log in or register to remove this ad

 

Pathfinder 2E (WIP) Secrets of Old Pandora, Drafting my vision for a Pathfinder 2e West Marches

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
So I was thinking about it and I realized that my upcoming west marches campaign (which is still a good 5-8 months out) would probably be of interest to some of the users here. This document is a work in progress, and mainly functions as a place for me to store my ideas, work through some pitfalls, and establish solutions as I come to them. I will eventually be creating a formal rules document for this campaign with a cleaner presentation, detail on how these systems are actually implemented (a table for leveling, for instance, and it remains to be seen if we're going ot restrict gold and item hand offs at all), other house rules (including the rarity designations for the campaign) and so forth. Expect this to change from time to time as it is a living document. I have some experience running these kinds of games reaching back to 4e, and they're my white whale for game design, so if this seems ambitious know that I'm fairly passionate about it. My already-known players (and assistant GMs) for this have already had some input, and they'll likely have more as we go.

Its the product of all my experiences as a GM up to now, and in some ways it embodies the kind of designer and Game Master I'm trying to become, with the help of sources like The Alexandrian, Ben Robbins, and Matt Collville. I enjoy the self-improvement side of GMing, it's something I take great pride in, and my journey over the last decade has brought me to appreciate the idea of networks of adventuring characters and players, player-neutral content to allow them to feel a consistent world to explore, environmental storytelling for them to uncover and piece together instead of big in your face plots, and adventurer slice of life as the main plot, all still done in the kinds of character option infused systems, player empowered, and highly strategic systems that I love.

Anyway, here it is, Secrets of Old Pandora!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Porridge

Explorer
Very cool. Especially interested in hearing how the your ideas for "Downtime" activities (like your suggestion to require them to spend money to train, etc) ends up shaking out.

I was originally lukewarm about the PF2 Downtime stuff, but listening to some Blades in the Dark podcasts (the "Blood & Glass" shows GCN has been doing) have turned me 180 on this. It was amazing to hear a show where the "downtime" part of the game was as fun as the "action" part. And I've been turned on to the idea that PF2's downtime mechanics might support something similar...

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing how it goes!
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
Yeah downtime is a little on the difficult side because its potentially infinite even in a normal campaign if you don't either hard frame the characters choosing to get back to adventuring, throw them time sensitive hooks and inciting incidents, or have a party that self-regulates (which can feel at odds with a game where the players try their hardest.)

In the context of this game the real issue is that since tracking an actual date would be painful with adventure pacing and different groups doing things, so there needs to be something to set the amount of downtime you have to work with, it has to be somehow limited, which is why I'm thinking of just giving them out as a baseline reward per session spent playing-- so even if a voyage is a bust treasure wise, you at least get downtime as a consolation. Its funny because while I had the idea in mind of players paying for training to level, it didn't occur to me that it would also take downtime days for them to actually experience the training, I have to see how the costs and the downtime actually shake out.

I love the downtime rules in the system itself, the only real modification I've made in more traditional campaigns was to use lifestyle as a measure of what resources you put into longer term intangible goals. For instance, a character who becomes the leader of an organization will do better or worse at the management of that organization based off how extravagant their lifestyle cost is, and this was of course separate from the actual tasks like retraining and earning income. It was a nice rules-lite addition to support things like kingdom management, army gathering and such that took place in that campaign during certain long downtime sections.
 

I’m really curious about this. How do you intend to effectively run a westmarches in pf2 (where players drop in and out and so can vary massively with xp and have different levels) with the tight monster maths (where perhaps a difference in level can mean a decent fight or getting one shotted?)

For example, I’m currently running a westmarches in Ad&D 2e, and level difference isn’t a major issue there (and encounters aren’t really as “tuned” I suppose). I’d be really interested in your thoughts on this.
 

kenada

Hero
Supporter
Just because a system is conventionally used to run balanced encounters doesn’t mean it has to be used to do that. You can run the same kind of unbalanced encounters in PF2 that one did in older editions, and they’d work about the same (picking fights with the wrong creatures will get you killed). Whether one should do that comes down to the social contract of the game and expectations at the table. If everyone understands that combat for its own sake isn’t the point, and they should be careful and clever in how they go about things, then it ought to work fine.

