More and more lately I've begun to understand the divide between games. I'm pretty sure I can make a game like I talked about before (I don't remember if I deleted the original post); one that captures the spirit of early computer role playing games (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Wizardry, Rogue, Nethack, etc.). I've come close to having a finished product several times, things just keep getting in the way. What I do think I can pull off rather quickly is a Dungeon! like board game, that has the ability to utilize the vast amount of material available for d20 D&D.
With a board game, I don't have to worry about being able to handle every situation, or have so much internal consistency or real world logic. I can use a bit more abstraction. It will still be fun, and it will give me my dungeon crawl fix. In doing research I've noticed a lot of guys turn to games like Dungeon!, DungeonQuest, HeroQuest, and even the D&D board games for the same thing.
Just some immediate thoughts I've come up with, is to handle traps via saving throws. The Thief will obviously get the best progression, representing his skill training. Traps will all be handled based on the Perception DC, and that's it. If the save passes, the character avoids the trap, if he fails, the trap is sprung. With attack based traps, there is no need to roll, damage is simply dealt.
Another option, since I'll also have to handle Surprise, and Perception, is to simply cut half the skills in the game. Either have a set progression for the "classes" or allow normal skill purchasing, with reduced points. If I do include skills I'm thinking Disable Device, Stealth, and Perception should cover most anything you'd do in a dungeon crawl board game. You'd be able to sneak away, spot hidden items/creatures, and disarm traps. I'd probably rename them Traps, Sneak, and Search/Spot.
One of the problems I have with 3E style play is multiple rolls. With traps for example you make a Perception Roll, Disable Device Roll, and then either an Attack roll or Saving Throw (sometimes both!). Three to four rolls to decide whether or not a trap harms your character. Hence why the above solution was to relegate it to a single "saving throw" style roll. With sneaking (to handle surprise) you have to make a Stealth roll, and the opponent makes an opposed Perception roll, and vice versa. I could relegate this to a single opposed roll, but then that requires the monster to have said skill, which brings me on to my next thought.
While I'd already have a much smaller stat block than standard d20 D&D, I hate having to have skills for monsters, even if it is only 3 (really 2) skills for them. I definitely prefer the old school method of having player characters work different then monsters. In the case of sneaking I could give it players only, as a sort of "check for a free combat turn" mechanic (of course I still need a DC). This would bring it inline with Dungeon! where players always attacked first. This wouldn't be so bad, as it will pretty much be a combat oriented board game, with players have several encounters per day.
It will definitely need random encounter tables and such. I'm thinking of making a d6 roll for every room, door, and hallway. In rooms hallways a roll of 1-4 is empty, 5 is a trap, and 6 is a wandering monster. In empty rooms a 6 means treasure, then another roll is made to check the container; 4 is hidden (maybe), 5 is locked, and 6 trapped. In a room with an encounter, treasure will be there 4+ (maybe), and will probably not be trapped or locked (maybe). For doors a roll of 4 is stuck, 5 is locked, and 6 is trapped. For the actual random encounter tables, the CR system is pretty nice and will definitely be useful in that regard.
That's all I have for now. Though something of interest, is my wife has given me dead lines. She wants me to have a playable product (of any sort) every Friday for us to play. Doesn't matter if it's an RPG or a board game. This is partly what's inspired this post. If it's anything good I'll be sure to share (to whoever might stumble across it).
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Monday, March 24, 2014
Advanced Fantasy - Fighter
Right now I'm working on my Advanced Fantasy set of house rules. Before, with Arcane Adventures, I ran into a big problem, because I was trying to mix all of the versions of D&D ever; Basic, OD&D, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3E, Pathfinder, Retroclones, etc... Any idea that I thought was cool, I wanted to use. I didn't realize at the time, there was such a difference in game play focus. Now to achieve that, I've switched to a largely free form method, that we've been having a bast playing. At the same time, I love AD&D, and generic D&D is pretty fun.
To make things easier I've decided to only include ideas and material from AD&D inspired games. The list I have for right now includes: 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Adventures Dark & Deep, Castles & Crusades, and a tiny bit from 3rd Edition and Pathfinder. Later I might include some material from other games, like Grey Matter (a fun Swords & Wizardry expansion, that is just awesome), or Blood & Treasure.
As of right now I've started to work on classes, as I feel that is the most defining part of AD&D style play. This is also the part I'm never fully happy with in any game. Something might have all the classes I want, but they might suck. Another might have some awesome classes, but be missing a key one. You get the idea.
I'm starting with the four core classes to get an idea of what power level I want the game to be on. From there I'll decide if I want to do the "subclass" system from 1st Edition, the "class groups" from 2E, make every class independent like 3E, or make them all function like "kits" like I've talked about before. So far I have notes for the Fighter class finished, which I'll share below.
Fighter Notes
Something a lot of people know, and why so many people have gone back to playing TSR era D&D, and it's derivatives, is that it's largely the same. For several classes, the Fighter being the prime example, it's the same across the board for TSR era D&D. The 2nd Edition Fighter, is the same as the 1st Edition one, just with the material from Unearthed Arcana included. Since Adventures Dark & Deep is largely a 1E clone, it's the same there as well. So for three of my sources the Fighter has the following:
Hit Dice: d10
Weapons & Armor: All
Abilities:
Exceptional Strength - The Fighter has the ability to have better bonuses to attack rolls and damage than other classes.
Constitution - The Fighter also has better possible bonuses to hit points from constitution.
Extra Attacks - The Fighter gains extra attacks, in fractional attacks, such as attacking twice every other round. In 1st Edition, he also has the ability to attack less than one hit die creatures a number of times equal to his level.
Weapon Specialization - Using the weapon proficiency system, the fighter can specialize in a weapon, gaining +1 "to hit", +2 damage, and an extra attack every other round.
Castles & Crusades, attempting to be a 1E/2E inspired game, has a Fighter looking mostly the same. It has weapon specialization, which works slightly differently: +1 attack and damage, increasing to +2 at level 7. He has multiple attacks against 1HD creatures, and he gains an extra attack at 10th level. The hit dice and armor are the same.
3rd Edition and Pathfinder add the use of feats, which function similarly to weapon proficiencies. I'm still not sure if I'll include feats, but it's a possibility. In Pathfinder they add some benefits for armor that are largely irrelevant in older D&D, since there aren't armor check penalties; then armor mastery adds damage reduction (an interesting thought). The fighter gets weapon training, that functions like weapon specialization, and finally weapon mastery that increases critical hit damage. There's also a bonus to Will saves.
Advanced Fantasy
With all of that in mind I already have a picture of what my fighter class will look like. The d10 hit dice, and same weapons and armor allowed, of course. Abilities as follows:
Exceptional Strength - I'm going to go with the +3/-3 modifiers found in B/X I think, so the fighter will simply get to double his Strength bonus to Damage (not to attack rolls).
