Over the years there have been several methods made available for creating custom character classes from D&D. Some methods involved point buy systems (like 2E) to determine the class' XP value; others were "classless" systems that let you create your class as you played. Most of these complex systems stem from the subclasses that came out for Original Dungeons & Dragons, via supplements and magazine articles. Classes as we know them today are described via various abilities and restrictions, and usually a laundry list of those. Even back in the 70's "subclasses" were getting unique XP progressions, and tons of abilities and unique traits.
I finally took a look at the OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk a few days ago. Something I noticed about the Paladin, the first subclass introduced, was that it wasn't very unique to itself. In other words, it was still just a fighter, with a few quirks. This reminded me a lot of the treatment of subclasses in the Rules Cyclopedia; wherein Paladins and Rangers were simply Fighters, with a few special abilities, like casting spells. Why did this change?
I thought to myself "why not go back to it?". With my Dungeon Crawl variant, there were four core classes, and a slew of subclasses, each with 2-3 special abilities, and 1-3 restrictions or drawbacks. These classes still resembled the current (current since AD&D 1E really) sorts of classes with several of the abilities being rather complex. Bards had special spell progressions, an assortment of Thief skills; Monks had lay on hands, Thief skills, and increasing unarmed damage with multiple attacks; and so on.
I've decided now that "subclasses" if I'm even going to call them that, are basically just going to be a few special abilities, with a few restrictions. Let me outline specifically what I mean this time, and how it's different than what I described above. The basis of the system is this:
Every subclass gets one cool ability; one unique and interesting feature that makes them different and worthwhile to play. This includes the core classes; Fighters are going to get an AC bonus, and Strength bonus; Thieves get their skills and backstab; and so on. Then for every restriction a class takes, they are allowed one more ability; it is up the Referee to determine what he sees as a fair trade off.
This is really no different than AD&D, or the OD&D supplements. The main differences are that I'm going to limit it to 3 abilities, and 2 restrictions for most subclasses. If I keep the abilities simple, but interesting, there is no need to have separate XP progressions, or to treat them as separate classes entirely. To better illustrate my idea, I'll give some examples.
PALADIN
(Ability) Lay on Hands: The Paladin can heal 1d4 hit points per level once a day, on either himself or others.
(Ability) Detect Evil: The Paladin may cast the Detect Evil at will, taking one minute to focus on the spell.
(Restriction) Alignment: The Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. If the Paladin ever acts against this alignment, he must seek repentance, or lose all his Paladin abilities.
RANGER
(Ability) Dual Wield: The Ranger is skilled in his with two weapons. When fighting with two weapons, the Ranger makes one attack roll; if it is successful he rolls damage for both weapons totaling the damage done.
(Ability) Surprise: Rangers are sneaky and surprise on 1-4 on a d6.
(Restriction) Armor: Rangers need to be agile and light on their feet, therefore they are restricted to leather type armors.
They both seem familiar I hope. One thing you'll notice is the lack of spell casting ability for either class. This is a decision I've come to after much consideration. In AD&D even, Paladins and Rangers don't gain their spell casting ability till around 9th level; furthermore it is a very minimal spell ability. One of my old school players doesn't even recall Rangers being able to cast spells in 1st Edition (they are). When he played he simply played a Ranger till around 9th level, and then dual classed to a Druid.
It dawned on me that's the point of dual classes and multi-classes. If you want to play a hybrid Fighter/Cleric, just play a Fighter/Cleric. There is not need for a in between class that is either A) Less powerful than both or B) More powerful than either. Multi-classing done right is balanced enough, if you divide the XP amongst both classes, and it's not all that complicated.
Then we move on to spell casting subclasses. This is even easier, as there is already precedent with the Druid and Illusionist. Simply give them a different spell list, and appropriate restrictions, and there you go. In fact I've decided to make my Bard a Cleric subclass, instead of a Thief subclass; as I'll admit the 2E Bard (despite being my favorite), is rather broken.
