From multiple sources I've come to the conclusion (and pretty much confirmed) that most everything in D&D was just conjured from thin air. In other words, there is no rhyme or reason to Monster stats, or spell abilities, etc. Because of this, the best advice almost anyone has for converting or creating material is "eyeball it". This is a problem, not because of balance obsession, but internal consistency. I want my players to be able to use logic to play the game. I don't want them rushing in to fight a Giant Ram, because they've slayed a Dragon, and the Giant Ram should be easier to fight. (Just an example.)
Because of this I'm thinking it might be best to simply develop my own guidelines, possibly referencing D&D or trying to keep some level of similarity. I'm thinking (and redbaron at the ODD74 boards has a similar system) of simply making a Hit Dice by size chart (as in Human =1, Giant = 10, etc.), and possibly Hit Dice by human level chart (Peasant = 1/2, Knight = 5, etc.). Then have an armor class by type chart as an example (Leather/Natural Hide = AC12, Chainmail/Scale = AC14, etc.), and then maybe a few modifiers (Small = +1, Flying = +2, etc.). The same for damage (Natural attacks = 1d6, Fireball = HD x d6, etc.). Then you could obviously use the various XP determination charts from either 1E or 2E.
Spells would be a little harder, but you could still devise a similar system. Level 1 spells = 1dx+1/level, Level 5 = (level)dx, etc. Non combat spells might be a little harder, but I'm sure there is a metric you could devise and such.
This would obviously be a large undertaking, but I think it would be easier in the long run, to have nice guidelines for creating and converting monsters in a solid way.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Types of Classes
This is a quick discussion on the types of classes I've been able to discern from working on D&D. These are basically the abilities and progressions. I think they use a "Tier" system in 3.5/PF, but I'm not familiar with them. These types of classes can usually be combined in various ways, as with all D&D/derivatives, there is no cut and dry classifications.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Dungeon Crawl Revised; Playtest
I'm actually in the middle of writing another blog post (my fist Monster Comparison), but I figured I should post something positive for the first time in a while. I haven't blogged in a couple weeks because I am employed once again, which is nice. A lovely perk of my job (kind of working with computers), is I've met some other nerd friends, who also happen to play RPGs. One friend in particular is very fond of Old School D&D, the other (and his brother who joins us) play a lot of Paladium RPGs. Last weekend we got together, and they agreed to help me playtest my "Dungeon Crawl" rules.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Monster Comparisons
I'm going to start taking a bit more of a methodical approach to Arcane Adventures. I want to be able to use material from every edition. I have little desire to balance monsters against each other for game play purposes, because that's not fun, and balance fetish is something from later games. However, it is important to "balance" monsters against each other for the sake of logic and internal consistency.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Quick Idea
So I'm just jotting this down here really quick, so I can keep it somewhere I can access rather easily.
All of that aside, a small note on my Dungeon Crawl! idea so I don't forget what happened. I did come up with a really simple and functional rule set, based off the d20 system. It worked perfectly fine, however I simply don't know the d20 (3.5/Pathfinder) well enough to complete it. I'm not seeing an easy way of distributing experience and treasure without the CR system. I'm sure there must be, but I can't find a way of determining a monster's CR without creating it, or just eyeballing it (that's the literal advice I read in the DMG). So for now, that's shelved.
My last idea for Arcane Adventures was to basically mimic Microlite20 in form and fashion, as a vehicle for my OD&D house rules, and supplemental material I found. I would really love to do that, and I'm tempted to still, however two things are keeping me from doing that. First is I really feel like OD&D is just OD&D, and there's no reason to try and replicate it. OD&D is pretty much, make it up as you go, and just do whatever you want, and I've found that too much supplemental material actually limits my and my players' creativity.
The second reason being, that almost everyone that plays D&D played/plays B/X, AD&D or a derivative thereof. After all that's what most of TSR era D&D was. OD&D was only around for a few years really. This is the primary reason for my current idea (which I'll get to in a second). The wealth of material out there (and I've said this before, as being my reasoning for making a B/X + AD&D hybrid) is geared towards AD&D, and B/X to a lesser extent. Both of those editions have what people expect in D&D as well; several classes, mechanical benefits for character descriptions, ability bonuses, etc.
What I'm wanting to do now, is basically make "MicroliteTSR" if you will. I'm aware of Microlite74/81 (and now 78, which I'm looking forward too), and I really love Mr. Stukey's work. I think it's a wonderful game, and I really love the fact he's not trying to write a "true clone". It's also exactly my inspiration for this. I realized "hey, he's using the Microlite framework, and gearing towards the system he's familiar with". (That's reason #3 for the above, I'm kind of stuck thinking in AD&D terms now, and can't shift into a 3E paradigm).
I'm going to take the Microlite framework, and just apply the math from AD&D and B/X. I'm going to try and stick to just the rules covered in Microlite20, but simply use the AD&D or B/X variants of those rules, or even simpler rules I might find, that still fit. I really want to stick to the simplicity of Microlite, like I did with my Arcane Grimoire.
Since I know the AD&D math and paradigm so well, I'll be able to convert most any material to this system, like I do on the fly when I game. The benefit, of course, will be that I have it all ready ahead of time. It will also cover most of the "essential" D&D concepts people want when they play. I really just want a game whose rules don't get in the way of playing. I feel like Microlite accomplishes that perfectly, however I just can't figure out the experience/treasure distribution in a way that I'm comfortable with. So why not just convert it to what I'm comfortable with.
All of that aside, a small note on my Dungeon Crawl! idea so I don't forget what happened. I did come up with a really simple and functional rule set, based off the d20 system. It worked perfectly fine, however I simply don't know the d20 (3.5/Pathfinder) well enough to complete it. I'm not seeing an easy way of distributing experience and treasure without the CR system. I'm sure there must be, but I can't find a way of determining a monster's CR without creating it, or just eyeballing it (that's the literal advice I read in the DMG). So for now, that's shelved.
My last idea for Arcane Adventures was to basically mimic Microlite20 in form and fashion, as a vehicle for my OD&D house rules, and supplemental material I found. I would really love to do that, and I'm tempted to still, however two things are keeping me from doing that. First is I really feel like OD&D is just OD&D, and there's no reason to try and replicate it. OD&D is pretty much, make it up as you go, and just do whatever you want, and I've found that too much supplemental material actually limits my and my players' creativity.
The second reason being, that almost everyone that plays D&D played/plays B/X, AD&D or a derivative thereof. After all that's what most of TSR era D&D was. OD&D was only around for a few years really. This is the primary reason for my current idea (which I'll get to in a second). The wealth of material out there (and I've said this before, as being my reasoning for making a B/X + AD&D hybrid) is geared towards AD&D, and B/X to a lesser extent. Both of those editions have what people expect in D&D as well; several classes, mechanical benefits for character descriptions, ability bonuses, etc.
What I'm wanting to do now, is basically make "MicroliteTSR" if you will. I'm aware of Microlite74/81 (and now 78, which I'm looking forward too), and I really love Mr. Stukey's work. I think it's a wonderful game, and I really love the fact he's not trying to write a "true clone". It's also exactly my inspiration for this. I realized "hey, he's using the Microlite framework, and gearing towards the system he's familiar with". (That's reason #3 for the above, I'm kind of stuck thinking in AD&D terms now, and can't shift into a 3E paradigm).
