Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

JimLotFPI  wrote:

made a change from the last document - did you notice the halfling saving throws this time around?

Gah, should read more carefully. This will make the Halfling more worthwhile to play.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Tharen the Damned wrote:
JimLotFPI  wrote:

made a change from the last document - did you notice the halfling saving throws this time around?

Gah, should read more carefully. This will make the Halfling more worthwhile to play.

Equally my fault. I'll be more diligent in noting what changes in future uploads, but there was just so much here that cataloging it all would have drained my will to live.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Count me as another person who dislikes the fact that Clerics, MUs and Specialists don't progress in combat ability.

Fighters are already (in D&D) much better combatants than other classes at due to their higher hit points, better armour and faster THACO progression. They generally have STR bonuses too.

It's probably to do with the sword or staff wielding fighting Wizards in the gamebooks I used to read when I was a kid, but I've always imagined *high-level* MUs as more capable fighters than the average orc.

Ditto for thieves. The Gray Mouser was a good fighter, wasn't he? And I've always thought that the thief character-class could be used to represent a stealthy warrior, like Zorro, Robin Hood or the average Ninja. Have you read "Conan the Barbarian, B/X Thief" on the B/X Blackrazor blog?

I have no objection to reimagining Clerics as being poor combatants, like MUs, but you do describe them as "holy warriors" and give them d6 hit dice. Why not allow them to be effective warriors?

Did I miss the rules about what weapons and armour characters can use? It says that fighters are able to use any weapon and armour without restriction. What about the other character classes?

Unlike Geoffrey, I don't see the logic behind renaming thieves "specialists".

I haven't really read this document, just skimmed it . . . I should really read the whole thing.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Some thoughts after reading the first twenty pages.

". . . designed . . . to hew so close to the traditional gaming rules as to be able to freely use other games’ support materials . . ."

But in not allowing THAC0 progression for non-fighters, you are in one way making it incompatible with other games. For example, in the original B3, the main bad guy is a mid-level cleric. If his THAC0 is less than that of a first-level fighter, he's a bit less of a threat.

Ability Score Modifiers. 4-5: -3, is this correct?

Explanation of Ability Scores: This is very clear.

Climb. My house rule is to assume that thieves have catlike reflexes, and so I allow this skill to act as a saving throw vs. falling damage, with half damage taken if the thief makes the roll.

Read Languages. I've never liked this ability. My house rule is to replace it with a percentage chance (rolled each level) of gaining an extra language.

Stealth replacing Hide in Shadows and Move Silently. Good idea.

"Each Specialist skill begins with a 10% chance of success . . ." Simple and easy to remember.

The writing in the specialist section is again, very clear. I really like the way you explain and clarify everything.

Starting hit points. Is this a bit complex? You could (for example) just say that all characters start with a minimum of 3 hit points.

Alignment. Well, this is interesting. And a bit confusing at first glance. How does alignment actually affect play?

"If a character starts above first level, then they begin with 180gp plus 3d6 x 10gp for every level greater than one."

There could be a lot of dice involved for high-level characters! How about 3d6 x10gp + 100gp per level higher than 1?

"Costs are given for both City and Rural areas". A great idea!

Weapons. I really like everything you've done here.

Maybe include some illustrations for people who have trouble picturing a mancatcher?

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Akiyama wrote:

But in not allowing THAC0 progression for non-fighters, you are in one way making it incompatible with other games. For example, in the original B3, the main bad guy is a mid-level cleric. If his THAC0 is less than that of a first-level fighter, he's a bit less of a threat.

I'll have a more in-depth response to other things later on, but I want to address this real quick.

In using different material for different games, this kind of thing happens anyway. I used Pod Cavers (an OSRIC module) with the BFRPG rules for my home game last year. It causes little hiccups, I guess the same way as trying to run Horror on the Hill in an AD&D campaign, or running Swords and Wizardry modules with Labyrinth Lord.

I don't see much difference. It'll take some eyeballing, but I daresay running an LotFP adventure with LotFP rules would need a "stop and take a look at this" because of the way the adventures are constructed, regardless of the rules.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

JimLotFP wrote:

In using different material for different games, this kind of thing happens anyway. I used Pod Cavers (an OSRIC module) with the BFRPG rules for my home game last year. It causes little hiccups, I guess the same way as trying to run Horror on the Hill in an AD&D campaign, or running Swords and Wizardry modules with Labyrinth Lord.

