change.
    When I play rpg games my characters always are manifestations of myself or some aspects of my inner psyche but they are never humans. The possibility to be a scaly dragonborn, a stout dwarf, a skulking elf, a hulking orc etc. is the reason why I started playing rpg games in the first place. Why would anyone want to limit it to only humans?     
    “This ain’t Tolkien” – that is correct. But take away Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Goblins, Orcs, Druids, Clerics, etc. from the fantasy world and what is left? Really – what’s left? They, for me, are what makes fantasy – fantasy. Take away the fairy-tales and mythology (religion) from our world and there is no poetry, no passion left. What remains is dark superstitions, fear and brutal force of reality. And rpg games are exactly what we use to escape from the brutal reality of our mundane world.

        Woo, sorry for the long rant, but I like LotFP quite a lot and this – “Only Fighters, Magic-Users, and Specialists will exist. Demi-humans will not exist (this ain’t Tolkien), and neither will Clerics (the existence of divine power defines the cosmology of an individual campaign that is best left to the Referee, not a game publisher). – makes me extremely anxious about LotFP. What is the reasoning behind it?

    Regarding Ability Scores
    “Roll 3d6 for each ability score, in order <…> You may switch two ability score results if you wish. Reroll all scores from scratch if the total of all rolls is 54 or less.”
    I think there is no reason to roll in order if you can then switch two scores as you like. Fighters will always want STR/DEX and CON, MUs – INT/WIS and CHA. Ability to switch two means the roll-in-order is without any purpose. Roll no longer decides in any meaningful way the character you will play. Current possibility to swap one position gives the opportunity to have almost what you want instead of something not desired at all (or, if lucky – exactly what you want). And I like it a lot.
    No more modifiers in a “classical” sense? It is very confusing and much less intuitive than the system now in place. The new function of ability scores is very volatile – either it is excellent or disastrous. There is no middle-ground. And let’s face it – +/- 0 is still considered crap.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Grotas wrote:

Wanted to write a short message about Playtest notes in EC, but Character classes and gaining levels section scared the shit out of me.

    One thing that is the biggest issue of mine with LotFP is the lack of character options (races, classes). I do think that 5e went overboard with classes and races and their special features (so many of them, and most of them are more or less variations of the same traits, skills), but the proposition to leave only 3 classes and no other races is extremely worrying for me.
    Do I understand correctly that the available option for race and class under the new model would be Human Fighter, Human Magic-User and Human Specialist? If that is so then it completely destroys the fantasy aspect of LotFP for me. These changes would definitely make LotFP something different but also almost completely separate and alien from other fantasy rpg games. Can it be compatible with others or its own adventures and supplements? If other races and classes are gone what is left is basically plain old Earth with some mysterious/horrible stuff happening. I don’t want LotFP to turn into “Basic Bitch” rpg with some weird fantasy stuff added.
    Decision to leave only Human Fighters, Magic-Users and Specialists would take away from the essence of fantasy rpg so much meaning, lore and depth and I cannot imagine what good it would do, what would be the reasons for that, what would be the goal of this change.
    When I play rpg games my characters always are manifestations of myself or some aspects of my inner psyche but they are never humans. The possibility to be a scaly dragonborn, a stout dwarf, a skulking elf, a hulking orc etc. is the reason why I started playing rpg games in the first place. Why would anyone want to limit it to only humans?     
    “This ain’t Tolkien” – that is correct. But take away Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Goblins, Orcs, Druids, Clerics, etc. from the fantasy world and what is left? Really – what’s left? They, for me, are what makes fantasy – fantasy. Take away the fairy-tales and mythology (religion) from our world and there is no poetry, no passion left. What remains is dark superstitions, fear and brutal force of reality. And rpg games are exactly what we use to escape from the brutal reality of our mundane world.

        Woo, sorry for the long rant, but I like LotFP quite a lot and this – “Only Fighters, Magic-Users, and Specialists will exist. Demi-humans will not exist (this ain’t Tolkien), and neither will Clerics (the existence of divine power defines the cosmology of an individual campaign that is best left to the Referee, not a game publisher). – makes me extremely anxious about LotFP. What is the reasoning behind it?

    Regarding Ability Scores
    “Roll 3d6 for each ability score, in order <…> You may switch two ability score results if you wish. Reroll all scores from scratch if the total of all rolls is 54 or less.”
    I think there is no reason to roll in order if you can then switch two scores as you like. Fighters will always want STR/DEX and CON, MUs – INT/WIS and CHA. Ability to switch two means the roll-in-order is without any purpose. Roll no longer decides in any meaningful way the character you will play. Current possibility to swap one position gives the opportunity to have almost what you want instead of something not desired at all (or, if lucky – exactly what you want). And I like it a lot.
    No more modifiers in a “classical” sense? It is very confusing and much less intuitive than the system now in place. The new function of ability scores is very volatile – either it is excellent or disastrous. There is no middle-ground. And let’s face it – +/- 0 is still considered crap.

The only three human classes thing has been a long time coming for LotFP, per discussions on G+ from the publisher.

The demi-humans will be put into the appendix, so you'll still have access to them (along with Clerics).

Everybody house rules, there is nothing to stop you from using other races or classes in your games, and a few LotFP modules provide additional classes (Red & Pleasant Land, Frostbitten & Mutilated...)

The idea behind this change is to push the game into very low fantasy, and accentuate the real world horrors of the 17th century, along with the make-believe horror of Lovecraft, and others. There are MANY straight-up fantasy games, and this will actually help set LotFP even more apart from the herd, as opposed to making it "basic." This is why you find very few official LotFP modules with demi-humans.

