A Comment on the "Companion"/Advanced Question

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
User avatar
Longman
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:12 am

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

Post Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:39 am

I'll try to fix that. Given the range of material covered it's hard to accurately sum up everything but I'll make changes where they are pointed out to me.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

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

Post Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:14 am

Longman wrote:The blog post on Rangers is up.

Hopefully this style of writing vill be useful to new players.
Nice blog post.
User avatar
Koren_nRhys
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:10 pm

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

Post Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:59 pm

Longman wrote:The blog post on Rangers is up.

Hopefully this style of writing vill be useful to new players.
Excellent post, Longman. I think it does a great job of showcasing the enormous flexibility of BFRPG. Rangers were a great choice given the variety of interpretations, and I expect your magic-user post will be equally enlightening. Thank you for taking the time to write these!
BusterBluth
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Post Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:21 pm

I really think BF should be extended to include Companion, but why stop there? Let's develop material for the Masters as well. Personally, I don't care anything about the Immortals type game, but that's just IMO.

What I like about these classic fantasy RPGs, is that the nature of the game changes as PCs level. By levels 4 -> 8, it's no longer just the dungeon. You're exploring the campaign setting and delving into the wilderness. But, after that, the PCs aren't just explorers. They're conquering the wilderness, changing it into civilized lands via their own baronies, fiefs, etc. They're beginning to alter the GM's campaign on a larger scale.

Having said that, much of the original rules in BECMI aren't really useful. The intended direction and scope described fires the imagination, but the actual implementation never seemed workable to me. The old Companion rules need to better define dominions. The mass combat rules are more solid, but could still use tweaking and consolidation with some of the later rules, such as for siege warfare and naval battles.

So, what would a Masters level ruleset describe? At this stage, the PCs are heroes of truly epic scale. They're actors at a global level, interacting with bizarre forces from strange dimensions and fighting wars against mighty imperial armies. PCs aren't worried about something as small as a village in their domains anymore. They're working to build kingdoms and empires of their own. They're staring down dragon kings and fighting evil demi-gods.

I remember reading somewhere long ago that dominions and mass combat are D&D's unfulfilled promise. It's past time to bring this epic scope into focus. And, yeah, they still go into dungeons.
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 Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:34 pm

BusterBluth wrote:I really think BF should be extended to include Companion, but why stop there?
I'm going to stop you right there.

I understand you think there should be a Companion rule set... but you have not given a single reason why, much less addressed the reasons I expressly do not want such a thing to ever exist.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

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

Post Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:24 am

I think there is some confusion over what Solomoriah calls the coverage target. BFRPG has its roots with the B/X version of a certain "basic" game, but what the latest poster mentions is about the BECMI version of that game. The CMI portions cover aspects of play that are not really addressed by BFRPG at all.

Not that we can't have Supplements that address these sorts of things... just pointing out that the portions just 'requested' don't have a real presence in the coverage target that BFRPG was based upon.

Personally, never had much interest in the whole "immortal" thing that ultimately came out. Too weird for me, but to each their own.
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 Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:04 am

My problem with Immortals is that it cascades backwards into the Basic/Expert levels of play. You don't have "gods" anymore, you have Immortals, and there are definite rules they operate under, rules that are (at least potentially) accessible and understood by all players. It removes the mystery from many lower-level adventures, and ties the GM's hands because religious/mystical aspects cannot just be made up as he or she sees fit anymore.

It's much the same reason that I don't allow Wish as a spell. When I started play in BX, a Wish had potentially unlimited power; only the GM knew what might or might not work. When I was exposed to Wish as a spell, the first thing I noticed was that it had limits... high ones, to be sure, but limits known to the players. Removes the mystery and uncertainty from that aspect of the game.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 2411
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

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

Post Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:32 am

BusterBluth wrote:I really think BF should be extended to include Companion, but why stop there? Let's develop material for the Masters as well. Personally, I don't care anything about the Immortals type game, but that's just IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ay5GqJwHF8
BusterBluth
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:03 pm

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

Post Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:55 am

Solomoriah, didn't mean to offend. As far as a reason why to explore such a thing, I would point towards evolving and exciting new styles of gameplay that could be enabled during those epic tiers. But, I completely understand your objection. Getting half a dozen people to agree on pizza toppings is nigh impossible; getting several thousand gamers to agree on what should go into an advanced ruleset boggles the mind.

I should have stated upfront I was thinking more in terms of my own home rules, which are shaping up to be adaptions and consolidations of stuff from the BECMI books. I've always wanted to run 'Test of the Warlords', CM1, but felt like the rules as given fell short of enabling that kind of play.

I'll also point out that inquiries regarding Companion and Masters aren't a knock on what you've done. With BFRPG, you're put together a gaming masterpiece; it's only natural your fans would like to contribute!
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 Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:42 am

I would be more than happy to see some form of higher-level supplement submitted; it might even make it to the Showcase. But for the reasons I've stated, I don't believe I can ever allow such a supplement on the Downloads page, or in official print format.

And I wasn't offended. Just a little crabby. Sorry.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests