A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
User avatar
Daucuscarota
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:04 am
Location: Ciudad de México
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion" Question

Post Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:19 pm

Longman wrote:Sure. I will write something soon-ish and pass it by you.
I really liked the way you explained it. I want to read your article about the magic-user.

On the topic of a companion, I don't think we need one. Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game is a whole game, and we don't need anything else to play the game. Adventures and bestiaries are great, but not essential.

Personally, what I would like (but not ask, much less demand to), is a supplement for the GM, explaining things like monster creation. Why a certain creature has 3 hit dice and some other, 8 hit dice? Is there an "objective" reason? It was decided just because? I assign stats as I find them appropriate for a certain monster, but I don't follow a thoughtful method, other than what James Raggi of Lamentations of the Flame Princess suggest: the monster has to be the focus or an integral part of the adventure, not just a thing to fill yet another room. But that's aesthetic, perhaps even pshilosophical, not mechanic, and some mechanics to make monsters would be much appreciated.
User avatar
orobouros
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:09 pm
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:04 pm

For monsters you can get some inspiration from their appearance and environment as to how powerful they are.

A red dragon has to defend its lair against all kinds of threats, is huge, has devastating attacks, and very tough scales. Of course it's going to be very hard to fight and high hit dice.

Orcs and goblins are pretty much nasty humans with about as much strength and abilities. Pretty simply to deal with or even kill, so they're low hit dice.

A monster that has to confront danger often to feed or mate is going to be a lot more dangerous than one that manages to survive by quickly escaping or avoiding detection all together.

There's quite a bit of thought these days that goes into dungeon ecology. No longer are they just connected rooms with monsters waiting to fight you, but environments where different parties may come across each other. What makes sense where you'd normally encounter a new enemy?

As a final thought, hit dice is far from the be-all-end-all of difficulty. A bunch of kobolds or goblins in a well constructed trap can be very very deadly.
User avatar
WandererExiled
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:27 pm
Location: Platte Woods, MO (Kansas City, MO)

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:19 am

I'm not sure what companion everyone is talking about (haven't spent time enough to know). But the one singular thing about BF that draws me in is its simplicity yet customizability. I love the fact that IF I wanted to I can add or take away as much as I wanted and still have a balanced game. That's something that I don't feel that Pathfinders or DnD allows (at least not without selling blood).

However, with that comes the question of is this compatible (deemed by Basic Fantasy) with the core and supplements? And how can we help players and GMs organize all these adds for ease of access in campaigns? Some people like it Basic were as others like it physics class complex.

If an official download is off the table (as I believe it should be), why not a catalog that categorizes the balanced and unbalanced with small one sentence descriptions and links to the most recent iteration? That way people can still customize and GMs can create their own companions as long as it's explicitly noted as Unofficial.

This is just a thought.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:46 am

If a supplement is on the Downloads page, I believe it's okay (balanced, etc.) and will not wreck a game. This is the primary criterion for inclusion there... I won't even consider a supplement if I'm not confident it doesn't seriously break the game.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Longman
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:12 am

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:43 pm

WandererExiled wrote:
Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:19 am
And how can we help players and GMs organize all these adds for ease of access in campaigns?
I'd frame the question as "how do we encourage new players and GMs to think about what kind of supplements they want to use, before they go looking?"

It's tricky because there is no accounting for taste and no teaching experience. An experienced GM might well realise that if buffs are given to one class in the game, other classes should get some too. Otherwise you get a Magic User class with Free Casting and Free Cantrip use, and the Cleric class gets nothing extra. That sort of thing. You have to already know at least something about how new powers will affect the game.

Supplements should also be selected based on your game millieu. In an outdoors game you'd want a ranger class. In a city intrigue game you might want an assasin class. And so on. The choice should be based on the game, it shouldn't determine the game.

I think time spent playing by the core rules and then thinking "what do I want extra?" is the main solution to many of these questions by new players. Otherwise you just get splat-books and power creep, and that doesn't really add to the game or story, it just make the PCs tougher at lower levels, so the DM has to adjust by making the monsters tougher, etc. It's a treadmill, and getting off the treadmill seems like the whole reason the OSR happened in the first place.

TLDR? The site is actually quite well organised already, you just have to know what you want. That's my ten cents.
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5255
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:41 pm

Longman wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:43 pm

I think time spent playing by the core rules and then thinking "what do I want extra?" is the main solution to many of these questions by new players. Otherwise you just get splat-books and power creep, and that doesn't really add to the game or story, it just make the PCs tougher at lower levels, so the DM has to adjust by making the monsters tougher, etc. It's a treadmill, and getting off the treadmill seems like the whole reason the OSR happened in the first place.
This is the key right here. If you don't already know what you want then just play the core rules and add things as you need them (if you need them). And even if you are experienced with modern gaming but not "old school" or retro gaming, then why not start with the core rules and figure out what it is you can do without that you never thought you could.
User avatar
teluria
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Sun May 20, 2018 10:56 am

One of the things that drove me away from AD&D back in the day is that it got away from being setting neutral (or at least as much as it could be) and started insisting upon setting as rules.

My sense of this is similar to Solo's in that I prefer to make up my own mind about what is going to go into my world and modifying things to fit.

I use a modified Magic system, and have my own version of gnomes. There are character classes in my world that are specific to certain races, although I've made exceptions where it would make for an interesting character. (A player who wanted a dwarven mage was the source of the Flamewarden Clan in Penundra)

That's one of the best parts of BFRPG in my opinion, the ability to create a world that is unique to the GMs vision.
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of Appreciation
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Re: A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

Post Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:32 am

Interestingly, after hinting about it for years Dan Proctor is making an Advanced Labyrinth Lord. While I like the extra items, etc. in the AEC I like Basic-centered OSRs just as they are, so I'm not likely to jump on this.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests