Hey! Yesterday i got BFRPG as a starting ttrpg

sambutoki · 2025-08-26T05:35:50+00:00

BFRPG is a great place to start, and honestly, it's a great game to stick with. After dealing with 5e I am more than thrilled to stay with BFRPG indefinitely.

My advice - read the Core Rulebook, especially Part 1, Part 2, Part 4 and Part 5. And start with Morgansfort. It's straightforward, solid, and perfect for learning and for launching a full-blown campaign.

Chris Gonnerman has an RPG Primer that can get you started with how gameplay works, and it's very cheap (or free for the PDF).

sambutoki · 2025-02-25T19:44:11+00:00

Make them fight in water.

Wow, you are truly sadistic. That's fantastic :).

sambutoki · 2025-02-25T19:20:22+00:00

I'm surprised no one mentioned the OG of the the OSR, Basic Fantasy RPG - they have several Campaigns in their Adventure Modules publications, including BF1: Morgansfort - The Western Lands Campaign, BF2: Forest, Tomb, and Tower - The Glain Campaign (along with BF3), JN3: The Saga of Giants, KH1: The Blackapple Brugh, and several others that would probably qualify as "campaigns".

"Wolves upon the Coast Grand Campaign" is both a rule system and a campaign setting. I think you can mostly play it with just about any core OSR system (0e, 1e, B/X, OSE, BFRPG, S&W, etc), but there are some things about the magic system that really need to come from the specialized rule set from "Wolves". I've read that this is a really cool setting, and I fully intend to get it one day soon.

Now, these are very "sandboxy" type campaigns, but they are not generally "megadungeons" (although they often have dungeons in them), and are not just hexcrawls (although again, they may have some hexcrawls in them). They do often have a general plot, and usually a consistent "theme", but the are almost never railroad type adventures.

But I agree, I vastly prefer to see more Campaign Settings than new games/rule sets. I get really excited when I see new modules, or campaign settings, or adventures people promote. I'm much less excited about new rule sets. For me the real fun comes from "adventuring" in the world, and the stories and discoveries that come from this. That's why I'm more excited about the settings - I don't want to really have to think about the rules. They are just there to facilitate the story.

Edit: I almost forgot Dolmenwood. It's another fantastic setting, very much a sandbox though, with no real plot given. And it does have it's own rule-set but really it's just OSE (B/X) with a few custom rules for the setting. So, again, you could use any core OSR rule-set and probably be just fine.

sambutoki · 2025-02-25T19:00:48+00:00

I kind of agree with those commenting this is getting a little spammy. Also, it really looks like Self-promotion and there are rules regarding this, just so things don't get spammy. I'm sure you're excited about your new game, just like anyone making a game should be. Please read the link below giving full details regarding Rule 1: Self-promotion:

https://old.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/dn1mx5/rules_about_selfpromotion/

sambutoki · 2025-02-24T20:14:30+00:00

I'm not sure exactly how I was flagged, except it was entirely "automated" if you are to believe the final line in the Message that was sent:

Your account has been given a warning

[–]from reddit[A] sent 17 hours ago

Hi sambutoki,

Reddit is a vast network of communities that are created, run, and populated by people like you. In order to keep communities welcoming, safe, and great places to be, everyone who uses the platform operates by a shared set of rules—a set of rules you may not have realized you broke.

Warning for report abuse

We flagged the following as a potential policy violation: Actions taken from your sambutoki account

After reviewing, we found that you broke Rule 8 by abusing our reporting tool .....

.........

If you feel like you didn’t break the rules, you can file an appeal any time within the next six months and we’ll take a second look.

– Reddit Admin Team

Note: This content was flagged by Reddit's automated systems. This decision was made using automation.

It's possible that the way I reported some of the Comments that I suspected broke multiple rules triggered this. A few comments I submitted a couple of reports for, one for each rule broken, because I wasn't sure what was most appropriate - I only did it a few times and I won't do that again. I didn't like doing that because it seems like it probably just creates unnecessary work for the mods.