Well that's all for now, hopefully I got my point across.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Everyone's Asking Questions: The What If?-Clones
There seems to be a lot of "what if?" retro-clones coming out lately (I know the proper term isn't retro-clone, as everyone likes to point out to me, but I don't care). My personal favorite is Adventures Dark & Deep, what would have happened if Gary Gygax had stayed at TSR. There's also Dragons At Dawn (an Arnesonian OD&D clone), and the failed Chamions of ZED (an OD&D before OD&D game). The usefulness of such projects is debatable, although I find Adventures Dark & Deep to be a wonderful compilation of AD&D 1E material regardless of "what if?" scenario.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Good News Everybody!
Well I was going to write my usual long post, with explanations, and excuses, and so on. Luckily Firefox crashed (probably due to my excessive tabs issue), and steered me in the right direction. In fact I almost feel like it's cosmic confirmation (that'd be a great game title...) for the decision I've been making over the last few days. So to sum up what I was going to write, I'll just sort of list off what I'm thinking in quick points.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
Monday, September 30, 2013
How Was D&D Played? I Don't Care...
I've been refereeing a diverse play group finally, and it's really cemented my views on Dungeons & Dragons. All of my players have been extremely helpful in playtesting my "Dungeon Crawl" (we've settled on that name for now) rules for Arcane Adventures.
One of my players has been extremely vocal and enthused about the playtest. He's a 3E player, and in interest of making the game fun for himself, and making sure it achieves my goals, he's been intentionally trying to break it. He's not being rude by any means of course, and it's been really helpful, and I see the few things I need to fix before I do anything serious with my game. In fact it's been nice to see that I won't have to make many changes, as my game handles powergaming really well.
What's great though is we've been having really constructive conversations about our styles of game play. This player, my wife, and myself have been discussing the differences from the mix of AD&D we play, and 3E which he plays. The best part of these discussions is we acknowledge the differences, and always come to the agreement that neither is superior, both are fun, in different ways.
This player has also played some AD&D when he was younger, and several of the players at the store have played AD&D. I've also been discussing ideas and how we play our games with those players as well. As I've said before, I never actually played AD&D in it's hay day (I wasn't even alive back then), I've really just been discovering AD&D/Old School D&D through the web, retroclones, and the books I mange to find.
From the discussions with these players, I'm finding that only one player I've gotten to talk to extensively on the matter played AD&D the way I've heard it played. This player is in my game, which is working great to add to the diversity. He's loving how old school my game feels, and he shares my mentality strongly, that every editions has cool stuff to add to the game. However like I said, he's about the only player who still has a positive view of AD&D after all of these years.
What I have noticed about the players who don't like AD&D, is that they are very self-centered in their playing style. This is by no means an insult, and my 3E player will proudly exclaim he's selfish when he plays. There's nothing wrong with that, when people play games they want to win, and that in itself is selfish. I have noticed that this affects the game though; in that they play the game to suit their whims and accomplish their goals. My old school players on the other hand; play the game to accomplish the game's goals and work in the game world.
In other words, the real difference between old school and new school is the player mentalities of whether the game is meant to fit the player, or the player fit the game. Neither option is bad really, but this is the point I'm getting to about how D&D used to be played. I wasn't around back then, and I don't know if the majority of old school bloggers actually represent how games were played back then, but what I do know is how they're being played now.
I just found this site and, this particular article is of great value:
http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...
Something I found extremely interesting is that my 3E player admitted that AD&D allows for much more creativity than 3E, because of a lack of rules. I do not know if the rules lite mentality was actually used back in the 80's, or if people actually did roleplay out traps and challenges. What I do is that several people have pointed out that it can be played in a creative way, and that's the way I'm playing it.
One of my players has been extremely vocal and enthused about the playtest. He's a 3E player, and in interest of making the game fun for himself, and making sure it achieves my goals, he's been intentionally trying to break it. He's not being rude by any means of course, and it's been really helpful, and I see the few things I need to fix before I do anything serious with my game. In fact it's been nice to see that I won't have to make many changes, as my game handles powergaming really well.
What's great though is we've been having really constructive conversations about our styles of game play. This player, my wife, and myself have been discussing the differences from the mix of AD&D we play, and 3E which he plays. The best part of these discussions is we acknowledge the differences, and always come to the agreement that neither is superior, both are fun, in different ways.
This player has also played some AD&D when he was younger, and several of the players at the store have played AD&D. I've also been discussing ideas and how we play our games with those players as well. As I've said before, I never actually played AD&D in it's hay day (I wasn't even alive back then), I've really just been discovering AD&D/Old School D&D through the web, retroclones, and the books I mange to find.
