I'm all for diversity, but true diversity. When you have a palette, you keep all of the colors separate, so you can paint a lovely picture. You don't dump all of the paints into a cup and mix them into a shit brown color.
Back in the 70's, and early 80's, a lot of guys either weren't happy with D&D, or had an idea of what they wanted their "role playing" to be. These people made their own games: Traveller, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness, Twilight 2000, etc. These games were great because they all played differently (well maybe except Call of Cthulhu and Runequest), had different subject matters, and more importantly: they had different goals and expectations about role playing.
D&D started as a wargame. That doesn't mean what it thinks you mean. What it means, is that there are tangible goals and objectives for players to meet. There are dragons to slay, and gold to haul off. Role playing isn't mechanically encouraged, it's up to players to want to do that, and it's not necessary if they don't want to. Furthermore, there are only mechanics for slaying dragons, hauling off gold, and the tertiary activities involved in meeting those goals (i.e. searching for secret doors, making saving throws, etc.).
Quit making my D&D, some other game. Let it be itself. There is a whole plethora of role playing games out there, that cater to your need to "act and participate in drama". This is pretty much the entire point of the OSR: Old school D&D is fine just the way it is, because it meets its goal, and if you want to "role play" some other way, play another game. There's also no need to make every game out there run under the same rule set. It's not convenient, and it's not "optimal", nor is it actually realistic.
There's no real point to this, I'm just sick of seeing everyone tell me the "correct way" to "role play", or the "do's and dont's" of D&D. Keep it to yourself.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The Sublimity of OD&D: Organization and Layout
The original games, particularly OD&D and AD&D have a bad reputation of being "a disorganized mess". In fact that's the selling point for a lot of Retroclones: "nice, new, clean organization!", "much better layout", etc. The more I play D&D though, the more I start to realize OD&D has the best organization.
In the Little Brown Books the player section, on creating characters, has about a paragraph or two of description for each choice (race, class, etc...), with a note on restrictions and function. Only later does it go into the statistics and rules of the classes themselves. Almost all rolls, except saving throw and attack rolls, are kept in the Referee's section. This allows the Referee to make rulings, instead of players requesting rolls and making use of "skills".
It also keeps the rules for rolls by the activities themselves, and the activities are under relevant sections, instead of pre-loaded in character generation (like in 3E). Rules for searching for secret doors are in the underworld adventures section, and affects of being an elf are described therein, instead of under the elf section. This allows for two great things. First it encourages players to make decisions based off of what's fun or what they want: instead of analyzing the skills and abilities of options. For example if the player wants to play an Elf, they just play an Elf, instead of looking for the best option. Then they through play they get to see what being Elf is all about.
Second, it allows for constant change and updates. Instead of the Races or Classes being tied down to their initial description and abilities, anytime a new situation comes up, the character options can be factored in then. For example, if we run a Sword & Planet campaign, where ray guns are a weapon, and cyborgs are a common "monster". Normally there isn't a save vs "ray gun" (though we could just use Death Ray). Just for the example's sake, we want the Fighter to fill the Flash Gordon/Buck Rodgers, bad ass role and we give him a +2 vs Ray Gan saving throw. There's no need to change the Fighter, or add rules into the player's section. Simple under the Ray Gun description we note that Fighters get a +2 bonus.
A rather short post. I'm sure there's more to be said on the topic, and there's already a lot that has been said.
In the Little Brown Books the player section, on creating characters, has about a paragraph or two of description for each choice (race, class, etc...), with a note on restrictions and function. Only later does it go into the statistics and rules of the classes themselves. Almost all rolls, except saving throw and attack rolls, are kept in the Referee's section. This allows the Referee to make rulings, instead of players requesting rolls and making use of "skills".
It also keeps the rules for rolls by the activities themselves, and the activities are under relevant sections, instead of pre-loaded in character generation (like in 3E). Rules for searching for secret doors are in the underworld adventures section, and affects of being an elf are described therein, instead of under the elf section. This allows for two great things. First it encourages players to make decisions based off of what's fun or what they want: instead of analyzing the skills and abilities of options. For example if the player wants to play an Elf, they just play an Elf, instead of looking for the best option. Then they through play they get to see what being Elf is all about.
Second, it allows for constant change and updates. Instead of the Races or Classes being tied down to their initial description and abilities, anytime a new situation comes up, the character options can be factored in then. For example, if we run a Sword & Planet campaign, where ray guns are a weapon, and cyborgs are a common "monster". Normally there isn't a save vs "ray gun" (though we could just use Death Ray). Just for the example's sake, we want the Fighter to fill the Flash Gordon/Buck Rodgers, bad ass role and we give him a +2 vs Ray Gan saving throw. There's no need to change the Fighter, or add rules into the player's section. Simple under the Ray Gun description we note that Fighters get a +2 bonus.
