I'm working on races right now, which should take all of 5 minutes, and I'm considering racial abilities. It doesn't seem like much if you say:
"Dwarves have a 2 in 6 chance of finding traps, and other dungeon oddities. They gain a +4 bonus for saving throws versus magic. Against giant-type creatures such as trolls, ogres, giants, and titans, Dwarves are at +4 AC."
That's just a paragraph of description, but still pretty meaty. I'm wondering why I wouldn't include this. Of course, how far is that from just including the full description from AD&D? In OD&D The Dwarf pretty much has that many abilities. However this goes against my idea of emulating Microlite20's minimalistic approach. I mean after all, how much "fun" does any of that actually add to the game? I'm tempted to just keep the 2 in 6 chance of finding traps. It's a cool, unique, and extremely useful ability, that's easy to remember, and doesn't modify some other roll or rule in the game.
I'm thinking for now, keep the most minimalistic approach as possible to get something done and out there. Then if I really want to I can make a "Race Options" booklet that includes meatier description of races. This opens you up for including alternatives like "Wood Elf" or "Grey Dwarf". For those who prefer (like myself), they can stick with the ultra-simple Dwarf and just "roleplay" being a "Grey Dwarf". I think that's what I'll do for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment