I saw my post this morning had 5 views. Does that mean someone's still subscribed? That'd be pretty nifty. I had a couple cool guys comment when I used to post regularly, and it'd be cool to know if anyone is still out there.
If you are, what do you wanna read about? Anything you'd like me to post? I might start posting cool stuff I find in RIFTS, Arduin, Chaosium, and Talislanta products. Let me know if anyone is interested. I could do play reports too, but I've never really been one to read those myself, so I never thought to write them.
Oh and if anyone does read this, why not go snoop around the ODD74 boards. It's a friendly place, stop in and say hi. I might have to do that myself.
Cheers guys.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
OD&D is King
I haven't blogged in a while. There's a number of reasons, chiefly though is the following. I realized, especially after hanging out at the ODD74 boards for so long, and getting to play a lot of D&D, that OD&D really is the best way to play ANYTHING. It's so stupidly easy to use material from any other game, especially because of the lack of rules. There's really not much to say. Games like Microlite20 and RISUS really drive the point home.
Don't expect much on here anymore. Who knows I might start writing again, but there's really not much to say once you realize it's all just a game. More rules is never going to make that fun. Recent experiences with Starfinder have shown me that. I was super excited to play, and I figured being Sci Fi, all the rules wouldn't seem out of place. After all, Sci Fi is often about complexity, technicalities, and minutiae. Honestly it all seemed so useless though. It could have been the group: I spent 4-6 hours making a character to play 2 combats, and spend another session just talking in character. Though that seems to be the trend for new games. The really dissapointing part though, was I have this awesome "Solarian" character that's able to use star power, or black hole energy to conjure weapons and perform cool stunts. Most of them are bland, like the "Solar Rush" which is just a charge while your on fire. I really don't 3 paragraphs of text to say "your character is on fire, and charges".
That's the beauty of games like OD&D, and RISUS: they get to the point. What's actually important about a Solar warrior? On fire. Star-powered weapon. Black hole gravity tricks. Bam. Done. Anyone who's DM'd old school D&D long enough would just add a +1 damage, or make a once per day 1d8 damage ability. That's how most of the old school stuff worked. Paladin: 2 points per level of healing per day. Ranger: 50% surprise. Stupid easy.
I'm not in a very eloquent mood right now, and part of that is what I've been working on lately, that's actually useful. I'm still trying to get down the most effecient way of doing it, but I'm trying to pull all of the "important stuff", or as RISUS would put it "cliches" out of all the RPGs I like. Look up RISUS, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
There's a lot more to say about RPGs, like how after actually going through most of the books and PDFs I've owned, I realized most Monsters and Magic (the main content of RPGs) is just kind of bland reskins and rehashes. I don't want to be to negative though. I'll say this: there are a lot of cool old school resources out there you should check out if you never have:
Don't expect much on here anymore. Who knows I might start writing again, but there's really not much to say once you realize it's all just a game. More rules is never going to make that fun. Recent experiences with Starfinder have shown me that. I was super excited to play, and I figured being Sci Fi, all the rules wouldn't seem out of place. After all, Sci Fi is often about complexity, technicalities, and minutiae. Honestly it all seemed so useless though. It could have been the group: I spent 4-6 hours making a character to play 2 combats, and spend another session just talking in character. Though that seems to be the trend for new games. The really dissapointing part though, was I have this awesome "Solarian" character that's able to use star power, or black hole energy to conjure weapons and perform cool stunts. Most of them are bland, like the "Solar Rush" which is just a charge while your on fire. I really don't 3 paragraphs of text to say "your character is on fire, and charges".
That's the beauty of games like OD&D, and RISUS: they get to the point. What's actually important about a Solar warrior? On fire. Star-powered weapon. Black hole gravity tricks. Bam. Done. Anyone who's DM'd old school D&D long enough would just add a +1 damage, or make a once per day 1d8 damage ability. That's how most of the old school stuff worked. Paladin: 2 points per level of healing per day. Ranger: 50% surprise. Stupid easy.
I'm not in a very eloquent mood right now, and part of that is what I've been working on lately, that's actually useful. I'm still trying to get down the most effecient way of doing it, but I'm trying to pull all of the "important stuff", or as RISUS would put it "cliches" out of all the RPGs I like. Look up RISUS, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
There's a lot more to say about RPGs, like how after actually going through most of the books and PDFs I've owned, I realized most Monsters and Magic (the main content of RPGs) is just kind of bland reskins and rehashes. I don't want to be to negative though. I'll say this: there are a lot of cool old school resources out there you should check out if you never have:
- Chaosium's All the World's Monsters
- Palladium RIFTS & Palladium Fantasy RPG*
- Arduin Grimoire Series
After everything I've gone through, those seem to have the most genuinely interesting stuff. I don't need four types of bird men with funny names, and I certainly don't need another type of dragon. What I do want are more flying sharks and squids. More tattoo magic, even if the effects are the same, the description is cool.
*RIFTS is one of the most controversial RPGs because the rule books is supposedly poorly organized. Honestly I think the only complicated part is the attribute abbreviates, since they all start with a P or S. In either case, it's basically heavily house ruled 1E D&D. It's extremely easy to just take the concepts and stat/use them for OD&D. After all, it's just Hit Dice, AC, Damage, and Special Abilities. Furthermore RIFTS is one of the few games with lots of genuinely different stuff.
My latest foray, that I'm on my way for another session of, is using OD&D with RIFTS. It's going quite well. There's not much to say on it, other than it's been a blast, and I have good friends who just want to have fun and do cool stuff, so no one really cares about the rules.
That's all for now, I might update some ideas I have, or figure out something useful to contribute.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
Finally Figured it Out - How I'm play Arcane Adventures
Certain Referees are able to just run games off the fly. In fact, most participants (players and referees) are able to come up with plenty of fun interactions on the spot. Most old school games work this way. There is less preparation for the character, and what they are normally able to do, and just improvisation. What will try in this scenario, given the circumstances?
Furthermore, I've never really used prepared gaming material as it was intended. I rarely use the monsters stat block, especially because I'm using so many different systems for material (D&D, Runequest, Rolemaster, Pathfinder, Palladium/Rifts, TV Shows, etc.). Thinking about all of this, I've realized I only need ideas. I don't eve need full ideas, or descriptions, usually a name is plenty enough to spark inspiration.
I could go on at length about players not needing much either. Often they just want to play a concept, and that really just amounts to calling their characters that concept. Old school players, or completely new players, are either indifferent to mechanical differences, or just don't know about them. In fact I'm sure I've blogged before about how the real fun of RPG's are just the descriptions.
In old school play, in particular, the description can be the mechanic. In OD&D there is no rules difference between an axe, sword, or spear: they all do 1-6 damage. There is a big difference between those weapons however: some can only be used for slashing, others can thrust, and still some can shatter or break. When you're trying to fend off a monster on the other side of a gate, which weapon can you attack with? The spear can easily slide through the bars, so can the sword; your axe however is almost useless. On the other hand, if you're trying to escape a room, and break down a door, the axe is the ideal tool.
This extends to everything in the game. Do we really need rules to tell us that a fire breathing dragon is immune to a fireball attack? This is where I'm at in my gaming, and it's been great. We've played quite a bit like this, and it always goes really well. Granted, it requires a cooperative play group, usually good friends. All we do is use logic, and discussion to determine what can work, what doesn't, and really what just makes sense.
With all of that said, my latest project, and all I'm doing now is just collecting lists of ideas from any source. Most are just consisting of names, though some creatures like an aboleth do require some description. A Hawk-Man, or Giant Ant is pretty self explanatory. I'm doing this for race and class as well. If you are an Elf Wizard, or a Human Cyber-Knight, you are just that. I'm only using the Fighting-Man and Magic-User from OD&D for rules, the the rest is just description for the player's sake.
Much like Arneson's games, the idea is that you are supposed to play like your character. What would a Beastman do? How would a Dwarf Druid act?
As for rules, I've come up with a simple mash up of OD&D, Microlite20, and some modern RPGs. The rules are not hard and fast, but provide a meaningful outline for gameplay progression, and task resolution - where it is necessary. I'll post the rules in my next post.
Furthermore, I've never really used prepared gaming material as it was intended. I rarely use the monsters stat block, especially because I'm using so many different systems for material (D&D, Runequest, Rolemaster, Pathfinder, Palladium/Rifts, TV Shows, etc.). Thinking about all of this, I've realized I only need ideas. I don't eve need full ideas, or descriptions, usually a name is plenty enough to spark inspiration.
I could go on at length about players not needing much either. Often they just want to play a concept, and that really just amounts to calling their characters that concept. Old school players, or completely new players, are either indifferent to mechanical differences, or just don't know about them. In fact I'm sure I've blogged before about how the real fun of RPG's are just the descriptions.
In old school play, in particular, the description can be the mechanic. In OD&D there is no rules difference between an axe, sword, or spear: they all do 1-6 damage. There is a big difference between those weapons however: some can only be used for slashing, others can thrust, and still some can shatter or break. When you're trying to fend off a monster on the other side of a gate, which weapon can you attack with? The spear can easily slide through the bars, so can the sword; your axe however is almost useless. On the other hand, if you're trying to escape a room, and break down a door, the axe is the ideal tool.
This extends to everything in the game. Do we really need rules to tell us that a fire breathing dragon is immune to a fireball attack? This is where I'm at in my gaming, and it's been great. We've played quite a bit like this, and it always goes really well. Granted, it requires a cooperative play group, usually good friends. All we do is use logic, and discussion to determine what can work, what doesn't, and really what just makes sense.
With all of that said, my latest project, and all I'm doing now is just collecting lists of ideas from any source. Most are just consisting of names, though some creatures like an aboleth do require some description. A Hawk-Man, or Giant Ant is pretty self explanatory. I'm doing this for race and class as well. If you are an Elf Wizard, or a Human Cyber-Knight, you are just that. I'm only using the Fighting-Man and Magic-User from OD&D for rules, the the rest is just description for the player's sake.
Much like Arneson's games, the idea is that you are supposed to play like your character. What would a Beastman do? How would a Dwarf Druid act?
As for rules, I've come up with a simple mash up of OD&D, Microlite20, and some modern RPGs. The rules are not hard and fast, but provide a meaningful outline for gameplay progression, and task resolution - where it is necessary. I'll post the rules in my next post.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Talkin' Bout My Generation
I don't know where to start with this one. I'll just dive in: I don't think my generation can play old school D&D. I think I've talked about this before. Playing yesterday really cements my thought on this. I tried running a really Arneson-style, weird fantasy game yesterday. I pretty much turned into rules light Pathfinder.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun yesterday. Taking inspiration from a lot of the games I heard about in the great lakes area, especial Dave Arneson's games, and really taking to heart the little quip (I think it's in the LBB's) that players can play WHATEVER they want, I let the player's have at it.
One player had a really cool idea, that was truly new and unique: She played an old testament Angel. Not like a beautiful person with wings, but the sphere of rings, on fire, covered in eyes. It was interesting to referee her actions, but over all it was cool. We decided she was made of ectoplasm, a sort of ghost, and that all her attacks were essentially unarmed, and just her shaping her ectoplasm in creative ways.