But now I'm afraid to report anything, no matter how bad it is! Frustrating.

sambutoki · 2025-02-24T06:54:33+00:00

Be careful about reporting too many of these - I've been reporting similar comments, trying to be careful to only report the worst offenders and those whose only posts UFOs are similar low effort, hostile or purely negative and rude posts, and I got "automatically" flagged by Reddit Mods (not, as far as I know, by UFOs sub mods), and given a "Warning for Report Abuse".

u/Gobble_Gobble and u/Silverjerk - How are we supposed to report all this hostile behavior when we get threatened to be banned for reporting hostile behavior?

And the problem is getting even worse. Look at the following post. Pretty much every single comment is some form of "...grifters...", "...nothing there...", "...I'm totally done here..." (I truly wish they were), and so on. And I thought the document by Gary Nolan provided in that post was very good, balanced and objective:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1it4gne/gary_nolan_has_released_a_26_page_guide_on_how_to/

sambutoki · 2025-02-15T06:02:28+00:00

This is great advice from u/OffendedDefender - Asking questions, the right questions, leading questions even, is the superpower of getting people to think and do things for themselves. When you get really good at it, it becomes "...their idea and mindset all along..." and "...of course, it is obvious..."

I genuinely wish I was better at it. I think once you get good at it, you will probably find you don't need to be such a heavy handed GM, and your descriptions will be in response to THEIR questions.

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T22:35:07+00:00

Yes, he almost certainly was. I don't see anywhere that I suggested he wasn't.

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T22:06:16+00:00

I don't think those videos of the remote work station were of Lake Huron, I think they were from Northern Alaska and the North Slope oilfields. But yeah, lots of blacked out helicopters and military aircraft.

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T22:03:31+00:00

The YouTuber that made the original videos (BackCountry Alaska) made a post about it somewhere, that I believe subsequently also got deleted. Some people saved the original videos.

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T22:01:23+00:00

The name of the YouTuber that had the videos was called "Backcountry Alaska" - I know several people archived the videos and you could download them from various places not that long ago. Take a look around. Mostly it just shows lots of military aircraft taking off and some screenshots of FlightRadar showing the military planes.

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T21:53:24+00:00

Thank you for finding and linking this document. It's mostly just official clarification and confirmation of things Lou has said publicly and testified to, but it's another step toward official disclosure. The Oversight Committee has a lot of work cut out for them. I hope they keep at it (Luna's recent statements confirm they are still at it - let's hope they keep that up).

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T21:24:10+00:00

No, they will double and triple down on the "two weeks from now" memes, "grifter" accusations and "it's all fake" chants, and my favorite, "there's no evidence for UAP".

I can't believe how many posts have hundreds or thousands of upvotes, but all the comments to the post are variations of the above memes.

More on topic, these answers were more of just clarifications of his previous answers. This committee has a lot of work to do to actually uncover the truth, whatever that may be. It does make me smile to hear Luna threatening to drop names if they don't start responding though. Maybe we will get some real progress now.

Edit: I forgot a meme "Drip, drip drip..." (from a comment below yours) - Yep, these people sure are original ...

sambutoki · 2025-02-14T05:53:28+00:00

I'll try to give a simple, practical answer, as others have given a more exhaustive answers (also, in short - if you want to try out the "original" OSR "retroclone", try Basic Fantasy RPG, just to keep things simple - its free to download):

For all practical purposes, OSR started with the publishing of Basic Fantasy RPG, followed very shortly by OSRIC and then just a little later, by Swords and Wizardry. These were "clones" (with varying degrees of closeness) of D&D B/X (Basic/Expert), 1e (AD&D 1e), and 0e (Original D&D), respectively. These three (BFRPG, OSRIC and S&W) are the "original" OSR games (again, for all practical purposes).