A rather short post. I'm sure there's more to be said on the topic, and there's already a lot that has been said.
More White Box Class House Rules: Magic-User, Cleric, & Thief
I don't think the Magic-User needs to change, so that can stay the same.
Clerics would stay basically the same, however I like to change the Turn Undead mechanic. No one I've played with likes it, or misses its absence; personally I don't like having to look up tables in the middle of play (I know that seems odd for an old school Ref). Instead I use the Ranger's favored enemy mechanic against undead and demons; the Cleric adds his level to damage scored against those creatures, "smiting" them. Other than that, Clerics stay the same.
Now on to Thieves. For the most part I keep the Thief the same, however I've decided to make the skills static, and non-improving. I've blogged about the logic behind that before, and opened up some discussion on the OD&D forums I recommend checking out. Waysoftheearth has some really good support for this. A quick note; these rules are for White Box style play, which assumes a heroic level of 10, not 20. There is no real cap, as explained the in the LBB, but 10 is definitely considered the goal. Anything past that is just icing on the cake.
The Thief's first function is to "Pick Pockets", which has a 75% chance of success. If the Referee wishes to impose changing difficulty for higher level characters, subtract the victims level times 5. If this system is used it is recommend you add the Thief's Dexterity and Level (not multiplied) to their percent chance of success. Therefore a 10th level Thief, with 18 Dexterity has a 53% chance of pick pocketing a 10th level NPC.
The Thief has a 60% chance of to "Disable Devices" of a mechanical nature, such as locks or small traps (like poison needle locks). Such a roll also serves to detect and find the trap.
The Thief has a 55% chance to "Sneak", which can be used in lieu of the normal "Surprise" roll. Thieves can spend a turn "sneaking" during combat; if they are successful in "sneaking", the Thief gains a +4 "to hit", and deals double damage. At 5th level damage increase to triple, and at 9th level damage increases to quadruple.
Finally Thieves have a 35% chance to "Hear Noises", whether quiet ruminations off in the distance, or rumblings of some monster beyond a door or portal. Thieves also have a 90% chance to "Climb Walls" or other vertical surfaces. They cannot be perfectly smooth, and must have some form of footholds or ledges. Mountains, trees with plenty of branches, and other easily climbable surfaces need not be rolled for (including the use of rope and grappling hook), and can usually be climbed by anyone.
So that rounds out the four basic classes that everyone's familiar with. I'll probably do the Ranger, and maybe Paladin next.
Clerics would stay basically the same, however I like to change the Turn Undead mechanic. No one I've played with likes it, or misses its absence; personally I don't like having to look up tables in the middle of play (I know that seems odd for an old school Ref). Instead I use the Ranger's favored enemy mechanic against undead and demons; the Cleric adds his level to damage scored against those creatures, "smiting" them. Other than that, Clerics stay the same.
Now on to Thieves. For the most part I keep the Thief the same, however I've decided to make the skills static, and non-improving. I've blogged about the logic behind that before, and opened up some discussion on the OD&D forums I recommend checking out. Waysoftheearth has some really good support for this. A quick note; these rules are for White Box style play, which assumes a heroic level of 10, not 20. There is no real cap, as explained the in the LBB, but 10 is definitely considered the goal. Anything past that is just icing on the cake.
The Thief's first function is to "Pick Pockets", which has a 75% chance of success. If the Referee wishes to impose changing difficulty for higher level characters, subtract the victims level times 5. If this system is used it is recommend you add the Thief's Dexterity and Level (not multiplied) to their percent chance of success. Therefore a 10th level Thief, with 18 Dexterity has a 53% chance of pick pocketing a 10th level NPC.
The Thief has a 60% chance of to "Disable Devices" of a mechanical nature, such as locks or small traps (like poison needle locks). Such a roll also serves to detect and find the trap.
The Thief has a 55% chance to "Sneak", which can be used in lieu of the normal "Surprise" roll. Thieves can spend a turn "sneaking" during combat; if they are successful in "sneaking", the Thief gains a +4 "to hit", and deals double damage. At 5th level damage increase to triple, and at 9th level damage increases to quadruple.