However, everyone else was just modern fantasy tropes: A couple "benders" like in Avatar (a fire bender and air bender), a Witcher (like Geralt), a Werwolf, etc. I have no problem with this, but I think I'm just tired of "creativity", because it's not feeling very creative. I don't blame the players, and we all had fun, but I think people now a days just aren't well read enough to play old school D&D, in this style. The media everyone is exposed to is just over the top, fireball slinging, magic as technology stuff. It's fine if that's what you're into, but there's already Pathfinder and Exalted if you want to play Medieval X-Men.
Which leads me to something that's been bugging me lately: Dungeon World and D&D 5E. I've heard so many reviews, and play reports of these games, that really bug. They talk about how creative they get to be, and how it's so "roleplaying" focused. How they don't have to just attack in every encounter. My two thoughts are: Why not just play old school D&D? The other thought: How is playing a fireball shooting, flying Druid creative, when everyone is doing that?
I don't know, I could go into a long rant, but I think anyone who would read this blog already feels the way I do about this. People can say that old school D&D is written to vaguely or obtusely, and that DW/5E is great because it really codifies the "game as a narrative experience", but all of the OSR games, even Microilte74 (for example), and the numerous blogs and player's have been saying this for ages. I just don't get it. It just annoys, because for the longest time, the OSR was treated with a lot of hostility from mainstream gaming, now they're hijacking our playstyle and claiming it for themselves, acting like they're so innovative.
The thing is, they're not playing old school. They're not being creative. They're just playing Super Heroes in Medieval Times. Sure you're describing your fire attack with a lot of detail, but you can't think to hide in the pile of leaves? Or run a rope across the causeway to trip the enemy as they run by? I'm not being very creative right now, but I think you'll get my point.
Just as one example, I read a Dungeon World play report where the players had rigged a "Magical electricity bomb" to a ballistae. How is that creative? You're just using Magic to replace technology, making EMP artillery. One of my players rigged a ballistae to shoot nets. I think that's a bit more creative: It's solving problems within the confines of the scenario you are placed into.
Anyway, I think I'm just kind of going to give up on running old school D&D in any sort of "creative" or "imaginative" way. At least on the player's side. I've decided I'm either going to run more historical games in the future, because I enjoy them, or run by the book OD&D/AD&D if I really want fantasy. I'm just tired of this generations interpretation of fantasy and adventure. At least I know I enjoy running pseudo-historical games, and I can get into that. With OD&D/AD&D by the book, I may not get to play Arneson, Arduin, or even Runequest syle games with Psychotic Duck men, and half-Alligator-half-Frog races, but I could at least throw them at players as monsters. Maybe forcing players to be confined to more "human" roles would encourage them to actually think outside of the box.
I'm also just kind of sick and tired of magic. A purely medieval game would certainly solve that problem, allowing me to slip in magic on my own terms, making it rare and truly special. If I ever do run fantasy games in the future, I actually think they will look more like the Witcher or Dark Souls series. Those are honestly a couple pieces of modern fantasy, that I think hit the root of what makes old school so fun. They are difficult, and you're character isn't some superhero, just a guy trying to survive. I've always enjoyed magic from games like the Witcher more anyway, such as in Runequest, or the Sword of Truth/Legend of the Seeker series. I think a Wizard's fire ball shouldn't be a firestorm of Hell on Earth, just a fire ball. That's plenty fantastic in and of itself.
More so, I think I'd like to actually start running some games that are actually different than what everyone else offers now a days. I had hoped that could be OD&D the way it was played back in the day. I still could, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Carcosa, and many other OSR games, show that's still viable. It just seems to me (from play experience now) that it's entirely up to the Referee to make it work, and honestly I just don't see enough people now a days understanding those kinds of games. My first play group understood it pretty well, but then again we all grew up on the same shows, books, and even did Medieval reenacting together.
I think I want to make some interesting campaign settings I haven't seen yet, like a blend of Samurai and Vikings, or make a Medieval RPG that sticks around for a while. I think Ars Magica is gone, and games like Blue Rose are cool, but I haven't heard anything from them in a while, though I think Dark Albion may be what I'm looking for. More importantly, I want to start making settings/adventures/games that emphasize the fantasy materials I grew up with: Robin Hood, Arthurian Legend, Fairy Tales, Historical Fantasy, Redwall, etc...
Anyway, stay Zen guys.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun yesterday. Taking inspiration from a lot of the games I heard about in the great lakes area, especial Dave Arneson's games, and really taking to heart the little quip (I think it's in the LBB's) that players can play WHATEVER they want, I let the player's have at it.
One player had a really cool idea, that was truly new and unique: She played an old testament Angel. Not like a beautiful person with wings, but the sphere of rings, on fire, covered in eyes. It was interesting to referee her actions, but over all it was cool. We decided she was made of ectoplasm, a sort of ghost, and that all her attacks were essentially unarmed, and just her shaping her ectoplasm in creative ways.
However, everyone else was just modern fantasy tropes: A couple "benders" like in Avatar (a fire bender and air bender), a Witcher (like Geralt), a Werwolf, etc. I have no problem with this, but I think I'm just tired of "creativity", because it's not feeling very creative. I don't blame the players, and we all had fun, but I think people now a days just aren't well read enough to play old school D&D, in this style. The media everyone is exposed to is just over the top, fireball slinging, magic as technology stuff. It's fine if that's what you're into, but there's already Pathfinder and Exalted if you want to play Medieval X-Men.
Which leads me to something that's been bugging me lately: Dungeon World and D&D 5E. I've heard so many reviews, and play reports of these games, that really bug. They talk about how creative they get to be, and how it's so "roleplaying" focused. How they don't have to just attack in every encounter. My two thoughts are: Why not just play old school D&D? The other thought: How is playing a fireball shooting, flying Druid creative, when everyone is doing that?
I don't know, I could go into a long rant, but I think anyone who would read this blog already feels the way I do about this. People can say that old school D&D is written to vaguely or obtusely, and that DW/5E is great because it really codifies the "game as a narrative experience", but all of the OSR games, even Microilte74 (for example), and the numerous blogs and player's have been saying this for ages. I just don't get it. It just annoys, because for the longest time, the OSR was treated with a lot of hostility from mainstream gaming, now they're hijacking our playstyle and claiming it for themselves, acting like they're so innovative.
The thing is, they're not playing old school. They're not being creative. They're just playing Super Heroes in Medieval Times. Sure you're describing your fire attack with a lot of detail, but you can't think to hide in the pile of leaves? Or run a rope across the causeway to trip the enemy as they run by? I'm not being very creative right now, but I think you'll get my point.
Just as one example, I read a Dungeon World play report where the players had rigged a "Magical electricity bomb" to a ballistae. How is that creative? You're just using Magic to replace technology, making EMP artillery. One of my players rigged a ballistae to shoot nets. I think that's a bit more creative: It's solving problems within the confines of the scenario you are placed into.
Anyway, I think I'm just kind of going to give up on running old school D&D in any sort of "creative" or "imaginative" way. At least on the player's side. I've decided I'm either going to run more historical games in the future, because I enjoy them, or run by the book OD&D/AD&D if I really want fantasy. I'm just tired of this generations interpretation of fantasy and adventure. At least I know I enjoy running pseudo-historical games, and I can get into that. With OD&D/AD&D by the book, I may not get to play Arneson, Arduin, or even Runequest syle games with Psychotic Duck men, and half-Alligator-half-Frog races, but I could at least throw them at players as monsters. Maybe forcing players to be confined to more "human" roles would encourage them to actually think outside of the box.
I'm also just kind of sick and tired of magic. A purely medieval game would certainly solve that problem, allowing me to slip in magic on my own terms, making it rare and truly special. If I ever do run fantasy games in the future, I actually think they will look more like the Witcher or Dark Souls series. Those are honestly a couple pieces of modern fantasy, that I think hit the root of what makes old school so fun. They are difficult, and you're character isn't some superhero, just a guy trying to survive. I've always enjoyed magic from games like the Witcher more anyway, such as in Runequest, or the Sword of Truth/Legend of the Seeker series. I think a Wizard's fire ball shouldn't be a firestorm of Hell on Earth, just a fire ball. That's plenty fantastic in and of itself.
More so, I think I'd like to actually start running some games that are actually different than what everyone else offers now a days. I had hoped that could be OD&D the way it was played back in the day. I still could, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Carcosa, and many other OSR games, show that's still viable. It just seems to me (from play experience now) that it's entirely up to the Referee to make it work, and honestly I just don't see enough people now a days understanding those kinds of games. My first play group understood it pretty well, but then again we all grew up on the same shows, books, and even did Medieval reenacting together.
I think I want to make some interesting campaign settings I haven't seen yet, like a blend of Samurai and Vikings, or make a Medieval RPG that sticks around for a while. I think Ars Magica is gone, and games like Blue Rose are cool, but I haven't heard anything from them in a while, though I think Dark Albion may be what I'm looking for. More importantly, I want to start making settings/adventures/games that emphasize the fantasy materials I grew up with: Robin Hood, Arthurian Legend, Fairy Tales, Historical Fantasy, Redwall, etc...
Anyway, stay Zen guys.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Microlite AD&D: Classes
I keep talking about it, so might as well post something. This is just a quick draft of ideas for classes. I've been working longer days, so I don't have a lot of time this week, but I felt like putting this out here.
Keep in mind, these are actually how I run my AD&D games. I had a very successful campaign using a set up similar to this. In fact, I very well might post the rules from one of the campaigns my players enjoyed most. That was "Arcane Adventures" at the time. Any, I digress, here's some class outlines for you.
These options are compatible with either OSR/AD&D material, or d20/SRD material. In my research I have actually found the math to be similar, not equal, but similar. SRD Monsters would probably be tougher. If using OSR/AD&D material, use B/X style attribute bonuses (up to +3). If using d20/SRD Material use 3E's attribute bonuses (up to +5). Weapons and Armor (as well as Hit Dice) restrictions are as per AD&D, or one could ignore them in the fashion of Microlite20, especially if using the SRD as your source material.
Class Abilities
Fighter: Double Strength bonus to Damage rolls. Reroll any one's on damage dice. Fighter's gain an extra attack at 10th level.
Barbarian: Double Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, Double Constitution bonus to Hit Points.
Ranger: Ranger's can dual wield with no penalty, and are allowed two attacks per turn with ranged weapons. Ranger's have a 50% chance for surprise.
Thief: Thieves have a 50% chance for surprise and sneaking during combat. Thieves may back stab, granting a +4 bonus if they have surprise or have successfully sneaked the round before attacking. Successful attacks are double damage.
Paladin: Paladin's may lay on hands for 1d6 hit points healed per level, on themselves or any ally. Once a day Paladin's may Smite an enemy, adding their level to attack roll and damage.
Monk: Monk's have an unarmed attack of 1d8, attacking twice per turn. Monks add half their level to their Armor Class.
Wizard/Magic-User: May cast spells as usual.
Clerics: May cast spells as usual. Once a day Cleric's may Smite enemies in the same way Paladin's do.
