I think I'm going to replace fireball with "helltoad" a spell that projects a 45' cone of really hungry, super slimy magic toads.
And no, I'm not joking.

Quote from: Aos;457988I think I'm going to replace fireball with "helltoad" a spell that projects a 45' cone of really hungry, super slimy magic toads.
And no, I'm not joking.

Why not have a localized rain of toads?

Although, if it's gonna be a cone, the spell should at least make the caster vomit out the toads.

Edit: maybe the somatic component is you lick a toad, feel sick, vomit hundreds more.

Quote from: Aos;457988I think I'm going to replace fireball with "helltoad" a spell that projects a 45' cone of really hungry, super slimy magic toads.
And no, I'm not joking.

Honestly?  I think that's awesome.

I also like Zak Smith's idea of a "firetoad" (from the Fiend Folio) being a kind of living caltrop that goblins drop; you step on them, they squish, and they they burst into flames.

Quote from: misterguignol;457993Honestly?  I think that's awesome.

I also like Zak Smith's idea of a "firetoad" (from the Fiend Folio) being a kind of living caltrop that goblins drop; you step on them, they squish, and they they burst into flames.

You'd need a lot of firetoads to get sufficient ground cover, I think, but "a lot of firetoads" isn't at all aesthetically unappealing either.

Quote from: Cole;457990Why not have a localized rain of toads?

Although, if it's gonna be a cone, the spell should at least make the caster vomit out the toads.

Edit: maybe the somatic component is you lick a toad, feel sick, vomit hundreds more.

I actually thought of localized rain, but I'm completely sold on the vomit idea. Thanks.

Quote from: Aos;458004I actually thought of localized rain, but I'm completely sold on the vomit idea. Thanks.

There is a NPC in Vornheim that can vomit up a monstrous toad on a character--if the character fails a save vs. the toad's attack they vomit up another toad on another character & etc...thus creating a chain of toad vomiting.

Quote from: Aos;458004I actually thought of localized rain, but I'm completely sold on the vomit idea. Thanks.

You could fold in a nausea effect from the vomit stench. Nothing classes up the joint like chain vomiting.

Quote from: misterguignol;456776In an ideal world, I'd like to see the "Example of Play" condensed to make even more room for other suggested inspirations.  It would be interesting to see a similar treatment given to inspirational films (The Brotherhood of the Wolf, The Wicker Man, and Hammer Horror, perhaps?) as well as a few examples of recommended music to set the weird fantasy mood.  Perhaps even a few more authors.  (I'd definitely through Arthur Machen in there.)  Hell, I'm tempted to throw together a pdf of such things just to further the weird fantasy feel for anyone who is looking for more grist for the imaginative mill.  

By the way, Mr. G, do you have a setting in mind for what you're thinking of running with this game? I'd be up for hearing about that.

Quote from: Cole;458359By the way, Mr. G, do you have a setting in mind for what you're thinking of running with this game? I'd be up for hearing about that.

I've got a homebrew setting I've been used in various campaigns (and various systems) that is definitely Weird Fantasy.  I've got a 16 page .pdf of it around somewhere, but it strays from some some of the core conceits of in the LotFP books.  For example, my campaigns are humans-only as far as PCs are concerned, people have heard of some of types of "monsters" by way of folklore and explorer's reports, and its a bit more gonzo-decadent (like the Vornheim) than historico-weird.

Great stuff there with the vomited/exploding toads... definitely stolen and soon to be appearing in my Saturday morning games.
I always liked the idea of wizards putting a creative/personal spin on their spells... one makes gives all his spells a toad element, others use spiders, bats, tiny homunculi.

The Referee book is the slimmest of the books in the Grindhouse Edition, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's probably the best book in the set.  It starts off with the author stating that he's going to drop the dry, "rulebook" tone found in the other books and just talk casually about the things to keep in mind when you're thinking about running LotFP.  

The first section of the Referee book reiterates not the letter of the rules, but the attitude of the rules: rulings instead of rigid rules, the DM gets the final say, let the dice fall where they may, 1st level PCs are for mowing down with extreme prejudice, etc.

Following this is a section on "The Weird."  This is probably the section that most people will be most anxious for because it is the section that strikes a tone that separates LotFP from other retro-clone or vintage-inspired games.

After a succinct, and pretty canny, definition of that constitutes a "Weird Tale," James Raggi emphatically emphasizes that LotFP is not a story game because while a "writer can easily manipulate the entire tale in order to serve the purpose of inducing the reader to feel as the writer wishes.  In a role-playing game, this is not so simple."  In other words, a Referee in LotFP must allow for player characters to have agency; the Referee presents a scenario for the characters to interact with, but "is not telling a story" or running the players through an already pre-ordained plot with a planned outcome.  Instead, "The story is the summation of what happens during play."

Next, we get a section on Fear, Terror, and Sanity that encourages the Referee to destroy familiarity by not falling back on the usual tropes and conventions of generic fantasy and by creating a pseudo-historic world so that any weird aspects (the uncanny, the monstrous, and the macabre) work more effectively.  Interestingly, Raggi takes a decidedly anti-Ravenloft position by arguing against things like Fear or Sanity rolls.  As always, players should be allowed the freedom to role-play their characters reactions to supernatural or horrifying phenomena; I really like this because I've always felt that those mechanical ways of enforcing genre-appropriate reactions for the characters are artificial.

In this section we also get a discussion of how graphic to make the game (answer: be graphic, but also respectful of your players' sensibilities), fostering a sense of mystery, how to incorporate science and magic together, and how to use plot twists to keep players on their toes.  One thing I found particularly interesting is that LotFP actually has something in common with 4e D&D here: both games insist that the magic and monsters used by the Referee do not have to follow the rules set out for the players.  Sorry, 3e players, your fetish for consistent mechanics is not welcome here!