I ran a hexcrawl in PF2. Though it was not a Westmarches game, we did have someone new join us mid-way through. That player’s character was able to contribute as long as she was careful about it. It helped that we used Proficiency Without Level, so the gulf in expected modifier was not so large, but I think at least a few level difference in core PF2 should be okay. One thing that helps out lower level characters quite a bit is they receive double XP when they are below the party’s level. I determined party level by eyeballing it. I’d normally take the average, but it was moderated by what felt right, so I’d tweak the value as it made sense.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
Honestly? Our plan is to place the level the lead is designed for on the leads themselves so the players can plan who to ask to come accordingly. We're also designing for a party of four so taking more people could give you some wiggle room. Players being at different levels can just be a thing that happens, but spending treasure to level gives them control to an extent as well since they can choose to wait. This meshes with what Ben suggests about more dangerous pockets being hard to stumble into in his own west marches.

Finally, the system gives me some mechanics I can use to mitigate the problem, one dungeon I have planned revolves around a central treasure room with a very powerful Dragon sleeping in it like Smaug. When the players enter the dungeon, they'll be too low level to take him on and know it, so the dungeon is designed to involve sneaking around him fighting weaker monsters in multiple excursions. Instead of his perception, I'm planning it around the infiltration and (if necessary) chase subsystems in the GMG. In other words, I'm exploring the possibility of letting the relative strength difference just dictate the kind of encounter it is-- is this a fight scene or is it a scene where the characters have to get away from something too strong for them.

Ben Robbins West Marches was in 3rd edition, so I don't think you need an OSR mentality toward balance.
 

Honestly? Our plan is to place the level the lead is designed for on the leads themselves so the players can plan who to ask to come accordingly. We're also designing for a party of four so taking more people could give you some wiggle room. Players being at different levels can just be a thing that happens, but spending treasure to level gives them control to an extent as well since they can choose to wait. This meshes with what Ben suggests about more dangerous pockets being hard to stumble into in his own west marches.

Finally, the system gives me some mechanics I can use to mitigate the problem, one dungeon I have planned revolves around a central treasure room with a very powerful Dragon sleeping in it like Smaug. When the players enter the dungeon, they'll be too low level to take him on and know it, so the dungeon is designed to involve sneaking around him fighting weaker monsters in multiple excursions. Instead of his perception, I'm planning it around the infiltration and (if necessary) chase subsystems in the GMG. In other words, I'm exploring the possibility of letting the relative strength difference just dictate the kind of encounter it is-- is this a fight scene or is it a scene where the characters have to get away from something too strong for them.

Ben Robbins West Marches was in 3rd edition, so I don't think you need an OSR mentality toward balance.
These are some really cool thoughts actually on the approach, combined with Kenada’s campaign rulings of boosters for the lower characters.

I did really weigh up using pathfinder 2 for mine, I instantly saw how those downtime rules could feed into building and expanding your character and home base. I can definitely see the potential.

Ultimately, I decided on AD&D2e because I was concerned enough about the tightness of the monster maths (we know how much even a +1 can be godsend in some encounters) and because my sessions are generally short weekday evenings, I wanted to focus more on exploration and getting as much done as possible in the limited time we have (as older school games have blisteringly fast combat, my players can blast through so many of them).

Interestingly, I’ve found (as this is my first westmarches game) that even though I’d planned out a lot of how I’d expect things to work (again basing it off Ben’s articles and others experiences), I’ve had to update my campaign guidelines quite regularly. A lot of my assumptions of play needed tweaking and such based on the needs my players, so I’d be curious if you find yours evolving and taking on a life of its own in the same way!

You’ll definitely have to keep us updated as this seems really cool!

As an aside, If you recall the article though, Ben went for third not necessarily for balance, but because of the precision it offered to make it clear it was fair (rather than DM fiat or the “fluffiness” of grid less combat. He didn’t want any ambiguities)
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
These are some really cool thoughts actually on the approach, combined with Kenada’s campaign rulings of boosters for the lower characters.

I did really weigh up using pathfinder 2 for mine, I instantly saw how those downtime rules could feed into building and expanding your character and home base. I can definitely see the potential.