Extra Attack (10th Level) - I like this from Castles & Crusades, and feel it's much easier for players to get.
Combat Dominance - Multiple attacks against 1 hit dice or lower creatures. I feel this is a hallmark of the original Fighter, and definitely strengthens him against other classes.
Weapon Specialization: I'm not sure on the specifics of this. It will mostly depend on whether I include feats or weapon proficiencies, but definitely something along the lines of +1 "to hit" and damage.
A simple fighter, and will probably be one of, if not the simplest class for players to choose from. I think this is clearly recognizable as an AD&D fighter, and interesting enough, but not too complex. Next I'll discuss the Cleric, Wizard, and Thief. They should be pretty quick posts, because they're also relatively the same across the board.
To make things easier I've decided to only include ideas and material from AD&D inspired games. The list I have for right now includes: 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Adventures Dark & Deep, Castles & Crusades, and a tiny bit from 3rd Edition and Pathfinder. Later I might include some material from other games, like Grey Matter (a fun Swords & Wizardry expansion, that is just awesome), or Blood & Treasure.
As of right now I've started to work on classes, as I feel that is the most defining part of AD&D style play. This is also the part I'm never fully happy with in any game. Something might have all the classes I want, but they might suck. Another might have some awesome classes, but be missing a key one. You get the idea.
I'm starting with the four core classes to get an idea of what power level I want the game to be on. From there I'll decide if I want to do the "subclass" system from 1st Edition, the "class groups" from 2E, make every class independent like 3E, or make them all function like "kits" like I've talked about before. So far I have notes for the Fighter class finished, which I'll share below.
Fighter Notes
Something a lot of people know, and why so many people have gone back to playing TSR era D&D, and it's derivatives, is that it's largely the same. For several classes, the Fighter being the prime example, it's the same across the board for TSR era D&D. The 2nd Edition Fighter, is the same as the 1st Edition one, just with the material from Unearthed Arcana included. Since Adventures Dark & Deep is largely a 1E clone, it's the same there as well. So for three of my sources the Fighter has the following:
Hit Dice: d10
Weapons & Armor: All
Abilities:
Exceptional Strength - The Fighter has the ability to have better bonuses to attack rolls and damage than other classes.
Constitution - The Fighter also has better possible bonuses to hit points from constitution.
Extra Attacks - The Fighter gains extra attacks, in fractional attacks, such as attacking twice every other round. In 1st Edition, he also has the ability to attack less than one hit die creatures a number of times equal to his level.
Weapon Specialization - Using the weapon proficiency system, the fighter can specialize in a weapon, gaining +1 "to hit", +2 damage, and an extra attack every other round.
Castles & Crusades, attempting to be a 1E/2E inspired game, has a Fighter looking mostly the same. It has weapon specialization, which works slightly differently: +1 attack and damage, increasing to +2 at level 7. He has multiple attacks against 1HD creatures, and he gains an extra attack at 10th level. The hit dice and armor are the same.
3rd Edition and Pathfinder add the use of feats, which function similarly to weapon proficiencies. I'm still not sure if I'll include feats, but it's a possibility. In Pathfinder they add some benefits for armor that are largely irrelevant in older D&D, since there aren't armor check penalties; then armor mastery adds damage reduction (an interesting thought). The fighter gets weapon training, that functions like weapon specialization, and finally weapon mastery that increases critical hit damage. There's also a bonus to Will saves.
Advanced Fantasy
With all of that in mind I already have a picture of what my fighter class will look like. The d10 hit dice, and same weapons and armor allowed, of course. Abilities as follows:
Exceptional Strength - I'm going to go with the +3/-3 modifiers found in B/X I think, so the fighter will simply get to double his Strength bonus to Damage (not to attack rolls).
Extra Attack (10th Level) - I like this from Castles & Crusades, and feel it's much easier for players to get.
Combat Dominance - Multiple attacks against 1 hit dice or lower creatures. I feel this is a hallmark of the original Fighter, and definitely strengthens him against other classes.
Weapon Specialization: I'm not sure on the specifics of this. It will mostly depend on whether I include feats or weapon proficiencies, but definitely something along the lines of +1 "to hit" and damage.
A simple fighter, and will probably be one of, if not the simplest class for players to choose from. I think this is clearly recognizable as an AD&D fighter, and interesting enough, but not too complex. Next I'll discuss the Cleric, Wizard, and Thief. They should be pretty quick posts, because they're also relatively the same across the board.
Too Many Projects
This post is mostly for myself, to help keep track of all the ideas I've talked about, and have floating in my head. I'm not saying I'm actually going to do any of these, and they're definitely subject to interest and need. However I do want to keep track of the cool ideas I have, in case I do want to start working on them. As I work on them, I'll probably just take notes on my own, but I might post ideas from time to time, as I already have.
Wizards & Warriors - A Microlite20 derivative that uses a spell dice system for magic, thus simplifying the game, and removing the need for spell lists and books.
Warband - A very basic, OD&D like game where the goal is to raise an army, and conquer the land. Very much Mount & Blade inspired, hence the name.
Arcane Adventures - My main house rules. This is what I've been posting about a lot, when it comes to my "edition-less" and "class-less" gaming ideas. There will only be the "Adventurer" class, and everything will be up to player and referee cooperation. Magic will be rare, mysterious, but still open to everyone's use. There won't be a skill system, but common adventuring tasks will have a % chance listed, with common modifiers, that the referee can use for making rulings.
Advanced Fantasy - Basically just my house rules for AD&D. I think I've said before that, while my preferred fantasy isn't Gygaxian*, and the most fun I have is free-form D&D, I do still love Gygaxian D&D. I could just use Adventures Dark & Deep, but I don't feel it captures the "D&D feel" everyone is used too. Sometimes I just want to have a party of Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Wizards, and not worry about creatively coming up with stuff on the spot.
Elder Scrolls d20 - If I wanted to actually emulate the Elder Scrolls, I think a d100 game would be more appropriate. However I think Elder Scrolls captures the "spirit" of D&D rather well, so apply the principles to a d20 game might work. Mainly it would be skill based, which is why it would need to use the "d20 system", and not just be old school D&D. For magic, you would take each school as a separate skill, using the bonus to beat a "Casting DC" or some such. It would use Int (or Wis) + Mod/level to determine a "Magicka" score, which would function like Microlite20's casting.
I don't feel the need to make any sort of "OD&D" or "B/X" project for a few reasons. B/X is ready to go out of the box. If you want OD&D, you play OD&D, because, well it's OD&D. It's weird, its pulpy, it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but has a hidden logic that feels good. I don't think there's anything I could do for either that would beneficial. AD&D on the other hand has had so many revisions, and editions, and none of them completely agree. For me I want to have all of the Gygaxian material in one place, even if it's not strictly Gygaxian.
