TheRPGSite

Rather surprised to find that LotFP didn't have its own thread.

So I'm creating this one to let y'all know that there is a LotFP bundle up on Bundle of Holding, (https://bundleofholding.com/presents/Lamentations2) so you can find out how these artfags and metalgeeks are ruining the OSR for yourselves.

Some of the best LotFP stuff is missing here, Hite's Qelong and Zak's Red and Pleasant Land and unfortunately Kowolski is represented with a merely okay module instead of his much better work for LotFP. But Death Frost Doom is still pretty great, way better than anything else I've read from Raggi and Stuart's Veins of the Earth is packed with terrific, imaginative content. I find the ruleset merely okay, just another B/X with houserules variant.

But I can now check out Chenier's Blood in Chocolate and Brockie's Tower Two, as well as find out if Carcosa is worth the controversy or just a shitty too-random hex crawl.

Quote from: Voros;993789Rather surprised to find that LotFP didn't have its own thread.

So I'm creating this one to let y'all know that there is a LotFP bundle up on Bundle of Holding, (https://bundleofholding.com/presents/Lamentations2) so you can find out how these artfags and metalgeeks are ruining the OSR for yourselves.

Some of the best LotFP stuff is missing here, Hite's Qelong and Zak's Red and Pleasant Land and unfortunately Kowolski is represented with a merely okay module instead of his much better work for LotFP. But Death Frost Doom is still pretty great, way better than anything else I've read from Raggi and Stuart's Veins of the Earth is packed with terrific, imaginative content. I find the ruleset merely okay, just another B/X with houserules variant.

But I can now check out Chenier's Blood in Chocolate and Brockie's Tower Two, as well as find out if Carcosa is worth the controversy or just a shitty too-random hex crawl.

Great deal overall...

I agree ith you though, I thought the house rules did the job but were nothing special. I'd prefer something like Beyond The Wall.

DFD is very good indeed and pays a nice little homage to EDII. Although, I fear for the player's safety in that one ;). But the overall vibe is really cool. Red and Plesant Land is great and one of the most original takes on something that I've ever heard.

I quite liked Carcosa... But I didn't really get the whole 'controversy' tbh. But even if you didn't play as is, and you like your Lovecraft, there are some great ideas to be had.

Great bundle tho'!!

Broodmother Skyfortress is a fucking masterpiece. A smart, fun, and wildly original re-imagining of Against the Giants that blows the original out of the water while still having affection and respect for it.  Get it, you won't regret it.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;994039Broodmother Skyfortress is a fucking masterpiece. A smart, fun, and wildly original re-imagining of Against the Giants that blows the original out of the water while still having affection and respect for it.  Get it, you won't regret it.

I already like the name of it! Shall check it out

I was not impressed with LotFP. I know better OSR games out there. The core-i death-metal artwork is out of context - no resemblance of actual game, mechanics or text. Just there to shock you. More like WTF.
If it wants to be dark fantasy game - there should be some kind of sanity, corruption system - but there is none.
I am a fan of an idea of strip-down minimalistic systems - but yet there is the Specialist class with it's very narrow focused skills. Totally out of place imho. Architecture? Seriously?

I do like what has done with the Magic. It rocks!
Also the print book is beautiful. Nice layout and art. The core is just not necessary.

But I ignore this game completely. To me LotFP is all about the dark fantasy adventures. Small hardcover books - just top quality. Something I always have room in my collection for more.

Some ok stuff in there but Dungeon of the Unknown is terrible. Were Ken Hites Quelong and Kelvin Greens Forgive Us in the first bundle? If not, they are missing here - good books, both of them.

As a whole I've grown pretty bored with LotFP - especially that James stills hasn't bothered putting out the new version of the Ref Book - crowdfunded in f*cking 2013 and at that time was super urgent so the The Rules and Magic book wouldn't stand useless and alone or as the Indigogo campaign said "the new version of the game as a whole cannot yet go into the retail chain where it attracts new fans."

Bah. James should just admit that he is more interested in/making more money from scenarios and settings than his own system and admit the book is never going to happen - embarrasing as it is.

Quote from: jux;994212I was not impressed with LotFP. I know better OSR games out there. The core-i death-metal artwork is out of context - no resemblance of actual game, mechanics or text. Just there to shock you. More like WTF.
If it wants to be dark fantasy game - there should be some kind of sanity, corruption system - but there is none.
I am a fan of an idea of strip-down minimalistic systems - but yet there is the Specialist class with it's very narrow focused skills. Totally out of place imho. Architecture? Seriously?

I do like what has done with the Magic. It rocks!
Also the print book is beautiful. Nice layout and art. The core is just not necessary.

But I ignore this game completely. To me LotFP is all about the dark fantasy adventures. Small hardcover books - just top quality. Something I always have room in my collection for more.

I agree, I was looking through the rulebook again and the ultraviolent artwork was in no way reflected in the mechanics which is just B/X and Red Box to me. Some of the artwork is excellent though.

I do like the unique dark chaos spells and summoning rules, although the dice mechanic around summoning is far too convoluted. But there are really only a handful of those spells, the inclusion of something like Magic Missile seems like a failure of imagination or just a sop.

And upon review the claim it is a 'low magic' setting just because he removed Fireball doesn't hold up to me when stuff like Cloudkill and Powerword Kill and Timestop are still in there.

But as you say it is the adventures and settings that really matter.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;994218Bah. James should just admit that he is more interested in/making more money from scenarios and settings than his own system and admit the book is never going to happen - embarrasing as it is.

Raggi says he makes more money from the largely redundant rules set than he does from the adventures.

Who actually needs a Ref Book to play the game? No offense, but it sounds like those items play more to the OCD collector crowd than those at a table.

But of course if it was promised in a Crowdfunding campaign it should be delivered. Raggi seems to suffer from writer's block as he puts out other's stuff at a pretty steady pace.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;994218Some ok stuff in there but Dungeon of the Unknown is terrible. Were Ken Hites Quelong and Kelvin Greens Forgive Us in the first bundle? If not, they are missing here - good books, both of them.

Those were both in the original bundle, as well as Vornheim.

Quote from: Voros;994308Who actually needs a Ref Book to play the game?

LotFP Rules & Magic is a very handy package, more so than pretty much any other book in that vein (Delving Deeper comes close, but Lulu softcover can't compare to Raggi's awesome hardback quality). And I do need to refer to spells, prices, saving throws, and whatnot during a game. No spare brain capacity to store information I can look up in a book.

I think the A5 format, the sturdy binding, the complete information in the book make the rules for LotFP perfect for me. It sits comfortable on the table, and I can hold it in one hand to reference it while picking up some dice to roll with my other hand. (Which is why I use it happily.)

Also, in a game like Basic D&D the spells in the game are going to be one of the key elements that really nail down the tone and feel of the game. Without doubt the original Referee book (which is a free download and still quiet usable with terrific advice) nails down the a lot more of what Raggi was going for with his type of play. But to dismiss the spells as "well the only weirdness is in the spells" is to really miss how specific both the spells and their descriptions are to nailing down an the most important element of what makes the game unique. It may not be unique enough to satisfy some... but the spells do make it unique.

Quote from: Vile;994451LotFP Rules & Magic is a very handy package, more so than pretty much any other book in that vein (Delving Deeper comes close, but Lulu softcover can't compare to Raggi's awesome hardback quality). And I do need to refer to spells, prices, saving throws, and whatnot during a game. No spare brain capacity to store information I can look up in a book.

Great explanation for the original rules set but not the need for a seperate Ref Sourcebook. And I am a bit mystified by the need for equipment and price lists this far into fantasy rpg history.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;994455I think the A5 format, the sturdy binding, the complete information in the book make the rules for LotFP perfect for me. It sits comfortable on the table, and I can hold it in one hand to reference it while picking up some dice to roll with my other hand. (Which is why I use it happily.)

Also, in a game like Basic D&D the spells in the game are going to be one of the key elements that really nail down the tone and feel of the game. Without doubt the original Referee book (which is a free download and still quiet usable with terrific advice) nails down the a lot more of what Raggi was going for with his type of play. But to dismiss the spells as "well the only weirdness is in the spells" is to really miss how specific both the spells and their descriptions are to nailing down an the most important element of what makes the game unique. It may not be unique enough to satisfy some... but the spells do make it unique.

Sorry not convinced. Most of the spells are boilerplate B/X or 1e spells. There are almost less than half a dozen unique spells of any significance.

I do like the book format and art though. Or the art that isn't trying too hard to be 'shocking' I should say.

Quote from: Voros;994308Raggi says he makes more money from the largely redundant rules set than he does from the adventures.

Really? That's really surprising. Whaddayouknow.

And shame if it is writer's block that is in the way - but really, he has got the rules written from the latest grindhouse edition and we've seen plenty of new art floating around. Just slap on the new cover (that is ready, if I remember correctly), fix the typos, and put in the new art - seriously, what needs to be rewritten/added is very little. Just get it out there and get a physical book out in the shops to stand next to the by now large range of good looking LotFP books that are out there. It is, by James' own 2013-logic, an amputated game he has out there and continually supports with the new material.

It is surprising to Raggi too. I don't understand the apparently bottomless appetite for minor variations on the D&D system myself.

I like the style and vibe ok, Europe 'round the 30 Year War seems like a good fit - and some of the rule tweaks are neat (encumbrance/skills), but yeah, as a whole, rule-wise, I agree..

And damn. A Grindhouse Edition box costs 175$ at Nobleknight... today I would probably sell mine for half that.

Quote from: jux;994212I am a fan of an idea of strip-down minimalistic systems - but yet there is the Specialist class with it's very narrow focused skills. Totally out of place imho. Architecture? Seriously?

I've never seen a simpler skill system than Lamentations'.  The skills are not narrowly-focused at all...architecture is just poorly-named.  It's more of a general skill for analyzing any kind of structural element - like how dwarves can detect sloping passages.  And it's probably the least useful skill.

If you think Specialist skills are narrow, what about Bushcraft?  That's like Ranger: The Skill.  And who needs hide in shadows and move silently when you have one stealth skill?

Quote from: jux;994212there should be some kind of sanity, corruption system - but there is none.

I hate that sort of thing. Won't happen.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;994218Bah. James should just admit that he is more interested in/making more money from scenarios and settings than his own system and admit the book is never going to happen - embarrasing as it is.

It is happening. It's just real fucking slow.

Quote from: jux;994212If it wants to be dark fantasy game - there should be some kind of sanity, corruption system - but there is none.

I do love some kind of corruption system myself... It works so well for Symbaroum (those wizards gotta be damn careful). I'd definitely include it in my own house rules for an OSR game/system. I think it would be cool as an optional extra for LoTFP too, especially if you were playing an extended campaign and not hopping from one scenario to another.

I like the inclusion of gunpowder weapons.... Gives it that WFRP vibe.

Quote from: Voros;994519Sorry not convinced. Most of the spells are boilerplate B/X or 1e spells. There are almost less than half a dozen unique spells of any significance.

I do like the book format and art though. Or the art that isn't trying too hard to be 'shocking' I should say.

Oh, sure. But some of the boilerplate spells have interesting bits of description. Keep in mind I'm not trying to convince you of anything (I really, really want you to play what you want and not purchase anything extraneous).

Keep in mind as well that I hadn't owned any D&D books for decades. I shopped around looking at the clones a few years back, really liked a couple of the LotFP adventures, and picked up the LotFP core book because it was solid and had what I needed.

Thus, LotFP as a rules set wasn't extraneous or redundant in any way for me. I needed a rules set. I purchased it. It delivered.

This will probably be a very different experience than many of the other people here.

If I was going to buy any retroclone in hardcopy my first choice would be Beyond the Wall because it is the single best OSR system out there that really does something different, then LotFP because the book is so damn purty.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;994622I really, really want you to play what you want and not purchase anything extraneous.

Sir, you are an embarrassment to this hobby. Please turn in your credentials and find your way to the door.

Quote from: Voros;994683If I was going to buy any retroclone in hardcopy my first choice would be Beyond the Wall because it is the single best OSR system out there that really does something different, then LotFP because the book is so damn purty.

I got a hold of copies of Swords & Wizardry (is that the name?) and OSRIC a few years back to see what it was. I didn't know at the time that these games are just D&D rewrites with maybe a couple of minor alterations. I have nothing against it, but I don't really see why I'd buy a game that seems to be D&D plus house rules when I know how to make my own house rules already. They kind of seem like "D&D plus this article from Dragon added on" or something. I've only seen a couple of the "clones," though: are there any that actually do anything different or special enough to consider them their own thing rather than just "D&D Knockoff Mint-n-Chip Flavor" and "D&D Knockoff Strawberry Flavor"?

The best in my opinion are Beyond the Wall, which accurately captures the flavour, setting and mechanics of authors like Le Guin, The Black Cauldron, Robin McKinely and John Bellairs. It is also the best example I've seen of how to have a truly low magic setting that still feels mythic and fairy tale-like. It has excellent suggestions for how to present the underworld, goblins and fae, etc.

The other, only available in hardcopy from Lulu, is The White Hack which is such a radical rewrite of D&D I think it can be considered its own system, although with a D&D chassis. I think it is very well done, with  much more flexible approach to class than D&D for instance, although I suspect it would be too Scandinavian for many, especially with its nearly freeform magic system.

The Black Hack is pretty much just a system, but stripped down and different enough from core D&D to lift it out of being a retroclone I think. Lots of cool little ideas one could take and use without using the whole system, although my limited experience with it found it plays very well at the table. The best of the D&D plus house rules systems I think.

In many ways these are all different enough from D&D that I wouldn't really call them retroclones as they are all about taking D&D and doing something different with it, not recreating some imagined play style from the past.

Quote from: Voros;994683If I was going to buy any retroclone in hardcopy my first choice would be Beyond the Wall...

Good!

As for the recommendations Voros suggests of Beyond the Wall, Whitehack, and The Black Hack, I think they're all solid. I'm looking forward to running something with Whitehack some day. (So much so that I bought several copies of both the Notebook edition and the basic rules. I am looking forward to using them with Yoon-Suin, for example, and other settings where culture and setting detail really get to stand out.)

As for the notion my players and I are "recreating some imagined play style from the past" when we use the LotFP rules... I have no idea how to respond to that. We are actually playing a game with the actual rules found in the book that generates a specific kind of play style that we're all enjoying it. If we are all actually imagining we're playing the game we're in deep trouble!

That wasn't intended a criticism of LotFP, my favourite edition of D&D is B/X and BECMI, which are clearly the main influences on LotFP, so of course I don't look down on it.

But I do find a lot of the claims about what 'old school play' was supposedly like doesn't reflect my actual experiences of playing pre-2e D&D.

Quote from: Voros;994774But I do find a lot of the claims about what 'old school play' was supposedly like doesn't reflect my actual experiences of playing pre-2e D&D.

Same here, which is why I was attracted to the OSR, because it sounded to me like a lot more fun than what we'd done with AD&D.

Quote from: Simlasa;994857Same here, which is why I was attracted to the OSR, because it sounded to me like a lot more fun than what we'd done with AD&D.

Me, too. Or, rather, we had a lot of fun with AD&D. But OSR was taking ideas and giving me advice on how to make that fun on purpose. (Remember, back in the day you were given a set of kind of strange rules and told, "Good luck!")

So now I play and have more fun than we had when I played AD&D.

Somehow this will be seen as an attack on those who are not down with OSR. Or somehow read to be seen as saying the only way to play and RPG is with the OD&D rules and the ghost of Gary Gygax at the table next to the GM.

I hope to the high heavens anyone with a smidgen of common sense who is beginning to think that's what I'm saying will take a breath, re-read what I just wrote, and relax a bit.

Don't think anyone thought that. No worries.

Quote from: Dumarest;994687I got a hold of copies of Swords & Wizardry (is that the name?) and OSRIC a few years back to see what it was. I didn't know at the time that these games are just D&D rewrites with maybe a couple of minor alterations. I have nothing against it, but I don't really see why I'd buy a game that seems to be D&D plus house rules when I know how to make my own house rules already. They kind of seem like "D&D plus this article from Dragon added on" or something. I've only seen a couple of the "clones," though: are there any that actually do anything different or special enough to consider them their own thing rather than just "D&D Knockoff Mint-n-Chip Flavor" and "D&D Knockoff Strawberry Flavor"?

I don't know if by "clones" you mean what clones usually means in the OSR. If so, the answer would be no, because the whole point of Clones is that they're near-identical copies of an old D&D ruleset.

If, however, you mean Clones in the sense of OSR Rulesets in general, there's quite a few that provide some important variety.  Some of these, I guess, you could call "D&D with a few house rules". If you think LotFP is that sort of thing, and not unique enough to warrant buying, you'll probably feel the same about 70% of all the non-clone OSR rulesets.

But there are some that are a lot more different from baseline-D&D than LotFP is.  Arrows of Indra is very different from standard D&D. My Lion & Dragon RPG, which is coming out sometime before the end of this year, is going to be very different from any standard D&D, much moreso than LotFP is.

What a lot of the really-different OSR rule-sets have in common is that they're made to address "OSR rules for running X genre/style/concept".  Lion & Dragon, for example, will be for running a more Medieval Authentic game.

Quote from: Voros;995030Don't think anyone thought that. No worries.

You clearly have had better experiences on the Internet than I have.

Quote from: RPGPundit;995375Lion & Dragon, for example, will be for running a more Medieval Authentic game.

Looking forward to this, as it sounds like it will knock Gurps out of the niche I've put in in once and for all. When it the estimated release date? Awesome title, btw.

Quote from: Aglondir;995473Looking forward to this, as it sounds like it will knock Gurps out of the niche I've put in in once and for all. When it the estimated release date? Awesome title, btw.

Sometime between Halloween and New Years.

BTW they just added Hite's Qelong to the LotFP Bundle on Bundle of Holding.

Raggi has announced on G+ that Jonathan Tweet is going to be making a setting supplement called Al Amarja 1630.

Quote from: Voros;997706Raggi has announced on G+ that Jonathan Tweet is going to be making a setting supplement called Al Amarja 1630.

Yeah, a by that he just managed to super rekindle my interest in LotFP right there - well done, James :)

Also the first I have heard about an upcoming 3rd edition of Over the Edge coming up. Pretty exciting.

Yeah I don't care for most of Raggi's post-DFD writing and he can be a bit juvenile and the delayed product isn't cool but everyone who works for LotFP seems to agree he pays well and takes his work seriously. Good for him for getting the likes of Hite and Tweet.

Quote from: Voros;998035Yeah I don't care for most of Raggi's post-DFD writing and he can be a bit juvenile and the delayed product isn't cool but everyone who works for LotFP seems to agree he pays well and takes his work seriously. Good for him for getting the likes of Hite and Tweet.

Yup - I got a lot of respect for James as a publisher - both when it comes to quality of the books published and his relation with his writers.

There's no question that his production quality is always excellent. In terms of the quality of the content, I think he's something like 75% good-to-amazing vs. 25% poor-to-awful.

The weakest material is the stuff Raggi writes himself.

Quote from: Voros;997706Raggi has announced on G+ that Jonathan Tweet is going to be making a setting supplement called Al Amarja 1630.

Now that is a must-have.

Quote from: Voros;999138The weakest material is the stuff Raggi writes himself.

Well, the core rules he wrote were ground-breaking at the time for the OSR.  Better Than Any Man, which I believe Raggi wrote himself, was probably the best LotFP adventure ever.  So I'm not sure I can agree here.

Wait, people like Raggi? The reviews I saw for one of the adventures basically called him an emo hipster that got off to making navel-gazing adventures that were fun for a killer DM to gloat over but not for any players.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;999763Wait, people like Raggi? The reviews I saw for one of the adventures basically called him an emo hipster that got off to making navel-gazing adventures that were fun for a killer DM to gloat over but not for any players.

A lot of the LotFP adventures are basically like this; what we call 'negadungeons'.  But the ones that aren't like this are quite good.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999976A lot of the LotFP adventures are basically like this; what we call 'negadungeons'.

It's not 'a lot'... I can really only think of one that's solidly 'nega'... some of the others present major traps or hard decisions... but at this point I'd say the wide majority of LotFP adventures are not 'nega'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999976A lot of the LotFP adventures are basically like this; what we call 'negadungeons'.  But the ones that aren't like this are quite good.

The only thing I've done that truly qualifies as a "negadungeon" (as opposed to co-opting the term as a more "now" tagline for marketing horror/fantasy) is Fuck For Satan.

I really like Death Frost Doom. The rest have interesting ideas but aren't as solid all the way through.

Quote from: Voros;999988I really like Death Frost Doom. The rest have interesting ideas but aren't as solid all the way through.

Yeah, I liked DFD too. Especially, the first half of the adventure. It's got a great overall vibe... But when it goes into a dungeon crawl for the second-half it feels a little bit random. Personally, if I was to run it I'd have to tweak it a lot (to suit our style of play).

I liked some of the ideas presented in Carcosa, but it's not a game I'd play RAW by any means.

For me, where LotFP shines is as inspiration.

Quote from: JimLotFP;999985The only thing I've done that truly qualifies as a "negadungeon" (as opposed to co-opting the term as a more "now" tagline for marketing horror/fantasy) is Fuck For Satan.

Death Frost Doom is a negadungeon. The God That Crawls is a negadungeon. I'm sure I could think of a couple of others if I took my time.

I just finished reading The Monolith Beyond Space and Time and would consider that a negadungeon. There is a solution to the Monolith but how the PCs are supposed to figure it out is beyond me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1000706Death Frost Doom is a negadungeon. The God That Crawls is a negadungeon. I'm sure I could think of a couple of others if I took my time.

In the last playtest before publication, the PCs eliminated the God that Crawls and then looted the dungeon at their leisure.

In the last playtest of DFD before publication, the only death was from the organ. Everyone alive after that survived the whole thing. And in campaign play players returned to the place after its inhabitants left and had their run of the place. It's also been demonstrated to be survivable in solo play.

Monolith was a funny one. Players in one playtest realized the adventure gives them complete control over a time machine that also makes them invincible killers. It's the biggest Monty Haul scenario in the history of RPG publication if players don't think of it as a problem to solve.

The only LotFP adventure I consider a 'negadungeon' is the little one called The Tower, because the way to beat it is to be suspicicious of it and just not go in... but I still think it's hilarious fun.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1000800In the last playtest of DFD before publication, the only death was from the organ. Everyone alive after that survived the whole thing. And in campaign play players returned to the place after its inhabitants left and had their run of the place. It's also been demonstrated to be survivable in solo play.

Monolith was a funny one. Players in one playtest realized the adventure gives them complete control over a time machine that also makes them invincible killers. It's the biggest Monty Haul scenario in the history of RPG publication if players don't think of it as a problem to solve.

But wouldn't that require that they remain within the Monolith unless they figure out the solution to the

Spoiler

infection/curse?

Quote from: Voros;1000827But wouldn't that require that they remain within the Monolith unless they figure out the solution to the

Spoiler

infection/curse?

Nope. It just requires some planning and care to interact with society.

... which adventurers are notorious about not caring about, so...

Haha...I see. I know it is just in passing but my favourite part of Monolith was the love cult.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;999763Wait, people like Raggi? The reviews I saw for one of the adventures basically called him an emo hipster that got off to making navel-gazing adventures that were fun for a killer DM to gloat over but not for any players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999976A lot of the LotFP adventures are basically like this; what we call 'negadungeons'.  But the ones that aren't like this are quite good.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1000706Death Frost Doom is a negadungeon. The God That Crawls is a negadungeon. I'm sure I could think of a couple of others if I took my time.

Shallow reading of Death Frost Doom or The God That Crawls might make someone think they are negadungeons (using the definition Pundit seems to be using.) I read the reviews of DFD when it came out and bought the PDF out of curiosity. I skimmed it and agreed with that assessment of many reviews.

But then I kept seeing reports online of people having a good time with the module. So I read it again. And I thought, "Hey! This is really smart!"

Yes, the module describes all sorts of terrible things that might happen. But that doesn't mean they will. Moreover, the module has plenty of clues and tools for the Players to have their PCs use to avoid or overcome the troubles that wait with the temple.

And more than that -- I realized the LotFP design philosophy is that the Players are expected to have their characters me smart and clever and work their assess of not to die while they go into deep and dangerous places to haul out treasure. In other words, while the modules in the LotFP line lay out lots of horrible horribleness that might occur to the PCs... it assumes the the Players will have their PCs do things the Referee and the author of the module could never anticipate. The modules lay out terrible fail states -- but assume that the Players are smart enough and creative enough to avoid triggering them if they put their thinking caps on.

I became so curious about DFD that I picked up another LotFP module... and another... and another. I became really impressed by the design work. So much so that I decided to gather a gaming group to give them a whirl. I pulled together several friends of mine and some folks from a posting on Meetup for a LotFP game. (Some of my gaming friends would not be interesting in playing a B/X retroclone, so I widened by circle. For the head count: Many of them are young-ish (20s-30s and have only played 5th Edition D&D, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk and so on. None had played anything along the lines we might call OSR -- which was certainly the playstyle I was going for.)

I sent out an email explaining the overall logic of the gameplay (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/death-is-on-the-table/): that the PCs could die, no dice would be fudged, I wasn't out to kill the players, but that if they were clever and smart they could survive and level up. My role as Referee was to adjudicate as impartially as I could the results of their actions and use die rolls when I wasn't sure which way to go.

Six people signed on.

We have so far played a mix of LotFP published modules, as well as dungeons and encounters I have created, in a sprawling campaign that involves interplanetary and interdimensional conflicts being fought across 17th Century Europe.

Of the LotFP materials they have encountered: Stranger Storm (from the original Referee Book), Death Frost Doom, The God That Crawls, Scenic Dunnsmouth. The PCs are currently exploring Qelong as versions of themselves from an alternate dimension race them to find the material needed to save Earth from an invasion of the King in Yellow from Carcosa. (Long story.)

The Players have had a blast. Having been warned ahead of time about the nature of the gameplay they have been smart and clever.

Specifically, while  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fourth-session-report/)exploring  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fifth-session-report/)Death Frost Doom (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-sixth-session-report/) and no one died. Now, they did find the McGuffin at the midpoint of the dungeon (that I had placed per the modules instructions) and high tailed it out of there as soon as they had it. But that's the choice part a lot of LotFP modules press on the PCs: how much do you want that treasure really? what are you willing to risk to get it? (They later went back when and discovered a terrible fight had been fought between the high order of the Duvan'Ku cult and soldiers from Carcosa. Again, long story.)

