Over the years there have been several methods made available for creating custom character classes from D&D. Some methods involved point buy systems (like 2E) to determine the class' XP value; others were "classless" systems that let you create your class as you played. Most of these complex systems stem from the subclasses that came out for Original Dungeons & Dragons, via supplements and magazine articles. Classes as we know them today are described via various abilities and restrictions, and usually a laundry list of those. Even back in the 70's "subclasses" were getting unique XP progressions, and tons of abilities and unique traits.
I finally took a look at the OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk a few days ago. Something I noticed about the Paladin, the first subclass introduced, was that it wasn't very unique to itself. In other words, it was still just a fighter, with a few quirks. This reminded me a lot of the treatment of subclasses in the Rules Cyclopedia; wherein Paladins and Rangers were simply Fighters, with a few special abilities, like casting spells. Why did this change?
I thought to myself "why not go back to it?". With my Dungeon Crawl variant, there were four core classes, and a slew of subclasses, each with 2-3 special abilities, and 1-3 restrictions or drawbacks. These classes still resembled the current (current since AD&D 1E really) sorts of classes with several of the abilities being rather complex. Bards had special spell progressions, an assortment of Thief skills; Monks had lay on hands, Thief skills, and increasing unarmed damage with multiple attacks; and so on.
I've decided now that "subclasses" if I'm even going to call them that, are basically just going to be a few special abilities, with a few restrictions. Let me outline specifically what I mean this time, and how it's different than what I described above. The basis of the system is this:
Every subclass gets one cool ability; one unique and interesting feature that makes them different and worthwhile to play. This includes the core classes; Fighters are going to get an AC bonus, and Strength bonus; Thieves get their skills and backstab; and so on. Then for every restriction a class takes, they are allowed one more ability; it is up the Referee to determine what he sees as a fair trade off.
This is really no different than AD&D, or the OD&D supplements. The main differences are that I'm going to limit it to 3 abilities, and 2 restrictions for most subclasses. If I keep the abilities simple, but interesting, there is no need to have separate XP progressions, or to treat them as separate classes entirely. To better illustrate my idea, I'll give some examples.
PALADIN
(Ability) Lay on Hands: The Paladin can heal 1d4 hit points per level once a day, on either himself or others.
(Ability) Detect Evil: The Paladin may cast the Detect Evil at will, taking one minute to focus on the spell.
(Restriction) Alignment: The Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. If the Paladin ever acts against this alignment, he must seek repentance, or lose all his Paladin abilities.
RANGER
(Ability) Dual Wield: The Ranger is skilled in his with two weapons. When fighting with two weapons, the Ranger makes one attack roll; if it is successful he rolls damage for both weapons totaling the damage done.
(Ability) Surprise: Rangers are sneaky and surprise on 1-4 on a d6.
(Restriction) Armor: Rangers need to be agile and light on their feet, therefore they are restricted to leather type armors.
They both seem familiar I hope. One thing you'll notice is the lack of spell casting ability for either class. This is a decision I've come to after much consideration. In AD&D even, Paladins and Rangers don't gain their spell casting ability till around 9th level; furthermore it is a very minimal spell ability. One of my old school players doesn't even recall Rangers being able to cast spells in 1st Edition (they are). When he played he simply played a Ranger till around 9th level, and then dual classed to a Druid.
It dawned on me that's the point of dual classes and multi-classes. If you want to play a hybrid Fighter/Cleric, just play a Fighter/Cleric. There is not need for a in between class that is either A) Less powerful than both or B) More powerful than either. Multi-classing done right is balanced enough, if you divide the XP amongst both classes, and it's not all that complicated.
Then we move on to spell casting subclasses. This is even easier, as there is already precedent with the Druid and Illusionist. Simply give them a different spell list, and appropriate restrictions, and there you go. In fact I've decided to make my Bard a Cleric subclass, instead of a Thief subclass; as I'll admit the 2E Bard (despite being my favorite), is rather broken.
Well that's all for now, hopefully I got my point across.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Everyone's Asking Questions: The What If?-Clones
There seems to be a lot of "what if?" retro-clones coming out lately (I know the proper term isn't retro-clone, as everyone likes to point out to me, but I don't care). My personal favorite is Adventures Dark & Deep, what would have happened if Gary Gygax had stayed at TSR. There's also Dragons At Dawn (an Arnesonian OD&D clone), and the failed Chamions of ZED (an OD&D before OD&D game). The usefulness of such projects is debatable, although I find Adventures Dark & Deep to be a wonderful compilation of AD&D 1E material regardless of "what if?" scenario.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Good News Everybody!
Well I was going to write my usual long post, with explanations, and excuses, and so on. Luckily Firefox crashed (probably due to my excessive tabs issue), and steered me in the right direction. In fact I almost feel like it's cosmic confirmation (that'd be a great game title...) for the decision I've been making over the last few days. So to sum up what I was going to write, I'll just sort of list off what I'm thinking in quick points.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)