I don't see much difference. It'll take some eyeballing, but I daresay running an LotFP adventure with LotFP rules would need a "stop and take a look at this" because of the way the adventures are constructed, regardless of the rules.

Yes, I suppose that's true.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Some more thoughts.

Weapons.

I just noticed that a medium weapon, wielded two-handed, does the same damage as a large weapon. Large weapons are more expensive and less versatile. So why use a large weapon?

Also, small weapons (e.g. shortsword) cost 5gp while minor weapons (e.g. dagger) cost 10gp.

10gp seems like a lot of money for a whip. And a whip does as much damage as a dagger?

75,000gp for a warhorse? A warhorse costs 75 times as much as a suit of platemail?

I think some of your more expensive prices, such as those for boats, are a bit unrealistic.

Rent. Do you mean 10 sq ft or 10 ft sq? 10 square feet or a ten foot square?

I assume you mean a 10 foot square. So for 1000gp I could buy a decent sized house in the city, or a mansion in the countryside. Is this right? The price for a city residence seems reasonable, but, again, it does make some of the other items on the equipment list seem very expensive. A barge is worth 50 times as much as a mansion in the country?

Maybe you should explain what some of the items are. For example, specialist's tools, or caravel.

Defeating Enemies. I love this section.

Aging. The interval for elves should be 100, not 10, right?

Falling. I hate this rule. Really, I hate it. And I can't understand how it has survived through so many different editions of the rules.

If you fall 10' in real life, you might be shaken and bruised, and you might even break a bone, but you are extremely unlikely to die. And in real life, people have fallen longer distances than 200' and survived.

BTW, using 1d6 x 10' falling damage makes levitate an decent offensive spell for MUs in the wilderness.

Reducing falling damage will make pit traps less deadly, but realistically, I think anyone wanting a pit trap to be deadly would put spikes at the bottom (or snakes or something) rather than dig a very deep pit.

Healing. Your rules here seem a little harsh to me. Perhaps realistic, though.

Encumbrance. I like the general idea here, but again, the results seem a little harsh.

This is the system I use. Regardless of the amount of weight carried, wearing metal armour other than platemail reduces movement to 90'. Wearing platemail reduces movement to 60'. A character can carry a number of items each roughly equal to a sword in size or weight. at STR 3, this is 4 items, at STR 4-5, 6 items, at STR 6-8, 8 items, at STR 9-12, 10 items, at STR 13-15, 12 items, at STR 16-17, 14 items and at STR 18, 16 items. Characters carrying 1-2 items over their allowed number have their movement reduced by 30'. Characters carrying 3-4 items over their allowed number have their movement reduced by 60' etc.

Of course, this requires DM judgement in deciding what is equivalent to a sword. I say platemail = 2 items, any other metal armour = 1 item, leather armour = 0 items. A dagger or torch = 1/2 an item, a quiver full of arrows = 1 item, food for 1 day = 1 item, 500 coins = 1 item.

Chauffer. Would "coachman" sound less anachronistic?

Wages. Are some of the wages a little on the low side? Comparing this with your price table, some wages seem as if they would be too low to pay the living costs of one person, let alone support a family. Mercenaries seem particularly poorly paid considering they might be risking their lives (and considering how easy it would be for PCs to hire their own private army).

How much do you thing a gp is worth, in modern dollars? I work on the assumption that 1 gp = £50 ($75). This means that at 15sp/month a labourer is making the equivalent of £75/month ($112.50/month).

Hiring Help. Is this a 3d6 roll?

Generally, I really like the rules in these miscellaneous sections. It's not too much, but some professional games don't have this level of detail and clarity (Castles and Crusades, I am looking at you!).

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

I'll take a closer look at the rules and do another "cleaning" as soon as I'm done with the tutorial draft I'm working on. Some things (like the "dwarf thief" mentions in the trap section) I'm wondering how I missed the last time, even if at the moment a lot of this is still just copied Open Game Content. Keep the pointers coming.

About wages and costs: I'll admit to envisioning a bit of Dickens in the living conditions of the working class. Also, the property costs are intended to be averages, so a poor bastard could find a bit cheaper accommodation.

As for other prices, maybe the warhorse is out of whack, they are going to be expensive.

For things like the medium vs large weapon issue mentioned, I won't transition my own campaign into these rules until the end of the current adventure (seems unfair to switch in the middle of something), and while I'll examine this issue before the switch, I'm sure more issues like that will be caught through actual play.

