The Lesser Dead are less resistant to the banes of the Dead (running water, sunlight, silver, Charter magic) and, when destroyed in Life, get washed beyond the Ninth Gate and die truly. Many are parasitic or stealthy; all prey upon the living.

The Greater Dead are similar to the Lesser Dead, but more - more magic, more power, more resistance to the banes of the Dead, more hunger (bleeding over into their minds to also become ambition, hatred, greed, and gluttony), more inhumanity. A cunning member of the Lesser Dead might prey upon twenty people over the course of a year, slowly draining them of Life - a member of the Greater Dead wipes out villages and towns, leaving yawning doors to Death in its wake from the massacres.

More importantly, a member of the Greater Dead that is 'destroyed' in Life might still fight its way back out of Death and return to seek its revenge or just continue its depredations. Truly destroying one requires necromancy.

Oh, wow. So how do the Dead sustain themselves? If Life is inimical to Death... are they using the Life to sustain themselves? Are they using the connection to Death?

The Death sustain themselves by preying upon the living. It's not quite...it's not quite sustaining themselves on Life. They sustain themselves on Death, which they can only get from the living. The Lesser Dead can get away with merely hurting you (though most won't, since killing you feeds them more)

Okay. :D I follow you.

Dang this is neat.

The Dead cannot cross over or under running water, though this can vary depending on the strength and width of the water, and also the strength of the Dead in question. Rivers are pretty safe bets, though.

Sunlight weakens them, and it's actively harmful to Hands and the Lesser Dead. Even the Greater Dead tend to avoid bright noonday sunlight.

(I'm going to talk to my friends soon about possibly moving our campaign to Fate, and we'll be able to develop our own magic system using the magic system toolkit - I am definitely going to bring up this bells thing as an example of what's possible)

@Lord_Gareth Does running water pull at them like the river of Death if they attempt to pass it?

@JonathanHobbs The few times thus far that I've seen one of the Dead fall into running water, it discorporates in a shower of released Free Magic and is washed away. Running water is actively bad for all kinds of ongoing bindings, whether Free Magic or Charter.

The Dead generally steal and bind themselves into bodies, so the running water tips them back into Death by unbinding them. Painfully.

Silver's bad for them for similar reasons, though enspelled silver is best - the Charter contains many spells to help destroy the Dead.

Swords designed for those who expect to fight the Dead are plated in silver and then enchanted.

Okay, cool 8)

Fire's not terribly good for most of the Lesser Dead, but some of the Greater Dead are kinda naturally on fire.

As you might expect, lighting something on fire that is already on fire is a Darwin Awards move.

Further questions, @JonathanHobbs? Dunno if you wanted me to keep going, this is not the first 'Explaining the Old Kingdom to someone who never read the books' conversation I've had this week.

@Lord_Gareth This reminds me of something offered up in a thread where people were asked to post secrets about their characters their group doesn't know

@Lord_Gareth No more questions at the moment! I am quite sated and that magic system is pretty exciting.

Heh, that's...that's not even anywhere close to 'the magic system'. That's just freakin' necromancy, my friend.

And the Dead, of course.

But, hey, I got to geek out - I'm happy.

Well. The Necromantic portion of... the world(?)

The Old Kingdom, as differentiated from Ancellistrae. The Old Kingdom's physical laws are dictated by the Charter, whereas Ancellistrae's are dictated by conventional physics. Many aspects of the Charter mimic conventional physics, but...

W00, ten votes on the Monk thing. Still have no idea why the hell that question was put on hold.

Necromancy can only really be practiced in the Old Kingdom because all kinds of magic won't function for very far outside its borders.

Which is a result of the Charter's power, limiting even the influence of Free Magic

Make sense still, @JonathanHobbs?

@JonathanHobbs lawl

@Lord_Gareth Presumably mxyzplk put it on hold so the asker could mention the specific things they were interested in. As you might have noticed, it quickly invited "Rant about how Monks are a broken and terrible class with a hundred problems that are not getting fixed"

@Lord_Gareth Makes sense, yes

@JonathanHobbs As you may have noticed, the guy asked what did and didn't get fixed.

@Lord_Gareth Oh, I did. Your answer was fine. I was your 10th upvote. KRyan's was not. That question is an invitation for monk ranting. It's probably helpful that the asker at least specifies what they're interested in, even if that is "everything".

