Archived threads in /tg/ - Traditional Games - 695. page

File: barbarians of lemuria spiel.png (96KB, 869x425px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 869x425px

>>54123949
I'm not sure what you mean by a reasonable (not huge) amount of crunch and whether that excludes rules-light systems as well as rules-heavy ones. If you're open to rules-light stuff, you should check out Barbarians of Lemuria.


>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition

>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, shorter but not as refined) --http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf

>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A

>>54124169

I mostly mean that we're not really intrested in a large amount of crunch, charbuilding or similar for a campaign like this. Rules-light systems are fine, it's the heavy stuff we're not so much into.

I've been considering BoL already, actually. Don't have any play experience with it, but it's certainly pretty quick and all. The combat doesn't seem like it has a lot of stunts or general cinematic shenanigans out of the box, but I guess it's pretty easy to include stuff like that.

As a general question, how durable are characters in BoL? We're still kind of going over how much lethality we want in this campaign, so it's something to consider.

>>54124308
>The combat doesn't seem like it has a lot of stunts or general cinematic shenanigans out of the box, but I guess it's pretty easy to include stuff like that.
I'm an old timer, so improvising bonuses and shit on the spot comes naturally to me, and I tend to avoid systems with too many rules that get in the way of that.

>As a general question, how durable are characters in BoL?
How ever durable you want them to be, really. Some of it depends on what you put them up against and how heavy their armor is (I recommend dropping helmets, mechanically-speaking, and dropping heavy armor and relabeling medium armor "heavy armor" to keep armor from getting so high it drags combat to a crawl). But I want to stress how easy it is to tweak things without disrupting things. Adding a few extra blood points isn't going to destroy the balance of the game but will have a measurable impact on character survival, especially if you also let people go lower in the negatives before dying (or reduce the penalties and dangers of being in the negatives).

But let's put it this way: a normal weapon does d6 damage and the average bloke has a 0 strength, meaning 3.5 damage per blow on average. Lifeblood for the average PC (with a strength of 1) is 11, so that's just a smidgen over 3 hits to take them down. Assuming they don't have any armor, that is. Light armor gives -1 damage (or 1d6-3 if you're rolling), and no mechanical penalty outside of casting spells, so that may change the equation a bit. On the other hand, the average PC stat is 1, so if you're fighting somebody who is on par with a PC, he'll be getting a +1 bonus from strength on average, which will negate the light armor. So, like I said, it depends.

пpoщaльный пpивeт

the set of people who are intimately familiar with both systems is apparently zero.

>>54123192
>correction: empty

RQ6 / Mythras has more interesting combat and magic.

example

>A city of light
Slowly appears in the line of sight
Empty and hollow.

Revive, to rise. The grand demise.
Gloom prevailed where dogma failed.
Faith remains more with every step you take.

>>54122850

Absolute statements about what is 'fun' are stupid.

Some groups love adversarial GMing. Personally I hate even the idea of it, but if it's what people enjoy, then I have no business telling them they're doing it wrong. That'd just make me another badwrongfun asshole.

What's important is knowing the desires and expectations of the group and either making sure they're in line with your GMing style, or if they're mixed than at least striking the best middle ground possible.

>>54122850
I'd be all for negating those advantages at certain times - obviously only temporarily and not all that often, but just enough to get them to think outside the box a little more.

>>54122850
Depends on the game. Apocalypse World for instance, being a game about decay and enthrophy, encourages the GM and players to treat no reasource as a given. The Chopper can lose their gang, The Hardholder can lose their settlement, The Hocus can lose their cult. Characters can and should change what they are.

Generally I agree with you though, Players vs GM is a stupid idea.

>>54122515
Should have stuck with dracoliches rather than regular dragons.

>>54121749
Combining the generic adventurers guild with the most generic adventurer background would hardly move the setting from being generic.
Also explains why orphanages keep burning down so much.

>>54121857

What's funny is that I'm looking at how foundling wheels almost always were quickly set up and then shut down because of an excess of babies, and I'm thinking that if you had guilds whose legal status was dependent on operating these things but the financial burden of taking in so many babies made them operating nearly impossible then you'd either have quiet mass infanticide by the guilds or the guilds would set up small dungeons filled with traps for young mothers to brave to leave their babies at the end of.

>>54122327
So mom just tosses the kid in the river as she'd have done without the dropoff, because she's got another four ones to care for so she can't exactly risk anything. And as this becomes common again it annoys those who made the adventurers guild keep the dropoffs in the first place, who lean a bit on the courts, and suddenly the local guild master is tortured to death for infanticide, his screams to warn whoever takes over the spot after him.

File: id trust that bridge.jpg (36KB, 313x469px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 313x469px

>>54121435
I mainly play OSR.

I'd throw some demented cultists that lost touch with their "god" ages ago. They preform rituals full of nonsense and constantly try to prove who is most deserving of their false idols attention through self mutilating habits and constant raids on the the locals.

PCs are a group of guards that protected the supply caravan a merchant contracted with the local noble's newly formed and plenty green eared army. Stationed at a small and newly built outpost. Throw in a bit of minor politics and a couple side quests that are more milk runs than planned excursions.

>>54121435
lol golbins

Alternatively, bizarre beings whose forms shift and take on properties of what they touch; parts of them are clear like glass. They emerged from the endless dreams of the people hidden away here, who await rescue and re-awakening some day. But then the dream will end, and the dream beings don't want to die.

>>54121435
If this thread dies while "stat John Wick" gets to live, I'm going to kill and eat a circus clown.

File: 1481990605742.png (253KB, 456x343px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 456x343px

For a tabletop simulation? Roll20. Easy and Free

For a PC game? Neverwinter Nights 2 if you want 3.5, Baldur's Gate II if you want 2nd ed, both can be played online. Though neither are going to simulate that 'DnD Feeling'.

>>54120889
Not playing D&D

>>54120889
whatever you like best offline

>>54120724
Make them very shy and self-concerned

>>54120724
>I wanna be a good aligned aberration
This is almost as retarded as letting PC's play vampires, something that was always looked down upon even in the earliest editions of D&D

But, as I am obligated to answer you OP, Stockholm Syndrome, as in, it was enslaved by something it sought to enslave, and learned how much it sucked through ages of back-breaking abuse.

But then again, the Illithid which I base this off was written by a retard who didn't get the memo that Illithids were herms post 2e, so it may as well not exist.

File: download (7).jpg (10KB, 179x281px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 179x281px

Good taste, OP. Chuul a cute. Just get your GM to come up with a Chuul-esque race for you to play.

>>54120396
>Got advice /tg/ ?
Yeah. Don't

>>54120396
There are too many moving parts and too much bookkeeping. You would need a notepad and damage counters to play this game effectively, and even then you could still lose track of a lot of shit.

Additionally, you make some visual design choices that clog up play. Consider putting a number for Initiative instead of multiple squares.

It's somewhat hard to tell because of the lack of explanation on how playing units works, but the way initiative and beacons work makes having lots of smaller units significantly better than having one or two larger units. Assuming there's some sort of resource (based on the image you gave of a card), it's likely easier to place lots of small units, which a large unit can only hit one of, which would in turn cause you to lose a beacon, but you can easily overwhelm a larger unit with a number of smaller units, which makes investing in larger units a very sub-optimal play. You'll have to specifically design larger units with this in mind, and/or balance the Beacon system to be based on the value of the units, not the quantity of the units.

Do you have tabletop simulator on your PC? Or one of the many free alternatives available that allow you to import custom card designs? How about a few cheap decks of cards (physical) and a Sharpie?

You've got ideas and that's great but what you need to do now is slap together a little prototype just to get a feel for it. I agree with the other anon in that it sounds like a lot of moving parts but I'm biased since I like my ccgs pretty simple. Still, when you start to play test you'll automatically figure out what works and what doesn't and what instances and situations you haven't prepared rules for.

Don't feel like you need to make 2 full decks of vastly different cards, just make a few of each type and play mirror matches.