Search This Blog

Thursday, August 18, 2011


Please comment regarding the necessity of the 'FLAILSNAILS Conventions'.


  1. They are not necessary (and nothing is forcing anyone to use them), but I like the idea of them. I think they could encourage shared campaigns. We had a lot of fun with 'round-robin' dming back in the day... I'd love to see that come back as a more common feature of D&D games.
    That said, I don't really like playing over the internet/skype, etc., and will stick with face-to-face playing when I do get to play... but I like the concept.

  2. The necessity is purely limited by how easy you wish your constantcon games to be to join. If you wish a constantcon campaign it isn't a problem. A series of easy to use fly of the seat pick up games? Can be a bigger issue.

    I personally would prefer a character that matches (exactly) the system I'll be playing in. However as a GM I don't care enough to bump players out.

  3. @Limpey: I like the idea, as well.

    @Zzarchov: I prefer systems that do the setting justice, but, yes, 'portability' for one-off games is handy.

    @All: I thought the earlier attempt to codify all of the 'OS' games (i.e., ones with alliterative titles featuring 'D') was severely lacking in the true OS nature, with next to zero support for Tunnels & Trolls with its multi-d6 combats and craps-style SRs, or Runequest with its d% and fixed HP (, let alone Arduin or C&S, etc.). The friendly advice I was given was 'do the work and we'll add it to the tome'. That didn't seem (and still doesn't) like the way to do it. It is a thankless task, and easily disputed based upon another's preference for conversion.

    The FLAILSNAILS are really talking about a Common D&D, which is what the other bit was. Too bad they aren't merged. It'd help get the D&D groove on.