Open-ended monk discussions lead to... well.

@JonathanHobbs I pinged you since you were one of the commenters, to let you know changes had been made. Wax and oblivious are indeed my bestest rpg.se friends

@JoshuaAslanSmith I figured as much, and excellent. :) You should definitely ask them.

@JonathanHobbs Does this -> 1.Does Pathfinder significantly fix the monk class (this, and other potential well known class issues)? <-Not specify it well enough somehow?

@Lord_Gareth I think the question is easier to answer if you work in a link to what the well-known class issues are, certainly.

Though it risks derailing it a bit if people can't agree on them. (But then the question will run into dueling answers anyway.)

@Joshua To me, an inexperienced charop practitioner, your question seemed to ask: "So, I'd like to do damage, and I have some powers like this. What are my options?" That leaves a bit to be desired! I don't know if what you added was enough to give people a good idea of what you're after, but if others think it gives them everything they need to provide answers, it's good enough.

@AlexP I could do such a thing, if the idea that those issues exist at all wasn't so controversial. I could, for example, link it to KRyan's answer in a related Monk thread, but despite that answer being a wonderful example of the archetypical issues with the Monk other schools of thought disagree with its validity entirely.

So I can't really insert a link without trampling potential authorial intent.

@Lord_Gareth I'm saying the author can do it, though. To clarify and scope the question.

I basically listed my power sources and the limits (what feats I have to work with and items) and that defined the problem

if it was with weapons

I voted to put it on hold mainly because if there isn't enough detail a question fills up with junk and this issue can arise

it would be a huge open ended question

but because of the ki-focus requirement it is very narrow

I guess I can make it only ki-focuses to start (rather than stating the option to spend a feat to get another implement type)

basically there are not a lot of ki-focuses and you don't have the generic sunblade (all weapon dealt by this weapon is radiant) weapons up for access

Alright. Maybe my VTC was used badly; you should definitely speak to Oblivious and wax eagle and possibly Brian and get their opinions.

I think I can even answer it myself at this point it it goes off hold

I found one that works, there is a ki focus that as a free at will action (triggers off making an attack) that turns all that atttacks damage into thunder

and there are some good thunder feats

thats basically the kind of thing I was looking for, damage specific feat bonus plus additional add ons based on damage type

@JoshuaAslanSmith Cool >:D

You have my reopen vote at the very least

@jonathan hobbs bitte schon

@JonathanHobbs - You know, one thing I've never understood is when people complain that the Monk is 'off-flavor' for their campaign setting. It's like...do people not know that they can change the damn fluff?

@Lord_Gareth I haven't heard anyone do that before, and: no, they very often do not

@Lord_Gareth At some point you may have to do more than refluff, though, don't you? I mean, some flavor is tied into the mechanics rather than just how you narrate them.

I mean, I played a Swordsage for half a year who didn't train at any temple or spend his life in meditation or anything like that. He was raised as a sanctioned assassin of St. Cuthbert, bringing his god's retribution to those who hid where armies could not reach them.

The system they're using provides a whole ton of fluff and rules and because the system is simulationist the fluff ends up also being part of the rules

@AlexP I haven't yet met fluff entwined to the point where I couldn't change it without touching the mechanics at all. This is the guy who turned Rogue into a spellcaster with no ranks in Use Magic Device.

@Lord_Gareth Well, there's "change it" and "change it into the thing you want."

Also are you talking D&D3.x or D&D4, or something else here? Some mechanics are "clingier" than others.

@AlexP Well yeah, it helps if the fluff you have in mind supports/is supported by the mechanics, but if they're not matching maybe you need to find different mechanics to support your fluff.

@Lord_Gareth Exactly. But if there's no real conceptual niche for "mobile unarmed guy" in your game... what is a monk, for example?

@AlexP Eh, I've found my statement to be true in the following systems: 3.PF, 4e, Legend, World of Darkness (both Classic and New), Scion, Shadowrun, and GURPS.

Mainly at some point I'd rather hack the rules a bit because, well, it's not like it's not allowed. ;)

back later

@AlexP Well, what Monk is is banned so my players don't hurt themselves. However, might a Monk be a scrappy street brawler (at low levels) who grows into a mighty hero with an unusual, self-taught fighting style (this assuming Monk functioned as a class, of course)?