From the discussions with these players, I'm finding that only one player I've gotten to talk to extensively on the matter played AD&D the way I've heard it played. This player is in my game, which is working great to add to the diversity. He's loving how old school my game feels, and he shares my mentality strongly, that every editions has cool stuff to add to the game. However like I said, he's about the only player who still has a positive view of AD&D after all of these years.
What I have noticed about the players who don't like AD&D, is that they are very self-centered in their playing style. This is by no means an insult, and my 3E player will proudly exclaim he's selfish when he plays. There's nothing wrong with that, when people play games they want to win, and that in itself is selfish. I have noticed that this affects the game though; in that they play the game to suit their whims and accomplish their goals. My old school players on the other hand; play the game to accomplish the game's goals and work in the game world.
In other words, the real difference between old school and new school is the player mentalities of whether the game is meant to fit the player, or the player fit the game. Neither option is bad really, but this is the point I'm getting to about how D&D used to be played. I wasn't around back then, and I don't know if the majority of old school bloggers actually represent how games were played back then, but what I do know is how they're being played now.
I just found this site and, this particular article is of great value:
http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...
Something I found extremely interesting is that my 3E player admitted that AD&D allows for much more creativity than 3E, because of a lack of rules. I do not know if the rules lite mentality was actually used back in the 80's, or if people actually did roleplay out traps and challenges. What I do is that several people have pointed out that it can be played in a creative way, and that's the way I'm playing it.
Monday, September 23, 2013
What 3.5/d20 Is Great For
I've recently come into possession of several 3rd Edition books, a Pathfinder Core Rulebook, a set of core 4E books, and already have a nice collection of varied roleplaying game books. I've been mulling over some thoughts I've already had, and have come to some realizations about those thoughts, in particular relation to official D&D games.
If it isn't already apparent to you, every kind of book is useful in D&D. Particularly in old school D&D there is a great emphasis placed on knowledge, fluff, and flavor text. OD&D and AD&D particular have numerous references on reading literature for inspiration, and going to the local library to find out about areas of interest. In games that have no rules systems for out of combat activity, real world knowledge can be used to fill in the gaps, and actually roleplay what will happen. Of course this also means that any RPG material can be used with D&D to help fill in gaps, especially in older editions where rules subsystems are encouraged, you can wholesale import rules from other games.
With that caveat out of the way, what is common in every edition of D&D in particular? Hit Points and Armor Class. In fact that is what really makes D&D, D&D; the d20 attack roll. This means that every edition's monsters in particular, are generally usable across the board with minimal tweaking. This is especially true for converting newer monsters to TSR era D&D. Any hit point value can be easily converted to a hit dice value; use whatever editions combat tables for monsters to determine attack roll value; and finally "flip" and possibly reduce armor class.
Before I start hearing contentions about how "mathematically" there is a huge difference between editions, I want to point out that there actually isn't. If you stop seeing every kobold as a "kobold", and start seeing them as different kinds of kobolds, or different monsters altogether, with similarities, you are now free to use every editions book. In fact, maybe you like 3E's kobold better than AD&D's, that's great, you now have a better version of a monster you want to include. So instead of thinking about how monsters that are found in all versions of the game, as being different, consider them as more monsters to use. Maybe change the description, or include them as leaders or super-variants.
What's of great interest to me, as a DM, is 3rd Edition/d20 monsters. I have a copy of Call of Cthulhu d20, and it hit me like a brick: I want to toss some Cthulhu monsters at my players! I love the cosmic horror aspect, and there's already several Cthulhu monsters in D&D. I was going to convert some from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, but it's d100 and would be a bit of work. Now I can just use the monsters from my d20 book. Another brainstorm I had was using the Star Wars d20 books. There's a Rancor action figure in my FLGS and I joked about sending it after my players, when I realized, "Oh wait, I can!".
With the d20 system its extremely easy to convert monsters to old school D&D. There's a few conversions guides online, but I'll go over some of what I've been doing to quickly use 3.5 monsters in my game. There's no attempt to scale their difficulty or make them easier to fight, because the player's will be rewarded with ample XP, and as a DM I can determine what's reasonable for them to fight.