As for The God That Crawls took more a toll (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-eighth-thru-twelfth-session-report/): Three PCs ended up being blinked off to Null Space when they futzed around with a dangerous artifact. (The PCs have made it their mission to rescue their friends from Null Space and are well on their way to succeeding... though they will have to go to Carcosa to do it.) The Players created three new PCs, they got tossed in with the other PCs... and for several sessions the PCs successfully came up with a plan to keep the The God That Crawls at bay using detritus lying about the catacombs, a clever use of Unseen Servant and a bell, and lot of planning and a lot of luck. In the final stages of the execution of their plan a final Dexterity roll determined if a PC would make it up a ladder before a pseudopod of the God grabbed him by the ankle before he got away. Once the God was handled the PCs went around to collect all the treasure they could safely collect. They leveled up handily. (They also managed to loot a ton of bizarre magical items from a lower level that they assumed they would never use because they are so strange. But have already managed to use one of them to clear out a sealed, magical tower that was filled with 3,000 zombies.)

All in all, in both modules

• The Players had a blast
• I had no expectations everyone would die (though I knew everyone could)
  
• The Players had their PCS be smart: Apart, cautious, looking for information and clues to increase odds of survival
• Their PCs constantly weighed risks vs. reward, sometimes pressing on, sometimes not
• I never gloated... not once. Though I often grinned and laughed with delight at the ingenuity of my Players. Really, there was a joy in playing these modules.

Now, this is my experience with six other people, of course. So milage will vary. But I would say that the playing of the modules provided a very different experience than the one I thought I would get from when I game DFD a first read. The default "These modules are for killing players while the GM laughs" is certainly not my experience and certainly an overreach as a statement if only because I certainly didn't end up with that kind of situation at all.

Well, I'll accept that different people put different boundaries on the definition of a "negadungeon". I guess to some, any adventure that isn't totally set up to just be a treasureless death-trap for PCs is not a negadungeon.  Meanwhile, I guess some other people might think of any adventure that is just really dangerous is a 'negadungeon'.
I would say, however, that any adventure that is set up to punish players for doing things that players will ordinarily think of as the right thing to do while dungeoneering is a negadungeon.

I should note that my players did find God that Crawls to be very interesting when I ran it. I ran DFD twice, with two very different results; one party quite liked it, the other party did not.

And I'll repeat that there's quite a few LotFP adventures that aren't negadungeons and are quite well written. Scenic Dunnsmouth is great, for example.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1001471I would say, however, that any adventure that is set up to punish players for doing things that players will ordinarily think of as the right thing to do while dungeoneering is a negadungeon.

My players never felt punished or were punished in either Death Frost Doom or The God That Crawls. Maybe your Players were punished. Or you see the text assuming they should be punished. I can't say anytime about that. I never saw it.

The things they did while they were dungeoneering were: explore; look for information; apply information; solve problems; outwit opposition; come up with clever plans; make risk assessments; react on the fly to new dangers.

Whether all of that is "ordinary" for dungeoneering ... I mean, I have no idea. It sure seemed exactly like what they should be doing going into a dark, fucking dangerous place in search of loot better left alone.

Now, the one place I might see a disconnect is that Lamentations of the Flame Princess bills itself as "Weird Fantasy Roleplaying." The rules in and of themeless found in the Rules & Magic book do not convey a lot of Weird Fantasy elements apart from the descriptions of alignment, some spells, and perhaps the description of the Classes. However, the art certainly does.

However, the real juice for the Weird Fantasy elements of the game are in the Referee Book. (Which is free here (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/148012/LotFP-Referee-Book-old-Grindhouse-Edition), for anyone who is curious.) Raggi lays out his agenda for the kind of settings, mood, and play he wants to encourage with his product line -- which the LotFP products successfully support.

When I read the Referee Book all of Lamentations of the Flame Princess fell into place for me -- the game, the art, the modules. I saw that to run it I'd be best served by thinking of Clark Ashton Smith, H.P. Lovecraft, the weird parts o R. E. Howard's Conan tales (which have lots of weirdness), a little bit of Gene Wolfe, and now, having begun reading his work, some Jeff VanderMeer. Even though the rules were based on B/X D&D, they had nothing at all to do with the sensibilities of the faux-Tolkien characters and bands of marauding monsters of different races found in almost all editions of D&D.

As an example, and a key one I think, the Referee Book points out there are no lists of monsters in the rules, and that is by design. Instead, the Referee should be creating unique and specific monsters for the PCs to encounter. It is better, the book suggests, to have one weird thing the PCs have never encountered before than a horde of monsters of a type (orcs, for example) that they keep bumping into again and again.

This is why the adventures are often set in a historical period in Europe: With a more mundane baseline for "reality" the weirdness can pop out more.

(A note: The first thing I did when I began planning to play LofFP was to cut Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings as playable Classes from the game. Everyone would be a human being -- encountering strangeness for the first time. Another note: You can see Raggi sorting out what he wants the tone and feel to be even as he's writing the Referee Book. I made my decisions by choosing among the various pros and cons arguments he makes about what kinds of assumptions to make about the the game.)

With all this in mind, what constitutes "ordinary" behaviors in the activity of dungeoneering might shift considerably. I don't know whether this is true, but it possible.

I do know that one of my players said, after several months of play: "I know we're playing Dungeons & Dragons, but it doesn't feel like any Dungeons & Dragons games I've ever played. There are no goblins, no orcs. We're dealing with wizards from Carcosa planning on invading earth and every monster we meet is something new that makes us constantly afraid. The fact that it's D&D is almost beside the point." And yet, of course, we're using rules that are, except for a few clever tweaks (at least I consider them clever), exactly Basic D&D.

Working from the point of view that everything is potentially dangerous (because they are mortal men and women encountering dangers they have no context for) they are, by definition, careful and cautious about everything. Nothing is taken for granted. And all behaviors are measured and thought out as much as possible. (Until all hell breaks loose every once in a while, and then they try to be as smart as possible on the fly.)

The fact that the dungeons and situations, overall, are dangerous, as well as the specific items and creatures they find, does not make these environments punishments. They make them mysterious and challenging... with rich treasures available on the other side of them if they manage to keep life and limb intact and get a haul buried deep inside back to civilization.

I felt that while the rules were unquestionably genius, the Referee book was mostly useless. It was a vanity manifesto of what Raggi likes. And what he likes is not even really very well defined there. It's not Hammer horror, not Cthulhu, not Poe. It's not quite gonzo, but gonzo enough to often ruin the mood.

Now, I get a lot of what you're saying above, but the fact is that it is still so close to D&D that if you run something like Death Frost Doom with the assumption that it is D&D and it is a D&D dungeon then the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD.  You yourself admit that, Kubasik, in your post above, in a roundabout way.

And I don't really give a twopenny fuck about Raggi's delusions of his artistic vision. He's still doing what amounts to a bait-and-switch unless you sit down your players and tell them "look, in these adventures here you SHOULDN'T do what you would normally do in a standard D&D game or you'll all die horribly. In fact, if your characters weren't completely insane, the most sensible win-strategy would be not to go to this dungeon at all".

In Dark Albion, there's an entirely different way of accomplishing the same thing, creating a game that is absolutely D&D and feels just like D&D but that has a completely different way to play it (Medieval Authentic), and I manage to do that without having to trick anyone or requiring that they read any rambling manifestos with no actual play-content.

I also don't invent excuses for not making a bestiary or magic items.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1003221if you run something like Death Frost Doom with the assumption that it is D&D and it is a D&D dungeon then the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD

Yep! While I like DFD (especially the overall vibe of it at any rate). I've criticized it in the past for being a killer Dungeon (or a negadungein as the term is called here). I mean, just by picking up and examining a few things gives you an automatic % chance to die and that occurs a few times. IMO it's been purposly stacked as to kill off most (or all) of the players and that's even beofre they have to fight the big bads. If I was to run DFD. I'd have to strip the shit out of it so I felt the players would have a fair chance at getting through it.

Just my two cents...

All I'm hearing here is folks complaining that the dungeon is too hard.  "Oh no," they whimper, "I can't run this for my players, their widdle feelings will get hurt when they die."

And yet we've got playtester reports from Raggi and another gentleman's experience that no, the adventure isn't too hard, their players did fine.

Grow a pair folks.  Either run the module or get off the fucking pot.  I don't come to this site to listen to folks complain that the GAME is too FUCKING HARD.

Here is an entry from DfD to illustrate what people are talking about it being a death trap.

QuoteJust north of the altar is an organ made out of bones. The keys are human finger bones, and the pipes are made of giants' thighbones. The organ has been clogged with dust and deadly yellow mold. Playing the organ will cause the spores to shoot out the pipes and all over the room (50% chance) or just over a 10' area around the organ (50% chance), and everyone in the area of effect must save versus poison or die. Doing this will also dislodge an onyx bowl worth 1300 gold and a sapphire worth 250 gold from the inner workings of the organ.

While a fuck you save or die trap, any party member who just amble up and start playing without thoroughly checking out what it is obvious a creepy organ is an idiot in most D&D campaigns. I wouldn't expect to contain yellow mold that expelled when you played it. But I would expect some kind of nasty curse/mechanism/magic that would result in a save or die situation or the equivalent. Especially given how the locale is painted prior to this.

Quote from: jcfiala;1003238Grow a pair folks.  Either run the module or get off the fucking pot.  I don't come to this site to listen to folks complain that the GAME is too FUCKING HARD.

Actually, thanks for that post! It now makes me want to complain about DFD even more... :D

Quote from: The Exploited.;1003248Actually, thanks for that post! It now makes me want to complain about DFD even more... :D

Yes, share your feelings with us darling, we love it when you get 'real' with us.

Quote from: estar;1003245While a fuck you save or die trap, any party member who just amble up and start playing without thoroughly checking out what it is obvious a creepy organ is an idiot in most D&D campaigns.

Yes, either Pundit plays with such idiots or he's just being dense. The same guy that runs up an plays that organ without examining it is going to get himself and/or others killed in most any decent 'dungeon' adventure I can think of.
We have a guy like that in our DCC group, and while he's is a source of amusement he is also on his tenth character and has caused the rest of the PCs some serious difficulties at times.

In DFD there's a whole lot of stuff to see before you get to that creepy organ, and just about ALL of it serves as a signpost that warns you how ominous/creepy/dangerous the place is. There is stuff earlier on that you can mess with without instant death (the stuff in the shack, like the clock) but that still ougtta give you the idea to not just randomly go messing with things... that this stuff was all put in place by bad people doing bad things. Proceed with caution, don't lick things, don't stick your dick in the keyholes.
But, with just a bit of examination and thought the situation with that organ WILL be apparent and then its up to the Players to find some sort of solution.

Quote from: Simlasa;1003257In DFD there's a whole lot of stuff to see before you get to that creepy organ, and just about ALL of it serves as a signpost that warns you how ominous/creepy/dangerous the place is. There is stuff earlier on that you can mess with without instant death (the stuff in the shack, like the clock) but that still ougtta give you the idea to not just randomly go messing with things... that this stuff was all put in place by bad people doing bad things. Proceed with caution, don't lick things, don't stick your dick in the keyholes.
But, with just a bit of examination and thought the situation with that organ WILL be apparent and then its up to the Players to find some sort of solution.

Yes, don't go around fondling strange people's organs, it's dangerous. :)

Quote from: jcfiala;1003254Yes, share your feelings with us darling, we love it when you get 'real' with us.

I sure will cupcake.

Quote from: Simlasa;1003257WILL be apparent and then its up to the Players to find some sort of solution.

Especially that bit about opening the door without doing X. I don't want to give away spoilers. But it's not the most intuitive IMO.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1003263Especially that bit about opening the door without doing X. I don't want to give away spoilers. But it's not the most intuitive IMO.

When I've played it people were pretty quick to figure out what it was asking for, yep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1003221Now, I get a lot of what you're saying above, but the fact is that it is still so close to D&D that if you run something like Death Frost Doom with the assumption that it is D&D and it is a D&D dungeon then the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD.  You yourself admit that, Kubasik, in your post above, in a roundabout way.

I didn't do anything in a roundabout way. In fact, I was straightforward and clear all the way down the line.

You keep going on about these things PCs are "supposed" -- but have not named them.

If you want to make a list of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD" I'd love to see it.

I anticipate that list is going to be narrowly limited to your very subjective assumptions, so it probably flip my mind. But maybe it will! At the least I'm curious to hear what you consider these "very things".

Quote from: The Exploited.;1003261I sure will cupcake.

Hey, whatever you want to say, I'm not the one being triggered by a dungeon.

Quote from: jcfiala;1003274Hey, whatever you want to say, I'm not the one being triggered by a dungeon.

I'm so terribly triggered at the moment... :(

Quote from: jcfiala;1003238Grow a pair folks.  Either run the module or get off the fucking pot.  I don't come to this site to listen to folks complain that the GAME is too FUCKING HARD.

Nerd macho...the most pathetic kind of machoism ever?

Quote from: Voros;1003353Nerd macho...the most pathetic kind of machoism ever?

Ah, but which is more pathetic, the nerd macho, or the man who protests that he's better than that by posting on a fantasy elves site?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1003221Now, I get a lot of what you're saying above, but the fact is that it is still so close to D&D that if you run something like Death Frost Doom with the assumption that it is D&D and it is a D&D dungeon then the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD.

Killing assumptions about D&D using a D&D-derived system is half the fun.

The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place.

The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful

These things shouldn't have ever existed in officially published D&D, let alone in third party or offshoot publications.

D&D as a rules framework and process of play was excellent and a life changer. As a set of tropes, recognizable recording tidbits, and an assumed setting it isn't anything I've been interested in since high school.

If an adventure doesn't at least attempt to challenge both of those concepts, what is the point?

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003490If an adventure doesn't at least attempt to challenge both of those concepts, what is the point?

How did you intend for the players to figure out that if the plant stop singing it would cause the undead to rise? I have the first edition of DFD it wasn't clear how that could be discovered in the adventure.

Quote from: estar;1003491How did you intend for the players to figure out that if the plant stop singing it would cause the undead to rise? I have the first edition of DFD it wasn't clear how that could be discovered in the adventure.

I didn't. That's the start of the real adventure, in my view.

I don't know what spells or items or experience players or characters have before the adventure starts, so I don't worry how they'll figure out certain details. Their problem as players and characters, not mine as Referee or designer.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003490The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place.

The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful

Both those things would be utterly dull to me! I don't buy modules but it's unfortunate if they feel the need to adhere to certain guidelines and tropes which in turn cause players to do the same and behave the same way for every dungeon.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003495I didn't. That's the start of the real adventure, in my view.

I don't know what spells or items or experience players or characters have before the adventure starts, so I don't worry how they'll figure out certain details. Their problem as players and characters, not mine as Referee or designer.

Every adventure is part of a setting whether specific or implied. The details of which are set by the referee. So the "problem" is yours as the referee. The plant doesn't exist in a vacuum. The fact the region of DFD is cursed arises from how the fantasy world you created works.  

Now it could very well be that magic in your setting is weird, horrifying, and unknowable. That the plant and its song a random mutation within a world infused with magic both benign and unholy. So anything like this going to a total mystery. But then again you did run this several times and not every one released the undead horde. It would be useful to know the possibilities for something with such drastic consequences.

Could be as simple as saying it was because the party was smart enough to have a cleric with the 2nd level spell Augury, who used it to determine it was a very bad idea to kill the plant. But I don't know because it wasn't written up. Yet you did take the space to write up a interesting backstory for Cyris Maximus. Another element of the adventures that has the potential for significant consequences for the party.

Let me clear, this is a specific criticism of a portion of an otherwise excellent adventure. There are area of the Majestic Wilderlands where this would work well with. I know how I would handle things. But not every referee is as experienced as I am nor have developed a setting to the degree I have. All I am saying that it would been useful to have some notes on how the party could figure it out.

As a counterpoint, the Organ with yellow mold. I am not critical of that because to it obvious how it can be resolved without killing the party. Take the time to examine it carefully and you will discover the airways are filled with yellow mold. The same with other section of the adventure. But not so for the plant and its song.

Again note I only have the earlier version.

While I see and appreciate estar's points, ultimately, perhaps to no one's surprise, I'm with James on this one.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003495I didn't. That's the start of the real adventure, in my view.

I don't know what spells or items or experience players or characters have before the adventure starts, so I don't worry how they'll figure out certain details. Their problem as players and characters, not mine as Referee or designer.

In my LotFP game the PCs came across a deserted tower with a McGuffin in it. It was part of a keep that had been owned and run by an adventurer and his men who traveled on a ship to different versions of earth. The keep was desolate and decimated. The menagerie of beasts and demons he had brought back and imprisoned had escaped.

Two creatures were left alive, both in a the keep, battling each other when the players came across them. One could raise and control the undead. The other, The Mother of Unborn Flesh, could make mindless copies people to control.

The Players mucked about, realized what was going on, accidentally brought the two creatures in to open conflict... and before you knew it the tower was filled, wall to wall, with about 2,000 undead. They fled, the McGuffin still inside. And the two creatures that started the whole disaster. They sealed the door and tried to puzzle out what to...

I have no exception this was going to happen. I definitely had no idea how they would solve a huge fucking problem.

And lets be honest. I wrote a module about an abandoned keep once rules by an inter-dimensional adventurer and wrote:

QuoteLOCATION 14: This TOWER is filled wall to wall with 2,000 Undead. The front door is sealed shut with sturdy chains on the handles. A strange, steady SHIFTING can be heard within. If the chains are undone the Undead will pour out.

...some people (even some people on this thread) would be called preposterous, ridiculous, useless, and perhaps a negadungeon... especially since I, as the writer, offered no specific solutions to the problem AT ALL.

After some consideration they decided to gamble on a dangerous and fantastical magical item they had plundered from catacombs of The God That Crawls. (A Legion of Lead, for those of you who have read or played the module.)

I handed it to them... it was a bold, smart move if you think through the implications of the magical item and the circumstances. I could have never seen it coming -- for the very reasons James states above. They got XP for ALL the zombies and all leveled. They had a blast. They were chuffed with solving an unsolvable problem -- and rightly so.

This is the kind of unexposed playfulness the LotFP modules encourage. It can happen in any system, or at any game table, of course. But the LotFP products expect PCs, situations, spells, choices, magic items, and ideas to interact in unexpected ways. I've been on hiatus from the game while other people run different games in my Monday Night group -- but I can't wait to get back to the game for this very reason. And my players have literally stated exactly the same to me.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1003520I have no exception this was going to happen. I definitely had no idea how they would solve a huge fucking problem.

And if this was turned into a published adventure and you didn't include a sentence or two about this or other experiences with the playtest in the work, I would be mildly critical. It doesn't needs to be a treatise but a couple of one or two sentence notes about how it worked in actual play would be helpful. Especially for things that have significant impact. And not like this has to be thought up, it stuff that happened during the playtest.

To take your example, yeah a tower with 2,000 zombies seems a little overkill but when you explain it the way you did, I went "Oh I see" and it gave me more possibilities of how I could use that in my own campaign.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003490If an adventure doesn't at least attempt to challenge both of those concepts, what is the point?

Yes... But.

I don't particularly like the way some of the challenges are used... I think there are better ways of making adventures more challenging and interesting at the same time. It's very easy to create traps like, If you 'do this' you die. If you 'don't do' this you die. etc. Seems a bit arbitrary to me...

What makes DFD really interesting is not the actual dungeon crawl itself or killing boss after boss after boss, but the setting, background and the overall vibe in my opinion.

However, it's all a bit moot really. As any GM just takes what they want out of a published adventure and changes the rest. But it's all good... If someone wants to play/GM the way it's written by rote, go for it. But I prefer to do my own thing.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1003537If you 'do this' you die. If you 'don't do' this you die. etc. Seems a bit arbitrary to me...

For what it's worth, I agree with you that would be arbitrary. What I learned from using the LotFP modules is that while I used to see such situations in terms of If you "'do this' you die. If you 'don't do' this you die. etc." is the there are, in fact, an infinite number of other options the Players (via their PCs) can bring to bear that blow past this or this.

Quote from: estar;1003531And if this was turned into a published adventure and you didn't include a sentence or two about this or other experiences with the playtest in the work, I would be mildly critical. It doesn't needs to be a treatise but a couple of one or two sentence notes about how it worked in actual play would be helpful. Especially for things that have significant impact. And not like this has to be thought up, it stuff that happened during the playtest.

To take your example, yeah a tower with 2,000 zombies seems a little overkill but when you explain it the way you did, I went "Oh I see" and it gave me more possibilities of how I could use that in my own campaign.

Again, I see where you're coming from. But the stuff that ultimately produced the weird challenge of 2,000 Undead in a  tower was the result of leaning into things I had learned -- and learned to trust -- from playing several other LotFP modules. From running DFD, TGTC, Stranger Storm, and Scenic Dunnsmouth, I learned I could just toss crazy problems at my Players and it would be up to them to determine how to handle the problems. And they always did.

So I learned to simply keep making adductions based on the actions, following the logic as I best could. Which is, for example, in the example above, led to the 2,000 Undead -- which I didn't have an inkling would happen at all when I set up the situations within the keep.

I then left it to them to come up with their own solution. (Their solution could have been "to walk away," by the way.)

I only learned to have that fun encounter because I had played through the LotFP modules. I only trusted that I could simply let the chips fall where they may and follow the logic of a creature that made clones battling the undead controlled by another creature and the chaos that would ensue because we had played those modules. It shifted my way of playing in the best possible way.

My game isn't out to kill my the Player Characters at all. But it does allow the Players the stress of knowing, "If we're going to get through this, we can't assume the first idea is the best idea. Or the only idea."

Which, again, has been a blast to see what they come up with to solve problems that I don't know the solution to until they give it a shot.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003490Killing assumptions about D&D using a D&D-derived system is half the fun.

The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place.

The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful

These things shouldn't have ever existed in officially published D&D, let alone in third party or offshoot publications.

D&D as a rules framework and process of play was excellent and a life changer. As a set of tropes, recognizable recording tidbits, and an assumed setting it isn't anything I've been interested in since high school.

If an adventure doesn't at least attempt to challenge both of those concepts, what is the point?

OK, so at least now you're admitting it. That's progress.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004254OK, so at least now you're admitting it. That's progress.

How come you're incapable of answering simple questions?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004281How come you're incapable of answering simple questions?

He doesn't really have to.  We're all trolls, and he's lord high king of the trolls.  This entire site is trollbait. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1001471Well, I'll accept that different people put different boundaries on the definition of a "negadungeon". I guess to some, any adventure that isn't totally set up to just be a treasureless death-trap for PCs is not a negadungeon.  Meanwhile, I guess some other people might think of any adventure that is just really dangerous is a 'negadungeon'.
I would say, however, that any adventure that is set up to punish players for doing things that players will ordinarily think of as the right thing to do while dungeoneering is a negadungeon.

Thing is, what you're saying here, reads to me as "when Asen has dungeons, he tries to only run negadungeons":).

Which is fine. I'll just keep that in mind for eventual purchases.

However, could you please tell us which are those "things players will ordinarily think of as the right thing to do [in a dungeon]"? Because that notion varies wildly between groups I have seen.
Some of those practices are stuff I'd like to "punish", yes, because I consider it stupid. Others, not really, because it makes total sense to me.

...I see now that CK also asked you for such a list. So yes, I guess I'm joining his request!

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1001517However, the real juice for the Weird Fantasy elements of the game are in the Referee Book. (Which is free here (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/148012/LotFP-Referee-Book-old-Grindhouse-Edition), for anyone who is curious.) Raggi lays out his agenda for the kind of settings, mood, and play he wants to encourage with his product line -- which the LotFP products successfully support.

When I read the Referee Book all of Lamentations of the Flame Princess fell into place for me -- the game, the art, the modules. I saw that to run it I'd be best served by thinking of Clark Ashton Smith, H.P. Lovecraft, the weird parts o R. E. Howard's Conan tales (which have lots of weirdness), a little bit of Gene Wolfe, and now, having begun reading his work, some Jeff VanderMeer. Even though the rules were based on B/X D&D, they had nothing at all to do with the sensibilities of the faux-Tolkien characters and bands of marauding monsters of different races found in almost all editions of D&D.

It was the Referee book of LotFP which got me really interested in OSR (and I only checked it after joining an OD&D game on TBP, which went much better than I expected).
Then I went "that's exactly what I'm trying to do, and the man obviously has been doing that for longer than me"!

Funny, now that I think of it, because I've never used the LotFP rules, or maybe I've only ever used them for a one-shot or two...but I've used ideas from the Referee book even when running stuff like Exalted and Feng Shui 2:D! In fact, my Exalted game is moving exactly in that direction by now (which manages to surprise my players, veterans of the Exalted setting).
And it combines very nicely with DCC, I must add.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1003490Killing assumptions about D&D using a D&D-derived system is half the fun.

The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place.

The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful

These things shouldn't have ever existed in officially published D&D, let alone in third party or offshoot publications.

D&D as a rules framework and process of play was excellent and a life changer. As a set of tropes, recognizable recording tidbits, and an assumed setting it isn't anything I've been interested in since high school.

If an adventure doesn't at least attempt to challenge both of those concepts, what is the point?

I can only agree with this post.
Except I don't use a D&D-derived system, but that's a personal touch;).

Well, I'd agree that while people might derive certain practices from experience in delving dungeons, they shouldn't EXPECT them to work as it becomes metagaming at that point.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004281How come you're incapable of answering simple questions?

My point was that DFD was a negadungeon in the sense I was defining it. You initially rejected that notion, and then you turned around and admitted that in fact it does exactly what I said it does, and tried to defend that as a good thing.

Is it wrong to challenge D&D's default assumptions? No. I mean, I do that in every OSR book I've done so far. Lion & Dragon challenges the very assumption that you've ever actually played "medieval fantasy" until now.

The problem with negadungeons is that if it does this "challenge" at all, it is in a cheap, deceptive, weasely sort of way. It's a bait-and-switch on players. And it's not in any way a truly constructive "challenge"; it just deconstructs instead of producing some kind of viable (much less appealing) alternatives.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004697My point was that DFD was a negadungeon in the sense I was defining it.

I appreciate that.

However, your definition depends on a nega-dungeon (as you're defending it) being the opposite of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons." (emphasis yours)

However, I do not know what "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD" are. This is a list of qualities that you know from your gaming... but it may or may not be universal. I really don't know. Which is why I have been asking for you to make it clearer.

