So, this post is an attempt on my part to get some more attention for two other recent posts I wrote! As I stated in the title of this post, the blogosphere is indeed a fickle bitch. Sometimes you'll work hard on a post and it gets no love from the good readers (i.e. comments). Other times you'll write a post in five minutes and a dozen people comment on it. I know all this depends on the vagaries of time of day, availability of readers on a day-to-day basis, etcetera.
But I'm raging against the dying of the light, here!
So, I'll shut up now and give you the links to the two recent posts that I humbly request you read and comment upon, should you so choose! You're feedback is much appreciated! Thanks, friends!
LINKS TO THE POSTS IN QUESTION:
FANTASY FROM ACROSS THE POND
TO HOUSE RULE OR NOT TO HOUSE RULE?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Fantasy from Across the Pond
I'm something of an Anglophile. I pretty much love all things British. Lately, this love affair has (once again) come to include British RPGs, specifically those that would be considered old school.
Perhaps the most famous British RPG, Warhammer FRPG, has been on my shelf for ages. I have a copy of the 1st editon with the awesome cover below (I've always thought that the wizard guy to the right looks like Jack Palance):
I picked it up years ago, but I've never played it. Everyone around me was so into D&D, Palladium games, or Amber Diceless RPG that there was never any interest to do anything else.
At Free RPG Day a couple years ago I grabbed the Dragon Warriors introductory booklet put out by Mongoose Publishing. This was my first exposure to that game, and I acquired the Mongoose editon of the rule shortly thereafter. Again, I haven't played it, but it looks really cool.
Something about having a British RPG has always seemed so exotic to me. Perhaps this feeling started when, as a teen (who had already been playing D&D), I found a copy of The Forest of Doom in a used book store, one of the Fighting Fantasy game books. I still have my copy, and it's still in great condition (cover image below):
Here was a game (albeit with a rather simple game book system) that WASN'T D&D, with mechanics not at all based on the D&D engine. What a concept! And the fact that it was British?! Even better! The simplistic nature of the mechanics wasn't lost on me, but I was enchanted nonetheless (Note: I encounted Fighting Fantasy before Warhammer).
I enjoyed playing The Forest of Doom, but I never tried to find any other Fighting Fantasy books. D&D and, later, other games were so prevalent in my life that they overwhelmed all other concerns.
These days, I'm once again curious about British RPGs. Newt Newport over at Sorcerer Under Mountain (the mind behind Crypts & Things) has been posting about old school British RPGs, and this post alerted me to the existence of Advanced Fighting Fantasy.
I'm really intrigued by Advanced Fighting Fantasy, and I'm working on getting myself a copy of the second edition of the rules. And this time, I'm determined to not let a British RPG just sit on my shelf. I'll let you know what I discover, once I get my hands on that book!
In the meantime, everyone feel free to share their own experiences with British RPGs, please!
Edit: It wasn't until recently that I acquired my second Fighting Fantasy game ever: Wizard of Firetop Mountain for my iPhone. I'm trying to picture what would happen if my current self was able to time travel, and tell my teen self that one day I'd be playing a gamebook on something the size of a calculator. Sorry, the passage of time wigs me out most of the time.
Perhaps the most famous British RPG, Warhammer FRPG, has been on my shelf for ages. I have a copy of the 1st editon with the awesome cover below (I've always thought that the wizard guy to the right looks like Jack Palance):
I picked it up years ago, but I've never played it. Everyone around me was so into D&D, Palladium games, or Amber Diceless RPG that there was never any interest to do anything else.
At Free RPG Day a couple years ago I grabbed the Dragon Warriors introductory booklet put out by Mongoose Publishing. This was my first exposure to that game, and I acquired the Mongoose editon of the rule shortly thereafter. Again, I haven't played it, but it looks really cool.
Something about having a British RPG has always seemed so exotic to me. Perhaps this feeling started when, as a teen (who had already been playing D&D), I found a copy of The Forest of Doom in a used book store, one of the Fighting Fantasy game books. I still have my copy, and it's still in great condition (cover image below):
Here was a game (albeit with a rather simple game book system) that WASN'T D&D, with mechanics not at all based on the D&D engine. What a concept! And the fact that it was British?! Even better! The simplistic nature of the mechanics wasn't lost on me, but I was enchanted nonetheless (Note: I encounted Fighting Fantasy before Warhammer).
I enjoyed playing The Forest of Doom, but I never tried to find any other Fighting Fantasy books. D&D and, later, other games were so prevalent in my life that they overwhelmed all other concerns.