I'm going to take the Microlite framework, and just apply the math from AD&D and B/X. I'm going to try and stick to just the rules covered in Microlite20, but simply use the AD&D or B/X variants of those rules, or even simpler rules I might find, that still fit. I really want to stick to the simplicity of Microlite, like I did with my Arcane Grimoire.
Since I know the AD&D math and paradigm so well, I'll be able to convert most any material to this system, like I do on the fly when I game. The benefit, of course, will be that I have it all ready ahead of time. It will also cover most of the "essential" D&D concepts people want when they play. I really just want a game whose rules don't get in the way of playing. I feel like Microlite accomplishes that perfectly, however I just can't figure out the experience/treasure distribution in a way that I'm comfortable with. So why not just convert it to what I'm comfortable with.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Clash!
So I made some progress with "Dungeon Crawl!", with the help of my lovely wife. We took a bit of inspiration from "The Fantasy Trip", and have made what we're calling "Clash!". Right now it's just the rules for creating warriors to fight out combats, kind of like "Melee!" from back in the day. It's based off Microlite20, so there is just enough rules to play, but no filler. Since it's based off Microlite20 that means that it's compatible with d20/3.5/Pathfinder, so you can just use the "stuff" from those games (namely the free SRD and PFSRD online).
I've made two major changes to the game (which I'll be posting below). First is the removal of the class ability scores. Instead there are five stats for everything; Defense (Armor Class), Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and Ability. I was mostly inspired by Searchers of the Unknown in this regard. The second major change of the game is the "Ability" stat. Instead of Saving Throws or Skills, there is the "Ability" stat, that functions as a bonus to every non-combat roll in the game (unless otherwise specified). Players can then choose "Talents" (like feats) to grant bonuses to specific situations, or they're free to create classes with specific bonuses.
I won't go into the why's and where-to-fores. Suffice it to say I find this to be a simple enough game that doesn't get in the way of having fun for me, and requires the least conversion of any system I've found. I'm not saying it's a major improvement over other systems, just that it's what I like. Anyway, here you go:
I've made two major changes to the game (which I'll be posting below). First is the removal of the class ability scores. Instead there are five stats for everything; Defense (Armor Class), Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and Ability. I was mostly inspired by Searchers of the Unknown in this regard. The second major change of the game is the "Ability" stat. Instead of Saving Throws or Skills, there is the "Ability" stat, that functions as a bonus to every non-combat roll in the game (unless otherwise specified). Players can then choose "Talents" (like feats) to grant bonuses to specific situations, or they're free to create classes with specific bonuses.
I won't go into the why's and where-to-fores. Suffice it to say I find this to be a simple enough game that doesn't get in the way of having fun for me, and requires the least conversion of any system I've found. I'm not saying it's a major improvement over other systems, just that it's what I like. Anyway, here you go:
Clash!
STATS
There are 5 stats: Defense, Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and
Ability. Defense starts at 10, Hit Points start at 15, Attack starts at +1, Damage
is determined by weapon, and Ability starts at +1.
COMBAT
Roll d20 for initiative order. Everyone can do one
interesting activity each turn; move a short distance and attack, move a great
distance, cast a spell, etc. Some actions, such as quaffing a magic potion, are
considered a “minor action” and can be performed in addition to a normal action.
Add a character’s “Attack” bonus to a d20 roll. If higher
than the target’s “Defense” score, it’s a hit. A natural 20 is automatically a
critical, doing maximum damage.
Characters can wield two weapons and attack with both in a
round, if they take a penalty on all attack rolls that round. If both weapons
are light there is no penalty, if one is light and the other one-handed the
penalty is -2, if both are one-handed the penalty is -4.
If “Hit Points” reach 0, characters are unconscious and near
death. If “Hit Points” are brought below 0, players can make an “Ability
Check”. A successful “Ability Check” means the character is stabilized at 0
“Hit Points” and unconscious, a failure means death.
ABILITIES
Anything that is not an attack roll is usually an “Ability
Check”. When making an “Ability Check” add your “Ability” score to a d20 roll.
You can also add any specific bonuses your character might have from talents,
items, magic, etc. There are no skills or saving throws in “WARRIOR!”, instead
the “Ability Check” can be used when necessary.
TALENTS
Each level, including 1st, players may select a “Talent” for
their characters. “Talents” are small bonuses or abilities characters have in
certain situations. The most basic “Talents” are simple bonuses to character
Stats.
+1 Defense: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Hit Point: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Attack: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Damage: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Ability: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
LEVEL ADVANCEMENT
Each level adds: +5 Hit Points, +1 to “Attack”, +1 to
“Ability”, and a new “Talent”.
OPEN GAME LICENSE
Version 1.0a The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright
2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved. 1. Definitions:
(a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative
works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other
form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute”
means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute;”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open
Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
(e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and
special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and
which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names,
mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or
the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise
create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in
terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating
that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You
must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added
to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or
conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of
the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors
grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of
this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open
Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You
have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this
License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content
You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game
Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication
as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with
the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity
in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity.
The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title
and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions
of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this
License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any
Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the
Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content
using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor
to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this
License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or
governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms
herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses
shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision
shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the
Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan,
Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on
original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Microlite20 © 2006, Robin V. Stacey
(robin@greywulf.net)
This product is 100% Open Game Content except for Product Identity, as per the Open Game
License above. Product Identity includes Microlite20 and Robin V. Stacey, Darrell King and Al
Krombach. Product Identity also includes "Clash!".
Version 1.0a The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright
2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved. 1. Definitions:
(a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative
works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other
form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute”
means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute;”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open
Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
(e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and
special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and
which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names,
mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or
the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise
create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in
terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating
that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You
must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added
to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or
conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of
the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors
grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of
this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open
Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You
have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this
License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content
You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game
Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication
as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with
the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity
in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity.
The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title
and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions
of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this
License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any
Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the
Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content
using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor
to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this
License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or
governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms
herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses
shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision
shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the
Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan,
Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on
original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Microlite20 © 2006, Robin V. Stacey
(robin@greywulf.net)
This product is 100% Open Game Content except for Product Identity, as per the Open Game
License above. Product Identity includes Microlite20 and Robin V. Stacey, Darrell King and Al
Krombach. Product Identity also includes "Clash!".
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Alternate Combat Systems
I came up with a general concept of an alternate combat system for D&D the other night. It's not thought out very well, and it's just a rough idea at this point. I doubt I'll ever use it, but I thought I'd share it none the less. One major drawback to this system though is it makes some monsters "untouchable" if you have a very low attack. I don't actually view this as a problem though, as it's actually more realistic. Sometimes there's just a creature/adversary that you look at and go "well damn, I'm running".
Note I just thought of this the other night. If someone else has already come up with this, or if it's a common thing, sorry. I'm unaware of it. If it is found elsewhere, I wouldn't mind being pointed in the direction.
First thing, this idea uses the ascending armor class system presented in d20/3E. The way it works is you attack like normal in that system, and whatever you beat your target's armor class by (margin of success), is how much damage you deal. Weapons could be represented by static bonuses, or you could roll 1d20+weapon dice as well.
