Ok, so a week or so ago, YouTube pushed me Bandit's Keep's video on the Tales of Argosa kickstart. I ignore most RPG kickstarters, but this one caught my attention for some reason. So I grabbed the playtest material to look over. From what I understand, this is from the makers of Low Fantasy Gaming, and is a bit of an unofficial second edition of that game. I'm not very familiar with LFG, so I can't say what has or has not changed.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lowfantasygaming/tales-of-argosa
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/465681

First up, I respect the decision to release what is essentially a complete game as a free playtest document. That is awesome, though I do wonder if it will help or hurt the game commercially.

Below is an "in no particular order" list of what I see as pros, cons, and mixed features, from a cursory look-through of the book. I don't put this in reviews because I haven't read the book thoroughly, and I don't think you can review a game without playing it. But the mods can move this if appropriate.

Pros:
--Class Features: Generally well conceived, providing interesting options for players, without too much additional rules-weight. I particularly like that all of them appear to be things which need only be tracked by the player. There's a general trend of each class having a grab-bag of features to choose from as they level up.
--The Artificer Class: includes some alternate rules to reflavor it as more of an Alchemist; helpful for anyone who doesn't want that magitech/sci-fan flavor in their game.
--Monk Class: Can wear light armor. Especially important since getting a wisdom bonus to their AC uses up a limited class ability.
--No Spell memorization: Wizards still have to have a spell book, but how often they need to study it is "abstracted". Spells are cast with a skill check. There's also a page on casting spells as rituals to make them permanent.
--Extensive Tables: Most of the tables are either d66 or d100, so you should be able to go a while without them becoming to redundant.
--HP: Starts at Con attribute score, and then you gain +2 per level. Seems like a good compromise between limiting HP bloat at higher levels and not making low level characters way too fragile.
--"Fumble Ripostes": Roll a one on your attack and the enemy gets an automatic counterattack. This is a house rule I've been using for years, and it works well.
--Spells: Pretty standard spell list, though I appreciate the effort gone to renaming them all. I also like that they include a list of single-sentence spell summaries, which also tells you which classic spell the new names refer to. That's a nice feature. 
--XP tables: Separate XP tables for gaining XP based on loot, combat, exploration, and social interaction. Might be a headache to calculate, but I like to see guidance for a well-rounded system of XP rewards.
--Bestiary: Not only is the bestiary pretty extensive for a core rulebook, but it includes some tools for making custom monsters. Always a good feature.
--Group Checks: Everybody rolls, if half the party succeeds, everyone succeeds. Seems like a simple system for handling things like the whole party trying to sneak.


Mixed:
--9 classes: I always prefer to see OSR games with something other than the basic four. Sadly, the 9 classes they chose are extremely standard: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cultist (re-skinned cleric), Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue & Magic User. One of the biggest benefits of the OSR framework is that classes are relatively easy to design, so I don't know why nobody can come up with original ones.
--Races: Honestly, it's kind of disappointing to see Elves, Dwarfs and Halflings in a game that otherwise nails that Weird Tales vibe. A Human-only game would have made more sense, but I'd rather have seen more unique races that fit the tone. This is a particularly minor complaint, though, because the races would be very easy to homebrew out or replace. I do like the new race, which is essentially a beastman.
--Backgrounds: I do really like that there's a d66 table for random backgrounds to spice up your character.  Each one provides a skill, a piece of starting equipment, and a +1 to an attribute. I'm torn on this though, because the available backgrounds are a major influence on the implied setting of any game, so if I want to use this for my own setting I'll have to homebrew them.
--Cards and Gimmick Dice: Never like to see these. They just come off as a cheap way to sell more jim-crackery. In fairness, they are only used for the "Oracle" system (largely a tool for solo play), and there is a free online tool for replicating them. The card system is kind of a neat way for rolling random encounters, but I'd rather just have a table to roll.