Druid: May cast spells as usual. At 5th level, Druid's may change shape into that of an animal, once per day, changing back at will for the remainder of the day. When changing shape, hit points and attack bonus stay the same, as well as all attributes. Instead, Druid's gain the movement, and attack abilities of the creature they transform into, as well as any role playing abilities adjudicated by the Referee.
Bard: Bard's may cast spells as usual (using either the Illusionist's spell list, if using OSR material, or the Bard's list if using SRD material). Once during each combat, Bard's can inspire their allies, add +1 to ANY die rolls made during that turn.
There are many ways to change the above of course, and expand them for a more "mechanically interesting game". Monk's attacks could increase with level (as they do in AD&D), Ranger, and Thief skills could start lower, and increase over time.
I'll probably post the full concept later. Stay Zen guys.
Keep in mind, these are actually how I run my AD&D games. I had a very successful campaign using a set up similar to this. In fact, I very well might post the rules from one of the campaigns my players enjoyed most. That was "Arcane Adventures" at the time. Any, I digress, here's some class outlines for you.
Compatibility
These options are compatible with either OSR/AD&D material, or d20/SRD material. In my research I have actually found the math to be similar, not equal, but similar. SRD Monsters would probably be tougher. If using OSR/AD&D material, use B/X style attribute bonuses (up to +3). If using d20/SRD Material use 3E's attribute bonuses (up to +5). Weapons and Armor (as well as Hit Dice) restrictions are as per AD&D, or one could ignore them in the fashion of Microlite20, especially if using the SRD as your source material.
Class Abilities
Fighter: Double Strength bonus to Damage rolls. Reroll any one's on damage dice. Fighter's gain an extra attack at 10th level.
Barbarian: Double Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, Double Constitution bonus to Hit Points.
Ranger: Ranger's can dual wield with no penalty, and are allowed two attacks per turn with ranged weapons. Ranger's have a 50% chance for surprise.
Thief: Thieves have a 50% chance for surprise and sneaking during combat. Thieves may back stab, granting a +4 bonus if they have surprise or have successfully sneaked the round before attacking. Successful attacks are double damage.
Paladin: Paladin's may lay on hands for 1d6 hit points healed per level, on themselves or any ally. Once a day Paladin's may Smite an enemy, adding their level to attack roll and damage.
Monk: Monk's have an unarmed attack of 1d8, attacking twice per turn. Monks add half their level to their Armor Class.
Wizard/Magic-User: May cast spells as usual.
Clerics: May cast spells as usual. Once a day Cleric's may Smite enemies in the same way Paladin's do.
Druid: May cast spells as usual. At 5th level, Druid's may change shape into that of an animal, once per day, changing back at will for the remainder of the day. When changing shape, hit points and attack bonus stay the same, as well as all attributes. Instead, Druid's gain the movement, and attack abilities of the creature they transform into, as well as any role playing abilities adjudicated by the Referee.
Bard: Bard's may cast spells as usual (using either the Illusionist's spell list, if using OSR material, or the Bard's list if using SRD material). Once during each combat, Bard's can inspire their allies, add +1 to ANY die rolls made during that turn.
There are many ways to change the above of course, and expand them for a more "mechanically interesting game". Monk's attacks could increase with level (as they do in AD&D), Ranger, and Thief skills could start lower, and increase over time.
I'll probably post the full concept later. Stay Zen guys.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Current Projects
Just thought I'd share the projects I'm currently working on, maybe it will inspire some people. Hopefully I can post what I've done with some of them, but I'm noticing my motivation to actually do stuff is non-existent. I want to do stuff, but as soon as I sit down to do it, I don't know where to start. Oh well.
The project requiring my immediate attention is my upcoming OD&D campaign. A bunch of people I work with at my new job have asked me to DM for them, and of course I'll be bringing in some of my other friends as well. Looks like it's going to be a 10+ person campaign, with different people showing up each time. Very old school, very Great Lakes era style. With that in mind, I'm planning on doing a sort of episodic sand box campaign, as per the way I've heard the original campaigns went.
This time I'm going for more of a Blackmoor feel. I mean, my campaigns have never been too generic, I've always let people play odd races, and I love including strange creatures like Air Sharks (I love Air Sharks!, from Arduin I believe). The idea this time though is to turn it up to 11. Not in any sort of ridiculous way, but definitely a sort of He-Man/Masters of the Universe type game. I mean, I've heard that's the way Blackmoor was, but I haven't read any of the actual Blackmoor material yet, having been more in favor of Gygaxian D&D. Though I'll definitely be reading up on it now, I'm finding I like Arneson's play style and advice much more than Gary's.
Anyway, I'm also doing this because I should be able to prep in a way that I'm used to, and is easy. I don't intend to make any sort of megadungeon, maybe a few "five room" dungeons, scattered about. Instead it's going to be very much "You're hanging out at the castle, when news of <insert event> reaches you!". I want there to be options, so of course they can wander the castle halls chatting with friendly NPCs for quest ideas, such as "Orko lost his magic amulet in the swamp, you should go fetch it for him... Watch out for Dinosaurs though!". To necessitate easy travel I'm going to give all the players a special mount, that can't fight (at first), and let them pick something fun or crazy to set the mood (Tiger Griffins!).
My next project is an AD&D rules compilation. I'm thinking initially this will be a Microlite20 style reference document. However eventually I want to compile rules and advice from a few sources verbatim. I obviously won't be sharing this. It has two real purposes. The first being a play document, so I can give my 80's copies of AD&D books a break. I mean, they are really robust for being older than me, and I love them, but I don't want clumsy players destroying my books. The second reason, is simply to put all the good AD&D (not just from AD&D) advice and options into one place.
I'm not playing on doing much house ruling with this. The biggest house rule would be a Bard that casts Illusionists spells, and maybe using Castles & Crusades Attribute Saving Throws. Other than that I just want to be able to run old school D&D dungeon crawls, megadungeons, and maybe some classic modules. A side project for this as a super campaign, Basically a giant, completely (as much as possible) detailed campaign setting, filled in with material from old school modules (like Temple of Elemental Evil), and any material I can convert/lift from old school Computer RPGs. An all around classic and generic fantasy setting.
This is the project I've been wanting to do for the longest time, but seems to have the least interest from anyone else. I'll be doing this purely for myself, regardless of whether I ever get to run it. I would say it's an exercise in world building, but it would be more of a compilation than creation. It wouldn't be straight historical, but anachronistic. The main idea is to provide a fully detailed medieval world to explore, complete with Knights, Castles, Dungeons, and so forth. I would use real life locales, as well as some taken from the more medieval leaning sources, such as Lord of the Rings, Elder Scrolls, etc.
For rules I would mostly use AD&D, with some ideas taken from Runequest, and Pendragon. Other than that, the main portion of work would be in detailing towns (NPC lists, some minor sites to explore), and quests that can be issued from the towns, as well as a decent amount of wilderness locales and encounters found between towns. Most combats would be against other knights, brigands, and so forth, but I would definitely include classic medieval and mythical beasts such as Dragons, and Chimeras, and of course wild animals. Just nothing that's overtly fantasy or weird, like no Orcs or Elves. Classes would obviously be limited to Fighters, Rangers, and so forth. I'm debating Clerics.
This is the biggest project, and most useful I hope. If you're not familiar with commonplace books, do a quick google search, ,they are fantastic. I've been in the habit of keeping one for some time now, in regards to just general reading and interests. They are invaluable. Essentially a notebook full of random interesting facts.
The idea behind this would be to simply keep an ongoing notebook full of ideas for D&D; monsters, encounters, challenges, puzzles, locales, quests, etc. Anything really. I'm thinking I'm going to separate it into at least four parts for now: Adventure Ideas (quests, challenges, locales), Bestiary, Spells & Magic, and finally Referee Advice. I think each is self explanatory. Spells & Magic, though, will not be just player spells. Literally any magic I come across, as I can use that against players, should I so choose. The Monster book will probably only contain the stats of Armor Class, Hit Dice, Damage, and whatever physical description is provided with any special abilities (not the full mechanics for them, but possibly). No full stat blocks, and no six paragraph explanation of history and mating habits.
Essentially a revamp of my tabletop roguelike idea. I've waxed on about this idea for a long time, and I think the hardest problem I've had with it is trying to keep it a role playing game in some capacity. What I've come to realize lately, is that I've never really had a problem with rules from any RPG, I've just been experiencing DM burnout. The worst part of it is, whenever I don't DM, we don't play. I want to take a break from DMing, but not tabletop. When I don't play at all (DMing included) I get restless, because I want to do something fantasy gaming related. In the end I always end up running another game, just to do something, and I end up more burn out than last time.
What I want to make with this, is something that can give me a break from DMing, but still let my play some fantasy gaming. I recently read a post from one of my favorite blogs that inspired me further with this: Arena Xagyg. I may end up trying to play Pathfinder this way. I actually had a similar idea a while ago, run a Pathfinder 3E game that was just a sort of Battlespire rip off. Players are tested by some Mad Wizard/Warlord to compete in his "Game of Death". It would be easy to prep because it would just be a selection of monsters, and maybe some sort of environmental interactions. I may still do this, but it's more just given me some ideas for how I could handle my roguelike board game.
I have much more to say about all of the above projects, so hopefully I'll post some stuff soon.
Stay Zen my Friends.
OD&D Campaign
The project requiring my immediate attention is my upcoming OD&D campaign. A bunch of people I work with at my new job have asked me to DM for them, and of course I'll be bringing in some of my other friends as well. Looks like it's going to be a 10+ person campaign, with different people showing up each time. Very old school, very Great Lakes era style. With that in mind, I'm planning on doing a sort of episodic sand box campaign, as per the way I've heard the original campaigns went.
This time I'm going for more of a Blackmoor feel. I mean, my campaigns have never been too generic, I've always let people play odd races, and I love including strange creatures like Air Sharks (I love Air Sharks!, from Arduin I believe). The idea this time though is to turn it up to 11. Not in any sort of ridiculous way, but definitely a sort of He-Man/Masters of the Universe type game. I mean, I've heard that's the way Blackmoor was, but I haven't read any of the actual Blackmoor material yet, having been more in favor of Gygaxian D&D. Though I'll definitely be reading up on it now, I'm finding I like Arneson's play style and advice much more than Gary's.
Anyway, I'm also doing this because I should be able to prep in a way that I'm used to, and is easy. I don't intend to make any sort of megadungeon, maybe a few "five room" dungeons, scattered about. Instead it's going to be very much "You're hanging out at the castle, when news of <insert event> reaches you!". I want there to be options, so of course they can wander the castle halls chatting with friendly NPCs for quest ideas, such as "Orko lost his magic amulet in the swamp, you should go fetch it for him... Watch out for Dinosaurs though!". To necessitate easy travel I'm going to give all the players a special mount, that can't fight (at first), and let them pick something fun or crazy to set the mood (Tiger Griffins!).
AD&D Rules Compilation
My next project is an AD&D rules compilation. I'm thinking initially this will be a Microlite20 style reference document. However eventually I want to compile rules and advice from a few sources verbatim. I obviously won't be sharing this. It has two real purposes. The first being a play document, so I can give my 80's copies of AD&D books a break. I mean, they are really robust for being older than me, and I love them, but I don't want clumsy players destroying my books. The second reason, is simply to put all the good AD&D (not just from AD&D) advice and options into one place.