First off lets look at Armor Class. If you're using something like Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, or Castles & Crusades, simply us the Armor Class as is. If you're really bothered about ridiculously high AC, cap it at 30 like it was in older games. BFRPG has a lovely conversion document that scales armor classes above 25 (IIRC). If you're using AD&D of some sort, simply subtract the AC from 20, and once again you can limit it to -10, and even scale AC over -5, or 0.
Combat stats are extremely easy, because you can just look up their attack values in the edition you're using. Use the combat tables or formulas appropriate to your chosen edition.
Feats and special abilities are going to be more difficult, but can either be largely ignored, or you can look up how they work. Every edition has had special monster abilities, like swallowing whole or ability drain. You can either take the time to convert the rules/modify them, or do the real old school method and adjudicate the abilities based off flavor text.
Finally the most important aspect is Hit Points and Hit Dice. I found out that the number in parenthesis for 3.5 monster books, is actually the maximum hit points for old school monsters of the same type. So you can either divide that number by 8 and come up with their d8 hit dice value; or you can simply roll up the hit dice as only d8, either ignoring or including the extra hit points. Determining the number of Hit Dice is extremely important, because this is used for rewarding experience points, and for determine relative level (and therefore difficulty) of the monster. Personally I'm using (and loving) the 2E Ravenloft appendix for determining monster experience value. This table, and most old school XP tables, includes ways of adding monster abilities to their level, to get a general idea of a monster's level.
To me the above is relatively simple, and I've been applying the methods, with great success in my games. This has encouraged me to look at all sorts of d20 books for inspiration, and resources for Arcane Adventures. There are the Star Wars d20 books if you want some exotic alien-like monsters; there is Swords & Sorcery books, very genre appropriate (especially the Tome of Horrors series for old school games); Pathfinder has some wonderful Bestiaries, and the revisited series that's great for themed adventures.
I haven't had a good chance to look over the 4E monster manual, but a player has already agreed to help me convert some monsters from it that he wants to face. I can't imagine it would be much different than what I've discussed above. Once again divide hit point values by 5 or 8 (depending on whats' appropriate), adjudicate special abilities, Flip/Reduce/ or use armor class as is, and determine XP value.
There are obviously more useful books than just the monster books, but to discuss them all in detail like above would take a whole book (Arcane Adventures...). My wife has been browsing Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, and I've looked at it with her. It's filled with wonderful magic items, that have great fluff, and whose mechanical aspects can either be ignored, or easily converted to be appropriate for old school gaming. I already use several Dungeon Master Guides for random tables, and general advice for my campaigns. My player's love using various editions Player's Handbooks for character fluff, special abilities that I let them gain through role playing for example, and other information.
If it isn't already apparent to you, every kind of book is useful in D&D. Particularly in old school D&D there is a great emphasis placed on knowledge, fluff, and flavor text. OD&D and AD&D particular have numerous references on reading literature for inspiration, and going to the local library to find out about areas of interest. In games that have no rules systems for out of combat activity, real world knowledge can be used to fill in the gaps, and actually roleplay what will happen. Of course this also means that any RPG material can be used with D&D to help fill in gaps, especially in older editions where rules subsystems are encouraged, you can wholesale import rules from other games.
With that caveat out of the way, what is common in every edition of D&D in particular? Hit Points and Armor Class. In fact that is what really makes D&D, D&D; the d20 attack roll. This means that every edition's monsters in particular, are generally usable across the board with minimal tweaking. This is especially true for converting newer monsters to TSR era D&D. Any hit point value can be easily converted to a hit dice value; use whatever editions combat tables for monsters to determine attack roll value; and finally "flip" and possibly reduce armor class.
Before I start hearing contentions about how "mathematically" there is a huge difference between editions, I want to point out that there actually isn't. If you stop seeing every kobold as a "kobold", and start seeing them as different kinds of kobolds, or different monsters altogether, with similarities, you are now free to use every editions book. In fact, maybe you like 3E's kobold better than AD&D's, that's great, you now have a better version of a monster you want to include. So instead of thinking about how monsters that are found in all versions of the game, as being different, consider them as more monsters to use. Maybe change the description, or include them as leaders or super-variants.