Ultimately, I decided on AD&D2e because I was concerned enough about the tightness of the monster maths (we know how much even a +1 can be godsend in some encounters) and because my sessions are generally short weekday evenings, I wanted to focus more on exploration and getting as much done as possible in the limited time we have (as older school games have blisteringly fast combat, my players can blast through so many of them).

Interestingly, I’ve found (as this is my first westmarches game) that even though I’d planned out a lot of how I’d expect things to work (again basing it off Ben’s articles and others experiences), I’ve had to update my campaign guidelines quite regularly. A lot of my assumptions of play needed tweaking and such based on the needs my players, so I’d be curious if you find yours evolving and taking on a life of its own in the same way!

You’ll definitely have to keep us updated as this seems really cool!

As an aside, If you recall the article though, Ben went for third not necessarily for balance, but because of the precision it offered to make it clear it was fair (rather than DM fiat or the “fluffiness” of grid less combat. He didn’t want any ambiguities)
Yeah absolutely, I was just alluding to their choice of system as a note that it can be done with a 'balance-centric' system with scaling math.

As for the rest it will be interesting to see how it evolves, especially since this is already an evolution on our 5e 'guild game' that one featured no treasure at all, and instead you got money to spend as a part of your build every level. The game didn't use player scheduling at all, as GMs just posted sign ups for sessions, the players had very little freedom. Part of the idea was supposed to be that we'd run multiple excursions into an 'adventuring area' (a dungeon, but abstracted) until it was completed, but in practice they were just very pick up game type things the GMs (mainly me) ran on the weekly. We had very little investment in it, though some players enjoyed it, and massive turnover.

This is me tackling the fundamental problems of that game with a vengeance-- player scheduling means more investment in character relationships and players deciding what they're interested in. Logistics will give players goals and such, and the game being treasure centric was the missing ingredient to make the exploration feel worthwhile-- its worth finding all the secret doors because that'll likely net you more cash. Rushing the sessions felt bad, so I moved away from having to be back in town at the end of one session, but addressed the player scheduling elephant in the room by forcing players to abandon an adventure or go on without the full party, or get everyone together, if they want to use that character again. Paying to level solves the issue where regular exp would make some players level into a range there were very few active players who could participate in, players can now hold off on that in-definitely and are technically rewarded for doing so as they'll be better equipped, if people REALLY want they can give their friends gold to train them up to join in on treasure hunting at whatever level (I'll need to make sure the prices don't make this too easy.)

All the things you might want to pay for (your ship, hirelings to crew it, all of the magic items you might want, a permit for a valuable port, etc) also create both an incentive to adventure, to explore well, and for us to bypass the WBL table in adding the possibility of getting quite rich, without just giving them everything, which in turn creates a feeling of earning it.

Finally, moving to a hexmap of a specific region of the world was intentional, because the previous game basically involved hand waving long distance travel and teleporting gimmicks to put adventures all over the world, which again made the game feel too floaty and indistinct. The Pandoran Islands is ideal because its at the center of the world and you can run into anything there, or even naturally travel far enough to access the coasts of several lands, all without handwaving. Players will really feel that they've accomplished something when they go from adventuring on the relatively large landmass they started on, to being able to sail after rumors and such on their own power.

I'm also going to get to do so much 'Object-Oriented' storytelling, which is my word for sandboxing that emphasizes the nature of picking a thing to interact with, and the GM fleshing it out as you go there-- you're picking what story is going to unfold. I'm super excited about this because I think its an opportunity for me to explore new styles of game (though obviously, I won't be the first one to do it) in a conscious way that seeks to exploit all of its benefits.
 

Yeah absolutely, I was just alluding to their choice of system as a note that it can be done with a 'balance-centric' system with scaling math.

As for the rest it will be interesting to see how it evolves, especially since this is already an evolution on our 5e 'guild game' that one featured no treasure at all, and instead you got money to spend as a part of your build every level. The game didn't use player scheduling at all, as GMs just posted sign ups for sessions, the players had very little freedom. Part of the idea was supposed to be that we'd run multiple excursions into an 'adventuring area' (a dungeon, but abstracted) until it was completed, but in practice they were just very pick up game type things the GMs (mainly me) ran on the weekly. We had very little investment in it, though some players enjoyed it, and massive turnover.

