D&D started as a wargame (though not in the way most people like to claim). I know there is chainmail, and still need to really give it a good read, though it uses a different combat system than the D&D we're used to. I also know there have been several D&D mass combat rules published, of which I plan on checking out (BECMI & RC has some, Spells & Swords, ACKS, etc...). In fact I'm reading through ACKS right now because someone else was suggested it for the same reason I'm in the mood for wargaming.
I've been playing Mount & Blade: with Fire & Sword. Of course I love wargaming in general, but Mount & Blade always gets me in the mood for domain building D&D. Adventurer Conqueror King System (or ACKS for short) was designed from the ground up for this sort of play. D&D was actually meant for this sort of play, and it is very evident if you read the Little Brown Books. However, as time went on people enjoyed the adventuring, dungeon crawling, and role playing aspects more, so the theme of the game shifted. In any case, I've heard ACKS handles domain style D&D very well.
Regardless of how great ACKS is, I've been in the mood to tinker lately, and this idea just popped in my head for a mass combat system. A while a go I came up with a mass combat table for Swords & Wizardry (which has a simple mass combat system). I used a web site that gave dice statistics for rolling dice pools, and determine how many dice in the pool beat a target number. I don't recall the specific site I used, but I just dug this up, and it seems to do the trick: Scott's Dice Pool. The table would tell you how many of your troops hit, by comparing the dice to the target armor class, based on the appropriate probabilities.
Now the table I worked up was pretty nice, and it used the Ascending Armor Class system. Unfortunately I had only made the table up to AC 20, and had oddly made it down to AC 0 (which doesn't happen with Ascending Armor Class). I figured then, you could just calculate the Target Number (by subtracting the unit's Attack Bonus from the target's Armor Class) and compare your roll to that. This got me thinking of a simpler way of emulating the table; though it's not a perfect translation. As with most old school D&D, abstraction for the sake of simplicity and fun is never a bad thing.
This system requires Ascending Armor Class. Basically you would use the following formula for all attacks:
d20 + modifiers + troop advantage + 1 - AC = troops that hit
Troop advantage is how much the attack outnumbers the defender. The reason it's not just the difference, is it's easier to hit when outnumbering, but it's not impossible to hit when you are outnumbered. In other words, it keeps troops that are outnumbered from getting shafted.
This all makes sense because the number of troops that hit is how much you multiply damage by. For simplicity's sake, and so you don't end up rolling pools of dice, you would simply multiply the damage die (i.e. 10 x 1d8, instead of 10d8). Therefore outnumbered troops still have a chance of hitting, but don't do as much damage.
Another way of looking at it is: attack as you normally would, adding the number of troops outnumbering the target as a modifier. However much you beat the AC is how much you multiply the damage dice by.
After you figure out how many troops hit, and how much damage is dealt, subtract that from the total hit points of the unit. Figure out the average hit point value of the unit and divide the remaining hit points by that average (round up) to determine how many troops are left.
An example of the combat system would thus:
A group of 10 2nd level knights (1d8 long sword) attacks a group of 7 0-level men-at-arms (AC 12 leather, 5 hit points each, 35 total). The knight's roll a 15 (d20) + 2 (attack bonus) + 3 (troop advantage), totaling 20. The difference is 8 (20 - 12 = 8). The knights then roll 3 on their d8, dealing 24 points of damage, leaving 3 troops [(35-24)/5 = 2.2 rounded up).
I did a stress of this with a mock combat. Both sides had AC18, and +0 attack bonus. This was, of course, meant to see how tedious it could be in extreme circumstances. It ended up taking 23 rounds of combat, 17 of which where nothing occurred. Now this seems pretty bad, but it only took 5 minutes all in all. Once damage does occur though, combat ends up getting pretty fatal, rather fast. I think this is a pretty realistic depiction to be honest. A bunch of inexperienced guys in field plate could go at it for about half an hour (assuming OD&D rounds) doing practically nothing to each other, then finally slaying each other rather quickly. If you assume B/X or 3E D&D it comes out to roughly 5 minutes, even more believable.
Something interesting to note, and pretty funny, is that damage occurred on round 1, almost like an immediate clash of arms, then round 6, 7, 19, 21, and 23; infrequently, then frequently. Keep in mind this was all just dice rolling, and no tactics or variation. Also it's highly unlikely you'd have two groups with AC18, but no attack bonus, or mounts even.