I'm not playing on doing much house ruling with this. The biggest house rule would be a Bard that casts Illusionists spells, and maybe using Castles & Crusades Attribute Saving Throws. Other than that I just want to be able to run old school D&D dungeon crawls, megadungeons, and maybe some classic modules. A side project for this as a super campaign, Basically a giant, completely (as much as possible) detailed campaign setting, filled in with material from old school modules (like Temple of Elemental Evil), and any material I can convert/lift from old school Computer RPGs. An all around classic and generic fantasy setting.
Great Medieval Campaign
This is the project I've been wanting to do for the longest time, but seems to have the least interest from anyone else. I'll be doing this purely for myself, regardless of whether I ever get to run it. I would say it's an exercise in world building, but it would be more of a compilation than creation. It wouldn't be straight historical, but anachronistic. The main idea is to provide a fully detailed medieval world to explore, complete with Knights, Castles, Dungeons, and so forth. I would use real life locales, as well as some taken from the more medieval leaning sources, such as Lord of the Rings, Elder Scrolls, etc.
For rules I would mostly use AD&D, with some ideas taken from Runequest, and Pendragon. Other than that, the main portion of work would be in detailing towns (NPC lists, some minor sites to explore), and quests that can be issued from the towns, as well as a decent amount of wilderness locales and encounters found between towns. Most combats would be against other knights, brigands, and so forth, but I would definitely include classic medieval and mythical beasts such as Dragons, and Chimeras, and of course wild animals. Just nothing that's overtly fantasy or weird, like no Orcs or Elves. Classes would obviously be limited to Fighters, Rangers, and so forth. I'm debating Clerics.
Fantasy Gaming Commonplace Books
This is the biggest project, and most useful I hope. If you're not familiar with commonplace books, do a quick google search, ,they are fantastic. I've been in the habit of keeping one for some time now, in regards to just general reading and interests. They are invaluable. Essentially a notebook full of random interesting facts.
The idea behind this would be to simply keep an ongoing notebook full of ideas for D&D; monsters, encounters, challenges, puzzles, locales, quests, etc. Anything really. I'm thinking I'm going to separate it into at least four parts for now: Adventure Ideas (quests, challenges, locales), Bestiary, Spells & Magic, and finally Referee Advice. I think each is self explanatory. Spells & Magic, though, will not be just player spells. Literally any magic I come across, as I can use that against players, should I so choose. The Monster book will probably only contain the stats of Armor Class, Hit Dice, Damage, and whatever physical description is provided with any special abilities (not the full mechanics for them, but possibly). No full stat blocks, and no six paragraph explanation of history and mating habits.
Fantasy Board Game
Essentially a revamp of my tabletop roguelike idea. I've waxed on about this idea for a long time, and I think the hardest problem I've had with it is trying to keep it a role playing game in some capacity. What I've come to realize lately, is that I've never really had a problem with rules from any RPG, I've just been experiencing DM burnout. The worst part of it is, whenever I don't DM, we don't play. I want to take a break from DMing, but not tabletop. When I don't play at all (DMing included) I get restless, because I want to do something fantasy gaming related. In the end I always end up running another game, just to do something, and I end up more burn out than last time.
What I want to make with this, is something that can give me a break from DMing, but still let my play some fantasy gaming. I recently read a post from one of my favorite blogs that inspired me further with this: Arena Xagyg. I may end up trying to play Pathfinder this way. I actually had a similar idea a while ago, run a Pathfinder 3E game that was just a sort of Battlespire rip off. Players are tested by some Mad Wizard/Warlord to compete in his "Game of Death". It would be easy to prep because it would just be a selection of monsters, and maybe some sort of environmental interactions. I may still do this, but it's more just given me some ideas for how I could handle my roguelike board game.
I have much more to say about all of the above projects, so hopefully I'll post some stuff soon.
Stay Zen my Friends.
Monday, January 9, 2017
My Current OD&D House Rules
At the bottom of the post you'll find my current OD&D house rules, however first a word on how I got there.
For the last couple of days I've been giving much consideration to what my current set of house rules will look like. I had come to a decision that all classes would be functions of; Hit Dice, Attack Ability, Saving Throws, Spell ability, and Weapons & Armor Proficiency. This sounds like a lot when written out, but the key point here is: no special class abilities. This was my conclusion after re-reading my (DIY reproduction) copies of the LBB's.
If you look at White Box D&D, most of the rules are simply the above stated factors. The Cleric gets his Turn Undead (which I've never liked), and that's the only special class ability that looks anything like later class functions. There are skills, in the Referee's section, but they are limited and simple (which I like). If you think about it, the above mentioned functions are more than enough variation to make a mechanically interesting game.
I'll still be keeping my game along those lines. However what I was starting to do was veer close to AD&D. I thought it would be very simple to redo all of the AD&D classes in that fashion. Rangers would be a Fighter with more attacks, that are simply less accurate and less powerful. The Rogue/Thief could be handled similarly with no skills. Bards & Paladins would simply get spells as their special abilities (the Bard would replace the AD&D Illusionist).
The more I kept going along this train of thought though, it just felt like I was making AD&D light. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea. As I've said before, I'd like to do that, and I think I will one day. Let me know quote Geoffrey (of Carcosa fame) though:
"I kept re-inventing the wheel. Whether it was animals, giant animals, weapon types, etc. I kept finding it already done in AD&D.
In regards to 1970s-era AD&D, I do not think of it as fundamentally different than OD&D.
Which works better for Carcosa, OD&D or AD&D? I'd say whichever the DM would prefer. OD&D requires/allows for more re-inventing the wheel. (How may hit dice does a sabre-tooth cat have?) AD&D allows for more out-of-the-box play.
Sure, I still use stuff from the original Carcosa book in my campaign along with all the stuff in the modules. I didn't specifically refer to it in my four AD&D Carcosa modules because I didn't want anybody to think, "What!? Ihave to buy a $45 book before I can use this module! Man, was I jipped!" So you certainly can use the old Carcosa book with the modules, but doing is is 100% optional."
- Geoffrey (Carcosa) on the OD&D Forum
With that in mind, I think it's best to just play OD&D, as OD&D. I'll post my AD&D light rules later, or at least the concept of them. The following, now, will be what my current OD&D House Rules are.
At some future date, I will hopefully post a copy of a cleaned up document, similar to my Arcane Grimoire, which should still be up for download at the left.
Ability scores range from 3-18, with a score of 15+ granting a +1 in relevant areas: Strength can apply to attack and damage rolls. Dexterity can affect ranged attack rolls, and armor class. Constitution affects hit points gained per level. All scores will affect saving throws (taken from Castles & Crusades). Finally, Charisma will determine party leader.
There are four Classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (Cleric), and Wizard (Magic-User). Fighter and Wizard are as they appear in White Box, except the Fighter has a d10 hit die.
Paladins will be included as the Cleric, but will essentially function as the Cleric. Since I'm probably just going to save myself some time and use the AD&D 1E spells, the Paladin will use that spell progression, but starting at 2nd level. They will be restricted to chain mail armor, but be allowed any weapon, and have a d8 hit die. This will give a nice distribution for armor and hit dice. They will not have a turn undead ability. Also I'm using the name Paladin just because I like the word better.
The Ranger will be included as my fourth class because I've started to loath Thieves, but I still like the idea of an agile class. The Ranger will be restricted to leather armor, be allowed any weapon, and have a d6 hit die. Rangers will be the only class to dual wield, allowing the (modern) expected two attacks per turn. With ranged weapons Rangers will get two attacks per turn.
As for Attack and Saving Throw Matrices, I'll be using Swords & Wizardry White Box, so the classes will most likely get their appropriately corresponding statistics.
The biggest reason for the above class changes is to simplify weapons and armor restrictions. I'd rather just let any class use any weapon (except the Wizard for obvious reasons), and then have them vary via the much simpler armor restrictions. Over all I don't think any of the above is too drastic of a change, and I think it will give me the game I want to run.
Honestly the class changes are the most drastic, and important to note. However, below are the rest of my thoughts at the moment, in a sort of miscellaneous fashion:
For the last couple of days I've been giving much consideration to what my current set of house rules will look like. I had come to a decision that all classes would be functions of; Hit Dice, Attack Ability, Saving Throws, Spell ability, and Weapons & Armor Proficiency. This sounds like a lot when written out, but the key point here is: no special class abilities. This was my conclusion after re-reading my (DIY reproduction) copies of the LBB's.
If you look at White Box D&D, most of the rules are simply the above stated factors. The Cleric gets his Turn Undead (which I've never liked), and that's the only special class ability that looks anything like later class functions. There are skills, in the Referee's section, but they are limited and simple (which I like). If you think about it, the above mentioned functions are more than enough variation to make a mechanically interesting game.
I'll still be keeping my game along those lines. However what I was starting to do was veer close to AD&D. I thought it would be very simple to redo all of the AD&D classes in that fashion. Rangers would be a Fighter with more attacks, that are simply less accurate and less powerful. The Rogue/Thief could be handled similarly with no skills. Bards & Paladins would simply get spells as their special abilities (the Bard would replace the AD&D Illusionist).
The more I kept going along this train of thought though, it just felt like I was making AD&D light. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea. As I've said before, I'd like to do that, and I think I will one day. Let me know quote Geoffrey (of Carcosa fame) though:
"I kept re-inventing the wheel. Whether it was animals, giant animals, weapon types, etc. I kept finding it already done in AD&D.
In regards to 1970s-era AD&D, I do not think of it as fundamentally different than OD&D.
Which works better for Carcosa, OD&D or AD&D? I'd say whichever the DM would prefer. OD&D requires/allows for more re-inventing the wheel. (How may hit dice does a sabre-tooth cat have?) AD&D allows for more out-of-the-box play.
Sure, I still use stuff from the original Carcosa book in my campaign along with all the stuff in the modules. I didn't specifically refer to it in my four AD&D Carcosa modules because I didn't want anybody to think, "What!? Ihave to buy a $45 book before I can use this module! Man, was I jipped!" So you certainly can use the old Carcosa book with the modules, but doing is is 100% optional."
- Geoffrey (Carcosa) on the OD&D Forum
With that in mind, I think it's best to just play OD&D, as OD&D. I'll post my AD&D light rules later, or at least the concept of them. The following, now, will be what my current OD&D House Rules are.
Current OD&D House Rules
At some future date, I will hopefully post a copy of a cleaned up document, similar to my Arcane Grimoire, which should still be up for download at the left.
Ability scores range from 3-18, with a score of 15+ granting a +1 in relevant areas: Strength can apply to attack and damage rolls. Dexterity can affect ranged attack rolls, and armor class. Constitution affects hit points gained per level. All scores will affect saving throws (taken from Castles & Crusades). Finally, Charisma will determine party leader.
There are four Classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin (Cleric), and Wizard (Magic-User). Fighter and Wizard are as they appear in White Box, except the Fighter has a d10 hit die.
