Low Fantasy Gaming RPG

[PhoneLobster]

TBH I didn't read the rants

Yeah. Look stop being part of the problem and either interact with the content or shut the fuck up. Running around being a mindless ad hominem attack dog and reverse tone troll white knighting a "this is not for the critics" poster without even reading shit isn't helpful.

[codeGlaze]

TBH I didn't read the rants

Yeah. Look stop being part of the problem and either interact with the content or shut the fuck up. Running around being a mindless ad hominem attack dog and reverse tone troll white knighting a "this is not for the critics" poster without even reading shit isn't helpful.

I meant yours, specifically.

Because your rabidness gets tiring.

I'm sure I'll be curious enough to read them fully in the morning.

[MGuy]

This is an intentional design choice (which of course will not be for everyone).

Indeed. For instance, it will not be for people with functioning brains.

You may have some neat ideas here and there, but overall it's buried in a giant mound of shit, much of which is just factually bad for a game rather than being a matter of taste, and at this stage I can't tell if you're just here from some other community with a really elaborate trolling exercise.

I actually suspect it's just minor advertising instead of trolling.

[Dogbert]

DW is from my limited understanding much more narrative based, combat is very different. 5e is basically high magic, with more hit point/damage inflation, not to martial exploits, luck mechanic, Party Retreat mechanic, etc. They're very different beasts in play, even with the same OGL style base.

Re Monster CR, there isnt any beyond eyeballing it with HD and the abilities a monster has. The formal Party Retreat rule allows the GM to throw whatever makes sense at the party, rather than worry about "balanced encounters". This is an intentional design choice (which of course will not be for everyone).

Not only you didn't answer my question, you also showed a thorough lack of understanding of 5E, 3E, DW, and otherwise business practices in ways I'd rather not waste my time doing because the foundation of knowledge I'd need to impart to you before you could even begin to understand what I'm talking about would require a number of posts that would cover this year's NaNoWriMo.

TL;DR:
- Your few player empowerment ideas alienate Gygaxian players.
- Your "no magic for the PCs, all the magic for my NPCs" alienates Klugian players.
- Your product brings nothing to the table, and you don't understand rules or game systems.
- My recommendations: Either go rules ultra-lite, or hire an artist. If you can't make a good product, make a good-looking product.

[Emerald]

- Your "no magic for the PCs, all the magic for my NPCs" alienates Klugian players.

I assume you're referring to this Klug, but what exactly do you mean by "Klugian"?

[Chamomile]

Dogbert views TTRPGs as a holy war between the kinds of games he likes which are good and pure and true and all other gamers, who are a sinister empire of evil grognards fully united in their desire to crush friendly gaming under their iron boots. "Klugian" is the term he invented in order to be able to refer to his side of this made-up war.

[momothefiddler]

It's a reference to this thread.

[Dogbert]

I assume you're referring to this Klug, but what exactly do you mean by "Klugian"?

Klugian: The opposite of Gygaxian.

I needed to come up with a new nomenclature because referring to games as "old school" is stupid when OSR is the new black for all purposes (and there was never even a name for th "not old" school either).

Or, if you're Chamomile, you can call it "those anti-GM, munchkinist munchkins," because I seem to have hit a nerve. The knee-jerking was fun to read, though.

[Voss]

Nomenclature that only you give a shit about is useless.

[Leress]

Dogbert, stop using jargon that no one else is using. It doesn't help at all.

[Judging__Eagle]

Dogbert, keep advocating for player agency. Seriously, every game design decision that is Gygaxian tends to be the most boring & tedious of all possible options. When I referee, I always encourage my players in their Klugian decisions that allow me to referee non-Gygaxian games.

[TiaC]

Dogbert, keep advocating for player agency. Seriously, every game design decision that is Gygaxian tends to be the most boring & tedious of all possible options. When I referee, I always encourage my players in their Klugian decisions that allow me to referee non-Gygaxian games.