There you have it, pretty simple and straight forward. It boils combat down to one die roll, which is kind of nice.
I thought of an alternative for this system as well, which I'll share now. It's the same thing, but you take the ascending armor class, and subtract 10. You now have a "Defense" score that can be as low as 0. You keep the base attack bonus and you can just call it "Attack", and it can also start at 0. Instead of rolling 1d20, you just roll the weapon's damage dice, adding the "attack" bonus, and however much it beats the "defense" score, is how much damage is scored.
This means two things: attack skill and weapons damage are far more important, and initiative is way more important. Lets look at two (kind of three) examples.
Assume two untrained, and unarmored individuals (no attribute bonuses), with daggers (1d4). Their attack and defense scores are both "0". These means whatever they roll for damage is how much they deal. This is actually pretty realistic from experience, as defense is usually the harder skill to learn. You give someone a weapon, and they can tear people up, whether out of shear fear from target, or just aggression. If you do use attributes, those initial bonuses (to armor class, or attack/damage) become extremely important to low level characters.
A second example would be a full armored knight (say AC 16), against a untrained peasant with a spear (1d6). Even if the peasant rolls a 6, he's not doing anything to that knight. The knight on the other hand will probably cut down the peasant extremely easily. There is something you could do to remedy such situations, and that's exploding damage. Anytime maximum damage is rolled on a damage die, you roll again and total, and you can do this infinitely if you wish. This is cool, because statistically critical hits would be more frequent (1/6 or 1/12 even, instead of 1/20).
So there's some fun ideas to toy with, if you're interested. Personally I'm heavily considering toying with the second concept for making a stand alone game, that could use D&D monsters with little conversion.
Note I just thought of this the other night. If someone else has already come up with this, or if it's a common thing, sorry. I'm unaware of it. If it is found elsewhere, I wouldn't mind being pointed in the direction.
First thing, this idea uses the ascending armor class system presented in d20/3E. The way it works is you attack like normal in that system, and whatever you beat your target's armor class by (margin of success), is how much damage you deal. Weapons could be represented by static bonuses, or you could roll 1d20+weapon dice as well.
There you have it, pretty simple and straight forward. It boils combat down to one die roll, which is kind of nice.
I thought of an alternative for this system as well, which I'll share now. It's the same thing, but you take the ascending armor class, and subtract 10. You now have a "Defense" score that can be as low as 0. You keep the base attack bonus and you can just call it "Attack", and it can also start at 0. Instead of rolling 1d20, you just roll the weapon's damage dice, adding the "attack" bonus, and however much it beats the "defense" score, is how much damage is scored.
This means two things: attack skill and weapons damage are far more important, and initiative is way more important. Lets look at two (kind of three) examples.
Assume two untrained, and unarmored individuals (no attribute bonuses), with daggers (1d4). Their attack and defense scores are both "0". These means whatever they roll for damage is how much they deal. This is actually pretty realistic from experience, as defense is usually the harder skill to learn. You give someone a weapon, and they can tear people up, whether out of shear fear from target, or just aggression. If you do use attributes, those initial bonuses (to armor class, or attack/damage) become extremely important to low level characters.
A second example would be a full armored knight (say AC 16), against a untrained peasant with a spear (1d6). Even if the peasant rolls a 6, he's not doing anything to that knight. The knight on the other hand will probably cut down the peasant extremely easily. There is something you could do to remedy such situations, and that's exploding damage. Anytime maximum damage is rolled on a damage die, you roll again and total, and you can do this infinitely if you wish. This is cool, because statistically critical hits would be more frequent (1/6 or 1/12 even, instead of 1/20).
So there's some fun ideas to toy with, if you're interested. Personally I'm heavily considering toying with the second concept for making a stand alone game, that could use D&D monsters with little conversion.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Dungeon Crawl! Another Attempt
Every time I've tried making a "dungeon crawl" themed game, I've tried to emulate rogue-likes, or utilize a more modern RPG framework. After playing Dungeon! though, I think I've realized a much better approach. I've already talked about games like Dungeon! and the very minimalist approach they take. Having played Dungeon! finally, I can say it really does get to the heart of dungeon-crawling: the suspense of finding monsters/traps, killing them or getting killed, and hopefully looting treasure.
With all of that said I'm going try one last time at this project. I'm going to start by simply taking the Dungeon! rules (probably the 1975 version), and simply converting any material found therein, to D&D mechanics. I might add some things that need filled out, since I plan on removing the board and cards, instead making it "playable with paper and pencil". This, I think, is where it will succeed where my other attempts have failed. I'm no longer treating it like a role playing game, so I no longer feel the need to make all-encompassing rules that can cover every situation. I'm only going to focus on whats important to dungeon crawling. If players want to role-play, or do more than the rules cover, that's their choice, but it's not mandatory to playing the game, or having fun.
Part of why I'm working on this now, is I have a coworker that's wanting to play every weekend. I have a 3 hour commute back and forth to work everyday, so I have no time to prepare a proper campaign. When we do play, I don't want to have to come up with everything on the spot, especially since we haven't had a consistent play group. It's becoming very taxing to make everything make sense. In other words, I don't want to have to describe how the party gets to and from the dungeon, and I really don't want to care about whether a dragon is living next to kobolds. When I normally Referee, it's very important to me that things make sense, so the players have a logic to fall back on, so they can role-play and problem solve. This will be much easier, just to let them loose and kill stuff.
I'm not entirely abandoning making a rogue-like tabletop either, and I think I could aim for an "Advanced Dungeon Crawl!" in the future, after we play this, and really nail down what we need. As an interesting note, I'm going to take inspiration from video-game development when working on this, and expanding the game. Adding in more content as it's requested, and as we find we want/need it. I feel like that's how tabletop RPGs started, but have since kind of flipped around; now they start by building a framework for every possible play option, and often never fixing or cutting out what's proven unnecessary, or even burdensome.
With all of that said I'm going try one last time at this project. I'm going to start by simply taking the Dungeon! rules (probably the 1975 version), and simply converting any material found therein, to D&D mechanics. I might add some things that need filled out, since I plan on removing the board and cards, instead making it "playable with paper and pencil". This, I think, is where it will succeed where my other attempts have failed. I'm no longer treating it like a role playing game, so I no longer feel the need to make all-encompassing rules that can cover every situation. I'm only going to focus on whats important to dungeon crawling. If players want to role-play, or do more than the rules cover, that's their choice, but it's not mandatory to playing the game, or having fun.
Part of why I'm working on this now, is I have a coworker that's wanting to play every weekend. I have a 3 hour commute back and forth to work everyday, so I have no time to prepare a proper campaign. When we do play, I don't want to have to come up with everything on the spot, especially since we haven't had a consistent play group. It's becoming very taxing to make everything make sense. In other words, I don't want to have to describe how the party gets to and from the dungeon, and I really don't want to care about whether a dragon is living next to kobolds. When I normally Referee, it's very important to me that things make sense, so the players have a logic to fall back on, so they can role-play and problem solve. This will be much easier, just to let them loose and kill stuff.
