Attributes
Attributes of 15 or higher grant a +1 to relevant rolls and statistics. Strength for damage and to-hit, Constitution for hit points per hit die, Dexterity for armor class, etc. Stats are determined by 3d6, and arranged to taste.
An interesting rule I found is using Charisma to determine party leader/caller. I found it under Dave Arneson's house rules. I think it's a great way to make Charisma a useful ability. I've also found that having a party leader is extremely important for group cohesion honestly. It's very interesting to note as well that Arneson's "party leader" was purely an in character leader, and does not have to be someone the group likes in real life, but literally a sort of company manager, which makes sense in a group of explorers.
Races
This is one of the tougher ones for me. On one hand I love OD&D's idea of having almost no apparent difference between the races (except a few saving throw bonuses, and class restrictions), and then having a bunch of adventuring "skills" in the Referee's section of the book, affected by race. On the other hand I think just having a simple attribute score modifier system for them is totally adequate, and I like the simplicity of it.
Classes
Magic-Users and Clerics as is. I'm debating using Wizard and Priest as the names, just because it reminds of the old Roguelike games (basing my rules, on a game, based on D&D, funny too me). I'm toying with the idea of restricting Priests to chain mail, just because it splits up the armor types nicely, and gives the Fighter one more specialty.
Fighters are a tough one. Going by the book is an okay option, just letting them kill stuff plain and simple. I'm thinking at least giving them an extra attack at 10th level would be nice. Maybe giving them a couple +1's to damage and to-hit as they progress. Also thinking of renaming the class "Knight". This doesn't make much sense actually, as the idea behind OD&D is that the Fighter can be any type of fighter (Barbarian, Samurai, Soldier, etc.). I just like the way Knight sounds honestly, nothing important really.
Thief/Rogue is definitely not being included. I used to understand most people's thoughts on cutting the Thief out, but I always enjoyed them, and thought they were a classic RPG staple. Now a days though, I just can't stand the way modern players insist on playing the Thief. They think it's an excuse to try and steal everything, and back stab other players. Furthermore, they absolutely insist on using the Thief's skills as frequently as possible. One player would try and climb a tree every time they got into a combat, or every time they were travelling, just because it was one of their skills on their character sheet.
I really don't want to include skills, or at least not skills on the character sheets, for the above mentioned reasons, so definitely not Thief. However, I really like having four classes, and I like the idea of a lighter fighter type. I think the Ranger is a great fit, and it's always been one of my favorite classes, especially the 1E Ranger. With that said, his main ability of 50% chance for surprise is kind of a skill, so I don't know if I want to include that. On the other hand I've always liked how that was such a simple implementation of a "skill" that wasn't complicated, and already present in the game. Though to counterpoint that, I don't players having separate chances for surprise, given that they are supposed to be a team. Rangers could be allowed a separate roll for surprise though, giving them an independent opportunity for a first attack, or ability to hide.
Just those four classes should suffice. There is the temptation to go kitchen-sink like usual, but typically it just complicates the game, and makes players more focused on mechanical character development. Arduin has some cool classes though, with a nice weird-fantasy feel, so I'm still considering this aspect.
Hit dice will be the Greyhawk variant, most likely, with the Ranger getting a d6, instead of the Thief's d4.
Skills
I'm going to just keep a list of common adventuring tasks, with percent chances, and maybe a chance out of d6/d8 roll as an option (keep players on their toes, I love when they have no clue what whether they should roll high or low). I'll be using examples from OD&D to start my list, and I'll probably check AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, Palladium Fantasy RPG, and Runequest for some ideas.
Magic
Nothing special here. I am going to use the 2E AD&D spells instead of straight OD&D. The only real reason for this decision is that there a ton of spells available, and they are neatly divided into Priest and Wizard.
Combat
OD&D combat, but I'll be combing AD&D 1E & 2E for some common combat modifiers, like high ground, and flanking.