Obviously there is room for more playtesting and improvement, but for right now it's a simple and effective system, that I really like.
Below is the log from notepad I used to keep track:
"Two groups of Knights, Field Plate with Long Swords
Assume HP 5 for each Knight, 10 troops each. Red vs. Blue.
Red has initiative every turn
Round 1; Blue takes 8 points of damage; Blue is at 42 hit points, 9 troops left
Round 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22; nothing
Round 6; Blue takes 4 points of damage; Blue is at 38 hit points, 8 troops left
Round 7; Red takes 3 points of damage; Red is at 47 hit points, 10 troops left
Round 19; Blue takes 24(8 x 3) points of damage; Blue is at 14 hit points, 3 troops left
Round 21; Blue takes 8(8 x 1) points of damage; Blue is at 6 hit points, 2 troops left
Round 23; Blue takes 56(7 x 8) points of damage; Blue is defeated"
Friday, February 14, 2014
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Dry Language and Creativity
Haven't posted in a while, partly because I've been disheartened, and partly because I've felt a little stupid lately. I've had a lot of time to actually play D&D lately, and a few other table top games. Needless to say some of my paradigms have been shifted, and others reinforced. One area that has been really reinforced is that we don't need another retroclone. I've already started to clean up a bit, but I'm going to continue, so don't be surprised if a lot of older posts get deleted. I know no-one really reads my blog, but just in case this is here as a why and warning.
I know it might seem hypocritical, or even cowardly to go-back on what I used to say or think, but I can admit I used to be wrong, misinformed, or just not informed enough. Therefore any post expressing harsh opinions, or most anything related to me writing my own game is probably going to be deleted. It's not necessary, it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, and is just taking up space on the web. Furthermore, after getting into some really deep talks with a good friend of mine, I've mellowed out on my opinions quite a bit. I still have my opinions, but I have no desire to shove them down anyone's throat.
Anyway, one thing that's definitely been reinforced is my love for old school D&D, and OD&D in particular. I've played a lot of D&D NEXT and 3E/Pathfinder lately. I hate it. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion here, but I just don't have much fun playing those games. Having fun definitely comes down to the group and the referee, and I've had fun with my friends, but that's definitely despite the game. There is just too much stuff in newer D&D games. From racial and class abilities, to rules and combat, it's just too much.
Now I'm currently working on a fun little project I might post soon, and I was reading through my LBB's and realized something I love about them: the dry language. I know it seems funny, because everyone in the OSR loves to espouse how much flavor and creativity is found in old school D&D. What I mean is the dry language of the rules. OD&D has flavor where it needs it: spells, monsters, dungeon examples, but doesn't attempt to present the rules lavishly. There's practically no description of what a dwarf is, only noting the abilities that make it special to play. This is great because it lets the Referee and players decide what a dwarf is to them. Have they read Tolkien? Do they prefer German mythology?
Furthermore OD&D doesn't talk down to the player. There is no need to state that "strength is a combination of muscle and power", because it is assumed that if you're going to be playing a game about creativity and imagination, you know what strength is. "Strength" is the flavor, the mechanics are presented in a short, succinct manner, noting only what affects the game.
What I'm currently working on is a sort of "hack" of Microlite20 an excellent rules light role-playing game based around the d20 system. It's obviously intended for experienced gamers, just as OD&D was intended for experienced war gamers. Of course it's language is even shorter and to the point than OD&D, taking advantage of common gaming formulas and abbreviations.
Microlite20 is great because it provides everything you need to play D&D, so you're free to add in the things that are important to you. I find myself naturally filling in my own descriptions and wording. With all of the previous projects I've done, whether using the SRD for inspiration, or trying to emulate an older game, I've found myself caught up in descriptions and verbage.
This all brings me to a point, I think ChicagoWiz made a long time ago. Maybe not so much that we need brand new, awe inspiring, ground breaking material, but that we don't need to retread. More so than retread the rules, we don't need to retread "What is a Role Playing Game?". I love e-zines, blog posts, and forums because they don't take time to tell me how to roll dice. They present new and interesting material, with the bits I actually need for play.
Out of all of the books I've bought, downloaded, and perused, so much if it is just the same stuff. Whether it's "How To Roll Dice" or more slightly different stats for Orcs. I know it seems hypocritical, and like I'm just complaining, but it's true. That's partially why I'm going to go back and "erase" my part of the crime, an attempt at amending my contribution to the drivel. More than complain though, this blog is going to become a place where I praise the unique ideas I find, and maybe share some of the quips I can come up with.
I know Microlite20 is kind of old news, but if you haven't checked it out, please do. Check out the site below for some awesome variations, and interesting rules interpretations.
http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite20-rpg-collection
I know it might seem hypocritical, or even cowardly to go-back on what I used to say or think, but I can admit I used to be wrong, misinformed, or just not informed enough. Therefore any post expressing harsh opinions, or most anything related to me writing my own game is probably going to be deleted. It's not necessary, it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, and is just taking up space on the web. Furthermore, after getting into some really deep talks with a good friend of mine, I've mellowed out on my opinions quite a bit. I still have my opinions, but I have no desire to shove them down anyone's throat.
Anyway, one thing that's definitely been reinforced is my love for old school D&D, and OD&D in particular. I've played a lot of D&D NEXT and 3E/Pathfinder lately. I hate it. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion here, but I just don't have much fun playing those games. Having fun definitely comes down to the group and the referee, and I've had fun with my friends, but that's definitely despite the game. There is just too much stuff in newer D&D games. From racial and class abilities, to rules and combat, it's just too much.
Now I'm currently working on a fun little project I might post soon, and I was reading through my LBB's and realized something I love about them: the dry language. I know it seems funny, because everyone in the OSR loves to espouse how much flavor and creativity is found in old school D&D. What I mean is the dry language of the rules. OD&D has flavor where it needs it: spells, monsters, dungeon examples, but doesn't attempt to present the rules lavishly. There's practically no description of what a dwarf is, only noting the abilities that make it special to play. This is great because it lets the Referee and players decide what a dwarf is to them. Have they read Tolkien? Do they prefer German mythology?
Furthermore OD&D doesn't talk down to the player. There is no need to state that "strength is a combination of muscle and power", because it is assumed that if you're going to be playing a game about creativity and imagination, you know what strength is. "Strength" is the flavor, the mechanics are presented in a short, succinct manner, noting only what affects the game.
What I'm currently working on is a sort of "hack" of Microlite20 an excellent rules light role-playing game based around the d20 system. It's obviously intended for experienced gamers, just as OD&D was intended for experienced war gamers. Of course it's language is even shorter and to the point than OD&D, taking advantage of common gaming formulas and abbreviations.
Microlite20 is great because it provides everything you need to play D&D, so you're free to add in the things that are important to you. I find myself naturally filling in my own descriptions and wording. With all of the previous projects I've done, whether using the SRD for inspiration, or trying to emulate an older game, I've found myself caught up in descriptions and verbage.
This all brings me to a point, I think ChicagoWiz made a long time ago. Maybe not so much that we need brand new, awe inspiring, ground breaking material, but that we don't need to retread. More so than retread the rules, we don't need to retread "What is a Role Playing Game?". I love e-zines, blog posts, and forums because they don't take time to tell me how to roll dice. They present new and interesting material, with the bits I actually need for play.
Out of all of the books I've bought, downloaded, and perused, so much if it is just the same stuff. Whether it's "How To Roll Dice" or more slightly different stats for Orcs. I know it seems hypocritical, and like I'm just complaining, but it's true. That's partially why I'm going to go back and "erase" my part of the crime, an attempt at amending my contribution to the drivel. More than complain though, this blog is going to become a place where I praise the unique ideas I find, and maybe share some of the quips I can come up with.
I know Microlite20 is kind of old news, but if you haven't checked it out, please do. Check out the site below for some awesome variations, and interesting rules interpretations.
http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite20-rpg-collection
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Misreading the Rules and the Thief
Bear with me, as much of this is off the top of my head, though fairly recently.
In the OSR there is both the opinion that: A) modern rule sets encourage "roll-playing" and emphasize character ability, and B) the Thief is the start of that trend. While the second opinion is not quite so common, it is still espoused by prominent OSR figures, such as Grognardia and Philotomy. Whether or not that opinion is correct (it is an opinion), there is precedence for the argument.
However I think a lot of guys are misreading, or not reading all of it, or forgetting what they're reading. In OD&D the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet (proto-DMG) clearly has rules for finding and setting off traps, surprise (stealth), outrunning monsters (athletics), finding secret doors (perception), etc... All of these rules have a die roll that can be made, usually a range of pips on a six-sided die. Furthermore in Men & Magic there is reference to some abilities modifying those rules, though specifics are never given.
