Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 19:48:49 GMT -6
Lamentations of the Flame Princess works really well with AS&SoH. It is also weird fantasy. James Raggii VI is a fantastic adventure writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Jun 27, 2013 7:59:37 GMT -6
I have his Death Frost Doom module. It's pretty good! I've never run it, but maybe I will eventually. I'm not familiar with his more recent work. Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 4, 2013 1:47:44 GMT -6
I don't particularly like the rules set, as there is nothing in there to support the weird fantasy theme, rules-wise. But (some of) the adventures are really nice. I was thinking of running the latest "Better than any man" with AS&SH.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 4, 2013 4:51:22 GMT -6
I don't particularly like the rules set, as there is nothing in there to support the weird fantasy theme, rules-wise. I wouldn't like to hijack this thread but it got me curious: how does AS&SH support "the weird fantasy theme" rules-wise better than LotFP? To me, only a subset of the monsters and spells are "weird" (both of which can also be found in LotFP) - but I actually don't regard spells and monsters as "rules", they are more like "appendages". |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jul 4, 2013 6:39:50 GMT -6
I don't particularly like the rules set, as there is nothing in there to support the weird fantasy theme, rules-wise. I wouldn't like to hijack this thread but it got me curious: how does AS&SH support "the weird fantasy theme" rules-wise better than LotFP? To me, only a subset of the monsters and spells are "weird" (both of which can also be found in LotFP) - but I actually don't regard spells and monsters as "rules", they are more like "appendages". Ynas Midgard, Not very familiar with LotFP. ASSH from the standpoint of rules mechanics doesn't enforce the weird fantasy genre per se. The thing that gives me a weird fantasy vibe is the style of writing as well as the human centric focus. I also think the eclectic sub classes have a weird feel to them. We could argue some do not such as the Paladin but for me most do. The world of Hyperborea is the type of weird I like with a mixture of reality and fantasy with some alien and some science. Insanity is touched on with enough info to get a character crazy but not a formal rule set as given in other systems. Just thinking out loud! BTW enjoyed my first visit to the blog will be back! Morgan |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 4, 2013 6:43:58 GMT -6
I don't particularly like the rules set, as there is nothing in there to support the weird fantasy theme, rules-wise. I wouldn't like to hijack this thread but it got me curious: how does AS&SH support "the weird fantasy theme" rules-wise better than LotFP? To me, only a subset of the monsters and spells are "weird" (both of which can also be found in LotFP) - but I actually don't regard spells and monsters as "rules", they are more like "appendages". Well, the biggest elements are the classes; looking at spellcasters, LotFP only has the standard cleric, elf and magic-user, with essentially the same abilities of those in B/X. Look at the AS&SH classes instead: witch, necromancer, priest, shaman etc. and their class abilities (and some cool spells to boot.) Whether you consider them part of the rules or not, spells definitely contribute to the "feel." Just as another example have a look at the spells in the d20 Conan RPG; if it weren't so d**ned swamped in mechanics, that game would be THE weird/S&S fantasy game. And LotFP has no monsters at all in the boxed set, which is another huge turn-off for me; I don't want to re-invent the wheel or waste time when someone else has done it for me. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 4, 2013 7:44:38 GMT -6
I wouldn't like to hijack this thread but it got me curious: how does AS&SH support "the weird fantasy theme" rules-wise better than LotFP? To me, only a subset of the monsters and spells are "weird" (both of which can also be found in LotFP) - but I actually don't regard spells and monsters as "rules", they are more like "appendages". First let me say I would consider AS&SH more of a "sword-and-sorcery" or "pulp fantasy" game. But it does have weird fantasy elements, and these are conveyed thematically throughout: the races, the classes, the spells, the monsters (not just the obviously Lovecraftian ones, but other pulpy monsters such as the lotus women and four-armed white apes), the magic items, and the default setting. By contrast LotFP has the standard B/X classes (including the high fantasy demihumans), a few altered spells, no monsters, no magic items, and no default setting to add flavor. A few spells excepted, I frankly don't see much of anything in the basic LotFP rules that really conveys a "weird fantasy" atmosphere (although Raggi's adventures do so much more effectively). If we strip away those elements that you consider "appendages", the two games support weird fantasy about equally well and about as well as any D&D-like game (not surprising, since they are all 90% or more the same as the game Gary created). Ultimately it's really up to the referee to create an atmosphere of weird fantasy - regardless of the rules set used.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 13:03:03 GMT -6
I don't see much of a difference. The spells look about the same to me. AS&SH seem to have more flashier spells such as fireball and lighting bolt. LotFP don't. Of course you could just take it out. LotFP has the standard D&D races. I just took them out. Both are a class system. AS&SH has the monk. I don't feel that's Weird Fantasy. Of course you could just take it out. Both have long acronyms that are a pain to type. I don't know how magic items have much to do with weird fantasy. I never liked mixing laser guns into games. So I take it out.
