Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Azgulor" data-source="post: 8084497" data-attributes="member: 14291">I’m an avid Pathfinder 2 game master, recently converted from PF1.&nbsp; It’s facilitated some of the most exciting and dynamic scenarios in my 35+ years of gaming.&nbsp; However, I’m almost exclusively on the GM-side of the screen and, silly as it may sound, playing the Pathfinder Kingmaker CRPG underscored my desire to play.I’m exploring VTT play but having also found Solo OSR, I’m looking at solo RPG play.&nbsp; As much as I love Pathfinder, I decided it was too crunchy for solo play.&nbsp; I quickly settled on the idea that I want a pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy game and decidedly NOT high-fantasy.With Solo OSR and this criteria in mind, I’ve picked two systems that I’ll try to see what might be a good fit: Astonishing Swordsmen &amp; Sorcerers of Hyperboria (AS&amp;SH) and Adventurer Conqueror King-ACKS (with the pulp-fantasy expansions).My question is this:&nbsp; For players of both OSR &amp; modern FRPGs like PF &amp; 5e, do you enjoy/appreciate both or do you find yourself feeling unsatisfied with the OSR options? My instincts are that I can enjoy each for what they are but I haven’t played a B/X or AD&amp;D game in over 25 years.&nbsp; I wonder if my assessment of AS&amp;SH &amp; ACKS is viewed through rose-colored glasses of nostalgia and with a few sessions under my belt, the desire for “modern design” is going to get in my way.&nbsp; I really think the two games I’ve picked are my best option, though, as PF2 is too crunchy and 5e classes are so magic-prevalent I don’t think either lend themselves to solo play and especially not towards pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy.Opinions from the veterans with experience in both sides of the aisle?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Azgulor, post: 8084497, member: 14291"] I’m an avid Pathfinder 2 game master, recently converted from PF1. It’s facilitated some of the most exciting and dynamic scenarios in my 35+ years of gaming. However, I’m almost exclusively on the GM-side of the screen and, silly as it may sound, playing the Pathfinder Kingmaker CRPG underscored my desire to play. I’m exploring VTT play but having also found Solo OSR, I’m looking at solo RPG play. As much as I love Pathfinder, I decided it was too crunchy for solo play. I quickly settled on the idea that I want a pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy game and decidedly NOT high-fantasy. With Solo OSR and this criteria in mind, I’ve picked two systems that I’ll try to see what might be a good fit: Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperboria (AS&SH) and Adventurer Conqueror King-ACKS (with the pulp-fantasy expansions). My question is this: For players of both OSR & modern FRPGs like PF & 5e, do you enjoy/appreciate both or do you find yourself feeling unsatisfied with the OSR options? My instincts are that I can enjoy each for what they are but I haven’t played a B/X or AD&D game in over 25 years. I wonder if my assessment of AS&SH & ACKS is viewed through rose-colored glasses of nostalgia and with a few sessions under my belt, the desire for “modern design” is going to get in my way. I really think the two games I’ve picked are my best option, though, as PF2 is too crunchy and 5e classes are so magic-prevalent I don’t think either lend themselves to solo play and especially not towards pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy. Opinions from the veterans with experience in both sides of the aisle? [/QUOTE]

Verification