Way to miss the point entirely. No one is saying that Gygaxian design is good or that Dogbert should accept it. They are saying that when he uses the word Klugian, no one knows what he means because he just pulled it out of his ass and the word gives no hint to its meaning. So, what you said has nothing to do with the conversation everyone else is having, as everyone else is talking about terminology.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Why the hell would someone post an idea here and dismiss anything negative? Not just in general, I mean this board, right now? I only post ideas here if I want them to be raped with barbed tentacles because I'd rather a bunch of strangers do so than my game group, who might ask me to never run again.


EDIT: Dogbert, if you want your neologisms to catch on make them less awkward. "klugian" just looks and sounds weird. It makes you look like you have some sort of brain disorder (as someone with actual brain damage that does make neologisms I can fully empathize but they only work when other people can easily tell what you mean).

[Chamomile]

Just because Gygaxian design is bad doesn't mean that TTRPGs are a holy war between Gygaxians and the Justice League. Gygaxian design doesn't even fully cover all anti-player philosophies. White Wolf's problems with player agency certainly don't derive from Gygaxianism.

[Voss]

On the other hand, I really want to see that episode of the Justice League (or possibly Teen Titans and/or Futurama). It would be absurdly funny.

[codeGlaze]

I thought the thread that determined "Klugian" was interesting. I wouldn't mind that being a dennism. (Like Mister Cavern)

But I do think it's difficult for people outside The Den to know why it's supposed to mean, considering Klug doesn't have the same name recognition as Gygax.

[Judging__Eagle]

Just because Gygaxian design is bad doesn't mean that TTRPGs are a holy war between Gygaxians and the Justice League. Gygaxian design doesn't even fully cover all anti-player philosophies. White Wolf's problems with player agency certainly don't derive from Gygaxianism.

That's really funny, because the same people who tend towards Gygaxian gaming; also tend to fap off to the worst parts of White Wolf's advocacy for the same sort of agency limiting techniques that were fundamental to Gygaxian gaming. Namely; reducing players ability to ever predict their degrees of success in any argument resolution check; to the point where "Follow the Railroad" or "Mother may I?" become the most viable player options.

In many respects; the "shifting Target # & Variable Hits Needed" that makes the Storyteller engine into a Gygaxian wet dream; little different from the "Secret, for GM's Eyes Only" THAC0 table of 2e (A)D&D.

White Wolf, and its fanbase, may portray themselves as rabidly anti-D&D; but they still borrow from the worst parts from D&D's mechanical design history.

[PhoneLobster]

I feel like we are drifting off topic. The attribute modifiers thing on it's own is the rabbit hole into a chain of continuing "wait what?" moments that could go for pages.

Wait what? The attribute modifiers start at -3 and go to +3 for the 3 to 18 attribute range? Why?

What they advance on odd numbered attributes instead of even like d20? Isn't that just basically just sabotaging players f...

Wait, what the hell, the +0 modifier range is 2 attribute points larger than all the others for some reason? Why would you possibly... wait whats this next...

The entry for an attribute of 19+ gives you a modifier that actually reads "+4 or more" which is fairly clear what it thinks it means... well maybe because who knows when advancement pattern will arbitrarily change, but also fairly clear that REALLY isn't what it just actually said...

So maybe you think, well characters get attribute points every now and then as they level up so they could hit the 19+ range by that and other means so there must be an extended table or at least a mention that the bonus increases by +1 at every odd attribute increment.

So that leads you to discover that actually no, humanoids are capped to a maximum of 18.

Only no they aren't because "Magical or other" things might let you exceed that... OR OTHER... But if you do use one of those "magic or other" things good luck finding that extended modifier table to look up.

Just getting your level up attribute advancement like in d20 is an "and other effect"... I guess... but do you get those advancements period? Probably not, nothing seems to mention it anywhere, but looking for anything at damn all about leveling up leads you to read the advancement section of the GM rules.

