(216 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Hello. I'm Isaac. I'm 32 and I live in Brooklyn, NY. I'm a user experience designer, meaning I make decisions about how software behaves in its interactions with people. I got into RPGs when I was 12. I was hunting around the library's oversized book section (I think I was after that seventies 'Gnomes' book by Wil Huygen that had the two naked gnome illustrations in it) and came across the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I taught myself and my brother and several kids on the block how to play, racking up plenty of late fees until my mom finally bought me a used copy from a dingy local game store. Our early adventures were of predictable quality (with lots of dice conversion until I scrounged together a full set), but I had enough fun to keep doing it for the past twenty years.

My taste is pretty eclectic and I like trying out new games. I've played most versions of D&D, plenty of White Wolf, some Rifts, lots of "narrative" games like Apocalypse World and Dread and stuff, and plenty of other obscure and well-known games along the way. I've never really had any meaningful break from RPGs, and have basically always been the GM.

I found out about LotFP via Zak Smith's blog, which I found somehow when 5th edition briefly rekindled my interest in D&D. I sat on some PDFs for a year or so and finally started up a campaign over the recent holiday break. We're coming up on our sixth session. I like the tight and simple rules, the nostalgia of those early D&D games, the horror content, the general high quality of the products I've consumed thus far, and the obvious metal influences. I'm pretty into metal. I wish I'd gotten into the game earlier and have serious FOMO about all the limited print products I missed, as PDFs are okay to read but shitty to run games with.

JimLotFP wrote:
foxroe wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's not "broke", per se, but the rules as written no longer reflects how I personally play the game.

I don't use demi-humans or Clerics at all.

Though my hope is that others will still be able to make that choice in any new edition.  Unless you're trying to create your own edition wars or something.

I posted something similar to what I'm about to say in a thread on G+ recently. I'll try to be more direct here. One of the great strengths of LotFP as it's written today is that it's easy to do your own version of James' specific style of campaign, but it's just as easy to do something closer to classic D&D with a weird twist, or something in the middle, or something that goes off in a completely different direction. I feel like the rules today encourage a style of play, but are setting-agnostic. These changes, to my tastes, mostly seem about encouraging a specific setting, which seems limiting.

My suggestion (plea?), is to do these kinds of things the same way you do stuff now. In today's rule set, most setting specific stuff seems to be about taking stuff out of the game, which is great. Taking out dwarfs and clerics if they don't fit your game is really easy. Adding them if they're missing is a huge pain in the ass. The same could be true of Witch Hunters and fiddly weapon damage rules and additional Encumbrance rules and new skills...especially if there were designer notes on what specific pieces could be removed, and how that might effect the gameplay style...