What I like about LotFP
Only the Fighter gains bonuses to hit as level increase
The spell list doesn't have flashy combat spells like fireball & lighting bolt
No monster list. Monsters are real easy to create with such a simple system. I do plan to use the AS&SH monsters if I need them.
Retro clone games make it easier to add different rules from other similar systems
Raggi's adventures are excellent. That's the main reason. I plan on trying weird fantasy with GURPS, Hackmaster, Harn, and Heroquest II.
The Referee's book gives more info about creating the weird fantasy feel.
1. Feelings of vulnerability and helplessness
2. Taking away player knowledge by using your own creations
3. Using a normal a campaign world as possible.
4. Players not having a true understanding of the situation.
I think his adventures really stick to these rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 4, 2013 17:05:23 GMT -6
@ mabon5127
Glad you liked it; there are a couple of half-written posts I intend to finish in the near future, so be tuned.
@ rabindranath72
Technically, AS&SH does not have much more weirdness to offer regarding classes than AD&D. Spells work just as they do in other iterations of the Classic Fantasy Game. The setting, surely, has some weirdness to offer, but the game rules-wise is the same.
@ blackadder23
Yeah, LotFP's philosphy is in de-standardisation thus it doesn't provide anything. See, OD&D was all about "this is just an example of classes and monsters and random encounter tables", yet it all became pretty standard.
@ subotai
Exactly; regarding their system, the only difference is that LotFP is based on B/X D&D, while AS&SH is based on AD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 1:46:29 GMT -6
Witches, Shamans, Necromancers, Priests etc. offer a LOT more stuff than AD&D; and their mechanics match the "flavour" of S&S and weird fantasy; a clear case where system matters. And spellcasters get way fewer spells to choose from than any iteration of D&D, most notably clerics and other "divine" spellcasters. This fact alone makes for a totally different feel, rules-wise; again, a case where system matters. If you want to go with atmosphere alone like LotFP does, well you don't need any rulebook at all to tell you what to do; just a good read of the classics is enough. I ran Hyborian Age campaigns using B/X just fine, with only a few tweaks here and there (e.g. clerics are NPCs only, and always Chaotic since their patrons are effectively demons; no demihumans; no "flashy" spells; shock recovery rules) and it certainly didn't require writing a whole "new" game. In fact, all it takes is less than half page of tweaks: odd74.proboards.com/thread/4389/minimalist-toolkitI'd pay money for a work of the scope and depth of AS&SH, but surely not for something like LotFP; why pay for getting LESS stuff, and having MORE to do to prepare a game? Anyway, YMMV etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Jul 5, 2013 3:35:49 GMT -6
They may be covered in weird, but the underlying system is the same, thus strictly speaking it cannot be weird rules-wise for the rules are not changed. AS&SH achieves weirdness through setting, not mechanics.
My Life With Master, Don't Rest Your Head, and Monsterhearts - these have mechanics that support their designated genre/atmosphere as their rules are built with that in mind from the core; retro-clones are per definition only clones and sort of re-imaginations of the classic rules, changing their appearance on the surface but ultimately delivering the same gameplay. Again, no offence to any retro-clones, I like them very much, nonetheless.
Technically, you don't have to pay for LotFP, it's freely available at the website.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 4:13:21 GMT -6
I suppose we have different definitions of "system" so I'll leave it at that. I'll just note that you can achieve a given "feel" even without resorting to metagaming concepts like the ones in the games you describe. Things like the witch brewing potions and philtres, or performing a beguiling dance, or creating effigies; can you say these rules bits do not give the game flavour?
RE: LotFP; I know I don't have to pay for (part) of the game, and in any case I own it, it was a present; that's why I criticised it, because I have read it.