This is me tackling the fundamental problems of that game with a vengeance-- player scheduling means more investment in character relationships and players deciding what they're interested in. Logistics will give players goals and such, and the game being treasure centric was the missing ingredient to make the exploration feel worthwhile-- its worth finding all the secret doors because that'll likely net you more cash. Rushing the sessions felt bad, so I moved away from having to be back in town at the end of one session, but addressed the player scheduling elephant in the room by forcing players to abandon an adventure or go on without the full party, or get everyone together, if they want to use that character again. Paying to level solves the issue where regular exp would make some players level into a range there were very few active players who could participate in, players can now hold off on that in-definitely and are technically rewarded for doing so as they'll be better equipped, if people REALLY want they can give their friends gold to train them up to join in on treasure hunting at whatever level (I'll need to make sure the prices don't make this too easy.)

All the things you might want to pay for (your ship, hirelings to crew it, all of the magic items you might want, a permit for a valuable port, etc) also create both an incentive to adventure, to explore well, and for us to bypass the WBL table in adding the possibility of getting quite rich, without just giving them everything, which in turn creates a feeling of earning it.

Finally, moving to a hexmap of a specific region of the world was intentional, because the previous game basically involved hand waving long distance travel and teleporting gimmicks to put adventures all over the world, which again made the game feel too floaty and indistinct. The Pandoran Islands is ideal because its at the center of the world and you can run into anything there, or even naturally travel far enough to access the coasts of several lands, all without handwaving. Players will really feel that they've accomplished something when they go from adventuring on the relatively large landmass they started on, to being able to sail after rumors and such on their own power.

I'm also going to get to do so much 'Object-Oriented' storytelling, which is my word for sandboxing that emphasizes the nature of picking a thing to interact with, and the GM fleshing it out as you go there-- you're picking what story is going to unfold. I'm super excited about this because I think its an opportunity for me to explore new styles of game (though obviously, I won't be the first one to do it) in a conscious way that seeks to exploit all of its benefits.
Yup. I’ve definitely found this running my westmarches campaign. It’s definitely an approach that I’ve fallen in love with.

I think, that, even were I to go back to a more traditional campaign model where I had guaranteed players for every session, it would still be a sandbox incorporating what I’ve learnt from this.

Ive found it so liberating as a GM, that I can’t see myself returning to the “linear story” approach (exemplified by APs). No knock on them, I just think my tastes have definitley changed.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
Yup. I’ve definitely found this running my westmarches campaign. It’s definitely an approach that I’ve fallen in love with.

I think, that, even were I to go back to a more traditional campaign model where I had guaranteed players for every session, it would still be a sandbox incorporating what I’ve learnt from this.

Ive found it so liberating as a GM, that I can’t see myself returning to the “linear story” approach (exemplified by APs). No knock on them, I just think my tastes have definitley changed.
A GM after my own heart! I find the idea of an emergent story arising out of a 'simulated world' represented by an object oriented approach super compelling. I want to see players feel immersed by the sense that they're driving the action by choosing what to follow up on and how, and by a sense that the narrative really is emergent from those choices.
 

kenada

Hero
Supporter
After several false starts at exploration-based games, I’m glad my current one finally got going. The amount of up-front prep is a bit much, but I love how the players set the agenda, and then we see what happens. Admittedly, it’s transitioned between three systems, which hasn’t helped with the prep (since I need to convert setting material over between systems). 😅
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
After several false starts at exploration-based games, I’m glad my current one finally got going. The amount of up-front prep is a bit much, but I love how the players set the agenda, and then we see what happens. Admittedly, it’s transitioned between three systems, which hasn’t helped with the prep (since I need to convert setting material over between systems). 😅
How is that game going? What kind of things motivate your players to actually do stuff?
 

kenada

Hero
Supporter
How is that game going? What kind of things motivate your players to actually do stuff?
It’s going pretty well. The mistake I made before was trying to avoid the up-front work. I tried to wing it on exploration and avoided having a keyed wilderness exploration map. This time, I did the work (although keying the hex map is still a work-in-progress, especially with the scale change in OSE). It also helps that we have a strong default motivation (explore and report back on what you found).

I’m not really sure what motivates my players to do stuff. There are a lot of unknowns and things to discover out in the world. I’m also a simulationist-immersive at heart, so I try to keep the focus at a consistent level and on the PCs. Even a trip to down to town to go shopping gets narrated out. Last session, they started off with a meeting and then went to town to get supplies and hire retainers.