@Lord_Gareth 4e makes refluffing stuff very easy though. 3.5e creates mechanics to simulate the world. 4e creates mechanics which the designers think work well, and then you justify the way the world works. If the world disagrees with the rules, the world doesn't make sense.

Case in point: You can run from one diagonal corner of a square room to the opposite diagonal corner as fast as you can run from one wall to the opposite wall. That's just how it is. Your world now has non-Euclidean geometry.

But it also makes sure to be very hands-off: alignment is not mechanically significant. Most things are not mechanically significant.

3.5e however simulates reality. If your mage hand is a spirit hand or an arcane hand or a bunch of dust motes, there are rules for dealing with that. A magic-eating beast may eat or sense your arcane hand but not the others. You might be able to justify punching a ghost with your spirit hand. There are rules for the dust-mote hand being blown away in the wind.

Refluffing can often significantly change the way things work, so it's not simply refluffing in 3.5e.

@JonathanHobbs I dispute this claim greatly, especially given the extremely shoddy quality of the fluff crudely grafted onto the rules.

@Lord_Gareth Okay then.

Also the extremely shoddy quality of the rules. Bucket healing -> eternal drowning, anyone?

(Fun fact: being dead does not actually stop the drowning process. Neither does getting ressurected)

A lot of people do seem to think that 3.5 is harder to refluff than other systems but that hasn't been true in my experience. You just have to start by remembering that the various bits of fluff in the supplements are attached to specific campaign settings to which you are in no way beholden.

Well, regardless of dispute: you asked "do people not know that they can change the damn fluff?" and you have my response. I see it as the case that in a simulationist system, fluff is too often not just fluff, so there is only limited opportunity to refluff. Dispute away! You would only be changing my opinion, however I'm not terribly interested in entering a discussion about it at the moment, sorry to say. :)

That is if you did change my opinion. And it wouldn't even be very significant if you did.

Fair enough.

Man, I seriously wanna play some Dread or something.

It's always hilarious when you invite people over to do some roleplaying and they don't know why you have a Jenga tower out.

@Lord_Gareth Yes, he needs to do less "suggesting" and more specifying what he wants. "Is monk better fight" is the current translation of that question, whereas it could be a good fit for our format if he stated his requirements specifically, like any other question.

@mxyzplk It also covers non-fight encounters, like social encounters (hampered by low Charisma), traps (obvious), puzzles (limited Knowledges, low skill points), etc - which I address in my answer, though admittedly I could be more explicit about it.

Some groups solve non-combat enounters without dice rolls, and that's fine (hell, that's how I like to do social encounters). For those groups that do not, those are serious flaws built into the class's chassis.

@Lord_Gareth It's the questioner that's not specific. The answer to "did everything anyone doesn't like about the monk get fixed" is obvious - no. What is the questioner asking? It's unclear, which is great if one wants long essays about the monk again, but not really helpful.

He should either be asking "What changes to the monk did Pathfinder make" or "Did these specific things that I/others think are 'wrong' with the monk get fixed" (where #2 is worse than #1 but is at least on topic).

But "did Pathfinder fix the monk" is just an open door to the usual screeds. We have 'em already, don't need 'em again.

Welp, I left a comment suggesting a way he might improve his question, so I consider my duty to be done for ze moment.

Yeah, he'll check back in eventually.

Given that the one example of a "monk problem" he links is "they forgot to say monks/others are proficient in unarmed strike" does not necessarily give me hope that he's on the same page here.

Though this is technically a problem, and more indicitive of the general problem that WotC's editing friggin' sucked.

Their editing was more absent than TSR's playtesting [/rimshot]

@mxyzplk That was a good edit.

Didn't occur to me to do that.

@JonathanHobbs It's been done before and rolled back, actually. Which will result in its deletion if done again.

@mxyzplk I would not miss it

I kinda want to say, somehow

"Hey. Please stop ranting about the monk. If someone asks about the monk, answer the thing about the monk, rather than ranting, again, about how the monk sucks."

to everyone who does that

It seems like the problem with these questions is really that they prompt forum-like responses.

(though I dunno how. Just commenting on it when it happens?)