What's of great interest to me, as a DM, is 3rd Edition/d20 monsters. I have a copy of Call of Cthulhu d20, and it hit me like a brick: I want to toss some Cthulhu monsters at my players! I love the cosmic horror aspect, and there's already several Cthulhu monsters in D&D. I was going to convert some from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, but it's d100 and would be a bit of work. Now I can just use the monsters from my d20 book. Another brainstorm I had was using the Star Wars d20 books. There's a Rancor action figure in my FLGS and I joked about sending it after my players, when I realized, "Oh wait, I can!".
With the d20 system its extremely easy to convert monsters to old school D&D. There's a few conversions guides online, but I'll go over some of what I've been doing to quickly use 3.5 monsters in my game. There's no attempt to scale their difficulty or make them easier to fight, because the player's will be rewarded with ample XP, and as a DM I can determine what's reasonable for them to fight.
First off lets look at Armor Class. If you're using something like Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, or Castles & Crusades, simply us the Armor Class as is. If you're really bothered about ridiculously high AC, cap it at 30 like it was in older games. BFRPG has a lovely conversion document that scales armor classes above 25 (IIRC). If you're using AD&D of some sort, simply subtract the AC from 20, and once again you can limit it to -10, and even scale AC over -5, or 0.
Combat stats are extremely easy, because you can just look up their attack values in the edition you're using. Use the combat tables or formulas appropriate to your chosen edition.
Feats and special abilities are going to be more difficult, but can either be largely ignored, or you can look up how they work. Every edition has had special monster abilities, like swallowing whole or ability drain. You can either take the time to convert the rules/modify them, or do the real old school method and adjudicate the abilities based off flavor text.
Finally the most important aspect is Hit Points and Hit Dice. I found out that the number in parenthesis for 3.5 monster books, is actually the maximum hit points for old school monsters of the same type. So you can either divide that number by 8 and come up with their d8 hit dice value; or you can simply roll up the hit dice as only d8, either ignoring or including the extra hit points. Determining the number of Hit Dice is extremely important, because this is used for rewarding experience points, and for determine relative level (and therefore difficulty) of the monster. Personally I'm using (and loving) the 2E Ravenloft appendix for determining monster experience value. This table, and most old school XP tables, includes ways of adding monster abilities to their level, to get a general idea of a monster's level.
To me the above is relatively simple, and I've been applying the methods, with great success in my games. This has encouraged me to look at all sorts of d20 books for inspiration, and resources for Arcane Adventures. There are the Star Wars d20 books if you want some exotic alien-like monsters; there is Swords & Sorcery books, very genre appropriate (especially the Tome of Horrors series for old school games); Pathfinder has some wonderful Bestiaries, and the revisited series that's great for themed adventures.
I haven't had a good chance to look over the 4E monster manual, but a player has already agreed to help me convert some monsters from it that he wants to face. I can't imagine it would be much different than what I've discussed above. Once again divide hit point values by 5 or 8 (depending on whats' appropriate), adjudicate special abilities, Flip/Reduce/ or use armor class as is, and determine XP value.
There are obviously more useful books than just the monster books, but to discuss them all in detail like above would take a whole book (Arcane Adventures...). My wife has been browsing Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, and I've looked at it with her. It's filled with wonderful magic items, that have great fluff, and whose mechanical aspects can either be ignored, or easily converted to be appropriate for old school gaming. I already use several Dungeon Master Guides for random tables, and general advice for my campaigns. My player's love using various editions Player's Handbooks for character fluff, special abilities that I let them gain through role playing for example, and other information.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
My Dungeon Crawl Rules
I finally got to play test my 3E "dungeon crawl" rules that utilize the "d20 mechanic". I've got them to fit in a nice 20 page booklet, which I might make available if it's legal to do so (I need to recheck if any of it was lifted wholesale). Classes are extremely simple, as are races, and I've included a much simplified skill set.
There are glaring differences in play style from old school, however I'm not sure if it is due to mechanics, or my new play group. I've finally started going to my local gaming store, and a couple of the guys in my group are mainly 3.5/Pathfinder players. The good news is they love my rules, I'm not sure if they like them more than 3E, but they are extremely enthusiastic about them. The best part is they aren't asking to play 3E instead, and I've allowed them the use of any 3E books with my rules.
One of the players has really used that ability, and is using a class from Pathfinder (Oracle), and several feats from 3E.
