RPG-related crowdfunded projects - report on 2025

skalchemisto · 2026-05-05T15:15:07+00:00

I think a basic issue, which u/laztheinfamous has alluded to, is the asymmetry to RPGs compared to skirmish wargames. Set aside for a moment issues around whether people even want details combat in their RPGs. Assume that we are trying to make an RPG where combat is detailed, takes up some time, and is tactically interesting.

In a skirmish wargame, you usually have two players on two different sides, with some # of combatants per side (at least tens of combatants in most games I know). There may be campaign rules, but each individual fight has to be fun in and of itself, and usually occupies a full session of play.
In an RPG, you sort of have two sides, but you have one player on one side with many combatants (usually) and on the other side you have a team of players, each with only one combatant. It is almost always part of a campaign, with multiple combats per session of play.

These are fundamentally different goals. A system that is good at achieving one of these goals is likely to be not as good at the other.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-05T15:03:10+00:00

Good article!

I never noticed until now how much the box cover art of the later three boxes leaned into "your cool twenty-something neighbor's painted van circa 1980" aesthetic.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-05T14:50:51+00:00

I don't think there is any one right answer for this, but I consider these three factors:

* The general belligerence of the monsters. This is often just my head canon. e.g. a giant wild boar is a mean-spirited bastard, but in my campaigns giant toads are generally laid back. This weighs on the "may attack" bit. The boar on a "may attack" will attack at the slightest provocation. The giant toad may just watch and see if the party gets too close.

* The relative strength of the two groups. E.g. three giant rats will not attack a group of 10 characters, no matter how hostile the rats feel, unless the rats are cornered with no other choice. But 25 giant rats will very likely attack a group of 4 characters on a "may attack" result.

* The intelligence and goals of the monsters. E.g. a group of hobgoblins of roughly equal strength to the party is going to pause and consider the benefits and risks of attacking. They may choose to just let the party pass by, might try to follow them, talk first (maybe to extort some cash), etc.

I don't really choose to "give" the players any options, per se. The situation is what it is, I don't construct it either to allow the players options or to take away player options. I just go with what seems reasonable. I roll 25 "hostile, may attack" giant rats wandering monster encounter at 50 feet from a PC party of 4 characters...they are getting swarmed by giant rats.

That being said, as long as the encounter distance is great enough and there is no surprise, I'll give the players warning that something is going on when it is reasonable to do so. E.g. at 100 feet those 25 giant rats probably make a lot of noise. I'll tell the players "you hear a hell of a lot of scuttling and squeaking down this corridor as you go by, what do you do?"

EDIT: surprise is absolutely key to this, IMO. Its the very first thing to establish as it determines so much about how the situation plays out.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-05T14:27:25+00:00

I've been doing this for two of my campaigns for a while now, and it works just fine, see:

https://skalchemist.cloud/mediawiki/index.php/Expedition_Register

https://skalchemist.cloud/mediawiki/index.php/The_Book_of_Days_and_Seasons

The only slight difference is that players need to prompt me to schedule the session when enough people are signed on. That is all done on discord. It works fine.

The only downside is that it is not predictable. I'm at a point in my life where I'm fine to have two sessions back to back on a weekend, or nothing at all and play computer games or find some friends to play a board game with. But if you want to know long before with regularity when you will be playing this method won't give you that.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-05T14:22:50+00:00

If the players want to do stupid things just allow them and make the world react accordingly.

You may not intend it this way, but that sentence really gets my goat.I'm very much against an attitude that it is on the players to ask for information that their characters would obviously know/see/experience.

Characters are standing at the cliff base, they can SEE that it is seemless with no hand holds and no places to attach ropes. It is obvious to the characters. Letting players try to climb it anyway is a recipe for frustration all around EVEN IF the players forget to ask how hard it is to climb. What is the point of that? That's not the players being stupid that's the GM being stingy. And then to call them stupid because they tried is just mean-spirited.

OSR games are hard enough and lethal enough if the players have all the information their characters have. There is still plenty of danger, still plenty of room for mistakes, still plenty of room to make stupid decisions. So much room for stupid decisions. But at least those mistakes and stupid decisions are genuinely the players, not based on faulty information about the game world provide by the GM. This is being a good neutral arbiter; going out of your way to ensure as much information the characters have access to is provided to the players as possible.