Finally Thieves have a 35% chance to "Hear Noises", whether quiet ruminations off in the distance, or rumblings of some monster beyond a door or portal. Thieves also have a 90% chance to "Climb Walls" or other vertical surfaces. They cannot be perfectly smooth, and must have some form of footholds or ledges. Mountains, trees with plenty of branches, and other easily climbable surfaces need not be rolled for (including the use of rope and grappling hook), and can usually be climbed by anyone.
So that rounds out the four basic classes that everyone's familiar with. I'll probably do the Ranger, and maybe Paladin next.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Greyhawk Fighting-Man for White Box
Here's an option for a White Box D&D, as an alternative to the Greyhawk Fighter. I'm going to try and come up with a bunch of alternative White Box classes for fun. I hope to have each class description down to one to three paragraphs, so expect these posts to be extremely short; I'd lump them together, but I've only got the Fighter so far, and don't want to wait. Anyway, on to the Fighter.
This is meant to be a much simpler Fighter, with no need to reference tables. This runs under the assumption you either don't use universal ability score modifiers, or they are limited to +1/-1 as presented in Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox. This is should serve to greatly strengthen the Fighter against other classes, and makes the class a great simple option for players to choose from. These rules also assume 1d6 hit dice for every character, regardless of class.
For every point of Strength over 14 (starting at 15), the Fighter gains a +1 bonus "to hit" and damage rolls in melee combat. For every point of Constitution over 14, the Fighter gains a +1 bonus to hit points rolled. For every point of Dexterity over 14, the Fighter gains a +1 bonus to armor class.
At 10th level, the Fighter gains an additional attack per turn. Against creatures of 1 hit die or less, the Fighter can attack a number of times equal to his level; this can be spread amongst multiple opponents.
I'm toying with making the Fighter an all around combat bad-ass like he was originally, so I might consider giving him a +1 "to hit" ranged bonus for every point of Dexterity over 14, thought I could reserve that for the Ranger.
There is a clear precedence for the above Fighter in Greyhawk, as he's more or less a simplified version of the Greyhawk Fighter, with my interpretation of the parry rules. So it's not really anything special, just thought I'd share. In retrospect I guess should say this my adaptation of the Greyhawk Fighter for White Box D&D.
I personally like this option, because it resembles the fighters from literature I'm familiar with. A character who is personified by his attributes and strength. It also gives a simple, straightforward class option, not reliant on a plethora of abilities.
This is meant to be a much simpler Fighter, with no need to reference tables. This runs under the assumption you either don't use universal ability score modifiers, or they are limited to +1/-1 as presented in Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox. This is should serve to greatly strengthen the Fighter against other classes, and makes the class a great simple option for players to choose from. These rules also assume 1d6 hit dice for every character, regardless of class.
For every point of Strength over 14 (starting at 15), the Fighter gains a +1 bonus "to hit" and damage rolls in melee combat. For every point of Constitution over 14, the Fighter gains a +1 bonus to hit points rolled. For every point of Dexterity over 14, the Fighter gains a +1 bonus to armor class.
At 10th level, the Fighter gains an additional attack per turn. Against creatures of 1 hit die or less, the Fighter can attack a number of times equal to his level; this can be spread amongst multiple opponents.
I'm toying with making the Fighter an all around combat bad-ass like he was originally, so I might consider giving him a +1 "to hit" ranged bonus for every point of Dexterity over 14, thought I could reserve that for the Ranger.
There is a clear precedence for the above Fighter in Greyhawk, as he's more or less a simplified version of the Greyhawk Fighter, with my interpretation of the parry rules. So it's not really anything special, just thought I'd share. In retrospect I guess should say this my adaptation of the Greyhawk Fighter for White Box D&D.
I personally like this option, because it resembles the fighters from literature I'm familiar with. A character who is personified by his attributes and strength. It also gives a simple, straightforward class option, not reliant on a plethora of abilities.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Greyt Minds Think Alike
No I'm not getting a big head, I just couldn't resist the pun. I've been going on about games I like lately, in the spirit of spreading the good word. I found something recently that is exactly what I've been looking for lately. I've gone on and on about a d20 lite kind of game, and I realize it's not the d20 system, or Pathfinder, or even 3E that I like; it's the spirit it tries to capture.
3E tried to capture the feel of 1E, you can tell by the book releases, and a lot of the names and titles of things. In particular to me, the class selection is what really drew me to 3E. I love 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, and OD&D, but none of them has all of the classes I want in one place. 1st doesn't have a Bard that I like, and 2E is missing the Monk, Barbarian, and Assassin (though some of them got added in later. OD&D has all of it, but they're sort of proto-classes of the time.
