Thread: Classic Fantasy 2nd Edition Notes

Originally Posted by silent_bob

As for the size of the book, OSRIC is 373 pages, RQ6 is 456 pages and BRP is 399 pages. [...] I think the trend is towards large all inclusive volumes rather than separate booklets like the old RQ3 boxed edition.

I still find that for practical purposes at the game table 300 pages is my limit. I find both BRP and RQ6 too large to comfortably handle and find things in a hurry. I do like the idea of a separate monster book, because a lot of the time you don't need that information, and people who only play but never referee would only need to buy the core rules, a bit like the basic Pathfinder book (although that's still a pain to reference in play).

Just my personal opinion (although my group agrees with me), I realise there are different points of view.

Originally Posted by Agentorange

Can I put in my vote for keeping hit locations as well ? I've always liked that aspect of BRP/RQ Put them both in and let people choose what they want.

I must say I'm really looking forward to this.

Hit locations are in. Like you I like them, and its easier to ignore them if you don't want them, then to add them if you do.

Rod

Originally Posted by threedeesix

Hit locations are in. Like you I like them, and its easier to ignore them if you don't want them, then to add them if you do.

Rod

+1 to that. I haven't actually played CF1 (though I've got the PDF) but I think keeping the Total HP in as well is a good move. Traditionalists can keep deducting from both (though I don't think that would work too well with Legend/RQ6 due to the way 'Combat Manoeuvres' are handled - might suggest we give that a go this weekend and see what happens) or choose one or the other, it's definitely a more flexible way to go.

IMO I think it would be a good idea to have a separate Monster Manual, but a lot depends on the publisher you go with and whether there is any benefit to having them separate. If there isn't much difference in price between a single tome and split books, I'd prefer them separate. Just my 2cents worth

Originally Posted by Vile

I still find that for practical purposes at the game table 300 pages is my limit. I find both BRP and RQ6 too large to comfortably handle and find things in a hurry. I do like the idea of a separate monster book, because a lot of the time you don't need that information, and people who only play but never referee would only need to buy the core rules, a bit like the basic Pathfinder book (although that's still a pain to reference in play).

Just my personal opinion (although my group agrees with me), I realise there are different points of view.

Vile,

If you buy the pdf you can print the portions you need or have the whole book on your ipad for quick reference at the game table. Maybe the book and pdf could be sold together at a small discount like with RQ6.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about physical books. I like physical books for actual play, I find printouts messy and tablets or laptops a pain in the ass at the game table. I'd go so far as to say I'd be okay with only the core rules in a book and the monsters in PDF, if need be.

Obviously it makes no difference for a PDF only, but I thought we were talking about the dead tree version - or are we not? Now I'm confused.

Originally Posted by Vile

Just to clarify, I'm talking about physical books. I like physical books for actual play, I find printouts messy and tablets or laptops a pain in the ass at the game table. I'd go so far as to say I'd be okay with only the core rules in a book and the monsters in PDF, if need be.

Obviously it makes no difference for a PDF only, but I thought we were talking about the dead tree version - or are we not? Now I'm confused.

Classic Fantasy hopes to kill some trees. Not confirmed yet. But thats the plan.

Rod (Lumberjack) Leary

Originally Posted by threedeesix

Rod (Lumberjack) Leary

For some reason, I feel like breaking into song!

SDLeary

Originally Posted by threedeesix

I have yet to decide if hit points will be (SIZ+CON) or (SIZ+CON/2) yet. ... I do know I am using locations with seperate hit points. I don't know if I also want a separate hit point total to keep track of or not.

I recommend Overall Hit Points only. It's more "Classic" (and less admin).

Tracking both types is a pain, and unnecessary. You can still have the grittiness of Hit Locations...

Use (SIZ+CON/2) HP, but 0hp doesn't mean Death. Characters stay alive until -10hp (that's also "Classic"). But on Zero or less you roll for the hit location - and it goes out-of-action. Maybe they can fight on, maybe not. And at a certain negative (I use -4) they get a Major Wound related to that Hit Location. (I use a table - and it's on the wiki, I think. Actually it has Serious wounds and Critical wounds, for use at -4 and -7 respectively).

So... is Atomic Age Cthulhu
Horror Roleplaying in the 1950s Chaosium Inc.
repacing Astounding Adventures?
Chaosium.com: News - Astounding Adventures!

They both appear to be Pulp settings, with Astounding Adventures covering the 30s/40s period and Atomic Age Cthulhu covering the 40s/50s period. Quite a number of rules would be relevant to both settings, I just wonder if its all one product now?

Originally Posted by Mankcam

So... is Atomic Age Cthulhu ...

...in the wrong thread? I think so!