Search options (Page 9 of 12)

Okay, I can be more insistent:

Read Better Than Any Man, A Stranger Storm, Tower of the Stargazer and The God That Crawls.  Figure out where you will place the three standalone modules on the map of Better Than any Man.  Feed your players rumors for Better Than Any Man, Tower, and God that Crawls, while the first session should be A Stranger Storm.

Stranger Storm will teach you and your players many lessons that will last a lifetime.  The other three modules will as well.  I consider these to be the core of LotFP - they are all very different, aren't necessarily campaign breaking, and the players will experience a lot of neat moments.  Also, they are all fun to read as a GM.

Once you have all that down, throw Death Frost Doom at them.

I think you should allow humans to train as demi-humans, but call it "cosplay" instead.  They think they've gained all the class abilities until they actually need to use them and then fail horribly.

"Forgive Us is based on the idea of a magical disease causing all sorts of trouble, so it will be more of a challenge if the player-characters don't have ready access to Cure Disease; as such, the adventure is designed for player-characters around fourth level."

I read this as: the challenge of the adventure itself is set at fourth level, while not having Cure Disease will make it even harder.  (Like if there is no Cleric in the group...)  When reading over the situation where Cure Disease is helpful, it doesn't have much impact on the adventure itself, other than players being able to prevent themselves from changing (ie, it doesn't negate the threat of the monsters who have already turned).

Of course, the players have to recognize that what's happening is a disease, too.

To quote from the Grindhouse Referee book:

"Morale: Unthinking, fearless monsters should be Morale 12.  Cowardly, sniveling creatures should be about 5 or 6.  Your "average" fearsome, courageous monster should be about 9."

On page 60 of the Rules and Magic book, under "morale," it explains that you roll 2d6, if the roll is equal to or less than the morale of the monster, than it's willing to stay and fight (therefore, a monster with morale of 12 will stay and fight to the death no matter what...)  There are then some additional rules about when to make the checks, modifiers, retainers, etc.

I never fudge rolls.  Combat, even with low level NPCs can be very deadly for PCs. 

When my players went to the farmhouse:

-one died trying to climb a ladder one-handed (he wanted his rapier ready to stab whatever was at the top of the ladder, hiding in the hay).  He failed his climb check (I even gave him a more generous 1 in 10 chance of falling!), fell 10 feet and rolled a 6 on a d6.  (Out of the dozens of deaths, this one is still talked about!)

-when climbing down the ladder into area 6, another was nearly killed by the bandits all taking stabs at him, but managed to live long enough for everyone else to get down.  Here, the PCs got lucky and killed all but the head bandit,  who surrendered after witnessing the brutal slaughter of his gang.  The party invited him to join the group, which he hesitantly did (and later fled when the party went into the insect shrine).

It very easily could have gone the other way, with the party getting wiped out.  Roll up new characters and try again!

I have a few recommendations for you:

The free Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.  It's short, and clearly differentiates modern style gaming with OSR.  In addition to helping me, I shared it with my players and it improved their game as well.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/ … 59558.html

Courtney Campbell's blog, Hack & Slash.  He has a lot of great advice, examples, and discussions on how to GM OSR games.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/p/index.html

Finally, if you're on G+, join the OSR and Lamentations of the Flame Princess communities - there are lots of great blogs, discussions and helpful people there, too.

(I started playing LotFP/OSR with Better Than Any Man as well, and over a year later, my same group of players and I are still enjoying playing through all the LotFP modules.  I hope your group ends up loving it as much as we do!)

One of my favorite dice mechanics was from Avalon Hill's Magic Realm.  You often had to roll two d6, use the highest of the two, but you wanted the lowest roll possible.  Characters who were better than average only had to roll one die!  It made for a brutal game.

(My first time playing, it took about an hour to set up, and then I died within a few minutes! )

Would there still be a minimum hp for each class?  I sometimes wonder why one would have to roll dice at all for hp when it seems like this is the primary function of Constitution (so two humans with the exact same con can have a hp difference of 5?)  Why can't your starting hp just be 1/3 con and then when leveling up roll your class die for hp?