Paladins will be included as the Cleric, but will essentially function as the Cleric. Since I'm probably just going to save myself some time and use the AD&D 1E spells, the Paladin will use that spell progression, but starting at 2nd level. They will be restricted to chain mail armor, but be allowed any weapon, and have a d8 hit die. This will give a nice distribution for armor and hit dice. They will not have a turn undead ability. Also I'm using the name Paladin just because I like the word better.
The Ranger will be included as my fourth class because I've started to loath Thieves, but I still like the idea of an agile class. The Ranger will be restricted to leather armor, be allowed any weapon, and have a d6 hit die. Rangers will be the only class to dual wield, allowing the (modern) expected two attacks per turn. With ranged weapons Rangers will get two attacks per turn.
As for Attack and Saving Throw Matrices, I'll be using Swords & Wizardry White Box, so the classes will most likely get their appropriately corresponding statistics.
The biggest reason for the above class changes is to simplify weapons and armor restrictions. I'd rather just let any class use any weapon (except the Wizard for obvious reasons), and then have them vary via the much simpler armor restrictions. Over all I don't think any of the above is too drastic of a change, and I think it will give me the game I want to run.
Honestly the class changes are the most drastic, and important to note. However, below are the rest of my thoughts at the moment, in a sort of miscellaneous fashion:
- "Magic" weapon bonuses only affect damage rolls, not to hit. This is to simplify things.
- Hit Dice will be rolled as best of two (roll two hit dice each level, taking the higher roll).
- Stealth is a function of party tactics. No class has a stealth ability; instead the entire party must work together to gain any effect to "surprise". Waiting in ambush (if they somehow have gained knowledge of the enemy, without the enemy being aware of the party) will grant a 4 in 6 (66%) chance of surprise.
- Common adventuring tasks can be checked as X in 6 chance, or corresponding percent (%) check. I will keep a list of common tasks (I'll share those later hopefully) and chances, recording new ones as I make rulings, or find them in various rule books. (I'll be checking OD&D, AD&D, Palladium, and Runequest leisurely.)
- All monster statistics will be determined as stated in my previous posts (simple Armor Class).
- No monsters will have paralysis abilities; it's boring and adds nothing to game play.
- Treasure is handled as in Swords & Wizardry; 2 - 4 times the XP value of an encounter; with a 50% chance of any encounter having treasure. Planned encounters being the exception. I'm considering a lower percent chance for wandering monsters.
- Magic items will be checked for separately from treasure. Treasure hordes above 1,000 gold pieces will have a 10% chance for magic items. Perhaps a higher percent with larger hoards.
- Magic classes will not be able to make scrolls. I think they get enough spells per day, and players have a predisposition to make fireball spells at higher levels.
- Critical Hits are maximum damage, not double.
- Any spells that have a duration are simply save till pass. This includes damage, or paralysis. (This one will need the most play testing, I'm sure)
- Spells and Magic Items taken from AD&D 1E. This is just to save time, and because I do still love AD&D.
I think that's it for now. I don't think that's quite too much.
Stay Zen my friends.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
The Allure of Advanced Rules
When I first started playing table top, my introduction was Battletech. If you are familiar with the game you will know it has rules covering every action possible. Especially when you add in supplements like Tactical Operations, you truly do have a system with rules covering every conceivable circumstance. Therefore, when I got into role playing games, I assumed I needed a system that did just that. Most systems however were extremely complex or didn't make much sense to me.
At the time, 4th Edition was the current version of Dungeons & Dragons, so I looked into it. The game just didn't make much sense to me. The way the rules were laid out, and the powers and abilities were not logical to me. I was used to games that tried to be realistic, so having a powers system just felt strange, and wasn't something I wanted. After all, I was doing Viking Age reenactment back then, and I wanted a game that accurately portrayed combat.
Then I stumbled upon Runequest, and Basic Role Playing. It was brilliant! Everything you could possibly want to do was handled by a skill or attribute, and they were all rated as a percent chance. Roll under the percent score, and you succeed. It was a fantastic system, and to this day my preference for any game that is not medieval or fantasy. I had a lot of fun with Runequest, and played that almost exclusively.
I could remember back in my child being enamored by Dungeons & Dragons though. The episode of Dexter's Laboratory, with his miniatures and charts, and the magic of it all. Of course any other pop culture references made it seem all the more intriguing, such as on the Simpsons (or after I already was playing AD&D and saw it on Freaks and Geeks). I don't remember exactly why or how, but that intrigue lead to me searching for the original version of D&D. Sadly, I don't even recall where I discovered Swords & Wizardry, it may have even been a random google search one late night, but I found it. I was amazed.
Such a simple game, with so few rules conveying everything I need to play a fantasy adventure game. The artwork of the Swords & Wizardry: White Box rules I found were so retro, yet sparked my imagination so vividly. With that, I started one of my best long running campaigns, and of course many one shots and late night games with random friends.
It was such a blast, and when I found out I could use material from a variety of games and sources, I went mad with delight. However, I still stuck with OD&D. Why add a Barbarian class, when there's already a Fighter? I added the Thief because it was a fantasy classic, and I felt it was different enough from the Fighter. In those days, I only added spells, monsters, and treasures, not caring about properly converting. After all, with such as simple and low-power baseline, balance isn't really a concern. What's the harm in giving my 1d6 hit point players a +1 sword? They couldn't hit anything anyway.
Eventually I came across a copy of 1st Edition AD&D, and it re-ignited that intrigue I felt when I was a kid, and when I first found Swords & Wizardry. It was familiar, and I was already so comfortable with the OD&D rules, that adding the few tidbits found therein, seemed like no big deal. Drawing connections and acknowledging similarities I began to imagine the ways I could bridge the gap between editions, and make a unifying game (much like 5E said it was going to do).
Now, when you're playing a game, you (or at least me) start to think that it's the rules that make it fun. After all, with out the rules you'd just be playing pretend (I now realize the most noble of pursuits). If rules didn't matter, you could just play Monopoly like a dungeon crawl, right? At this time, in the late 2000's, early 2010's, there were so many cool retroclones, and supplemental materials. All of those lovely games and publications, had such "fun" rules. Rolling different combinations of dice, and "customizing" characters with special abilities felt "fun".
That's when the poison struck. For the last few years I had the game design bug. I mean if some rules were fun, wouldn't more fun rules be better? Don't get me wrong, this can be true, and some games do it really well. Battletech, as I first mentioned, really does have some cool rules. Some simpler games even, like Greymatter with it's variety of classes and races provide an excellent and elegant framework for adventuring.
Now a days though, it seems I've come full circle. I want a game that's about exploration, and problem solving. Why do I need a Barbarian Class? Why do I need more systems and sub systems? Aren't attack rolls, saving throws, and hit points enough? This doesn't mean I'm going to just play straight White Box (though I may), and I'm not completely averse to some extra character options, but I'm definitely more interested in a simple game.
Stay Zen my friends.
At the time, 4th Edition was the current version of Dungeons & Dragons, so I looked into it. The game just didn't make much sense to me. The way the rules were laid out, and the powers and abilities were not logical to me. I was used to games that tried to be realistic, so having a powers system just felt strange, and wasn't something I wanted. After all, I was doing Viking Age reenactment back then, and I wanted a game that accurately portrayed combat.
Then I stumbled upon Runequest, and Basic Role Playing. It was brilliant! Everything you could possibly want to do was handled by a skill or attribute, and they were all rated as a percent chance. Roll under the percent score, and you succeed. It was a fantastic system, and to this day my preference for any game that is not medieval or fantasy. I had a lot of fun with Runequest, and played that almost exclusively.
I could remember back in my child being enamored by Dungeons & Dragons though. The episode of Dexter's Laboratory, with his miniatures and charts, and the magic of it all. Of course any other pop culture references made it seem all the more intriguing, such as on the Simpsons (or after I already was playing AD&D and saw it on Freaks and Geeks). I don't remember exactly why or how, but that intrigue lead to me searching for the original version of D&D. Sadly, I don't even recall where I discovered Swords & Wizardry, it may have even been a random google search one late night, but I found it. I was amazed.
Such a simple game, with so few rules conveying everything I need to play a fantasy adventure game. The artwork of the Swords & Wizardry: White Box rules I found were so retro, yet sparked my imagination so vividly. With that, I started one of my best long running campaigns, and of course many one shots and late night games with random friends.
It was such a blast, and when I found out I could use material from a variety of games and sources, I went mad with delight. However, I still stuck with OD&D. Why add a Barbarian class, when there's already a Fighter? I added the Thief because it was a fantasy classic, and I felt it was different enough from the Fighter. In those days, I only added spells, monsters, and treasures, not caring about properly converting. After all, with such as simple and low-power baseline, balance isn't really a concern. What's the harm in giving my 1d6 hit point players a +1 sword? They couldn't hit anything anyway.
Eventually I came across a copy of 1st Edition AD&D, and it re-ignited that intrigue I felt when I was a kid, and when I first found Swords & Wizardry. It was familiar, and I was already so comfortable with the OD&D rules, that adding the few tidbits found therein, seemed like no big deal. Drawing connections and acknowledging similarities I began to imagine the ways I could bridge the gap between editions, and make a unifying game (much like 5E said it was going to do).
Now, when you're playing a game, you (or at least me) start to think that it's the rules that make it fun. After all, with out the rules you'd just be playing pretend (I now realize the most noble of pursuits). If rules didn't matter, you could just play Monopoly like a dungeon crawl, right? At this time, in the late 2000's, early 2010's, there were so many cool retroclones, and supplemental materials. All of those lovely games and publications, had such "fun" rules. Rolling different combinations of dice, and "customizing" characters with special abilities felt "fun".
That's when the poison struck. For the last few years I had the game design bug. I mean if some rules were fun, wouldn't more fun rules be better? Don't get me wrong, this can be true, and some games do it really well. Battletech, as I first mentioned, really does have some cool rules. Some simpler games even, like Greymatter with it's variety of classes and races provide an excellent and elegant framework for adventuring.
Now a days though, it seems I've come full circle. I want a game that's about exploration, and problem solving. Why do I need a Barbarian Class? Why do I need more systems and sub systems? Aren't attack rolls, saving throws, and hit points enough? This doesn't mean I'm going to just play straight White Box (though I may), and I'm not completely averse to some extra character options, but I'm definitely more interested in a simple game.
Stay Zen my friends.
A Little More on Armor Class
So after going through a few monster books (OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, and Pathfinder), I've come to the conclusion I'm definitely going to simplify armor class. First and foremost I'm just not finding a reason to have any armor class better than AC 0[20], heck even AC 2[18]. As far as difficulty is concerned I'm really starting to appreciate that difficulty in Dungeons & Dragons should almost entirely be derived from hit points/hit dice. A lot of guys on the OD&D boards have said that, and I'm starting to agree. (Not withstanding difficulty from traps, environment, tactics, etc. Speaking purely mechanically). It provides plenty of room for variety, progression, and gives an easy way of gauging difficulty.
As I said in my last post, this also simplifies monster creation and conversion. There are now four main armor types: None, Light, Medium, and Hard/Heavy; correlating to Unarmored, Leather, Chain mail, and Plate Mail. Unarmored is obvious, Leather works for most fur and hide, and Plate Mail is great for tough metallic scales, and the like. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any creature that has similar natural defenses to chain mail, but quit simply it provides a decent option for heavy hide, or softer natural scales. Not a perfect system, but simple and good enough for me.