I don't see why all of these couldn't be relatively compatible, meaning only one set of monsters would be necessary to make. If I did ever make my own game company, I could simply release them all under a "Fantasy Adventures" title, then release a "Bestiary" as a general fantasy gaming resource. I could do the same thing with spell books for the most part - Advanced Fantasy would actually have spell lists, since it will have AD&D style classes, and Arcane Adventures will be able to use any set of spells. I could even include a small section on any spell book for "Using in Arcane Adventures", or some such.
*When I say Gygaxian, I'm referring to a style of fantasy adventuring that has come to be, largely due to the work of Gary Gygax. While 3rd Edition D&D isn't strictly Gygaxian in play style, it has most of the elements of Gygaxian fantasy: magic items as treasure, the AD&D Classes, AD&D Races, etc. At this point D&D has become a genre of fantasy all its own, and I think that can be attributed to the style Gygax pushed for and published with 1st Edition, that was later expanded upon in 2nd and 3rd Edition. While later versions may not be what Gygax would want, there definitely his brainchild.
Note also that I'm not trying to exclude Arneson's part in D&D. He has a distinctly different feel to his games and works. Gygaxian D&D is basically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and the derivatives there of.
Wizards & Warriors - A Microlite20 derivative that uses a spell dice system for magic, thus simplifying the game, and removing the need for spell lists and books.
Warband - A very basic, OD&D like game where the goal is to raise an army, and conquer the land. Very much Mount & Blade inspired, hence the name.
Arcane Adventures - My main house rules. This is what I've been posting about a lot, when it comes to my "edition-less" and "class-less" gaming ideas. There will only be the "Adventurer" class, and everything will be up to player and referee cooperation. Magic will be rare, mysterious, but still open to everyone's use. There won't be a skill system, but common adventuring tasks will have a % chance listed, with common modifiers, that the referee can use for making rulings.
Advanced Fantasy - Basically just my house rules for AD&D. I think I've said before that, while my preferred fantasy isn't Gygaxian*, and the most fun I have is free-form D&D, I do still love Gygaxian D&D. I could just use Adventures Dark & Deep, but I don't feel it captures the "D&D feel" everyone is used too. Sometimes I just want to have a party of Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Wizards, and not worry about creatively coming up with stuff on the spot.
Elder Scrolls d20 - If I wanted to actually emulate the Elder Scrolls, I think a d100 game would be more appropriate. However I think Elder Scrolls captures the "spirit" of D&D rather well, so apply the principles to a d20 game might work. Mainly it would be skill based, which is why it would need to use the "d20 system", and not just be old school D&D. For magic, you would take each school as a separate skill, using the bonus to beat a "Casting DC" or some such. It would use Int (or Wis) + Mod/level to determine a "Magicka" score, which would function like Microlite20's casting.
I don't feel the need to make any sort of "OD&D" or "B/X" project for a few reasons. B/X is ready to go out of the box. If you want OD&D, you play OD&D, because, well it's OD&D. It's weird, its pulpy, it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but has a hidden logic that feels good. I don't think there's anything I could do for either that would beneficial. AD&D on the other hand has had so many revisions, and editions, and none of them completely agree. For me I want to have all of the Gygaxian material in one place, even if it's not strictly Gygaxian.
I don't see why all of these couldn't be relatively compatible, meaning only one set of monsters would be necessary to make. If I did ever make my own game company, I could simply release them all under a "Fantasy Adventures" title, then release a "Bestiary" as a general fantasy gaming resource. I could do the same thing with spell books for the most part - Advanced Fantasy would actually have spell lists, since it will have AD&D style classes, and Arcane Adventures will be able to use any set of spells. I could even include a small section on any spell book for "Using in Arcane Adventures", or some such.
*When I say Gygaxian, I'm referring to a style of fantasy adventuring that has come to be, largely due to the work of Gary Gygax. While 3rd Edition D&D isn't strictly Gygaxian in play style, it has most of the elements of Gygaxian fantasy: magic items as treasure, the AD&D Classes, AD&D Races, etc. At this point D&D has become a genre of fantasy all its own, and I think that can be attributed to the style Gygax pushed for and published with 1st Edition, that was later expanded upon in 2nd and 3rd Edition. While later versions may not be what Gygax would want, there definitely his brainchild.
Note also that I'm not trying to exclude Arneson's part in D&D. He has a distinctly different feel to his games and works. Gygaxian D&D is basically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and the derivatives there of.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
More Warband Ideas
Last time I talked about my Smoke & Steel idea; a campaign focused around only fighters that are heavily customized. I'm thinking of taking the complete opposite route for Warband, and making it extremely simple and rules light. The whole point of the game will, pretty much be wargaming, but with more possible granularity. I, personally, think it would be fun to start off with a low level, single character, and work his way up to a captain, war chief, and maybe one day king.
Currently I'm thinking of using OD&D as a basis, and stripping out pretty much all of the fantasy aspects, and a few rules. I think first ability scores can go. I'm thinking there wont be any 0 level characters, everyone starts of as a 1st level character, with a single hit dice. This way player characters wont be any different than NPCs. Normally this would looked at as a bad thing, but in this case, it's about your war-band (hence the name).
I'd use a singular saving throw, as sort of catch all for any non-weapon based attacks. In that regard I'd go with a single saving throw, like Swords & Wizardry. I'd also use Ascending Armor class, since that fits my combat system from the last post. +1 to hit per level, or per 1/2 level might work pretty well.
For experience I'm definitely thinking 100xp per hit die. Since it will only be human on human fighting (for the most part), this works out pretty well. It's simple, and there probably won't be very many special abilities for encountered enemies. Since everyone would be a fighter, there would only need to be one experience progression, either starting at 2,000 or 1,000 (depending on the mood of the game). This means only 10 to 20 kills to get to next level, which I think would work really well for a very military oriented game. I wouldn't give straight gold for experience, but I would probably offer training on a 1 for 1 basis.
I don't think feats, as they currently work, would go well with large scale combat. I usually adjudicate combat maneuvers anyway, so I could do that for duels and smaller skirmishes. I do think something like AD&D's weapon proficiencies could work well with mass combat; simple +1's to weapons. After all plenty of military units drill to be proficient with their commonly used weapons. There's also room for some minor maneuver like abilities, like "Shield Bash": where you could add your shield's bonus "to hit" or damage, instead of defense (or in addition too).
I was originally very for a large and long armament list, because I feel that was OD&D's original way of letting you customize fighters. Though historically not many units were uniformly armed, instead similar weapons were grouped together. I'm thinking a large list for Player Characters and "Heroes", and simply a "weapon type" equivalent list for units: Polearms, Small Weapons, Medium Weapons, etc... I'm also thinking instead of rolling for damage with units, you'd just have an "average rating". For example a 1d6 spear would have an average rating of "3", and you'd just multiply that by the number of men that hit (using the previously mentioned combat system).