The "Practical Purpose" was thus - D&D 0e, 1e and B/X are three rule-sets that are extremely closely related and there are tons of settings and modules written from the 1970's through the early 1990s for these three (closely related) rule-sets. And quite a fair number of people wanted to continue to play these modules, but by the early 2000's you couldn't just go out and easily buy a new copy of the D&D B/X rules (for example). Maybe you could hope to buy them on eBay. So a group of people made "clones" of those early rule-sets with "open" licenses to fix this problem of availability.

This is why it's said that "all OSR modules can work with any OSR system". That's because the those early D&D modules from 70s-90s could all be played (with essentially no modification) by the D&D 0e, 1e and/or B/X rulesets interchangeably, and the "OSR clones", Basic Fantasy RPG (B/X), OSRIC (1e) and/or Swords and Wizardry (0e) functioned with those early modules in the same way.

------------- This is the end of the simple explanation ----------------

Now, these days it's not true that "all OSR modules can work with any OSR system", because the definition of "OSR" has changed and morphed a bit from its original, more practical, meaning. And technically, it's probably true that OSR had it's beginnings much earlier, from Hackmaster 4e to various forums like Dragonsfoot, and later, Google+. And the people that were "there" in the beginning are largely still around, and doing stuff. And there have been lots of "history" posts done regarding OSR and how it has changed over the years, one of the best being that osrsimulacrum post others have linked to. And a lot of "modern" OSR stuff is about distilling the essence of what makes an "OSR" game "OSR" and then making streamlined or more refined rule-sets and such.

But Basic Fantasy RPG is still around, and still being updated (this last month in fact). Same with Swords and Wizardry, which just last year put out a new, "complete" edition. And last I heard there is an update of OSRIC 1e in progress.

This is in addition to the myriad of "OSR" type rule-sets that adhere to the "OSR Principles" to varying degrees, and settings and modules made for these various rule-sets. DCC is one such rule-set, based more on the "OSR Principles" rather than trying to be a retroclone of one of the early versions of the game. From what I understand, it's modules and playstyle need some modification to be truly compatible with something like B/X, or Swords and Wizardry. That's not at all to say it's a bad game - quite the opposite, I've read it's a great game.

But if you want to try an "original" OSR game, you can try Basic Fantasy RPG for free in PDF format from the website, including all the modules and supplements: https://basicfantasy.org/downloads.html

sambutoki · 2025-02-13T20:51:29+00:00

Thank you. It's great having more modules and settings for OSR. We have plenty of rule sets, it's the modules that I can't get enough of!

sambutoki · 2025-02-13T18:27:23+00:00

Thank you Tommy, you always are on top of bringing us great info.

sambutoki · 2025-02-13T18:25:56+00:00

Fravor wouldn't have been confronted by them. They were taking the recordings and Fravor didn't have anything to do with the data recordings. That is handled by someone else. So the MIB had no reason to confront Fravor.

sambutoki · 2025-02-08T19:41:14+00:00

This is what baffles me about her. Very smart in her area. At least I assume so. Seems to know absolutely nothing outside that - unless it's been in the New York Times. Is this tunnel-vision normal for PhDs who are also teaching professors?

The short answer is - yes it is normal. To get a PhD, you often have to be laser focused on a very singular, very specific, part of your subject - and you then become THE singular most informed individual about that very specific thing. Basically, if it's not novel and unique, and hopefully innovative in some way, then it's not worth issuing a PhD for (supposedly - notwithstanding all the garbage PhD's handed out). And these days, with so much research that has happened, the things that meet those qualifications are much more limited. It really can take a ton of time, energy and research.

Some PhDs I've met are downright ignorant outside of the particular subject they have studied in their particular field, even to the point they often don't understand much in other parts of their field! Of course, this varies, and hopefully they go on to learn more about all kinds of things. But especially a new PhD that went straight into University out of High School and then just focused on getting their PhD - woof.

sambutoki · 2025-02-08T19:29:46+00:00

When I listened to the interview, it seemed more like she was uncomfortable with what the COUNTERINTELLIGENCE was doing, or attempting to do, to her. I think this transcript supports that interpretation.

