3 thoughts on “Greetings, all.”

  1. There are none that I know of yet, alas. A Magic-User can be angled druid-wise using the spell generator written up by Will D:

    plus.google.com – Here’s the druid spell name tables I’ve been using for my campaign, including…

    A primary goal for me with Freebooters is to provide an open structure that fosters emergent aspects of play. In the game as-is, the equivalent of Rangers and Druids and Paladins and Assassins can grow out of a combination of luck of the dice and player choice.

    The four basic classes may seem limited at first, but there’s a fairly rich matrix of possibilities in there, especially when you fold in the implications of the conversation between players and Judge. For example, I’ve seen a high-Strength Magic-User wielding a sword and fire magic on the front line; a high-Charisma halfling Thief who was more con-man than burglar; a high-Dexterity elf Fighter fond of sneaking up on enemies and murdering them quietly with a knife; and a Cleric of the god of commerce who was better than anyone else at evaluating treasure.

    Before I explain more of what I mean below, let me say that I understand both the desire for players to have some agency in creating the type of character they want out of the gate, and the desire for more class playbooks. I do plan to include them in the “Advanced Freebooters” book.

    That being said, here’s how those classes might emerge through play:

    A “Ranger” might be a Fighter who prioritizes Dexterity and Wisdom, chooses a ranged weapon as their favored weapon, and comes up with a backstory about their relationship to the wilderness. Stealth and tracking are covered by the basic moves, and a bond with an animal companion is something the player can seek out in play.

    A “Druid” could be a Magic-User who happens to end up with some nature-themed spells, but more often is a Cleric who chooses a god of nature (or the sea, or storms, etc.) and just describes their faith, tenet, mode of dress, nature of prayer, etc. in ways that are more classically druid-like.

    A “Paladin” is written into the rules already, as the advanced Fighter move “Templar” and the advanced Cleric move “Crusader.” These aren’t accessible until level 5, because I personally always imagined Paladins as veterans. But the other way to go would be to have a Cleric who prioritizes Strength.


    Again, I plan to accommodate the wish for more playbooks. I just wanted to explain that I’ve always seen those other character classes (and innumerable others that emerge during play) as being hidden “between the lines” of the game in its current state.

  2. I like the idea of using what’s there and making move and narrative flavoring to create the feel of the class. For example, a Bard is a performing rogue (with maybe some magic tossed in). But I feel like that’s something that doesn’t come as naturally to my younger players as is it does the experienced ones. They’re so used to delineated classes, that trying to pitch flavor as a way to represent the class they seek feels like communicating in a different language, esp. if they’re coming over from widget-heavy systems. I’m an old fart, and I actually like the four base classes. And I agree that much can be done through story and roleplay. I’m not sure how many of the new school buy into that, however. Of course, whoever would want to play FB is, hopefully, open-minded about such things.

Comments are closed.