There instead of telling you things like "is the default d20 attribute advancement thing still happening or not?" it gives you two methods for deciding when level ups happen at all. And one of them throws unspecified activity requires, downtime training and gold costs at you. And the other one does the same thing but then breaks your level up into tiny individual boring numeric components (like your HP advancement OR your BAB advancement, etc...) and holds them INDIVIDUALLY to ransom to unspecified "was active" + unspecified downtime training+unspecified costs.

Every question only raises further questions. Incredulity is only followed by further incredulity. Every stone over turned results in something alarming scurrying out, going unanswered and dropping a pile of further unturned stones all over the place.

OR we could argue about only marginally relevant abstract made up terminology that the one guy other than the OP has used once ever so far.

[momothefiddler]

OR we could argue about only marginally relevant abstract made up terminology that the one guy other than the OP has used once ever so far.

When you put it that way, it feels like we made the right choice.

Dogbert, I think it might be more effective in getting your word into parlance if you make your uses of it into links to the thread, or footnote definitions, or something. Acknowledge that, since you just coined it, most people aren't gonna know what it means.

[Jason]

Responding to criticism with "let's agree to disagree" has never not been passive aggressive. It's a low-effort way to condescendingly dismiss both an argument and the person making it without engaging either.

Not true (the first part). It can simply be a concession of impasse. Knowing that there is no conceivable way that either you are able to agree with your opponent, nor your opponent with you and realizing that the mere effort would be a colossal waste of time for either of you, "let's agree to disagree" can be can just be an admission of defeat.

And yes, I said defeat, as proving you are unwilling to defend your position means you surrender your Position. Still, that's not nescessarily passive aggressive.

[PhoneLobster]

Still, that's not nescessarily passive aggressive.

You want to call that on a guy who pulled "not for the critics" on the first hint of criticism?

You don't get to be all "I am forced to politely and respectfully throw up my hands in clear impasse" from response ONE to criticism in any forum of discussion and call yourself an adult.

And no, "agree to disagree" bullshit is VERY specifically not a "surrender", it's a passive aggressive way to declare victory without having to address any opposing argument. It is literally saying "I don't give a shit what you say, I'm just right and I don't even need to give you a fucking reason". And frankly, it would be more respectful if it were just worded that way.

Especially when used as your first and only response to rather specific criticism.

[Jason]

You want to call that on a guy who pulled "not for the critics" on the first hint of criticism?

You don't get to be all "I am forced to politely and respectfully throw up my hands in clear impasse" from response ONE to criticism in any forum of discussion and call yourself an adult.

And no, "agree to disagree" bullshit is VERY specifically not a "surrender", it's a passive aggressive way to declare victory without having to address any opposing argument. It is literally saying "I don't give a shit what you say, I'm just right and I don't even need to give you a fucking reason". And frankly, it would be more respectful if it were just worded that way.

Especially when used as your first and only response to rather specific criticism.

I am not saying he was mature or even right. The mere fact that he is so dismissive about even his very own arguments riles me up to no end, but your Interpretation is just that: an Interpretation. You might be right on this one, you probably even are. Bu the Statement that "let's agree to disagree" must always be passive aggressive, is just wrong. Just as much as your Assertion that it must always be a dismissive declaration of victory.

And if he ever typed "not for the critics", he must have deleted it by now. If that is the case, then it changes the entire context, but so far I couldn't read malice into his replies.

[MGuy]

I've never seen a situation where "Let's agree to disagree" was used in any context where the person saying it was not being passive aggressive. I'm really sure this guy came here only to promote his product. Not to actual discuss its merits.

[Leress]

I've never seen a situation where "Let's agree to disagree" was used in any context where the person saying it was not being passive aggressive. I'm really sure this guy came here only to promote his product. Not to actual discuss its merits.

From my experience I would agree, this guy has only really responded to positive feedback and some clarifications on wording. I've only read a little bit of the 180 page product and it really doesn't really do anything new except the exploits.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'm really sure this guy came here only to promote his product. Not to actual discuss its merits.

If that is a case, he's a moron. We're a dead board with maybe a dozen or so active members who in general don't like anything.