If I do go with a more simplistic system for mass units, I might even consider leaning closer towards the OD&D model, at least in some ways. I think the Hero representing multiple men system would be really helpful. That could determine number of attacks, or something similar. A level vs Armor Class type, and Weapons vs Armor Type systems could be incorporated easily this way too.
Just some ideas. I might ask to play this soon with the wife, and maybe get it all down.
Currently I'm thinking of using OD&D as a basis, and stripping out pretty much all of the fantasy aspects, and a few rules. I think first ability scores can go. I'm thinking there wont be any 0 level characters, everyone starts of as a 1st level character, with a single hit dice. This way player characters wont be any different than NPCs. Normally this would looked at as a bad thing, but in this case, it's about your war-band (hence the name).
I'd use a singular saving throw, as sort of catch all for any non-weapon based attacks. In that regard I'd go with a single saving throw, like Swords & Wizardry. I'd also use Ascending Armor class, since that fits my combat system from the last post. +1 to hit per level, or per 1/2 level might work pretty well.
For experience I'm definitely thinking 100xp per hit die. Since it will only be human on human fighting (for the most part), this works out pretty well. It's simple, and there probably won't be very many special abilities for encountered enemies. Since everyone would be a fighter, there would only need to be one experience progression, either starting at 2,000 or 1,000 (depending on the mood of the game). This means only 10 to 20 kills to get to next level, which I think would work really well for a very military oriented game. I wouldn't give straight gold for experience, but I would probably offer training on a 1 for 1 basis.
I don't think feats, as they currently work, would go well with large scale combat. I usually adjudicate combat maneuvers anyway, so I could do that for duels and smaller skirmishes. I do think something like AD&D's weapon proficiencies could work well with mass combat; simple +1's to weapons. After all plenty of military units drill to be proficient with their commonly used weapons. There's also room for some minor maneuver like abilities, like "Shield Bash": where you could add your shield's bonus "to hit" or damage, instead of defense (or in addition too).
I was originally very for a large and long armament list, because I feel that was OD&D's original way of letting you customize fighters. Though historically not many units were uniformly armed, instead similar weapons were grouped together. I'm thinking a large list for Player Characters and "Heroes", and simply a "weapon type" equivalent list for units: Polearms, Small Weapons, Medium Weapons, etc... I'm also thinking instead of rolling for damage with units, you'd just have an "average rating". For example a 1d6 spear would have an average rating of "3", and you'd just multiply that by the number of men that hit (using the previously mentioned combat system).
If I do go with a more simplistic system for mass units, I might even consider leaning closer towards the OD&D model, at least in some ways. I think the Hero representing multiple men system would be really helpful. That could determine number of attacks, or something similar. A level vs Armor Class type, and Weapons vs Armor Type systems could be incorporated easily this way too.
Just some ideas. I might ask to play this soon with the wife, and maybe get it all down.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
D&D as a Tool Kit
**Warning: This is a very stream of thought, unorganized post. I'm tired, and kind of just want to write right now.
This has been talked about before, but normally in the sense of "D&D is a tool kit that can let you play fantasy (sometimes other) role playing games". As in, within the rules given, there are various tools provided to let you customize your game. But what if we made a "D&D Tool Kit" that let you build your own D&D? That's what D&D Next was supposed to be, but I just don't feel that it accomplished that all too well (not yet at least). I'll go ahead and muse on the subject, just for kicks. This is in no way a game plan, or something I intend to do, but it would be cool.
First lets talk about layout, organization, etc. What I'm thinking of is something like Basic Fantasy, mixed with the Pathfinder SRD. Release a really basic core set of rules, and then make a billion supplements, possible one page, self contained PDFs. Then you could conveniently print out a binder full of rules. Eventually, you could release pre-customized, or ready-to-roll, rule sets: "Basic", "Advanced", "Original", etc., much like Microlite20 does.
On to some actual ideas of things that would part of this system. Lets start with the most basic of basics: Ability Scores. (Here, you'll see what I'm actually talking about.) I prefer more to the point language, so I wouldn't go on about "Strength is a character's ability to lift heavy things...", but I would explain the effects of Strength on game play, and how altering Ability Scores, and selecting an option affects game play. I would present four basic options for Ability Scores: no modifiers, +1/-1, +3/-3, and +5/-5.
In other words; the original option, where Ability Scores did not modify much in game, but instead acted as a vague representation of the character's, for Referees to use as they pleased. With this option, and in fact as a blurb in the beginning of the section, I would emphasize that regardless of modifiers from ability scores, they can be used in many sorts of ways. The second method would be a +1 on 15+ score, and -1 on 7- scores. This is from Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, and is used by quite a few folks, who like to have some impact from exceptional scores, but not much.
The third option is from Basic D&D, and is used in Castles & Crusades, and other retroclones that like to clean up old school AD&D style play, without resorting to the large modifiers found in later games. The fourth option is from 3rd Edition, and would be for superheroic game play.
Clearly, you wouldn't use any of these options together, you'd pick one. You'd tell your players: "Hey this is how were doing attributes this campaign". They're all there for reference, and to choose from. The tricky part with this project, would be making a system that jives with all of these options, which is why I'd use OD&D as my basis. OD&D originally didn't have many modifiers from ability scores, but the supplements added them in; which is basically the idea here. This is nothing new really, I'd just be presenting it a different way.
Part of the beauty of this system is that you have a genuine choice when customizing your rules. If you want hard, gritty game play, use very few player bolstering abilities as possible; no ability score modifiers, restrict classes and kits, use as lower attack progression, etc.
Some other ideas I don't feel like typing out all the way right now, I'll quickly quip about here. For classes I'd offer a single "Adventurer" option, like in Searchers of the Unknown; the four basic archetypes, like in Basic D&D; and then Kits & Subclasses like in AD&D. Some of the obvious mechanics with options are Experience point progressions, Attack Bonuses, Saving Throws, etc.
With Experience Points you have the options of 3E style unified progression, with Slow, Medium, and Fast progressions. You also have Encounter based XP tables you can offer, or my preference, old school Hit Dice/Level based XP. You can also offer OD&D's 100xp/hit die option.
Attack bonuses are pretty straight forward. You can offer a Slow, Medium, and Fast set (possibly 4 if you want to be closer to AD&D). If you're using the "Adventurer" option, then it's Referee's discretion how fast he wants his players' combat bonuses to progress. If you go the more classic route, with separate classes and kits, then assign the appropriate attack progressions to those classes.