3E is a bit too complicated for my liking, but it has all of the classes I feel are essential to that D&D feel, and most of them live up to what I think of those classes (except the Barbarian). So I've been looking for a sort of rules-lite variant of 3E/d20/Pathfinder, and just couldn't find anything that really "felt right" too me. See people have this misconception that "rules light" means "minimalist", and too me that's just not the case.
Enter Grey Matter and Grey Six. Essential the same game, just different variants, it's a kind of Swords & Wizardry hack, that adds in a lot of options. The best part about these games is that they add in a ton of options and material, but the actual rules involved in playing are probably less than 64 pages. See you have a lot of games that have been taking the rules light method, by simply removing everything that is "non-essential". There's a lot of new wave clones that are going for the "we only need four (three) classes", "we don't need classes", "less is better" routes. I know it sounds hypocritical because I've been pushing for "classless" D&, but as I've explained before, it's actually to open up more options for ad-hoc role playing.
The other part I really love about Grey Matter, that sets it above the other options I've explored (Castles & Crusades, Blood & Treasure, etc.), is that it doesn't have a weird gimmick. Instead it takes a set of already established, well-played, and familiar rules, and just adds some material. Castles & Crusades turns away a lot of people with it's SIEGE engine (whether you like it or not, lots of people can't get past it). Blood & Treasure has a lovely simple skill system, but I just don't like having skills tied to saving throws; it just feels weird.
Instead Grey Matter/Six has all of the familiar parts of D&D (at least Swords & Wizardry): thief skills (d20, but easily converted to percentile), single saving throw value (but it maintains the classic saves like Death, Magic, etc.), ability score bonuses that are considerable but not extreme, etc.
However I'll admit it's not entirely old school, and definitely not a true clone. For a lot of us though that's a great thing. If I want to play old school D&D I'll play a true clone, or the real thing; they're already there. For example the classes are very simple (usually less than a page), and so aren't 100% true to the original classes, but they do capture the spirit and archetype very well. There is only one experience progression chart, like 3E. I'm sure there's more, but the point is Grey Matter is in that category of C&C and B&T: a rules-lite alternative to 3E/d20. If you want the feel of "D&D", with none of the hassle, I highly recommend Gray Matter/Six.
Another virtue of Grey Matter that I love is the modularity of classes. It has a ton of races, and they're usually a paragraph or two in material, and it's great to plunder. It has literally over a thousand monsters (IIRC), and hundreds of spells. But it's strong point is really classes. Like I said above they're so simple, but really capture the feel of the classes so well. Furthermore he makes sure to include (in my opinion) the important abilities and aspects of class, with less of the mess and minor abilities to keep track of. The best part of the classes, and why it's the strong part, is that they all fit on a page, so you can print out the classes you like and slip them into whatever D&D like game you're playing. Of course the same goes for the rest of the material, but it's just so convenient with the classes in particular.
As for myself I'm currently assembling a sort of AD&D inspired players handbook. I'll probably still work on my Advanced Fantasy game, because Grey Matter isn't precisely what I had in mind, but it is so refreshing to mess with. It's so simple, and is a great intro for new players (whether fresh, or just new to old school play).
3E tried to capture the feel of 1E, you can tell by the book releases, and a lot of the names and titles of things. In particular to me, the class selection is what really drew me to 3E. I love 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, and OD&D, but none of them has all of the classes I want in one place. 1st doesn't have a Bard that I like, and 2E is missing the Monk, Barbarian, and Assassin (though some of them got added in later. OD&D has all of it, but they're sort of proto-classes of the time.
3E is a bit too complicated for my liking, but it has all of the classes I feel are essential to that D&D feel, and most of them live up to what I think of those classes (except the Barbarian). So I've been looking for a sort of rules-lite variant of 3E/d20/Pathfinder, and just couldn't find anything that really "felt right" too me. See people have this misconception that "rules light" means "minimalist", and too me that's just not the case.
Enter Grey Matter and Grey Six. Essential the same game, just different variants, it's a kind of Swords & Wizardry hack, that adds in a lot of options. The best part about these games is that they add in a ton of options and material, but the actual rules involved in playing are probably less than 64 pages. See you have a lot of games that have been taking the rules light method, by simply removing everything that is "non-essential". There's a lot of new wave clones that are going for the "we only need four (three) classes", "we don't need classes", "less is better" routes. I know it sounds hypocritical because I've been pushing for "classless" D&, but as I've explained before, it's actually to open up more options for ad-hoc role playing.
