An Open Question

I love the idea of Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Weird/horrific fantasy seems really cool to me. So, I started thinking about adding some horrific elements to my BtPG RPG. Well and good, but then I started thinking (always a dangerous thing). That leads us to the Open Question:

Other than some sort of Sanity/Insanity rules, what mechanical ties to the system does weird fantasy need?

I can't think of any really. Maybe a slightly more detailed Fear/Fright system. It just seems to me that scary roleplaying is more about setting and adventure design than about mechanical support.

So, what are your thoughts on the subject?

ACKS Mass Combat

Sometimes I'm a little backwards (my wife is probably saying "Sometimes??"). Case in point, I love to read game reviews after I get the game in question. I do this because it gives me pointers to what reviewers think are important and/or noteworthy aspects of the game in question.

An excellent example of this is the lack of mass combat rules in ACKS. Many of the reviews I've seen cite this as either the chief flaw, or only flaw, of the system.

This is a rather glaring omission, really, considering the much-touted endgame of the system. My research has shown me that the first planned supplement is all about mass combat and is carefully crafted to fully integrate with the economic set-up established in the core rules. That really does sound awesome. I've also seen something about including a basic mass combat engine in future pdf downloads, as well as an SRD of the forthcoming mass combat supplement. Both of those sound good, except that I haven't been able to find said SRD, and my pdf does not include a basic mass combat engine.

I have a question, though. One of the often ballyhooed strengths of the OSR is that elements from pretty much any title are cross-compatible.  Since one of the strongest influences in ACKS is Mentzer BEC (hold the MI, please), why not kitbash the mass combat rules from there? At least as a stop-gap? I know those particular rules may be difficult to come by, but there is always Dark Dungeons. The mass combat system in DD was very well-received in reviews.

Now, let me be clear: I'm not asking this in some sort of rhetorical, "look how clever I am" fashion. This is a serious question for those of you with enough knowledge/experience with both systems to answer. Is a cludge possible? I haven't gotten very far into ACKS at all, yet. I have skimmed the section on Hirelings, and I didn't see anything that should cause obvious conflict with the mass combat rules from DD. In fact, once I considered this possibility, the lack of any sort of mass combat in ACKS almost became a feature. At least there isn't enough of one to make porting DD's too messy to consider.

Basically, here's how I see it, based on my very limited reading. DD rates troops based on three things: Troop Rating, Quality, and Size. Modify the Hireling costs from ACKS as necessary for superior/inferior troop units, and use DD from there. That seems to be the only point of intersection between the rules, at least that I've seen.

So, how about it? I know some of you are familiar enough to have an opinion on this. What do you think of splicing the DD system into ACKS?

Damn you, ADD!

No, not that AD(&)D. I'm referring, of course, to my gamer's ADD. It has been discussed at length about books and movies inspiring us. I hate it when I'm not just inspired, but my whole gaming mood gets freaking hijacked. See, I had a nice little thing going for Alternity again. Nothing major, not quite enough to post about yet, but I was trying to coax the embers into a flame. Then, my wife spake the fateful words:

"Do you want to watch Immortals on pay-per-view tonight?"

 So, naturally, my mood swung instantly to Mazes & Minotaurs. It was on my mind only a couple of weeks ago, so traces of that mood were lingering. All it took was about 15 minutes of the movie to bring M&M right back to the front and center.

 

Not that it's a bad thing, I mean it is a really awesome game. And Minotaur #10 did just come out. Not only is it a fantastic game, it makes use of all the range of dice, meaning all my recently-found collection can be called into action.

Oh, the movie, you ask? It wasn't bad for what it was. The lighting was rather dark and sort of murky looking. I'm not very much of a Mickey Rourke fan, either. I can take him in small doses, like the smarmey lawyer in Man On Fire. Principle antagonist gives him too much screen time for me. The movie most definitely inspired me to want to explore over-the-top Hellenic adventure gaming, though. It did that in spades.

I'm curious, though, which is sort of the point of this post. Do any of you have a certain movie(s) that is(are) sure to fire up a certain gaming interest/mood?

Yet Another Open Question

     I'm somewhat polar by nature. If I love chocolate, I can't be caught liking vanilla. I'm a Led Zeppelin man, fuck the Beatles. That sort of thing. It's not a conscious choice, but to rise above it is. It is in that spirit that this question is asked.

Was d20 the Great Evil of its age? Since I've become enamored of the OSR, and freely available clones and other rpgs, my polarity has led me to fear and despise the d20 system. Reflex/Constitution/Will Saves? Horror! Ascending Armor Class? Blasphemy! Multi-class Druid/Thief?? Heresy! (Well, that part is pretty heretical.) Seriously, though, before the bloat and the power creep, right down at its core, is it that bad?

I know this query may cost me some serious OSR cred, and just when the blog is starting to pick up steam. But the question isn't over yet.

One thing that intrigues me about d20, and more specifically 3.x (gasp!), is E6 play. In a nutshell, characters top out at 6th level. The only gains after that are Feats, every 5,000 XP. It intrigues me because one of the features I want most in a game is a reasonable power curve. I detest the idea that the ogre you pissed yourself over at 3rd level is not even a joke anymore at 12th level. I'm all with characters becoming more capable and all, but some things should always be dangerous. The combination of capping hit points, while at the same time allowing characters to advance in specialty areas through Feats, seems like a good mix. Dare I say it, very swords and sorcery.

Ok, if any of you have made it this far without deleting your membership in the blog, let me ask one more question. The real question all of this has been building toward.

One of my more pragmatic issues with E6 is cost effectiveness. Whether it is gathering OOP 3.x stuff, or getting into Pathfinder, you're buying a whole game and using less than half. Sooo . . . what about using that new Pathfinder Starter Box? It supports levels 1-5. There would be zero issues with grabbing what's needed for 6th level from the SRD. Being aimed at beginners, it isn't choked with all the minutiae of the 500+ page brick that is Pathfinder Core. And, it includes everything needed to play, including monsters.

So, what do you think: Is the new PF Starter a viable choice for low-level, gritty swords and sorcery?

A Question About Crypts & Things

I have an open question, so anyone who knows, or even has an opinion, feel free to answer.

I am very intrigued by this game. I have been ever since I first heard about it and learned it was built in the Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox engine. Lately, since its release, I've learned that it includes many things found in Akrasia's house rules. In fact, apart from the setting, everything I've seen bulleted as a "new feature" is from those house rules.

So, here's the question: Aside from the setting, is there anything in C&T that I couldn't get by applying Akrasia's house rules to WhiteBox myself? I know it is layed out and formatted and all that, and has a cool cover. I'm strictly speaking of the system here. Who can help me with this?