Would you be willing to list "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1004748Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

I'm not James Raggi. I would still love to know what the Pundit is talking about.

Further, I just went back and re-read Raggi's post. When he writes "The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place," and "The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful," is he saying that he's working against the assumptions Pundit is basing his argument on? Or that the assumptions actually don't exist in any meaningful sense and the notion that they do should be squashed.

Of course, I still have no idea what the Pundit's assumptions are and so I can't weigh on on those questions yet. And, again, Raggi can speak for himself and I certainly don't speak for him. I simply want to know what the Pundit is talking about.

It's been a week since I've first asked, and today is the third time I've asked. It seems a simple matter.

Can the Pundit lay out with specifics what he means when he writes: "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1004748Whatever those assumptions are, it seems JimLotFP agrees with RPG Pundit that this is what he's doing, based on his previous reply.

I don't see that agreement. I read Raggi as not wanting to play to the assumptions the Pundit... assumes... if they even exist. The Pundit thinks Raggi admitted something, but that's just the Pundit way.
I also doubt Raggi sees his stuff as "cheap, deceptive, weasely."

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004750I'm not James Raggi. I would still love to know what the Pundit is talking about.

Further, I just went back and re-read Raggi's post. When he writes "The concept of a 'standard D&D dungeon shouldn't exist in the first place," and "The concept that there are things players are 'supposed' to do in a dungeon is awful," is he saying that he's working against the assumptions Pundit is basing his argument on? Or that the assumptions actually don't exist in any meaningful sense and the notion that they do should be squashed.

Of course, I still have no idea what the Pundit's assumptions are and so I can't weigh on on those questions yet. And, again, Raggi can speak for himself and I certainly don't speak for him. I simply want to know what the Pundit is talking about.

It's been a week since I've first asked, and today is the third time I've asked. It seems a simple matter.

Can the Pundit lay out with specifics what he means when he writes: "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

I'm not Raggi, either, but his post reads to me as "there should be no "standard" for D&D dungeons, nor a "standard" for what players are supposed to do once inside", FWIW:).

And I'd also like Pundit to list what are those "things players are supposed to do in a dungeon", just so we could be on the same page;).

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1004729I appreciate that.

However, your definition depends on a nega-dungeon (as you're defending it) being the opposite of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons." (emphasis yours)

However, I do not know what "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons are what fucks them over in DFD" are. This is a list of qualities that you know from your gaming... but it may or may not be universal. I really don't know. Which is why I have been asking for you to make it clearer.

Would you be willing to list "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.


In terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully, expecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way, take treasure, or bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005084Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.

Why fight, if the Referee is using the Reaction table?

QuoteIn terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully,

Like demon statues:D?

Quoteexpecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way,

So an ogre can't be a wizard, and DCC's advice to reskin monsters and not allow players to know what they can do, is somehow wrong?

Quotetake treasure,

Unless you think it's cursed.

Quoteor bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

Picking the specific dungeon to explore is part of the game, AFAICT. In a living campaign, there might be nothing there, because someone else took it already;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1005084Well, for starters, fight a living plant creature to get further along in the dungeon.


In terms of other negadungeons, stuff like examining objects carefully, expecting monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way, take treasure, or bother going into the dungeon in the first place expecting there may be rewards therein.

First, thanks for the reply.

Sadly, for you quickly reply, I really don't see where you're going with this.

My players examined lots of objects when going through LotFP modules. They only two times they had trouble (one disastrously so) was when they did not examine objects carefully an impulsively grabbed for them. So... I really don't see how what you're saying contradicts how Players approach a LotFP dungeon.

As for treasure... again... are we disagreeing? I don't know. Apart from Dungeon of the Unknown (a weirdly stingy dungeon when it comes to loot, which I haven't used yet) my Players' PCs have hauled out plenty of treasure and have leveled. I honestly don't know what's going on here.

Finally, about the creatures: Hey! We disagree! Clearly and bluntly!

You want your Players to "expect monsters that look a certain way to act a certain way" -- in other words (I think!?!) familiar and consistent.

So, to be clear: What (I think) you want is not what I want.

You know how when people were first playing D&D and they come across a Rust Monster and they didn't know what it was or how dangerous it was or what trouble it could cause them or how they should defeat it? That's what I want. You know how a Beholder or Gelatinous Cube or whateverthefuck other monsters people encountered for the first time and had to puzzle out because it was fucking awesome to have some freakish monstrosity because if you can survive and solve the problem and defeat or sidestep or in anyway overcome the challenge you had a blast? That's what I want to give to my players.

That means not digging into a bland, stale as 30-year-old bread playbook of the bog-standard D&D bestiary, but offering up the same kinds of novel challenges that put the players the spot when the game was fresh. Because (full disclosure) I like games that are fresh.

So, did I conjure up a basilisk-like creature that if it meets your gaze causes your nightmares to come to life in your head, growing in size until your skull explodes from the inside out unless you kill the beast in time as the nightmares are distracting you each round of combat unless you are soothed in some way (Charm Person and the rest of the options) or knocked unconscious... yes... yes I did. And other creatures I made up. And others they encountered from the game.

Now, not all the time do we have to go full weird. When playing Scenic Dunnsmouth the group went to confront a witch who might know something about a spider cult. A lot of stuff got triggered and they found themselves in a fight between an axe-wielding madman, a witch, and a giant spider with mind control powers. Because of the situation though (the mysteries still to be resolved and and the conflicts between the NPCs) even these more mundane opponents did not behave at all like the party expected. And, again, the novelty and surprise allowed a blast to be had by all.

I'm not sure if your definition of fun in an RPG is very, very narrow -- or I'm simply misunderstanding you. But I suspect either way my fun isn't yours.

One thing I am fairly certain of, however... your statements about the LotFP products don't line up with my experience. And that's fine! But it's as if you and I have encountered completely different texts within the covers of the same books.*

____
* Perhaps vital point! I ran the second edition of Death Frost Doom. Perhaps they are weirdly different in how much silver they offer the PCs. I don't know! But the other products? Not even a question. Solid treasure all around.

As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

Quote from: Voros;1005494As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

I'll happily take your word on that. I've only skimmed it. And for some reason I can't track down the PDF right now.

Nonetheless, it hasn't been a module we've discussed so far in this thread. My point is that so far the claims made by some people about modules thus far named, and LotFP products overall, do not match my experience in running many of the products.

Quote from: Voros;1005494As I recall there is no treasure per se in Monolith except for the Monolith itself.

There's also a bio-weapon plus Carter Holmes.

Ah yes. Carter Holmes is a nice touch. I love Jason B. Thompson's walkthrough comic of the adventure. I think it gives a clear pitcture of how play could work to a potential GM.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1005239I'm not sure if your definition of fun in an RPG is very, very narrow -- or I'm simply misunderstanding you. But I suspect either way my fun isn't yours.

One thing I am fairly certain of, however... your statements about the LotFP products don't line up with my experience. And that's fine! But it's as if you and I have encountered completely different texts within the covers of the same books.*

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking as well - especially coupled with the last combat thread;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1005145Why fight, if the Referee is using the Reaction table?

The reaction table doesn't enter into it in DFD.

QuoteLike demon statues:D?

If you're referring to the green devil face in Tomb of Horrors, that's a huge part of the problem. Tomb of Horrors was specifically created as a pc-killing dungeon for tournament play. It was never meant to be the gold-standard archetype for D&D adventures, and it never was that in the actual real old-school period.
The problem was a bunch of assholes who weren't actually there, some of whom spent decades shitting on D&D as white-wolf fans (or even writers), decided there was fame and money to be gained from hitching their wagon to the old-school movement, and created a Nostalgic Fantasy filled with an utterly FALSE narrative that the one true original old-school way that Everyone Played it Back In the Good Old Days was "fantasy fucking vietnam". The negadungeon evolved from that conceptual bullshit.

What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1006004The reaction table doesn't enter into it in DFD.

Why, is it houseruled away for that adventure? I mean, how do you get the reaction table to not apply?

QuoteIf you're referring to the green devil face in Tomb of Horrors, that's a huge part of the problem. Tomb of Horrors was specifically created as a pc-killing dungeon for tournament play. It was never meant to be the gold-standard archetype for D&D adventures, and it never was that in the actual real old-school period.

That much I agree with:).

QuoteThe problem was a bunch of assholes who weren't actually there, some of whom spent decades shitting on D&D as white-wolf fans (or even writers), decided there was fame and money to be gained from hitching their wagon to the old-school movement, and created a Nostalgic Fantasy filled with an utterly FALSE narrative that the one true original old-school way that Everyone Played it Back In the Good Old Days was "fantasy fucking vietnam". The negadungeon evolved from that conceptual bullshit.

The "false" part is something I'm not sure about. Casting "Summon Gronan":D!

We used to play it (in the early 80s, not the late 70s, I have to admit) with a boatload of retainers and what amounted to a DCC-type funnel where 90% of characters dies at 1st level, then 90% of the survivors died at 2nd level (or were knocked back down to 1st - damn you, level drain!). Only when people got to 3rd level did characters begin to show some staying power. Which is something Gygax was well aware of, and it's always been an issue with D&D throughout the editions. That's why 5E rushes you through the first 3 levels.

We didn't do the character death thing for fun, that's just how the rules worked out and we didn't have the internet to tell us there was anything wrong (or even clubs or magazines, at first, where I was). Nobody really got attached to characters until 3rd level.

Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again. I can only assume, from the way he's been talking, his evenings of adventure are filled with entering one room after another with a collection of goblins/orcs/whatever, along with a chest set against the north wall which contain a) a trap; b) some coins.

Meanwhile, everyone else here has been talking about the specifics of the LotFP products, and pointing out they are not the death traps the Punditwhaever says they are -- both from reading them and playing them.

He's just moving the goalposts... and still unable to articulate what a normal adventurer does in a game that is so at odds as to what adventurers might do in The God That Crawls or Death Frost Doom.

For anyone who cares, the Pundit is wrong. You might not enjoy the adventures (after all, there are million ways to play an RPG, a million kinds of tone and fun to be had) but they are not as Pundit describes.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006066Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again.

The few specifics in his post refer to James Mal's writings over on Grognardia. And Pundit's anger stems from Stuart Marshall getting into a dick measuring contest with him over OSRIC versus Forward the Adventure. Wrapped up in the idea that we are all clueless bits of clay waiting to be molded by whoever controls the medium.

For those of you who don't believe me here is where I document the exchange (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?30826-A-working-definition-of-the-OSR&p=793856&viewfull=1#post793856) back in 2014.

It starts with Pundit wondering about the point of writing OSRIC (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck&p=281177&viewfull=1#post281177) and the other retro-clones.

Then Stuart chimes in with his gratuitous crack at the Pundit (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck&p=282499&viewfull=1#post282499).

Now we have to endure 8 years of OSR Taliban and Grognardia posers rants because of it.

Too bad his old blog isn't found in the archive or I could show there isn't a single OSR Taliban post prior to January 30th 2009.

But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1006016What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.

By the late 70s pretty much everything that people do with tabletop roleplaying today was being done by one segment of the hobby or another. From hard core simulationist, people trying to recreate their favorite novel, people who into roleplaying their character, people only interested in killing shit and taking the loot, power gamers, rules lawyers, etc, etc, etc.

The main difference was that back then everything was mixed up in relatively equal measure. Over time certain things became more popular but the alternatives never really went away. It only looks like that because pre-internet it wasn't easy to find the niche of the niche stuff. It was about who you knew and with whom you gamed with.

Prior to the late 70s, it was all about who you knew, and with whom you gamed with because RPGs (and wargaming) were a very small niche. Even during the genesis of D&D, how Dave ran Blackmoor was different than how Gary ran Greyhawk. You best bet is to ask the participate what those games and others were like.

My personal recommendation for gaming like how it was back in the day is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to play. And THEN come up with the rules to make it happen. That the one thing that consistent in all the different documented accounts and personal anecdotes. And why Gronan keeps saying "We made up shit we thought was fun."

Quote from: estar;1006068The few specifics in his post refer to James Mal's writings over on Grognardia. And Pundit's anger stems from Stuart Marshall getting into a dick measuring contest with him over OSRIC versus Forward the Adventure. Wrapped up in the idea that we are all clueless bits of clay waiting to be molded by whoever controls the medium.

For those of you who don't believe me here is where I document the exchange (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?30826-A-working-definition-of-the-OSR&p=793856&viewfull=1#post793856) back in 2014.

It starts with Pundit wondering about the point of writing OSRIC (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck&p=281177&viewfull=1#post281177) and the other retro-clones.

Then Stuart chimes in with his gratuitous crack at the Pundit (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck&p=282499&viewfull=1#post282499).

Now we have to endure 8 years of OSR Taliban and Grognardia posers rants because of it.

Too bad his old blog isn't found in the archive or I could show there isn't a single OSR Taliban post prior to January 30th 2009.

But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

OK, that does explain a lot:).

Quote from: estar;1006077By the late 70s pretty much everything that people do with tabletop roleplaying today was being done by one segment of the hobby or another. From hard core simulationist, people trying to recreate their favorite novel, people who into roleplaying their character, people only interested in killing shit and taking the loot, power gamers, rules lawyers, etc, etc, etc.

The main difference was that back then everything was mixed up in relatively equal measure. Over time certain things became more popular but the alternatives never really went away. It only looks like that because pre-internet it wasn't easy to find the niche of the niche stuff. It was about who you knew and with whom you gamed with.

That was my nagging suspicion to begin with. But I'm glad you confirm;).

QuoteMy personal recommendation for gaming like how it was back in the day is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to play. And THEN come up with the rules to make it happen. That the one thing that consistent in all the different documented accounts and personal anecdotes. And why Gronan keeps saying "We made up shit we thought was fun."

I've been doing that for over a decade now, since I stopped using GURPS for everything;).
But I always thought this is "new school" approach:D!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1006016What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.

In the first place, there was not a single playstyle. Even in the earliest period (before my time) you had radically different styles of playing in the old-school era, ranging from play that was like running a roguelike (which didn't exist yet) where the PCs were little more than playing pieces, to games that were very focused on characters and setting; games where the PCs were just extensions of the player's personality, to games where the PCs had their own very defined characters.

By the AD&D 1e period (when I got into RPGs), the way most people were playing was a lot like people played in the periods after that, but this also ranged as much as play styles do now. You had RP-heavy campaigns, campaigns which were really tough, "monty haul games" where the PCs were ridiculously overpowered, etc.

It's the notion that there was just ONE way to play Old School "Right" that is wrong at the most fundamental level.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006066Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again. I can only assume, from the way he's been talking, his evenings of adventure are filled with entering one room after another with a collection of goblins/orcs/whatever, along with a chest set against the north wall which contain a) a trap; b) some coins.

No, you're thinking of JMal and his "epic old school dungeon he'd been playing for years (but ended up actually failing to invent when caught in his lie)" version of Dwimmermount, with its giant rants and exactly 2000cp.

You know, one of the chief promoters of the Lie about "Fantasy Fucking Vietnam".

Quote from: estar;1006068But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

I didn't change. The OSR did. It came around to ME. And has been way better ever since.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1006708I didn't change. The OSR did. It came around to ME. And has been way better ever since.

The OSR did not change it grew. Your err.. punditry and more importantly your works helped grow the part that does the stuff you like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1006707No, you're thinking of JMal and his "epic old school dungeon he'd been playing for years (but ended up actually failing to invent when caught in his lie)" version of Dwimmermount, with its giant rants and exactly 2000cp.

Actually , no I'm not. I've been following his Tékumel campaign and it isn't anything like that. So... no.

What I was thinking of was deducing from the few scraps you have offered what you games are like.

Strangely (but not unexpectedly) you are in another spiral of lashing out and telling other people they are wrong. What you are not doing, and have failed to do for two full weeks now, is offer any sort of description of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons."

Your failure to offer any sort of description of this, while providing only the "negative space" of what you think is wrong, led me to draw my best shot at a conclusion.

I'm more than willing to believe I drew the wrong conclusion. But still. I'm curious, could you offer what you think "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006782Actually , no I'm not. I've been following his Tékumel campaign and it isn't anything like that. So... no.

The first few levels of Dwimmermount are pretty uninspired and some of it comes close to the giant rats/kobolds/copper coins model. The lower levels with the sf fantasy stuff is better though.

Quote from: Voros;1006946The first few levels of Dwimmermount are pretty uninspired and some of it comes close to the giant rats/kobolds/copper coins model. The lower levels with the sf fantasy stuff is better though.

That may well be. That still has nothing to do with the Punditwhatever sputtering his complaints but never being able to define what he considers the right way to play. (Let us all pause and consider that he just claimed that there are many ways of playing -- but is making it plain that in his head there is, in fact, a right way to play... because the LotFP adventures are, in some yet-to-be-defined contradiction from the things Players are "SUPPOSED" to do when playing D&D properly).

The fact that on Grognardia James never mentions the phrase "Fantasy Vietnam" and, in fact, makes it clear he's not a particularly lethal Referee in his posts is neither here nor there.

I am simply trying to understand what the Pundit is talking about. He claims there are things "PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons" and I have yet to see the list and, ideally, see how that list is contradicted by modules such as The God That Crawls, Death Frost Doom, and most of the LotFP products.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006974The fact that on Grognardia James never mentions the phrase "Fantasy Vietnam" and, in fact, makes it clear he's not a particularly lethal Referee in his posts is neither here nor there.

This is his only post (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/06/hargravian-coincedence.html) with the word Vietnam in it.

As for your complaint about the Pundit evading the question, it is either out is that it is designed to promote himself and what he write.

Or is that he such a committed believer of Marshall McLuhan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan) (the Medium is the Message (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message) guy) and figure that by repeating the same thing over and over again that somehow he will convince the rest of the hobby that his opinions are true.

Either one explains why these arguments persists for years, repetition after repetition. That when put to the test we get dead air in most (not all) cases.  But he does actually produce material and did a good turn with the 5e consulting job and so he like the rest of humanity a mix of the awesome, the OK, and not so great.

But on this he deserves to be held to the fire and produce an answers. Personally there are a lot in the OSR that isn't my cup of tea when it comes to running campaign. I don't care for gonzo that Jeff Rients and Jason Sholtis likes. The weird horror of Raggi, and the general weirdness of Zak S stuff. likewise are not my thing either.

Yet I can see that Rients, Sholtis, Raggi, and Zak do amazing work. Some of which really pushes the envelope of the OSR in a good way. And there are idea in their stuff (and others) that enhances the styles I do like.  I can appreciate what other people do without feeling like I must play the way they play. When they promote or strongly advocate what they (and others) like, I don't feel like they are telling me that I have to play the way they play.

My vision is of the OSR is simple. Promote open content and teach people about the use of digital technology to allow anybody to do realize whatever project they have in their mind with classic D&D.

If you want to make a version of D&D that uses narrative mechnic. Have at it. I f you think the hobby best days ended with everything after AD&D 1st, fine whatever, but here what you need to produce the best AD&D 1st you can.

Open content in conjunction with digital technology put up a hard wall against any form of gatekeeping. It doesn't matter what labels mean if open content is available along with an inexpensive way to create and distribute professional level content.

Half of what we have today in Western Civilization, is because of technological progress. The increase of productivity and material diversity gave the common man a voice that was not present when 95% of one time had to be spent creating the basics of survival like in the Middle Ages.

But in all fairness to the Pundit it did need the philosophical underpinning to get to where we are today. But without the advance of technology it would have been just pretty words on paper.

And the Pundit doesn't get a major way that Open content is not a technology but also a philosophy. As much of a dickwad I think Richard Stallman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman) his creation and advocacy of open content both as a means and philosophy was invaluable.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006782I'm more than willing to believe I drew the wrong conclusion. But still. I'm curious, could you offer what you think "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

I already answered this. Negadungeons work by presuming that player characters doing things that are standard to do, and that would be good practice in most dungeons, will screw them in ways that (in most negadungeons) they can't even get a hint of. There's no clue that destroying the plant-thing in DFD will unleash 10000 zombies on them. It's set up as a pure fucking over of the PCs. And don't get me wrong, at least DFD was doing something relatively original at the time. Everything that came after it was the same but without even the cleverness of novelty.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007297I already answered this. Negadungeons work by presuming that player characters doing things that are standard to do, and that would be good practice in most dungeons, will screw them in ways that (in most negadungeons) they can't even get a hint of. There's no clue that destroying the plant-thing in DFD will unleash 10000 zombies on them. It's set up as a pure fucking over of the PCs. And don't get me wrong, at least DFD was doing something relatively original at the time. Everything that came after it was the same but without even the cleverness of novelty.

Could you post a list of of what you think are standard things to do and good practices?

Quote from: estar;1007323Could you post a list of of what you think are standard things to do and good practices?

Jesus, how is this a mystery?!

-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

So much of the negadungeon mentality is based on taking standard dungeoneering behavior and somehow doing a bait-and-switch on players, so that they're actually screwed if they do the things adventurers are usually meant to do.

There is some precedence for punishing players for being players, particularly  in 1e, the Gas Spore and those worms that burrow into your ears when you listen at the door come to mind.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007657Jesus, how is this a mystery?!

The only mystery is what what you think the list is. I have my opinion so does ChristopherKubasik. But neither of us can read your mind as to what you think that list is. Which is germane because of your criticism of negadungeons in general and Death Frost Doom specifically.

Quote-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

I don't disagree with the above.

As to the specifics of Death Frost Doom, the main sticking point is the vine growth in the one room that when cut down will release over a thousand undead.

Quote22. High Priest's Temple
The east entrance to this room is blocked by a great mass of hard and brittle spiked vines and branches and fibers, like a mess of kudzu and spider webs made from a material akin to coral. The vines are hollow, and the blowing air from the pit (see below) creates haunting melodies when passing through them. The sound is rather loud at this point. There is a shaft leading straight up at the doorway, and it goes 50' up to a grate that opens in the middle of the graveyard (location A). The shaft is absolutely choked with the plant-thing though, and this is the source of the otherworldly sound in the area.

from page 23 of the first printing of Death Frost Doom

Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them


Jim Raggi is very consistent in the weird horror tone of Death Frost Doom. It is steeped in the same vibe that infuses the work of Bierce, Chambers, and Lovecraft. If I encountered this module I would quickly enter into what I would call "Call of Cthulu" I would assume that everything is out to fuck me because it all infused in whatever magic/thing that "man is not supposed to know".

A room choked with vines where the updraft through the foliage creates an eerie song that otherwise doesn't do anything else definitely something that fall into "don't fuck with it unless you know more" category.

My initial criticism of this portion of the module is that no where is there anything written that explains how the players can learn more. However when I read it again, Raggi does mention that a simple Speak with Plant spell will work to allow passage through the vines. It not a stretch to think that if you ask the vines what it doing with the song that the party can learn more.

-Fighting aggressive monsters

The vine is not an immediate threat when encountered. It will attack if hacked at so it is a potential hostile monster

-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

The vine as a barrier plays into this. The party wants to loot the place and the vine is a barrier. But there is a solution in the form of the Speak with Plants spell mentioned in the text.  Again there is an obvious warning flag that something warrants further investigate with the weird song being played.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007657So much of the negadungeon mentality is based on taking standard dungeoneering behavior and somehow doing a bait-and-switch on players, so that they're actually screwed if they do the things adventurers are usually meant to do.

Now that I read the module again I don't agree it fits your definition of a negadungeon. It is not without faults but even when looking at its signature "trap" by itself It doesn't met your criteria of what a negadungeon is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007657-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

Thank you for this.

I, too, went back and read the vine passage a couple of days ago after Pundit brought it up again.

When I read Pundit's list I sighed and thought, "Am I really going to take the time to type up a thoughtful response when the response seems so obvious?"

And then estar showed up do it, doing a much better job than I would have.

Two more points:

First, the music of the vines is audible to the PCs the moment they open the first trap door to the tunnels below. The music grows becomes clearer and louder the closer the the PCs get to the vines -- which is pretty much the entire length of their journey through the first half of the shrine. They travel, the music gets louder and louder, they are getting closer and closer to the source. This is a central mystery -- what is the music, where is it coming from, what is it for? -- that is introduced right from the start and only grows more pronounced as the volume rises. Until they final find the vines.

If, after all that buildup, the PCs straight up attack the vines without doing any investigation or handling the whole matter with caution, I really don't know what the fuck to say.

Second, building from this and estar's blunt point: The vines are not aggressive. Which dumps them in the "trap" category if one is using the Pundit's expectations. And this means, again, care, caution, puzzle-solving and out of the box solutions.

Third, as estar notes, the text offers possible solutions. I'm going to reiterate something I wrote upthread: Yes, there are the possible solutions in the text. And then there are the infinite number of idea and solutions the Players might come up with on their own. This notion seems to trouble some people. I don't know what to do about that.

Finally, Pundit (and again, as estar pointed out) if you don't bother telling us what your baseline of expected behavior for PCs is, we can't have a discussion because it's just a bunch of gerbils you keep dumping into the thread without definition. We can't respond, or test the text against your expectations, because we don't know what they are.

Like estar, I agree with your list and would would want nothing else for the way my Players get to play the game. So, great! We're in agreement!

Now that you have spelled out your expectations I can happily and with certainty say what you expect PCs to do they can do in DFD and other LotFP produces. My players have done exactly those things in the modules we've played. Other groups have done the same. You're simply wrong in the assessment of the modules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007657Jesus, how is this a mystery?!

-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

So much of the negadungeon mentality is based on taking standard dungeoneering behavior and somehow doing a bait-and-switch on players, so that they're actually screwed if they do the things adventurers are usually meant to do.

Well, finally!
And by this definition, the players aren't being punished for acting like players. They're being punished for failing the tactics test.
In other words, they're punished for mistaking a trap for an opponent. Making this mistake is supposed to be deadly! It's a classical way to get someone in a trap.

There's also D&D monsters that hurt you when you hurt or kill them. That vine is no different.

"Speak with plants" is not a common spell. In a lot of versions of the game, it's not even a spell. Hell, is it even a spell in LotFP? I forget.

It seems pretty clear to me that Raggi included that line about speak with plants as a conditional statement, just in case a party happens to have access to that spell, which would not be the default and is not the default of what he would intend.