The other part I really love about Grey Matter, that sets it above the other options I've explored (Castles & Crusades, Blood & Treasure, etc.), is that it doesn't have a weird gimmick. Instead it takes a set of already established, well-played, and familiar rules, and just adds some material. Castles & Crusades turns away a lot of people with it's SIEGE engine (whether you like it or not, lots of people can't get past it). Blood & Treasure has a lovely simple skill system, but I just don't like having skills tied to saving throws; it just feels weird.
Instead Grey Matter/Six has all of the familiar parts of D&D (at least Swords & Wizardry): thief skills (d20, but easily converted to percentile), single saving throw value (but it maintains the classic saves like Death, Magic, etc.), ability score bonuses that are considerable but not extreme, etc.
However I'll admit it's not entirely old school, and definitely not a true clone. For a lot of us though that's a great thing. If I want to play old school D&D I'll play a true clone, or the real thing; they're already there. For example the classes are very simple (usually less than a page), and so aren't 100% true to the original classes, but they do capture the spirit and archetype very well. There is only one experience progression chart, like 3E. I'm sure there's more, but the point is Grey Matter is in that category of C&C and B&T: a rules-lite alternative to 3E/d20. If you want the feel of "D&D", with none of the hassle, I highly recommend Gray Matter/Six.
Another virtue of Grey Matter that I love is the modularity of classes. It has a ton of races, and they're usually a paragraph or two in material, and it's great to plunder. It has literally over a thousand monsters (IIRC), and hundreds of spells. But it's strong point is really classes. Like I said above they're so simple, but really capture the feel of the classes so well. Furthermore he makes sure to include (in my opinion) the important abilities and aspects of class, with less of the mess and minor abilities to keep track of. The best part of the classes, and why it's the strong part, is that they all fit on a page, so you can print out the classes you like and slip them into whatever D&D like game you're playing. Of course the same goes for the rest of the material, but it's just so convenient with the classes in particular.
As for myself I'm currently assembling a sort of AD&D inspired players handbook. I'll probably still work on my Advanced Fantasy game, because Grey Matter isn't precisely what I had in mind, but it is so refreshing to mess with. It's so simple, and is a great intro for new players (whether fresh, or just new to old school play).
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Meaningful Challenge Rolls
Not many rolls in old school D&D improve aside from Attacks and Saving Throws. Those that do improve tend to just improve - with few, or no difficulty modifiers. Saving Throws, for example, usually range from around 17 to 4 (4 being better), and the worst difficulty modifier I can think of is -4. That's 13 points of difference, -4, comes to a 9 point difference. Thief skills, as another example, usually only improve, and if there are modifiers they are situational, not scaling in difficulty.
The d20 system on the other hand has scaling "difficulty class", that increases alongside character skill bonuses. In old school D&D, instead of rolls getting harder to pass, it's the consequences that increase. Instead of monsters that are harder to sneak by, the monsters become scarier to sneak pass. You have a better chance of succeeding, but the stakes are higher.
For example a higher level thief trying to sneak past a dragon, has a decent chance of succeeding, and sneaking off with treasure. However, if the thief fails his "move silently" roll, he has a dragon to contend with. The thief has improved his skill, and he doesn't get an arbitrary penalty to keep the chances the same as if he was a low level thief; the dragon doesn't have some increased chance of spotting him. Instead, if he fails his roll, the dragon can breath fire and eat him, unlike some low level goblins.
I feel like this adds a real dynamic to the game, and makes game play, experience, and improvement meaningful. Just some quick musing really.
The d20 system on the other hand has scaling "difficulty class", that increases alongside character skill bonuses. In old school D&D, instead of rolls getting harder to pass, it's the consequences that increase. Instead of monsters that are harder to sneak by, the monsters become scarier to sneak pass. You have a better chance of succeeding, but the stakes are higher.
For example a higher level thief trying to sneak past a dragon, has a decent chance of succeeding, and sneaking off with treasure. However, if the thief fails his "move silently" roll, he has a dragon to contend with. The thief has improved his skill, and he doesn't get an arbitrary penalty to keep the chances the same as if he was a low level thief; the dragon doesn't have some increased chance of spotting him. Instead, if he fails his roll, the dragon can breath fire and eat him, unlike some low level goblins.
I feel like this adds a real dynamic to the game, and makes game play, experience, and improvement meaningful. Just some quick musing really.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
No Prep D&D as the Socratic Method
If you're not familiar with the Socratic Method, it's basically asking questions to teach. I know that's a bit of an over simplification, but you'll understand better as you read on.