I pinged my group about what motivates them, and I got a few responses. One player said doing things that sound fun motivates him. Another is motivated by loot and interesting story. The last one is interesting because there’s not actually any story. What stories there are have emerged through play. I have some stuff about the setting that I’ve sprinkled around, mysteries to uncover and so on, but there’s no overarching narrative. And yet, that’s how the players see it, which is pretty cool.

When we were running in-person, I kept a copy of my agenda and principles next to meat the table (see end of post). I adapted them from Apocalypse World. Even though the kind of game I run is way different, they still work pretty well. Following them has helped me to portray an interesting setting and to make sure the people my PCs meet are actually interesting. It also keeps me honest as a referee (e.g., being a fan of the players’ characters means letting go of plots and not having an emotional investment in any particular outcome, which is what you need in a sandbox).

I should also note that some (many?) of the things I do are at odds with a West Marches game. Town is not safe. There is adventure to be had in town, and factions in town may act against you. Sessions are not self-contained. There’s no gradient of danger (not even in the 5e or PF2 iterations of the campaign). There are NPC adventurers (whence else come retainers?). There’s a rotating cast of PCs, but the group (players) is constant. While I try to follow the spirit of the referee’s role in OSE, I’m not dispassionate. Finally, combat is war. If you get into a fair fight, you’ve picked the wrong fight.

Agenda
  • Make 5e/PF2/OSE seem real.
  • Make the lives of the players’ characters not boring.
  • Play to find out what happens.
Principles
  • Barf forth fantasia.
  • Address yourself to the characters, not the players.
  • Make your move, but misdirect.
  • Make your move, but never speak its name.
  • Look through crosshairs.
  • Name everyone, make everyone real.
  • Ask provocative questions and build on the answers.
  • Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards.
  • Be a fan of the players’ characters.
  • Think offscreen too.
  • Sometimes, disclaim decision-making.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
That was actually a very interesting post for a few reasons.

The first is that I'm kind of interested in the player who likes interesting stories as well, because 'stories' can mean a lot of things. Is it that they're enjoying the emergent narrative that's arising at the table in the way they would enjoy any other story? are they enjoying uncovering the narratives that you've scattered around the world? (environmental storytelling simply fascinates me, as an exploration player myself.) They might not even be sure themselves, or it might be a combination of elements, or they might just be vibing off of the various characters and their interactions, its neat.

The second is actually what you say near the end about deviating from the West Marches. I feel as though what's most interesting about the format of these games is that there aren't any real 'maps' of how to do them. Ironically, the very act of running open tables, west marches, and similar gameplay styles is itself something every individual game is sort of discovering by itself, in the same way that players might make their own maps in a west marches that is only semi-accurate. Ben Robbins and Justin Alexander obviously exist, and so do some of the records of the early games when such play was the default (I recently mined the ADND Dungeon Master's Guide to help me develop my own thoughts on how to handle time.) But not all of the ingredients each individual game utilized is necessary for all games, and changing them can lead to different outcomes that are mutually desirable in their own ways. You're using a consistent, small gaming group which lends the proceedings a natural continuity-- everyone mostly knows what's happened to all the characters in the overall narrative without any fancy emergent information sharing stuff, for instance, which likely has advantages.

To contrast my game, which will have the rotating player cast, we're looking at using Heroes to create a miniature social network of players and adventurers, which will doubtlessly be a different dynamic than the Ben Robbins blueprint even while it strives for some of the same elements. One of the things that keeps me coming back to this board is actually the handful of other people who are kicking at the same tires as me in different ways, I love the idea that we're all doing our own little permutations of this game type, and exploring how our variations affect these larger scale, exploration centric gaming experiences. Everything from the type of system we're using, to how we handle different elements.

It really is ironic, we're like a loose community of explorers, exploring a territory that isn't well charted but certainly has a history to uncover and learn from (e.g. Robbins, Alexander, Gygax's writings and so forth), while our own journeys are shaped from what and how we choose to pursue it, the people we pursue it with, and our perception of what a game like this should even be like.