There is no other solution to dealing with the plant, aside from just not proceeding in the dungeon. It's a trap that every single group that doesn't have one specific and uncommon spell will fall into, unless they choose to act completely contrary to how gamers expect to play in a dungeon, which is to say, to give up on going forward and abandoning the exploration of the dungeon.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008332"Speak with plants" is not a common spell. In a lot of versions of the game, it's not even a spell. Hell, is it even a spell in LotFP? I forget.

It seems pretty clear to me that Raggi included that line about speak with plants as a conditional statement, just in case a party happens to have access to that spell, which would not be the default and is not the default of what he would intend.

There is no other solution to dealing with the plant, aside from just not proceeding in the dungeon. It's a trap that every single group that doesn't have one specific and uncommon spell will fall into, unless they choose to act completely contrary to how gamers expect to play in a dungeon, which is to say, to give up on going forward and abandoning the exploration of the dungeon.

Or, you know, they might try to devise a non-violent solution to an obstacle that might be dangerous if roused, but isn't attacking them at the moment;). That would be good tactics even if it's to conserve their resources. Though generally, there's also the issue of the plant being an unknown quantity if roused, given that I never promise to the players that the battles would be balanced.

I've even heard that there are those players, called Referees, who would decide whether the solution has a chance to work, based on the description in the module:D! Though that's probably just crazy talk.

This is becoming ridiculous.

I'm sure there are people who play RPGs in a manner as boring as you suggest, Pundit. And I'm certain you and your fellow players are such people. But it would be a sad thing indeed if RPGs and modules were designed to cater to and support such sensibilities.

ONE: "There is no other solution to dealing with the plant, aside from just not proceeding in the dungeon."
This, is of course, bullshit. AsenRG already addressed this. And I've been making similar points throughout this thread. But in an RPG there is never only one solution. For example, by the time PCs reach the vine creature in Death Frost Doom there is no way of knowing what scrolls, potions, or strange magic items they might have picked up that might let them bypass the vines with ease.

But more importantly (much more importantly) in any given moment of RPG play the collective imaginations of the Players can (and will, and do -- at least with the people I play with) come up with awesome ideas and solutions to problems that I, as the Referee, could never have anticipated.

I don't mean this lightly. These are good solutions. Really smart, out-of-the-box ideas that solve the problems at hand. Ideas and solutions that you and I, sitting at our keyboards right now could not dream up. Which is my point, a point so strong that all I can say is that this kind off the cuff problem solving is one of the key reasons I love RPGs.


TWO: "Unless they choose to act completely contrary to how gamers expect to play in a dungeon, which is to say, to give up on going forward and abandoning the exploration of the dungeon."
This is of course bullshit.

The notion that the player characters only move forward in a dungeon is nonsensical as a general rule. I'm not saying your group doesn't play that way. But the fact is dungeons-crawling from the first years has always involved stopping, going back for rest, new supplies, re-memorization of spells, and even research on how to defeat new monsters, traps or magical problems.

Example:
"Hey, we should get shields with reflective surfaces to reflect the gaze of the creatures back into their own eyes."
"Great, we'll head back to the city, get a blacksmith on it, and come back to finish these guys off."

Example:
"I think whatever-the-hell that things is guarding the treasure is, we're going to need more muscle."
"Great. Let's go get some hirelings and come back." [/I]

In the case of the vine creature, the PCs might decide to go track down a scroll of Speak to Plants (not because the module says this is a possible solution but because they think of this solution on their own). This would lead to a whole other adventure -- which is a fine thing and exactly how D&D has been played for years. Or they might go find a higher level Magic User to aid them on their journey. (Again, another adventure of their own design -- and again a fine thing.) They might also head out in search of any number of alchemical or magical solutions they come up with on their own -- each in turn providing grist for a fresh adventure as they build a solution of their own design.

There is nothing to suggest that taking a pause in forward motion in an RPG is the same as giving up. And the fact that you think this way makes me wonder whether your are simply not paying attention what you are typing in an effort to "win" some sort of fight instead actually thinking through what an actual RPG session is like.


THREE: "'Speak with plants' is not a common spell. In a lot of versions of the game, it's not even a spell. Hell, is it even a spell in LotFP? I forget."
Since you have spent almost two decades making incorrect statements about games you clearly never took the time to read, this statement from you doesn't surprise me. It disappointments me, of course, because if one is going to take the time to argue such things one should probably take the time to crack open the rule book. Moreover, it misses the most obvious blunt solution to the problem at hand when the PCs reach the vine creature.

I'm going to walk you through this.

Let's say the Players reach the vine creature and the only idea they can come up with is, "You know what we need? Speak with Plants. But none of us have Speak with Plants."

Does this mean advancement through the shrine comes to a crashing halt? Does this mean there is no way forward?

No. It does not.

But first, let's be clear about something. On the cover of the first edition of DFD, in big letters, it says:
Lamentations of the Flame Princess Adventures

I'm going to go out on a limb here: I'm going to state the Raggi had ever right to write an adventure that worked using the rules he wrote, and that the module clearly states uses those rules. For some reason I suspect you'll state this is a preposterous expectation for someone to make. But I'm sticking with it.

So, given the fact we are using the Lamentations of the Flame Princes rules, we actually open them, and here are some things we find:

QuoteSpeak with Plants
Magic-User Level 4
Duration: 1 Round/level
Range: 0
The caster can communicate with plants, including both normal plants and plant creatures. The caster is able to ask questions of and receive answers from plants, and can ask plants to move in such a way to clear a path that is otherwise impassable or covered in difficult growth. The spell does not make plant creatures any more friendly or cooperative than normal. If a plant creature is friendly toward the caster, it may do him some favor or service.

So, LotFP has the spell. However, it's a 4th level spell, which means one needs to be 7th level to cast it. There might be a Magic User in the group. But odds are low he'll be 7th level.

However, in the rules we also find this:

QuoteSpell Scrolls
Scrolls are magical items which allow a Magic-User to cast a spell without prior memorization, even if the spell is of higher level than the Magic-User is able to cast... All spells cast from scrolls use the level of the reader, not the writer, to determine the effects of the spell.

[emphasis added]

And we also find this:

QuoteResearching a Spell
If a Magic-User wishes to add a spell to a spellbook without a prior reference to the spell (from a scroll or another spellbook), there is more intensive research to be done. A Magic-User can research spells of a higher level than he is able to cast and add them to his spellbook, but he may never prepare such spells. He can, however, write them on scrolls.

[emphasis added]

And we find this:

QuoteWriting a Scroll
Any Magic-User can create a spell scroll for any spell in his spellbook.

So, let's be clear. If the PCs do not have Speak with Plants, they can, per the rules and utterly with their own powers:
1. Research the Spell
2. Write the spell in a spell book (even if it is a higher level than they can cast)
3. Transfer the spell to a scroll
4. Make multiple scrolls if they wish (to increase the duration of the communication with the vine creature)
5. Cast the spell from the scrolls (even if the spell is at a higher level than they can cast)

This will take time and money. And this means they might well have to go into OTHER dungeons to get more loot to do the research. Which is all well and good since the PCs are adventuring. And when they finally get those vines to part the Players will know they really pulled something off.

Further, if there are no M-Us in the group the LotFP Rules & Magic book contains the rules required for hiring someone like a magic-user to do such a task for the PCs. (Again, depending on the setting this might be as simple as going to a Magician's Guild, or gaining the favor of such a magic-user through role-play or adventure, and so on).

Also, there are rules for imbuing potions with magical spells, so a M-U need not even be present in the group. So, is the fact the the PCs don't have an M-U who happens to have Speak with Plants a deal breaker? Nope. It only means there is more work to be done, more adventures to be had. And that's fine.


All in all, again, I'm looking at the module, I'm looking at the rules, I'm looking at what you're typing... and you're not making any sense at all.

And, once again, what Cristopher Kubasik wrote only applies if we assume the only solution is the one explicitly stated in the text of the module, which is moronic. We might as well have found already a jade mole that comes alive and takes you under any obstacle, if you take its deal of killing an evil creature detailed by the item within a month and a day - or you lose a level.
If it was your only level, you become another jade mole, and can offer the same deal to other adventurers, but keep in mind that this is a transformation and not a curse. You now have both an urge to free the world of evil, a perfect knowledge of the surrounding evil creatures within a Lvl of the owner*100 miles, and a geas forbidding you to move, except in order to perform the required burrowing after striking a deal with an adventuring group.

No, it's not an item from an official module. I just made it up as something the Referee might give and forget the players still have it:).

And then we come to the non-magical solutions, which I can't devise, as I seldom bother reading modules;).

In Fiore's The Lichway the PC have to kill the Sussurus in a very unfair even cruel way to access treasure. To me the intention is clearly to punish players who murderhobo. I don't think that is the intention in the original DFD but I suspect the majority of players do destroy the plant creature in most playthroughs. I prefer revised version of the creature in the later version of DFD, it is more evocative and imaginative. In general the later version is superior in a number of small ways but in this detail most of all.

Quote from: Voros;1008401I suspect the majority of players do destroy the plant creature in most playthroughs.

I'm going to suggest there is very little data to back this conclusion and we're going off our own instincts. For example, my suspicion is that most players would find clever ways to circumvent triggering the trap.

Quote from: Voros;1008401I prefer revised version of the creature in the later version of DFD, it is more evocative and imaginative. In general the later version is superior in a number of small ways but in this detail most of all.

I concur. The creature at the alter also fit into my campaign mythology very well and fed the players lots of information about the strangeness of the setting simply by its existence.

Quote from: AsenRG;1008373And, once again, what Cristopher Kubasik wrote only applies if we assume the only solution is the one explicitly stated in the text of the module, which is moronic.

To be very clear: Only the third part of my last post was predicated on the only solution for the vine creature being that found in the text. The parts labeled ONE and TWO clearly assume that there are an infinite number of possible solutions (which there are) for "solving" the vine creature, with none of them deponent on Speak to Plants.

I don't really understand why there is the insistence on the module spelling out the details since I thought 90% of GMing advice was to keep an open mind about player strategies?

On the other hand, I guess if your answer is "the GM can just fill it in," then why have modules written out to begin with, since providing the content is their job.

The best reason to not spell out ways to avoid the bad things in the adventures (beyond perfunctory examples to show how the things work) is because the whole entire bloody point of publishing them is so they happen in actual play in actual games.

This thread is gold.

It's most insightful into different referee and design philosophies.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1008413The best reason to not spell out ways to avoid the bad things in the adventures (beyond perfunctory examples to show how the things work) is because the whole entire bloody point of publishing them is so they happen in actual play in actual games.

Following up on James' point, there something I think I need to make clear:

I ran DFD 2nd Ed., which has a creature by an altar that sings a song in the same spot where the vine creature was in the 1st Ed. If the creature stops singing all the undead in the Duvan'Ku shrine rise, as in 1st Ed.

When my players' PCs went into Death Frost Doom I had no expectation that they would circumvent the creature at the alter, only that they could.

This is important. I have spent several posts pointing out that Players can come up with ingenious ways to get around the troubles waiting for them in LotFP modules. But, in fact, the PCs have triggered terrible things in the modules as often as they have avoided them.

So I want to make it clear that when the PCs went into the Duvan'Ku shrine I had no idea what would happen. I had no expectations, I didn't weight how I ran the adventure with one result or another anticipated. I played to find out what would happen. My job as a Referee was to listen to what the PCs did, look at my notes to determine my best guess at results, adjudicate accordingly, and use random die rolls when I was unsure.

This means that when we started playing the module I knew they could have caused all the dead in the crypts of the shrine to rise. This was a strong and real possibility. Hundreds upon hundreds of undead could have risen from the dead.

And you know what would have happened then?

I don't know.

And neither do you.

None of us knows what would have happened next. Because, as I've pointed out upthread, my players are very resourceful and clever.

There are ways of avoiding the undead in the shrine if they rise. There are potential allies waiting on the other side of the vine creature/unrisen-god-thing (depending on the edition) that can help deal with the undead. There are means of escaping the shrine very close to where the PCs would be when the dead rose.

For all I know -- and I would have put money on this -- most or all of the PCs would have escaped death at the hands of the undead. There are plenty of "levers" for the PCs to grab and pull to help them survive right in the module.

That said, hundreds upon hundreds of undead would have been unleashed upon a village at the base of the Swiss Alps (which  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fourth-session-report/)is where  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fifth-session-report/)I set  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-sixth-session-report/)my adventure). They would have infected countless others. I was prepared to unleash an undead plague across Europe and the Duvan'Ku cult would have risen in power. I was prepared to do this is if this is how the adventure went.

And then what would have have happened? I really have no idea. I'd follow the PCs and see what choices they made, what solutions they came up with. They might have just fled. They might have looked for a cure. I really don't know. But I made a choice early on in setting up the campaign that I would simply see where the PCs went next with their decisions.

Which is all to say: There are terrible things that can happen in LotFP modules, and I'm more than willing to unleash them on my players if circumstances warrant. But I will also expect the the the players will work hard to avoid such disasters. They've learned there's lots of horribleness in the world their PCs are traveling, so they are on the lookout for such disasters. They try to outsmart and outwit what terribleness that they can.

I certainly agree that it's getting ridiculous.

First, it's ridiculous in assuming that somehow the designer's whole idea and goal was for the adventure NOT to generally end up resulting in the PCs raising the thousands of undead. Like that the point was for the PCs to be super clever and the dungeon to be gotten through without raising anyone rather than the 'gimmick' of having the PCs suddenly having to deal with an overwhelming horde.

Second, it's ridiculous in the idea that proper PC play would be for them to deduct that the plant is somehow the key to preventing the raising of thousands of undead when there is NO INDICATION AT ALL in the adventure that this will be what happens if they destroy the plant. There's no clues, hints or warnings at all that the plants' destruction would result in that.  There's a whistling noise, and this noise is related to the plant, but there's nothing that suggests that this is the only thing that's stopping the enormous army of living dead from awakening.

So you're suggesting that it should be standard operating procedure for the PCs to think that absolutely anything at any time might have inconceivably disastrous results.  I mean, by that logic, shouldn't they be worried about every pebble? Every cp they find might be horribly cursed? Should they be casting Contact Outer Plane every time they find a gem just in case that this gem which has no sign of being anything other than a gem might actually be something that causes a nuclear explosion when nudged?

Just fucking admit that the plant is a trap that is MEANT TO BE SPRUNG. It's not designed to be avoided, which is why it's set up so that the natural instinct of any group who isn't acting out of meta-gaming in assuming the absurd would do what is the most natural and obvious thing to do and destroy what should be, if they are not imagining themselves in a negadungeon, to be a mildly-dangerous obstacle to further dungeon exploration.

But you don't want to admit that, because if you did so you'd have to admit that it's a negadungeon. So instead, you make ridiculous and disingenuous attempts to explain that PCs should somehow assume that an animated plant might cause a zombie apocalypse and react with extreme paranoia to the point of stopping this quest to go out to fucking lands unknown in search of a scroll of speak with plants just in case.

"You're afraid to admit that green beans are actually classified as a mineral, because if you did so you'd have to admit that they taste like crêpe paper!" is about how much sense this conversation is making to me.

Yes, the trap is meant to be sprung.

Why this is a bad thing, or how that creates a negadungeon situation, or why a negadungeon situation is even a bad thing to begin with, I don't understand.

What the fuck are you all on about?

To me the idea that the players should be so careful in the dungeon suggests that it is written for experienced players of D&D and RPGs who would read all the indications that this is more a CoC environment rather than the 'typical' D&D environment. For them to pick up on the plant trap actually relies on kind of knowledge based on genre tropes and RPG meta-thinking. Not saying it is a bad thing, just noting that it is a dungeon designed to work against the expectations of experienced D&D players that those new to D&D may not pick-up on.

BTW I think that the trap is much less likely to be sprung in the rewritten version.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1008730What the fuck are you all on about?

To bring the thread a bit morr OT, any news on the next releases from LotFP besides the very cool news about Tweet?

Quote from: JimLotFP;1008413The best reason to not spell out ways to avoid the bad things in the adventures (beyond perfunctory examples to show how the things work) is because the whole entire bloody point of publishing them is so they happen in actual play in actual games.

I feel that the author should briefly write up a summary of what happened when he ran the adventure in his playtests.

Quote from: estar;1008750I feel that the author should briefly write up a summary of what happened when he ran the adventure in his playtests.

Would you pay extra money for that?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008756Would you pay extra money for that?

I did just that with Scourge of the Demon Wolf. Doesn't take up extra space if you plan it as part of your writing. The point is to show how the adventure worked in actual play. When a adventure us written there what could happen and then there what actually happen.  The latter is particularly valuable as the point isn't to read the text for entertainment but to use it to create something that players can experience and interact with.

But like anything incorporating this require thought and planning. Nobody wants to read a blow by blow account. Nor does every section warrants an illustration of actual play or further comment. I ran Scourge a dozen times before publishing it and took notes. Some of the notes warranted a paragraph or two in the final manuscript. Some of the notes were woven in the description of the location, NPC or encounter. And some I deemed as not being needed.

An example I pulled this out of Scourge. This encounter turned out to be the part of adventure where things diverged for the different groups.

The Slain Tinker
Halfway between Kensla and Denison's Crossing the party will encounter an overturned cart. There is a body next to the cart with several stab wounds in the front and three parallel bloody gashes on his back. The gashes appear to be been made by a large claw. An observant party member will see that the stab wounds in the front appear to be made by a weapon. The site of the attack is about 2 miles from Dension's Crossing and 3 miles from Kensla in the midst of a forest.

The body is of Anvald, a local tinker. He makes a circuit covering the villages of the Barony of Westtower. He peddles pots, pans, and trinkets. He visits Kensla once every month or two. There is nothing left of his stock, only a few trinkets (worth 10d) lie scattered on the ground.

There is no sign of the animal that was pulling the cart. A tracking check at +5[+25%] will determine it was a mule. A tracking check will uncover several large clawed footprints leading north. They disappear about 200 yards into the woods. A tracking check at –5[-25%] will uncover normal man size tracks that circle around the site of the attack. These tracks can be followed a quarter of a mile to an escarpment where the bandit cave can be spotted.

===========================================
Rob's Note: Half of the groups failed to find the bandit tracks. They either blew their roll or just plain didn't check. Most parties noticed the difference between the stab wounds in the front and the claws in the back. This led some to conclude that werewolves were involved. Remember the bandit encounters are optional and not critical to the resolution of the adventure. One party repaired the cart to return the body of the tinker to the village.
===========================================
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1962[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Cave Bear;1008438This thread is gold.

It's most insightful into different referee and design philosophies.

I'm glad you're finding this to be the case! It's the reason I've written responses at length.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008720Some nonsense...

I can guarantee you that of all the things I could be "afraid" of these days, my stance on an encounter in a D&D module is not one of them.

I can lay heavy odds that my players would have puzzled out the vines if they had encountered them.

And yes, if they thought Speak to Plants would have been the best way forward with the Spell Research rules clearly laid out in the rulebook they would have gone off to come back with the spell. It isn't that big a deal. It is, as I stated, exactly like going back to get more supplies or rest up hit points.

James may have expected every party to trigger the rising of the dead (which would be awesome!) but I think my players would disappoint him. That's the way the cookie crumbles when you have actual people enter a pre-written scenario. I mean, we all realize this, I'm sure. That is why I can appreciate ester's idea above... but also see it limited in value. Recounting how a few playtests diverged will most likely serve only to remind a GM that "Things happen you didn't expect!" Which will calm a few GMs. But we're never going to cram all the forking paths of how PCs run through a module. Simply can't be done. (I'll grant that some people find this last point controversial. I don't. Full stop.)

Finally, Pundit, you are doing that idiotic thing you do where you think you can read the minds of strangers via the internet, sussing out their true motivations and thoughts, and determining what secrets they are hiding and their true intents. I guarantee you, you are failing in this effort once more. There's been no deception or self-deception on my part; no secret agenda I am too terrified to reveal. What I have typed is truly what I believe. You disagree... awesome. But  -- spoilers -- you really don't know what I'm thinking. That would seem to be too obvious a point to have to make... but here we are.

So, I've said my peace on these matters. My players have had blast in the LotFP modules, have successfully leveled up, and I can't wait to run the next session for them.

I thank James for his terrific clone of B/X rules and the LotFP modules. Whether or not my Players would meet his expectations of how the modules would turn out, they've having a blast with them. Honestly, I don't know what to say more than that, or what could matter more than that.

DFD is still a creepy/fun adventure even if you do not set off the zomb-pocalypse.

As it is, the creepy singing/music getting stronger all the way until you find the source is a good signpost that that source is something important that you should maybe take a moment to examine/think over... and by then you've probably discovered that the place is loaded to the gills with corpses. I wouldn't expect many to figure out exactly what is up... but the set-up certainly seems ominous.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1008788IThat is why I can appreciate ester's idea above... but also see it limited in value. Recounting how a few playtests diverged will most likely serve only to remind a GM that "Things happen you didn't expect!" Which will calm a few GMs. But we're never going to cram all the forking paths of how PCs run through a module. Simply can't be done. (I'll grant that some people find this last point controversial. I don't. Full stop.)

All I can say that running the same adventure a dozen times strong and weak patterns emerge. The strong patterns are worth mentioning because it isn't always obvious what always occurs.

Do surprises occur? Sure. I wrote the module, released it, and then a year later ran it again for 5th edition to see how it worked out. And the party found a path to resolving the adventure that bypassed the village completely. Went, Tinker->Bandit->Wandering Beggar Clan (their fences)->Finding the Summoning Ritual Site->To the Mages->Final Confrontation. Normally it the village that supplying the PCs with information about the region. This time it was the beggars.

The difference is that prior to this group, when the a group finds the bandits, the pattern has been to go to the village with the information even if they discovered that the Beggars are the fences.

I ran it again a fourteenth time (5e) and a fifteenth time (last weekend, Adventures in Middle Earth). And both times the group discovered the bandit, found out about the Beggar clan being the fence, and went to the village with the information and the body of the Tinker. One time out of 15 the party opted to do something different. To me that useful data to mention both the 15 times and the one time something very different occurred.

And I will stress not every part of an adventure will warrant commentary. What important is that you run it multiple times and see what happens. If there a consistent pattern comment on it. If there isn't then all you need a short paragraph basically saying be prepared because I ran 15 groups that came up with 15 different ways of dealing with the adventures.

However my bet that there will be a least a handful of things that happen over and over again worth commenting on.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1008445Which is all to say: There are terrible things that can happen in LotFP modules, and I'm more than willing to unleash them on my players if circumstances warrant. But I will also expect the the the players will work hard to avoid such disasters. They've learned there's lots of horribleness in the world their PCs are traveling, so they are on the lookout for such disasters. They try to outsmart and outwit what terribleness that they can.

Seconded:).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008720I certainly agree that it's getting ridiculous.

First, it's ridiculous in assuming that somehow the designer's whole idea and goal was for the adventure NOT to generally end up resulting in the PCs raising the thousands of undead. Like that the point was for the PCs to be super clever and the dungeon to be gotten through without raising anyone rather than the 'gimmick' of having the PCs suddenly having to deal with an overwhelming horde.

If the designer has a goal in how the adventure should end, I call the whole adventure "lacking";).

If and when I get to reading DFD, I'd probably remember to post my opinion on whether it's lacking in this sense.

QuoteSecond, it's ridiculous in the idea that proper PC play would be for them to deduct that the plant is somehow the key to preventing the raising of thousands of undead when there is NO INDICATION AT ALL in the adventure that this will be what happens if they destroy the plant.

Pundit, are your players sorry if they leave a single living monster in the dungeon? Because, you know, I'm starting to suspect that. I've seen it in players elsewhere...and such players are known coloquially in my games as "the first to fall".
In other words: the players don't need to fucking know WHAT THE DAMN PLANT IS DOING, it's enough to suspect that interrupting it might have nasty consequences.

QuoteThere's no clues, hints or warnings at all that the plants' destruction would result in that.  There's a whistling noise, and this noise is related to the plant, but there's nothing that suggests that this is the only thing that's stopping the enormous army of living dead from awakening.

Where are the undead? Can the players find the crypt? (If so, they really should check the area better).
Also, see above.

QuoteSo you're suggesting that it should be standard operating procedure for the PCs to think that absolutely anything at any time might have inconceivably disastrous results.

No.
Any time you start violence against a creature with non-hostile intentions, however, it might have disastrous results. Experience should have taught any players as much. If not, I wonder what their Referee was running!
The plant isn't hostile. Why in hell are they attacking it? Suffering from acute "completism" and having to have a part of all monsters in the dungeon? If so: too bad, there's monsters in my dungeons that aren't meant to be attacked. They are, usually, not attacking, either (or rather, they've usually got a positive reaction modifier - if I write it, I usually write that as "+3 on the Reaction table, Maximum result of 10":D).

QuoteI mean, by that logic, shouldn't they be worried about every pebble? Every cp they find might be horribly cursed? Should they be casting Contact Outer Plane every time they find a gem just in case that this gem which has no sign of being anything other than a gem might actually be something that causes a nuclear explosion when nudged?

And that's your usual hyperbole.

QuoteJust fucking admit that the plant is a trap that is MEANT TO BE SPRUNG. It's not designed to be avoided, which is why it's set up so that the natural instinct of any group who isn't acting out of meta-gaming in assuming the absurd would do what is the most natural and obvious thing to do and destroy what should be, if they are not imagining themselves in a negadungeon, to be a mildly-dangerous obstacle to further dungeon exploration.

There's no "should" in my dungeons. I'm proud of it, too.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1008730Yes, the trap is meant to be sprung.

All traps are meant to be sprung. Players have a reason to deny them their meaning:D!

QuoteWhat the fuck are you all on about?

We're discussing whether the trap was "too unfair", and whether such a thing is even possible in a dungeon:p. Me, Cristopher Kubasik and others are saying it's not, Pundit disagrees.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1008788I can lay heavy odds that my players would have puzzled out the vines if they had encountered them.

Yeah, me too;).

QuoteFinally, Pundit, you are doing that idiotic thing you do where you think you can read the minds of strangers via the internet, sussing out their true motivations and thoughts, and determining what secrets they are hiding and their true intents. I guarantee you, you are failing in this effort once more. There's been no deception or self-deception on my part; no secret agenda I am too terrified to reveal. What I have typed is truly what I believe. You disagree... awesome. But  -- spoilers -- you really don't know what I'm thinking. That would seem to be too obvious a point to have to make... but here we are.

Seconding this part, too:D!

