Core Rules Errata

[SmootRK]

Hmm, you should have been able to.

... okay, I've reset the permissions. Why don't you try it now?

I see the options now... whatever you tweaked worked.

[Solomoriah]

Uh, yeah... but now you've merged two threads, it seems.

Or did the members do that?

[Hywaywolf]

That was my mess, I cleaned it up.

[SmootRK]

That was my mess, I cleaned it up.

I saw that. I had thought it was something Solo did while tweaking permissions.

I had my "who me???" face on at first.

[SmootRK]

In another thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=574 , there was this:

Something tells me that whoever wrote the core rules, wrote them with the assumption that whatever GM would be reading them, would by default have a fundamental understanding of old school D&D similar to the author.

Perhaps to an extent. I will make a suggestion that in the next 'edition' of BFRPG (talked about as a possibility at some point), we expand the thought, theory, and usage of Saves so that anyone new to gaming (or to old school styles of games) have a little more to go on.

The section of the rules could certainly use a bit more guidance.

[Dimirag]

I know this isn't an errata and is more a suggestion The book could really use some guidelines for doing some actions like stealth, climbing, etc (lots of GM and players choose to not allow non-thief to attempt them because the class doesn't have a skill %), maybe unifying the mechanism with searching form traps/secret door, opening doors, etc.
Note that this is done the thief should say in its skills description that when using non-permitted armor he still can use some skills as non-thieves do.

[Hywaywolf]

I understand where you are going with that post, but I disagree with the direction. The rules give you the parameters that you play within. Playing the game tells you everything else. The rules of chess tell you how the pieces move, not what gambit to use.

[Dimirag]

I'm not saying that the rules must say how to mechanically rule any situation, but a suggested rule would be helpful, one thing I like about OSRPG is that there aren't rules for everything but OTOH I don't like the lack of suggestions on how to mechanically rule different situations, some GM have a hard time coming with ideas about that. The system already uses the X/d6 probability for different actions, using that under one topic could be helpful.

[Hywaywolf]

What I like about B/X is how few rules there are. What I dislike about BFRPG is how the page count will likely grow significantly if there ever is a 3rd edition. I would rather see someone write a guide to DMing bfrpg rather than making the core rules an instruction manual on how to be a better DM.

[Dimirag]

I agree, being a good GM is about running an adventure and not having lots of rules, but having some "background" rule one can fall on if desire so the game moves on smoothly is never a bad thing. I prefer a suggestion or a simple mechanical rule that says how to use dice for most simple thing that have to come up with one on the fly.
I believe that unifying the trap/secret door search/opening doors/listening mechanic under one rule can help some GMs and wont really change much thing for those who prefer to use their own rules. One big bad thing of OS days at least on my experience was the "you can't" rule implicit on some mechanics that "contaminated" some characters/players actions because the game lacked a mechanical rule to prevent that, take for ex the thief and non thieves trying to do thieving stuff.