These days, I'm once again curious about British RPGs. Newt Newport over at Sorcerer Under Mountain (the mind behind Crypts & Things) has been posting about old school British RPGs, and this post alerted me to the existence of Advanced Fighting Fantasy.
I'm really intrigued by Advanced Fighting Fantasy, and I'm working on getting myself a copy of the second edition of the rules. And this time, I'm determined to not let a British RPG just sit on my shelf. I'll let you know what I discover, once I get my hands on that book!
In the meantime, everyone feel free to share their own experiences with British RPGs, please!
Edit: It wasn't until recently that I acquired my second Fighting Fantasy game ever: Wizard of Firetop Mountain for my iPhone. I'm trying to picture what would happen if my current self was able to time travel, and tell my teen self that one day I'd be playing a gamebook on something the size of a calculator. Sorry, the passage of time wigs me out most of the time.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Take this Gaming Survey!
So, JB at the awesome B/X Blackrazor blog has put out a call for people to complete a gaming survey. I've already completed it and sent it back to him. I think you should as well!
Take the survey!
Take the survey!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Question of the Day: To House Rule or Not to House Rule?
Greetings, all! I don't have much time today, but I wanted to ask another question (geared mostly toward D&D and its spawn):
What is your stance on house rules? Do you avoid them totally, or do you use them to some degree? If you do use them, how extensive (or not) are your house rules? And what are the aspects of the game that you house rule?
For myself, I like to keep house rules to a minimum. I've limited myself to one 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper for house rules for my C&C campaign. And actually, only one side of the sheet has the house rules. The other side has rules from the Castle Keeper's Guide that I am using to augment the rules from the C&C Player's Handbook. So again, just one page of house rules.
My criteria these days for choosing a rule set to use is how much I would have to house rule to get a game I want to play. C&C is one of those games that I don't want to/need to house rule too much for it to do what I want it to do. When I find myself house ruling a game too much, that means (to me) that it's not one I want to play.
There is, however, something to be said for remembering to try playing a game for what it is (rules as written). Lord knows I have a hard time putting that into practice. I just dive automatically into tinkering for some reason. I'm trying to resolve/rethink that impulse in my mind right now with regard to Labyrinth Lord. I want to potentially run some LL games but I keep trying to house rule it too much (in my opinion). But I think I'm reaching a point where I'm accepting the game for what it is, rules as written.
Anyway, looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
P.S. I know JB at B/X Blackrazor has written about house rules, and his opinion is pretty clear, I think!
What is your stance on house rules? Do you avoid them totally, or do you use them to some degree? If you do use them, how extensive (or not) are your house rules? And what are the aspects of the game that you house rule?
For myself, I like to keep house rules to a minimum. I've limited myself to one 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper for house rules for my C&C campaign. And actually, only one side of the sheet has the house rules. The other side has rules from the Castle Keeper's Guide that I am using to augment the rules from the C&C Player's Handbook. So again, just one page of house rules.
My criteria these days for choosing a rule set to use is how much I would have to house rule to get a game I want to play. C&C is one of those games that I don't want to/need to house rule too much for it to do what I want it to do. When I find myself house ruling a game too much, that means (to me) that it's not one I want to play.
There is, however, something to be said for remembering to try playing a game for what it is (rules as written). Lord knows I have a hard time putting that into practice. I just dive automatically into tinkering for some reason. I'm trying to resolve/rethink that impulse in my mind right now with regard to Labyrinth Lord. I want to potentially run some LL games but I keep trying to house rule it too much (in my opinion). But I think I'm reaching a point where I'm accepting the game for what it is, rules as written.
Anyway, looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
P.S. I know JB at B/X Blackrazor has written about house rules, and his opinion is pretty clear, I think!
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
How Simple Do You Like It?
It's no secret how much I love C&C, and by extension D&D. But I've found myself wondering if I can find an even simpler system.
I'm trying to find the right balance of simplicty for my current lifestyle. I think I can handle C&C, but sometimes I find myself craving specific things. Such as using a game that only needs d6's instead of all the other polyhedrons. Or a game that only has two or three ability scores. Or a game that has a limited number of skills and spells for players to choose from, meaning that I as GM would have less character options to contend with/memorize.
Or some combination of all of the above.
Again, I love my C&C and all that it offers me and my group. But as absurd as it sounds, sometimes I want a game that's even simpler! And not simpler in a "I'll just play Basic D&D instead of something based off of Advanced D&D" way. Part of what I've been feeling is a need to get away from D&D-based games, and all the associated mechanics.
Some of this might be motivated by gamer ADD, but like I said, it's also because my life seems to get getting busier all the time, as my job seeks to give me more and more responsibility and the kids are getting older.