QuoteI thank James for his terrific clone of B/X rules and the LotFP modules. Whether or not my Players would meet his expectations of how the modules would turn out, they've having a blast with them. Honestly, I don't know what to say more than that, or what could matter more than that.

Nothing matters more than that, of course! I'm pretty sure that Jim expects exactly that, too, since he has customers;).

Quote from: JimLotFP;1008730Yes, the trap is meant to be sprung.

Thank you.

QuoteWhy this is a bad thing, or how that creates a negadungeon situation, or why a negadungeon situation is even a bad thing to begin with, I don't understand.

What the fuck are you all on about?

To answer the first: because it takes something that's normal PC behavior and turns it into a negative consequence.

As to the second: is the negadungeon in and of itself 'a bad thing'? Not exactly.  DFD was at least a kind of innovation, and that in and of itself gives it some value.
But it when ideas like this become the Universal, the idea that "this is how the OSR is supposed to be played!" and that if you don't do it this way, if you don't have players punished for doing things that make sense for their characters to do, if you don't have dungeons that are always meant to screw around with you, if you don't have such bloodbaths and screw-ups that it's almost impossible to get up in level and have a regular campaign (because shit, who'd want to play high-level, right? That's so lame...), then that's where the problem comes in.

DFD has some virtues as an adventure. One or two other negadungeons might too.

But Negadungeons as a genre? They're a FAD.

And a fad of a group of people who wanted to pretend that a way hardly anyone ever played back in the old-school days is the One True Oldschool way to do D&D.

You guys are pissed now that other people are getting tired of the fad, I get that. But negadungeons, while fun once or twice at a con, get really fucking tired really fucking fast, and are no way to do a campaign. So they're going back to their natural place in the OSR hierarchy: as a rare and occasional side-show. The revolution's over, comrade.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1008788James may have expected every party to trigger the rising of the dead

It's not a 'may', he already made it clear, because he's not disingenuous, that the whole point is for the trap to get triggered. That's why there's no clues or hints or warnings that destroying the plant will raise thousands of undead.

As for you and your players, maybe you run your game very different than mine. In mine, inside the game there's usually not an easy access of 'ye olde magic shoppes' where they can just pick up a scroll.  And outside the game, I would take a dim view of players jumping out of immersion to get into metagaming that they would be paranoid as all fuck about one thing in one place in the dungeon, but not of everything else in the dungeon, out of a literary conceit.

Why aren't your players going back first to get a "speak with dead"? Why aren't they examining every stone with magic (and going back to obtain the necessary magic if they don't have it) just in case stepping on a random stone will awaken a horde of demons or something?
Answer: because they're meta-gaming, and you're encouraging them to do so in how you GM.

Quote from: AsenRG;1008812Seconded:).


If the designer has a goal in how the adventure should end, I call the whole adventure "lacking";).

Well, the designer came on this thread and admitted that the trap is meant to be sprung, so...

QuotePundit, are your players sorry if they leave a single living monster in the dungeon?

Are your players paranoid fucks that are terrified of every corner of the dungeon because they keep getting tricked? Or are they just meta-gamers?

 
 

QuoteWhere are the undead? Can the players find the crypt? (If so, they really should check the area better).
Also, see above.

You haven't read the adventure, so...

QuoteNo.
Any time you start violence against a creature with non-hostile intentions, however, it might have disastrous results. Experience should have taught any players as much. If not, I wonder what their Referee was running!

I get how, because of how some people have somewhat-dishonestly phrased things, you might understand the situation wrong. The plant is not just in some random place where the PCs have no need to attack it.  It is blocking the way to a significant part of the dungeon. Unless you have a magical way to get past it, you have to either turn back or cut your way through.  
So, are your players the sort who would just say "well, we haven't found the main tombs yet, and there's this plant in the way, I guess we'll just give up here and go home"?

Because in my experience, that's not what players usually do.  And for that matter, it's clearly (by his own admission) not what Raggi assumes most players would do either.

QuoteThere's no "should" in my dungeons.

Well, there's "should" in DFD. Take Raggi's word for it if you don't take mine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009090Well, the designer came on this thread and admitted that the trap is meant to be sprung, so...

Every trap is meant to be sprung, comrade. And the job of every dagger-armed kobold fucking a dead pony when you find it in the dungeon, is to kill you all.
The job of players is to avoid those negative consequences:).

QuoteAre your players paranoid fucks that are terrified of every corner of the dungeon because they keep getting tricked? Or are they just meta-gamers?

Neither, they're good enough to act with premeditation, so they don't get tricked...often;).
 

QuoteYou haven't read the adventure, so...

So I'm discussing just the description of a single monster/trap, not the whole adventure. It was described by more than one person, including you, IIRC.

QuoteI get how, because of how some people have somewhat-dishonestly phrased things, you might understand the situation wrong. The plant is not just in some random place where the PCs have no need to attack it.  It is blocking the way to a significant part of the dungeon. Unless you have a magical way to get past it, you have to either turn back or cut your way through.

Can you dig through the wall next to it? Push it gently aside?
Is it obvious it's singing, and might be sentient/sapient, and thus worth talking to?
(It's a magical monster).

QuoteSo, are your players the sort who would just say "well, we haven't found the main tombs yet, and there's this plant in the way, I guess we'll just give up here and go home"?

No, they're the sort that makes sure to think out of the box - my questions above are what I'd expect of them if they didn't have the spells. And they might well go back to load up on scrolls/hirelings. Especially if their characters think IC that the plant has been there for many years, and there's a reason why other adventurers haven't made short work of it.

QuoteBecause in my experience, that's not what players usually do.

In my experience, good players think as per the above.

QuoteAnd for that matter, it's clearly (by his own admission) not what Raggi assumes most players would do either.

Pundit, seriously, how many times do I have to repeat that I go by "death of the author" school of thought:D? If the author has just described the situation and didn't instruct the GM to make sure the trap gets triggered (as I have seen in other games), I'm good with it.

QuoteWell, there's "should" in DFD. Take Raggi's word for it if you don't take mine.

See above, especially the first paragraph of my post about "meant to be triggered";).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009087if you don't have dungeons that are always meant to screw around with you

I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009110I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

Are there any kinds of dungeon-screwery that cross the line, in your opinion?

No matter how the designer of a game or module expects the game or module will run, once it gets to a table of players it will become it's own thing. (I've already addressed this.)

There's no need to go to "Ye Olde Scroll Shop" using the Lamentation of the Flame Princess rules, as the Player Characters can research spells, create scrolls, and create potions on their own. (I've already addressed this.)

Players might have their characters trigger dangers within dungeons or they might get around them. Having the potential of catastrophic supernatural disaster always a possibility means sometimes these things will happen. And my players have had such things happen. And other times they get around such disasters. The risk of and effort to avoid such dangers is part of the thrill my players are having in the game. (I've already addressed this.)

The fear the characters bring into the dungeons and the caution the characters bring to bear in their choices and actions should make perfect sense in that they are traversing dangerous environments in search of treasure in uncanny places no one else would enter. (I've already addressed this.)

We're at that point where you are simply ignoring points I've already made, making unfounded attacks on my character, imagining you know how my players are behaving (spoilers: you don't), and denying the reality of my actual play experience I've had at the table.

Part of this is clearly based on your narrow expectations of play. You assume there is one right way to play, with those expectations being met or not met in a very narrow band of play experiences. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that there are dozens upon dozens of ways of creating tone and playstyle for RPGs and dungeon delving.

To wit: The sense of danger, threat, risk, and potential fallout I'm looking for in my game is inspired by Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser tales, and Clark Ashton Smith's sword-and-sorcery weird fantasy.

In those stories, when a character chooses to enter a strange place and encounter the unknown the risk of really terrible things happening is quite oppressive, with all sorts horrific, overwhelming, and mind-blowing dangers rising up from the dead/the deep/other dimensions when crypts are opened, levers pulled, treasures touched. When Conan or other characters in the tales traverse such places the characters experience a palpable sense of dread. I wish to conjure such dread for the experience of my players. They seem to eat it up, so it's all going well.

Here's the thing: The difference between you and I is that I know different people and different groups want different things, and I can appreciate that you want a certain kind of experience at your table and am content that you are getting it. Meanwhile, you are driven by some quality (that I do not understand) that if someone is playing differently than you would want to play they are wrong and you must constantly complain about it online.

At this point your complaints are going in circles. You're accusing me of being dishonest (I'm not.) And the conversation has nowhere to go except for you to keep repeating claims of dishonesty on my part. Whereas I could keep talk about the techniques and tools that are allowing my players to have a great time in the campaign I'm running.

I hope you keep having a good time with your gaming. It's a hobby. People do it for fun. If you're having fun with how you run your game then as far as I'm concerned it's all good.

Quote from: AsenRG;1009106Every trap is meant to be sprung, comrade.

Not every trap is absolutely vital to the entire rest of the adventure.

QuoteSo I'm discussing just the description of a single monster/trap, not the whole adventure. It was described by more than one person, including you, IIRC.

Well, you haven't gotten the significance of how the trap/monster is the lynchpin of the entire dungeon.  Case in point, you're asking a bunch of questions that you wouldn't be bothering to ask if you'd read the adventure. Seriously, this is like if you were trying to defend the quality of a movie you never watched, dude. It's just lame.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009110I was about to go out the door when I saw the notification here, so more probably tomorrow, but for now, I'll respond to this bit.

Why would you ever have a dungeon (or other environment) that doesn't screw with the PCs? That's what the entire game is.

No, it really isn't. The game is about exploring the dungeon and facing its challenges. It's not about the oh-so-clever designer pulling cheap tricks meant to fuck with the PCs.
I mean, unless that designer is 14, and sort of a dick.


Now don't get me wrong, again, as an individual product, DFD was fairly creative.  In much the same way that an early gore-horror movie could be considered sort of creative. But the genre it spawned was largely repetitive derivative junk depending on producing ever-increasing grotesquerie just to keep the attention of an increasingly adolescent audience looking for cheap thrills.
And the suggestion that gore-horror would be the best, much less the only way, to make a horror movie is just as ludicrous as suggesting that the negadungeon is the best, much less the only way, to make a D&D adventure.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1009125There's no need to go to "Ye Olde Scroll Shop" using the Lamentation of the Flame Princess rules, as the Player Characters can research spells, create scrolls, and create potions on their own. (I've already addressed this.)

In your game worlds, does time not go by? Are the PCs the only ones who do stuff?

Because in my game, no player in their right mind would consider doing that. First of all, it's a mountain presumably in the  middle of nowhere. Researching a spell and making a scroll of it would require days or weeks of travel to somewhere in civilization where the materials and knowledge necessary for spell-research was available (which in my game worlds would typically not be the first shit-hole village along the way, it would need to at least be a major city). Second, they'd have to spend days or weeks researching the spell and making the scroll, and then days or weeks getting back to DFD. In the intervening time, I'd be considering/checking if the dungeon was found by some other hapless group, leading to either someone else getting all the glory and treasure, or the dawn of a zombie apocalypse. All this, mind you, on a HUNCH that MAYBE a plant has something interesting to say, when there's ABSOLUTELY NO HINT that just cutting through the plant will trigger the awakening of thousands of undead.

It's just staggeringly stupid to think that any group that wasn't engaging in blatant meta-gaming... shit, that any group that hadn't had someone secretly cheat by reading about the adventure ahead of time... would do something like this.

QuotePart of this is clearly based on your narrow expectations of play. You assume there is one right way to play, with those expectations being met or not met in a very narrow band of play experiences. I, on the other hand, am fully aware that there are dozens upon dozens of ways of creating tone and playstyle for RPGs and dungeon delving.

You're shitting me, right? You're the assholes who are all about "grognard uber alles", "fantasy fucking vietnam", "ur-D&D" and "if you're not playing negadungeons you're not REAL old-school". You're so determined to defend this notion, and to belittle anyone who thinks negadungeons are shit, that you made up the absurd "there's a plant here so let's spend weeks researching a spell" scenario as the one true right answer to how to play through DFD and how that somehow proves it's actually 'fair', and players who didn't act that way would be shitty D&D players who don't know what they're doing.

Like seriously, if you owned it that's one thing, but having the gall to then pretend that YOU are the champion of diversity-of-playstyles? Go fuck yourself with a spoon.
 

QuoteTo wit: The sense of danger, threat, risk, and potential fallout I'm looking for in my game is inspired by Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser tales, and Clark Ashton Smith's sword-and-sorcery weird fantasy.

In those stories, when a character chooses to enter a strange place and encounter the unknown the risk of really terrible things happening is quite oppressive, with all sorts horrific, overwhelming, and mind-blowing dangers rising up from the dead/the deep/other dimensions when crypts are opened, levers pulled, treasures touched. When Conan or other characters in the tales traverse such places the characters experience a palpable sense of dread. I wish to conjure such dread for the experience of my players. They seem to eat it up, so it's all going well.

In those stories, the characters are literature. They don't actually exist. They have script immunity. They're not real people, and Conan won't die.
If you're basing your whole deal on that, you're one step away from being a storygamer.

QuoteI hope you keep having a good time with your gaming. It's a hobby. People do it for fun. If you're having fun with how you run your game then as far as I'm concerned it's all good.

Ah.. "its all fun, you're taking it too seriously and thinking too much about it"... the refuge of the rpg-forum scoundrel who's losing an argument he was taking seriously until it went south for him.

I think that "negadungeon" is a viable way to play especially if you are going for a horror/nihilistic feel, which ,maybe I am wrong, but Raggi does seem to enjoy. Obviously it can't be everyones cup of tea, but as long as the group has agreed to this kind of playstyle its great.
On wether its typical dnd, to me a nega dungeon is simply a dungeon that has too low risk-reward ratio. So it CAN be very rewarding to pull through even for typical dnd groups. On the other hand other groups might decide to nope out of the situation, since they have no incentive to interact with the environment (due to the risk reward ration being too low).
Personally I prefer for modules to have rewards in accordance to their risks, but at the same time I wouldn't like it if this always was dogmaticaly the case.
Another matter is the hints traps and obstacles should give to bypass them. I run sailors in the starless sea and the portal under the stars and my players complained about the lack hints in those adventures too. The thing is player actions are very unpredictable and some times they will get wind of the most absurd of hints while others missing the obvious ones. I try to do this in my own adventures with varying results.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403In your game worlds, does time not go by?

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403Are the PCs the only ones who do stuff?

No.

The consequences of how to use resources like time or equipment or spells are part of the pleasure of the game. The consequences of deciding to go to one thing or another, to leave things unexplored or unattended for a period of time for one reason or another (safety, research, supplies) is what allows the Players to have the choices their PCs be choices.

Through my LotFP campaign the PCs have made one choice or another and this has had ramifications through the rest of the campaign. Happens all the time.

But to reiterate: I do not believe that the only thing the PCs could do solve the problem of the vine-creature with this one solution of going off to make a scroll. The only reason I brought this up is that you said the the PCs would probably not have Speak to Plants (good point!) and that the rules of LotFP allow the PCs to go off and make the very spell and return with it if they wished. That there are consequent to the decision is fine by me. This means the PCs can make a choice and say, "It's going to take too long. We'll find another way." And if that way triggers the hundreds of dead to come to life, so be it.

But let's talk about this for a moment:

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009403You're the assholes who are all about "grognard uber alles", "fantasy fucking vietnam", "ur-D&D" and "if you're not playing negadungeons you're not REAL old-school". You're so determined to defend this notion, and to belittle anyone who thinks negadungeons are shit, that you made up the absurd "there's a plant here so let's spend weeks researching a spell" scenario as the one true right answer to how to play through DFD and how that somehow proves it's actually 'fair', and players who didn't act that way would be shitty D&D players who don't know what they're doing.

Like seriously, if you owned it that's one thing, but having the gall to then pretend that YOU are the champion of diversity-of-playstyles? Go fuck yourself with a spoon.

I have no idea what group of people you're lumping me in with. As usual Pundit, as you've been doing for nearly two decades, you're creating legions of enemies marching under one banner that exist only in your imagination.

I've made no claims about how one is supposed to play D&D -- "ur" or otherwise. What I did was to read up on what many people thought about OSR play, made some decisions about how I wanted to run the campaign I am running right now, and have ended up having a blast with it.

I've made no claims about how other people are supposed to play, should play, or are playing wrong. At all. Ever. If you can take the time to provide any sort of quote rather than putting words in my mouth that would be great.

My point is, and always is, that there are countless ways to play these games and that people should be playing as they wish. As far as I can tell you are the one who is constantly declaring there's some "normal" way to play, which is how you play, and any variance from it is some sort of tragedy.

There really weird part is this:

   

QuotePUNDIT: My RPG play is PCs...
-Fighting aggressive monsters
-Recognizing patterns of monster lore/behavior
-searching for traps and disabling them
-wanting to obtain treasure, and obtaining it

QuoteME: Mine too. That's what the PCs in my campaign have been doing for dozens of sessions.

QuotePUNDIT: You're lying!

QuoteME: Um...

You didn't ask for specifics from me about how we played. You simply jumped to me being dishonest.

This is now the fourth post where you've either tried to read my mind or simply made up words I've never said. It's not as if I don't expect this sort of behavior from you. Having a conversation with you is quicksand. You keep making the person you're talking to go down weird digressions to clean up nonsense you keep spouting that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.(I am now expected to somehow prove that that the things you've said I've said I've never said? I think not.)

I'll pass on engaging with your bullshit, I think.

Again, all I can say to anyone else reading this thread:

I've been running a LotFP campaign (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/lotfp-fallen-world-campaign/) using the rules and many of the modules. I'm having a blast. The players are having a blast.

Just a question for clarification:

Kubasik, have you read, played or ran either version of Death Frost Doom?  Just asking because you (and Asen) seem to be arguing more the general, and Pundit the specific, which is one of the various reasons this isn't going well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009398Not every trap is absolutely vital to the entire rest of the adventure.

No, not every trap is. But a dungeon based on a trap being sprung isn't really any weirder than a dungeon depending on a painting being stolen and put in a specific place:p. And the latter is a well-known OSR adventure;).

QuoteWell, you haven't gotten the significance of how the trap/monster is the lynchpin of the entire dungeon.  Case in point, you're asking a bunch of questions that you wouldn't be bothering to ask if you'd read the adventure. Seriously, this is like if you were trying to defend the quality of a movie you never watched, dude. It's just lame.

Seriously, dude, are you  telling me there's a way to bypass the monster/trap in the text of the adventure, but that everything else depends on it being murderhoboed/triggered:D? What happens differently if you use Speak With Plants?

Don't bother explaining. Like many, many other adventures, DFD is part of my library at Drivethru due to a Bundle of Holding, I just hadn't bothered reading it:).
I'll just check what the hell releases those zombies and how things change if they're not released, and get back to you;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009456Just a question for clarification:

Kubasik, have you read, played or ran either version of Death Frost Doom?  Just asking because you (and Asen) seem to be arguing more the general, and Pundit the specific, which is one of the various reasons this isn't going well.

This is a long thread, with a lot of posts, so I'm not assuming everyone is keeping track of every post. But the answer to your question is "Yes."

As I've stated upthread a few time, I have read both editions of DFD, and I have run the 2nd edition for my campaign. I've linked the play reports above as well. Here  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fourth-session-report/)they  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fifth-session-report/)are again (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-sixth-session-report/).

The player characters reached the "midpoint" of the DFD module, circumvented the creature in the spot where the vine-thing was in the 1st edition (after almost waking all the dead), retrieved the item they came for, and decided that whatever was waiting for them beyond the creature was more than they wanted to deal with. They buggered out.

For some people this might seem as if the back-half of the module was "wasted" or the PCs did not finish "the adventure." I can completely empathize with this point of view. However, it is not mine. For me "The Adventure" is what happens -- not what could happen or anything that I planned would happen. They PCs made a choice... an awesome one, for it suggested they were, in fact, terrified. (Months of game time later they would return to the temple, realizing that sorcerers from Carcosa were looking for something the Duvan'Ku had stolen from them. They found a bloodbath of undead and the Duvan'Ku priests and priestesses who had battled it out with Carcosa sorcerers and warriors in Jack Kirby-like battle armor. They had missed the fight. But they had also failed to prevent the Carcosans from finding a method of bridging the void between Carcosa and Earth. And invasion of Earth by the Yellow King has begun.)

If the PCs can't choose to retreat or give up on a creature or pressing forward, then there is no choice to go into battle or to press forward. And I don't want that. In my game the PCs have full choice as to how to proceed... and the world keeps turning, and we see what happens next.

Others have noted upthread that there are more "handholds" for the Players/PCs in the second edition to avoid triggering the raising of the dead. Whenever anyone has suggested this I have always agreed.

Finally, I don't see it as a matter of the Pundit being more "specific" (though I can see how some might see it this way). I see him arguing in terms of absolutes: "There is one way to stop the vine-creature"... "It is only there to be triggered..." and on My view is not coming from a place of generalities but possibilities. My point is, and has been, that there is no way for us to know what might happen when PCs encounter a given situation. All of us who have played RPGs know this (especially those who Referee), and yet for some reason in this case it is assumed that the only thing that can happen is for the PCs to trigger the dead. I have no idea why or how this one situation is being treated as its own special case. But in my experience with my players I'll stand by what I've already said: I have every reason to believe that the the dead might not be triggered -- even in the first edition of DFD.

But, like I said, this conversation has become more of an annoyance than anything productive for me at this point.

Reading...

Ok, so they picked up on some of the clues that Zak added that the Raggi version didn't have, managed to get past the parasite before any of the real nasty undead woke up, grabbed the MacGuffin they came for and got the hell out of Dodge without hanging around to find out the WHY of anything.

This is what I think Raggi meant to have happen.  

• The PCs came here for a reason.
  
• The reason is behind the Plant/Parasite.
• You may be able to get past it if lucky or very clever.

The end result will be...
1. You fulfill the reason and get the hell out, ignoring a whole lot of the place.
2. You fulfill the reason, explore the rest of the place and either die or take part in a Zombipocalypse, possibly as adjutants in an Army of the Undead lead by Undead Evil Alexander (in the Zak version).

I think Raggi's design is fair game, and I think the charge of metagaming can be laid on both sides, for if you get what you came for, why explore a place of unrelenting vile, necromantic horror except "because the game is about exploration"?

However, I can also see the charge of Negadungeon as valid, because I think that's exactly how he designed it.  You bring with you the standard dungeoneering assumptions to this place, it will hand your PCs and possibly your campaign and world its ass in a hat.

I don't play D&D with D&D genre assumptions, so I don't necessarily call "foul" on DFD.  It does seem a little bit though, like if Tomb of Horrors had the fight with Acererak first, then as you explored the rest of the place, you found all the death traps, but they weren't guarding anything, and they were Acererak's joke against those who had finally ended him.

For me, it's a different charge in that the thing is so damn weird, it alters your campaign by its very inclusion.  For one thing, you now have to deal with the concept of the Duvan'Ku and "liquid time".  The concept of the Undead Alexander leading an army though is so awesome I may have to tweak this for my Conan Mythras campaign.

As an adventure, it's cool.  As a genre of adventure, a bit much.  It's kind of like the new DCC adventures.  Nearly every one of them is so off the chain gonzo, there's no setting that could conceivably hold them all and not turn into the "Heavy Metal Mescaline Trip" World.  You could put maybe one in with major modifications and that's it.

Those are solid points about the peculiar nature of reality the modules posit. I loved the modules so much that I leaned into the weirdness.

The liquid time; the alternate realities; strange death cults, alien worlds with Jack Kirby battle armor, men transformed into immortal gods.... all of it. I had to shift things around and put my own spin on it; tweaking elements to build a setting that I wanted to run. But I used the specifics of the modules for the tone and feel and logic of the campaign.

17th century Europe is the battlefield for alien worlds and dangerous cults -- and it seems to be working.

I obviously have the later version, because the trap seems frigging obvious if you talk with Zeke about him and the history of the place. You mean he wasn't saying anything of the sort in the original one?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009087But it when ideas like this become the Universal, the idea that "this is how the OSR is supposed to be played!"

Who says this?

Quote(because shit, who'd want to play high-level, right? That's so lame...)

Not lame, just boring.

QuoteAnd a fad of a group of people who wanted to pretend that a way hardly anyone ever played back in the old-school days is the One True Oldschool way to do D&D.

Who says this?

And you're going to love this: I don't call what I do D&D. When working with people on their projects, I try to get them to strip out as much of the "D&D" out of it as possible. No interest in it.

(Here I'm defining "D&D" as all the recognizable stuff that is assumed to be part of the D&D setting. Races, monsters, magic items, the cosmology, etc. And 32984723 classes and feats and all that horseshit too, people always assume that's part of "D&D" these days too. Take all that out, and apparently it's not very recognizable as D&D to a lot of people. The six-ability-scores-and-system-stuff I don't consider to be "D&D" by itself. So I let it go awhile back. I am curious what would have happened if I'd started with and had been as gung-ho about Traveller or Runequest back in the day. Everything probably would have worked out well enough creatively, but it might have been harder to get a foothold commercially.)

QuoteYou guys are pissed now that other people are getting tired of the fad, I get that.

LotFP had its best ever year in 2017. Most titles sold more in 2017 than in 2016 (talking physical copies, the Bundles of Holding makes comparing PDF sales difficult). There's been growth every year since I started.

Why would you think I was pissed? Why would you think people are getting tired of whatever fad I may be a part of?

And when you say "you guys," who other than me do you mean?

Where are you coming up with any of this stuff?

QuoteThe revolution's over, comrade.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009797LotFP had its best ever year in 2017. Most titles sold more in 2017 than in 2016 (talking physical copies, the Bundles of Holding makes comparing PDF sales difficult). There's been growth every year since I started.

Why would you think I was pissed? Why would you think people are getting tired of whatever fad I may be a part of?

And when you say "you guys," who other than me do you mean?

Where are you coming up with any of this stuff?



What are you talking about?

Your facts are meaningless in the realm of Punditry!

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009797I am curious what would have happened if I'd started with and had been as gung-ho about Traveller or Runequest back in the day.

That's interesting. Naively I would think Traveller would be less suited to the style of the current modules as the characters as opposed to the players have a bit more agency/presence with their defined skills. You'll tend to be narrower with a guy who is "Str 16, Gun (Slug Pistol) 2 etc" than a guy who is just Str 16, especially as the former suggests particular scenarios to engage in. Perhaps the modules would have been in quite a different style as a result. Just spit-balling though, I assume it would have been a wierd-scifi Traveller.