I think the big difference between OD&D, and later games however, was how those rules are presented. Rules for character abilities resolving problems are found in the Referee's booklet, instead of the player's booklet. Therefore it is left up to the Referee to determine what happens in those situations, instead of players demanding what gets to happen. A sort of sub-point in this, is that in OD&D those situations are presented as dangers that can be sprung on characters, or helpful tricks. In later editions much more importance is placed on giving the players control, and making the world safer for them. This means more rolls: does the trap spring? did the character pass a saving throw? did the character pass a skill check? etc.
Another item I think a lot of OSR guys don't think about is how the Thief could actually function (I'm not going to say should, because I don't know how it was intended). They argue that "before the Thief came along, everyone could do those things!". I'm not quite so sure about AD&D, but I do know that Greyhawk does not invalidate the LBB's. Therefore all of those rolls are still there for other classes to make. What makes the Thief unique, is that those abilities progress and improve over time. In fact if we look at some of the Thief's abilities, they start off relatively close to a percent equivalent to the d6 rolls, if not a little lower. A similar thing happens with the Ranger in 1E, having a 50% chance of surprise, instead of the usual 2 out of 6.
Furthermore OSR types like to bemoan how "roll-playing" prevents "role-playing", but if that were the case, the LBB's are just as guilty; as I already pointed out the rules are there. If you can "role-play" and problem solve in character with LBB OD&D, then why not with a thief class? Let the player make the roll; if they fail it or don't have the skill, let them role-play it out. Now I most certainly won't argue that later editions put a higher emphasis on "roll-playing", as I've experienced that first hand. 3E players, and those I've been playing with in D&D Next, heavily rely on their rolled skill checks.
How do I feel about the Thief? Well I do think it started a bad trend, but not that of skill rolls. I think it started class bloat, in both the number of classes to later be found, and the amount of abilities each class has. It was introduced simultaneously with the Paladin. While the Paladin had a few restrictions, and benefits, it remained very similar to the Fighter, even in experience points needed. The Thief however, was an entirely new class, not a sub-class; complete with new attack tables, restrictions, and experience point progressions. Furthermore the Thief has a laundry list of abilities: Back Stab, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Hear Noise, Remove Traps, Open Locks, etc...
In every later edition of D&D we see more independent and different classes, with ever expanding class abilities. In 3rd Edition, they entirely did away with any sort of class hierarchy, and made every class independent and separate. Furthermore, to make them interesting enough to play, and balanced against each other, large lists of abilities and options were provided.
I'm thinking of getting rid of the Thief in my games, and making most of the class feel more like kits/backgrounds/specialties (thought not completely like 2E did). I've already discussed this before, each class having only a couple unique abilities they are good at, and that makes them interesting to play. With this method, I had originally intended four archetypes, just like 2E, mostly because the Thief/Rogue has become such a tradition of D&D.
However, as you could guess, I'm starting to question the necessity of the Thief. After all, couldn't the Thief just be a light-Fighter, that's good at dealing with hazards? The Rogue, a sneaky Fighter that deals in Subterfuge? I don't anyone would argue that an Assassin wouldn't be a perfect type of Fighter subclass.
I'm thinking this would greatly simplify my house rules. In white box OD&D, you have three clear archetypes: Martial, Arcane, Divine. Only three hit dice types (d4, d6, d8), with no need to later strengthen certain classes against each other. Three attack progressions, and three saving throw progressions. Three clear combat roles; straight damage dealing combat, spell sword that strengthens and heals, and finally the dedicated spell caster. The Thief or Rogue would simply deal damage in a different way. In fact there are things the Thief and Fighter can both do, simply in different ways; like bashing open doors vs unlocking them.
Furthermore this would encourage me to expand upon the original system of general adventuring skills. How to you handle stealth, climbing, traps, etc... I'd emphasize "role-playing" and problem solving, while providing fall backs like the X out of d6 roll, or general percentage chances. I wouldn't necessarily want to develop a full skill system like 3E, or a proficiency system like 2E; but the possibility of improving those general skills over time wouldn't be precluded. If I did all of that, I could simplify a lot of the "skill monkey" classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Thief, Barbarian etc... Giving those classes small, but unique, ability lists.