I'm not entirely abandoning making a rogue-like tabletop either, and I think I could aim for an "Advanced Dungeon Crawl!" in the future, after we play this, and really nail down what we need. As an interesting note, I'm going to take inspiration from video-game development when working on this, and expanding the game. Adding in more content as it's requested, and as we find we want/need it. I feel like that's how tabletop RPGs started, but have since kind of flipped around; now they start by building a framework for every possible play option, and often never fixing or cutting out what's proven unnecessary, or even burdensome.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
D&D as a Role Playing Game vs a Wargame
This isn't actually the usual debate of whether or not D&D is a 'wargame' or a "role-playing game'. Instead, I want to step back and view its merits in both fields.
I think I've talked before about my background with war games, and how I initially felt every activity possible in a game had to have a rule. That's the nature of the war games I'd played, and I'd played a lot of war games in which "anything was possible", and thus they had very complex and all-encompassing rule sets. It was my impression then, that role-playing games were just a sub-genre, in which you took on the "role" of a single character. This is mostly because I started with BattleTech, and in this case, that's true. In MechWarrior (the BattleTech RPG), you simply assume the role of a single unit, or pilot.
When I did finally get into role playing games, I looked for BRP, because it had the "simplest" rules, that could still cover every situation. I looked at the game master, as just another player, who just handled all of the "other stuff". That's why I fell in love with OD&D. I feel it actually utilizes the game master in a way that makes role playing games unique. In fact that's why I've started to gravitate more towards the original term of Referee; as in the game master "referees" actions, and can act as an impartial mediator. This means players get to do things "outside of the rules", and everyone can use logic, problem solving, and critical thinking to overcome obstacles in the game.
To me OD&D, and the games that follow it's spirit (early or rules-lite AD&D, B/X, retro-clones) are D&D as a role-playing game. I don't want to get in a fight with anyone over terminology (as if anyone reads this blog lol (except my three loyal readers, I know you're there guys)), so don't think too deeply about what I'm saying here. I feel like those games are role-playing games in the truest, and original sense. However, I feel like other forms of D&D make great war games, and that's a good thing.
There's a whole lot of discussion about specific terminology, and technically OD&D, even played like I describe is the literal definition of a war game (a game about conflict), but I don't care about that. What I care about is, OD&D lets me truly assume the role of my character, and role-play the scenario, with less regard to rules. Games like 3E, and even later AD&D however, are really fun war games, in the sense they have fun combat mechanics for killing stuff.
Personally, 3rd Editions failing is there attempt at making it a role playing game. I think there's an awesome war game to be had in 3E, and I realize that's what I had been trying to do with my "dungeon crawl" project. After playing "Dungeon!" tonight with some friends and my wife, I can genuinely see the fun in just killing stuff, and looting treasure. There was no "real" role playing going on tonight, but we had fun regardless. However, Dungeon!'s combat system was very tedious, and rather annoying (it took ages to kill some monsters because of the 2d6 bell curve).
A few times my one friend and I commented that this concept would be awesome played out with the actual D&D rules. I think you could take it further and actually utilize the d20 system for something it would be great at. Make it a true "game" in the original sense, something more like a board game. Something where you're not trying to cover every situation, and you're not intending to "role-play", and you do just want to roll dice, kill stuff, and loot the treasure. Then the DC system, and having rule for everything (in the game) would be useful, and maybe even fun.
Personally I'd take the d20 system, and just include the Attack Roll, Trap Rules, and Saving Throws. I might even just start with Swords & Wizardry because I know it better, and just tack on whatever is absolutely necessary for dungeon crawling. I talked about this a few times, one most recently, with how I could make a d20 Dungeon! game, by stripping out everything, including ability scores. I think this train of thought, and actually getting to play Dungeon! has helped me to see the versatility, and almost inherent "beauty" of D&D.
That's all for now.
I think I've talked before about my background with war games, and how I initially felt every activity possible in a game had to have a rule. That's the nature of the war games I'd played, and I'd played a lot of war games in which "anything was possible", and thus they had very complex and all-encompassing rule sets. It was my impression then, that role-playing games were just a sub-genre, in which you took on the "role" of a single character. This is mostly because I started with BattleTech, and in this case, that's true. In MechWarrior (the BattleTech RPG), you simply assume the role of a single unit, or pilot.
When I did finally get into role playing games, I looked for BRP, because it had the "simplest" rules, that could still cover every situation. I looked at the game master, as just another player, who just handled all of the "other stuff". That's why I fell in love with OD&D. I feel it actually utilizes the game master in a way that makes role playing games unique. In fact that's why I've started to gravitate more towards the original term of Referee; as in the game master "referees" actions, and can act as an impartial mediator. This means players get to do things "outside of the rules", and everyone can use logic, problem solving, and critical thinking to overcome obstacles in the game.
To me OD&D, and the games that follow it's spirit (early or rules-lite AD&D, B/X, retro-clones) are D&D as a role-playing game. I don't want to get in a fight with anyone over terminology (as if anyone reads this blog lol (except my three loyal readers, I know you're there guys)), so don't think too deeply about what I'm saying here. I feel like those games are role-playing games in the truest, and original sense. However, I feel like other forms of D&D make great war games, and that's a good thing.
There's a whole lot of discussion about specific terminology, and technically OD&D, even played like I describe is the literal definition of a war game (a game about conflict), but I don't care about that. What I care about is, OD&D lets me truly assume the role of my character, and role-play the scenario, with less regard to rules. Games like 3E, and even later AD&D however, are really fun war games, in the sense they have fun combat mechanics for killing stuff.
Personally, 3rd Editions failing is there attempt at making it a role playing game. I think there's an awesome war game to be had in 3E, and I realize that's what I had been trying to do with my "dungeon crawl" project. After playing "Dungeon!" tonight with some friends and my wife, I can genuinely see the fun in just killing stuff, and looting treasure. There was no "real" role playing going on tonight, but we had fun regardless. However, Dungeon!'s combat system was very tedious, and rather annoying (it took ages to kill some monsters because of the 2d6 bell curve).
A few times my one friend and I commented that this concept would be awesome played out with the actual D&D rules. I think you could take it further and actually utilize the d20 system for something it would be great at. Make it a true "game" in the original sense, something more like a board game. Something where you're not trying to cover every situation, and you're not intending to "role-play", and you do just want to roll dice, kill stuff, and loot the treasure. Then the DC system, and having rule for everything (in the game) would be useful, and maybe even fun.
Personally I'd take the d20 system, and just include the Attack Roll, Trap Rules, and Saving Throws. I might even just start with Swords & Wizardry because I know it better, and just tack on whatever is absolutely necessary for dungeon crawling. I talked about this a few times, one most recently, with how I could make a d20 Dungeon! game, by stripping out everything, including ability scores. I think this train of thought, and actually getting to play Dungeon! has helped me to see the versatility, and almost inherent "beauty" of D&D.
That's all for now.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Abstract Combat for Everything
I've been wanting to play a sci-fi space ship game lately. However most of the people I'd play with either have no experience with, or interest in, dog-fighting. I also hate having to break out maps and minis in the middle of a role-playing game, which is why I love old school D&D and so much: combat is normally very abstract. I was starting to wonder, why couldn't we take this approach with ship to ship combat? Heck even actual aircraft dog fighting even. In fact, we could even use this for mech combat.