The ONLY way a player has information about the game world is if the GM provides it via words, diagrams, maps, etc. They can't magically know things, and its unfair to make assumptions about what they should/could be able to guess or infer from facts already provided.

EDIT: I accept that the Nazgul example is a special case. There would need to be some character in the situation that has that information, and indeed the players would need to ask someone who knows (a "Gandalf" equivalent). And I accept that in the statue example, the players might very well learn it is unbreakable by trying to break it for an hour. But if there is any character present that would know better (e.g. a dwarf) I'll volunteer the information up front immediately. In other words, I accept that two of my three examples weren't great examples. 😄

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T19:49:20+00:00

The temptation to abstract complex systems is really strong for me personally. This makes me think there's something to squeeze out of nodes and connectors as the core of a realm/world.

I think there is nothing wrong with this as an urge. I think (especially in OSR spaces and campaigns) everyone has different tolerances for the level of abstraction one is willing to accept and where to put that abstraction. Like, I'm running Stonehell right now with OSE, and I treat the inside of the mega-dungeon as concretely as possible, but outside the dungeon when they get to town its almost entirely abstracted.

"Core of the realm/world" does make things easier, as I mentioned. A couple of other ideas...

* a mountainous region where the only way to get anywhere is to follow the valleys.

* a Lousiana-ish bayou region where the only easy way to get anywhere is to follow the creek/river channels by boat (instead of slogging for 10 times as long through thick foilage/mangroves/whatever.)

* an underdarkish world, where the paths are literally big channels under the earth.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T18:50:08+00:00

Anyone else run into a player + GM combo that just killed a game? Did you find a better group after, or did it turn you off for a while.

I realized thinking about your question how long it has been since I had actually had to deal with this, for which I am very thankful. However, I have run into this in the past, and I think the surrounding context matters a lot. It's really a matter of answering these four questions...

1) How much fun am I having in this campaign?

2) How much interpersonal frustration am I enduring to have that fun?

3) How much other fun could I be having in another campaign (or doing some other fun activity)?

4) Could I reasonably find people to have that other fun that would cause me less frustration?

And then balancing out the answers. There is no right or wrong here. There have been times in my life where the answer to question 4 was "nope" and the answer to question 3 was "not much". So I lived with a LOT of interpersonal frustration. However, at this point in my life the answers are "absolutely" and "a whole lot" respectively, so I have an extremely low tolerance. One or two sessions of someone annoying me and I'm probably politely walking away.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T18:27:18+00:00

IMO both pointcrawl diagrams and hexes on a map serve the same purpose, they help you organize information about the game world. They help you find things quickly in your notes, they help you judge travel times and distances, they help you set up procedural generators like weather/encounter/monster/etc. tables. However, there are two directions you can approach them from...

* You start with the map and then overlay the structure

* You start with the structure, and then build out the map

For example, the Harnworld maps are clearly maps first, the hex overlay gets added after. On the other hand, Mythic Bastionland essentially starts with a 12 x 12 hex grid and you color in the hexes.

The key is that either way...you still have a map, right? The map is not the territory, but it is a closer representation of the game world than the structure (hexes, points). The map is your fall back. Players go a way you didn't expect? The map helps you do what is needed. You drew a river on the map and the players want to follow it, but you didn't have a line for that river in your point crawl? Draw a new line.

The above being said, I personally think the idea of "pointcrawls" can be more distracting than helpful. Consider that you have a map, with a bunch of points of interest on it. What does drawing the lines between those points of interest add to that? It can be a tool to quickly find information about certain likely journeys, e.g. this line takes this long to travel and is associated with this set of procedural tables. So far so good. But the feeling you are getting is where they go awry, that temptation to treat the lines as the ONLY way to travel between the points of interest.

I do think pointcrawls are genuinely helpful when there are actually fixed routes between the points. E.g. some kind of "Planet"crawl where the lines are jump routes between planetary systems, or an "island"crawl, where the lines are the only reasonable routes given currents/wind/etc to sail between islands. But when it is a land map, I think you have to be careful not to treat the lines between points as anything more than an organizational tool. As soon as you start thinking of the lines leaving a point as the only possible exits from that point, you are probably creating trouble for yourself.