For example, I'm thinking my Thief would have: Stealth (which only he could use in combat), Security (finding/removing traps, etc.), and some sort of Sneak Attack. My Ranger would have animal handling skills, and dual-wielding, but tracking and survival skills would probably be cut. My Barbarian would be focused on the Constitution and Dexterity bonuses the 1E Barbarian had, but cutting most of his tertiary skills, or the abilities that the 3E Barbarian latched onto.
Well this was much longer than I intended, so I'm off for the evening, er uh morning I suppose.
In the OSR there is both the opinion that: A) modern rule sets encourage "roll-playing" and emphasize character ability, and B) the Thief is the start of that trend. While the second opinion is not quite so common, it is still espoused by prominent OSR figures, such as Grognardia and Philotomy. Whether or not that opinion is correct (it is an opinion), there is precedence for the argument.
However I think a lot of guys are misreading, or not reading all of it, or forgetting what they're reading. In OD&D the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet (proto-DMG) clearly has rules for finding and setting off traps, surprise (stealth), outrunning monsters (athletics), finding secret doors (perception), etc... All of these rules have a die roll that can be made, usually a range of pips on a six-sided die. Furthermore in Men & Magic there is reference to some abilities modifying those rules, though specifics are never given.
I think the big difference between OD&D, and later games however, was how those rules are presented. Rules for character abilities resolving problems are found in the Referee's booklet, instead of the player's booklet. Therefore it is left up to the Referee to determine what happens in those situations, instead of players demanding what gets to happen. A sort of sub-point in this, is that in OD&D those situations are presented as dangers that can be sprung on characters, or helpful tricks. In later editions much more importance is placed on giving the players control, and making the world safer for them. This means more rolls: does the trap spring? did the character pass a saving throw? did the character pass a skill check? etc.
Another item I think a lot of OSR guys don't think about is how the Thief could actually function (I'm not going to say should, because I don't know how it was intended). They argue that "before the Thief came along, everyone could do those things!". I'm not quite so sure about AD&D, but I do know that Greyhawk does not invalidate the LBB's. Therefore all of those rolls are still there for other classes to make. What makes the Thief unique, is that those abilities progress and improve over time. In fact if we look at some of the Thief's abilities, they start off relatively close to a percent equivalent to the d6 rolls, if not a little lower. A similar thing happens with the Ranger in 1E, having a 50% chance of surprise, instead of the usual 2 out of 6.
Furthermore OSR types like to bemoan how "roll-playing" prevents "role-playing", but if that were the case, the LBB's are just as guilty; as I already pointed out the rules are there. If you can "role-play" and problem solve in character with LBB OD&D, then why not with a thief class? Let the player make the roll; if they fail it or don't have the skill, let them role-play it out. Now I most certainly won't argue that later editions put a higher emphasis on "roll-playing", as I've experienced that first hand. 3E players, and those I've been playing with in D&D Next, heavily rely on their rolled skill checks.
How do I feel about the Thief? Well I do think it started a bad trend, but not that of skill rolls. I think it started class bloat, in both the number of classes to later be found, and the amount of abilities each class has. It was introduced simultaneously with the Paladin. While the Paladin had a few restrictions, and benefits, it remained very similar to the Fighter, even in experience points needed. The Thief however, was an entirely new class, not a sub-class; complete with new attack tables, restrictions, and experience point progressions. Furthermore the Thief has a laundry list of abilities: Back Stab, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Hear Noise, Remove Traps, Open Locks, etc...
In every later edition of D&D we see more independent and different classes, with ever expanding class abilities. In 3rd Edition, they entirely did away with any sort of class hierarchy, and made every class independent and separate. Furthermore, to make them interesting enough to play, and balanced against each other, large lists of abilities and options were provided.
I'm thinking of getting rid of the Thief in my games, and making most of the class feel more like kits/backgrounds/specialties (thought not completely like 2E did). I've already discussed this before, each class having only a couple unique abilities they are good at, and that makes them interesting to play. With this method, I had originally intended four archetypes, just like 2E, mostly because the Thief/Rogue has become such a tradition of D&D.
However, as you could guess, I'm starting to question the necessity of the Thief. After all, couldn't the Thief just be a light-Fighter, that's good at dealing with hazards? The Rogue, a sneaky Fighter that deals in Subterfuge? I don't anyone would argue that an Assassin wouldn't be a perfect type of Fighter subclass.