I'm also looking for an RPG I can run in between sessions of my C&C game, on those nights when things just don't align and my regular campaign doesn't come together.
I know what you're saying: "Uh, Drance, you've only been back to playing table-top RPGs for about a year. You wanted to get back into some sort of D&D action specifically. And now you want to play a game that ISN'T some variation of D&D? You've got issues, man."
Tell me something I don't know.
I've also been fondly remembering my Amber Diceless RPG days of late. And I've been considering pulling out my copy of Barbarians of Lemuria again. Now, Amber may be diceless but that doesn't mean it's exactly simple. It takes a lot of consideration and connection between GM and players, and can get pretty intense with respect to descriptive detail and depth of interaction.
Anyway, the questions are:
1. Can you recommend a simple system that isn't one of the following: Any variation of Microlite, Dungeonslayers, Old School Hack, or Wizard Rogue Mage?
2. Does anyone have any experience with Advanced Fighting Fantasy or Dragon Warriors, and if so, are they fairly light? I'm assuming Dragon Warriors is not really that light (I have the Mongoose book, but haven't read it), but I could be wrong. Oh, and I have to admit that I've been getting very curious about British Old School games.
Another caveat: I'm also pretty familiar with Savage Worlds at this point, so you can skip suggesting that as well, if any of you think of suggesting that!
Sorry for the rambling. It's been one of those days. I know I'm not articulating things the way I want them to come out. I'm not completely happy with this post but I'm going to hit the publish button anyway! Throwing caution to the wind and all that bosh. Looking forward to hearing from you all.
I'm trying to find the right balance of simplicty for my current lifestyle. I think I can handle C&C, but sometimes I find myself craving specific things. Such as using a game that only needs d6's instead of all the other polyhedrons. Or a game that only has two or three ability scores. Or a game that has a limited number of skills and spells for players to choose from, meaning that I as GM would have less character options to contend with/memorize.
Or some combination of all of the above.
Again, I love my C&C and all that it offers me and my group. But as absurd as it sounds, sometimes I want a game that's even simpler! And not simpler in a "I'll just play Basic D&D instead of something based off of Advanced D&D" way. Part of what I've been feeling is a need to get away from D&D-based games, and all the associated mechanics.
Some of this might be motivated by gamer ADD, but like I said, it's also because my life seems to get getting busier all the time, as my job seeks to give me more and more responsibility and the kids are getting older.
I'm also looking for an RPG I can run in between sessions of my C&C game, on those nights when things just don't align and my regular campaign doesn't come together.
I know what you're saying: "Uh, Drance, you've only been back to playing table-top RPGs for about a year. You wanted to get back into some sort of D&D action specifically. And now you want to play a game that ISN'T some variation of D&D? You've got issues, man."
Tell me something I don't know.
I've also been fondly remembering my Amber Diceless RPG days of late. And I've been considering pulling out my copy of Barbarians of Lemuria again. Now, Amber may be diceless but that doesn't mean it's exactly simple. It takes a lot of consideration and connection between GM and players, and can get pretty intense with respect to descriptive detail and depth of interaction.
Anyway, the questions are:
1. Can you recommend a simple system that isn't one of the following: Any variation of Microlite, Dungeonslayers, Old School Hack, or Wizard Rogue Mage?
2. Does anyone have any experience with Advanced Fighting Fantasy or Dragon Warriors, and if so, are they fairly light? I'm assuming Dragon Warriors is not really that light (I have the Mongoose book, but haven't read it), but I could be wrong. Oh, and I have to admit that I've been getting very curious about British Old School games.
Another caveat: I'm also pretty familiar with Savage Worlds at this point, so you can skip suggesting that as well, if any of you think of suggesting that!
Sorry for the rambling. It's been one of those days. I know I'm not articulating things the way I want them to come out. I'm not completely happy with this post but I'm going to hit the publish button anyway! Throwing caution to the wind and all that bosh. Looking forward to hearing from you all.
To (mis)quote Edmund Burke...
All that is necessary for the triumph of douchebaggery is that compassionate gamers type nothing.
I'm not into flame wars, but I'm also not into sitting back while some petty Internet tyrant lounges in his ivory tower and belittles people. Especially when the people being belittled are those that I respect.
'Nuff said. I'm over the latest example of such douchery in our little corner of the blogosphere. But never fear, I always keep my eyes peeled.
UPDATE: True to form, THAT GUY created a post speaking of/to yours truly. He calls it "DRAMA!" I would call it "He's overestimating his effect on me, by far."