Hiring Help is indeed a 3d6 roll, and I didn't realize when putting this layout together that the lines in the tables weren't going to appear in the PDF (the yes/no line should be between the 10 and 11).

I have a specific idea for encumbrance and how it's supposed to be easily calculated just by how the character sheet's equipment section is formatted, without counting. It's not there yet, but it's my top rules priority after the current portion I'm working on is done.

Thanks for the look-through!

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Akiyama wrote:

I assume you mean a 10 foot square. So for 1000gp I could buy a decent sized house in the city, or a mansion in the countryside. Is this right?

I'm getting to this stuff now.

Remember that rural costs would involve a good deal of land as well. Even an acre will add up...

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

I just had a quick gander at the rules, and a few things sprung to mind.

Since every edition is different, and even all of the retro-clones have their own peculiarities; the kind of things you have to eyeball when using, say, modules from one version with rules from another edition, why even bother with keeping things just because "it was there in the older editions"?

For instance, you've remarked on having to include halflings just because they are in other games, and at the same time, your own dislike for said class (as a PC class) is quite evident. On the other hand, your rendition on halflings in Insect Shrine is just brilliant, and definitely worthwhile, except they have little or nothing at all to do with the halflings that players play.

Why not do away with halflings as a core race/class altogether and just make them an "NPC-class", with some rules in an appendix for those who really want to run PC halflings?

You're doing away with some of the fiddly bits in some of the older games, like for instance encumbrance, and micro managing item weights and such. Why not do the same to some other parts of the game, which seem to be there just because that's the way its always been done, although there are (in newer versions) better, and easier ways to present the same thing. I'm of course talking about the descending armor class, which, in my opinion, really isn't worthwhile. Its just inelegant when compared to ascending armor class, or some other variations out there, for instance Dragon Age RPG which has an ascending defense value (mainly from Dexterity and shield), and armor that reduces damage (as Damage Reduction in some editions).

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Navdi wrote:

For instance, you've remarked on having to include halflings just because they are in other games, and at the same time, your own dislike for said class (as a PC class) is quite evident. On the other hand, your rendition on halflings in Insect Shrine is just brilliant, and definitely worthwhile, except they have little or nothing at all to do with the halflings that players play.

It's not so much a dislike of halflings as an idea, but the unwillingness to "awesome them up" in comparison to other races for the sake of balance.

However, the last go-through makes their saving throws the best in the game, by a significant margin. Whether that's a tradeoff for the lack of other useful qualities, I don't know, but it is an advantage that is in line with source material and the generally assumed nature of halflings.

As far as the Insect Shrine (and Hammers of the God will hit first and have bits about that same history), I fully expect to catch shit for what I have to say about the halflings of antiquity. I fear people just won't accept it.

Navdi wrote:

I'm of course talking about the descending armor class, which, in my opinion, really isn't worthwhile.

Taking a nod from Swords & Wizardry, the next draft of the rules includes both (might as well since my adventures give AC descriptions rather than hard numbers anyway). The trick will be to integrate this smoothly throughout the rules where AC is mentioned.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Two points in this post:

1. James, you might want to consider using the Target 20 mechanic in your game rather than either to hit charts or ascending armor class: http://www.superdan.net/oed/target20/ It is succinct, and it almost exactly replicates the to hit (and saving throw) probabilities of OD&D.

2. I can really see the point of having fighters being the only ones who get better to hit scores as they increase in level. Consider:

Clerics and magic-users get better spells when they go up in level. Do fighters get better spells? NO! They get no spells at all, ever, even at 20th level.

Clerics get better at turning undead when they go up in level. Do fighters get better at turning undead? NO! They can't ever turn undead, even at 20th level.

Thieves get better at their theiving skills as they go up in level. Do fighters get better at thieving skills? NO! They can't ever use thieving skills.

So if fighters don't have something unique (such as being the only ones to get better to hit scores as they increase in level), then they are the only class without a unique feature. Someone might say, "But the other classes are never as good at hitting as a fighter of the same level." My reponse: By that same logic fighters should get spells, undead turning, and thief skills (but not as good as those of magic-users, clerics, and thieves).

Last edited by Geoffrey (2010-03-16 21:58:18)

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Ascending vs Descending armor class.

In my opinion neither of the alternatives presented is as simple and elegant as a simple base attack bonus and AC starting at ten. Introducing BAB (fast, medium and slow progression per level) is also an easy way to address the issue of different classes getting better at hitting stuff. Just give Fighters +1 to hit each level, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and Specialists +1/2 rounded down to hit each level and clerics and magic-users +1/3 rounded down to hit each level. This change would enable you to get rid of that clunky to hit -table altogether.

Last edited by Navdi (2010-03-19 22:36:25)

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

I guess I'm an old fart, I LIKE the "clunky to hit -table" and am not a fan of either Ascending AC nor having to sit at the table adding figures in my head. Give me a table I can quickly glance at and I'm a happy man. My vote is for traditional descending only...but, and it's a big but, you need to base this decision on your desired market, balanced with the need for compatibility. Glad it's you making the decision James, not me.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

The table for turning undead doesn't explain what a dash after the T means.

On the same table, cleric level 15 vs Hit Dice 7 and 9 has T with an asterisk, it looks like it should be a dash.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Age of Fable wrote:

The table for turning undead doesn't explain what a dash after the T means.

On the same table, cleric level 15 vs Hit Dice 7 and 9 has T with an asterisk, it looks like it should be a dash.

Wow, I'm not sure what happened there. There shouldn't be any Ts with dashes, they should have asterisks instead.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Greyharp wrote:

I guess I'm an old fart, I LIKE the "clunky to hit -table" and am not a fan of either Ascending AC nor having to sit at the table adding figures in my head. Give me a table I can quickly glance at and I'm a happy man. My vote is for traditional descending only...but, and it's a big but, you need to base this decision on your desired market, balanced with the need for compatibility. Glad it's you making the decision James, not me.

Either you are adding figures in your head since you would have to add your dexterity modifier to your roll anyway, or you'd have to make a table for yourself on your sheet, which would have the armor class and dexterity modifier already added. Neither of these actually requires the game book to have the original table, which would just list base attack bonus (or have the classes with said BAB) on column one, armor class on the top row and required target number to hit cross-referenced.

"Oh, the orc has a chain shirt (+4) and a shield (+1) and my Level 1 Fighter (bab +1) has +1 Dex. I need to roll a 13 to hit."

I really wouldn't call that too difficult. Then again, even though I'm old enough to classify as an old fart, I don't consider myself as one. wink

As for the desired market, I got the impression that James is aiming for new role-players, current role-players AND the old school scene. The new players would grasp a simpler (e.g. one without a reversed table) much easier, the current role-players would be most familiar with the D&D 3+ style armor class, and the old school scene would just house-rule everything to their liking, since that's what they've been doing for 30 years now anyway.

Last edited by Navdi (2010-03-20 09:45:55)

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Navdi wrote:

As for the desired market, I got the impression that James is aiming for new role-players, current role-players AND the old school scene.

You make it sound so confused when you put it like that.

I just call it, "aiming to make a complete game that stands on its own."

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Sorry, this was just a stream of commentary while I was skimming the rules:

Rules for starting money for characters of over 1st level, yes!

I like how you have to go to cities to buy real weapons and armor.

Weapons rules remind me of old WFRPG.

Typo in the terrain effect on daily movement table.
"Terrain Adjustment
Jungle, Mountains, Swamp x 1/A13"

I like the look of your encumbrance rules, but I think you may need to define oversized items. I know a sledgehammer or 10' pole is oversized, but what about a carbine?

I applaud the inclusion of starvation & dehydration rules, but I still think they are twice as fast as they should be!

"Casting a spell may not be done
secretly, stealthily, or disguised as another activity; the actions will be obvious to all."

I applaud your inclusion of this and I am immediately using that as a houserule!

I like the thoroughness (a continuing theme) of the magic rules and I dig the long, uncertain spell transcription, research, etc rules. Reminds me of Call of Cthulhu.

I'm seeing a lot of simple, reasonable rules for implicit fantasy adventure tropes that I would use for my own game.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Navdi wrote:

"Oh, the orc has a chain shirt (+4) and a shield (+1) and my Level 1 Fighter (bab +1) has +1 Dex. I need to roll a 13 to hit."

I really wouldn't call that too difficult.

No? It hurt my brain just reading it. I must admit that I don't understand the thinking behind making something harder, not easier. The old way, the original way, is simply this:

What's the monster's AC?

6

OK, I need a... [glances at character sheet]... 13 to hit it.

And that's that. No take this number, add this, and that, and something else, oh and don't forget to add that too...

No it's not "too difficult" to add numbers together, but why make the process harder than it needs to be?