Cons:
--"Unique Features": This is a "build your own class-feature" system, where players are encouraged to invent abilities and negotiate them with the DM. I get what they're going for, but man this seems like a nightmarishly bad idea. I know some people like homebrew, but it sounds like it's going to make for an infinite headache for the DM. There's a decent list of examples, but you would exhaust them quickly if you only used those.
--"Dark and Dangerous Magic": Another "if you cast spells you will mutate" System. I never like these. Just think this is way too severe of a punishment for playing one of the core classes in a game, and here it applies to clerics as well.  Plus, the system is set up so that every time you cast a spell and don't trigger this affect, the chances go up for future casts. Too many of the possible effects are either grossout mutations, things that will make playing the character less interesting (e.g. not being able to speak for 1d4 months), or be a hassle for the DM to track (e.g. all fires going out in your presence). On the plus side, some of the effects are more interesting, and I like there are separate d100 tables for clerics and wizards.
--Barbarian Class: Still built around a "rage" feature, which I've never liked. It makes the class much more one-dimensional than it should be.
--Ranger Class: They've made the Ranger a dedicated ranged combatant, which again unnecessarily limits the variety of character you can make within the class. They are not proficient with shields, which is doubly odd since they also can't use two-handed weapons. Possibly this is an attempt to shoehorn the ranger into the stereotype of being a dual-wielder. I don't know. There's also no alternative feature you can take if you don't want an animal companion.
--Backstab: Can only be used on a surprised enemy. I think this is too tight a restriction for a core class feature.
--They try to sell group initiative as if it was a new and innovative idea. Not a problem really; just kind of weird.

All in all, I'm pretty mixed on this one. At first blush, I was pumped and thought I might be making this the system for my homebrew setting. But the mutation tables and the "build your own feature" thing might be deal breakers. I'll have to think on how much I'd need to homebrew this to make it a game I want to run.

I doubt I'll be kickstarting this, but if a reasonably priced POD or paperback version turns up down the road, I'll probably be picking it up.

Fore reference, here's the intro to LFG (to compare to the changes in ToA):

"LFG is d20 based, with the following features:

• 9 Classes: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cultist, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue & Magic User; only two of which involve magic.

• 12th Level Max eliminates the most powerful spells, and keeps the mightiest monsters scary.

• Unique Features: every 3rd level design your own PC ability in conjunction with your GM, or choose from 36 examples.

• Roll Equal or Under for attribute checks (inc degrees of success), making every stat point matter.

• Skills provide access to a level based Reroll Pool, smoothing the fickleness of d20 probability distribution.

• Willpower & Perception attributes replace Wisdom.

• Diminishing Luck attribute replaces saving throws and powers some Martial Exploits.

• Minor, Major & Rescue Exploits on top of damage, not in lieu, promote improvised stunts and moments of greatness.

• Dangerous Combat: Dropping to zero hp requires a roll on the Injuries & Setbacks table and healing is delayed by 1d3 minutes (magical or otherwise). Players don't roll to find out if their PC is All Dead or Mostly Dead until the battle ends, and someone checks the body.

• Party Retreat & Chase rules allow the GM to throw whatever makes sense at the party, unshackling them from balanced encounters and quarantined zones.

• 5 minute Short Rests allow PCs to attempt Willpower checks to recover hit points and class abilities, encouraging the party to push on rather than camp.

• Long Rests take 1d6 days (or 1d4 in a safe, comfortable environment), mitigating the nova, rest, repeat problem for adventures with long periods between battles (eg: wilderness treks).

• Dark & Dangerous Magic tests and Divine Rebuke tests make all spell casting inherently uncertain. No at-will, teleport, mind reading or resurrection magic. Magic Users are less reliant on spells, proficient in one handed weapons and light armour.

• Evocative Spells: Spells have been tweaked and renamed, eg: Silent Image, Invisibility, Magic Missile and Hold Monster are instead Shadows & Dust, A Wisp Unseen, Lash of Unerring Pain and Crush of the Warp.

• Rare Magic Items, with obvious and discreet attunements, that unlock as users level up.

• A host of GM Tables (weather, traps, treasure, exploration, random encounters, madness, hirelings, disease, ship combat, mass battle, NPC quirks, etc.) for easy improvisation.

• Online Play Support: an LFG character sheet is available for online play via Roll20 (we are exploring options with Fantasy Grounds).

• Open Game Content: 99% of LFG text is "Open Game Content" under the Open Game Licence."