Creatures that are particularly agile, dexterous, fast, or perhaps very small, can get a +1 (ascending AC), similar to the players' ability due to a 15+ in Dexterity. Those with an ability to fly are granted a +1, with a combat modifier of -4 to attacking flying creatures with ranged weapons when the creature has not attacked you. Enchanted creatures, or those described as naturally/magically unable to be struck are at another +1. I don't think I want to go any higher than +1 for any armor class abilities. This caps the maximum armor class at AC 1[19]. This goes in line with the whole armor class as degree, and the best armor class is 1st class armor.
This also means every creature can be struck by anyone. I prefer my campaign world to be a little more grounded. If it exists you can kill it. That's also because it can kill you. This has a myriad of other benefits to the game. You can keep the attack matrices lower, since every character already has a minimum 10% chance of hitting the toughest creature. When you make the natural progression of attack ability lower, it now makes +1's from other sources far more meaningful. Now your +1 to hit from Strength actually is remarkable. That +1 sword? That's really useful now.
I also think this puts less of an emphasis on how well you can hit your enemy, and more on how hard you hit them, and other more interesting factors of battle, like who and in what order. No missing is the big deal, and not hitting. I know some guys may agree with that, but I'm kind of tired of playing AD&D games where you tediously roll and miss most rounds in combat. I prefer faster, lethal combat. I personally don't care if players can hit a monster every turn, that's exactly why we have hit points that increase with level. It's supposed to be how long you last in combat, and therefore how long you can be out adventuring. Finally, I think having a Fighter that has a 95% chance of hitting is enemy is exactly what the Fighter is supposed to be.
I probably had more to say, but I may have forgot some points, however there really isn't much to say on the matter, other than it's what I like and makes the game play the way I want it to. One final thought though is player Armor Class. Now with this system it makes player and monster AC function much more similarly than before, since they are based on similar principles. However if you consider the players' abilities to get AC bonuses from other places, such as magical armor, training in special techniques, and as reward for role playing, players can potentially get a much higher AC than monsters. I'm okay with this.
While I don't want my players to be superheroes, I think letting them have this one avenue to increase survivability is fine. After all they are routinely facing creatures with much higher hit dice, and therefore much higher to-hit abilities. This also means players who prefer to focus on increasing their defenses a truly different option.
That's all for now guys, stay Zen.
As I said in my last post, this also simplifies monster creation and conversion. There are now four main armor types: None, Light, Medium, and Hard/Heavy; correlating to Unarmored, Leather, Chain mail, and Plate Mail. Unarmored is obvious, Leather works for most fur and hide, and Plate Mail is great for tough metallic scales, and the like. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any creature that has similar natural defenses to chain mail, but quit simply it provides a decent option for heavy hide, or softer natural scales. Not a perfect system, but simple and good enough for me.
Creatures that are particularly agile, dexterous, fast, or perhaps very small, can get a +1 (ascending AC), similar to the players' ability due to a 15+ in Dexterity. Those with an ability to fly are granted a +1, with a combat modifier of -4 to attacking flying creatures with ranged weapons when the creature has not attacked you. Enchanted creatures, or those described as naturally/magically unable to be struck are at another +1. I don't think I want to go any higher than +1 for any armor class abilities. This caps the maximum armor class at AC 1[19]. This goes in line with the whole armor class as degree, and the best armor class is 1st class armor.
This also means every creature can be struck by anyone. I prefer my campaign world to be a little more grounded. If it exists you can kill it. That's also because it can kill you. This has a myriad of other benefits to the game. You can keep the attack matrices lower, since every character already has a minimum 10% chance of hitting the toughest creature. When you make the natural progression of attack ability lower, it now makes +1's from other sources far more meaningful. Now your +1 to hit from Strength actually is remarkable. That +1 sword? That's really useful now.
I also think this puts less of an emphasis on how well you can hit your enemy, and more on how hard you hit them, and other more interesting factors of battle, like who and in what order. No missing is the big deal, and not hitting. I know some guys may agree with that, but I'm kind of tired of playing AD&D games where you tediously roll and miss most rounds in combat. I prefer faster, lethal combat. I personally don't care if players can hit a monster every turn, that's exactly why we have hit points that increase with level. It's supposed to be how long you last in combat, and therefore how long you can be out adventuring. Finally, I think having a Fighter that has a 95% chance of hitting is enemy is exactly what the Fighter is supposed to be.
I probably had more to say, but I may have forgot some points, however there really isn't much to say on the matter, other than it's what I like and makes the game play the way I want it to. One final thought though is player Armor Class. Now with this system it makes player and monster AC function much more similarly than before, since they are based on similar principles. However if you consider the players' abilities to get AC bonuses from other places, such as magical armor, training in special techniques, and as reward for role playing, players can potentially get a much higher AC than monsters. I'm okay with this.
While I don't want my players to be superheroes, I think letting them have this one avenue to increase survivability is fine. After all they are routinely facing creatures with much higher hit dice, and therefore much higher to-hit abilities. This also means players who prefer to focus on increasing their defenses a truly different option.
That's all for now guys, stay Zen.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
OD&D House Rules
Just going to make a quick post on the house rules I'm currently working. The goal this time is not make so many changes, but to try and play the game a little more straight. What I'm doing that's most drastic is just drawing from multiple sources. I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel. I'm just trying to compile a solid foundation for my future games. The most important goal for me, as it's always been, is to establish the best framework for using material from anywhere I want. I'll try to explain below. Of course the outline below follows the framework of Microlite20, though this isn't actually a rules post, just thoughts on the matter.
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)
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)
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Monster Consistency & More Unusual Sources.
One of the things I used to worry about a lot was having consistent monsters. In a game like OD&D where your players are supposed to logic and reasoning for game play, I felt it was very important to make sure that monsters were stated with due respect to each other. In other words, if you come across a 10 foot giant silver ram, you probably expect it to be weaker than a 40 foot ancient dragon, right?
I already wrote about an easy way to handle this: make a reference chart with monsters of each level/AC/HD/Attack, etc. to let you to stat monsters accordingly. This is excellent, but I want to point out that it's not THAT important. Yeah, you should avoid drastic nonsense, like having a full grown bear be weaker than a small wolf, but don't sweat it too much. Why not have a level 2 kobold? He's a little tougher, and he's a nice surprise. Maybe have him wearing a nice gold necklace, or wielding a polished sword, as a bit of fair warning.
Basically I used to worry a lot about "properly converting" material from other games. Now, I don't think I care so much. Maybe I'll use the 1E Gnoll this session, and toss a 3E Gnoll in next session. That 3E was just a sergeant. I want to start using more monsters from a variety of sources without thinking about it too much. Of course, using the suggested monster creation reference chart, would make it way easier to just take monster concepts, and create them for my games. Either way works I think. Using something like 1E or 2E as a base system, would also kind of stick the game mathematically in the middle of OD&D/Basic and 3E/4E/Pathfinder in terms of character strength relative to monster strength.
In any case, as always I suggest checking out every source you can for material, and not just monsters, but anything. The usual suggestions everyone goes to is Fantasy literature, comics, and movies. Check out video games too, if that's not apparent to you. I like to use music as inspiration too, heavy metal being the best source I've found (especially for campaign ideas). Obviously more adventurous DM's will plunder non D&D game sources like Palladium, Runequest, etc. Don't forget board games, like my buddy picked up a game called Mystic Vale that has some cool stuff in it, like a Moon Wolf (IIRC). Yugioh, and Pokemon honestly have some cool stuff, and I'm personally gonna check out "Boss Monsters", even if it comes off as silly.
I'm going to try and start making more posts with cool material sources, and hopefully some in depth looks, with actual suggestions. Here's some stuff I'm currently looking at that I hope to investigate and write about more:
I already wrote about an easy way to handle this: make a reference chart with monsters of each level/AC/HD/Attack, etc. to let you to stat monsters accordingly. This is excellent, but I want to point out that it's not THAT important. Yeah, you should avoid drastic nonsense, like having a full grown bear be weaker than a small wolf, but don't sweat it too much. Why not have a level 2 kobold? He's a little tougher, and he's a nice surprise. Maybe have him wearing a nice gold necklace, or wielding a polished sword, as a bit of fair warning.
Basically I used to worry a lot about "properly converting" material from other games. Now, I don't think I care so much. Maybe I'll use the 1E Gnoll this session, and toss a 3E Gnoll in next session. That 3E was just a sergeant. I want to start using more monsters from a variety of sources without thinking about it too much. Of course, using the suggested monster creation reference chart, would make it way easier to just take monster concepts, and create them for my games. Either way works I think. Using something like 1E or 2E as a base system, would also kind of stick the game mathematically in the middle of OD&D/Basic and 3E/4E/Pathfinder in terms of character strength relative to monster strength.
In any case, as always I suggest checking out every source you can for material, and not just monsters, but anything. The usual suggestions everyone goes to is Fantasy literature, comics, and movies. Check out video games too, if that's not apparent to you. I like to use music as inspiration too, heavy metal being the best source I've found (especially for campaign ideas). Obviously more adventurous DM's will plunder non D&D game sources like Palladium, Runequest, etc. Don't forget board games, like my buddy picked up a game called Mystic Vale that has some cool stuff in it, like a Moon Wolf (IIRC). Yugioh, and Pokemon honestly have some cool stuff, and I'm personally gonna check out "Boss Monsters", even if it comes off as silly.
I'm going to try and start making more posts with cool material sources, and hopefully some in depth looks, with actual suggestions. Here's some stuff I'm currently looking at that I hope to investigate and write about more:
- Roguelikes: Ultima, Wizardry, and Nethack (video games)
- Moonstone: A Hard Days Knight (video game)
- Mystic Vale, and Boss Monster (both tabletop card games)
- The Golden Key, by George MacDonald (short story)
- Dark Souls, and Witcher (more video games)
Stay Zen guys.
I Was Wrong
I don't if it's because I thought it was cool, if it's because I'm an insufferable nerd, or if I just didn't get it before, but I was wrong. It's not so fun to talk about game mechanics. I don't need to make my own game. I was wrong and I can admit that. Let my old posts serve as a reminder of what I don't want to be again.
In other words, SHUT UP AND PLAY THE GAME. I can't remember who else said this, but man I'm kind of tired about hearing about the tedious differences between old school games. I don't care if there is a -1 AC difference between a monster in different editions, or if the name for a saving throw changed by one word.
I'm only going to try and post cool stuff from now, like stuff that makes me go "wow, that's cool!". Anyway, this is my last apology, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself with "I know, I know, I changed my mind...".
Keep up the Zen, right?
In other words, SHUT UP AND PLAY THE GAME. I can't remember who else said this, but man I'm kind of tired about hearing about the tedious differences between old school games. I don't care if there is a -1 AC difference between a monster in different editions, or if the name for a saving throw changed by one word.
I'm only going to try and post cool stuff from now, like stuff that makes me go "wow, that's cool!". Anyway, this is my last apology, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself with "I know, I know, I changed my mind...".
Keep up the Zen, right?