HOWEVER, as both you yourself Navdi and I pointed out in our posts, James will have to take into account the target audience when making the decision as to which way to go. And that is more important than the personal preference of this person or that (well, except that of James himself).   smile

Last edited by Greyharp (2010-03-20 23:56:51)

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Greyharp wrote:

No? It hurt my brain just reading it. I must admit that I don't understand the thinking behind making something harder, not easier. The old way, the original way, is simply this:

What's the monster's AC?

6

OK, I need a... [glances at character sheet]... 13 to hit it.

You misunderstand me. That's the math behind the ascending armor class. You put the end product of that on your cheat sheet or character sheet and all you have to do is:

"What's the monster's AC?"

"16."

"Ok, I hit (since my roll plus my To Hit of +1 is 16, but I won't bother saying that out aloud)."

or alternatively, if your GM doesn't feel like telling you the monster's AC just yet.

"My total is 15. Do I hit?"

"No, you miss. Next time, roll better."

Also, you're obviously trying to make a point of the old, original way being somehow better Just Because its the original way. In this case it isn't. Its Just Old. smile

Last edited by Navdi (2010-03-21 01:20:44)

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Navdi wrote:

you're obviously trying to make a point of the old, original way being somehow better Just Because its the original way. In this case it isn't. Its Just Old. smile

Nope, you misread my motivation entirely Navdi, it's nothing to do with nostalgia and old = better, but everything to do with mental laziness. Why would I want to add several factors in my head every time I roll a to hit dice, when I could just know the single number I need to roll? I fail to see where my logic is flawed, just as I fail to see where I suggested the old way was "better", only simpler, that's all.

And now we're in danger of side-tracking James game feedback thread.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Greyharp wrote:

And now we're in danger of side-tracking James game feedback thread.

I find adding two numbers together to be a LOT easier than asking for a number and then cross-referencing it with another number on a table on my character sheet. In fact, most of the time I don't even use my character sheet during a game, except to record damage and inventory. Numbers I remember, tables of numbers I really don't like at all.

But lets agree to disagree and leave it at that, shall we? wink

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Navdi wrote:

I find adding two numbers together to be a LOT easier than ... cross-referencing ... my character sheet.

Navdi wrote:

"Oh, the orc has a chain shirt (+4) and a shield (+1) and my Level 1 Fighter (bab +1) has +1 Dex. I need to roll a 13 to hit."

Yeah OK.   wink

Navdi wrote:

But lets agree to disagree and leave it at that, shall we?

You betcha.

Re: LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing

Jim wrote:
Fighters will begin with +2 bonus, whereas all other starting characters get +1 and unclassed 0 level schlubs get +0.

I want to make the fighters important, but not SUPERKILLER. Maybe the 1 or 2 point starting AC difference won't make that much of a difference on the player side, but since monsters will use the Fighter bonus I didn't want to screw PCs.

I can be argued with on this point, though. smile

I think normal, unarmored AC should be 10. This way an average mook hitting another average mook hits half the time, which makes sense to me. There is also the issue of being compatible with at least some versions of the game, for instance, I'd imagine you might draw in some players who have experience with D&D 3.5, and/or have been alienated by D&D 4th edition, and are now on the look out for a lighter game system (me, for instance).

I also think Fighters should be special, but not at the expense of the whole AC thing getting thrown out of whack for a somewhat arbitrary-seeming reason. BUT I think non-Fighters should also get better at hitting things as they get levels.

Here's some ideas:

Give Fighters +1 to hit every level. Give every other class +1 to hit on every even level. This means they get better at hitting, but only at half the fighter's speed. If you really want to give the fighter an additional boost to hitting starting at lvl 1, give them a class ability which gives them +1 to hit with a weapon they are familiar with. Call it "Weapons Expert" or some such, which would be +1 to hit with a weapon with which they have prior experience. Or with a weapon group of their choice (one-handed, two-handed, pole-arms, bows, what have you). If you want to make them progressively better with more levels, "Weapons Expert" could give an additional +1 to hit every four levels.

Another way to boost the fighter is give them a similar class ability called "Armor Expert", which would grant them +1 AC when wearing armor they are familiar with. You could make this class ability get better every four levels as well. This way the Fighter would be better protected while wearing armor than, say, an elf wearing the same kind of armor. Come to think of it, the Dwarf would be a natural candidate for this particular class ability as well, as the archetypal dwarf is usually heavily armored.

What do you think? Breaking the mold too much?

Last edited by Navdi (2010-03-22 20:29:17)