I'm not angry in the least. Being angry would imply that I have an emotional attachment to the man. Not at all. What I do feel attached to is our community here in the gaming blogosphere. And when someone starts flinging their bad attitude around with impunity, I feel compelled to speak out. 'Nuff said.
And since it may never see the light of day, here's my comment on his "Drama" post:
You are overthinking all of this, man. I'm just an average guy. No grand conspiracy against you. Note that I haven't commented at all on your blog for some time now. It's only when you start attacking people and getting up on your proverbial high horse that I feel I should speak up.
If you don't want to hear a different opinion about your behavior, why are you out here on the Internet? You can't expect to get all pissy and abuse people verbally and not take some shit for it, right? You shouldn't be surprised when you get bile for bile.
I just call it like I see it. Is there really any denying that you come off pretty harsh on people, and perhaps needlessly so? That you browbeat others, and you go off at the slightest provocation? Am I wrong?
And it's just baffling. It's so easy to be nice to other people. And nice doesn't mean you're a pushover. You can still have strong opinions, stand firm for your beliefs, and be a nice guy.
Doesn't all that bile choke you, ever? I don't care if it's real or just some act you put on, that vitriol is not good for you or for the community. That's all I've ever said to you, and all that I will ever say. Just give people a break. I'm not trying to get you to leave the blog community. That's an impossibility, and nor would I want it. I feel you do have a lot to offer the community.
All your literary allusions and purple prose are not needed in this instance, my friend. Spend that energy being a cheery chap once in a while. It might do you wonders.
P.S. And can we stop assuming that I'm "miserable," I hate my life, I'm not happy with my gaming situation, I'm always angry, and all the other stuff you're assuming? This is all just obfuscation on your part to steer the conversation away from your bad attitude. You don't know anything about me, as I don't know anything about your real, non-Internet self.
All I'm talking about is how you come across on your blog, man. You just come across as a bully, or whiny. Or some combination of the two. That's all. It baffles me why people put up with your crap out here.
I'm not into flame wars, but I'm also not into sitting back while some petty Internet tyrant lounges in his ivory tower and belittles people. Especially when the people being belittled are those that I respect.
'Nuff said. I'm over the latest example of such douchery in our little corner of the blogosphere. But never fear, I always keep my eyes peeled.
UPDATE: True to form, THAT GUY created a post speaking of/to yours truly. He calls it "DRAMA!" I would call it "He's overestimating his effect on me, by far."
I'm not angry in the least. Being angry would imply that I have an emotional attachment to the man. Not at all. What I do feel attached to is our community here in the gaming blogosphere. And when someone starts flinging their bad attitude around with impunity, I feel compelled to speak out. 'Nuff said.
And since it may never see the light of day, here's my comment on his "Drama" post:
You are overthinking all of this, man. I'm just an average guy. No grand conspiracy against you. Note that I haven't commented at all on your blog for some time now. It's only when you start attacking people and getting up on your proverbial high horse that I feel I should speak up.
If you don't want to hear a different opinion about your behavior, why are you out here on the Internet? You can't expect to get all pissy and abuse people verbally and not take some shit for it, right? You shouldn't be surprised when you get bile for bile.
I just call it like I see it. Is there really any denying that you come off pretty harsh on people, and perhaps needlessly so? That you browbeat others, and you go off at the slightest provocation? Am I wrong?
And it's just baffling. It's so easy to be nice to other people. And nice doesn't mean you're a pushover. You can still have strong opinions, stand firm for your beliefs, and be a nice guy.
Doesn't all that bile choke you, ever? I don't care if it's real or just some act you put on, that vitriol is not good for you or for the community. That's all I've ever said to you, and all that I will ever say. Just give people a break. I'm not trying to get you to leave the blog community. That's an impossibility, and nor would I want it. I feel you do have a lot to offer the community.
All your literary allusions and purple prose are not needed in this instance, my friend. Spend that energy being a cheery chap once in a while. It might do you wonders.
P.S. And can we stop assuming that I'm "miserable," I hate my life, I'm not happy with my gaming situation, I'm always angry, and all the other stuff you're assuming? This is all just obfuscation on your part to steer the conversation away from your bad attitude. You don't know anything about me, as I don't know anything about your real, non-Internet self.
All I'm talking about is how you come across on your blog, man. You just come across as a bully, or whiny. Or some combination of the two. That's all. It baffles me why people put up with your crap out here.
Monday, January 30, 2012
I bequeath the Stick in the Mud scepter to...
King Nothing. And guess what, he's disappointed. Ruh roh! Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair.
This one's for you, Your Majesty:
This one's for you, Your Majesty:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)