TheRPGSite

I didn't notice any mention of this little gem in these forums.

Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells is rules light role playing game with Old School spirit. It has quite nice modern mechanics and it supports all that old-school style of play where the rules are not restricting the creative play.

Also it is free of narrative/story/meta game rules. Some people have compared Vocation mechanism with FATE Aspects, but that is very wrong comparison. I would compare it to professions from other rules light games. It is just when ever a player/GM can apply it, you get bonus to a attribute check -- my favourite skill-system. FATE aspects are tied to the penny-economy meta game, which kills the immersion for me -- nothing like that in here.

It is my go-to fantasy game for the moment, look it up. The Appendum supplement is nice addition with many optional rules (corruption, sanity, etc).

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/198163/Sharp-Swords--Sinister-Spells

Some of the key aspects it stands out for me:
 - super simple characters, just 4 stats, HP, gear, luck, Vocation
 - nice and simple resource mechanic. You have d6 arrows - when ever you roll 1 or 2, you reduce the tie type. At the end if you roll 1 or 2 with d4, it was the last one.
 - monsters have one attribute (hit-dice) and special ability
 - spell system
 - movement rules
 - only three classes that are very different (I hate many classes that are all too samey)
 - many more little things ..

I thought it might be a good one. Just haven't got around to picking it up.  I like alternatives to standard D&D ammunition rules.  So, that's good to see.  A luck attribute is something my players have liked from Tunnels & Trolls.

Does it have new unique spell research rules as a viable option in the book?

Quote from: Kuroth;1053211Does it have new unique spell research rules as a viable option in the book?

There is just spell list and restriction on how many spells can be learned. But it is totally open (not specified) how spells can be researched or picked.

What I like about spell casting is that there are no spell levels. Every spell can be cast on variable strength - it is up to the caster (maybe it is restricted by characters rank). So if character chooses to cast a spell with stronger effect, it is more difficult to pull it off (penalty to willpower check). You can also push-yourself to execute the magic casting by making a reroll, but when failed you get a spell catastrophe from random table. Awesome stuff!

Very reasonably priced, with a lot of illustrations, and it is succinct in its rule description too, given its page count. I have been going through my Summer game purchases, which is one of the reasons I have been around this forum of late.

Yes, I totally forgot to mention the artwork. This thing is beautiful! I am just puzzled how the worst picture ended up on the cover, but that's just different tastes I guess :P

I picked this up a while back on an impulse buy and I love it. Haven't had a chance to play it yet. I'd be interested in a PbP if anyone else was. I'd even consider running it if I had a little time to brush up on the rules.

FYI, I didn't participate but I believe they just recently kickstarted a sci fi version.

This is on my list to pick up.  The author, Diogo, was on the Appendix N Book Club Podcast (https://appendixnbookclub.com/) discussing Conan stories recently.  His inspirations are pretty firmly rooted in the pulp stories, which is perfect for me.

I picked this up a couple of months ago.  Great, simple rules with old school art and style.  I haven't played it yet, but dollar for dollar it may be my best RPG purchase of the year.

The game inspiration of Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells helps get an idea of the game without needing to go into the details.

From the game's Drivethru listing:
"The following author's work inspired the mechanics of this game: Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, David Black, Christian Mehrstam, John Cocking, Peter S. Williams, Joseph Goodman, Harley Stroh, Jason Morningstar, Ian Livingstone, Steve Jackson, Simon Washbourne, Kevin Crawford, Sandy Petersen, Mike Manson, Jay Little, James M. Spahn, Ben Milton."

Hopefully everyone knows these guys!
Gary Gygax
Dave Arneson
Sandy Petersen

Some less famous fellows:
David Black - known for Blackhack
Christian Mehrstam – known for Whitehack
John Cocking, Peter S. Williams – co-authors of Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures
Joseph Goodman – most known for Dungeon Crawl Classics
Harley Stroh – known for his Dungeon Crawl Classics adventures
Jason Morningstar – most known for Fiasco
Ian Livingstone, Steve Jackson – since these are listed side-by-side, the co-authors of Fighting Fantasy
Simon Washbourne – most known for Barbarians of Lemuria
Kevin Crawford  - most known for Stars Without Number
Mike Manson – known for his work on the Call of Cthulhu line of game products
Jay Little – most known as co-author of Star Wars Edge of the Empire
James M. Spahn – most known for White Star
Ben Milton – know for Maze Rats


There are a couple that make me go hmm... Over all great, though.

The name of Jay Little seems a bit out of place. Is it clear what influence exactly did he have on the game?

Quote from: 3rik;1053355The name of Jay Little seems a bit out of place. Is it clear what influence exactly did he have on the game?

I was trying to deduce that too.  Jay also worked on Mutant Chronicles 3rd, Warhammer Fantasy 3rd, Star Wars Age of Rebellion and most recently The Turing Test.  He was the lead developer of the 2d20 resolution used in Mutant Chronicles 3rd that was later used in another Modiphius Entertainment's game, Conan: An Age Undreamed Of.  Conan is a pretty recent game, but maybe Jay caught Diogo's eye in that?  It's hard to say.  It could have been the Turing Test too, which aligns with Morningstar's Fiasco.  Jay has been involved in a lot of different games, with quite a bit of different approaches to table gaming in many of them.  Maybe that is the game influence right there, the variety.  Jay seems pretty good at developing games tied to licensed mature fully developed background worlds.  So, there is that too.

So whatever else you might say about it, this isn't actually an OSR game...

I think that is fair Pundit.  At the least it resides in a gray area between.  I imagine the author would rather have the game played or not on its own merits anyway.

Indeed, I was mistaken in my original post.

It is specified:
ATTENTION! Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells is not a Simulacrum of an older edition of the world’s most famous fantasy RPG! Although inspired by the original game and the OSR movement, the game was designed to be have its own unique system, more suitable to the Sword & Sorcery genre the author has in mind.


Looking at a definition of OSR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Revival

It certainly is not D&D retroclone. But the style of play is inspired by OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053567So whatever else you might say about it, this isn't actually an OSR game...

Quite the opposite, if you go by the mechanics and the goals they're trying to accomplish:).

Yes, it's doing its best to make the mechanics work for S&S. Exactly like DCC and Crypts&Things, you know;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;1053654Quite the opposite, if you go by the mechanics and the goals they're trying to accomplish:).

Yes, it's doing its best to make the mechanics work for S&S. Exactly like DCC and Crypts&Things, you know;)!

Except that the mechanics are not in the framework of D&D.

So, let's say a bunch of enthusiasts want to start a tangential movement to the OSR... What would you call it? Old school approach but not-D&D mechanics...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1053994Except that the mechanics are not in the framework of D&D.

Better prepare your own arguments to prove that statement, because my rebuttal is ready:).

OK, so what does SS&SS do?

• Use lots of roll-under attribute: not exactly an unknown mechanic in D&D, I remember it from 2e.
• Has a Luck Die, a.k.a. "Save Vs The Setting Hating You";). Depending on your archetype (class), you can be more or less lucky.
• Roll 3d6 in order to generate the Attributes (four of them - Str and Con are folded in Physique, Wisdom and Charisma are folded in Willpower). Clearly, renaming attributes isn't a cardinal sin, since DCC also has its own list.
• Choose an Archetype-Warrior, Specialist, Magic-user. Nothing new under the sun again.

*Warrior gets more attacks against low-HD enemies, combat maneuvers (everyone can do those, the Warrior can do them in addition to attacking), improved damage, weapon specialisation, and has the biggest Hit Die per level.
*Specialist has Luck, Sneak Attack, Improved Reflexes and rolls with (what is basically Advantage) to hide, sneak, decipher languages, hear noises, opening locks, climbing. Also, better HD than the Wizard.
*Magic User: Lowest HD per level, but gets Sense Magic, Spellcasting, Blood Sacrifice (Spellburn), begins knowing 3 spells and learns one per level up (presumably could learn more).
If anyone sees anything not in the OSR mold so far, let me know...

• Determining a complication - basically, you can be Hunted by Sinister Sorcerer, or Addicted to Lotus Powder, Indebted, whatever. In-built hooks don't break the D&D mold, unless your game sucks:D! Yes, you can use that to improve your Luck Die once per session...oh, how hard to swallow such a mechanic is!
• You have small, medium and large weapons. The difference is in cost and damage. Bigger weapons deal more damage. Nothing unusual.
• Armour reduces the damage die of your weapon, minimum 1d3.
• Shields give Disadvantage to attacks against you. Bigger shields give Disadvantage to more attacks per round (but large ones give Disadvantage to actions requiring freedom of movement).
• Attacks are roll under attribute for PCs. Enemies must roll over the PC's Agility. Enemies more powerful than the PCs add the difference between HDs to rolls for their attack, and to the roll you make to attack them.
• Spells require a roll (like in DCC). In SSSS you roll under Willpower, and if you fail, you can choose between losing the ability to cast this spell for the day (like DCC again) and the GM giving you a fumble-like result, but you keep the ability to cast it today. There's also fumbling the spells.
• Casting spells in armour heavier than Light gives you Disadvantage. And there's spell lists, of course. You can't get me to pore over them. In fact, I think we're paying too much attention to magic already!
• Magic items - rare and from forbidden civilisations, presumably. Again, too much attention to a meaningless part of the game;)!

In short: totally within the D&D mold!

Quote from: trechriron;1053998So, let's say a bunch of enthusiasts want to start a tangential movement to the OSR... What would you call it? Old school approach but not-D&D mechanics...