Of course my preferred venue for mech combat is BattleTech, but there are clearly mech-like creatures in D&D, so why couldn't we make mech combat rules for D&D? Really we wouldn't need to. You could just D&D, and include monsters that are essentially mechs. Most of this revelation came to me as I was looking through Booty and Beasts I believe. There's a ton of sci-fi gonzo stuff in there, and it really got me thinking how great it would be to start including that stuff in D&D.
I've also been watching a lot of Flash Gordon lately, I just watched John Carter of Mars, and I've always loved Star Wars, so this all just seems like a natural extensions of geekdom to me.
Some actual thoughts on the matter though. Namely, for games where Fire and Maneuver is such a big deal, you'd probably want to incorporate the Dexterity modifier to Armor Class. Even if you didn't use that rule per say, because I'm actually against giving monsters ability scores, you'd want to factor speed into the armor class of those "monsters". Obviously faster, more agile ships/mechs would be harder to hit. This is already done with some monsters (at least in AD&D as far as I know), mostly with flying creatures.
Since I have a war gaming background, I'm always sure to include terrain and environment, even if I don't map it, so this would definitely be necessary. Even if you don't map it, you want to give your players the options of specifying their tactics and decisions. Even if it's not extremely tactical to simply say "I take cover behind the rubble", it's fun, and dramatically appropriate for these genres.
That's all for now. I'm not sure if I'm just going to stat up some stuff for D&D, or if I'm going to make a D&D inspired system for this stuff, but I'm probably going to work on something soon. On one hand more material for D&D is great, on the other hand I'm not a one-system for everything kind of guy. I definitely feel systems designed specifically for their genre, are normally more fun.
Of course my preferred venue for mech combat is BattleTech, but there are clearly mech-like creatures in D&D, so why couldn't we make mech combat rules for D&D? Really we wouldn't need to. You could just D&D, and include monsters that are essentially mechs. Most of this revelation came to me as I was looking through Booty and Beasts I believe. There's a ton of sci-fi gonzo stuff in there, and it really got me thinking how great it would be to start including that stuff in D&D.
I've also been watching a lot of Flash Gordon lately, I just watched John Carter of Mars, and I've always loved Star Wars, so this all just seems like a natural extensions of geekdom to me.
Some actual thoughts on the matter though. Namely, for games where Fire and Maneuver is such a big deal, you'd probably want to incorporate the Dexterity modifier to Armor Class. Even if you didn't use that rule per say, because I'm actually against giving monsters ability scores, you'd want to factor speed into the armor class of those "monsters". Obviously faster, more agile ships/mechs would be harder to hit. This is already done with some monsters (at least in AD&D as far as I know), mostly with flying creatures.
Since I have a war gaming background, I'm always sure to include terrain and environment, even if I don't map it, so this would definitely be necessary. Even if you don't map it, you want to give your players the options of specifying their tactics and decisions. Even if it's not extremely tactical to simply say "I take cover behind the rubble", it's fun, and dramatically appropriate for these genres.
That's all for now. I'm not sure if I'm just going to stat up some stuff for D&D, or if I'm going to make a D&D inspired system for this stuff, but I'm probably going to work on something soon. On one hand more material for D&D is great, on the other hand I'm not a one-system for everything kind of guy. I definitely feel systems designed specifically for their genre, are normally more fun.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Older than Old School; Lighter than Lite
I did get some positive feedback and response, so I won't delete my blog. If even one person wants to use this site as a reference piece, for whatever reason or material, I'm not going to deprive them of that. I will probably post less frequently though. I have a job again, which is always nice.
Anyway, I'm definitely losing interest in any sort of publication process or sharing my rules in any sort of official way. It's become apparent to me that I'm so far under the radar, that even if I didn't do things the right way and just sort of shared my house rules as is, I don't think anyone important would notice. I'm by no means condoning copyright violation, or plagiarism; I just don't think I'm going to try very hard to be OGL compliant, or worry too much if I write something too similar to something else.
On to the point of this. For a while now, I've had this growing fascination with proto-Role playing games, if they can so be called that. I suppose, in my mind, since D&D was the first role playing game (that we acknowledge at least), any sort of dungeon crawling board game, or fantasy adventure game reminds me of D&D. Honestly OD&D was sort of proto-D&D to most people (to me it IS D&D, and everything else is derivative, but that's splitting hairs). I suppose I should say, then, that I've had a growing fascination with that early 70's, pioneering of fantasy adventure gaming.
Games like The Fantasy Trip, Dungeon!, and Arduin, have really been capturing my imagination and fascination lately. I've mentioned the Arduin Grmoires before, and it was most definitely my inspiration for my latest naming convention, and it is definitely a heavy (though not necessarily rules-heavy), in depth game supplement. TFT and Dungeon! on the other hand are very rules-lite, fantasy themed "games". Both technically qualify as board games, Dungeon! without a doubt, and TFT was a "micro-game". What I love about both of them, is that there rules fit into about 8 pages (or less) of digest sized booklet.
That's just Awesome.
A complete game, in so few pages, that provides near endless fun and possibilities, and to the creative and adventurous, a game that can basically be played like a role playing game if you really want. At the very least they satisfy that dungeon crawl itch, without being the hassle that a full role playing game is. OD&D is easy and simple enough, but you still have to have a dedicated play group, character creation, and lots of charts and tables, as well as some monster/treasure/spell descriptions that are quite lengthy.
A couple of guys have already taken a similar approach, namely Microtlie20 and Searchers of the Unknown, are two I know rather well. I'm thinking of taking the concept further. Not really making a role playing game at all, but just a game. You know, like monopoly, like you used to play when you were a kid. Before everything had to be serious.
I just want a game where I can kill stuff, take the gold, and kind of mind numbingly pillage the catacombs of the undead. Why not. I'm basically thinking of taking D&D (all of it) and just stripping away anything that's not directly combat or treasure related. Anything that can't be abstracted, or distilled to a useful game ability gets scrapped. There will obviously be specific mechanics laid out for certain dungeon situations, like traps, but there will be no attempt at all-encompassing or universal rules. There will also be little in the way of out of combat abilities, because it's just going to be game.
I'm still mulling over ideas, I'll post more as I work on it. I already have a mapping/movement system planned out, as well as ideas for the Thief, Fighter, Dwarf, Halfling, and Elf. Spell casters will be a bit of a problem, though I'm thinking of making them just buy scrolls and be done with it, as that's essentially what Dungeon! does, and it seems to work out well.
I'm thinking every creature will have a stat block that's just this: Hit Dice, Defense, Attack, Saving Throw, Experience Points. I'm not sure if I want to tie treasure to monster type yet; I'm thinking just a flat percent chance (or dice range) for every monster to have treasure, or something like that.
Anyway, I'm definitely losing interest in any sort of publication process or sharing my rules in any sort of official way. It's become apparent to me that I'm so far under the radar, that even if I didn't do things the right way and just sort of shared my house rules as is, I don't think anyone important would notice. I'm by no means condoning copyright violation, or plagiarism; I just don't think I'm going to try very hard to be OGL compliant, or worry too much if I write something too similar to something else.
