Fool's Moon Entertainment

I don't believe any given class should be inherently 'evil'. Sure, a majority of the people who take the class can be evil - I get that, but the class itself? Let me give you a pair of examples. 1) An Assassin. They only kill the corrupt and vile. They won't take a job to kill someone who doesn't deserve it, and they won't inflict 'collateral damage' (such as staff, guards, etc), unless it's in self-defence (and even then, prefers non-lethal methods). Their purpose is to ensure those who believe they're above justice face justice. They're doing the same thing hired adventurers might do, only with a lot less death involved. So, evil? 2) A Necromancer. They act as a go-between between the living and dead, act as a psychopomp, helping the dead find peace, eliminating undead, helping families grieve, and helping the ill or frail to pass on without pain. They're not raising undead, defiling graves, sucking the life force out of people, or an...

I'm going to begin with the following statement:  One is not inherently better than the other, they are simply different, and I have my preferences. This is not an attack on either style of RP, but just my thoughts on the subject matter. That out of the way, I like crunch. I like detail. I don't write games with a lot of crunch, because I'm casting a wide net - I want to write games that are easy for children and adults, and which allows you to put as much detail into the game as you want. The ASPS engine can be a streamlined, simple game with a focus on narrative play, or it can be resource heavy and detailed if that's your preference. The soon-t o- be-released Keepsakes (was Widdershins ) is incredibly simple, because it's supposed to be an all-ages game. But yeah. I want a game where poison is lethal, you need to keep track of that stuff and prepare for it. I want a game where if you're out in the wilderness, there's things like exposure , and you could ...

Because of a new RPG coming out that (if I recall) has a wheelchair available for PCs, the entire discussion about wheelchairs in a fantasy setting has come around again.  Here's my stance on it: It isn't a problem. People are making excuses, though.  Who'd want to adventure with someone in a wheelchair? How would they navigate dungeons?  Why do they even have wheelchairs, when magic can fix everything? Here's the thing. Not everyone has the ability to choose their course in life.  Not everybody has access to 'magic' that can fix everything.  And it's amazing what one can do with good friends who are willing to give them a hand. Dragonlance is a good example, in fact, with Raistlin.  Why didn't they dump his anemic ass and get a 'real wizard' to help them out?  They didn't.  Because he's a friend.  Oh, how about Charles Xavier of the X-Men.  You know there's skads of people in the Marvel Universe who could fix his legs - but he doesn...

Greetings! Let's talk about world building. While the mechanics of an RPG are important ('how the world functions'), the world building -- the setting and all its moving pieces -- need to be just as solid for immersion. There are plenty of 'generic' RPGs out there (Tiny d6, GURPS, Fantasy Age, FATE, Savage Worlds, etc) which can lay out how the world functions through mechanics, but most such games lack when it comes to building the world you're going to be playing in. Then you have games which lay out a world, but it is perhaps the most vanilla world that you'll ever see -- there's nothing fresh and unique about it.  Or it's just shallow, and any differences are superficial. (Of course, Dungeons and Dragons is a huge example). So what makes a setting interesting? Here's a few things to consider: Culture -- what cultures exist? How do they interact? How long have they been there? Religion -- what pantheons exist? How do they interact? How do they...

Here's a hot take for you. If a game ends with a TPK it doesn't necessarily mean... the game was bad. the encounter was 'too tough'. the GM was a bad GM. the players were bad players. that someone made a mistake. that the GM should have fudged. The nature of gaming has changed significantly in the last fifty-five or so years, and the nature of the games themselves have changed with it. While you have those people who insist that D&D is a 'wargame' because of its roots, you'll see them in the same breath talk about how the story is important, and how GMs should fudge dice rolls or ignore results (or even monster blocks) for a good story. I find it a touch hypocritical, but whatever. It seems the expectation is that a 'good campaign' is one where the characters go through it, grow and evolve, have their dramatic moments, and typically see the story to the end -- they face the bad guy, there's a conclusion, plots wrap up, etc. Me? I see that as ...

Balance Balance might be the #1 thing talked about in gaming when you go into game theory and play. We talk about balanced rules, balanced parties, balanced encounters... Here's the thing. Mechanical balance isn't possible. Not really. Not without harming the game itself. Because for true 'mechanical balance', you need to have the mechanics control the decisions that the players make - right at character creation. It needs to control the choices players can make in an encounter. It needs to control the choices the characters make in the setting. It needs to control the choices the characters make as they level up. What gear they get. What bonuses they get. Who they encounter. What they can get from each encounter. What they can gather out in the world. The characters get pushed into smaller and smaller boxes, with less and less choices, all in the name of 'balance'. And what this does is make the character sheet really bland, and the mechanics really bland. You ...

One of my favourite things about roleplaying games is that as a game master I will never be able to predict where the campaign will go. The players are quite good at surprising me -- they decide where to go, they decide what to do, and because I give them free reign, they can go on tangents I never expect. For example? I had the PCs encounter a young green dragon disguised as a bandit - she charged 'protection' from anyone who goes through her area, and utterly destroys anyone who doesn't pay. So what happens? One of the PCs negotiates. They pay the tithe, but he offers to make her business 'legitimate' with the local city paying her for the safe passage of anyone going through, and the utter destruction of any threats that are coming through. Being an artificer, he's offering to craft her some things to help her, and to keep in touch with her in case she ever needs help. ... not something I'd expected. In a friend's campaign, the group is supposed to be...

"I'm not here to coddle my players." "I'm not here to protect their feelings." "I'm not here to be their therapist." To me, that's shorthand for I don't have empathy, and don't care about my players. A good game master wants their players to have fun. Which means being acutely aware of what a player can and can't handle. Which means listening to the players, listening to the tone of their voice, and watching their body language. The goal is to make sure the players are enjoying themselves, and that means being acutely aware of your table. Does that mean the game master has a bit more work? That they need to put a bit more effort into the game? Yes, it does. But those steps should be automatic for the game master - it should be second nature to be aware of your players and how they are feeling at the table. And it means knowing your player's triggers. There's a reason there's a lot of talk about safety and lines and v...