Yes, it's a challenge to maintain the SE format when people have a hot-button topic. Comment wars aren't the answer though. Vote, add one comment on why, flag, edit...

For some reason telling people they're being goons has never caused them to shape up in the history of the Internet, hence SE functionality. :-)

I know people like to hash out a forum argument over and over again (I CERTAINLY DO), but maybe the answer is to just find some kind of canonical links to "here are the big arguments here" and then just drop the link and say "There is some controversy here" and not actually have the argument here?

Maybe. But that's not really a use of the SE format either, unless the question is "point me to acres of formless drooling on a forum somewhere"

What we do is just enforce the format hard, and ideally people will put in their factual-or-at-least-rational ideas, and those will be voted on by the community.

It's not always easy and often generates complaining by those who "the Man is putting down," but it's the right thing to do

@mxyzplk I don't mean link to the forum drool. I mean link to the blog or forum posts or whatever staking out the summaries of the "does it work?" meta-argument or whatever. "Here is how you use X to do Y. Note that some people say using X to do Y at all is a bad idea." doesn't seem like an awful answer.

Then at least it's sourced.

I dunno, maybe the flamebait temptation is still too high.

Yeah, maybe, not sure it results in more brevity - arguments over minutiae expand to fill the space alloted

I wouldn't counsel against someone linking (though we do want summaries of links b3ecause links die)

but don't know that it in and of itself will limit the misbehavior

Well, mostly I think that unsourced/unsupported "Monk sucks" is an invitation for a new back-and-forth about it. "People say monk sucks, here's the old argument" at least establishing that there is nothing new to really say.

It's too bad the RPGnet +/- thread solution doesn't work here (because of our format).

Sure, that's where we should be able to point people back at a previous question, and that previous question should be something less subjective than "does it suck" and the answers should be less subjective than "it sucks"

Snort, we have something better, comment deletion

I think the most recent question was trying to be that question, in some ways.

Sure, it's just failing in that instead of being specific it's just "hey you know all your opinions on why the monk sucks? Project them again please" instead of being clinical and specific.

Well, actually it's +/- threads and relentless personal topic bans, now that I think about it. :/

Mehhh... I'm going to stop thinking about monk anything and just feel happy none of this has any effect on anything I play.

@mxyzplk Is this an answer?

It seems like it should be just a comment on KRyan's post - either that or I should comment on it saying "This isn't a forum with linear discussion" etc

yeah the syntax is what I think disqualifies it

@JonathanHobbs Converted it, just a 1-rep guy who can't comment so answers instead

@mxyzplk Oh wow, you can edit posts when you transmogrify them into comments?

Oh wait. >_> Now I can't remember if it had a > quote bar or just quotation marks.

hm? It autoconverted that one, but no it didn't have markup (would have stripped it if it did)

but you can always edit anything... if you have rep that is

Ah okay, nevermind then. :P

Oh yeah. I guess if it was something that would be a bit mutilated as a comment, you could edit it to be more suitable and then transmogrify it.

though if it turns into too much work we tend to delete it and say "there's a reason you're not allowed to comment yet..."

@mxyzplk I'm curious, how do you tend to tell users that stuff? Via comments on their deleted stuff? (I've only recently learned mod notes are a thing - and not the hard way, thankfully - and I'm not sure how those get used)

Yeah, or comments prior to deletion (we try to teach people how to self correct, when feasible)

Alright. :)

@Zachiel, @AlexP, @BESW: Thanks, I'll have to check out Agon and 3:16

Hi @BESW! :)

[blinks, mole-like]

That... is a LOT of backlog. Anything I should read?

Short version: there was some discussion about NPCs in 3.5e and Pathfinder and 4e which briefly became about KRyan's answer on that monk question then became a discussion of tiers before returning to that answer.

Then Lord Gareth and I talked about 4e ritual refluffing, then refluffing in general, then the necromancy of the Old Kingdom in which necromancers use seven different bells in order to perform their necromancy. It's a pretty cool way of thinking about it.

Then we went on to talk about the capital-D Dead in that system. Oh, and I was mistaken - then it turned into a talk about refluffing in general in 3.5e and 4e and Pathfinder. Then we talked to mxyzplk for a bit about stuff. Now you are here.

(the Old Kingdom is a place which operates by its own set of rules - defined in the Charter, I believe)

Thank you for the Greatest Hits overview.