Retrolite20, Monsters, and Spells
I meant to write a longer post tonight, but got side tracked as usual. Anyway...
(By the by I'm probably not going to hyperlink stuff anymore. OSR links die too often, I don't want to link without permission, and I'm too lazy to make links for readers who aren't there (Hello Absent Reader!), etc.)
I've espoused my love of Microlite20 before. I don't recall if I've discussed Retroroleplaying.com before, but I love that site, and I think they have the absolute best Microlite20 material. Microlite74 and Microlite81 are both "near retroclone" variants of Microlite20, allowing you to use the d20 SRD and relevant material in an old school fashion. Rock on, totally excellent.
I'd totally just have switched to playing these games ages ago, except they do two things I find really important, in a very non old school way: Treasure and Experience Points. The biggest thing 3E changed that I can never get past is the way it handles Treasure and Experience. The math should work out basically the same, and I don't care so much about not giving XP for Gold, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Old school experience systems are just so simple and straight forward. Coupled with Swords & Wizardry's brilliant treasure system (1d6 roll determining X 2-4 value of the encounter's XP), and I just feel compelled to stick with old school games.
Serious side note here, this is genuinely the largest reason I stick with old school RPGs (D&D, Runequest, Palladium, etc.). I just don't grok with newer games when it comes to reward systems. Most are too vague, or just too "feel good" for me (gain a level, whenever it feels right? I want to earn my levels!). Whenever I consider switching to 3E or Pathfinder, I just can't stand the idea of giving out treasure in any way they suggest in the books.
With all this in mind, and I'm sure I've said I'm going to do this before, I feel inspired to make a true Retroclone Microlite. I'm not saying I'm going to release it, I might if it ends up cool. What I want to do, is just kind of make a reference booklet of the AD&D or OD&D rules in a Microlite20 format. Basically, just a retro Microlite20 for old school material, instead of d20 SRD material.
Just for kicks, here's a list of some stuff I want to include:
Nothing over ambitious, probably nothing useful, but that's currently what I'm working on.
This also allows me to do another one of the activities I've been desiring: a board game dungeon crawl. Simply using the 1E DMG's solo play charts will suffice for me. It gives me a game like Dungeon! with all of the good actual D&D material. Since it's old school, it's extremely easy to convert any material to Old School D&D and Microlite20, so there's no end to content I can add to this personal project.
This leads me to my next projects. Another conclusion I've come to in regards to not publishing my own games is my inability to write. I'm sure I could practice and get better, but that's not really in my priorities. I've realized what I really want, isn't to publish my own stuff, but to collect stuff for D&D. The main collection being monsters. Rather than publish my own retroclone with tons of monsters, I just want to compile all of the monsters I can come across.
What I'd like to do for this is create my own sort of Monstrous Compendium library. Find any monster I find interesting, type up a page of information from it (probably just copy it from whatever source, since I won't be releasing it), and stick it in a series of binders. Just a massive library of monster reference for my games. The next step will be to do this spells. Though that's a bit more of a crazy beast, even if there are less spells per say.
(By the by I'm probably not going to hyperlink stuff anymore. OSR links die too often, I don't want to link without permission, and I'm too lazy to make links for readers who aren't there (Hello Absent Reader!), etc.)
I've espoused my love of Microlite20 before. I don't recall if I've discussed Retroroleplaying.com before, but I love that site, and I think they have the absolute best Microlite20 material. Microlite74 and Microlite81 are both "near retroclone" variants of Microlite20, allowing you to use the d20 SRD and relevant material in an old school fashion. Rock on, totally excellent.
I'd totally just have switched to playing these games ages ago, except they do two things I find really important, in a very non old school way: Treasure and Experience Points. The biggest thing 3E changed that I can never get past is the way it handles Treasure and Experience. The math should work out basically the same, and I don't care so much about not giving XP for Gold, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Old school experience systems are just so simple and straight forward. Coupled with Swords & Wizardry's brilliant treasure system (1d6 roll determining X 2-4 value of the encounter's XP), and I just feel compelled to stick with old school games.
Serious side note here, this is genuinely the largest reason I stick with old school RPGs (D&D, Runequest, Palladium, etc.). I just don't grok with newer games when it comes to reward systems. Most are too vague, or just too "feel good" for me (gain a level, whenever it feels right? I want to earn my levels!). Whenever I consider switching to 3E or Pathfinder, I just can't stand the idea of giving out treasure in any way they suggest in the books.
With all this in mind, and I'm sure I've said I'm going to do this before, I feel inspired to make a true Retroclone Microlite. I'm not saying I'm going to release it, I might if it ends up cool. What I want to do, is just kind of make a reference booklet of the AD&D or OD&D rules in a Microlite20 format. Basically, just a retro Microlite20 for old school material, instead of d20 SRD material.
Just for kicks, here's a list of some stuff I want to include:
- Classic AD&D and Fantasy Classes: Fighter, Rogue/Thief, Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, Assassin (maybe...), and possibly some obscure ones like Jester, Samurai (hat tip to Wizardry), and Acrobat. I'll be using the 1E versions as much as possible, adding things from other games/sources as necessary/desired.
- Castles & Crusades attribute modified saving throw system, with Swords & Wizardry saving throw target numbers (or there abouts). I just think this is one of the niftiest rules in any retroclone. Of course I might decide to go with something more Arduin, just to give this a Hackmaster feel (so many rules!).
- A Bard based on a mix of 1E & 2E, using the 1E Illusionists spells.
- Simplistic encounter system for Solo play, or easing the Referee's work in actual play. Something reminiscent of dungeon crawl board games, with "check door, go into room, kill, check for loot, etc." system. Not anything rigid you'd have to follow for actual play, but useful as an outline regardless. Also borrowing Wizardry's marching order system, because it simplifies range attacks and who is in combat.
Nothing over ambitious, probably nothing useful, but that's currently what I'm working on.
This also allows me to do another one of the activities I've been desiring: a board game dungeon crawl. Simply using the 1E DMG's solo play charts will suffice for me. It gives me a game like Dungeon! with all of the good actual D&D material. Since it's old school, it's extremely easy to convert any material to Old School D&D and Microlite20, so there's no end to content I can add to this personal project.
This leads me to my next projects. Another conclusion I've come to in regards to not publishing my own games is my inability to write. I'm sure I could practice and get better, but that's not really in my priorities. I've realized what I really want, isn't to publish my own stuff, but to collect stuff for D&D. The main collection being monsters. Rather than publish my own retroclone with tons of monsters, I just want to compile all of the monsters I can come across.
What I'd like to do for this is create my own sort of Monstrous Compendium library. Find any monster I find interesting, type up a page of information from it (probably just copy it from whatever source, since I won't be releasing it), and stick it in a series of binders. Just a massive library of monster reference for my games. The next step will be to do this spells. Though that's a bit more of a crazy beast, even if there are less spells per say.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Starting Over
I can't believe it's been 2 years since I've posted on here. Time flies, eh? There was the divorce, then the move, and now a new job. The usual.
I wanted to scrap all of this, and start from scratch. However, one of my few readers, a long time ago, told me to keep the stuff on here for posterity. A remembrance of what I used to think. I think he was right. I can be reminded of how nuts I am. Besides, I'm thinking of going back and doing "Revisit" articles on some of my old stuff. In any case, I have a few final decisions:
I'm just going to play OD&D with some house rules, maybe AD&D on occasion. There is no need to make my own game. There's already so many out there. I've also realized that it has nothing to do with the rules.
The beauty of old school D&D, especially OD&D, is that you can use any material with it, because there are so few rules to get in the way. I know, enough people have written about that, so I'll save the speech. Long story short, when I get on into the OSR it was a time when everyone was making their own game, and I just thought it would be really cool to contribute my own little piece to the gaming world. Instead, I realize I have lot better stuff to share.
For example, I'm working on a Martial Arts system that can be slipped into anyone's campaign. Hopefully I'll be writing about it soon, but it's basically just a Feat system you can purchase with gold, instead of XP. It solves a lot of the problems I (and others) have with most Feat and character customization systems out there. It's also a nice aesthetic for it, and inline with my original "Techniques" system I made for Arcane Adventures. Finally, it gives me a martial arts system for an RPG that isn't too complex.
What else have I been up to? I have a couple cool settings I'm working on. One is Viking-Samurai, which I'm really surprised no one else has done yet. The other is an Enchanted Isle, with an Enchanted Forest. Definitely going to be going to Majestic Wilderlands, Isle of Unknown, Dreamlands, and of course King Arthur and other classic Fairy Tale settings for inspiration.
I had a lot I wanted to write about when I was at work today, but it seems I forgot most of it. It's okay, my handy dandy notebook is usually on me to jot down ideas.
In any case, I just plan on sharing cool ideas, and maybe a few commentaries from now, like most of the other OSR guys. Hopefully I remember to keep writing.
Happy Gaming guys.
I wanted to scrap all of this, and start from scratch. However, one of my few readers, a long time ago, told me to keep the stuff on here for posterity. A remembrance of what I used to think. I think he was right. I can be reminded of how nuts I am. Besides, I'm thinking of going back and doing "Revisit" articles on some of my old stuff. In any case, I have a few final decisions:
I'm just going to play OD&D with some house rules, maybe AD&D on occasion. There is no need to make my own game. There's already so many out there. I've also realized that it has nothing to do with the rules.
The beauty of old school D&D, especially OD&D, is that you can use any material with it, because there are so few rules to get in the way. I know, enough people have written about that, so I'll save the speech. Long story short, when I get on into the OSR it was a time when everyone was making their own game, and I just thought it would be really cool to contribute my own little piece to the gaming world. Instead, I realize I have lot better stuff to share.
For example, I'm working on a Martial Arts system that can be slipped into anyone's campaign. Hopefully I'll be writing about it soon, but it's basically just a Feat system you can purchase with gold, instead of XP. It solves a lot of the problems I (and others) have with most Feat and character customization systems out there. It's also a nice aesthetic for it, and inline with my original "Techniques" system I made for Arcane Adventures. Finally, it gives me a martial arts system for an RPG that isn't too complex.
What else have I been up to? I have a couple cool settings I'm working on. One is Viking-Samurai, which I'm really surprised no one else has done yet. The other is an Enchanted Isle, with an Enchanted Forest. Definitely going to be going to Majestic Wilderlands, Isle of Unknown, Dreamlands, and of course King Arthur and other classic Fairy Tale settings for inspiration.
I had a lot I wanted to write about when I was at work today, but it seems I forgot most of it. It's okay, my handy dandy notebook is usually on me to jot down ideas.
In any case, I just plan on sharing cool ideas, and maybe a few commentaries from now, like most of the other OSR guys. Hopefully I remember to keep writing.
Happy Gaming guys.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Fantasy Crawl!
Fantasy Crawl!
Nothing there yet. It's a blog I started originally to track my ideas for my Dungeon Crawl project. I'm thinking since this whole Wizards & Warriors idea fits that theme and idea better than it does Arcane Adventures, I think I might start posting there.
The biggest divergence of this project from that of Arcane Adventures is the end game. Where as Arcane Adventures was meant to really have that old school feel, and support the old school philosophy and principles, this new game really doesn't. Instead it definitely seems like it's gonna make a great standalone "game". I truly mean game. No pretense of Role Playing Game, or D&D clone, or anything like that.