OSR, to me, doesn't preclude using the mechanics of other old-school games. It's "old-school Renaissance" (OSR), not "Old-school Dungeons and Dragons Renaissance" (OSDDR).
If you use the general umbrella, you don't get to artificially narrow its scope to just what you like.

Quote from: AsenRG;1054048Better prepare your own arguments to prove that statement, because my rebuttal is ready:).

OK, so what does SS&SS do?


In short: totally within the D&D mold!

But not the actual D&D rules.

Quote from: trechriron;1053998So, let's say a bunch of enthusiasts want to start a tangential movement to the OSR... What would you call it? Old school approach but not-D&D mechanics...

Well, there's the O5R, which is old-school approaches to 5th edition. Presumably you could make similar movements with other new-school games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1054332But not the actual D&D rules.

DCC and L&D aren't using the actual D&D rules, either. But SSSS is still OSR, and even from the D&D-related part of the OSR.
As evidenced by its mechanics, which don't contain any more changes than the aforementioned DCC and L&D.

Quote from: AsenRG;1054356DCC and L&D aren't using the actual D&D rules, either. But SSSS is still OSR, and even from the D&D-related part of the OSR.
As evidenced by its mechanics, which don't contain any more changes than the aforementioned DCC and L&D.

DCC and L&D both still have 3-18 ability scores, and rolls based on D20 checks. They both still have armor class and hit points and saving throws. They both still use the D&D combat system, whatever the variations they integrate in them.

In other words, there's certain ingredients to what makes up something recognizable as D&D. OSR games must have those ingredients; games that don't have them, stop being OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1054955DCC and L&D both still have 3-18 ability scores, and rolls based on D20 checks. They both still have armor class and hit points and saving throws. They both still use the D&D combat system, whatever the variations they integrate in them.

In other words, there's certain ingredients to what makes up something recognizable as D&D. OSR games must have those ingredients; games that don't have them, stop being OSR.

Pundi, how did you manage to write that after I wrote a fucking summary of the mechanics, above;)?

To summarize, all of your requirements are present in Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells, except armour class, replaced by damage reduction, even d20 checks (which actully aren't necessary, many variants of D&D use d6 checks and all TSR editions use d100 checks).
And since Armor s DR is among the first optional rules ever, I call bullshit on any attempts to declare it non-OSR because of that:D!

(As you very well know, I also disagree with the idea that you need D&D-derived mechanics to count a game as OSR. Mechanics derived rom other old-school games are fine by me.
But that's a theoretical question at best, because we're discussing SSSS, and any non-biased reading would show that it's clearly D&D-derived, whether Pundit likes it or not).

Quote from: AsenRG;1055064Pundi, how did you manage to write that after I wrote a fucking summary of the mechanics, above;)?

To summarize, all of your requirements are present in Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells

Either you or the OP are lying. The OP staes:

Some of the key aspects it stands out for me:
- super simple characters, just 4 stats, HP, gear, luck, Vocation
- monsters have one attribute (hit-dice) and special ability


That's not D&D.


Not to mention that the designer himself admits as much:

ATTENTION! Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells is not a Simulacrum of an older edition of the worlds most famous fantasy RPG! Although inspired by the original game and the OSR movement, the game was designed to be have its own unique system, more suitable to the Sword & Sorcery genre the author has in mind.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1055195Either you or the OP are lying. The OP staes:

Some of the key aspects it stands out for me:
- super simple characters, just 4 stats, HP, gear, luck, Vocation
- monsters have one attribute (hit-dice) and special ability


That's not D&D.

...How is that "not D&D"? Attributes (and don't tell me those are immutable), HP, gear, Action Points, background skills - sounds a lot like an OD&D PC to me. Except for the Action points, but they exist in other editions.

Monsters have just HD and special ability...sounds like OD&D to me, again:). How much more is there in the statblock for kobolds? What about trolls with their "6HD+2 and regeneration, can be circumvented by fire or acid" statblock?
I see no reason that wouldn't be expanded to other monsters. Especially when we keep in mind the goal is S&S play.

QuoteNot to mention that the designer himself admits as much:

ATTENTION! Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells is not a Simulacrum of an older edition of the worlds most famous fantasy RPG! Although inspired by the original game and the OSR movement, the game was designed to be have its own unique system, more suitable to the Sword & Sorcery genre the author has in mind.

"Not a simulacrum" (like LL would be)=/="meaningfully different". DCC and Crypts and Things aren't simulacrums, either, being geared towards S&S...but they're still OSR.
IMO, if the author was really going for an "unique" system, different from the OSR games, he has failed:D!
But of course, he listed "OSR" under the system tags in the description on Drivethru. So I guess he means by that that there are differences, but it's still within the realm of recognisable mechanics for any OSR game;).