I'm not sure if I've interpreted this wrong, or if this is a way some people play Old School D&D, but I've always imagined it (and played it) as a sort of question and answer discussion between the Referee and players. A lot of examples show this: "Is there a lever on the wall? . . . I press it, what does it do?", "Do I notice anything odd about the hallway? . . . what color is the shine?", etc...
This might have come naturally to me because I've always liked the Socratic method, in high school I loved reading Socrates and Plato. With my friends it always inspired critical thinking, free thought, and drawing your own conclusions. In my opinion, D&D, is very much a game of critical thinking, and being free to do what you want.
I'm also a rather lazy Referee. I usually come up with some general ideas, and or a broad concept of what I want to do. From there I let the players fill in the gap by asking questions. When they ask a question, I ask myself "does it make the game more interesting/fun? does it make sense? and what are the possible repercussions of this?". I'm sure tons of people do this, and I'm not special. I do know that it's more typical to spend a lot of time preparing games and campaigns, and having everything planned out ahead of time.
Let me give an example of this. First let me warn you, I'm probably an easier Referee than other old-schoolers (or at least the perception of them). I let my players get away with stuff in the interest of having a good time, and making a good story. I'm not one (anymore) to say "Well you didn't specify that ahead of time". Maybe if it's something big that they really should have specified I'll tell them no. Normally though if it's something there character would have done naturally, or something that makes a lot of sense, I'll let them get away with it.
One time I was playing OD&D with my wife and good friend we'll call Fighter (incidentally in real life he was a Fire Fighter, so how about that). They had made camp in the woods, and were awoken that night by a boar digging through their camp. Fighter had specified ahead of time that they slept about 25 yards away from where their fire and food had been. When the boar charged Fighter said he jumped upon a log they had made camp by. His argument was that he was playing a Ranger, and would have definitely thought to camp near some cover. Being that it was the woods, there's tons of broken and fallen logs, and he was a Ranger. So why not.
That was a bit more proactive on the player's part, but often a similar process happens when we play. In almost any instance I don't take time to give very detailed descriptions. Anything extremely important to the encounter or campaign I'll describe, or major terrain features such as whether it's the woods or mountains, I'll be sure to include. But normally I don't take time to describe the rocks on the side of the road, or whether there are bones on the floor in a dungeon, or exactly how many boulders there are in the valley.
Instead I like players to come up with fun plans or allow them play out their ideas in the game. Players might come up with some really awesome plan involving the terrain or miscellany in the dungeon. If it's fun and makes sense I'll probably let the required materials be near by. Obviously I'm not letting them find whole contraptions, or free armor, or even ray guns and tanks. Simple miscellaneous material though, like ropes, candle sticks, old furniture, and kitchenware, why not.
The point in all of this, is that I don't take time to prep much. I leave game world a blank canvas for my players and I to cooperatively paint a cool picture (one involving wizards, and knights, and lots of adventure). Not only does this save me time, but it's the players imagination and creativity run wild, without being restricted to few ideas I could come up with during preparation. Of course this is just my way of playing.
I'm not sure if I've interpreted this wrong, or if this is a way some people play Old School D&D, but I've always imagined it (and played it) as a sort of question and answer discussion between the Referee and players. A lot of examples show this: "Is there a lever on the wall? . . . I press it, what does it do?", "Do I notice anything odd about the hallway? . . . what color is the shine?", etc...
This might have come naturally to me because I've always liked the Socratic method, in high school I loved reading Socrates and Plato. With my friends it always inspired critical thinking, free thought, and drawing your own conclusions. In my opinion, D&D, is very much a game of critical thinking, and being free to do what you want.
I'm also a rather lazy Referee. I usually come up with some general ideas, and or a broad concept of what I want to do. From there I let the players fill in the gap by asking questions. When they ask a question, I ask myself "does it make the game more interesting/fun? does it make sense? and what are the possible repercussions of this?". I'm sure tons of people do this, and I'm not special. I do know that it's more typical to spend a lot of time preparing games and campaigns, and having everything planned out ahead of time.
Let me give an example of this. First let me warn you, I'm probably an easier Referee than other old-schoolers (or at least the perception of them). I let my players get away with stuff in the interest of having a good time, and making a good story. I'm not one (anymore) to say "Well you didn't specify that ahead of time". Maybe if it's something big that they really should have specified I'll tell them no. Normally though if it's something there character would have done naturally, or something that makes a lot of sense, I'll let them get away with it.