All in all, there are only four pages in total on "The Weird."  Is that enough to get the point of LotFP across?  I think it is, but I could see how other folks might disagree.  The suggestions here are general and broadly applicable; I think this is to be preferred over a more extensive checklist to make sure your game is "weird enough."

Quote from: misterguignol;458446After a succinct, and pretty canny, definition of that constitutes a "Weird Tale," James Raggi emphatically emphasizes that LotFP is not a story game because while a "writer can easily manipulate the entire tale in order to serve the purpose of inducing the reader to feel as the writer wishes.  In a role-playing game, this is not so simple."  In other words, a Referee in LotFP must allow for player characters to have agency; the Referee presents a scenario for the characters to interact with, but "is not telling a story" or running the players through an already pre-ordained plot with a planned outcome.  Instead, "The story is the summation of what happens during play."

Well, that's hopeful.  I hope it turns out to be true.  Having just got the review copy of this game yesterday I have yet to have time to really look at it (love the little dice, though).

QuoteInterestingly, Raggi takes a decidedly anti-Ravenloft position by arguing against things like Fear or Sanity rolls.  As always, players should be allowed the freedom to role-play their characters reactions to supernatural or horrifying phenomena; I really like this because I've always felt that those mechanical ways of enforcing genre-appropriate reactions for the characters are artificial.

In my experience, not having fear checks or SAN points or something means that the players' "reactions" to "mind-numbing horror" will always be "I stay completely rational within my senses and do exactly that thing which is most strategically sound, be it attacking the creature expertly and fearlessly or retreating in a calm orderly fashion".

QuoteOne thing I found particularly interesting is that LotFP actually has something in common with 4e D&D here: both games insist that the magic and monsters used by the Referee do not have to follow the rules set out for the players.  Sorry, 3e players, your fetish for consistent mechanics is not welcome here!

Nor should it be.  FtA! is the same way, and really so is every game I run.  The rules are there for the players to see as Law and the GM to see as "guideline".

QuoteAll in all, there are only four pages in total on "The Weird."  Is that enough to get the point of LotFP across?  I think it is, but I could see how other folks might disagree.  The suggestions here are general and broadly applicable; I think this is to be preferred over a more extensive checklist to make sure your game is "weird enough."

I do look forward to reading this and finding out.

RPGPundit

The next section of the Referee book is on crafting adventures.  James Raggi defines four types of adventures: event-based (something like Rough Night at the Four Feathers for WFRP), exploration-based (hexcrawls and sandboxes), location-based (dungeons), and personage-based.  I have to admit that even after reading the section on personage-based (like the vague sample adventure that was in the early edition of Vampire: The Masquerade).  

Probably the most helpful advice in this section comes by way of telling the referee to answer Who, What, Where, Why, and How questions about the adventure that they're developing.  Similarly helpful are the "Five Elements of Every Good Adventure," which stresses the need for deadly situations, player freedom to chose their characters' actions, equal opportunity for success and failure, suitable rewards, and variety.  We also get the obligatory, but very necessary, injunction against railroading players along a pre-decided plotline.

We also get a discussion of the various obstacles players might face in an adventure, such as encounters, trap, and tricks.  It's interesting how this section acts as a window into the author's preferences; there is a lot of emphasis and delight attached to the use of traps, and as anyone who has read his adventure modules will know, he really, really has a fetish for traps in action!

There is also discussion of how much experience points should be gained per adventure.  Answer: not many.  If you follow the advice in this chapter, LotFP characters should expect to see 5-10 adventures between level-ups.  Similarly, the referee is cautioned against giving too much magical loot as treasure or turning their game into a Monty Haul campaign.  Much of this advice will strike some modern gaming sensibilities as needlessly miserly.

Similarly, the advice in this section might be too old-school for some; Raggi is definitely in favor of careful mapping practices as part of play, strict time-keeping, and random encounters.  That might be a drag for some, but the advice for this style of play is particularly solid, especially the pointers given for making random encounters really sing.

This section is rounded-out by a discussion of how to best use pre-published modules and adventures as part of a LotFP game.  That isn't something that most DM's Guide-style books really delve into, but it's actually a really helpful thing to include because most referee's will find themselves using a published scenario at some point.

Quote from: RPGPundit;458689In my experience, not having fear checks or SAN points or something means that the players' "reactions" to "mind-numbing horror" will always be "I stay completely rational within my senses and do exactly that thing which is most strategically sound, be it attacking the creature expertly and fearlessly or retreating in a calm orderly fashion".

In my experience, Ravenloft's Fear and Horror checks become banal, just another Saving Throw to make that does nothing to create an atmosphere of actual fear or horror.

At best, they're a Saving or Suck that has less riding on the outcome than a Save vs. Petrification; at worse, they are a way for the DM to force your character to act a certain way in a failed attempt to enforce generic conventions.

Quote from: misterguignol;459052In my experience, Ravenloft's Fear and Horror checks become banal, just another Saving Throw to make that does nothing to create an atmosphere of actual fear or horror.

At best, they're a Saving or Suck that has less riding on the outcome than a Save vs. Petrification; at worse, they are a way for the DM to force your character to act a certain way in a failed attempt to enforce generic conventions.

I'm torn on this - usually I don't like using fear/horror checks, that kind of thing, but I think CoC's sanity mechanic in practice works better; I think of that less as a genre convention as an attempt to address something affecting the brain that description doesn't convey as well as it does most other things likely to come up in an RPG.