For some time I've had this idea about a necromantic knife--either a single knife or a group of necromancers who know how make them--which turns anyone it kills into a zombie... for as long as the knife remains in the body.

My favorite version is a group of intelligent undead necromancers who are all animated by such knives; they're basically invulnerable unless the knife is pulled out, at which point they keel over.

So, knowing this weakness, they've stuck themselves all over with knives and blades of all kinds.

@BESW I'd poke one through my liver and stick one in my left thigh and so on, and seal myself up again to hide them.

"Zargothotep!? No!! It can't be! I thought we destroyed you!" "Ha-haaaa, suckers! Tiny dagger in my left big toe! You didn't get that one!"

Heheh.

I was thinking of it more as a Holy Grail Choice type thing.

"He's covered in knives, but only one will kill him if we remove it."

Ahhhh. 8)

Misdirection! Classic.

Like this, only more so.

And even if they do keel over when you pull one out, they might not be dead!

@BESW Those are some very silly places to put knives.

....yes.

I call it Extreme Piercing.

Extreme(ly impractical) Piercing

But 2d4 headbutts!

That looks like 2d6 to me.

But probably nonproficient -4 attacks.

I'd say they're daggers, not short swords.

Weapon Expertise (Knives in Head)

I wouldn't worry so much about proficiency, but a dual wielding penalty

You can't just stick two knives in your head and expect to double your damage! Think of the balance!

@Magician Plus he has two knives in his head and one more in his hand

@JonathanHobbs In each hand.

... So he does!

He can stick knives in each part of his body = each part of his body is a weapon = he's a monk.

Flurry of headknives

... I don't know if I've ever said it, but one of the characters I've always fancied playing was a 3.5e or Pathfinder Barbarian with three or four hands, all used to hold an oversized weapon (or, say, two two-handed axes)

@JonathanHobbs Tri-kreen!

@Magician Knife monk. Good at pain tolerance.

Absorbs your stabs and turns them back against you.

@JonathanHobbs Not very good at making life choices.

@Magician They do that!?

4 arms!

!!!

Is their level adjustment +99?

Mantis people from Dark Sun. I really don't recall their LA :)

Alternatively, shapeshift into a girallon

There was a spell for extra arms, too...

Druid with four-armed gorilla form.

And proficiency with greataxes!

Let's see... Dark Sun was never actually a 3.5 thing, but thri-kreen were introduced late in the game. Let me look.

They were in MM3 or 4

They weren't called thri-kreen though, were they?

I thought they were. Calling them something else would be just silly

@Magician Do I need some sort of proficiency for dual-wielding them?

They probably were described as generic desert dwelling race

Oh, okay, they're in the 3.0 MM2, with a 3.5 update.

@JonathanHobbs Ugh. That's probably covered by their 4-armed rules.

I sure hope so

Bah. They don't have any multiple-arms abilities or feats.

Instead they have... [drumroll] ...PSIONICS.

I was going to say... I wouldn't be too surprised if they didn't!

WHUUUAAAAAAAA

There were monstrous feats for multi-armed creatures and multi-attacks

Yeah, Dark Sun was a very psionic kind of place.

Might have been Savage Species

Yeah, SS is where to go.

giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213527 here's a thread discussing 3.5 thri-kreen with 2 greatswords

Yesssss. I am trying to create a thing with four arms dual wielding great axes. Why didn't I think of The Book About Breaking The Game.

Ouch. Dual wielding comes with some significant penalties.

(In PF.)

Yeah, it's one of those things that you'd never do unless you spent lots of effort on it.

@Magician What sort of effort? Just heavy investment in making it really good?

Now, figure out a way to either make those weapons oversized, so that he's wielding two LARGE greatswords, or to wield two-handed weapons in one hand, for a total of 4 greatswords. Preferably both.

@JonathanHobbs Lots of feats, generally. That's 3ed's response to any non-standard character concept.

@Magician \o/

THE PERFECT BARBARIAN

...then dip into dervish or tempest

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge the ways to go about this all involve at least one and probably multiple poorly-worded feats.

Question: with four greatswords, would a +12/+7/+2 attack (in Pathfinder, if 3.5e doesn't have the BAB-based attack-growth thing) turn into three lots of four stabs?