As of right now it's looking like the whole point of Wizards & Warriors is going to be: kill the monsters, grab the loot, and buy magic items and gear to kill more. Very hack and slash. Very fun oriented, and very much more like a game. More along the lines of an expanded Dungeon! than a D&D lite kind of game.
Plus a fresh start is always nice.
Nothing there yet. It's a blog I started originally to track my ideas for my Dungeon Crawl project. I'm thinking since this whole Wizards & Warriors idea fits that theme and idea better than it does Arcane Adventures, I think I might start posting there.
The biggest divergence of this project from that of Arcane Adventures is the end game. Where as Arcane Adventures was meant to really have that old school feel, and support the old school philosophy and principles, this new game really doesn't. Instead it definitely seems like it's gonna make a great standalone "game". I truly mean game. No pretense of Role Playing Game, or D&D clone, or anything like that.
As of right now it's looking like the whole point of Wizards & Warriors is going to be: kill the monsters, grab the loot, and buy magic items and gear to kill more. Very hack and slash. Very fun oriented, and very much more like a game. More along the lines of an expanded Dungeon! than a D&D lite kind of game.
Plus a fresh start is always nice.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
New Beginnings
I'm Back! (I Think)
Wow it's been a while. Long story, haha. This is also going to be a long post. To sum it up really quickly; Life Happened. A lot of bad stuff happened, then a lot of good stuff, and now I'm just kind of waiting to see where life goes.In the interim of all of this, I've played a lot of D&D and RPGs in general. I've read a lot, and ton plenty of research. Checked out alternative places for ideas, like I always do (video games, music, literature, etc). I have a great idea of want I want in my rules now, and have a plan I'm sticking too.
If you haven't seen Searchers of the Unknown, check it out. At first I was against the idea of removing classes from D&D, until I realized it solved almost all of the problems I had with it, and allowed me to use material from literally anywhere. There are some drawbacks, but in the end I actually think they're benefits.
So what is Arcane Adventures going to look like? First off I'm not sure I'll still call it that. I'm think I should, because the default "class" if you can call it that, will be the Adventurer. Furthermore the game will be all about Adventuring. However that's just the way I'll play it. The actual rules part is pretty much just going to be a hack slash game. I'm toying with "Wizards & Warriors", which I believe I've mentioned before. This is because any character type you'll play as far as combat, is going to fall somewhere in between a Wizard and a Warrior. Bards? Wizard and Warrior who focuses on healing and bonus spells. Cleric? A Wizard that focuses on healing spells. Druid? A nature Wizard. You get the point.
Lets get on to some specifics, shall we?
Class Abilities (No More)
One of the things I loved about old school D&D were all of the weird and unique class abilities. However this eventually became my scorn of the system. No one ever wanted to play the weird classes, they just wanted to play the optimum classes. Eventually I'd just play OD&D and let players make their classes as we played, giving them abilities as we agreed appropriate. This eventually led me to question why I even had classes at all. So voila, no more classes.Actions like picking locks, finding traps, or surprise, are handled via spot rules, common sense, or role playing. You can see this in OD&D, and my last Arcane Adventures update. Wearing leather armor? Well you get a 3/6 chance of surprise. Have a lock pick? Cool you get a 2/6 chance to pick locks, and you don't make any noise.
I know this method removes a lot of combat flavor, but I don't really care. Certain features, like expanded critical ranges can be handled via equipment. In fact most combat abilities can be handled via equipment selection. I don't care to into specifics yet, I'll just start posting material soon.
What are Characters Then?
Just like Searchers, characters are just Armor Class, Hit Points, Attack Bonus, and Saving Throw. That's all you need. Players can decide their complexity by how much gear they collect and what it does. An example of this, the prime example, is spell scrolls (runes, potions, charms, wands, etc.). Let's be honest, D&D has almost always been a game about collecting magic items; so let's just cut to the chase.Simplified Magic
All magic is simply handled through purchases. This can be "role played" or explained however you want. Heck, if you want to go really old school you can make your characters actually go collect and quest for material components. This has two really awesome benefits in my opinion.Number one it "balances" (I know, shun the thought haha) magic with non-magic users. I know this means everyone can cast magic, but I don't think that's an awful thing. It's fantasy after all. What this does is means there is a cost to all magic. No more 6 Fireballs a day, just because. Now magic-users will have to spend some of that hard earned treasure to cast more spells. This forces players to actually think before they cast spells, because they aren't free anymore. It also gives a nice incentive to actually go adventure more.
Second this opens up all magic. No more Class Spell Lists. Just magic. Use the lowest level (or highest if you prefer) version of the spell. IE if Clerics and Magic-User both get a spell, you use whichever version is available first. Furthermore I'm strongly considering the idea of set spell stats. IE no more 1d6 per level. Simply 5d6 if it's a spell you would normally get at 5th level. This opens up spells from everywhere by the way. Rituals from 4th? Sure. Magic from the d20 Call of Cthulhu supplement? Of course. Force powers from Star Wars? You might need to figure out a cost, but toss them in there.
Backgrounds, Professions, and Races
An idea I'm toying with, but strongly avoiding, is the idea of some sort of background. I realize this was almost necessary for Races (though not really, once again just role play it). I'm consider something along the lines of; Lizard Man +1 AC; Warrior +1 Attack. Though something I'm leaning towards more is the idea of "Kits". Classes would just be backgrounds that determine your starting equipment. Wizard? Starts with Robes and a Wand. Knight? Chainmail and long sword. You get the point.Play First, Role Play After
One of my biggest complaints was inconsistency. Why would a Giant Ram be stronger than a Dragon (just an example out of thin air)? Here's a better question, why should I care? Monsters are now just a pile of hit points, armor class, and damage. Maybe the Ram is magical. Maybe it's twice the size of the Dragon. Figure it out later, if you even care. Same with characters, same with magic, same with weapons, treasure, etc.What Does it All Mean?
Most important to me, it means rules where you need them, not where you don't. In other words, combat is one of the few things you can't juts negotiate. There are few other situations like that in an Adventure, so why do we need so many rules? We don't, and that's one of the main tenets of the OSR. I'm just taking it to the extreme, nothing special really. What is special is the particular combination of rules I'm keeping means I get to use material from everywhere, EVERYWHERE.Something else, that I desire, is a game where you don't have to role play. Of course you can role play all you want, and removing rules that restrict that role playing is great, and very old school. But what about those times you don't want to role play? Maybe your playing in public and your shy. Maybe it's not your thing. Maybe you got some buddies that just want to play a game. You can do that here. You can just kill stuff and get the treasure. While most people see that as shallow and boring, I see that as an opportunity for some fun.
Another interesting side effect is this establishes a certain feel, that I think is unique amongst tabletop RPGs. In fact I think this will end up feeling like a computer game more. It will feel more like games akin to Zelda, Moonstone, Sword & Sworcery, etc. Games that focus on the hero, on adventure, and exploration. Most importantly this is a game that can be played one on one (or even solitary, if so desired).
Since I've mentioned computer games, I'm thinking of even using computer graphics. Old school pixel graphics of course. This has a few benefits to me. I'm not a very gifted artist, but raster graphics I can do. It also gives my game a unique feel, and communicates the style of game I'm inadvertently emulating. It's also totally old school.
Well that's enough for now. Stay tuned for material, because right now I'm probably just going to blog everything.
Monday, July 7, 2014
From Scratch
From multiple sources I've come to the conclusion (and pretty much confirmed) that most everything in D&D was just conjured from thin air. In other words, there is no rhyme or reason to Monster stats, or spell abilities, etc. Because of this, the best advice almost anyone has for converting or creating material is "eyeball it". This is a problem, not because of balance obsession, but internal consistency. I want my players to be able to use logic to play the game. I don't want them rushing in to fight a Giant Ram, because they've slayed a Dragon, and the Giant Ram should be easier to fight. (Just an example.)
Because of this I'm thinking it might be best to simply develop my own guidelines, possibly referencing D&D or trying to keep some level of similarity. I'm thinking (and redbaron at the ODD74 boards has a similar system) of simply making a Hit Dice by size chart (as in Human =1, Giant = 10, etc.), and possibly Hit Dice by human level chart (Peasant = 1/2, Knight = 5, etc.). Then have an armor class by type chart as an example (Leather/Natural Hide = AC12, Chainmail/Scale = AC14, etc.), and then maybe a few modifiers (Small = +1, Flying = +2, etc.). The same for damage (Natural attacks = 1d6, Fireball = HD x d6, etc.). Then you could obviously use the various XP determination charts from either 1E or 2E.
Spells would be a little harder, but you could still devise a similar system. Level 1 spells = 1dx+1/level, Level 5 = (level)dx, etc. Non combat spells might be a little harder, but I'm sure there is a metric you could devise and such.
This would obviously be a large undertaking, but I think it would be easier in the long run, to have nice guidelines for creating and converting monsters in a solid way.
Because of this I'm thinking it might be best to simply develop my own guidelines, possibly referencing D&D or trying to keep some level of similarity. I'm thinking (and redbaron at the ODD74 boards has a similar system) of simply making a Hit Dice by size chart (as in Human =1, Giant = 10, etc.), and possibly Hit Dice by human level chart (Peasant = 1/2, Knight = 5, etc.). Then have an armor class by type chart as an example (Leather/Natural Hide = AC12, Chainmail/Scale = AC14, etc.), and then maybe a few modifiers (Small = +1, Flying = +2, etc.). The same for damage (Natural attacks = 1d6, Fireball = HD x d6, etc.). Then you could obviously use the various XP determination charts from either 1E or 2E.
Spells would be a little harder, but you could still devise a similar system. Level 1 spells = 1dx+1/level, Level 5 = (level)dx, etc. Non combat spells might be a little harder, but I'm sure there is a metric you could devise and such.
This would obviously be a large undertaking, but I think it would be easier in the long run, to have nice guidelines for creating and converting monsters in a solid way.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Types of Classes
This is a quick discussion on the types of classes I've been able to discern from working on D&D. These are basically the abilities and progressions. I think they use a "Tier" system in 3.5/PF, but I'm not familiar with them. These types of classes can usually be combined in various ways, as with all D&D/derivatives, there is no cut and dry classifications.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Dungeon Crawl Revised; Playtest
I'm actually in the middle of writing another blog post (my fist Monster Comparison), but I figured I should post something positive for the first time in a while. I haven't blogged in a couple weeks because I am employed once again, which is nice. A lovely perk of my job (kind of working with computers), is I've met some other nerd friends, who also happen to play RPGs. One friend in particular is very fond of Old School D&D, the other (and his brother who joins us) play a lot of Paladium RPGs. Last weekend we got together, and they agreed to help me playtest my "Dungeon Crawl" rules.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Monster Comparisons
I'm going to start taking a bit more of a methodical approach to Arcane Adventures. I want to be able to use material from every edition. I have little desire to balance monsters against each other for game play purposes, because that's not fun, and balance fetish is something from later games. However, it is important to "balance" monsters against each other for the sake of logic and internal consistency.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)