Besides, Raggi himself writes on his website:
So yeah, no "hard-coded strangeness" but then he points out to the Summon spell in the rules. By the same reasoning, it seems to me that AS&SH has more "weirdness in the rules" than LotFP. I still think, like he does when he speaks of the Summon spell, that sytem matters, and rules should reflect the mood, whether it's with metagaming effects, or with straight in-game parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 5:14:48 GMT -6
Lamentations of the Flame Princess works really well with AS&SoH. It is also weird fantasy. James Raggii VI is a fantastic adventure writer. Sorry for the derail above, and I forgot to ask: what do you mean? Using the AS&SH setting with LotFP rules? Or the reverse? |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 5, 2013 6:52:07 GMT -6
So as not to seem too negative, and to get back to the original subject, I indeed see no reason why you couldn't use LotFP rules with the AS&SH setting, or play LotFP adventures with the AS&SH rules.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Jul 5, 2013 6:57:00 GMT -6
So as not to seem too negative, and to get back to the original subject, I indeed see no reason why you couldn't use LotFP rules with the AS&SH setting, or play LotFP adventures with the AS&SH rules. Seems reasonable enough to me! |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 7:14:49 GMT -6
So as not to seem too negative, and to get back to the original subject, I indeed see no reason why you couldn't use LotFP rules with the AS&SH setting, or play LotFP adventures with the AS&SH rules. Seems reasonable enough to me! Seems doable both ways; as I said, my plan is to run "Better than any man" with AS&SH rules. I'll make sure to report when I do (probably next month or so.)  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 5, 2013 7:59:04 GMT -6
Where AS&SH has the advantage: No demi-humans! Their presence always lends a Tolkien feel to me. Where LotFP has the advantage: No monster list! I prefer for each monster to be unique rather than part of a species. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 8:42:54 GMT -6
Well, monsters in a catalogue need not be part of a species. Having them SAVES TIME! Even if you want to use one monster per session, just counting the monster entries in the AS&SH books you may get (depending on frequency of play) years' worth of stuff. You don't even need to use the same names; reskin them and only use the stats. Analogously for AS&SH I would have preferred demihumans were there (therefore, kudos to Raggi for adding them!) I might use them if I wanted to use the rules for a different setting, instead I will be forced to concoct something, or not use the rules at all. There's people out there who simply wants to sit down and play, with as low preparation time as possible; I can't understand how NOT having something in a book is a plus  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 5, 2013 9:36:38 GMT -6
Well, monsters in a catalogue need not be part of a species. Having them SAVES TIME! Even if you want to use one monster per session, just counting the monster entries in the AS&SH books you may get (depending on frequency of play) years' worth of stuff. You don't even need to use the same names; reskin them and only use the stats. Analogously for AS&SH I would have preferred demihumans were there (therefore, kudos to Raggi for adding them!) I might use them if I wanted to use the rules for a different setting, instead I will be forced to concoct something, or not use the rules at all. There's people out there who simply wants to sit down and play, with as low preparation time as possible; I can't understand how NOT having something in a book is a plus For me, less is more. Having extraneous stuff in the main rulebook kind of gets the idea across that, "Hey, this stuff is part and parcel of the game." I've ran across people who think I don't play D&D (even though I use the 1974 D&D rules) because I don't use any of the standard monsters or magic items published in the rules. Kind of a "I'm here to slay orcs with a +1 sword. If I can't do that sort of thing, it's not D&D to me." I've become so adept with James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator that I can use it to generate random monsters on the fly during game play while the players are futzing around. No prep time required! |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 5, 2013 10:37:44 GMT -6
The Referee's book gives more info about creating the weird fantasy feel. 1. Feelings of vulnerability and helplessness 2. Taking away player knowledge by using your own creations 3. Using a normal a campaign world as possible. 4. Players not having a true understanding of the situation. Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in which authors Raggi considers "weird fantasy" writers. |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jul 5, 2013 11:17:53 GMT -6
Where AS&SH has the advantage: No demi-humans! Their presence always lends a Tolkien feel to me. Where LotFP has the advantage: No monster list! I prefer for each monster to be unique rather than part of a species. YMMV. I agree on the first point. I like the human centric campaign. I also like the differences in the human races being (generally) role-play opportunities vs rule coded differences. I do like some reusable monsters...but definitely like the one of a kind wonders to throw the players off their rail once in a while. Morgan |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jul 5, 2013 11:20:43 GMT -6