Downloaded.  Will read.  But interested in this.  One issue with Barbarians of Lemuria was the group didn't feel there was any room for development.  Just one-shots.

Look, as a grieved victim of the Storygames "movement" I believe distinctions ARE important. I am happy with OSR being a D&D clone revival of D&D things so people can just play old-school D&D. Fucking brilliant.

I just don't like D&D. I've tried, but we're just not compatible.

So, I like old-school games, with a more old-school GMing approach, that are in fact NOT OSR. But goddammit I want my own fucking label! I have a 50 lb medicine ball sized pale white stomach sticking out here that's just screaming for a label!

I like Zweihander. It's a WFRP clone. Been poking at another clone from these folks (various ERA systems...) https://www.shadesofvengeance.com/ - which are VERY much a 1e vampire clone...

So, I ask again, what label can I have for my not D&D old-school gaming revival/renaissance? OSR-Tangent? EAT-OSR (Excellent Alternative Traditional...)?

Quote from: trechriron;1055268Look, as a grieved victim of the Storygames "movement" I believe distinctions ARE important. I am happy with OSR being a D&D clone revival of D&D things so people can just play old-school D&D. Fucking brilliant.

I just don't like D&D. I've tried, but we're just not compatible.

So, I like old-school games, with a more old-school GMing approach, that are in fact NOT OSR. But goddammit I want my own fucking label! I have a 50 lb medicine ball sized pale white stomach sticking out here that's just screaming for a label!

I like Zweihander. It's a WFRP clone. Been poking at another clone from these folks (various ERA systems...) https://www.shadesofvengeance.com/ - which are VERY much a 1e vampire clone...

So, I ask again, what label can I have for my not D&D old-school gaming revival/renaissance? OSR-Tangent? EAT-OSR (Excellent Alternative Traditional...)?

I propose Old School Style (OSS). It flows together fairly well (OSR/OSS). Or just OSR/S

Quote from: jux;1053213There is just spell list and restriction on how many spells can be learned. But it is totally open (not specified) how spells can be researched or picked.

What I like about spell casting is that there are no spell levels. Every spell can be cast on variable strength - it is up to the caster (maybe it is restricted by characters rank). So if character chooses to cast a spell with stronger effect, it is more difficult to pull it off (penalty to willpower check). You can also push-yourself to execute the magic casting by making a reroll, but when failed you get a spell catastrophe from random table. Awesome stuff!

Hmm I love spell miscast tables!

Quote from: Joey2k;1055291I propose Old School Style (OSS). It flows together fairly well (OSR/OSS). ...

I like this, except I worry it could have Nazi-sounding implications...

Quote from: trechriron;1055296I like this, except I worry it could have Nazi-sounding implications...

OSS (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Services) were actually fighting Nazis. The Office of Strategic Services was a forerunner of the CIA, did a bunch of cool spy stuff during WW2. Even considered a wacky plan to spike Hitler's food with estrogen so that he would lose his mustache.

Quote from: Joey2k;1055360OSS (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Services) were actually fighting Nazis. The Office of Strategic Services was a forerunner of the CIA, did a bunch of cool spy stuff during WW2. Even considered a wacky plan to spike Hitler's food with estrogen so that he would lose his mustache.

OK Then, I'm in. Now to make the web banners...

If you made a game that just had the six ability scores ranged from 3-18, with modifiers, AC, hit points, D20-based rolling mechanics, and a saving throw system, it could be OSR.

But as soon as you have a system where those core details are not present, it can't really be OSR. At most, it can be OSR-adjacent.

You are 100% correct RPGPundit, it is not in anyway OSR, and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it anymore.

Just wanted to point out that SS&SS is exactly what I was talking about when I stated about 6 to 9 months ago that I wanted my rpg rules to be under 64 pages. Just ordered the hard copy and waiting to start a campaign with it...

I wasn't making any judgment on the quality of the game itself.

Quote from: Joey2k;1055291I propose Old School Style (OSS). It flows together fairly well (OSR/OSS). Or just OSR/S

I like it.

This is a great game that feels kinda like early Basic D&D with some modern bolt-on rules.

I find it much better than D&D, and this is the game that I have introduced to early teens who want to get into RPGs.

It feels more early TSR D&D than anything else, but I like it much better in terms of game play and simplicity.
I also like the fact you can have 0-level funnel like DCC, and the fact hat Sorcery mishaps are also very DCC.

I don't view OSR as exclusively D&D clones, as a T&T clone or RQ1/2 clone could also be OSR. However this game is not OSR despite its vibe, as even the core D20 roll is different to the usual way D20 rolls are done, and the AC is dramatically different as well.

So while this feels like perhaps the best OSR style game I have seen, it is in fact not technically  OSR

So The Pundit was right by pointing that out.

However the important thing is that this is a great little game, and absolutely worth checking out!

OSA: Old School Adjacent?