EDIT: For clarity, it wouldn't have been weird-fantasy via Traveller, but wierd-scifi.

Or it would have been weird sci-fantasy. Traveller can do lots of options.

Quote from: Séadna;1009910That's interesting. Naively I would think Traveller would be less suited to the style of the current modules as the characters as opposed to the players have a bit more agency/presence with their defined skills. You'll tend to be narrower with a guy who is "Str 16, Gun (Slug Pistol) 2 etc" than a guy who is just Str 16, especially as the former suggests particular scenarios to engage in. Perhaps the modules would have been in quite a different style as a result. Just spit-balling though, I assume it would have been a wierd-scifi Traveller.

EDIT: For clarity, it wouldn't have been weird-fantasy via Traveller, but wierd-scifi.

I think Traveller has alot going for it, even if it is used outside of its original genre. There's also a lot of work for doing that. I could easily envision a horror version, as well as a Science/Horror version of Traveller, a Western version of Traveller, a Historical Military version of Traveller, a Post-apocalyptic version of Traveller, A Fantasy version of Traveller (Doesn't this already exists?), and I would say a post-human or Trans-human version (Already done with the MindJammer conversion (anyone here try this, by the way?)., and a gonzo science-fantasy version of Traveller as well. Not the easiest to create all of these but the basic game mechanics of Traveller would easily support all of these variations.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009456Just a question for clarification:

Kubasik, have you read, played or ran either version of Death Frost Doom?  Just asking because you (and Asen) seem to be arguing more the general, and Pundit the specific, which is one of the various reasons this isn't going well.

Good question. For the record, I ran it twice.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1009464This is a long thread, with a lot of posts, so I'm not assuming everyone is keeping track of every post. But the answer to your question is "Yes."

As I've stated upthread a few time, I have read both editions of DFD, and I have run the 2nd edition for my campaign. I've linked the play reports above as well. Here  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fourth-session-report/)they  (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-fifth-session-report/)are again (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/fallen-world-campaign-lotfp-sixth-session-report/).

The player characters reached the "midpoint" of the DFD module, circumvented the creature in the spot where the vine-thing was in the 1st edition (after almost waking all the dead), retrieved the item they came for, and decided that whatever was waiting for them beyond the creature was more than they wanted to deal with. They buggered out.

For the record, I have run the 1st edition of DFD. I have no idea how the 2nd is different.

In the 1st edition, there is explicitly NO 'item they came for' in the adventure as such (though I believe "you're coming to retrieve some random item made up by the DM and in no way detailed in the module itself" was one of the options given for a GM to use as a way to motivate the PCs going into DFD), and in 1st edition there is no hint whatsoever that killing the plant-thing will awaken thousands of undead (only that there's whistling from air flow in the dungeon, and that the plant-thing is the source of the whistling, that's it).

If there is a "item" in 2e DFD, and it was put BEFORE the plant-thing, that utterly changes the nature of the adventure, because if the PCs are meant to go get that one thing, they could have a reason to leave before bothering to fight past the plant-thing.
If that's not something explicitly in the 2e text, but something that Kubasik added to his adventure, then:
a) he should have said so above
b) that's quite the cop-out, and any crowing about how his players were so clever to not fall for the trick and fight the plant-thing that no one could guess would raise thousands of undead is not really an accomplishment, because he intentionally altered the adventure to give the PCs a specific goal and then put that goal in a place where the main trap of the dungeon need not be sprung.

Mind you, if the "item the pcs came for" is an actual thing in 2e DFD, then that means that instead of Kubasik, it was just Raggi who did the same cop-out.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1009797Who says this?

Your very next sentence implies it.

QuoteNot lame, just boring.

You're obviously not very good at running high level play, as a GM, then.

QuoteLotFP had its best ever year in 2017. Most titles sold more in 2017 than in 2016 (talking physical copies, the Bundles of Holding makes comparing PDF sales difficult). There's been growth every year since I started.

What titles did you release in 2017. How many of them were negadungeons in the style of DFD? And I mean the original DFD, because apparently in the new edition you neutered it to provide warnings and an escape clause, if Kubasik is to be believed.

QuoteAnd when you say "you guys," who other than me do you mean?

Most of the "fantasy fucking vietnam" crowd. The ones who think Tomb of Horrors is the basis for how all D&D play should be run.  A Green Devil Face waiting for an arm, forever.

QuoteWhat titles did you release in 2017. How many of them were negadungeons in the style of DFD?

A setting (Veins of the Earth) and a rules supplement (Vaginas are Magic!).

But Death Frost Doom has so far sold 36% more this year than last, and God that Crawls has sold 23% more. (again, just comparing print copies, saying DFD has sold 794% more this year in PDF is almost entirely down to the Bundle of Holding)

Things you've specifically called out as "negadungeons."

QuoteAnd I mean the original DFD, because apparently in the new edition you neutered it to provide warnings and an escape clause, if Kubasik is to be believed.

Zak wrote the new version. The warning is more an obviously countdown which doesn't actually tell to what it's counting down. The adventure still pretty much boils down to "what do you do when the dead rise?" just as before.

QuoteMost of the "fantasy fucking vietnam" crowd. The ones who think Tomb of Horrors is the basis for how all D&D play should be run.  A Green Devil Face waiting for an arm, forever.

Names. Specific names. What specific people say things like "this is how the OSR is supposed to be played!" or are the "you guys" in "You guys are pissed now that other people are getting tired of the fad, I get that."

Who?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1009912I think Traveller has alot going for it, even if it is used outside of its original genre. There's also a lot of work for doing that. I could easily envision a horror version, as well as a Science/Horror version of Traveller, a Western version of Traveller, a Historical Military version of Traveller, a Post-apocalyptic version of Traveller, A Fantasy version of Traveller

There was the box mockup of "Wanderer", outside of that I'm not sure. Personally I've never ran just a plain horror game in Traveller, SciFi with horror yes. For the others not at all. Would be interesting to try.

I should rephrase the original post. What would Lamentations have been like coming at its aesthetic from a hard SciFi angle rather than a picaresque Fantasy one and with the skill system of Traveller.

The assumption would change from dangerously greedy and maybe a bit mad adventurers going too far for treasure, to competent ex-military taking a contract to Death Station Doom. Possibly no different though!

DFD 2nd Ed. tells the Referee to place a McGuffin the PCs are seeking behind the Sacred Parasite that stands in the same spot where the vine-thing is in the first edition. One PC got around the creature without making it stop singing and reached the McGuffin. It was risky and they lucked out... but decided the risk was worth it to get the McGuffin.

They had picked up a map (which is in the adventure as a handout) that lets the party see that there is more dungeon to explore beyond the Sacred Parasite. The other PCs could have tried to get past the Sacred Parasite as well, in order to journey further into the temple... but the party decided to they didn't want to risk what would happen if they disturbed the creature and made it stop singing.

In the parlance of RPG play, the Player Characters made a "choice" -- which I consider one of the vital elements of solid RPG play.

Quote from: Séadna;1010230There was the box mockup of "Wanderer", outside of that I'm not sure. Personally I've never ran just a plain horror game in Traveller, SciFi with horror yes. For the others not at all. Would be interesting to try.

I should rephrase the original post. What would Lamentations have been like coming at its aesthetic from a hard SciFi angle rather than a picaresque Fantasy one and with the skill system of Traveller.

The assumption would change from dangerously greedy and maybe a bit mad adventurers going too far for treasure, to competent ex-military taking a contract to Death Station Doom. Possibly no different though!

This is all waaaaay off topic but:

Here's a post (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/1129/traveller-universal-game-system) about a guy using the Classic Traveller rules to run a WWII Cthulhu scenario for his son that worked out great for him.

The original Traveller rules weren't built to emulate Hard SF (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/traveller-was-never-supposed-to-be-hard-science-fiction/), but rather picaresque stories SF adventure stories (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/the-original-sourcebooks-for-dd-and-traveller-part-i/).

I don't think the skill system of Traveller limits the characters. Skills in Classic Traveller are not necessarily a definition of what one can do, but rather what one has expertise at. Specifically, per the text, they are what one can get paid to do. A former Marine in Classic Traveller can do many things -- but he's got a few skills he's so good at he can be paid to do them.

Many of the skills, after all, can be used by most people at a -DM. Further, per the rules all PCs have a 0-skill rating in ALL weapons, which means that unlike most civilians picking up a weapon, they don't suffer a DM -5 when in combat with a weapon.

Moreover, the rules state that the Referee can allow that the PCs can be taught the basics of certain activities and receive a rating of 0 in things like Vacc Suit or ATV. Not enough to handle disasters or tricky situations, but enough to get by with basic activities. PCs are, by definition, a bit cooler than most people.

Usually in a game of Classic Traveller the PCs say they're going to do things, the Referee makes adjudications, ("No, you don't have a skill that can repair the engine..." or "Yeah, he'll sell you the weapons for Cr75,000..."), and on occasion, where the PC wanted to do something and the Referee isn't sure how to adjudicate dice are rolled. (2D6 +/- DM equal to or greater Throw Value equals success.) Skills are part of what might constitute DMs, but tools, characteristics, a positive or negative reaction roll and more all might figure into the DMs.

In some ways (and I know this is going to melt some people's minds, so bear with me) if looked at mechanically, skills in Traveller are similar to magic spells in OD&D in that they let PCs solve problems much more quickly.

For example, if an engine stops working on a space ship you don't need to have a Mechanical skill to get it fixed. You could get it to a starport for repair. In the same way you don't need Time Stop to kill four opponents in the blink of an eye while they are helpless against your attacks. You could just kill them in normal combat at the risk of taking damage yourself. In both cases there are always ways of getting most things done in both games.... but relatively speaking, having a spell or skill allows a PCs to short-cut the process and invoke his desires faster.

As for the characters: As noted above, a Marine Captain with a UPP 78A786 is going to have the ability to do lots of things beyond Rifle-2, Cutlass-1. He can negotiate deals, threaten people, charm people, get into a brawl, pick up an axe and go after someone, sneak into a base (he's a marine, after all), recon a situation before an attack, set up an ambush, oversell his credentials as a bodyguard, kidnap someone off the street, explore an alien tomb in search of an ancient poem leading to a treasure... all of this in more, even though, on his character sheet, he is listed as only Marine Captain 34, 78A786 Rifle-2, Cutlass-1.

All in all, while Classic Traveller has skills, it didn't approach skills in the manner later RPGs with skills did. In later games (like RuneQuest for example) the skills written on a character sheet show what the character can do and his odds of success. In Classic Traveller, the skills on the character sheet will be part of what informs how a character handles certain situations, but only a small piece of what the character is capable of doing -- since there is a Referee there to handle many of the adjudications (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/traveller-out-of-the-box-an-approach-to-refereeing-and-throws-in-original-traveller-part-i/) that are later handed over to skill systems and rules (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/traveller-out-of-the-box-the-expectations-of-a-traveller-referee-at-the-start-of-the-hobby/).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010204Most of the "fantasy fucking vietnam" crowd. The ones who think Tomb of Horrors is the basis for how all D&D play should be run.  A Green Devil Face waiting for an arm, forever.

So which subset of the OSR is next on your hit list? The gonzo crowd? The sandbox guys like myself and Autarch(ACKS)?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010202In the 1st edition, there is explicitly NO 'item they came for' in the adventure as such (though I believe "you're coming to retrieve some random item made up by the DM and in no way detailed in the module itself" was one of the options given for a GM to use as a way to motivate the PCs going into DFD), and in 1st edition there is no hint whatsoever that killing the plant-thing will awaken thousands of undead (only that there's whistling from air flow in the dungeon, and that the plant-thing is the source of the whistling, that's it).

I've only read the 1st version, but I've played in both 1st and 2nd. I'd disagree that there's 'no hint whatsoever'.
I mean, the whole place exudes menace... and you've already had several instances where fucking with things could have serious consequences. Also, by the time you reach the (otherwise innocuous) plant-creature you're probably well aware that the place is filled to the gills with corpses... and not a single monster of any sort. Meanwhile that plant is humming along, you hear it everywhere you go.

I'm not saying we KNEW that fucking with the plant would raise the dead... but we knew there'd be nasty consequences of some sort, that in the scheme of things down there that plant-creature was a big deal.
I don't quite remember the discussion we had when we reached the thing but we left it intact and escaped with whatever loot we'd gathered.
Now, our GM that first time was running it as a one-off, we had no quest to retrieve anything specific... I don't even remember what enticement he'd placed on the altar. If we'd had reason to get beyond the plant we very well might have set off the trap... but we certainly would have hesitated and pondered ways around it.
I'm saying it's pretty obviously a big trap, even if you don't know the specifics.

EDIT: It now occurs to me to wonder what happens if you burn all those corpses, or haul them out and down the mountain to a landfill... do they wake up if they're out of range of the plant's song? Will the burned corpses rise up as blackened skeletons?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010255This is all waaaaay off topic but:
...

Thanks Christopher for all that information, I'll continue this with you via PM, lots to discuss. I don't want to interrupt the discussion about DFD.

Quote from: Séadna;1010288Thanks Christopher for all that information, I'll continue this with you via PM, lots to discuss. I don't want to interrupt the discussion about DFD.

Great. And note that I have added two more links at the end of the previous post I made, leading to more discussion about Referee-driven play in the first years of the hobby.

Quote from: estar;1010272So which subset of the OSR is next on your hit list? The gonzo crowd? The sandbox guys like myself and Autarch(ACKS)?

I thought Pundit was "the gonzo crowd"?? Murder-suicide.

Quote from: K Peterson;1010296I thought Pundit was "the gonzo crowd"?? Murder-suicide.

Things do get dark inside Pundit's bunker sometimes.

As usual there's nothing the matter with a 'fantasy fucking Vietnam' style or combat as war (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.ca/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html?m=1) approach. Although I question how suited D&D really is to that style of play, which to me something like RQ seems better suited. The issue, such as it is, is when the clear implication or claim is that this is how D&D was played or 'meant'  to be played in an imaginary 'back in the day.' People acting tough over the way they play pretend will never not be silly.

Quote from: Voros;1010303The issue, such as it is, is when the clear implication or claim is that this is how D&D was played or 'meant' to be played in an imaginary 'back in the day.'

Has anyone on this thread made such claims?

No, but as we know Pundit is often reacting to something other than what the person he is speaking to actually said. That’s why I said ‘the issue, such as it is.’

Ummm... okay then.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010204A Green Devil Face waiting for an arm, forever.

:D
Pundit, that's amusing, but could you cut down on the exaggerations? Please?

Quote from: Séadna;1010230There was the box mockup of "Wanderer", outside of that I'm not sure. Personally I've never ran just a plain horror game in Traveller, SciFi with horror yes. For the others not at all. Would be interesting to try.

I should rephrase the original post. What would Lamentations have been like coming at its aesthetic from a hard SciFi angle rather than a picaresque Fantasy one and with the skill system of Traveller.

The assumption would change from dangerously greedy and maybe a bit mad adventurers going too far for treasure, to competent ex-military taking a contract to Death Station Doom. Possibly no different though!

There's also Mercator, which is free on the Zozer Games site, and Worlds Apart, and Flynn's guide to magic. You could, basically, run LotFP adventures with it:)!

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010255I don't think the skill system of Traveller limits the characters. Skills in Classic Traveller are not necessarily a definition of what one can do, but rather what one has expertise at. Specifically, per the text, they are what one can get paid to do. A former Marine in Classic Traveller can do many things -- but he's got a few skills he's so good at he can be paid to do them.

Have I told you that your view of Traveller skills reminds me of Careers in Barbarians of Lemuria?
Which is also a 2d6 system,now that I think of it...;)

QuoteFor example, if an engine stops working on a space ship you don't need to have a Mechanical skill to get it fixed. You could get it to a starport for repair. In the same way you don't need Time Stop to kill four opponents in the blink of an eye while they are helpless against your attacks. You could just kill them in normal combat at the risk of taking damage yourself. In both cases there are always ways of getting most things done in both games.... but relatively speaking, having a spell or skill allows a PCs to short-cut the process and invoke his desires faster.

Yes, in the sense that you use something on your sheet, roll dice, and get a result. But some spells don't require rolling, and therefore, have no chance of failure;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1010400Yes, in the sense that you use something on your sheet, roll dice, and get a result. But some spells don't require rolling, and therefore, have no chance of failure;).

I see your point about the rolling being different than an automatic success. But whether or not the use of the skill or spell is rolled isn't the issue at hand for me in this analogy, so the fact that there isn't a 1:1 comparison doesn't concern me. My point was to compare how we have come to think of skills today (a long list that can handle almost all things a human can do, with the skills on the character sheet being the go-to default for characters doing things), to the list of original Traveller (idiosyncratic and short, not at all a complete list of human talents and abilities, in a game where we simply talk between players as the default with the Referee making adjudications as needed, with rolling dice and maybe adding a skill DM not as the default for resolving issues but as the backup plan when the conversation element isn't enough for the Referee to make a call.) In such cases the use of a Situation Throw involving any number of the Traveller skills can make the journey of repairing a damaged engine (trek across this endless waste to reach civilization, and then kidnap a mechanic when no one at the starport is willing to help you) to a single roll that solves everything quickly.

Whether or not the party has someone with Mechanical skill, the ship can still be repaired. It simply might not be with a Situation Throw involving a Mechanical skill as a DM. It might be a whole adventure.

(In other words, the point is not to supply adventures the "ping" the skills the party has. It is to provide adventures. And if the skills are there to make the lives of the party easier, great. If not, their lives are more complicated. Pinging skills in RuneQuest, by contrast, is part of how the game works -- because skill advancement is done through rolling the skills. Classic Traveller does not work this way.)

I need to make it clear when I speak about mechanics I'm not talking solely about how one "rolls the dice" -- which is, I know, how most people defined RPG mechanics. I'm talking about how all the procedures fit together during play. That Classic Traveller is defined, on page 1 of Book 1, as a "conversation game" is a big statement about how play proceeds, and thus the mechanics of play.

The definition of "mechanics" as "how we roll the dice" is how we get lots of RPGs in which we look at our character sheet for what number to roll to solve problems, instead of focusing on the "conversation" part in which we simply talk, with the PCs coming up with out of the box ideas, often precluding the the need for die rolls.

To swing it all around, I think early D&D (and clones like LotFP) often work the same way. Which makes sense. Games like OD&D, original Traveller, and B/X D&D grew from a different soil than later RPGs.

As for BoL... I've played it and it's charming. But it does what later games do -- codifies all things down the character sheet for the roll to solve problems every time.

I'm really much more interested in these earlier RPGs that work more from the conversation between Referee and Players that does not depend on rolling as the default method of the PCs taking action. Things are much more freeform, with the conversation and evocative narration of how the PCs do things sometimes precluding the need for rolls, and providing ad hoc DMs if rolls are required.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010416Pinging skills in RuneQuest, by contrast, is part of how the game works -- because skill advancement is done through rolling the skills.

I've never felt the need to do that when running any variant of RQ. I must have missed where the rules told me to do that and have been doing it wrong all these years... I always saw it as being closer to Traveller (in how it's generally less concerned with character advancement as a primary goal) compared to D&D.
I must be playing it wrong too, because I use my character's concept to solve problems, how he'd see/approach the challenge, rather than look at the 'skill menu'. It's up to the GM to determine which skill, if any, applies to what action I declare my PC to be taking.

Quote from: Simlasa;1010420I've never felt the need to do that when running any variant of RQ. I must have missed where the rules told me to do that and have been doing it wrong all these years...

Never said you were doing it wrong.

Here is a passage from the RuneQuest 2 rules covering how to set up an adventure and run the game:

Quote"An adventure area, whether it be a section of forest, cave, old ruin, river etc. should provide the players with the following opportunities:
--experience in the use of his skills
--opportunity to obtain treasure and thereby purchase further training
--the chance to die in pursuit of the above
--enjoyment while doing all of the above"

[emphasis added]

No one is obliged to do as directed. You certainly aren't. I'm not. But it is there in the rulebook.

Whether or not one needs to follow those instructions, I mentioned RuneQuest in the reference of two points:

• First, that the mechanics of RuneQuest do demand application (as do many later RPGs) for improvement, in contrast to Traveller.
• Second, there are a LOT of people (not you!) who assume that the they need to build their Classic Traveller situation/scenarios around the skills the PCs possess. (Note this sentence from Séadna from a few posts back: "You'll tend to be narrower with a guy who is 'Str 16, Gun (Slug Pistol) 2 etc' than a guy who is just Str 16, especially as the former suggests particular scenarios to engage in." You can also find this notion posted regularly over at the Traveller-dedicated Citizens of the Imperium forum.) I mentioned RuneQuest because the Referee section says to tailor scenarios in this way, it was one of the first games to emphasize skills this way, and it influenced many later skill-driven RPGs. My point is that (whether or not you played RQ this way) it was one of the games that started a view of skill-use in RPGs that took hold that stands in contrast to the use of skills in original Traveller.

However, one can (and should) design scenarios and focus on skills (or not) exactly as one wants when running RuneQuest.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010426"An adventure area, whether it be a section of forest, cave, old ruin, river etc. should provide the players with the following opportunities:
--experience in the use of his skills
--opportunity to obtain treasure and thereby purchase further training
--the chance to die in pursuit of the above
--enjoyment while doing all of the above"

Interesting, that text is in RuneQuest 1, yet I never really made an attempt to provide challenges for most of the character's skills (and RQ 1 actually says "experience in the use of most of his skills"), I just set up scenarios or used modules or converted D&D modules. Interestingly, Traveller adventures, with their pregen PCs, may encourage more "build the adventure to suit the characters" than RuneQuest does with its adventures despite the two games suggesting the opposite...

Frank

For full info: The passage I quoted above is from page 102 of RuneQuest 2nd. (The fact that RQ1 said "most" is fascinating.)

As for the Traveller adventures... yeah. Adventure 1: The Kinunir had no pregens, and to this day remains for me the "most Classic Traveller" of the Classic Traveller adventures in its open ended nature and scope. As the Classic Traveller adventure line continued they became more linear, more dependent on having the correct skills, and, in general, more in line with the changing tastes of the RPG hobby.

There was things thing called Traveller... and then the expectations of the hobby changed, and the products released by GDW changed around the rules of Traveller even as the rules remained the same.

This, in my view, led to a lot of confusion as to why the game did not "work" -- when in fact it works fine if you use to do what it was supposed to do.

Quote from: Simlasa;1010420I must be playing it wrong too, because I use my character's concept to solve problems, how he'd see/approach the challenge, rather than look at the 'skill menu'. It's up to the GM to determine which skill, if any, applies to what action I declare my PC to be taking.

To be fair, while Runequest has skill and advancement through increasing skill, the way it written is very heavy on the roleplaying. I.e. pretending to be the character in the setting of the campaign (most of the time Glorantha). So your experience with Runequest doesn't surprise me.

And also the other main "point" of the mechanics was to better reflect Perrin and his group experienced renacting and fighting in the SCA than what D&D did. It wasn't to make a bunch of kewl powers and be fantasy superpowers.

Also another form of advancement in Runequest 2 is paying for training. If you want a broken Runequest character just get a lot of money, a GM who is lack on roleplaying the setting, and take advantage of every form of training.

Of course, if you are planting skill use in a RuneQuest adventure for them to gain experience, that doesn't suggest going with skills that are the player's strengths. A chance to use your Jump skill, which is still at the starting default of 15% is a lot more likely result in an increase than than a chance to use your Listen skill which has already reached 80%.

While the book is suggesting an adventure should include skill checks, that doesn't mean it is suggesting you need to tailor the adventure to "ping" the skills the group is good at. A random, realistic assortment of skill checks that make sense in the adventure environment is probably going to have a good balance of chances to use skills you have improved and ones that you could use practice in.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010457Of course, if you are planting skill use in a RuneQuest adventure for them to gain experience, that doesn't suggest going with skills that are the player's strengths. A chance to use your Jump skill, which is still at the starting default of 15% is a lot more likely result in an increase than than a chance to use your Listen skill which has already reached 80%.

While the book is suggesting an adventure should include skill checks, that doesn't mean it is suggesting you need to tailor the adventure to "ping" the skills the group is good at. A random, realistic assortment of skill checks that make sense in the adventure environment is probably going to have a good balance of chances to use skills you have improved and ones that you could use practice in.

An excellent point, and I shouldn't have written anything about the "skills the PCs are good at."

As for all the ways to play RuneQuest -- there are all the ways. I made a reference to it because of a passage in the text. I'm not knocking the game, nor using it as an example of "Bad RPGs." In fact, it is on my list of games I would love to play. So anyone wanting to arrive and defend the game is an awesome person -- but I feel a need now to point out no one is defending it from me -- because I'm not attacking it.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010454For full info: The passage I quoted above is from page 102 of RuneQuest 2nd. (The fact that RQ1 said "most" is fascinating.)

As for the Traveller adventures... yeah. Adventure 1: The Kinunir had no pregens, and to this day remains for me the "most Classic Traveller" of the Classic Traveller adventures in its open ended nature and scope. As the Classic Traveller adventure line continued they became more linear, more dependent on having the correct skills, and, in general, more in line with the changing tastes of the RPG hobby.

There was things thing called Traveller... and then the expectations of the hobby changed, and the products released by GDW changed around the rules of Traveller even as the rules remained the same.

This, in my view, led to a lot of confusion as to why the game did not "work" -- when in fact it works fine if you use to do what it was supposed to do.

Oh, I agree the direction the Traveller adventures took the "game" is very different from the game described in the 3 LBB. It's just interesting that RQ described something in the rules that was more like where Traveller adventures headed, while the RQ adventures initially at least were more of a sandbox, though they did also go the route of meta plot, but without sample characters, the skill check opportunities weren't tailored to the presumed PCs.

I think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play, and in fact, both are among the several games with mega-settings that inspire discussion and debate totally divorced from actually sitting down at the table, and both settings don't actually work with the rules...

In truth, a sandbox Traveller GM is going to offer many situations the PCs might be interested in, in part because their skills may be applicable (all the PCs are marines and army, the GM probably won't present them with many situations requiring operation of a star ship), and players are going to chase the situations they think they can succeed in.

Frank

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010458An excellent point, and I shouldn't have written anything about the "skills the PCs are good at."

As for all the ways to play RuneQuest -- there are all the ways. I made a reference to it because of a passage in the text. I'm not knocking the game, nor using it as an example of "Bad RPGs." In fact, it is on my list of games I would love to play. So anyone wanting to arrive and defend the game is an awesome person -- but I feel a need now to point out no one is defending it from me -- because I'm not attacking it.