For saving throws you can offer the Single Saving Throw (Swords & Wizardry), Traditional (Parlyzation, Death Ray, etc.), Attribute Based (Castles & Crusades: Strength, Constitution, etc.), or the 3E style Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
For common adventuring tasks you can present some skill systems, like d20 or percentile; or you can list the percent changes, or dice rolls necessary for common tasks. In fact you can have the simple B/X and OD&D method of having just a couple activities with the required d6 rolls, listing the percentage chances in parenthesis like AD&D. From there on any other, more complex, or less common tasks are simply percentage chances.
Magic would be interesting, as long as you are cautious to use consistent key words and terminology. If you chose a more abstract, classless approach you could incorporate any system. Of course, as long as all methods of spell casting have restrictions, and costs, then you can conceivably use all of them at once (not a single character, but coexisting in a game world).
With so many options it can get confusing though, even if it is just presented as a tool box. You could take a more "levels of depth option". Instead of alternatives and options, you provide layers of complexity. To go back to saving throws; instead of offering all of those methods, you can simply offer the Single Saving Throw, and the Attribute Throw options. These options are a little more interchangeable and compatible.
This is all just speculation and mental seepage. I am considering doing something like this for my house rules, but it will probably only be with the rules I like, as a sort of "Rules Compendium" to keep them all in one place, so I can customize rule sets to the campaigns I want to play. I rarely run a game system "as is", and when I want to play that game I usually house rule it anyway, or ignore a lot of the rules. So say I want to play AD&D, I might just grab the rules from my "Compendium" that make up AD&D, and shove that in one document. All just thoughts, and sleepless ideas.
This has been talked about before, but normally in the sense of "D&D is a tool kit that can let you play fantasy (sometimes other) role playing games". As in, within the rules given, there are various tools provided to let you customize your game. But what if we made a "D&D Tool Kit" that let you build your own D&D? That's what D&D Next was supposed to be, but I just don't feel that it accomplished that all too well (not yet at least). I'll go ahead and muse on the subject, just for kicks. This is in no way a game plan, or something I intend to do, but it would be cool.
First lets talk about layout, organization, etc. What I'm thinking of is something like Basic Fantasy, mixed with the Pathfinder SRD. Release a really basic core set of rules, and then make a billion supplements, possible one page, self contained PDFs. Then you could conveniently print out a binder full of rules. Eventually, you could release pre-customized, or ready-to-roll, rule sets: "Basic", "Advanced", "Original", etc., much like Microlite20 does.
On to some actual ideas of things that would part of this system. Lets start with the most basic of basics: Ability Scores. (Here, you'll see what I'm actually talking about.) I prefer more to the point language, so I wouldn't go on about "Strength is a character's ability to lift heavy things...", but I would explain the effects of Strength on game play, and how altering Ability Scores, and selecting an option affects game play. I would present four basic options for Ability Scores: no modifiers, +1/-1, +3/-3, and +5/-5.
In other words; the original option, where Ability Scores did not modify much in game, but instead acted as a vague representation of the character's, for Referees to use as they pleased. With this option, and in fact as a blurb in the beginning of the section, I would emphasize that regardless of modifiers from ability scores, they can be used in many sorts of ways. The second method would be a +1 on 15+ score, and -1 on 7- scores. This is from Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, and is used by quite a few folks, who like to have some impact from exceptional scores, but not much.
The third option is from Basic D&D, and is used in Castles & Crusades, and other retroclones that like to clean up old school AD&D style play, without resorting to the large modifiers found in later games. The fourth option is from 3rd Edition, and would be for superheroic game play.
Clearly, you wouldn't use any of these options together, you'd pick one. You'd tell your players: "Hey this is how were doing attributes this campaign". They're all there for reference, and to choose from. The tricky part with this project, would be making a system that jives with all of these options, which is why I'd use OD&D as my basis. OD&D originally didn't have many modifiers from ability scores, but the supplements added them in; which is basically the idea here. This is nothing new really, I'd just be presenting it a different way.
Part of the beauty of this system is that you have a genuine choice when customizing your rules. If you want hard, gritty game play, use very few player bolstering abilities as possible; no ability score modifiers, restrict classes and kits, use as lower attack progression, etc.
Some other ideas I don't feel like typing out all the way right now, I'll quickly quip about here. For classes I'd offer a single "Adventurer" option, like in Searchers of the Unknown; the four basic archetypes, like in Basic D&D; and then Kits & Subclasses like in AD&D. Some of the obvious mechanics with options are Experience point progressions, Attack Bonuses, Saving Throws, etc.
With Experience Points you have the options of 3E style unified progression, with Slow, Medium, and Fast progressions. You also have Encounter based XP tables you can offer, or my preference, old school Hit Dice/Level based XP. You can also offer OD&D's 100xp/hit die option.
Attack bonuses are pretty straight forward. You can offer a Slow, Medium, and Fast set (possibly 4 if you want to be closer to AD&D). If you're using the "Adventurer" option, then it's Referee's discretion how fast he wants his players' combat bonuses to progress. If you go the more classic route, with separate classes and kits, then assign the appropriate attack progressions to those classes.
For saving throws you can offer the Single Saving Throw (Swords & Wizardry), Traditional (Parlyzation, Death Ray, etc.), Attribute Based (Castles & Crusades: Strength, Constitution, etc.), or the 3E style Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
For common adventuring tasks you can present some skill systems, like d20 or percentile; or you can list the percent changes, or dice rolls necessary for common tasks. In fact you can have the simple B/X and OD&D method of having just a couple activities with the required d6 rolls, listing the percentage chances in parenthesis like AD&D. From there on any other, more complex, or less common tasks are simply percentage chances.
Magic would be interesting, as long as you are cautious to use consistent key words and terminology. If you chose a more abstract, classless approach you could incorporate any system. Of course, as long as all methods of spell casting have restrictions, and costs, then you can conceivably use all of them at once (not a single character, but coexisting in a game world).
With so many options it can get confusing though, even if it is just presented as a tool box. You could take a more "levels of depth option". Instead of alternatives and options, you provide layers of complexity. To go back to saving throws; instead of offering all of those methods, you can simply offer the Single Saving Throw, and the Attribute Throw options. These options are a little more interchangeable and compatible.
This is all just speculation and mental seepage. I am considering doing something like this for my house rules, but it will probably only be with the rules I like, as a sort of "Rules Compendium" to keep them all in one place, so I can customize rule sets to the campaigns I want to play. I rarely run a game system "as is", and when I want to play that game I usually house rule it anyway, or ignore a lot of the rules. So say I want to play AD&D, I might just grab the rules from my "Compendium" that make up AD&D, and shove that in one document. All just thoughts, and sleepless ideas.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Assumed Competence (Classless D&D)
I'm going to start writing down some of my "gaming ethos", or more less how I'm going to start running my games. I'm probably going to write up a nice document for my house rules, to keep track of what I want in my games, and maybe as a sort of explanation for players. Right now I want to talk a little more about classless D&D, and Adventurers.