Not unless you find something very broken.

No, multiple weapons just add an attack each.

But there are feats that add extra attacks with them!

I do recall ways to get around that, but I can't remember what they are right now. I think they're racial.

:D!

>:D

... I am seriously considering asking this as a question just to see what fun the responses would be

"I want four arms. I want either four or two weapons. I want to do maximum stabs. How can I do maximum stabs?"

(but I probably won't)

...Marilith. Are there any marilith character stats?

I'm sure thri-kreen have lower LA than mariliths

Thri-kreen don't have extra attacks per arm.

But they can take improved multi-attack feat, or whatever it's called

Can't an Orc be magicked some extra arms?

Maybe with grafts?..

Though I don't recall them ever being worth it

:D

I thought it could be done at lower levels though

I dunno. I need to go home. Back later :D

Well, Girallon's Blessing is a spell. You should be able to make a permanent magic item out of it.

Arms of the Naga would be an interesting place to start.

...it's depressing how much of this rubbish is still in my head. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to recall, say, uni-level math. Or much of even school-level physics. But I know how to give a character 4 arms in a game I last played about 6 years ago, and have no intention of ever playing again.

Tweets to Campaign By hit the motherlode today.

@BESW in 4E you could technically get Thri Kreen some feats that gave them attacks with thier extra arms

but it specified a specific thrown weapon that they had racial proficiency with

and it didn't give them any extra actions, though I think I recall a free action to make a throw attack when you crit or dropped someone

something like that

Yes, but he specified non-4e.

mm

didn't see that

in any case

it's only a little useful, some kind of limitation or other on the free action attack you get, and only one specific type of weapon

it isn't exactly broken or flexible

Aye. I think the goal was to make "attacks per round" cry.

lol

@Magician I'm in a similar position.

at least it's useful here in SE

not that the rep you get from any one question is useually gonna be too significant

Yeah, but I think the lion's share of my rep IS from 3.5.

Hey, @trogdor, what do you think the defining qualities/goals/manifesto of an MLP game should include?

huh

well

we did have this aspect generally agreed on already

but teamwork seems like an important element

maybe a mechanic to make yourself, or at least your personal problems, an issue for the group

when the current session doesn't have an impressive problem all its own

there should probably be a stat that represents a skill, or small set of related skills, that you are naturally talented at, along with a few general stats. those might have to do (at least a little anyway) with what race you are

and I dunno if anyone else who would be interested in that type of game would care for it, but I personally would like to not be 100% confined to 3 or 4 races

Yeah, I think races should not be integral to stats.

but I honestly don't know how playing some other type of creature/ making some other type of creature would work

mk

just thrwoing that out there

Maybe a Fate-like "your race justifies certain actions" idea, without any particular mechanics in place per race.

mm

and I also think earth ponies should get some kind of small "balancing mechanic" as it were

cause they can't fly or cast magic stuff

EPs get hardiness/endurance/toughness type justifications, as well as some kind of agricultural inclination.

Strength, etc.

yeah

something like that I think

just saying, no one would want to just "have" less things they can do

But I think stats overall should be kept very narrative, somewhere between Fate and RFS.

not that some people might not pick em anyway

but it's more fun if you get something for what you are giving up

RFS?

Roll for Shoes

ah

that

that was rather entertaining

even if I mostly just spectated

I'm thinking three-six stats, race, cutie mark, and pony problem.

are those last three included in stats?

I think they'd function more like Fate aspects.

Justifications for actions, bonuses, penalties, and complications.

I'm not sure but it couldn't just be an even lower-dial version of FAE.

except, if you are particularly good at something

you shouldn't just stop being good at it

I think

in FATE it makes sense

but in an MLP RPG, I think, should not have that particular limitation

at least considering you only have one mark

and it will only ever apply to a very narrow group of activities

if not actually literally just one thing

Hmm.

Good point.

Ahah.

Cutie mark: Pick a narrow set of actions. You will always succeed at these actions unless your pony problem interferes.

I was thinking just a bonus

but auto success, in a very narrow set of things, might work too

Pony Problem: Pick a narrow focus or concern. You will always fail at actions relating to this focus unless teamwork is involved.

Auto success/failure reduces mechanical complexity.

