Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:09 am

My point is not to spin off other stuff, but moreso to better organize and compartmentalize the offerings. Really just a reorganization and compilation of each topic individually, rather than further spreading out the offerings in more and more supplements.

We pull from the original supplements, perhaps placing those original supplements into an "archive section" of the website, and present altogether new supplements for each major topic.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:48 am

Rangers and Paladins will contain the versions I plan to include in my Companion. I don't see any reason a Ranger "Cookbook" giving variations couldn't be done; I'd accept and publish such a work, but I don't expect to work on it. Open development is about "scratching your own itch," and frankly I have little interest in such a thing for myself.

A similar sourcebook for Paladin-like classes would also be fine. I recommend calling them "Crusaders" (as you can easily find both good and bad crusaders throughout history, whereas Champion has a definite positive connotation).
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:52 am

SmootRK wrote:My point is not to spin off other stuff, but moreso to better organize and compartmentalize the offerings. Really just a reorganization and compilation of each topic individually, rather than further spreading out the offerings in more and more supplements.

We pull from the original supplements, perhaps placing those original supplements into an "archive section" of the website, and present altogether new supplements for each major topic.
In my opinion, BFRPG project is spreading itself to thin. I think Chris, with input from us of course, should decide on 'official' BFRPG supplements and keep only one for each race or class. the rest of the proposed supplements should go in a "houserule" section like the Sword and Board supplement. For people new to BFRPG its just too confusing to see so many options for the same class in the supplements section.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:10 am

That is exactly why I propose a 'reorganization' of the offerings... to more logically present such material, making the 'optional nature' of each more distinct.

For instance, One Ranger Supplement (hosting all the various versions), with explicit direction that the GM decides on inclusion or not, and which particular version fits his campaign. One Paladin Supplement, with same directives on inclusion by GM... etc for other topics.

At least in this way, we effectively limit the spread of Supplements to one per topic, rather than one per topic per contributor (which potentially continues indefinitely). I think your idea of 'spreading thin' is much more pronounced if Individual Supplements continue to proliferate, even if we make a Chris's Choice 'official' section, and additional materials fall into other areas.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:26 am

A downside to the cookbook approach is the inconvenience in actual play. You end up with a lot of material you aren't using in the PDF copies.

This way, someone who wants to use Jason's Ranger just has to print that out, and there will be little if any waste.

I do see the value of reorganizing the supplements as they are presented on the downloads page. But I wonder if I alone should really get to decide which supplements are "official." I guess someone has to do it.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:40 am

Solomoriah wrote:A downside to the cookbook approach is the inconvenience in actual play. You end up with a lot of material you aren't using in the PDF copies.

This way, someone who wants to use Jason's Ranger just has to print that out, and there will be little if any waste.

I do see the value of reorganizing the supplements as they are presented on the downloads page. But I wonder if I alone should really get to decide which supplements are "official." I guess someone has to do it.
I am not a big fan of anyone in particular deciding what is 'official' either, as nobody would follow such direction anyhow... most people (at least that I know) understand that any such role-play game is effectively theirs to tweak and modify to their heart's content.
I am a big fan of loads of choices, but then I really like a sense of order... and I like being able to print stuff out piecemeal for my own use. ;) I want it all!
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:45 am

That's why I said You with our comments. Or you could put it to a vote. Either way is fine with me. I just think that there should be one official entry for each race, class, spell list, armor, etc.. Plus anything that is a work in progress and looking for workshop style comments can go in the Houserule section until its vetted enough for the official section. There are people that come to this site who haven't been involved with the BFRPG project and who may get confused by so much content. We can still have plenty of options available, but us newbies who haven't played 25 years worth of RPGs won't have to wonder which is the "best" fit for BFRPG.
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:22 am

Technically, the official entries are the ones in the rulebook. Everything else is a homebrew option. The Companion sounds like the closest thing to an official rules expansion.

In terms of setup:
If you don't mind wasting a bit of 'space', set up classes so they don't overlap on pages. Big wodjing pdf, but manageable printouts. definitely needs a good toc, though.

Another approach would be to subdivide the class options on the downloads page - a block of magic-users, a block of fighters, etc. Presumably you'd stack the quasi-class/specialties as a separate section. Look for your header, find the pdf(s) you need.

The only trick with though is where you want something cross-referenced - Ranger would now be under Fighter with the Fighter Subclass and Rangers and Paladins... and wherever you put Jason's Ranger (Which sits on the Fighter/Thief line almost perfectly. Maybe the Jester needs company...) This is still an issue in a "cookbook" format.

At some point, you need options comparisons and reviews: Look at the variants, and discuss the differences. Not as in "This is stupid, this is awesome" But to look at what the different types favor in terms of mechanics or the role in a game or setting.

Jason's Rangers are different from the usual woods-fighter, in that it emphasizes stealth and cunning even more than the "standard." Both of these are different from a "friend to all living things, with spells and a big honkin' sword" Nature Crusader (Forest Guardian). Holy Q-class fighters don't have the spell-casting of Paladins, but have other supernatural benefits - making for a slightly lower overt magic level in your campaign world, and also can be applied to the other classes if you specifically want deity-sanctioned/empowered characters of all stripes. Combat Options two-weapon combat is awesome if you can pull it off, while Sword and Board two-weapon rules make it more accessible, but less over-the top. Sorcerers have limited power for casting, but can easily gain the largest spell library - in their heads, all the time by watching magic happen, while Fey Mages have far fewer options to choose from even at highest levels, but what they lack in diversity, they make up for in volume.

Something like that, only with more detail, analysis, and maybe actual playtesting.
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:30 pm

Pretty much everything here, between this site and dragonsfoot, gets 'peer review' and much of it gets play tested too. Granted, it doesn't seem to be as many people working on it now as there was when it was ahead of the simulacrum crowd. Now either most people have the game the way they want it or are working on one of the other 50 simulacrums (well, maybe its not 50, but it sure feels like it :) ) I haven't playtested any of the supplements because my kids and I pretty much play BTB with some minor houserules, but we have tested the actual rules and some of the modules.
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:42 pm

I wasn't quite clear on that, sorry.

I didn't mean "playtesting to see if something works right," but in the context of comparisons - Playtesting with variant A and variant B to see how they compare in the field rather than the 'on paper and by the numbers' glance I'd tossed out up there.
Post Reply