So as not to seem too negative, and to get back to the original subject, I indeed see no reason why you couldn't use LotFP rules with the AS&SH setting, or play LotFP adventures with the AS&SH rules. Agreed. Ditto. Yup! |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 5, 2013 11:43:34 GMT -6
Well, monsters in a catalogue need not be part of a species. Having them SAVES TIME! Even if you want to use one monster per session, just counting the monster entries in the AS&SH books you may get (depending on frequency of play) years' worth of stuff. You don't even need to use the same names; reskin them and only use the stats. Analogously for AS&SH I would have preferred demihumans were there (therefore, kudos to Raggi for adding them!) I might use them if I wanted to use the rules for a different setting, instead I will be forced to concoct something, or not use the rules at all. There's people out there who simply wants to sit down and play, with as low preparation time as possible; I can't understand how NOT having something in a book is a plus For me, less is more. Having extraneous stuff in the main rulebook kind of gets the idea across that, "Hey, this stuff is part and parcel of the game." I've ran across people who think I don't play D&D (even though I use the 1974 D&D rules) because I don't use any of the standard monsters or magic items published in the rules. Kind of a "I'm here to slay orcs with a +1 sword. If I can't do that sort of thing, it's not D&D to me." I've become so adept with James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator that I can use it to generate random monsters on the fly during game play while the players are futzing around. No prep time required! I'd say that's a matter of expectations, not something which MUST be enforced in the rules. If the players sign up to play D&D, you must be upfront and say "this is not the D&D you may know." No harm, no foul. Either way you slice it, it seems to me that not putting something in a book is simply doing a disservice to the customer (and then again, you are using a random generator of monsters, which I don't see how different is from providing a list of already generated critters so you don't have to waste time generating stuff on the run.) I for one, would not have bought LotFP rpg for the lack of a bestiary. If Call of Cthulhu has monsters and weird sorcerous items, I don't see why LotFP should have none, really. One might suspect that Raggi was only being lazy... What's more, some of these critters ARE staples of the genre; and who says that recurring monsters don't belong in weird fantasy? What about all the shoggoths, formless spawns, deep ones, byakee, ghouls, ghasts and mi-go which are described in Lovecraft's weird tales? LotFP provides boatloads of spells of a definitely non-weird nature, demihumans, claims to be inspired by Lovecraft, yet Lovecraftian critters and items are off because "mundane"? Monsters CAN create and reinforce the weird and horror elements of the game. Just have a look at the deep ones and mi-go and elder things pictured in AS&SH. Absolutely wonderful, creepy and inspiring illustrations. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 5, 2013 11:49:40 GMT -6
The Referee's book gives more info about creating the weird fantasy feel. 1. Feelings of vulnerability and helplessness 2. Taking away player knowledge by using your own creations 3. Using a normal a campaign world as possible. 4. Players not having a true understanding of the situation. Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in which authors Raggi considers "weird fantasy" writers. In LotFP's Tutorial book (included with the boxed set), the following authors are listed under "Recommended Reading": Clive Barker Robert E. Howard Fritz Leiber H. P. Lovecraft Edgar Allan Poe Clark Ashton Smith J. R. R. Tolkien Jack Vance Jules Verne H. G. Wells Anderson, Poul Bierce, Ambrose Blackwood, Algernon Bradbury, Ray Carroll, Lewis Chambers, Robert W. Doyle, Arthur Conan Dumas, Alexandre Hodgson, William Hope Homer Joshi, S. T. King, Stephen Lord Dunsany Malory, Sir Thomas Merritt, A. Moorcock, Michael Orwell, George Shakespeare, William Shelley, Mary Stephenson, Robert Louis Stoker, Bram Swift, Jonathan Wilde, Oscar James Raggi ends the section with the following comment: "H. P. Lovecraft's Supernatural Horror in Literature remains the greatest reading resource for those interested in Weird tales." I agree that Raggi's game feels like the sort of thing in Lovecraft's perceptive essay. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jul 5, 2013 12:19:21 GMT -6
Thank you! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2013 18:06:13 GMT -6
Agree, blackadder. LotFP feels like Ligotti or Lovecraft (at least, insofar as Ligotti is transferable to RPGs); AS&SH feels like Howard or Smith.
|
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jul 9, 2013 11:54:19 GMT -6
Geoffrey hit the nail on the head, Raggi already has the esoteric creature generator (for which I use on the fly and Im still new to it!) and weird fantasy usually encourages unique encounters, not the same ole pack of rabid kobolds.