I have a new system for grappling and wresting: both characters involved in the grapple roll a d20 adding their level/hit die total. Players can add their Strength or Dexterity bonus, depending on the description of their actions. Whoever rolls higher wins. You could have a character declare ahead of time, that they are going to grapple a character attempting to attack them. They would just do the above, and the attacker would make the usual attack roll. I'm going to use the basic monsters add their level/hit die total for attack rolls (ascending armor class), so it would work out the same. If the defender loses, the attack functions as normal. I think the player would probably have to not have already attacked/moved that turn. I'll probably make a post detailing this more later.
Monsters
The point of this is that you should be able to use monsters from anywhere, with little to no conversion. The only real concern is Armor Class. If you just left most non OD&D monsters as is, they have rather high Armor Classes, and they can get out of hand, even in AD&D, with AC -10[30]. This isn't so much a problem if I use the AD&D attack matrices (which I plan to do). However I find it kind of silly, because there doesn't seem to be much logic to how the AC's for most monsters were determined. Also, if you check out the XP rewards chart from AD&D 2E, for example, you only get a higher XP reward for huge differences in armor class. Why does an AC 0[20] increase a monsters XP worth, and not an AC 1[19], or an AC -10[30]?
I'm starting to think the easiest way to deal with this, is what I recall from "Isle of the Unknown". Simply consider whether the monster's defenses are similar to plain flesh, leather, chain mail/scale, or plate mail. You can give a +1 (ascending AC) for a highly agile or fast creature, maybe a +2 for an inhumanly fast creature. Another +1 for any creature that has some defense resembling a shield, or a natural ability to block or parry well. I think it's a +4 for a creature that is flying, though this one may be unnecessary. After all if a creature flies by close enough to attack you, then you can attack it. Perhaps only a +1 for flying creatures, due to agility, and then a -4 to ranged attack rolls when a creature is flying around. Finally, a +1 to +5 for magical defenses (such as being on fire), though personally I don't like using these.
The above should keep Armor Class more inline with white box OD&D armor classes, and be very easy to then convert any creature. It doesn't perfectly remedy the reward problem, but it should limit the ridiculous disparity in AC of later systems. Besides, old school D&D isn't supposed to be perfectly balanced (though the usual imbalance caused by the above is too much for me).
Rewards, Level Advancements, and Statistics
I do believe I'll using 2E AD&D's XP requirements for level, and XP rewards from monsters. It's got he best table and calculation chart that I remember coming across, therefore making conversion of monsters the easiest. It also makes XP and treasure numbers quite high, which is a nice feel. If everything else is kept low (+1's, hit points, etc.), I think it's okay to give out piles of treasure. From my research, and play experience, it's the best middle ground for using material from any edition as well. Players can easily buy equipment from any editions material, gold values of magic items for including them in hoards work well with this model as well.
For treasure, I really like Swords & Wizardry's treasure rules. Simply roll 1d6, and consult a chart giving you a number 2 - 4, multiply that number times the XP of the encounter, and your done. It's elegant, and it's simple. Most importantly, it's worked in all my games so far, and meshes with the advice, I believe found in B/X, stating that around 75% of experience should come from treasure. This rule has also worked well with the 2E AD&D XP charts I mention above. Having used that chart for most of my games, I've noticed it provides a good pace of advancement in games.
Sources & Inspiration
I'm using a variety of sources for this, and I intend to comb through them more thoroughly for ideas, advice, and any other useful material such as rules, tables, charts, monsters, treasure, etc. Below are some of the places I'm digging in for this project. The long term goal though, is to use material from literally anywhere and everywhere, the following is just what I'm starting with.
(Sources are in no particular order)
- Original Dungeons & Dragons, as well as it's supplements, Strategic Review, and early Dragon Magazine
- 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide"
- 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide"
- Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game, 2nd Edition
- Runequest Classic Edition
- Arduin Grimoire, Vol I - IV
- Microlite74 and Microlite81
- Swords & Wizardry
- Dave Arneson's House Rules
- Gary Gygax's House Rules
- Basic Dungeons & Dragons, both B/X and Holmes
- Philotomy's Musings (absolute gold)
No comments:
Post a Comment