Something that's already been talked about in the OSR, is how game balance either sucks or is not necessary. I'm definitely of that school of thought, though I'll explain how I particularly feel about it. There should be some semblance of party balance, in that the game should be fun for everyone. However I don't think it needs to be carefully policed, and measured precisely. I think players should do what is fun for them, and that be that. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, because each player is playing the game they way they want to; IE their approaching the challenges presented to them in their own fashion. In that particular example I think I've already discussed how to balance magic, and that is through costing resources (gold, scrolls, etc). Everyone is capable of using magic, in one way or another, it just costs them, and it is that choice; whether to spend their resources on magic items, or better weapons, armor, and troops, that makes the game interesting.
There is the argument, however, that not everyone should be able to do everything. Some argue for the sake of game balance, others for specialty, and others for realism. I've already addressed the first issue above, and elsewhere, through I'll recap quickly. Balance isn't a problem if everyone can do everything, as long it costs something; and that choice of what to use your resources on, is at least to me, a choice that makes things interesting.
As far as every player being "unique" this is either a non-problem, or one that involves particular players. Say Geoffrey wants to play an insane sorcerer. Well Geoffrey is going to call dibs on any magical items the party finds, particularly scrolls and magical staffs. The insane part, he handles by "role-playing" (I know a crazy thought, role-playing, and not use rules-defined, "character abilities). Now Jeff, thinks this is a cool idea. So Jeff starts "acting insane" and trying to grab all the magical items he can. This can be perfectly fine, but if actually bothers Geoffrey, he just needs to tell Jeff: "Hey man, that's not cool, you're stealing my idea, and it's making the game less fun for me". That simple. If Jeff doesn't stop, either kill his character, talk to him again, or stop playing with him.
Realism, however is a funny concern, because we're playing D&D. If you are concerned with realism: "why does Robert's character get to the play the lute too? He didn't write that into his character background, and he's not a Bard!", you're playing the wrong game. I'm not normally for the "Heroic D&D" game, at least not in the superheroes, Pathfinder, sense. I do like the Hercules, and Beowulf style heroics. Something that I can agree on, is that while you're "normal people facing heroic challenges", I can agree you're a cut above the rest. You're motivation, alone shows your not just the average peasant farmer. The fact you've rolled ability scores, as a mechanic, represents this.
So how do we handle realism? We don't. We assume competence. Take the show Hercules for example. Hercules, is a generally competent, talented adventurer. He can pick up a lute and start playing. These things, are really mundane tasks, and anyone should be able to do them: pick locks, break down doors, sing, etc. Maybe you need a attribute check, or maybe your attributes can determine how good you are at them. High dexterity? You play the lute pretty damn well. Low charisma? I don't think you'd be able to sing to well.
You're not talking about mundane tasks, I hear you say. You're talking about true Heroics! Inspiring battle songs, disarming complex traps, etc. Well these are handled by...role playing. Describe your actions, build your character background as you play. This part requires a fair referee, but as you do things, you should get better. At the very least, Heroics are when dice come in to play. Maybe you need to make a die roll, because there is a chance of failure. Maybe you've been picking locks this whole adventure, and you've been playing with a puzzle box on your down time, and maybe your Referee rules that you've got a better chance than normal to disarm the trap.
These function just like the rules do, with two very big differences. 1) You don't need the rules, and 2) You're not restricted by the rules (IE class abilities, and skill systems). All I'm doing here, really, is using common sense, and extrapolating the underlying logic of the rules system. Yes this style of gaming isn't for everyone, but it's super simple, and it's a ton of fun (with the right kind of players, usually called "friends).
To clarify, this isn't even playing with "no rules". You have tons of metrics available to help in determining rulings. Even without classes, you've got Level and Attributes. You're level can determine your power, and even effectiveness, and your attributes can determine competence and what you can try. Like I said, I'm really just jotting down what I'm thinking lately, and using this as a sort of "gaming manifesto".
Something that's already been talked about in the OSR, is how game balance either sucks or is not necessary. I'm definitely of that school of thought, though I'll explain how I particularly feel about it. There should be some semblance of party balance, in that the game should be fun for everyone. However I don't think it needs to be carefully policed, and measured precisely. I think players should do what is fun for them, and that be that. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, because each player is playing the game they way they want to; IE their approaching the challenges presented to them in their own fashion. In that particular example I think I've already discussed how to balance magic, and that is through costing resources (gold, scrolls, etc). Everyone is capable of using magic, in one way or another, it just costs them, and it is that choice; whether to spend their resources on magic items, or better weapons, armor, and troops, that makes the game interesting.
There is the argument, however, that not everyone should be able to do everything. Some argue for the sake of game balance, others for specialty, and others for realism. I've already addressed the first issue above, and elsewhere, through I'll recap quickly. Balance isn't a problem if everyone can do everything, as long it costs something; and that choice of what to use your resources on, is at least to me, a choice that makes things interesting.
As far as every player being "unique" this is either a non-problem, or one that involves particular players. Say Geoffrey wants to play an insane sorcerer. Well Geoffrey is going to call dibs on any magical items the party finds, particularly scrolls and magical staffs. The insane part, he handles by "role-playing" (I know a crazy thought, role-playing, and not use rules-defined, "character abilities). Now Jeff, thinks this is a cool idea. So Jeff starts "acting insane" and trying to grab all the magical items he can. This can be perfectly fine, but if actually bothers Geoffrey, he just needs to tell Jeff: "Hey man, that's not cool, you're stealing my idea, and it's making the game less fun for me". That simple. If Jeff doesn't stop, either kill his character, talk to him again, or stop playing with him.
Realism, however is a funny concern, because we're playing D&D. If you are concerned with realism: "why does Robert's character get to the play the lute too? He didn't write that into his character background, and he's not a Bard!", you're playing the wrong game. I'm not normally for the "Heroic D&D" game, at least not in the superheroes, Pathfinder, sense. I do like the Hercules, and Beowulf style heroics. Something that I can agree on, is that while you're "normal people facing heroic challenges", I can agree you're a cut above the rest. You're motivation, alone shows your not just the average peasant farmer. The fact you've rolled ability scores, as a mechanic, represents this.
So how do we handle realism? We don't. We assume competence. Take the show Hercules for example. Hercules, is a generally competent, talented adventurer. He can pick up a lute and start playing. These things, are really mundane tasks, and anyone should be able to do them: pick locks, break down doors, sing, etc. Maybe you need a attribute check, or maybe your attributes can determine how good you are at them. High dexterity? You play the lute pretty damn well. Low charisma? I don't think you'd be able to sing to well.
You're not talking about mundane tasks, I hear you say. You're talking about true Heroics! Inspiring battle songs, disarming complex traps, etc. Well these are handled by...role playing. Describe your actions, build your character background as you play. This part requires a fair referee, but as you do things, you should get better. At the very least, Heroics are when dice come in to play. Maybe you need to make a die roll, because there is a chance of failure. Maybe you've been picking locks this whole adventure, and you've been playing with a puzzle box on your down time, and maybe your Referee rules that you've got a better chance than normal to disarm the trap.
