Search results

Superhero death move idea: Survived, But Changed When the character reappears after an apparent death, the player must permanently vault a total number of "levels" of Domain Cards equal to their character level and replace them with an equal number of levels, and explain how they have transformed.

As my OP should have made clear, I was asking from a personal perspective.

This underscores an important point: the difference between "fun" and "necessary." I believe that Shadowdark is complete in the core rulebook. That absolutely does not mean I did not back Western Reaches at a high level.

This analogy suggests that core-only is simply not playable (no food) and I do not like that at all. In a perfect world, all RPGs would be complete with core only.

I think it is important to remember that SD expects players to beg advantage on things their race, class and background suggest they should be good at. Since there are no skills per se, those character elements are the skill system, with advantage serving as stand in for proficiency.

So, how are your games going? How many sessions have you had? How is play over time? How easily are folks picking it up? That sort of thing.

Apropos of nothing: I am always a little amused when I see folks trying to tie down Shadowdark to D&D and Pathfinder levels of rules specificity and balance. It is pretty clear (to me anyway) that those things aren't part of SD's vibe.

How so. What about Ironsworn requires it have a different "complete point" than Honey Heist? (Just to be clear, I am asking as a point of discussion, not argument. I am honestly curious why you believe this.)

I think the trajectory has always been toward trying to create consistency from the chaos of early D&D. Even much maligned THAC0 is an attempt to escape tables and rely on simple arithmetic, and the further unification of most systems under the d20 was an effort to "make it make sense." Beyond...

"It depends on the game" is absolutely true. But we are talking about your personal preferences; your favored scenario. What do YOU see, ideally, as a complete game? The reason this is important, btw, is to avoid the endless spiral of "it dependses" that ultimately leads to people sniping at...

FWIW I am generally a "core books are enough" person. That doesn't mean I won't buy supplements or adventures, but generally I am okay if a game is just the core rules. For example, if Daggerheart never gets any major support (very unlikely) I will still consider it a great, playable game. Same...

In your opinion and/or based on your preferences, when is an RPG complete? That is, at what point in the publication life cycle would you, as a fan and customer of a particular RPG, say "Yeah, that's enough, I will take it from here."? NOTE: This includes 3rd party support, but not necessarily...

I don't have a dog in the race with regards to WHFRP -- I don't own or am likely to buy 4E (or 5E). I was just saying that "minor edition changes" are a waste, or worse.

I was not clear: I meant a special version/printing of the rulebook for the 4th Anniversary, not a new "edition" in the way we mean that when talking about RPGs. 2024 D&D is a perfect example of the kind of edition NOT to do.

Awesome. Great game.

I really don't know why people put out new "editions" if they aren't going to make significant changes. I mean, for sure put out a 40th Anniversary Core Rulebook, but why "5th Edition" it?

Sure, but one can role-play without funny voices or otherwise "speaking in character." Making decisions based on the role is the only qualifier (to me, just to be clear).

To be fair, talking in funny voices does not have any impact on game resolution in D&D either.

I have it under good authority that only America does... stuff.