As I said it's a very different style of gaming, it's much easier than strait old school, and characters are much more powerful. Furthermore because of it's similarities to 3rd Edition the 3E players are definitely focused on builds, and manipulating the rules for character creation. The system is definitely handling it well, and it's still no where as complicated or time consuming as 3rd or 4th Edition D&D. Overall I'd say I was successful in my goals, as it definitely feels like playing a video game, but it's still rules-lite and fast to play like OD&D.
Something that I love about my game is that anyone can play and have a good time. Whether that's because of rules, or despite them I don't know, but I do know that we're having fun. We've got old school players in our group that have never touched 3rd, we've got almost completely new players that played 4th once, and we've got experienced 3.5 players, and all of them are having a blast. More importantly, they are all getting to play D&D in a way they like; some are playing simple characters and role playing heavily, others are focusing on "builds" and using the rules to their advantage, and others still are just killing monsters and looting dungeons.
I may seem egotistical, and I'm sure I'm simply jealous because I've been working on this before D&D Next came out; but from what I've seen so far, this really is a game for everyone to enjoy. The biggest support to my idea is that at the table so far, I've been using a mix of OD&D, 1E, and 3E books to DM with; some of my players have been using 3E books; and yet another player is using a 2E book. We're taking what material and rules we like from those books, and getting the play the same game, at the same table together. Like I said, maybe we're having fun despite the rules, but I'd like to think that maybe there really is an essence to D&D, and we've managed to capture it.
Of course it's not news to me that there are gaming groups that have been doing this for ages. I'm simply codifying my methods for using all of that material together, and frankly I think WOTC is failing to do so. I've looked at next, and it doesn't look like it's going to accomplish any of the goals they're setting out to do.
There are glaring differences in play style from old school, however I'm not sure if it is due to mechanics, or my new play group. I've finally started going to my local gaming store, and a couple of the guys in my group are mainly 3.5/Pathfinder players. The good news is they love my rules, I'm not sure if they like them more than 3E, but they are extremely enthusiastic about them. The best part is they aren't asking to play 3E instead, and I've allowed them the use of any 3E books with my rules.
One of the players has really used that ability, and is using a class from Pathfinder (Oracle), and several feats from 3E.
As I said it's a very different style of gaming, it's much easier than strait old school, and characters are much more powerful. Furthermore because of it's similarities to 3rd Edition the 3E players are definitely focused on builds, and manipulating the rules for character creation. The system is definitely handling it well, and it's still no where as complicated or time consuming as 3rd or 4th Edition D&D. Overall I'd say I was successful in my goals, as it definitely feels like playing a video game, but it's still rules-lite and fast to play like OD&D.
Something that I love about my game is that anyone can play and have a good time. Whether that's because of rules, or despite them I don't know, but I do know that we're having fun. We've got old school players in our group that have never touched 3rd, we've got almost completely new players that played 4th once, and we've got experienced 3.5 players, and all of them are having a blast. More importantly, they are all getting to play D&D in a way they like; some are playing simple characters and role playing heavily, others are focusing on "builds" and using the rules to their advantage, and others still are just killing monsters and looting dungeons.
I may seem egotistical, and I'm sure I'm simply jealous because I've been working on this before D&D Next came out; but from what I've seen so far, this really is a game for everyone to enjoy. The biggest support to my idea is that at the table so far, I've been using a mix of OD&D, 1E, and 3E books to DM with; some of my players have been using 3E books; and yet another player is using a 2E book. We're taking what material and rules we like from those books, and getting the play the same game, at the same table together. Like I said, maybe we're having fun despite the rules, but I'd like to think that maybe there really is an essence to D&D, and we've managed to capture it.
Of course it's not news to me that there are gaming groups that have been doing this for ages. I'm simply codifying my methods for using all of that material together, and frankly I think WOTC is failing to do so. I've looked at next, and it doesn't look like it's going to accomplish any of the goals they're setting out to do.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Editionless Gaming...Also Why I Won't Write a Retroclone
I haven't wanted to keep posting what I'm doing lately, because I keep changing my mind, going back on myself. Tonight though my wife gave me a great idea, that Greyhawk Grognard says he does too: develop a mantra. I need to remember why I'm making Arcane Adventures, and not get distracted by nostalgia glasses (I never even wore...). So here it is:
Arcane Adventures will be Simple and Efficient.