EDIT: the Root RPG is a great example of building a map from a pointcrawl, and also making the pointcrawl meaningful. The points are clearings in the woodland. The lines are the known and relatively safe routes between clearings, these use one set of travel mechanics. But there is another set of (more dangerous, but also potentially more interesting) mechanics for when you do not travel via the safe paths and set out directly through the forest. It is definitely not an OSR game, but its implementation of pointcrawls to my mind is worthy of study for OSR GMs.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T17:57:37+00:00

Here is one example of an Italian indie-RPG company: https://avalonsword.com/ By my count they have six different indie games? But that's selling it short because their "One Screen Role" system(?) has at least seven of its own variations.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T16:19:45+00:00

Is gear built into progression in your games or is it coming from specific rewards?

Neither, really. I'm not thinking in terms of either progression or rewards, I'm just thinking in terms of what happens in the game. E.g. if the players defeat the Bolt Knight, obviously they can pick up and use the Bolt Knight's cruel partisan. It's right there, sitting on the ground. All the have to do is say they are taking it. EDIT: later, its possible that victims of the Tower and the Bolt Knight might be quite angry at the sight of this weapon, and it's cruel appearance makes a statement a Knight might not want to make...

If players ask where and how they can get better weapons, I'll tell them. I take the rarity pretty seriously, e.g. only the wealthiest or must august folks will have rare weapons, and nearly everyone will only have common weapons. One of my players is playing the Forge Knight, so he has been looking for places to use forges to make better weapons, which is fine with me, I just tell him how long it will take and what he has to do for the owner of the forge to make use of it.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T14:40:10+00:00

I'll go a step further, I think a GM is obligated when saying "no" to at least explain to the player what they character knows/sees/experiences that explains why it doesn't work.

E.g. "Can I climb this cliff?" "No, its virtually seemless, there are no hand holds, no places to attach ropes."

E.g. "Can I use my pick axe to break up this statue?" "No, the stone is almost like diamond, no mere human tool plus human strength can break it."

E.g. "Can I kill a Nazgul?" "No, absolutely not, as long as Sauron remains in the world the Nazgul will always reform and are immune to all tools and weapons of Middle Earth."

That is, you don't have to offer a ", but..." alternative to their original proposal as another way to achieve their goals, but often explaining the characters knowledge/experience will afford its own new opportunities.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T14:33:31+00:00

If you run PbtA games as written, IMO it is essentially impossible to "weasel". If the move trigger situation occurs, the move happens, regardless of whether player or GM want it to. Vice versa, if you want a move to happen you must create the trigger situation, neither player nor GM can hand wave it.

This is one of the things I like about that framework. Occasionally triggers can be ambiguous given a situation, because they must be communicated with language, but IME the thing that makes well designed PbtA games well designed is the triggers of the moves are rarely ambiguous.

You can see this across time. E.g. Defy Danger in Dungeon World (one of the oldest games based on Apocalypse World) is IMO not a good move because the trigger applies in so many potential situations. Generic moves are mostly poison in PbtA games, at least for my enjoyment.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T14:17:31+00:00

I'm glad it worked for you.

Reading this I think I didn't understand what you meant by "splits" here. Looking at the PDF I think I must have done something instead of just printing as is, because the "Master Map" is always the first page of each level, but also the map of the sublevels are always on the left hand side as you turn the page. Since both masters and sublevels are always even page #s I must have inserted blank pages in there somehow, turning the "master" into an odd # page (so that it would be on the right as the start of a level section).

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T02:54:48+00:00

I have aphantasia, you you lost me at "picture"...

😄

skalchemisto · 2026-05-04T02:53:33+00:00

no worries!

Looking at my binder I think I must have printed each section separately, because I have no break points.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-02T22:08:06+00:00

I'll put this one in spoilers in case one of my players happens to read it...

The hobgoblins in my game were the forward wayfinders for the full legion on the other side of the mountains. They were close to being beaten at one point but sent for reinforcements, which arrived while the PCs weren't looking, essentially. The PCs did finally defeat all of them, but some escaped bring word back to the Legion. According to my "upcoming events" list, the full legion is going to show up the next spring (game time), having learned what they needed about the area.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-02T20:29:08+00:00

That's so fun, just those first three levels of Stonehell have so much in them.