I own LFG, but I've never run it. For the most part, it looks like a great game. I like some of the changes, but dislike others.  I'm not usually into settings, but the included one (Midlands) was pretty good.

This really does look good.  I dislike a couple of things, but the good seems to outweigh that by a significant margin.

Do magic users have access to healing magic or is the traditional arcane/divine split in effect?

Quote from: Joey2k on July 05, 2024, 04:50:04 PMDo magic users have access to healing magic or is the traditional arcane/divine split in effect?

Doesn't look like MU's get healing spells. It's not the classic B/X spell list, but I did a search on "heal" and it did not yield any MU spells. There's a lot of MU spells, but only 10 or so "blessings" for the Cultist. Classic healing seems to be the domain of the "Lay on Hands" blessing.

In the design notes, the author says the original version of the game only had an MU and no Cultist, with a combined spell list.

Quote from: Joey2k on July 05, 2024, 04:50:04 PMDo magic users have access to healing magic or is the traditional arcane/divine split in effect?

A bit of both. Cultists (clerics) don't actually get their own spell list. Instead, they have a list of "blessings" as class powers which include some traditional cleric spells and some of what are more like Paladin class features. One of the options in the blessing list is to mimic a select list of spells, one of which is the Cure Wounds equivalent, but I don't see anything that said a Magic User couldn't also learn that spell.

Just downloaded the FREE playtest document for ToA. 247 pages! Overall, the look and feel is much improved over LFG. Looking better and better.

I like it that none of the player races have darkvision. Unfortunately, characters only go up to 9th level, but there are quite a few D&D and AD&D adventure modules that are higher than that. I guess your character is then expected to take along a bunch of henchmen and hirelings to survive.

I hate the name change so much.

"Low Fantasy Gaming" actually communicates something about your product and the underserved genre it emulates. "Tales of Argosa" is the most generic, uninspiring, content-slop title I've ever seen.

The name really only makes sense if there is a default Argosa setting for the game. Otherwise it is a fairly meaningless term.

I ran several sessions of Low Fantasy Gaming and enjoyed it. Tales of Argosa is an update or new edition with minor changes. There is a separate book detailing the Midlands campaign setting which is really excellent and I have used its adventure frameworks for other games, too. I don't know if they plan to update this as well.

I agree whole-heartedly on two items from your list. The addition of Tolkien races is a mistake. In previous versions, they were largely legendary, possibly still living in a distant land, but not playable. This game has great potential for doing the sword & sorcery genre, until players see in the rules that they can be halflings, etc. The first edition didn't have clerical divine healing magic either. Sometimes less is better, especially when it helps to maintain focus on a particular setting and genre. "Features" that make this game more like vanilla D&D should have been left in an appendix of optional rules.

The "unique features" idea is also cringe. Classes already have more than enough bells and whistles to play with without having to negotiate additional ones to help players feel more special every third level.

Taken as a whole, however, this is a great game for anyone who likes D&D-like rules with a crunch level similar to D&D 5e, but without most of 5e's magical superpowers. If your group is looking for something to transition from D&D 5e to something darker and grittier, more grounded in classic fantasy literature, then tales of Argosa is a solid choice.

Quote from: Aglondir on July 05, 2024, 01:21:04 AMRoll Equal or Under for attribute checks (inc degrees of success), making every stat point matter.

I like a lot of things but this design choice rubs me the wrong way.

You are already rolling high for attack and damage. Just adjust the math and roll high for everything else.

This is just rolling two different ways for no reason...

Quote from: Vidgrip on July 09, 2024, 06:00:30 PMI agree whole-heartedly on two items from your list. The addition of Tolkien races is a mistake. In previous versions, they were largely legendary, possibly still living in a distant land, but not playable. This game has great potential for doing the sword & sorcery genre, until players see in the rules that they can be halflings, etc. The first edition didn't have clerical divine healing magic either. Sometimes less is better, especially when it helps to maintain focus on a particular setting and genre. "Features" that make this game more like vanilla D&D should have been left in an appendix of optional rules.

Tolkienesque D&D is what sells...

Unless you have the Conan license.