Cool, I didn't think you were attacking it... For what it's worth, as a dedicated RQ fan from 1978, I do intend to eventually tackle an RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison in the same vein as I did for Classic Traveller. I might even include RQ 3... The big difference between how I view RQ and Traveller is that for RQ, I will use the setting, but I don't buy into the setting geekery that started to grow. I will run RQ in MY Glorantha.

Frank

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010426Never said you were doing it wrong.

Oh! I wasn't taking it that way... or rather, I sincerely thought I might be doing it wrong... which apparently I am.
I'm sure I'd read that passage in RQ2 several times but I guess I took it in a more general way... 'give them stuff to do'.
But I kinda don't care anyway because I've got no intention of starting to run adventures in such a way to make sure that PCs get power ups. I figure that it's up to them to direct their efforts towards stuff they're interested in... if they choose to spend all their time out in the wilderness they're probably going to gain on the relevant skills... while skills that might help them out in courtly intrigues will be dormant. That's what I always liked about the RQ/BRP XP system, your character becomes the character you play... you become a 'thief' by doing 'thief stuff'. One of my few gripes with Mythras is how they altered the XP system.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010416I see your point about the rolling being different than an automatic success. But whether or not the use of the skill or spell is rolled isn't the issue at hand for me in this analogy, so the fact that there isn't a 1:1 comparison doesn't concern me. My point was to compare how we have come to think of skills today (a long list that can handle almost all things a human can do, with the skills on the character sheet being the go-to default for characters doing things), to the list of original Traveller (idiosyncratic and short, not at all a complete list of human talents and abilities, in a game where we simply talk between players as the default with the Referee making adjudications as needed, with rolling dice and maybe adding a skill DM not as the default for resolving issues but as the backup plan when the conversation element isn't enough for the Referee to make a call.) In such cases the use of a Situation Throw involving any number of the Traveller skills can make the journey of repairing a damaged engine (trek across this endless waste to reach civilization, and then kidnap a mechanic when no one at the starport is willing to help you) to a single roll that solves everything quickly.

Well, yes, it can. Or you can roll 4 on the dice (1/6 odds), and your Mechanic skill ain't going to be enough...:D Compare with Mending, where there's no such chance.

QuoteWhether or not the party has someone with Mechanical skill, the ship can still be repaired. It simply might not be with a Situation Throw involving a Mechanical skill as a DM. It might be a whole adventure.

Indeed. From that point, it's a shortcut.
But there's always just two options to solve any problem. "Solve it yourself", and "find someone who can".

Quote(In other words, the point is not to supply adventures the "ping" the skills the party has. It is to provide adventures. And if the skills are there to make the lives of the party easier, great. If not, their lives are more complicated. Pinging skills in RuneQuest, by contrast, is part of how the game works -- because skill advancement is done through rolling the skills. Classic Traveller does not work this way.)

I've always played Runequest in the same way. If you can't roll a
Given the odds of failing a skill, you'd often need to play Runequest the same way. Because nobody made the roll:)!

QuoteI need to make it clear when I speak about mechanics I'm not talking solely about how one "rolls the dice" -- which is, I know, how most people defined RPG mechanics. I'm talking about how all the procedures fit together during play. That Classic Traveller is defined, on page 1 of Book 1, as a "conversation game" is a big statement about how play proceeds, and thus the mechanics of play.

The definition of "mechanics" as "how we roll the dice" is how we get lots of RPGs in which we look at our character sheet for what number to roll to solve problems, instead of focusing on the "conversation" part in which we simply talk, with the PCs coming up with out of the box ideas, often precluding the the need for die rolls.

I agree with the statement. But today, the same statement in PbtA games leads to cries of [STRIKE]"burn the heretic"[/STRIKE] "dirty narrativist"... Apocalypse World, for example, states it explicitly that the game is a conversation. That's why "when the conversation stalls", the Referee makes one of his Moves to liven it up.

QuoteTo swing it all around, I think early D&D (and clones like LotFP) often work the same way. Which makes sense. Games like OD&D, original Traveller, and B/X D&D grew from a different soil than later RPGs.

I'd say that all decent games run by good Referees run that way.

QuoteAs for BoL... I've played it and it's charming. But it does what later games do -- codifies all things down the character sheet for the roll to solve problems every time.

Wait, what? I'm not talking about how it works, that's down to the Referee.
I'm talking about the fact that you say that "Classic Traveller skills are things that you can get paid for doing". That's exactly what "skills" in BoL are, too - there's a reason they're named Careers.
And you can do everything else, too.
A well-played BoL game is also a conversation.

QuoteI'm really much more interested in these earlier RPGs that work more from the conversation between Referee and Players that does not depend on rolling as the default method of the PCs taking action. Things are much more freeform, with the conversation and evocative narration of how the PCs do things sometimes precluding the need for rolls, and providing ad hoc DMs if rolls are required.

Yeah, me too. That is why I like Powered by the Apocalypse games, and don't consider them "narrativist";).

Quote from: estar;1010456Also another form of advancement in Runequest 2 is paying for training. If you want a broken Runequest character just get a lot of money, a GM who is lack on roleplaying the setting, and take advantage of every form of training.

To be fair, it works like that in Traveller, too. You just need access to teachers and time. Get enough money to support yourself for 12 years, couple it with money for anagathics, and you can get real good, real fast, even in Classic Traveller - and it would only be faster in other editions.

Quote from: ffilz;1010459I think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play,

That's news for me.

Quoteand both settings don't actually work with the rules...

That's also news for me;).

Quote from: Simlasa;1010482That's what I always liked about the RQ/BRP XP system, your character becomes the character you play... you become a 'thief' by doing 'thief stuff'. One of my few gripes with Mythras is how they altered the XP system.

There's no problem altering it back;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1010693To be fair, it works like that in Traveller, too. You just need access to teachers and time. Get enough money to support yourself for 12 years, couple it with money for anagathics, and you can get real good, real fast, even in Classic Traveller - and it would only be faster in other editions.

Not in Books 1-3 Traveller. There you get one opportunity per character to spend 4 years and 70 kcr to gain a level 2 skill for teachers and time. Self improvement doesn't take money, but takes 8 years for permanent improvements (only 4 years if you are picking up new gun and blade skills).

Quote

QuoteI think the reality is that both games actually started off with the same style of sandbox play, and both followed the hobby into a different style of play,

That's news for me.

What I'm getting at is that the books present sandbox play, and even early adventures were sandboxes. But as time went on, the adventures became railroads. Look at the "Secret of the Ancients" series for Traveller, or Borderlands for RuneQuest.

Quote

Quoteand both settings don't actually work with the rules...

That's also news for me;).

Both settings have folks talking about ways in which the original rules don't work for the settings. Traveller Books 1-3 world generation and ship travel don't mesh with the 3I. Greg Stafford himself talked about how the RQ rules got it wrong. Heck, even MAR Barker diverged from the EPT rules for Tekumel.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1010710Not in Books 1-3 Traveller. There you get one opportunity per character to spend 4 years and 70 kcr to gain a level 2 skill for teachers and time. Self improvement doesn't take money, but takes 8 years for permanent improvements (only 4 years if you are picking up new gun and blade skills).

That's why I said 12 years and enough money;). Now make that 210 kcr, plus the cost for anagathics for 12 years, plus upkeep... about half a megacredit?

QuoteWhat I'm getting at is that the books present sandbox play, and even early adventures were sandboxes.

Yes. Which is why your statement that they don't, surprised me.

QuoteBut as time went on, the adventures became railroads. Look at the "Secret of the Ancients" series for Traveller, or Borderlands for RuneQuest.

As a general rule, I don't use adventures. (http://aflashingbladeandpanache.blogspot.bg/2013/05/why-i-dont-use-adventures-as-general.html) So while I'm ready to believe you...I consider them irrelevant to the game itself.
Well, at least I understand your meaning now:). But I respectfully disagree.

QuoteBoth settings have folks talking about ways in which the original rules don't work for the settings. Traveller Books 1-3 world generation and ship travel don't mesh with the 3I. Greg Stafford himself talked about how the RQ rules got it wrong.

Yes, I know. I just happen to disagree with said people, at least regarding Runequest.
Yes, that includes Greg Stafford. If anything, I think something like Pendragon, except with d100, would have been better for Glorantha. But since it's obvious to me that Pendragon is an evolution of Runequest, I can't blame anyone for not discovering the "evolved" rules from the start.
As for the Third Imperium, I don't use it for Traveller. I thought you're talking about the implied setting - sorry for misunderstanding you;)!
And I think T5 might be a good reflection of the 3I, but I can't really tell.

QuoteHeck, even MAR Barker diverged from the EPT rules for Tekumel.

That was to be expected. AFAIK, the setting of Tekumel predates the writing of any rules for it by a couple decades at least;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;1010727That's why I said 12 years and enough money;). Now make that 210 kcr, plus the cost for anagathics for 12 years, plus upkeep... about half a megacredit?

I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Instruction skill introduced in Book 4. The experience rules limit a character to a single sabbatical though. Not saying you can't change the rules (and they do mention GM crafted alternatives), just pointing out that what is presented in the rules is pretty limited.

QuoteYes. Which is why your statement that they don't, surprised me.

Well, there's just that one line in RQ1/2 about providing opportunities for the PCs to use their skills, but that still isn't a railroad.

Traveller adventures became railroads much quicker (DA2 forces the start for both it's scenarios) compared to RQ adventures, but overall, I think they were just following the industry, D&D adventures became more railroaded as time went on. While not everyone uses adventures, a significant number of folks do so they do give an idea of what the overall gaming community is like.

QuoteYes, I know. I just happen to disagree with said people, at least regarding Runequest.
Yes, that includes Greg Stafford. If anything, I think something like Pendragon, except with d100, would have been better for Glorantha. But since it's obvious to me that Pendragon is an evolution of Runequest, I can't blame anyone for not discovering the "evolved" rules from the start.
As for the Third Imperium, I don't use it for Traveller. I thought you're talking about the implied setting - sorry for misunderstanding you;)!
And I think T5 might be a good reflection of the 3I, but I can't really tell.


That was to be expected. AFAIK, the setting of Tekumel predates the writing of any rules for it by a couple decades at least;)!

Obviously the rules work for the implied setting since that's the setting derived from the rules...

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1010728I wasn't sure if you were referring to the Instruction skill introduced in Book 4. The experience rules limit a character to a single sabbatical though. Not saying you can't change the rules (and they do mention GM crafted alternatives), just pointing out that what is presented in the rules is pretty limited.

OK, I'd forgotten about the "single sabbatical" part:). Still, I read it as "without adventures in-between".

QuoteWell, there's just that one line in RQ1/2 about providing opportunities for the PCs to use their skills, but that still isn't a railroad.

Agreed.

QuoteTraveller adventures became railroads much quicker (DA2 forces the start for both it's scenarios) compared to RQ adventures, but overall, I think they were just following the industry, D&D adventures became more railroaded as time went on. While not everyone uses adventures, a significant number of folks do so they do give an idea of what the overall gaming community is like.

I contest that "they give an idea of what the overall community is like". For the people that don't use them, they're no indication.
If all of the industry was to switch to railroaded adventures tomorrow, it would be years before I even noticed...and I wouldn't change my approach one bit as a result;).

QuoteObviously the rules work for the implied setting since that's the setting derived from the rules...

By "implied setting", I mean "the setting of 70ies SF novels and shows, not "whatever the rules hint at:D"! Apologies for the misunderstanding, here.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1010210Names. Specific names. What specific people say things like "this is how the OSR is supposed to be played!" or are the "you guys" in "You guys are pissed now that other people are getting tired of the fad, I get that."

Who?

What's the point? Are you denying this attitude exists? Are you going to pretend that this isn't something that a bunch of Grognard edgelords have been pushing in the OSR for years now?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1010244DFD 2nd Ed. tells the Referee to place a McGuffin the PCs are seeking behind the Sacred Parasite that stands in the same spot where the vine-thing is in the first edition. One PC got around the creature without making it stop singing and reached the McGuffin. It was risky and they lucked out... but decided the risk was worth it to get the McGuffin.

How did he manage that? Is it in the book? Because I don't recall there being any option to 'get around the creature' in 1e. If not, you basically just made up a way to avoid the thing that I'm arguing makes DFD a negadungeon and are thus calling it not-a-negadungeon, because, again, you cheated.

Quote from: estar;1010272So which subset of the OSR is next on your hit list? The gonzo crowd? The sandbox guys like myself and Autarch(ACKS)?

I've never seen any Gonzo types saying "all OSR play should be gonzo, that was the real way they did it in Real-Old-School-Times, and anyone not making their game gonzo is some kind of pussy".

Nor for that matter with sandbox; though some sandbox fans can sometimes get a bit pushy about extolling the virtues of the method.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011357I've never seen any Gonzo types saying "all OSR play should be gonzo, that was the real way they did it in Real-Old-School-Times, and anyone not making their game gonzo is some kind of pussy".

Maybe the unnamed guys who insist all OSR play should be gonzo are hanging out with your unnamed friends who insist all OSR play should be negadungeons. They both seem equally plausible.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011368Maybe the unnamed guys who insist all OSR play should be gonzo are hanging out with your unnamed friends who insist all OSR play should be negadungeons. They both seem equally plausible.

I think

Quoteis some kind of pussy".

is the insult directed at negadungeons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011355What's the point? Are you denying this attitude exists? Are you going to pretend that this isn't something that a bunch of Grognard edgelords have been pushing in the OSR for years now?

I haven't really kept up on the blogs regularly for years, I'm just following a specific subset of people these days and they're certainly not saying "This way is THE way!" Was wondering if you were following someone who was saying that or were just twisting people saying "This is the best, my favorite, more of this woohoo!"

But, as expected, you didn't give a straight answer so who knows where your opinion comes from. Makes you look like you're completely full of shit.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011368Maybe the unnamed guys who insist all OSR play should be gonzo are hanging out with your unnamed friends who insist all OSR play should be negadungeons. They both seem equally plausible.

Or equally nonexistent.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1011393I haven't really kept up on the blogs regularly for years, I'm just following a specific subset of people these days and they're certainly not saying "This way is THE way!" Was wondering if you were following someone who was saying that or were just twisting people saying "This is the best, my favorite, more of this woohoo!"

But, as expected, you didn't give a straight answer so who knows where your opinion comes from. Makes you look like you're completely full of shit.

That answer he gave you was straight out of a political hack playbook:  ignore the actual question, instead answer the question you wish you were asked, otherwise deflect by changing topics or going on the offensive and hope no one notices how you avoided answering a simple question.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011432That answer he gave you was straight out of a political hack playbook:  ignore the actual question, instead answer the question you wish you were asked, otherwise deflect by changing topics or going on the offensive and hope no one notices how you avoided answering a simple question.

And in keeping with with his love of the bullshit idea of that the message is the medium.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1011393I haven't really kept up on the blogs regularly for years, I'm just following a specific subset of people these days and they're certainly not saying "This way is THE way!" Was wondering if you were following someone who was saying that or were just twisting people saying "This is the best, my favorite, more of this woohoo!"

But, as expected, you didn't give a straight answer so who knows where your opinion comes from. Makes you look like you're completely full of shit.

To be fair Pundit isn't just inventing this attitude wholecloth.
 This blog post by Dungeondelver (https://thedelversdungeon.blogspot.ca/2017/03/irritated-with-latest-nonsense-from.html) represents the view of a loud by small minority, restricted to their echo chamber forums more often than not, who view anyone trying to do something different, in particular LoftP, as 'game tourists' who are daring to put their sticky artfag fingers all over THEIR precious and pure D&D.

Now this type probably hates negadungeons, at least when they're not made by Gygax or their own clique.

And I think anyone who frequents forums is familiar with those strange types who pose and preen about how 'tough' they are when they play pretend elves. They emphasize and imo exaggerate the lethality of D&D to the exclusion of almost all else and certainly do imply that anyone who doesn't play that way is a pussy.

Come to think of it doesn't the Pundit run an ongoing DCC RPG campaign (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/05/dcc-campaign-update-come-at-me-bro.html)? The RPG only has character funnels and ludicrously deadly random table and dungeons.

Quote from: estar;1011481Come to think of it doesn't the Pundit run an ongoing DCC RPG campaign (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/05/dcc-campaign-update-come-at-me-bro.html)? The RPG only has character funnels and ludicrously deadly random table and dungeons.

Nobody expects DCC to not kill you though. It doesn't try to hide it.

Quote from: Voros;1011444To be fair Pundit isn't just inventing this attitude wholecloth.
 This blog post by Dungeondelver (https://thedelversdungeon.blogspot.ca/2017/03/irritated-with-latest-nonsense-from.html) represents the view of a loud by small minority, restricted to their echo chamber forums more often than not, who view anyone trying to do something different, in particular LoftP, as 'game tourists' who are daring to put their sticky artfag fingers all over THEIR precious and pure D&D.

Now this type probably hates negadungeons, at least when they're not made by Gygax or their own clique.

And I think anyone who frequents forums is familiar with those strange types who pose and preen about how 'tough' they are when they play pretend elves. They emphasize and imo exaggerate the lethality of D&D to the exclusion of almost all else and certainly do imply that anyone who doesn't play that way is a pussy.

If I am following your post, you have found a blog post saying that all D&D should be x, therefore Pundit has a point in claiming that there are people saying that all D&D should be y.

Haha...I didn't say he was 100 percent correct. I've certainly never seen anyone claim funnels and negadungeons are the only way D&D is supposed to be played. But I have seen the strong suggestion that high lethality is the right 'Old School' way to play.

I dunno... sometimes people lobbying for a specific style of play get called out for claiming it's the 'one true way' when all they're trying to do it extol its virtues and let people know why they prefer it.

I myself much prefer deadlier games... not necessarily meaning I want more death in the game, but I want things (a pack of wild dogs, a huge swarm of rats, goblins) to remain a viable threat. I don't want my fantasy PC to become a superhero.
But I'd never say that (or any other style of D&D) was 'right'.
Yesterday I just picked up the 1Pot RPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/223943/1pot-rules-system--house-rules-for-old-school-RPGs), hoping it's got ideas that will support that sort of thing (and I'm lucky to have friends that share my tastes).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011493Nobody expects DCC to not kill you though. It doesn't try to hide it.

The lethality of DCC drops off fairly sharply once you're past first level. Some of the scarier random results, such as for magic, only come into play on rare occasions.
Outside of the DCC funnel I'd say our straight B/X games are just as lethal... at least in early levels.

Yeah, but the way the game is /marketed/ is all about the funnel. If you stopped at the marketing the game IS the funnel. It is what makes it special. That and the wacky rules and gonzo setting.

I agree about the marketing/hype, but I think there are plenty of other elements to DCC that set it apart, post-funnel.
Stuff like Mighty Deeds, variable magic, its Luck rules, magical Patrons, Clerics gaining/losing favor with their gods and seeking atonement.

Quote from: Voros;1011444To be fair Pundit isn't just inventing this attitude wholecloth.
 This blog post by Dungeondelver (https://thedelversdungeon.blogspot.ca/2017/03/irritated-with-latest-nonsense-from.html) represents the view of a loud by small minority, restricted to their echo chamber forums more often than not, who view anyone trying to do something different, in particular LoftP, as 'game tourists' who are daring to put their sticky artfag fingers all over THEIR precious and pure D&D.

This post reminds me why I don't read delversdungeon:).
Amusingly, those people would be best served by playing Dark Heresy, or another 40k game where "Close your mind" is the right attitude:D!

QuoteAnd I think anyone who frequents forums is familiar with those strange types who pose and preen about how 'tough' they are when they play pretend elves. They emphasize and imo exaggerate the lethality of D&D to the exclusion of almost all else and certainly do imply that anyone who doesn't play that way is a pussy.

Nerds playing tough and acting like it's a mark of manhood or something is nothing new. But those types are best dealt with individually;).
If they prefer playing this way, though? Well, I don't see why a publisher shouldn't deliver them products that enable that:)!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011493Nobody expects DCC to not kill you though. It doesn't try to hide it.

I don't expect it. Never seen a character die that was past the 0-level "Larvae PC" stage;).
And so far, DCC is delivering what I expect.

Quote from: AsenRG;1011563If they prefer playing this way, though? Well, I don't see why a publisher shouldn't deliver them products that enable that:)!

I definitely see the appeal of a high lethality game, I just prefer CoC for PCs dying in blackly hilarious ways.

Quote from: Voros;1011790I definitely see the appeal of a high lethality game, I just prefer CoC for PCs dying in blackly hilarious ways.

I've still not lost a PC in CoC;). Last time I actually played a dilettante with no combat skills, it was the CoC7 Free RPG Day adventure.

Quote from: AsenRG;1011803I've still not lost a PC in CoC;). Last time I actually played a dilettante with no combat skills, it was the CoC7 Free RPG Day adventure.

If living a long time is your goal, you want a character with foreign languages or occult skill and no weapon skills. I had a journalist character that lasted in a campaign of a couple of years without dying. I had great mundane investigation skills, so my character was actually useful during play, it's just that when combat broke out, the characters that actually had combat skills would leap in and die, and when we found creepy grimoires, the occult-obsessed characters that could read Latin would take over.

This was only my second CoC character ever, and I didn't actually follow this strategy on purpose. I just wanted to play a '20s newspaper reporter. I just realized the benefits of my character build over time. I also came to realize that sometimes I'd rather play the character at more risk to go crazy and die, so I have never made this character build again.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011804If living a long time is your goal, you want a character with foreign languages or occult skill and no weapon skills.

Actually, my Dilettante only knew French and no Occult to speak of, but he had weapons skills. He just wasn't carrying the relevant weapons when we got to the confrontation:).
Which was better than another PC, who had absolutely no weapons. So I had to loan him my rapier cane, which I was skilled with. I was worried he might make a mess if I was to give him my S&W, especially after we saw the crates with TNT in the sorcerer's lair;).

Quote from: JimLotFP;1011393I haven't really kept up on the blogs regularly for years, I'm just following a specific subset of people these days and they're certainly not saying "This way is THE way!" Was wondering if you were following someone who was saying that or were just twisting people saying "This is the best, my favorite, more of this woohoo!"

But, as expected, you didn't give a straight answer so who knows where your opinion comes from. Makes you look like you're completely full of shit.

And you ask for specific examples so that you can then nitpick details out of 10 years of blogging or whatever to claim "no see, he doesn't mean that! He said this one time 'you can play whatever style you want' so that invalidates 100 posts where he implied that if you didn't play his particular way you weren't a real old-school gamer!"

Here's a rule: if something has become so much a part of common knowledge that it's a stereotype, you don't really need 'evidence'. If I say "Evangelical Christians are preachy", and you try to claim that there isn't a single preachy christian on earth, the onus is on you to explain why something so commonly known is somehow totally wrong.

Ridiculous denials don't require any response other than ridicule.

Quote from: estar;1011481Come to think of it doesn't the Pundit run an ongoing DCC RPG campaign (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/05/dcc-campaign-update-come-at-me-bro.html)? The RPG only has character funnels and ludicrously deadly random table and dungeons.

I've run a DCC campaign for like 5 years now. There are players with characters as high as 8th level there (in a game where 10th is the maximum and ridiculously powerful compared to a 10th level D&D PC).

Now, mind you, you bring up an interesting point: if I was to say "there's a contingent of DCC fanboys who claim that the only thing DCC should be used for is ultra-lethal character-funnel games", I wouldn't really need to go and write an essay with citations of this, because it's so endemic to RPG forums and blogs and social media that only a retard would pretend it wasn't true.

But you can use DCC for something so much more than that.

And speaking of which, my RPGPundit Presents (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/32/Precis-Intermedia/subcategory/126_28809/RPGPundit-Presents) series will be full of material from my own DCC Last Sun campaign that people will be able to use to run in DCC games that are about more than deadly dungeons for 0-level characters.


It's also going to gradually lay out my campaign world.  This has already started, with my Pundit Presents issue on Hipster Elves (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/224743/RPGPundit-Presents-4-Hipster-Elves)!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012888Now, mind you, you bring up an interesting point: if I was to say "there's a contingent of DCC fanboys who claim that the only thing DCC should be used for is ultra-lethal character-funnel games", I wouldn't really need to go and write an essay with citations of this, because it's so endemic to RPG forums and blogs and social media that only a retard would pretend it wasn't true.

But you can use DCC for something so much more than that.

So to the paint DCC and its adventure solely about ultra-lethal character-funnels isn't the complete picture. That the reality is more nuanced and complex.

To me you acting just like a person who read the DCC RPG, what people say about and concludes that is only good for running lethal character funnels. Yet obviously it more than that because it inspired you to create everything that in your campaign including hipster elves.

Death Frost Doom and weird horror in general is not how I generally roll with the fantasy genre in my campaigns.However I recognize that is struck a chord with many in the hobby. Enough that it is a Gold Seller on RPGNow and a PLATINUM seller on DriveThruRPG.  Now isn't possible that despite your criticism and dislike that it is possible that other people are seeing something you are not? Just like you see that the DCC RPG can be more than just lethal character funnels.

Do people not like the lethal character funnels in DCC?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012908Do people not like the lethal character funnels in DCC?

Yes there are people who find the lethal character funnel of the DCC RPG stupid, and some that even think that the only thing that the game is good for or at least is all about over the top blood, gore, and mayhem.

The problem is that the hobby likes to simplistically peg an RPG as being about only one thing. Or in this particular an adventure.  I find this rarely to be case as even narrow RPGs and adventures are windows to a larger world even if isn't much is written about that world in the product itself.

I though Pundit originally liked Lotfp and Death Frost Doom.  His criticism is that after Death Frost Doom raggi kept using the same schtick (with exceptions like Better Than Any Man and what not) and that if its not worth it going on an adventure or exploring the dungeon, its a negadungeon.
By the way I think most of the Lotfp aren't "negadungeons" even if there is a subset of people that actually specifically enjoy negadungeons (maybe for the horror factor?).  
In any case isn't Pundits critic pretty much the same from Bryce Lynch's ten foot pole reviews? (Of which many are very positive).
Sometimes I think Pundits absolutist way of saying things causes more opposition than what he is actually saying.

Quote from: estar;1012907So to the paint DCC and its adventure solely about ultra-lethal character-funnels isn't the complete picture. That the reality is more nuanced and complex.