Arcane Adventures will be Modular; Ignoring rules and House-Ruling will not break the game.
Arcane Adventures will be an Edition-Less game.
Abovea all Arcane Adventures will make sense.
Edition-less gaming? I don't remember if I've mentioned this before, and I can't be bother to check, but that's what I want. I want a game, and supplements that can be used with ANY form of D&D ever. It shouldn't matter what skill system you use, or whether its descending or ascending armor class, etc. My monsters should work for any edition, with minimal tweaking; my classes should be able to fit easily in another game. My optional rules for skills, combat, etc. should all be just that; optional.
Now onto why I'm not going to write a retroclone, and why I'm probably not going to publish Arcane Adventures. Read this:
http://oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/2011/01/wheres-our-ept-and-blackmoor-is-osr.html
This sums up pretty much everything I feel. Now go and read a million other blogs, and forum posts about how the OSR is essentially restating, and stealing other people's works and ideas, and making money at it. While I'm not quite so hostile, and not so negative, I can appreciate the sentiment; Retroclones are just that, restatements of other people's works and ideas.
I don't want to retread what everyone has already done to death, but if I want to make a stand alone game system I'll have to. I'd have to write down my, slightly different, version of the Orc again. More so than that I'd have to re-explain what strength is, what an attack roll is, what armor class is; all things that have been explained thousands of times. You can only re-write the definition of strength so many times.
I'm not very good at writing, and I'll admit that. I have no ability to sit there and essentially plagiarize, and make it seem like my own work, I'm not going to even attempt it. If someone, one day wants to release my rules collection (that's what it is), in a nice shiny book for everyone to buy, I'll work with them to get that done. As it stands, I don't see anyone having interest in my game but me. So for right now I'm happy copying and pasting rules into my own house rules document.
What do I foresee happening? Writing down, and keeping track of all my original ideas, and possibly releasing those as edition-less supplements for any D&D style game.
I'll probably keep writing on here because it's fun, and who knows, maybe one day I'll get that interest from people I keep talking about. It's all about supply and demand; I have no demand, so why create the supply?
Arcane Adventures will be Simple and Efficient.
Arcane Adventures will be Modular; Ignoring rules and House-Ruling will not break the game.
Arcane Adventures will be an Edition-Less game.
Abovea all Arcane Adventures will make sense.
Edition-less gaming? I don't remember if I've mentioned this before, and I can't be bother to check, but that's what I want. I want a game, and supplements that can be used with ANY form of D&D ever. It shouldn't matter what skill system you use, or whether its descending or ascending armor class, etc. My monsters should work for any edition, with minimal tweaking; my classes should be able to fit easily in another game. My optional rules for skills, combat, etc. should all be just that; optional.
Now onto why I'm not going to write a retroclone, and why I'm probably not going to publish Arcane Adventures. Read this:
http://oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/2011/01/wheres-our-ept-and-blackmoor-is-osr.html
This sums up pretty much everything I feel. Now go and read a million other blogs, and forum posts about how the OSR is essentially restating, and stealing other people's works and ideas, and making money at it. While I'm not quite so hostile, and not so negative, I can appreciate the sentiment; Retroclones are just that, restatements of other people's works and ideas.
I don't want to retread what everyone has already done to death, but if I want to make a stand alone game system I'll have to. I'd have to write down my, slightly different, version of the Orc again. More so than that I'd have to re-explain what strength is, what an attack roll is, what armor class is; all things that have been explained thousands of times. You can only re-write the definition of strength so many times.
I'm not very good at writing, and I'll admit that. I have no ability to sit there and essentially plagiarize, and make it seem like my own work, I'm not going to even attempt it. If someone, one day wants to release my rules collection (that's what it is), in a nice shiny book for everyone to buy, I'll work with them to get that done. As it stands, I don't see anyone having interest in my game but me. So for right now I'm happy copying and pasting rules into my own house rules document.
What do I foresee happening? Writing down, and keeping track of all my original ideas, and possibly releasing those as edition-less supplements for any D&D style game.
I'll probably keep writing on here because it's fun, and who knows, maybe one day I'll get that interest from people I keep talking about. It's all about supply and demand; I have no demand, so why create the supply?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)