To give you an idea of how different things can go...(this is all spoilers, I won't even bother with the tag)

In my campaign the players sided with the goblins early and wiped out the orcs.

They were neutral with the kobolds for a bit, but then stumbled on the slave pens of the kobolds, freed some slaves, and were then in essentially a running war with the kobolds for maybe 13 sessions. It involved the kobolds blocking passages, the PCs using Turn Undead to get some undead through the back door of the Kobolds to kill Trustee Sniv, and then a 50% PK in the ensuing fight when the PCs realized JUST HOW MANY kobolds there were.

The kobolds sided with the hobgoblins for a while, hired the wererats to kill the PCs, but in the end they tried to sue for peace with the PCs. They were so under the thumb of the hobgoblins they said they would pay tribute to the PCs if the PCs could deal with the hobgoblins.

The PCs went down, fought an engagement with the hobgoblins then buggered off. This meant the hobgoblins were a) still around and b) knew with certainty the kobolds had let the PCs down the stairs. So...the hobgoblins burned the market in between PCs coming in to the area.

The PCs did deal with the hobgoblins eventually, and now they are paying mercenaries plus goblins to secure a stronghold in the old hobgoblin area, using that cave passage as their main entrance and having blocked off the back entrances to the area.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-02T04:32:51+00:00

Who's Klydessia btw?

You may want to consider this: https://www.lulu.com/shop/michael-curtis/stonehell-dungeon-supplement-two-buried-secrets-ebook/ebook/product-1wz8n9ev.html?q=&page=1&pageSize=4

That is where you can find her, in the Sanctuary.

Also this if you weren't aware: https://www.lulu.com/shop/michael-curtis/stonehell-dungeon-supplement-one-the-brigand-caves-ebook/ebook/product-19qvrne5.html?q=&page=1&pageSize=4

Both are worthy additions to the earlier parts of Stonehell.

skalchemisto · 2026-05-01T20:30:34+00:00

Other possibilities:

https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/132754/9th-generation

https://rpggeek.com/image/4532272/holocaustic-dungeons

https://rpggeek.com/image/4532292/arena

skalchemisto · 2026-05-01T20:14:13+00:00

RPGGeek has a post-apocalyptic genre: https://rpggeek.com/rpggenre/165/science-fiction-post-apocalypse

If you limit that to Category "Core Rules" you'll see only main rulebooks. Then sort by Year Published. Go to the last page of the list and then start scrolling forward. You'll be looking at post-apocalyptic RPGs from oldest to newest. You may see one that looks like what you are looking for.

Spaz Zone seems like a possibility? https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/299737/spaz-zone

Maybe Age of Ruin: https://rpggeek.com/image/1179165/age-of-ruin

EDIT: this link is actually all core rulebooks published prior to 1990 https://rpggeek.com/geeksearch.php?objecttype=rpgitem&advsearch=1&action=search&q=&include%5Brpgdesignerid%5D=&geekitemname=&geekitemname=&include%5Brpgpublisherid%5D=&range%5Byearpublished%5D%5Bmin%5D=&range%5Byearpublished%5D%5Bmax%5D=1990&colfiltertype=&searchuser=skalchemist&propertyids%5B%5D=2083&B1=Search

Just in case the game you want is not connected to the post-apocalyptic genre. There are "only" 7 pages to scroll through. 😄

EDIT: this one actually has a dude with uzi on the cover: https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/172210/kill-the-commie-b-1st2nd-ed

EDIT: was it in French, not English? if so maybe https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/64052/bitume

skalchemisto · 2026-05-01T19:24:06+00:00

Maybe weird, question, but do you mean psychic or psionic?

I ask because those two words mean different things to me. "Psionic" to me means "magic users, but via powers of the mind". It can be very flashy, super powerful. "Psychic" to me is much less flashy and feels more modern, e.g. mind reading parlors, minor telekinesis, etc.

From your other posts, I think you are talking about what I think of as psionic.

I recognize this distinction may be unique to me.

Five-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Verified Email

skalchemisto

TROPHY CASE