One time I was playing OD&D with my wife and good friend we'll call Fighter (incidentally in real life he was a Fire Fighter, so how about that). They had made camp in the woods, and were awoken that night by a boar digging through their camp. Fighter had specified ahead of time that they slept about 25 yards away from where their fire and food had been. When the boar charged Fighter said he jumped upon a log they had made camp by. His argument was that he was playing a Ranger, and would have definitely thought to camp near some cover. Being that it was the woods, there's tons of broken and fallen logs, and he was a Ranger. So why not.
That was a bit more proactive on the player's part, but often a similar process happens when we play. In almost any instance I don't take time to give very detailed descriptions. Anything extremely important to the encounter or campaign I'll describe, or major terrain features such as whether it's the woods or mountains, I'll be sure to include. But normally I don't take time to describe the rocks on the side of the road, or whether there are bones on the floor in a dungeon, or exactly how many boulders there are in the valley.
Instead I like players to come up with fun plans or allow them play out their ideas in the game. Players might come up with some really awesome plan involving the terrain or miscellany in the dungeon. If it's fun and makes sense I'll probably let the required materials be near by. Obviously I'm not letting them find whole contraptions, or free armor, or even ray guns and tanks. Simple miscellaneous material though, like ropes, candle sticks, old furniture, and kitchenware, why not.
The point in all of this, is that I don't take time to prep much. I leave game world a blank canvas for my players and I to cooperatively paint a cool picture (one involving wizards, and knights, and lots of adventure). Not only does this save me time, but it's the players imagination and creativity run wild, without being restricted to few ideas I could come up with during preparation. Of course this is just my way of playing.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Classes as Starting Packages
I've already talked about how most classes can be emulated just by, or mostly through, equipment selection. I'm pretty sure I've already stated I think Wizards and Clerics can be played by purchasing spell scrolls and "miracles" from shops and churches. If one doesn't like the magic shop on every corner world, you could instead say the wizard is making scrolls, having to discover recipes and formulas to create those scrolls, the cost being an abstraction. Anyway on to my idea.
For the basic four classes of D&D I propose the following starting packages.
Fighter: Chain mail, Shield, and three Weapons.
Thief: Thieves tools, rope and grappling hook, dagger, and leather armor.
Wizard: Lesser Wand (level 1 spell, 10 charges), recipe for level 1 spell scroll (gifted by former master), and staff or dagger.
Cleric: Spell Scroll (Cleric, 3 Spells, level 1 each), 1 healing potion, Chain mail, and a blunt weapon.
Spells can be either be randomly selected through dice roll, or chosen by the player, at referee discretion. Weapons should normally be player preference.
Every character should also get 1d6 (3 on average) minor utility items (under 5gp each), or 3d6 gold pieces to spend on extra equipment.
This does give spell casting characters more value to start with, and also equipment that can't normally be purchased. However this is to compensate for the fact there aren't any classes that can naturally cast spells. Besides, with old school D&D, it should be about player cooperation, and what the players actually want to play (and will have fun playing); not about fairness and equality. Everyone could choose to be a wizard, but not everyone wants to be a wizard. If it is of major concern, referees could allow more freely spendable gold to Fighters and Thieves.
These are just some quick packages I've thought up. You could come up with more I'm sure: Rangers getting animal traps, and two small weapons, and a bow; Bards could get an instrument, fancy clothes (c'mon its a Bard), Lenses of Charming, etc...
For the basic four classes of D&D I propose the following starting packages.
Fighter: Chain mail, Shield, and three Weapons.
Thief: Thieves tools, rope and grappling hook, dagger, and leather armor.
Wizard: Lesser Wand (level 1 spell, 10 charges), recipe for level 1 spell scroll (gifted by former master), and staff or dagger.
Cleric: Spell Scroll (Cleric, 3 Spells, level 1 each), 1 healing potion, Chain mail, and a blunt weapon.
Spells can be either be randomly selected through dice roll, or chosen by the player, at referee discretion. Weapons should normally be player preference.
Every character should also get 1d6 (3 on average) minor utility items (under 5gp each), or 3d6 gold pieces to spend on extra equipment.
This does give spell casting characters more value to start with, and also equipment that can't normally be purchased. However this is to compensate for the fact there aren't any classes that can naturally cast spells. Besides, with old school D&D, it should be about player cooperation, and what the players actually want to play (and will have fun playing); not about fairness and equality. Everyone could choose to be a wizard, but not everyone wants to be a wizard. If it is of major concern, referees could allow more freely spendable gold to Fighters and Thieves.
These are just some quick packages I've thought up. You could come up with more I'm sure: Rangers getting animal traps, and two small weapons, and a bow; Bards could get an instrument, fancy clothes (c'mon its a Bard), Lenses of Charming, etc...