These function just like the rules do, with two very big differences. 1) You don't need the rules, and 2) You're not restricted by the rules (IE class abilities, and skill systems). All I'm doing here, really, is using common sense, and extrapolating the underlying logic of the rules system. Yes this style of gaming isn't for everyone, but it's super simple, and it's a ton of fun (with the right kind of players, usually called "friends).
To clarify, this isn't even playing with "no rules". You have tons of metrics available to help in determining rulings. Even without classes, you've got Level and Attributes. You're level can determine your power, and even effectiveness, and your attributes can determine competence and what you can try. Like I said, I'm really just jotting down what I'm thinking lately, and using this as a sort of "gaming manifesto".
Percentile Checks
Last time I talked about task resolution I discussed OD&D's X in 6 chance system. I like that system a lot, but there are also other ways of resolving activities in the game. If you want a more "AD&D' style system, switch to percentile checks. I've noticed almost everything in AD&D (at least 1E for the most part) has the percent chance listed next to it. Even if it is checked using X in 6 chances on a d6, or X in 10 chances on a d10, there is usually a percent listed in parenthesis. Several sub systems, as well, take advantage of the percentile dice: grappling, and disease spring to my mind as some examples.
This is an extremely simple, easy to grasp, and easy to convert to system. If you're using the AD&D books, use the percent chances listed. If it's a X in Y chance roll (found in OD&D, B/X, and AD&D), simply find the percent chance using basic math (X divided by Y). With the d20 system this becomes slightly more problematic. You can use the DC+1 (difficulty class), divided by 20 to come up with the percentage chance for an unmodified roll. For every plus +1 it increases +5% chance, and for every -1, it decreases -5%. If there is a usual modifier, (like an attribute check), you can subtract the modifier from the DC, add 1, and then divide by 20. The reason it's problematic is that the point of the d20 system, is to constantly be changing modifiers. But it can work. If you're using this system, it's doubtful you'll be using much d20 system material anyway (or you'd just stick with the d20 system). (Note that +1, accounts for the fact the roll is EQUAL or better than, not just better than.)
Some of the most obvious benefits of this system is that it's pretty common sense. If you're Referee is good with math, has some life experience, then coming up with chances for actions can be pretty easy. It's also straight forward: when you say you have 50% chance, people know what it means, so it makes it even easier on players to decide what to do, or to negotiate wit the Referee on what's fair. If you take the time note the most common tasks in your games, you won't need to make it up on the spot much anyway. In fact this is what I plan to do; go through all the fantasy games I have, and note down percent conversions for tasks that are common in my games, or may come up. In fact, this opens you up to converting material from so many games (Runequest, BRP, Arduin, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc.).
As far as "modifiers", there are at least two routes you can go of, that I know of. I might make a universal table, like the Thief modifiers, that gives simple percentage modifiers based on attributes, for relevant tasks. No more than a -15%/+15%. In this fashion, you have the most simple (and closer to the d20 system), plus and minus modifiers. If you want it to hew a little closer to most d100 games, you can use multipliers, and division.
For attribute checks, you can use the method mentioned above, or you can use something closer to BRP's, attribute x 5. If that's too easy (it can yield up 90% chances), you can use x4 (12-72%), or x3(9-54%) even. In Call of Cthulhu, the multiplier can even be based on the situation's difficulty. I'm not sure which one I'll stick with, but I'm leaning more towards the above, since it's simple.
Of course there's always the old school option, and use percentage and other options. Use 3d6 roll under for attribute checks, X in Y chances for racial abilities, d% for adventuring tasks, etc...
As a final word, I'll just restate what I've said above. I like this system a lot, because I'm going to be able to come up with a list of common adventuring tasks, and determine their percentage chances, with some common modifiers. It's simple, easy to grasp, and really straight forward. Furthermore, this list will be for the Referee only, so I will request rolls when I think their needed. It won't be a player tool to turn the game into "roll-playing".
This is an extremely simple, easy to grasp, and easy to convert to system. If you're using the AD&D books, use the percent chances listed. If it's a X in Y chance roll (found in OD&D, B/X, and AD&D), simply find the percent chance using basic math (X divided by Y). With the d20 system this becomes slightly more problematic. You can use the DC+1 (difficulty class), divided by 20 to come up with the percentage chance for an unmodified roll. For every plus +1 it increases +5% chance, and for every -1, it decreases -5%. If there is a usual modifier, (like an attribute check), you can subtract the modifier from the DC, add 1, and then divide by 20. The reason it's problematic is that the point of the d20 system, is to constantly be changing modifiers. But it can work. If you're using this system, it's doubtful you'll be using much d20 system material anyway (or you'd just stick with the d20 system). (Note that +1, accounts for the fact the roll is EQUAL or better than, not just better than.)
Some of the most obvious benefits of this system is that it's pretty common sense. If you're Referee is good with math, has some life experience, then coming up with chances for actions can be pretty easy. It's also straight forward: when you say you have 50% chance, people know what it means, so it makes it even easier on players to decide what to do, or to negotiate wit the Referee on what's fair. If you take the time note the most common tasks in your games, you won't need to make it up on the spot much anyway. In fact this is what I plan to do; go through all the fantasy games I have, and note down percent conversions for tasks that are common in my games, or may come up. In fact, this opens you up to converting material from so many games (Runequest, BRP, Arduin, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc.).
As far as "modifiers", there are at least two routes you can go of, that I know of. I might make a universal table, like the Thief modifiers, that gives simple percentage modifiers based on attributes, for relevant tasks. No more than a -15%/+15%. In this fashion, you have the most simple (and closer to the d20 system), plus and minus modifiers. If you want it to hew a little closer to most d100 games, you can use multipliers, and division.
For attribute checks, you can use the method mentioned above, or you can use something closer to BRP's, attribute x 5. If that's too easy (it can yield up 90% chances), you can use x4 (12-72%), or x3(9-54%) even. In Call of Cthulhu, the multiplier can even be based on the situation's difficulty. I'm not sure which one I'll stick with, but I'm leaning more towards the above, since it's simple.
Of course there's always the old school option, and use percentage and other options. Use 3d6 roll under for attribute checks, X in Y chances for racial abilities, d% for adventuring tasks, etc...
As a final word, I'll just restate what I've said above. I like this system a lot, because I'm going to be able to come up with a list of common adventuring tasks, and determine their percentage chances, with some common modifiers. It's simple, easy to grasp, and really straight forward. Furthermore, this list will be for the Referee only, so I will request rolls when I think their needed. It won't be a player tool to turn the game into "roll-playing".
No Internet!