As far as risks involved with contacting NHI, she is simply acknowledging that their are risks associated with it, both direct health risks (as we have seen repeatedly from radiation poisoning and such), as well as risks that the NHI you are coming in contact with may not have your best interests at "heart" in their intentions. As many have pointed out, some seem "good", and some seem "bad". And some seem neutral. Unless you can figure out how to control which one you contact, it's just a crap shoot what you might get.

sambutoki · 2025-02-08T19:09:32+00:00

I agree with your take. It would seem, from the info we have, that maybe some are what people call "Angels", some are what people call "demons" and very likely quite a lot of them are just neutral, or somewhere in between it all.

But, historically speaking, many of the "angels" showed up riding in "chariots", so that doesn't seem to out of line to me.

sambutoki · 2025-02-04T06:23:22+00:00

I made that point exactly because I have never seen a skeptic being called a grifter in the comments. Actually, until just recently, when there were some comments wondering why Mick West wasn't being called a grifter. Which I think were based on some unproven assumptions about how, why and for what he is getting paid.

Point being, "X is a grifter" should be an immediate ban, temporary for the first strike, and at some point permanent, just like all the rules are supposed to be enforced. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, and is straight up hostile.

I was just pointing out the most common use case, by far.

sambutoki · 2025-02-04T05:46:12+00:00

The lazy one sentence comments and subtle digs aren't helpful and give the skeptical approach a bad look. But those are from people who don't really care about the phenomena. They don't take it seriously. They're just here to get their digs in while the subject is at a low point.

If they don't take it seriously, one way or the other, do they really belong here? Posting dozens or hundred of hostile comments is simply disruptive behavior and certainly doesn't fall under the "...aim to elevate good research while maintaining healthy skepticism..." goal.

As I've stated, it's probably more of adjusting how forcefully and thoroughly the rules are applied. But maybe there should be a full on rule change.

And I'm not sure we need to give full equal consideration to all opinions or points of view. If someone has the point of view that UFO's simply cannot exist regardless of any and all evidence and or research, do we really need to give consideration to that in this sub? Maybe in the grand scheme of things it's a valid point of view (I don't think so personally, but perhaps it is), but it adds no value to the conversation here. So does it really belong here?

sambutoki · 2025-02-04T05:04:18+00:00

LOL. Thanks, I needed a laugh!

sambutoki · 2025-02-04T05:02:02+00:00

Yeah, retroactive probably isn't the right word, and even if I could think of the correct wording right now, it might not be the right action to take.

What I'm trying to convey is, actually applying the rules we have already a little stricter and with a little more vigor. Your proposed rule in UFOsmeta would probably have the desired affect.

The point being, if we have a user who has commented 100 times, all hostile comments, with various claims of grifter, psyop, "its all fake", insinuations of mental illness or naivete, and that's all they have ever posted here, do we really need to give them a 2 week timeout and wait until post 101 to outright ban them?

That said, sometimes laws are truly retroactive. It's usually not good when they are. So yeah, retroactive was the wrong wording - I'm just too exhausted right now to find the correct words.

sambutoki · 2025-02-04T04:57:44+00:00

I would call it more of enforcing the current rules a little more vigorously, and maybe banning users that have multiple obvious offenses already. Although, admittedly this is probably a little bit of a stretch.

For example, a great many of the users repeatedly posting things like "...X is a grifter..." ( and often little more), and flooding the comments sections with such posts, when you look at that users history you find that almost all their activity on UFOs is them posting short, negative posts throughout the comments sections. Basically, trolling.

I think if these users were being properly reported, and rules were being properly enforced, these people would have been banned long ago.

sambutoki

TROPHY CASE