Also, I need an Agenda and Principles, it reminds me of an old article by the Angry GM on defining themselves as a GM.
 

kenada

Hero
Supporter
The first is that I'm kind of interested in the player who likes interesting stories as well, because 'stories' can mean a lot of things. Is it that they're enjoying the emergent narrative that's arising at the table in the way they would enjoy any other story? are they enjoying uncovering the narratives that you've scattered around the world? (environmental storytelling simply fascinates me, as an exploration player myself.) They might not even be sure themselves, or it might be a combination of elements, or they might just be vibing off of the various characters and their interactions, its neat.
I got a few more responses from my players. The one who said he likes stories mentioned a couple of things he thought were interesting or cool. He liked the singing sword they’d found as well as having to find gems to get access to a locked door. He also liked the experience when he drank a potion of shared memories, which I had used for worldbuilding and foreshadowing. Another player chimed in agreeing about liking to pursue mysteries. The guy who said he likes doing things that sound fun also added later that he enjoys digging into the roleplaying element, imagining how his PC would react and then acting it out.

The second is actually what you say near the end about deviating from the West Marches. I feel as though what's most interesting about the format of these games is that there aren't any real 'maps' of how to do them. Ironically, the very act of running open tables, west marches, and similar gameplay styles is itself something every individual game is sort of discovering by itself, in the same way that players might make their own maps in a west marches that is only semi-accurate. Ben Robbins and Justin Alexander obviously exist, and so do some of the records of the early games when such play was the default (I recently mined the ADND Dungeon Master's Guide to help me develop my own thoughts on how to handle time.) But not all of the ingredients each individual game utilized is necessary for all games, and changing them can lead to different outcomes that are mutually desirable in their own ways. You're using a consistent, small gaming group which lends the proceedings a natural continuity-- everyone mostly knows what's happened to all the characters in the overall narrative without any fancy emergent information sharing stuff, for instance, which likely has advantages.
Grognardia has been another big influence (and hoo-ray for its resuming after a nearly decade hiatus). James writes about a lot of different things, but his stuff on old-school play really changed how I looked at things. That’s not to say that there haven’t been other influences. I got the idea for the rotating cast from West Marches even though I’d otherwise rejected it. Our group is constant, but attendance is not, so it’s nice to be able to roll up new characters and go do something else. That’s even how we handled the conversion to OSE: it’s just another adventuring party in their expedition (the old PCs are still around even if they’ve retired from play).

To contrast my game, which will have the rotating player cast, we're looking at using Heroes to create a miniature social network of players and adventurers, which will doubtlessly be a different dynamic than the Ben Robbins blueprint even while it strives for some of the same elements. One of the things that keeps me coming back to this board is actually the handful of other people who are kicking at the same tires as me in different ways, I love the idea that we're all doing our own little permutations of this game type, and exploring how our variations affect these larger scale, exploration centric gaming experiences. Everything from the type of system we're using, to how we handle different elements.
Many years ago, I tried to get my players to be more engaged. We used Obsidian Portal. Players could post as their characters. One player posted a couple of times, and that was it. If we had to rely on out-of-session participation to keep things together, we would have been doomed a long time ago. However, everyone takes notes. We pick who recaps randomly, so it behooves you to know what happened based on your notes. This was an idea I got from one of my players when he was running Call of Cthulhu. I shamelessly stole it for my game.

I recently mined the ADND Dungeon Master's Guide to help me develop my own thoughts on how to handle time.
My mining OSE for procedures is what eventually drove me to pitch it to the group. When I was burning out on PF2, I was like: well, I’m already using a lot of this stuff anyway …. 😅

It really is ironic, we're like a loose community of explorers, exploring a territory that isn't well charted but certainly has a history to uncover and learn from (e.g. Robbins, Alexander, Gygax's writings and so forth), while our own journeys are shaped from what and how we choose to pursue it, the people we pursue it with, and our perception of what a game like this should even be like.
Something I really appreciate as I try to get more into the OSR community is how much people share about how they run their games. I like a good discussion on how to key a map or on what hex scale is best. I just switched my game over to 6 mile hexes from 12 mile ones, but we didn’t even make it out of the city. 😂
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
I meant to respond, but got hooked on the Grognardia link at the time, reading more about mega dungeons. It does feel like that entire community (OSR) sees itself as game designers, which I really appreciate.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top