If the games are all based on (insert D&D branch)and you can attribute many of the mechanisms of the game to those previous games easily, why would you want a special monster list to essentially reprint the old tomes of creatures? I already have 50 different takes on the goblin...
To the original post, I don't see anything in ASSH or LotFP that make either of them any more "weird fantasy" than the other with game mechanics. Neither veer from the original rules much from what I have read so far, where DCC RPG with mercurial magic, vancian spell tables, and the Luck mechanism seem to lend themselves well to Weird Fantasy.
Raggi's adventures and ref section (as mentioned before) are where the "weird" get inserted into the fantasy game. If you read the adventures as they were released, you will also see that demi-humans play little to no role and the era is closer to late medieval or early renaissance Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 10, 2013 1:25:10 GMT -6
That's the point; you either need an external source like the random creature generator, or you must come up with new stuff every time you play. In both cases, you are wasting time which the author could have spent once. Also, (and I am not speaking about goblins here, really; this should have been quite clear from the topic) can you ALWAYS come up with an interesting concept like a deep one, or byakee, or mi-go or other Lovecraftian stuff, just by random rolling, or without wasting time to create it?
Personally, I prefer to open my AS&SH GM book, take the deep one stats, and use them in my weird scenario.
LotFP could at least have included Lovecraftian critters, given the tons of space wasted on spells which have nothing to do with Lovecraftian themes, nor on demihumans which apparently from the scenarios Raggi himself publishes, are never used. Or is it your opinion that Lovecraftian critters and items have no space in a game which sells itself based on these concepts?
I have seen no one who answered above addressed these points. Oh well, to each his own, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 10, 2013 15:18:40 GMT -6
That's the point; you either need an external source like the random creature generator, or you must come up with new stuff every time you play. In both cases, you are wasting time which the author could have spent once. Also, (and I am not speaking about goblins here, really; this should have been quite clear from the topic) can you ALWAYS come up with an interesting concept like a deep one, or byakee, or mi-go or other Lovecraftian stuff, just by random rolling, or without wasting time to create it? Personally, I prefer to open my AS&SH GM book, take the deep one stats, and use them in my weird scenario. LotFP could at least have included Lovecraftian critters, given the tons of space wasted on spells which have nothing to do with Lovecraftian themes, nor on demihumans which apparently from the scenarios Raggi himself publishes, are never used. Or is it your opinion that Lovecraftian critters and items have no space in a game which sells itself based on these concepts? I have seen no one who answered above addressed these points. Oh well, to each his own, I suppose. The Lamentations of the Flame Princess game does not need any external sources. It already includes a random creature generator (on pages 143-148 of the Rules & Magic book) as part of the Summon spell. For me, generating new monsters is not wasting time, but is part of the fun. I like surprising myself. It is indeed my option that the LotFP RPG should not include any monsters in it. I remember strongly arguing for this approach with James when he was putting his game together. I think the following from page 5 of James's module, The Monolith from beyond Space and Time, is applicable to his game as a whole: "[T]he idea of making a Lovecraftian adventure without leaning on the usual trappings of Lovecraft's mythos was very appealing. No Cthulhu, no Necronomicon, none of it. Just take the concepts that these things were vehicles for communicating, and use those. It is sort of like making a variation of a very popular role-playing game and leaving out the familiar bestiary and magic items lists." In general, the biggest reason I do not like standardized monsters is the player familiarity. A Deep One, or a shoggoth, or a troll, or a ________ is never as cool the 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 30th, etc. time that a given player encounters it. Instead of being a mysterious creature of wonder, it becomes a Known Quantity. I prefer my known quantities to be humans or real-world animals. I prefer every monster to be unknown and mysterious, every time. I prefer this both as a DM and as a player. If it were up to me, LotFP would NOT include demi-humans, or spells of over 5th level, or any of the "standard" spells. I'd have the spells all be new. Hope that helps! |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Jul 15, 2013 2:16:10 GMT -6
If it were up to me, LotFP would NOT include demi-humans, or spells of over 5th level, or any of the "standard" spells. I'd have the spells all be new. Hope that helps! This would indeed make a lot of sense, and be consistent in its approach. As it stands however, the game simply looks like somewhat schizophrenic. |
|