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
For Something Completely Unrelated . . . Battletech!
I think I've mentioned a couple times that my first interest in tabletop gaming was BattleTech. I thought I'd take the time to post some house rules for that, my wife and I just tested. It seems to be a common thing that people want to speed up or simplify BattleTech. In most cases, like mine, they still love BattleTech, but just want a quick fix now and again, when the full rules are somewhat (or very) inconvenient.
The main contender right now is Alpha Strike, which is pretty cool, but not my cup of tea. It simplifies the game too much for my liking, removing the components I consider essential to BattleTech's feel, namely hit locations and weapon selection. The Quick Start rules also seem to be popular, but once again I feel them just a little lacking. The current house rules we came up with, though, can be used with the Quick Start rules for extremely fast play, or simply used to modify the full rules.
The rules are a bit like D&D in the feel and way they play. They're extremely simple, and definitely increase lethality, chaos, and random chance. Currently I like using them with the Quick Start rules, and adding Heat management, as I said I consider heat essential.
Here are my current BattleTech house rules:
1) All 2d6 rolls are now 1d12. Any roll of 1 on a table, is rerolled (or accepted as 2 or 12, your choice).
2) "To-hit" rolls of 12 are critical hits, causing double damage. Rolls of 1 are critical failures, usually resulting in ammunition jams.
3) Hit location is rolled on 1d8: 1 Center Torso, 2 Right Torso, 3 Left Torso, 4 Right Arm, 5 Left Arm, 6 Right Leg, 7 Left Leg, 8 Head. Attacks to the rear are rolled as normal, but double damage is scored on any torso hit, critical hits scoring triple damage.
Obviously removing bell curves makes the game more random, but I find that you hit more often this way, meaning the game plays faster. The hit locations are also more random, but I noticed with the normal table it definitely had a tendency to hit out towards in (I'm sure intentional)
Some rules I'm considering using:
4) Movement points are per hex, facing changes don't require movement points, and facing is declared at the end of the turn.
All of these changes definitely alter the game play quite a bit, and make it a little less tactical, but that's fine for quick play in my opinion. Furthermore I think it lends itself to larger battles (something I like for sure).
I had also considered a lite version of the game that used a derivative of Total Armor Factor (including Internal Structure), probably cut in half. Hit locations would be rolled for critical hits, representing limb destruction. This would be even faster, and better for large group play, but it wouldn't work with the standard record sheets. I might post this later as well.
The main contender right now is Alpha Strike, which is pretty cool, but not my cup of tea. It simplifies the game too much for my liking, removing the components I consider essential to BattleTech's feel, namely hit locations and weapon selection. The Quick Start rules also seem to be popular, but once again I feel them just a little lacking. The current house rules we came up with, though, can be used with the Quick Start rules for extremely fast play, or simply used to modify the full rules.
The rules are a bit like D&D in the feel and way they play. They're extremely simple, and definitely increase lethality, chaos, and random chance. Currently I like using them with the Quick Start rules, and adding Heat management, as I said I consider heat essential.
Here are my current BattleTech house rules:
1) All 2d6 rolls are now 1d12. Any roll of 1 on a table, is rerolled (or accepted as 2 or 12, your choice).
2) "To-hit" rolls of 12 are critical hits, causing double damage. Rolls of 1 are critical failures, usually resulting in ammunition jams.
3) Hit location is rolled on 1d8: 1 Center Torso, 2 Right Torso, 3 Left Torso, 4 Right Arm, 5 Left Arm, 6 Right Leg, 7 Left Leg, 8 Head. Attacks to the rear are rolled as normal, but double damage is scored on any torso hit, critical hits scoring triple damage.
Obviously removing bell curves makes the game more random, but I find that you hit more often this way, meaning the game plays faster. The hit locations are also more random, but I noticed with the normal table it definitely had a tendency to hit out towards in (I'm sure intentional)
Some rules I'm considering using:
4) Movement points are per hex, facing changes don't require movement points, and facing is declared at the end of the turn.
All of these changes definitely alter the game play quite a bit, and make it a little less tactical, but that's fine for quick play in my opinion. Furthermore I think it lends itself to larger battles (something I like for sure).
I had also considered a lite version of the game that used a derivative of Total Armor Factor (including Internal Structure), probably cut in half. Hit locations would be rolled for critical hits, representing limb destruction. This would be even faster, and better for large group play, but it wouldn't work with the standard record sheets. I might post this later as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)