I think an argument could be made that almost any stat could be the basis for magic (Hellraiser = you need a strong con or strength to take the beating, Merlin/Gandalf = the wise wizard, Dr. Doom = intelligent...Jesus had the charisma to work his miracles for the masses, etc.)

This certainly makes shields more interesting and enticing to carry.  Will there be differences for bucklers, regular shields, etc., or will there just be a standard shield?

In the current R&M book there is a method (which we use) where each side gets one initiative roll at the beginning of each round (ie, not individual rolls).  How would encumbrance affect a single roll for the entire party?  (Right now, we just force everyone to take a turn and their initiative modifier affects the whole party - so this encumbrance rule could work that way, as well).

I've never used this.  Rolling two dice is fun, also rolling different dice is fun.  I honestly have no opinion here - do we know statistically how that would work out?  Which weapons would be which?  Would a d8 weapon kill almost any 1st level character?

My feeling on most skill systems is that they make all players feel the same.  If everyone has an architecture skill of 1, that's boring.  Then someone just randomly decides to make that check (or you go through the monotony of everyone doing that, etc.) 

One thing I've experimented with is giving everyone skill points (the specialist gets more) and then having them work out who is going to have extra in what, with specialists getting fist pick/claim over whatever they want.  This way there is definitely someone good at bushcraft, someone who's good at searching, etc.  This not only adds a slight amount of flavor to the characters, it gives everyone another role beyond class. 

I don't think adding a few more skills, or giving fighters/magic-users some points will hurt anything.

I will also say it would impact my statting of NPCs not at all.  I just more or less randomly determine if an NPC is good at something or not and go from there.

The more specific a character type is, the less interesting it is over time (this is why Pathfinder keeps releasing more and more).  Once each player has played as the Conquistador, then it's not as exciting the second time.  In my mind, it feels more like a "thing to try."  (Still fun, but is it core book material?)

I like the Fighter, Magic-User, Specialist (and Cleric) classes b/c they are generic enough that when people say, "I'm a fighter" it's like saying, "I have 10 hp" or "I have a 15 save."  It feels like a descriptive mechanic, and not something that the character in the game world would go around saying.  Once you get to things like Alchemist, Witch-Hunter, Paladin...these sound like a very specific thing that a person might say about themselves...and then you wonder, well, does the specialist walk around saying, "I'm a Specialist"?

Nobody has a specific visual image of the base classes, so then you can add in fluff.  Stuff like the DCC or 5E backgrounds, titles, class/status, etc., that help players tailor their characters how they want.  (Within reason - a few randomized charts and a couple of choices.)  When you say, "Conquistador" and to some extent "Witch-Hunter," it brings up a stronger mental image.

Maybe Pioneer could work?  Although not much more exciting than Explorer...

I think it's cool that when they're sitting around the table, you can't really tell what class the iconic characters in LotFP are.  It's only when they're actually doing stuff that you're like, "Oh yeah, she's the magic-user!"

Final thoughts, if you're still reading:

Honestly, one of the biggest changes I would love to see is a more forceful approach to your desired setting.  I would like to see a pure R&M book that reads exactly the way you want it to, with the the "I want you to use this with every other OSR game and here's how" stuff as a big appendix in the back.  (Then I can just completely ignore that section! )

Also, I wish the R&M book had a player advice and tips section.  I think you'd be good at giving some advice for adventurers while not destroying the sense of exploration and mystery that comes with being a new player.

Page 82 from the Rules and Magic book: "Time of Magical Activities."  It is assumed that a character is working in a library or laboratory and if they aren't the time to create the items is doubled.

No Salvation for Witches is incredibly beautiful as well.   Also, I was particularly impressed with Scenic Dunnsmouth.

Of course, everything is great, but the above are the standouts for me, along with Red and Pleasant Land.

I'm still confused why anybody wouldn't buy a LotFP book when given the chance!

Definitely "A Field in England."  Also, "Valhalla Rising."  Raggi has said that, "As Above, So Below" also gives a LotFP vibe (although it's set in modern times).

I also highly recommend "The Sad Tale of the Brothers Grossbart."  It's about two graverobbing brothers during the middle ages - with a low fantasy feel (it isn't genre fiction, it's "regular fiction.")