The reason for the changes to ability scores is to make each matter more and so there aren't any dump stats. Switching two scores allows one to play the class they want, but doesn't allow for tweaking every aspect of the character. While I didn't end up using the actual mechanics, I appreciated the endeavor and it inspired my current house rules.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Got more time to think about it – still don’t like it. If the idea is to make the world a very low fantasy, close to real world, than I would argue magic-user class should be replaced by alchemy or mystics (or the like). In a sense that no “real magic” is available to players. That way you would have a more accurate representation of Lovecraftian (and I mean it in the broadest sense) atmosphere and it would definitely set LotFP apart from other fantasy rpgs. Magic would only be “usable” through rituals and artefacts (but never controllable).

    I found out about LotFP 6 months or so ago. And it ticked all the right boxes for me. Had I know about it 3 years ago I would not even considered playing DND 5e. And because LotFP was exactly what and how I wanted 5e to be it is so disheartening for me to see that it is moving away from it.

    I understand that the publisher has a vision of where LotFP should be going and how it should look like. I just do not like it or want it to change that way sad

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

After further thought, I am even more against these changes than I was when I wrote the first post.
The new rules remind me too much of New School D&D, which I don't like. Not liking 3+ ed D&D made me seek out Old School stuff like LotFP.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Andomedanaea wrote:

After further thought, I am even more against these changes than I was when I wrote the first post.
The new rules remind me too much of New School D&D, which I don't like. Not liking 3+ ed D&D made me seek out Old School stuff like LotFP.

I would be very interested in details re: how the new LotFP rules are like new D&D. I’ve played all editions from 1E through 5E, and don’t see the similarity.

I also don’t get the rigidity of the thinking that this is somehow a radical change to LotFP. The modules will still be designed to fit with other OSR systems, and you can just use the current rule book.

You understand that you don’t HAVE to use the rules as written right? I’m not currently, and I won’t when the new one comes out. But LotFP is still my preferred system.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Of course you can house rule, make tweaks to the existing game to get it as close to a version you want to play as you can. You can play whatever way you like. However – every alteration ads complexity, ambiguousness, confusion to players.

    There is nothing wrong with rigidity, stability. Change does not automatically mean it is good. I just like the way it is now, the new stuff will do no good for my playstyle and experience and will require additional effort from me as a GM and from my players (who like this system for its simplicity). Though I will still use LotFP for its mechanics (current one) I do not think that it will be the setting (or the base of it) any longer. And I will not be using the new ability scores.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Grotas wrote:

Of course you can house rule, make tweaks to the existing game to get it as close to a version you want to play as you can. You can play whatever way you like. However – every alteration ads complexity, ambiguousness, confusion to players.

    There is nothing wrong with rigidity, stability. Change does not automatically mean it is good. I just like the way it is now, the new stuff will do no good for my playstyle and experience and will require additional effort from me as a GM and from my players (who like this system for its simplicity). Though I will still use LotFP for its mechanics (current one) I do not think that it will be the setting (or the base of it) any longer. And I will not be using the new ability scores.

Better Than Any Man came out over 5 years ago. It is exactly the sort of thing the publisher is going for (Early Modern Era, low fantasy, no demi-humans...). The last thing to feature any sort of demi-human was Vornheim, released before that.

Do you think the setting is going to be any different than that, or have you just gotten tired of the setting?

I guess I'm just confused why all the hub-bub when the setting is essentially the same it's been for the last 5 years, and all new stuff will stilll work with the rules that you are currently using and enjoy.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

Crunk Posby wrote:
Andomedanaea wrote:

After further thought, I am even more against these changes than I was when I wrote the first post.
The new rules remind me too much of New School D&D, which I don't like. Not liking 3+ ed D&D made me seek out Old School stuff like LotFP.

I would be very interested in details re: how the new LotFP rules are like new D&D. I’ve played all editions from 1E through 5E, and don’t see the similarity.

How is it like 3+ ed?

Chr as the the Magic Saving throw modifier - Like Bards and Sorcerers for 3+ D&D

Skills for all, but specialists are better at skills - like 3+ D&D

Roll high for Skills (and everything really) - like 3+ D&D

Saves based on ability scores and not improving unless the ability score increases - Like 3+ D&D

But the biggest way this is like 3+ D&D is the way in which most of these new rule refer to each other, making it difficult to adopt only the ones you like, and not all of them.

Re: Playtest notes -next ed LotFP

I like the the playtest rules. Or lets say the most of it. I like the new saving throw mechanic with the d6's. The new skill system looks also good. Especially that the non-Specalist classes gain skills in the character creation.
I like that the constitution score determines the Hit Dice for the PC. But I'm not sure if rerolling all HD after gaining a level is very satifying. But this depends on the player.
What I don't like is the new weapon damage mechanic. I like the idea behind it that, that a skilled weapon wielder can deal as much damage with a small weapon as with a large weapon. But changing the AC agianst certain weapons will be annoying. At least for me. Wouldn't it be better to determine the damage die by the ability score of the PC similar to HD determination. DEX for Minor weapons, small weapons, firearms and crossbow. STR for Polearrms, great weapons and throwing weapons. And for the other weapon types the better one of these ability scores. I think this will work better on the table than adjusting the armor for certain weapon types.
For my group I think it's a pitty that the Cleric class will be removed. It's the most popular class at my table.

Edit:
I almost forgot. The new encumbarence system is good, but I like the one from Veins of the Earth better. But I don't konw right now how this could work without the modifiers.

Last edited by Olupo (2018-08-23 18:33:32)