Our router died on us recently, but luckily a good friend gave us a spare; so that's why I haven't posted anything. I know I go through manic rushes of posts, then periods of nothing. Anyway I haven't a bunch of stuff I want to talk about soon, and now I have internet on my PC again. Before I just had my wife's media PC, and that's not great for writing on.
I'll mostly be posting about idea's I have for OD&D, and expanding upon some solid advice I've heard for running games. I even got to test a lot of them out last night, and they worked really well. In fact I got to play for the first time in a while, and it was a blast. Another good friend of mine (and a total real life bad ass and druid), is moving away for a nice job, so we had a bit of send off sessions for one of his long time characters.
I won't bother with a session recap, I'm not very good at those, and they are always very long. Suffice it to say I got to test out some ideas, I really like. One thing that really struck a chord with me, was what our other friend said. He'd had this idea for a sort of "half-elemental" character, that would channel an electric attack through a sort of "spike and cable" weapon. No problem. I let him cast shocking-grasp at-will, once per round with one of his two attacks. There was a couple other abilities he had, small things, that the player wanted, that weren't a problem (enhanced perception, stealth, etc...). They were tenth level characters, and our friend who was leaving wanted the game to be a bit over the top.
What's important though, is what our friend said after the game. He had been trying for years, using various different games, to play this character concept he had. It was only with me refereeing, using something rules light like OD&D that he had finally gotten to play the character he always wanted. Yes, I know, it's possible in other games, and I'm sure there's something out there (like Mutants and Masterminds) that would have let him do this using the rules. However, in the years he had this character in mind, he was never able to do it.
In the past few months, I've played Pathfinder and D&D NEXT a lot, since that's what most of my new friends like to play. I've sat in on a session of World of Darkness. I don't know what the real reason, and maybe it's just coincidence (or arrogance), but nothing was as fun as last night. Everyone left terribly excited, the game was so full of energy, and there was no complaints or arguing all night. It could have just been the group of players (it was all players who don't get to play often). According to a different player, it could be the Referee (I won't flatter myself though). Or maybe, just maybe, the rules can get in the way, and despite the feel good saying everyone likes to toss around nowadays, maybe the rules do matter. In all likeliness it's a combination of all three (and probably more factors), as it is with anything in life.
Something I did notice though, that is making me like "gamey" D&D (Pathfinder, NEXT) less and less, is we didn't miss the rules. We didn't miss the pages and pages of character abilities (in fact the party Cleric, hated having such a large spell list). We didn't miss specific rules, or battle-grids, or miniatures. I know this isn't anything new, and it's the whole point of the OSR, but so many people have been slipping in more and more rules. I can't remember who pointed it out, but it's "supposedly" the natural progression; to go from "Basic" to "Advanced" D&D. However the more I spend time playing new games, and even using rules like AD&D, the more I get annoyed by the game, and the less creative the players are.
I think there is clearly room for AD&D, "Gygaxian" D&D. It's fun, in it's own right, and there's a reason it's still played. It's fun to have Rangers, Bards, Paladins, etc. It's fun to have class abilities, but after a while I think it gets boring "power attacking" each turn, or tracking "daily, at-will, and encounter" abilities. I'm sure I'm crossing into not-D&D territory here, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think classes are all that important to the adventuring and fun of D&D.
I'm sure I'm getting into a second blog post here, but if you look at the original three classes: Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting-Man, I think they were only there because of Vancian magic. I know you "need" Vancian magic to have that proper D&D feel, but like I said, Gygaxian D&D has it's place, but after a while I think everyone wants to make it there own. Anyway, that's for another post.
I'll mostly be posting about idea's I have for OD&D, and expanding upon some solid advice I've heard for running games. I even got to test a lot of them out last night, and they worked really well. In fact I got to play for the first time in a while, and it was a blast. Another good friend of mine (and a total real life bad ass and druid), is moving away for a nice job, so we had a bit of send off sessions for one of his long time characters.
I won't bother with a session recap, I'm not very good at those, and they are always very long. Suffice it to say I got to test out some ideas, I really like. One thing that really struck a chord with me, was what our other friend said. He'd had this idea for a sort of "half-elemental" character, that would channel an electric attack through a sort of "spike and cable" weapon. No problem. I let him cast shocking-grasp at-will, once per round with one of his two attacks. There was a couple other abilities he had, small things, that the player wanted, that weren't a problem (enhanced perception, stealth, etc...). They were tenth level characters, and our friend who was leaving wanted the game to be a bit over the top.
What's important though, is what our friend said after the game. He had been trying for years, using various different games, to play this character concept he had. It was only with me refereeing, using something rules light like OD&D that he had finally gotten to play the character he always wanted. Yes, I know, it's possible in other games, and I'm sure there's something out there (like Mutants and Masterminds) that would have let him do this using the rules. However, in the years he had this character in mind, he was never able to do it.
In the past few months, I've played Pathfinder and D&D NEXT a lot, since that's what most of my new friends like to play. I've sat in on a session of World of Darkness. I don't know what the real reason, and maybe it's just coincidence (or arrogance), but nothing was as fun as last night. Everyone left terribly excited, the game was so full of energy, and there was no complaints or arguing all night. It could have just been the group of players (it was all players who don't get to play often). According to a different player, it could be the Referee (I won't flatter myself though). Or maybe, just maybe, the rules can get in the way, and despite the feel good saying everyone likes to toss around nowadays, maybe the rules do matter. In all likeliness it's a combination of all three (and probably more factors), as it is with anything in life.
Something I did notice though, that is making me like "gamey" D&D (Pathfinder, NEXT) less and less, is we didn't miss the rules. We didn't miss the pages and pages of character abilities (in fact the party Cleric, hated having such a large spell list). We didn't miss specific rules, or battle-grids, or miniatures. I know this isn't anything new, and it's the whole point of the OSR, but so many people have been slipping in more and more rules. I can't remember who pointed it out, but it's "supposedly" the natural progression; to go from "Basic" to "Advanced" D&D. However the more I spend time playing new games, and even using rules like AD&D, the more I get annoyed by the game, and the less creative the players are.
I think there is clearly room for AD&D, "Gygaxian" D&D. It's fun, in it's own right, and there's a reason it's still played. It's fun to have Rangers, Bards, Paladins, etc. It's fun to have class abilities, but after a while I think it gets boring "power attacking" each turn, or tracking "daily, at-will, and encounter" abilities. I'm sure I'm crossing into not-D&D territory here, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think classes are all that important to the adventuring and fun of D&D.
I'm sure I'm getting into a second blog post here, but if you look at the original three classes: Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting-Man, I think they were only there because of Vancian magic. I know you "need" Vancian magic to have that proper D&D feel, but like I said, Gygaxian D&D has it's place, but after a while I think everyone wants to make it there own. Anyway, that's for another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)