On to the point of this. For a while now, I've had this growing fascination with proto-Role playing games, if they can so be called that. I suppose, in my mind, since D&D was the first role playing game (that we acknowledge at least), any sort of dungeon crawling board game, or fantasy adventure game reminds me of D&D. Honestly OD&D was sort of proto-D&D to most people (to me it IS D&D, and everything else is derivative, but that's splitting hairs). I suppose I should say, then, that I've had a growing fascination with that early 70's, pioneering of fantasy adventure gaming.
Games like The Fantasy Trip, Dungeon!, and Arduin, have really been capturing my imagination and fascination lately. I've mentioned the Arduin Grmoires before, and it was most definitely my inspiration for my latest naming convention, and it is definitely a heavy (though not necessarily rules-heavy), in depth game supplement. TFT and Dungeon! on the other hand are very rules-lite, fantasy themed "games". Both technically qualify as board games, Dungeon! without a doubt, and TFT was a "micro-game". What I love about both of them, is that there rules fit into about 8 pages (or less) of digest sized booklet.
That's just Awesome.
A complete game, in so few pages, that provides near endless fun and possibilities, and to the creative and adventurous, a game that can basically be played like a role playing game if you really want. At the very least they satisfy that dungeon crawl itch, without being the hassle that a full role playing game is. OD&D is easy and simple enough, but you still have to have a dedicated play group, character creation, and lots of charts and tables, as well as some monster/treasure/spell descriptions that are quite lengthy.
A couple of guys have already taken a similar approach, namely Microtlie20 and Searchers of the Unknown, are two I know rather well. I'm thinking of taking the concept further. Not really making a role playing game at all, but just a game. You know, like monopoly, like you used to play when you were a kid. Before everything had to be serious.
I just want a game where I can kill stuff, take the gold, and kind of mind numbingly pillage the catacombs of the undead. Why not. I'm basically thinking of taking D&D (all of it) and just stripping away anything that's not directly combat or treasure related. Anything that can't be abstracted, or distilled to a useful game ability gets scrapped. There will obviously be specific mechanics laid out for certain dungeon situations, like traps, but there will be no attempt at all-encompassing or universal rules. There will also be little in the way of out of combat abilities, because it's just going to be game.
I'm still mulling over ideas, I'll post more as I work on it. I already have a mapping/movement system planned out, as well as ideas for the Thief, Fighter, Dwarf, Halfling, and Elf. Spell casters will be a bit of a problem, though I'm thinking of making them just buy scrolls and be done with it, as that's essentially what Dungeon! does, and it seems to work out well.
I'm thinking every creature will have a stat block that's just this: Hit Dice, Defense, Attack, Saving Throw, Experience Points. I'm not sure if I want to tie treasure to monster type yet; I'm thinking just a flat percent chance (or dice range) for every monster to have treasure, or something like that.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Is Anybody Out There?
It is plainly evident that I'm the only one that feels the way I do about old school D&D. I think I'm done. So I'm going to leave this blog up for another week or so. If anyone's still out there, let me know, or I'm just going to delete it.
The internet is so deceptive sometimes. When you're reading old blogs and forum posts, it still feels current. I realize I'm just a bit too late, and that's okay. Sadly I think the "old school" was just a fad. I know it's still getting played, but that's it. It's done. The people who wanted old school D&D got what they wanted, and they're satisfied. They don't want more, they don't want anything new. They want the D&D they knew, and that's it.
So I'm done. Old schoolers have practically no interest in new material, and new schoolers don't need anymore stuff. So I'm out. Not maliciously, not because "my feelings are hurt", but because I can acknowledge there's no interest in what I'm working on. And that's fine.
Thanks to anyone who's been reading so far.
The internet is so deceptive sometimes. When you're reading old blogs and forum posts, it still feels current. I realize I'm just a bit too late, and that's okay. Sadly I think the "old school" was just a fad. I know it's still getting played, but that's it. It's done. The people who wanted old school D&D got what they wanted, and they're satisfied. They don't want more, they don't want anything new. They want the D&D they knew, and that's it.
So I'm done. Old schoolers have practically no interest in new material, and new schoolers don't need anymore stuff. So I'm out. Not maliciously, not because "my feelings are hurt", but because I can acknowledge there's no interest in what I'm working on. And that's fine.
Thanks to anyone who's been reading so far.
Monday, May 12, 2014
First Draft - The Arcane Grimoire Vol. 1
So I've finished up my first draft. It's only 4 pages of actual rules, but that's what I was aiming for I suppose. Like Microlite20 you'll have to use your own spells and monsters for now, but otherwise it's a complete and ready to go rule-system (if you want to call it that). I'll probably draft up some spells next, then monsters. In any case, here you go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/45hd00blyfil4y5/ArcaneGrimoire.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/45hd00blyfil4y5/ArcaneGrimoire.pdf
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Achievements
Think back to some of the memorable games you've played. What do remember? Killing that dragon, plundering the treasure, capturing the mad wizard, etc. This is true for me, and my friends at least. Someone on the OD&D boards pointed out that's what the point of the game is (at least for him, and myself now that I think about it). Do you remember your character's THAC0, his special abilities, or what spells he had prepared?
That's what I want Arcane Adventures to be about. A game about achievements, great feats, tall tales, and adventurous stories. A game about what your character has done, not what he can do. Furthermore I want interesting character abilities, not long lists of bonuses and features. I want one or two things that really make a class or race stick out. Something substantial. Not some modification to a specific rule, or a set of abilities that allow them to perform some special case combat maneuver.
That's what I love about the 1E Ranger. He has some of those minor traits, but what really sticks out to me is his ability slay giants, and his 50% chance of stealth. Not slightly improving skills, that only apply to specific situations like "hiding in shadows" or "moving silently. Nope, just a straight 50% chance at catching monsters off-guard.
That's all I'm going to write for now, because it's a really simple concept, and I have to go right now. Hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
That's what I want Arcane Adventures to be about. A game about achievements, great feats, tall tales, and adventurous stories. A game about what your character has done, not what he can do. Furthermore I want interesting character abilities, not long lists of bonuses and features. I want one or two things that really make a class or race stick out. Something substantial. Not some modification to a specific rule, or a set of abilities that allow them to perform some special case combat maneuver.
That's what I love about the 1E Ranger. He has some of those minor traits, but what really sticks out to me is his ability slay giants, and his 50% chance of stealth. Not slightly improving skills, that only apply to specific situations like "hiding in shadows" or "moving silently. Nope, just a straight 50% chance at catching monsters off-guard.
That's all I'm going to write for now, because it's a really simple concept, and I have to go right now. Hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
Compatibility & Simplicity
Something I really like about Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox and Microlite20 is that they are generally compatible with anything D&D. There's usually some small level of conversion, but there always is. One thing I'm going to try and do with my project is to keep this concept. I want a D&D where I can use everything, or nothing. That's why what I'm really thinking this is going to be at first is a Microlite rendition of OD&D. I already know there is a Microlite OD&D (Microlite74), so I guess I should say a "Minimalist OD&D".
