Quote from: EntI once had a conversation with Pundit on the issue of what people would become adventurers

You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.

Quote from: silva;650293I got the impression its not just a matter of encumbrance/bulk rules though, but the sinnergy of it with the "conditions" (Hungry, Afraid, Exhausted, etc) which trigger certain reactions under certain circumstances (afraid + no light = runaway, etc).

Mate, RQ 3 covers all those things but for the Afraid condition. Hunger, thirst and exposure. Being afraid is something you roleplay. Fighting in the dark is something that kills you. You do not get to flee, probably.

Quote from: jeff37923;650300And you just unsold me on the game.

If a character gets so hungry that they have a condition against them after only four turns, or two torches burning completely through, than the rules of the game are designed so that all of the adventurers in it are pussies. Hell, unless each torch burns for a day, then it doesn't even come close to Real Life. Why the fuck would anyone want to play such a weakling as an adventurer unless they really dig misery?

Yeah, it is surprising. Some metabolism right there

Quote from: silva;650369You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.

Well, not as described by the rules of Torchbearer because they'd all be too busy eating to get anything accomplished.

Quote from: jeff37923;650376Well, not as described by the rules of Torchbearer because they'd all be too busy eating to get anything accomplished.

It's a fatbeard simulator!

Quote from: silva;650369You mean only in fantasy gaming context, right ? Because I wouldnt say "adventurers" actually exist in real life in the way you put.

Of course, in fantasy gaming context.

Quote from: KenHR;650377It's a fatbeard simulator!

"Torchbearer: Fatbeard Simulator"

Quote from: ImperatorMate, RQ 3 covers all those things but for the Afraid condition. Hunger, thirst and exposure. Being afraid is something you roleplay. Fighting in the dark is something that kills you. You do not get to flee, probably.

Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not what those games do, but how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.

In this respect it reminds me of more "thematic" games like Unknown Armies and Pendragon, where the mental traits actually dictate behaviours on the players, instead of merely suggesting them.

"Fatbeard Simulator" sounds like the storygame to rule them all...
(either that or a game like Munchkin, except hardcore! )

Quote from: The Ent;650397"Fatbeard Simulator" sounds like the storygame to rule them all...

Ok, you take a beer from the freeze and go back to your chair.

Take the condition "Exhausted".

Quote from: silva;650399Ok, you take a beer from the freeze and go back to your chair.

Take the condition "Exhausted".

First you must successfully save vs. PBR or you take the "Hipster" condition.

Quote from: Benoist;650368Player's Handbook, page 100+. See page 107-109 in particular.

Which is exactly what I said would be an unsatisfactory answer. And it is.

That Player's Handbook cite won't do anything to tell my why you (or anyone else) love Gygaxian D&D. It's a cop-out.

Can it truly be that no one in the OSR has tried to describe or evangelize their favorite mode of play? Not one person has tried to encapsulate what they enjoy about Gygaxian dungeon raiding, and why, and explain that to anyone else? That they can't even even point to someone else who's done that?

I'm not saying the OSR is bad or wrong for loving 70's and early '80's D&D. But they seem to be clannish and mute on anything else other than the superiority of their mechanics.

And that's not what interests me. It's the mode of play, not the mechanics of the game.

Is anyone among the OSR going to take a swing at being an advocate or ambassador?

Or is really, truly just about the mechanics? Just about loathing 3e's ascending AC and three saves and feats, and not at all about spreading excitement for what fun OD&D can be?

I love Torg (as people may have gathered). And I have often explained what I love about the game as a whole, and each of the realms. And I've presented mechanics to improve those aspects in play.

Not because I hated Masterbook (Torg's "4e"). But because I loved Torg.

It shocks me that no one in the OSR has done this. Even after I specifically invited people to sell me on the idea — show me why you love it. I want to understand.

Come on, guys, someone must have done this. Surely, in the last, what, 7 years? At least once?

One blog post? One manifesto? ("Loving the Old School Dungeon.") One board thread? One board comment? No one?

That's disappointing and puzzling. I truly don't get it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406Can it truly be that no one in the OSR has tried to describe or evangelize their favorite mode of play? Not one person has tried to encapsulate what they enjoy about Gygaxian dungeon raiding, and why, and explain that to anyone else? That they can't even even point to someone else who's done that?

I dipped a toe in these waters previously. Some good information in there.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406Which is exactly what I said would be an unsatisfactory answer. And it is.

Not for me. Have you really bothered to open your 1e AD&D PH today and read the part entitled "Successful Adventures"?

That's page 107 and 109, again, along with the surrounding context.

Because it seems to me you haven't. It provides the advice you asked for, and explains why some people would like to play these kinds of games for anyone with eyes to see.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;650406It's a cop-out.

Huh? No, it isn't. Not for me anyway.

Hulks and Horrors contains a fair bit of text as well explaining not just how old-school sandbox gaming is fun, but why.

You can get it for free right now too, if you follow the links on the Arcana Rising KS.

There's also all those guys who wrote "old school primers," or the glowing blog and forum posts from recent converts like James M. or myself.  

Just because you haven't read shit doesn't mean it isn't out there, and it's not anyone else's responsibility to educate you on the matter.

Frankly I don't know what the hell you're screaming about, but it seems irritatingly close to a shoe-drop moment where you then claim that this supposed absence of such material is some kind of proof of something or other.

Quote from: silva;650395Again, I think it may be a matter of execution. Its not what those games do, but how they do it. The "conditions" in Fatbeard Simulator ( ) seem to behave significantly different - and result in significantly different outputs - from the ones in Gurps or RQ, specially if you consider the compulsory nature of its triggers.

Not so much, mate.

If you are too fatigued in RQ, you will endure rising penalties to everything until you drop. This is going to severely limit your shit. No need of taking away the control of your PC, you will be resting on your own accord. It's just roleplaying your PC. If the GM asks you in RQ how your stuff is distributed on your PC, you will develop a slot system in a natural manner. You just have to imagine yourself there. Like pretending you are your PC.

I am always OK with doing things a la Pendragon because Pendragon is one of the bestest games ever known to man, but I hardly consider that reinventing the fucking wheel. All those things already existed, It's just that some people now can allow themselves to like them, because it's designed by the right person.

Quote from: Imperator;650412I am always OK with doing things a la Pendragon because Pendragon is one of the bestest games ever known to man, but I hardly consider that reinventing the fucking wheel. All those things already existed, It's just that some people now can allow themselves to like them, because it's designed by the right person.

Well, if thats your take on the matter, so be it. I dont share it, but respect it nonetheless.

Note that, by your argument, Unknown Armies may be also considered to try "re-inventing the wheel". And this, in my opinion, didnt impede it of being a great game by itself.