I guess

so your idea is very narrative minded

seems maybe even more so than FATE in some ways

Naturally.

except FATE would give you more control

I'm making notes here.

@BESW Oh my goodness. :)

@JonathanHobbs [grin]

hunter the vigil?

Someone recommended it last night.

This answer has a LOT to say about magic, but the question doesn't mention magic at all; is there something about "dungeon crawl" that inherently implies magic?

I mean, Munchkin says "the essence of the dungeon experience [is to k]ill the monsters, steal the treasure, stab your buddy."

@BESW Dungeon crawl implies dungeons and dragons implies magic

D&D is the only RPG, remember?

Until you remember the others a few seconds later

The answerer has made 11 Burning Wheel answers, 3 BRP answers, 15 Warhammer 40k answers...

There's Mouse Guard, CoC, Traveller, Savage Worlds, and GURPs on his answers tags.

@BESW I don't think it necessarily implies magic, but it does imply a fantasy setting where magic would most likely exist. but TBF I'm not very familiar with systems beyond D&D anyway :p

Mmm.

I don't think it makes the answer any less good--and probably improves it--but I was startled.

Buhahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!

By which I mean "hello"

@Rob I am startled again.

The influx of mod-power has gone to my head

Grats.

HP Lovecraft on laughter.

:)

lol

My first gold badge * - *

@Zachiel Grats!

dang

I want *

ok got it

Ok now that was the easy one to get

@AlexP Oh, hi!

@BESW Hi!

[waves at room occupants] Hi! I have a question.

@Alyksandrei I have an answer.

Shall we see if they match?

@BESW OK!

Question: OGL means the SRD is not the only OGC. Is there anywhere I could find (downloadable or just viewable) non-SRD, free OGC material? Random Google searches aren't turning up anything - maybe I just need better keywords, and maybe it just isn

't there.

Like, you're looking for non-SRD OGC material from any system?

preferably 3.5 or easily adapted

but if it's a self-contained system (not just a supplement) I'd definitely consider it

Off the top of my head there's Fate (of course), which is OGC-BY.

@BESW are SotC and Diaspora OGL, or some other open license?

@Alyksandrei there's also the D20 modern, and I think some of the d20 SW stuff is OGL

SotC: This document is Open Game Content, as described in section 1(d) of the License.

@C.Ross I'm looking specifically for anything that can't be found on the WotC website ... especially any 3.5 (3.pf?) supplemental material. Or even if the PHB2 and MM sequels have any online OGC ... hard to work on campaign-building when I have no materials to work from. And no budget to buy them with.

@Alyksandrei hmmm

I'm fairly certain MM2-X and PHB2 were not OGC

@C.Ross darn.

personally I thought the core books were a decent canvas

@Alyksandrei are you really attached to 3.5?

dmoz.org/Games/Roleplaying/Genres/Universal/d20_System

FATE has a really rich OGC ecosystem that's compatible, but FATE is a much more narrative, definitely non d20 system.

@C.Ross Well ... I'm open to others, but I have the 3 core books for 3.5, and my current group is kinda attached to it ... and it's the only system I have any familiarity with at all ... As a first-time DM, I don't think I should be learning and teaching a new system all at the same time.

@C.Ross I don't think I mind narrative ... some of the most enjoyable sessions involved roleplay and very few dice. But I don't have much experience with anything yet.

@Alyksandrei It's always nice when the GM knows the system, but it's totally okay for the group to be learning it together, too.

Some games are better for it than others, though; D&D generally expects the GM to be well-versed in the system, while Fate does not.

I haven't queried the group yet to see if they'd be interested ... I might try a few one-shots at the local meetup (designed for experimentation!) - Maybe I should look at Fate ... Is there a system with crunch-light combat rules? Some of the players like smacking things more than others ... I'm just spewing random thoughts now. Maybe I should go get ready for work now.

If Fate is otherwise a good system fit for your group, combat rules can actually be tailored to a large extent per-character.

The same basic rules apply to everyone, but a player who wants more crunch can create extra rules that apply to his character; while a player who wants a simpler experience can simply have more Fate points to spend instead. The balance comes out about the same.

cool. g2g now. thanks for the help, and I'll prolly be back later asking for more!

ttfn

yo

@JoshuaAslanSmith, @EugeneRyabtsev Hi!