I don't want to restrict myself to purely OD&D however, mostly because that's not possible. However I don't want to add much (if anything) at first, unless it serves to simplify or increase compatbility (IE single saving throw ala S&W WhiteBox). Honestly the above the link is the best defense as to why an OD&D retroclone is futile. What I really want is something that truly captures the spirit of OD&D, and keeps enough of it's rules to really feel like it. Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox does that pretty well, but it keeps a lot of the idiosyncrasies from OD&D, while ditching some of the more useful information (like finding secret doors, or how to actually stock a dungeon).
I just remembered the other point I'm wanting to make is that I'm going to try and avoid gimmicks as much as possible. I don't mean that negatively, as some of them are really cool - like Microlite20's skill system or Castles & Crusades SIEGE engine. Those are both really cool, innovative mechanics that can cover any situation. In light of the early days, when making a retroclone seemed risky, I understand the reason behind such decisions. However I feel at this point, there is no reason we can't take the rules that are already there, extrapolate and expand upon them, and make an awesome, never-ending role playing game. This really could have been done at any point with a previous TSR version of D&D (or even WOTC editions), and there are some great examples of this. 2E AD&D was really just everything they made for 1E shoved in one book, with a few tweeks.
A better example, and perhaps the best example I can think of is the Rules Cyclopedia. It is almost everything that was ever made for Basic D&D shoved into one awesome compendium of adventure. This is more or less what I want for my game. Basic has been through a few revisions, but how many of them have drastically changed the rules. It's arguable never, from what I can tell BECMI and B/X only differ stylistically (I could be wrong though), and the transition from Holmes to B/X could be argued as not a transition at all.
Anyway, back to working on the game itself. Hopefully someone likes what I make, if not I'll have a ton of gaming material for myself to use.
I don't want to restrict myself to purely OD&D however, mostly because that's not possible. However I don't want to add much (if anything) at first, unless it serves to simplify or increase compatbility (IE single saving throw ala S&W WhiteBox). Honestly the above the link is the best defense as to why an OD&D retroclone is futile. What I really want is something that truly captures the spirit of OD&D, and keeps enough of it's rules to really feel like it. Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox does that pretty well, but it keeps a lot of the idiosyncrasies from OD&D, while ditching some of the more useful information (like finding secret doors, or how to actually stock a dungeon).
I just remembered the other point I'm wanting to make is that I'm going to try and avoid gimmicks as much as possible. I don't mean that negatively, as some of them are really cool - like Microlite20's skill system or Castles & Crusades SIEGE engine. Those are both really cool, innovative mechanics that can cover any situation. In light of the early days, when making a retroclone seemed risky, I understand the reason behind such decisions. However I feel at this point, there is no reason we can't take the rules that are already there, extrapolate and expand upon them, and make an awesome, never-ending role playing game. This really could have been done at any point with a previous TSR version of D&D (or even WOTC editions), and there are some great examples of this. 2E AD&D was really just everything they made for 1E shoved in one book, with a few tweeks.
A better example, and perhaps the best example I can think of is the Rules Cyclopedia. It is almost everything that was ever made for Basic D&D shoved into one awesome compendium of adventure. This is more or less what I want for my game. Basic has been through a few revisions, but how many of them have drastically changed the rules. It's arguable never, from what I can tell BECMI and B/X only differ stylistically (I could be wrong though), and the transition from Holmes to B/X could be argued as not a transition at all.
Anyway, back to working on the game itself. Hopefully someone likes what I make, if not I'll have a ton of gaming material for myself to use.
Preview - "Arcane Grimoire"
The Arcane Grimoire - Volume I
This is just a small preview of what I'm working on, to prove that I'm working on it. It's the absolute bare bone minimum. I still need to setup the Experience, Attack, and Saving Throw Tables for the Character's section. All in all it comes out to less than 4 digest sized pages. I'll probably be able to fit a full game in 30+ digest pages.
MEN & MAGIC (CHARACTERS)
ATTRIBUTES
There are six attributes: Strength (STR), Dexterity (DEX),
Constitution (CON), Intelligence (INT), Wisdom (WIS), and Charisma (CHA).
Roll 3d6 and total the dice, allocating the score to one of
the attributes. Repeat for the remaining attributes.
Attributes of 15 or higher are often considered exceptional and usually grant a +1 bonus
to certain rolls, situations, or statistics. Exceptional strength grants a
bonus to attack and damage rolls. Dexterity increases Armor Class and ranged
“to hit”, and constitution adds to hit points. Intelligence grants an extra 1st
level Magic-User spell, and wisdom grants an extra 1st level Cleric spell.
Charisma affects reaction and loyalty checks.
RACES
The four races available are Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and
Halflings.
Humans get a 10%
bonus to all experience earned.
Elves have a 2 in
6 (a roll of 1-2 on a d6) chance of finding secret doors and other hidden
items.
Dwarves have a 2
in 6 chance of finding traps, and other dungeon oddities such as slanting
passages or underground construction.
Halflings attack
with a +1 “to hit” when using missile weapons.
CLASSES
The classes are Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric. Characters
begin at Level 1.
Fighters can wear
any kind of armor and use any weaponry. All Fighters have +1 hit point per
level. Against creatures of one hit die or less, Fighters can make one attack
per level each round.
Clerics can wear
any kind of armor, but can only use blunt weapons. They cast divine spells from
the Cleric spell list. A Cleric Smites Undead,
adding their level to damage scored against such creatures.
Magic-Users wear
no armor, and can only use daggers, darts, and staves. They can cast arcane
spells from the Magic-User spell list.
ADVENTURING
There are no pre-defined character skills (except for class
abilities). Instead there are some common adventuring tasks described below.
Referees and players should use their best judgment to make similar rulings as
necessary. Not every situation needs a rule, or a dice roll.
Stuck Doors can
be forced open with a 2 in 6 chance, with a 15+ strength allowing a 3 in 6
chance. A reinforced, locked, or steel door has only a 1 in 6 chance of being
opened. This can be attempted multiple times, each such time creating a lot of
noise, and usually resulting in a check for wandering monsters.
Bending Metal Bars
or lifting vertical gates (such as a portcullis) can be attempted by characters
with 15+ strength, with a 1 in 6 chance of success. The attempt can be made
only once. This roll can also be used for breaking iron chains for example.
Traps have a 1 in
6 chance of being found if a search for one is made. Dwarves have a 2 in 6
chance of finding traps when searching for them. Searching for traps requires
10 minutes for a 10 square foot area, and can only be done once. Traps usually
have a 2 in 6 chance of going off if a character passes by or walks over them.
Even if the roll for checking traps fails, players can still
describe their character’s actions and find it if they look in the right spot.
For example a player may fail the roll to check for a trap, but if he specifies
that he checks the ceiling, he will notice vents covered in ash and soot. If
the player realizes this is a fire vent trap, and says so, he may avoid the
blast of fire if it goes off, or take some other measure to disable it.
Secret Doors have
a 2 in 6 chance of being found, and concealed portals a 3 in 6 chance, if a
search is made. Just as with traps it takes 10 minutes to search a 10’ area,
but multiple attempts can be made. Elves have a 4 in 6 chance of finding secret
doors, and a 2 in 6 chance of noticing them even without searching. Note that
finding a secret door does not guarantee that the character will know how to
open the door.
Listening at
doors, or for distant sounds of creatures, has a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding.
Halflings have keen hearing and have a 2 in 6 chance of successfully listening.
