Search options

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.

I did explain to them that LotFP is quite different from 5e in this aspect, that "monster" is not a title easily applied to everything. That that what is described as being monstrous is indeed a thing to be afraid. I think that our first try of LotFP will be 2-3 sessions of us "unlearning"everything that is so engrained from 5e.

Having that in mind I planned 1 session to be just a bit more than introductory to "new" mechanics. 1st half - social interaction and exploration - without all of those 5e skills they will be forced to be more imaginative and resourceful. 2nd half - combat - they are used to fighting, with all their proficiencies, bonuses and such and this will feel very strange to them. I do not plan to introduce an over zealous ogre to wipe them out. Not yet. That is left for the last session.

Second session - dungeon crawl where they could not rest where they want, when they want. Here, I think, where they will learn about HP regeneration and healing.

Lastly - one of two options: Deadly monster, if they will miss all the clues how to kill/disable/avoid/learn; The same monster, tough, but not deadly, if they at least get a few clues right.

And here I'm stuck - how to give them a monster that would not feel totally unbeatable? I do not want to add hit points to it in the middle of the fight, or fudge my rolls, or just to drag the fight out, just to make it interesting for them. I need a method how to come up with monsters that is ... sustainable (if that is the word here. Sorry - not a native English speaker).

To answer your questions:

1) My players has already been killed off 2 or 3 times. Not all at once, usually one manages to escape (he dies later ). We have been playing for 2.5 years now and death is just an inconvenience for them. I have been itching to try more "gritty", darker version - thus LotFP.

2) While there is a couple players bet on killing and smashing their way through monsters, that is not what others enjoy to the same extent. But as killing monsters is THE WAY to get xp in 5e - it's mostly killing. They like (and I understand completely) the feeling of accomplishment, progress and reward that comes with it.

3) I want to smack them in their faces with the cold realisation of dread and panic and an overwhelming urge to run!

4) Not always but I think yes.

Players are my friends, 32 years on average. 3 guys, 1 gal. Been playing 5e for 3 years. Want to shake them out of the "safety" they feel they are in

My problem is that I am OK with these restrictions but my players - I know - would not be. That is why I will have to come up with something sightly different.

I think I will keep the restriction to cast spells if a caster was hit that round - it makes sense (to me at least).
If a caster wants to move and cast a spell - she has to make a saving throw vs. Magic. If fail - Miscast table.