To me you acting just like a person who read the DCC RPG, what people say about and concludes that is only good for running lethal character funnels. Yet obviously it more than that because it inspired you to create everything that in your campaign including hipster elves.

Death Frost Doom and weird horror in general is not how I generally roll with the fantasy genre in my campaigns.However I recognize that is struck a chord with many in the hobby. Enough that it is a Gold Seller on RPGNow and a PLATINUM seller on DriveThruRPG.  Now isn't possible that despite your criticism and dislike that it is possible that other people are seeing something you are not? Just like you see that the DCC RPG can be more than just lethal character funnels.

I don't deny that there's people who put negadungeons and fantasy-fucking-vietnam into one part of a larger context, just as there are DCC players who do more than ultra-lethal funnels.

That doesn't change the fact  that there are a lot of people who use DCC for nothing but funnels, and people who get incredibly pretentious about negadungeons and fantasy-fucking-vietnam as if these were some kind of more evolved or sophisticated type of OSR play, or the 'right' way to run D&D.

Quote from: Malfi;1013073I though Pundit originally liked Lotfp and Death Frost Doom.

I still like LotFP. As a system, it was real genius in its time.

Yeah I don't see how the thing you get out of dcc is just the funnel. I mean its obviously kinda gimmicky, but its also obvious that dcc has lots of crazier stuff than that.
The weird thing about dcc is its supposed to be very lethal but at high levels it may be very easy to overwhelm even level appropriate opposition.

Quote from: AsenRG;1011563Dark Heresy, or another 40k game where "Close your mind" is the right attitude:D!

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt. :D

Pundit, Zak did put in a way to get past the creature (that replaces the vine), so it definitely is possible to get what you came for and not release the Zombipocalypse.  Kubasik's not lying or cheating.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013657That doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who use DCC for nothing but funnels, and people who get incredibly pretentious about negadungeons and fantasy-fucking-vietnam as if these were some kind of more evolved or sophisticated type of OSR play, or the 'right' way to run D&D.

I don't know how many people actually just play DCC as funnels... the funnel gets a lot of talk but it alone forgoes nearly the entire rulebook in regards to the PCs. I hear the noise but doubt all that many people are just playing funnels.
I can't say I've ever seen anyone saying that 'negadungeons' are the right way to play D&D... unless you're using some wacky definition of what a 'negadungeon' is... which you probably are. Who is saying this?

Quote from: Malfi;1013661The weird thing about dcc is its supposed to be very lethal but at high levels it may be very easy to overwhelm even level appropriate opposition.

It can still be quite lethal at higher levels if you're careless. Last night our group was very nearly TPKd in one shot by a dragon... well, it was a TPK but the GM pulled a (fairly plausible) bit of dragon-ex-machina. The only permadeath was my 5th level wizard... who had earlier taken out a whole beastman warband with one spell.
It's easy to start feeling very powerful and make dumbass moves (but it wasn't my idea to put the entire party on the back of a dragon and fly into battle).

Quote from: Simlasa;1013712It can still be quite lethal at higher levels if you're careless. Last night our group was very nearly TPKd in one shot by a dragon... well, it was a TPK but the GM pulled a (fairly plausible) bit of dragon-ex-machina. The only permadeath was my 5th level wizard... who had earlier taken out a whole beastman warband with one spell.
It's easy to start feeling very powerful and make dumbass moves (but it wasn't my idea to put the entire party on the back of a dragon and fly into battle).

The thing that scares me in dcc are the high hd monster crits. There is pretty much nothing you can do about them.
Also dragons in dcc are really on another level compared to normal monsters and it seems that having a dragon on yourside doesn't help against the evil dragons breath weapon.

Quote from: Malfi;1013774The thing that scares me in dcc are the high hd monster crits. There is pretty much nothing you can do about them.
Also dragons in dcc are really on another level compared to normal monsters and it seems that having a dragon on yourside doesn't help against the evil dragons breath weapon.

Yes, as our group found out, dragons in DCC are fucking terrifying. It's a feature, not a bug.
The rule that ended up saving (most of) the group was the 'roll the body' rule... which kicks in at 1st level. If your PC falls in battle, and the body can be recovered, it gets a single Luck check to see if maybe it's not quite as dead as it looked. That's why my wizard stayed dead, because she'd burned most of her Luck a few sessions earlier due to a trapped spellbook she'd found.
Being low on Luck is a bad thing... it doesn't automatically return to you, and being low will bring bad things your way (such as when the GM is determining who a random attack is aimed at). It's extra bad for wizards to be low on Luck.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012885Here's a rule: if something has become so much a part of common knowledge that it's a stereotype, you don't really need 'evidence'.

Brilliant that you suggest that stereotypes should just be accepted as true.

Precious how you present yourself as the more reasonable reaction to the stereotypes that you invent.

No need to discuss, examine, or reflect.

A+ brainpower on display. Full marks.

Quote from: Simlasa;1013712It can still be quite lethal at higher levels if you're careless. Last night our group was very nearly TPKd in one shot by a dragon... well, it was a TPK but the GM pulled a (fairly plausible) bit of dragon-ex-machina. The only permadeath was my 5th level wizard... who had earlier taken out a whole beastman warband with one spell.
It's easy to start feeling very powerful and make dumbass moves (but it wasn't my idea to put the entire party on the back of a dragon and fly into battle).

Yes, that's certainly been my experience too. We've had at least three of what we call "total party Bills", where every mid or high-level character except Bill the Elf ended up killed.

Quote from: JimLotFP;1013895Brilliant that you suggest that stereotypes should just be accepted as true.

Precious how you present yourself as the more reasonable reaction to the stereotypes that you invent.

No need to discuss, examine, or reflect.

A+ brainpower on display. Full marks.

When you're denying something that is so well-known as to become a joke, it's not my job to convince you to stop trying to deny reality.

It's like, if you're pretending that not one catholic priest has ever abused a kid. There's been so much public information to the contrary it would really fall on you to prove why all of it is made up.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom on September 20, 2017, 08:07:36 AM
Some ok stuff in there but Dungeon of the Unknown is terrible. Were Ken Hites Quelong and Kelvin Greens Forgive Us in the first bundle? If not, they are missing here - good books, both of them.

As a whole I've grown pretty bored with LotFP - especially that James stills hasn't bothered putting out the new version of the Ref Book - crowdfunded in f*cking 2013 and at that time was super urgent so the The Rules and Magic book wouldn't stand useless and alone or as the Indigogo campaign said "the new version of the game as a whole cannot yet go into the retail chain where it attracts new fans."

Bah. James should just admit that he is more interested in/making more money from scenarios and settings than his own system and admit the book is never going to happen - embarrasing as it is.

From the latest announcements on Facebook, it will be coming out in the next publishing cycle, (I am guessing early 2022, making it only 3 years late from the IndieGoGo estimated year of completion). 8 new books will be coming out at the end of this month.

Quote from: VhaidraSaga on September 11, 2021, 02:26:34 PM
From the latest announcements on Facebook, it will be coming out in the next publishing cycle, (I am guessing early 2022, making it only 3 years late from the IndieGoGo estimated year of completion). 8 new books will be coming out at the end of this month.

"Only" 3 years :) I'll believe it once I have it in my hands... but fingers crossed and a good reason to necro this ol' thread. I'm personally way past LoTFP today, even if I picked up a book, and got it signed, on Spiel ´19. But I wish the system Godspeed... if nothing else, my ol' books and the box-set will keep their value.

And that original completion year was (intended as) a joke in the first place.

I really like the LotFP core system and have run it and enjoyed it. I'd love to see a new version with more stuff or new ideas. It's weird because it's author isn't that into it.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on September 12, 2021, 05:32:49 PM
I really like the LotFP core system and have run it and enjoyed it. I'd love to see a new version with more stuff or new ideas. It's weird because it's author isn't that into it.

As I have said before I only recently got into the OSR and LofFP was my introduction to it. That core rulebook you can get on Amazon has gorgeous art and said art was the only way I was able to pry my group away from 5E. It really drew them in. And the game I ran reinforced that vibe they got from the book.

As b/x games go I've since looked at others and most are just straight up retro clones with no changes. I love the layout of the OSE Advanced rules and will be using that too. But for whatever reason, LotFP is the only b/x clone to fix the Thief. They actually have a use beyond just poking traps and hoping they don't die. Also it completely ignores the attack matrix. I always prefer ascending AC as my stupid philistine brain can't do Maths the greatest anyway. So why not make it easier for myself.

LotFP had some amazing splatbooks and Veins of the Earth is my favourite. By far. Love the monster designs and ideas for campaign settings and I'm using it for my Arx Fatalis inspired setting.

However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

Yeah this is where you go for ZakS's books.  Red & Pleasant Land for Alice in Wonderland mixed with vampires should do wonders.  Perhaps you prefer the Maze of the Blue Medusa which is actually a art museum of the dead and long forgotten things.  Frostbitten is good if you want to deal with savage amazons in the far frozen north.

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on September 12, 2021, 05:32:49 PM
I really like the LotFP core system and have run it and enjoyed it. I'd love to see a new version with more stuff or new ideas. It's weird because it's author isn't that into it.

As I have said before I only recently got into the OSR and LofFP was my introduction to it. That core rulebook you can get on Amazon has gorgeous art and said art was the only way I was able to pry my group away from 5E. It really drew them in. And the game I ran reinforced that vibe they got from the book.

As b/x games go I've since looked at others and most are just straight up retro clones with no changes. I love the layout of the OSE Advanced rules and will be using that too. But for whatever reason, LotFP is the only b/x clone to fix the Thief. They actually have a use beyond just poking traps and hoping they don't die. Also it completely ignores the attack matrix. I always prefer ascending AC as my stupid philistine brain can't do Maths the greatest anyway. So why not make it easier for myself.

LotFP had some amazing splatbooks and Veins of the Earth is my favourite. By far. Love the monster designs and ideas for campaign settings and I'm using it for my Arx Fatalis inspired setting.

However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

I understand what you mean there, not every release is everyone's cup of tea. VAM and EC have a cool concept of miscasting, but I do not care for the actual spells or optional test rules other than that. "Fish Fuckers", while a crazy name, is actually a really cool adventure that has an unusual sequel in "More Than Meets the Eye" I am currently running a campaign that will be connecting a lot of the adventures from their Adventure Anthologies to "Better Than Any Man" and then to the Zak S. Adventures and then the Patrick Stuart Adventures as my table prefers more high fantasy medieval adventure campaigns.

Quote from: Snowman0147 on September 13, 2021, 12:30:33 PM
Yeah this is where you go for ZakS's books.  Red & Pleasant Land for Alice in Wonderland mixed with vampires should do wonders.  Perhaps you prefer the Maze of the Blue Medusa which is actually a art museum of the dead and long forgotten things.  Frostbitten is good if you want to deal with savage amazons in the far frozen north.

Yes, I wish Zak would be uncancelled and could publish (as hardcovers) Cube World and his other other cancelled adventures  that are currently only available as PDFs on his blog.

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

I would encourage you to research it a little further. LotFP does not seem to operate at all on the left/right axis.

Raggi is anti-authoritarian, so things like VaM and EC, which were hardcover Free RPGs books, were more about jamming a thumb in the eye of pearl-clutchers. Basically every time the vocal minority in the industry told him what he *should* do, he doubled down and did the opposite.

And yes, some of it is super out there. On my bucket list is running Death Love Doom for a group of 4-5 people whose only exposure to the hobby is Critical Role.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 13, 2021, 12:39:57 PMI would encourage you to research it a little further. LotFP does not seem to operate at all on the left/right axis.

Raggi is anti-authoritarian, so things like VaM and EC, which were hardcover Free RPGs books, were more about jamming a thumb in the eye of pearl-clutchers. Basically every time the vocal minority in the industry told him what he *should* do, he doubled down and did the opposite.

And yes, some of it is super out there. On my bucket list is running Death Love Doom for a group of 4-5 people whose only exposure to the hobby is Critical Role.

True. I would love for you to stream running DLD for newbies who have only experienced CR. That would be amazing to watch!

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

If you think Vaginas are Magic and Eldritch Cock are Woke, you're badly misinformed.

Puerile would be a better word.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

If you think Vaginas are Magic and Eldritch Cock are Woke, you're badly misinformed.

Puerile would be a better word.

Wokies ARE the kind of people who'd write this shit thinking it was some rebellion against Corporations. Whilst simultainiously sucking off WotC, Disney and others.

Raggi hired wokeies that stabbed him in the back when he posted a picture of himself with Jordan Peterson. They were already pissed off that he defended the unpersoned Zak. I checked a lot of Raggi's blog stuff and he was absolutely a woke cultist before then. Like a lot of them, he still thinks he's a 90's to late 00's leftist and being edgy is acceptable to his woke friends. But also supported all the woke tickboxes.    And that's before we get into people he hired. Like a lot of wokies. Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back. Some like Zak, produced pretty good work despite being the typical male feminist. Others produced some really awful products under the LotFP banner.

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 01:37:54 PM

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

If you think Vaginas are Magic and Eldritch Cock are Woke, you're badly misinformed.

Puerile would be a better word.

Wokies ARE the kind of people who'd write this shit thinking it was some rebellion against Corporations. Whilst simultainiously sucking off WotC, Disney and others.

Raggi hired wokeies that stabbed him in the back when he posted a picture of himself with Jordan Peterson. They were already pissed off that he defended the unpersoned Zak. I checked a lot of Raggi's blog stuff and he was absolutely a woke cultist before then. Like a lot of them, he still thinks he's a 90's to late 00's leftist and being edgy is acceptable to his woke friends. But also supported all the woke tickboxes.    And that's before we get into people he hired. Like a lot of wokies. Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back. Some like Zak, produced pretty good work despite being the typical male feminist. Others produced some really awful products under the LotFP banner.

I don't think you have any idea what "Woke" means.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:43:18 PM
I don't think you have any idea what "Woke" means.

It's "word to describe something I don't like", right?  ::)

But yeah, describing James and/or Lamentations (especially the silly Vagina-Cock books... still mad, that they were given away free!) as woke, is real weird. And not the good kind of weird. 

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 01:37:54 PM

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
However, something fucked must have happened because I tried looking for more recent LotFP content and they took a nosedive quick. Some of the most obnoxious woke shit I've seen. Maybe I'm just an old bloke but I can't imagine entertaining guests or other RPG gamers in my house with a book of fucking Vagina magic on my shelf. Hideous looking books that seem to have been made by and for 12 year olds discovering they have a cock and balls for the first time. They seemed to have become the norm for LotFP and I'm told the contents of the books are also lacking. Which is a real shame because I was and still am so very sold on the atmosphere and vibe of LotFP as presented in the original rule book.

If you think Vaginas are Magic and Eldritch Cock are Woke, you're badly misinformed.

Puerile would be a better word.

Wokies ARE the kind of people who'd write this shit thinking it was some rebellion against Corporations. Whilst simultainiously sucking off WotC, Disney and others.

Raggi hired wokeies that stabbed him in the back when he posted a picture of himself with Jordan Peterson. They were already pissed off that he defended the unpersoned Zak. I checked a lot of Raggi's blog stuff and he was absolutely a woke cultist before then. Like a lot of them, he still thinks he's a 90's to late 00's leftist and being edgy is acceptable to his woke friends. But also supported all the woke tickboxes.    And that's before we get into people he hired. Like a lot of wokies. Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back. Some like Zak, produced pretty good work despite being the typical male feminist. Others produced some really awful products under the LotFP banner.

What the fuck did I just read?

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 01:37:54 PMWokies ARE the kind of people who'd write this shit thinking it was some rebellion against Corporations. Whilst simultainiously sucking off WotC, Disney and others.

Raggi hired wokeies that stabbed him in the back when he posted a picture of himself with Jordan Peterson. They were already pissed off that he defended the unpersoned Zak. I checked a lot of Raggi's blog stuff and he was absolutely a woke cultist before then. Like a lot of them, he still thinks he's a 90's to late 00's leftist and being edgy is acceptable to his woke friends. But also supported all the woke tickboxes.    And that's before we get into people he hired. Like a lot of wokies. Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back. Some like Zak, produced pretty good work despite being the typical male feminist. Others produced some really awful products under the LotFP banner.

This is fantastic. If this is how your brain works, then without knowing anything else about you, I want to offer you a contract to write a project. Your way with words, your logic pathways... it's so obvious anything you write would be pure drugs.

Get in touch.

Again, I think LotFP is a terrific BX implementation. It certainly deserves a new edition - I'd prefer a magic system that was less weird sex stuff though but still had some of those great innovations (random dangerous results, level-less).

Quote from: JimLotFP on September 14, 2021, 08:46:47 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 01:37:54 PMWokies ARE the kind of people who'd write this shit thinking it was some rebellion against Corporations. Whilst simultainiously sucking off WotC, Disney and others.

Raggi hired wokeies that stabbed him in the back when he posted a picture of himself with Jordan Peterson. They were already pissed off that he defended the unpersoned Zak. I checked a lot of Raggi's blog stuff and he was absolutely a woke cultist before then. Like a lot of them, he still thinks he's a 90's to late 00's leftist and being edgy is acceptable to his woke friends. But also supported all the woke tickboxes.    And that's before we get into people he hired. Like a lot of wokies. Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back. Some like Zak, produced pretty good work despite being the typical male feminist. Others produced some really awful products under the LotFP banner.

This is fantastic. If this is how your brain works, then without knowing anything else about you, I want to offer you a contract to write a project. Your way with words, your logic pathways... it's so obvious anything you write would be pure drugs.

Get in touch.

How do you know he hasn't? Aren't you around 500 emails in the hole still?  :P

All nonsense aside, good luck with the releases.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on September 14, 2021, 11:01:56 AM
Again, I think LotFP is a terrific BX implementation. It certainly deserves a new edition - I'd prefer a magic system that was less weird sex stuff though but still had some of those great innovations (random dangerous results, level-less).

I also really liked the system in EC/VAM. I did not lift a single spell from those books, but I did use them for inspiration on how to create spells for a short campaign. I also changed the d12 casting chart to 2d6, with more extreme effects on the edges. But you are right, the innovations and level-less nature is fantastic.

I also really like the playtest rules and just dropped an advertisement to my group to run another game with them. I know I am in the minority there, and James has already said he has no plans to use them (as is at least). However, they provide a fast and loose game that breaks free from any lingering B/X ties, which were already thin, if not invisible, at our table.

Quote from: King Tyranno on September 13, 2021, 01:37:54 PM
Raggi thought that because he was nice and treated these soulless wretches well they wouldn't stab him in the back.

Well that line sounds like fair comment. Jim is just too good for this sinful world.  ;D

Quote from: FingerRod on September 14, 2021, 11:44:54 AM

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on September 14, 2021, 11:01:56 AM
Again, I think LotFP is a terrific BX implementation. It certainly deserves a new edition - I'd prefer a magic system that was less weird sex stuff though but still had some of those great innovations (random dangerous results, level-less).

I also really liked the system in EC/VAM. I did not lift a single spell from those books, but I did use them for inspiration on how to create spells for a short campaign. I also changed the d12 casting chart to 2d6, with more extreme effects on the edges. But you are right, the innovations and level-less nature is fantastic.

I also really like the playtest rules and just dropped an advertisement to my group to run another game with them. I know I am in the minority there, and James has already said he has no plans to use them (as is at least). However, they provide a fast and loose game that breaks free from any lingering B/X ties, which were already thin, if not invisible, at our table.

I think the play test rules are hit and miss. The new magic system is great and makes the magic fit the tone of the game, the new saves are decent and the modified Skill system is good. All weapons doing the same damage, Strength only affecting how much you can carry (buy a mule and lose almost all dependence on strength, as my players have demonstrated), forced individual initiative and the new parry rule are things I'm not as much of a fan of.

Quote from: Blankman on September 15, 2021, 02:54:00 AM
I think the play test rules are hit and miss. The new magic system is great and makes the magic fit the tone of the game, the new saves are decent and the modified Skill system is good. All weapons doing the same damage, Strength only affecting how much you can carry (buy a mule and lose almost all dependence on strength, as my players have demonstrated), forced individual initiative and the new parry rule are things I'm not as much of a fan of.

Totally fair. The weapon damage and then the interaction between weapon type and armor is fiddly as well. I think Parry and the Holding Action is something I am looking forward to seeing in action more, we did not really use it much.

I am okay with Strength for the most part. Our LotFP characters are basically senior citizens by levels 5-6 and removing to hit with Strength and Dexterity elevates fighters. That leaves, to your point, carrying capacity and opening doors/gates. My OD&D/Basic games have a little door action, but in LotFP the emphasis just isn't there, so we have not missed it.

In the 17th century I would expect unattended mules would be good targets for theft, or lord knows what the horror monster would do to one if you tried to walk it across the cornfield in Tales from the Scarecrow. But I get your point, and if one ever finds themselves gaming around to make a mechanic work better, in this case elevating carrying capacity importance by fucking with mules, it is probably means the mechanic is questionable. Good points all around.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 15, 2021, 11:31:04 AM

Quote from: Blankman on September 15, 2021, 02:54:00 AM
I think the play test rules are hit and miss. The new magic system is great and makes the magic fit the tone of the game, the new saves are decent and the modified Skill system is good. All weapons doing the same damage, Strength only affecting how much you can carry (buy a mule and lose almost all dependence on strength, as my players have demonstrated), forced individual initiative and the new parry rule are things I'm not as much of a fan of.

Totally fair. The weapon damage and then the interaction between weapon type and armor is fiddly as well. I think Parry and the Holding Action is something I am looking forward to seeing in action more, we did not really use it much.

I am okay with Strength for the most part. Our LotFP characters are basically senior citizens by levels 5-6 and removing to hit with Strength and Dexterity elevates fighters. That leaves, to your point, carrying capacity and opening doors/gates. My OD&D/Basic games have a little door action, but in LotFP the emphasis just isn't there, so we have not missed it.

In the 17th century I would expect unattended mules would be good targets for theft, or lord knows what the horror monster would do to one if you tried to walk it across the cornfield in Tales from the Scarecrow. But I get your point, and if one ever finds themselves gaming around to make a mechanic work better, in this case elevating carrying capacity importance by fucking with mules, it is probably means the mechanic is questionable. Good points all around.

Guarding your shit while you are in the dungeon/haunted house/whatever is why you have hirelings. Players in my campaigns did that before we started using the playtest rules and they will likely do it if we go back to not using them. It also nixed one of the neat ideas on the character sheet, that of having five equipment rows spell out "+1 encumbrance". So it has made the encumbrance rules far fiddlier and the character sheet less useful, and the great encumbrance system was one of the strengths of LotFP.

LotFP currently lacks any and all rules for jumping, and sometimes its adventures seem designed as if jumping is impossible ("oooh, a pit that's ten feet wide, however shall we get across that?"). Strength could be used for jump distance, as well as opening stuck doors, without going back to influencing armor penetration. Dexterity on the other hand still affects fights, as it controls initiative, and initiative is really important (striking first often means striking last as well). So this has elevated Dex in relation to Str for Fighters. There must be something else Dex can govern. Because in general I agree with you, freeing the classes up from depending too much on ability scores has been good.

I do like what Charisma, Constitution, Intelligence and Wisdom do though.

Quote from: Blankman on September 15, 2021, 12:29:11 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on September 15, 2021, 11:31:04 AM

Quote from: Blankman on September 15, 2021, 02:54:00 AM
I think the play test rules are hit and miss. The new magic system is great and makes the magic fit the tone of the game, the new saves are decent and the modified Skill system is good. All weapons doing the same damage, Strength only affecting how much you can carry (buy a mule and lose almost all dependence on strength, as my players have demonstrated), forced individual initiative and the new parry rule are things I'm not as much of a fan of.

Totally fair. The weapon damage and then the interaction between weapon type and armor is fiddly as well. I think Parry and the Holding Action is something I am looking forward to seeing in action more, we did not really use it much.

I am okay with Strength for the most part. Our LotFP characters are basically senior citizens by levels 5-6 and removing to hit with Strength and Dexterity elevates fighters. That leaves, to your point, carrying capacity and opening doors/gates. My OD&D/Basic games have a little door action, but in LotFP the emphasis just isn't there, so we have not missed it.

In the 17th century I would expect unattended mules would be good targets for theft, or lord knows what the horror monster would do to one if you tried to walk it across the cornfield in Tales from the Scarecrow. But I get your point, and if one ever finds themselves gaming around to make a mechanic work better, in this case elevating carrying capacity importance by fucking with mules, it is probably means the mechanic is questionable. Good points all around.

Guarding your shit while you are in the dungeon/haunted house/whatever is why you have hirelings. Players in my campaigns did that before we started using the playtest rules and they will likely do it if we go back to not using them. It also nixed one of the neat ideas on the character sheet, that of having five equipment rows spell out "+1 encumbrance". So it has made the encumbrance rules far fiddlier and the character sheet less useful, and the great encumbrance system was one of the strengths of LotFP.

LotFP currently lacks any and all rules for jumping, and sometimes its adventures seem designed as if jumping is impossible ("oooh, a pit that's ten feet wide, however shall we get across that?"). Strength could be used for jump distance, as well as opening stuck doors, without going back to influencing armor penetration. Dexterity on the other hand still affects fights, as it controls initiative, and initiative is really important (striking first often means striking last as well). So this has elevated Dex in relation to Str for Fighters. There must be something else Dex can govern. Because in general I agree with you, freeing the classes up from depending too much on ability scores has been good.

I do like what Charisma, Constitution, Intelligence and Wisdom do though.

Agreed, I love those other four.

With the play test rules reducing each ability to a single purpose, I considered dumping the ability score names altogether. At this point they are just a single item derivative, so why not use the name of what they do?

Strength replaced by carrying capacity, dexterity replaced by initiative, constitution by hit point die, etc.

The benefit is it further disassociates characters from traditional ttrpg characters, which is helpful when approaching weird fantasy. The detractor is obviously the pucker factor of eschewing ability scores, which isn't much of a factor for me personally. As I am typing this though, I think I've made up my mind to try it for the next game. Thanks for the conversation.

RE: jumping...off the top of my head I think I did something like 10-encumbrance points in feet for a standing jump, with 50% increase to that number for a running one. But yes, they lack jumping rules (although they do have excavation rules!). In LotFP I do not do a lot of the traditional dungeon delving things like stuck doors, jumping, swimming, etc unless it is under major duress.

Earlier I mentioned parry when I should have said guard. Still have parry burned into my brain!