A successful listen check will reveal the noise, but not necessarily what is
making that noise. For example characters may hear creaking in a hallway, or
growling beyond a door, but will not know what the source of the noise is.
Locks (on a door or chest for example) have a 1 in 6 chance of being picked with a dagger or similar tool, and a 2 in 6 chance with specialized thieving tools. 15+ dexterity increases the chance of success by 1. Doors can attempted to be picked infinitely with each successive attempt taking 10 minutes, but making little to noise (unlike bashing). Chests may only be checked once.
Locked chests can be pried open, with a 1 in 6 chance, and 2
in 6 for characters with 15+ strength, however the lock will be permanently
broken. Chests can be smashed open like stuck doors, however there is a 50% (3
in 6) chance of destroying or damaging any treasure inside. A reinforced chest
has a 1 in 6 chance of being forced open.
Picking Pockets
can be attempted with a 2 in 6 chance, with a 15+ dexterity increasing it to a
3 in 6 chance.
Sneaking has a 2
in 6 chance of succeeding normally. Successful sneaking can grant surprise in
combat, or allow a character to slip past a guard. Light and noise can prevent
sneaking from succeeding. Characters that take care to be stealthy, by removing
armor, dropping weight, and moving extra slowly may increase the chance of
sneaking (and thus surprise) to 3 in 6. Characters with a dexterity of 15+
increase chances for surprise by 1.
Parties waiting in ambush have a 4 in 6 chance of surprising
monsters. This of course assumes the characters are aware of the monsters
before the monsters are aware of them, such as after successfully listening at
a door.
SAVING THROWS
Saving throws are rolls made to avoid some hazard or
dangerous attack, such as dragon’s breath, poison, paralyzation, or even the
effects of spells. Successful saving throws result in the effects of whatever
hazard either being nullified or reduced (usually halved).
1st level Clerics and Magic-Users must roll a 15 or higher
on a d20 to make a successful saving throw, Fighters must roll a 14. This
number decreases by one point every level, to a minimum of 5 (4 for Fighters). Certain
situations, items, or even race and class, can modify saving throws. This
modifier is usually applied to the die roll.
MAGIC
Magic-Users and Clerics must prepare the spells they are
going to use at the start of their day. The player may select from whatever
spells he knows, an amount equal to their spells available per day. For example
a 1st level Magic-User has a single first level spell he can prepare and cast
that day. If the character can cast multiple spells per day (of the same level)
he can prepare the same spell multiple times, or prepare different spells of
the same level.
When the character “casts” their spell, it is considered
“used up” and cannot be cast again (hence the value of preparing multiple
spells of the same type if available). Spell scrolls can be created at the cost
of 100 gold pieces per spell, times spell level, taking a week per spell level.
Therefore a 5th level spell would cost 500 gold pieces, and require 5 weeks of
time to prepare. Scrolls function just like spells, being “used up” once cast, thus
allowing a character to carry extra spells.
COMBAT
Hit Points are
determined by rolling a d6 for each level gained; therefore a 5th level
character would have 5d6 hit points. A new die can be rolled each level, or the
total dice can be re-rolled each level. Characters with 15+ constitution have
+1 hit point per level (a Fighter with 15+ constitution then having +2 hit
points per level). After 10th level characters only gain +1 hit point per
level, adding any bonuses from class or attributes.
Characters are unconscious at exactly 0 hit points. A saving
throw is allowed if hit points drop below 0, to save versus death. A successful
saving throw bringing the character to 0 hit points.
Surprise is
normally achieved through use of sneaking, however the Referee can determine if
one side in combat is entitled to surprise. A group, character, or monster with
surprise has a free round of combat in which to act; this includes any activity
which can normally be performed during combat.
Initiative is
used to determine the turn order of combat. Normally 1d6 is rolled for any
groups involved in combat, and then each group may decide in what order their
participants move. Alternatively 1d6 can be rolled for each participant in
combat (however this can become tedious. Whoever rolls higher may go first, or
elect to “hold initiative”, declaring their actions after the loser, but taking
effects simultaneously. A dexterity of 15+ can grant a +1 bonus to initiative
rolls.
Attacks are
rolled on a d20, adding bonuses from class, race, attributes, weapons, etc. if
the attack roll is equal to or higher than the defender’s Armor Class (AC),
it’s a hit and deals damage. All attacks, unless otherwise specified, deal 1d6
damage. A roll of 20 (before modifiers) is a critical hit, automatically
scoring maximum damage. If a more lethal or dangerous game is desired, roll an
additional damage dice, this is called exploding dice.
LICENSE
Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the
Open Game License Version 1.0a (OGL). This entire work is designated as Open
Game Content under the OGL, with the exception of the trademarks “Arcane
Adventures,” "Arcane Grimoire," and with the exception of all artwork. These trademarks, and the
Trade Dress of this work (font, layout, style of artwork, etc.) are reserved as
Product Identity.
OPEN GAME LICENSE
Version 1.0a The following text is the property of Wizards
of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright
2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights
Reserved. 1. Definitions:
(a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark
owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted
material including derivative
works and translations (including into other computer
languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement,
compilation, abridgment or other
form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or
adapted; (c) “Distribute”
means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast,
publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute;”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and
includes the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content does not
embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional
content clearly identified as Open
Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered
by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically
excludes Product Identity.
(e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names,
logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters;
stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs,
depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual
or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments,
personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and
special abilities; places, locations, environments,
creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs;
and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the
owner of the Product Identity, and
which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f)
“Trademark” means the logos, names,
mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to
identify itself or its products or
the associated products contributed to the Open Game License
by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit,
format, modify, translate and otherwise
create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You”
or “Your” means the licensee in
terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game
Content that contains a notice indicating
that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in
terms of this License. You
must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you
Use. No terms may be added
to or subtracted from this License except as described by
the License itself. No other terms or
conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content
distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You
indicate Your acceptance of
the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to
use this License, the Contributors
grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive license with the exact terms of
this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are
contributing original material as Open
Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your
original creation and/or You
have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this
License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT
NOTICE portion of this
License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of
any Open Game Content
You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add
the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any
original Open Game
Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product
Identity, including as an indication
as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in
another, independent Agreement with
the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You
agree not to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark
in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another,
independent Agreement
with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.
The use of any Product Identity
in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the
ownership of that Product Identity.
The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content
shall retain all rights, title
and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You
must clearly indicate which portions
of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents
may publish updated versions of this
License. You may use any authorized version of this License
to copy, modify and distribute any
Open Game Content originally distributed under any version
of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this
License with every copy of the
Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise
the Open Game Content
using the name of any Contributor unless You have written
permission from the Contributor
to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to
comply with any of the terms of this
License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content
due to statute, judicial order, or
governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game
Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically
if You fail to comply with all terms
herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of
becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses
shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to
be unenforceable, such provision
shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it
enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000,
Wizards of the
Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003,
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich
Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan,
Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas
Reid, James Wyatt, based on
original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Microlite20 © 2006, Robin V. Stacey
(robin@greywulf.net)
This product is Open Game Content except for Product
Identity, as per the Open Game
License above. Product Identity includes Microlite20 and
Robin V. Stacey, Darrell King and Al
Krombach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)