I'm thinking this would greatly simplify my house rules. In white box OD&D, you have three clear archetypes: Martial, Arcane, Divine. Only three hit dice types (d4, d6, d8), with no need to later strengthen certain classes against each other. Three attack progressions, and three saving throw progressions. Three clear combat roles; straight damage dealing combat, spell sword that strengthens and heals, and finally the dedicated spell caster. The Thief or Rogue would simply deal damage in a different way. In fact there are things the Thief and Fighter can both do, simply in different ways; like bashing open doors vs unlocking them.
Furthermore this would encourage me to expand upon the original system of general adventuring skills. How to you handle stealth, climbing, traps, etc... I'd emphasize "role-playing" and problem solving, while providing fall backs like the X out of d6 roll, or general percentage chances. I wouldn't necessarily want to develop a full skill system like 3E, or a proficiency system like 2E; but the possibility of improving those general skills over time wouldn't be precluded. If I did all of that, I could simplify a lot of the "skill monkey" classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Thief, Barbarian etc... Giving those classes small, but unique, ability lists.
For example, I'm thinking my Thief would have: Stealth (which only he could use in combat), Security (finding/removing traps, etc.), and some sort of Sneak Attack. My Ranger would have animal handling skills, and dual-wielding, but tracking and survival skills would probably be cut. My Barbarian would be focused on the Constitution and Dexterity bonuses the 1E Barbarian had, but cutting most of his tertiary skills, or the abilities that the 3E Barbarian latched onto.
Well this was much longer than I intended, so I'm off for the evening, er uh morning I suppose.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Alternate Class Skill System
I noticed a lot of people have a problem with Castles & Crusades SIEGE engine. I've also noticed from playing with my players that the original d% system for Thief skills is extremely easy to use. Furthermore players love it, because they know precisely what chance they have of succeeding. There's also no need for adding modifiers on the go, and it definitely cut down on powergaming. Even my more 3E oriented players loved it.
So as an alternative to more complex systems, simply make most class related abilities a percent roll. I'll leave the details up to you, but for myself I've even eliminated the table for Thief skills. Instead all skills for any class start at 35% (25% if you want a tougher game), and increase by 5% every level till they reach 90%, at which point they increase 1% per level.
While this does sacrifice some granularity, it is extremely simple and quick. You don't even need a table. You can have ability scores modify if you like, but with my 35% system I already took that in to account. If you look at the Thief skills in AD&D, if you add in the dexterity and racial adjustments, you get around 25-35% for the average of skills.
Of course there are non-skill class abilities as well, but those are usually described within themselves; either being at-will, daily, spell-like, etc... This would simply be for skill abilities like "hide in shadows", "pick-pockets", etc. This can also be used with Adventures Dark & Deep for the skills of classes like Bard, Jester, Acrobat, and Mountebank.
I've also finished mocking up a nice house rules document for myself. It's just Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, with certain clarifications and additions from S&W Core, and Basic Fantasy. It's all technically open game content, so when I've formatted it to my liking, and mocked up a cover, I'll be sure to share. Obviously I'll be releasing a supplement with the above material.
If I do create a supplement look forward to the following classes: Bard, Acrobat, Minstrel, Jester, Mountebank, Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Witch-Hunter, Scout, Martial Artist, Assassin, Mystic, Druid, Illusionist, Savant, Alchemist, and Psychic. I know it sounds like a lot, but each class is basically a collection of 5 to 10 abilities, usually very simple and short in description. I might post soon about each class to give an idea what my partner and I have come up with.
Right now I'm looking to mock up a set of reference sheets that quickly lay out what each class can do, nothing publishable, but something to play with. I already have hand written notes on what each class, but I don't have an explanation for any of the abilities yet. Of course this is all subject to demand, of which there is very little.
So as an alternative to more complex systems, simply make most class related abilities a percent roll. I'll leave the details up to you, but for myself I've even eliminated the table for Thief skills. Instead all skills for any class start at 35% (25% if you want a tougher game), and increase by 5% every level till they reach 90%, at which point they increase 1% per level.
While this does sacrifice some granularity, it is extremely simple and quick. You don't even need a table. You can have ability scores modify if you like, but with my 35% system I already took that in to account. If you look at the Thief skills in AD&D, if you add in the dexterity and racial adjustments, you get around 25-35% for the average of skills.
Of course there are non-skill class abilities as well, but those are usually described within themselves; either being at-will, daily, spell-like, etc... This would simply be for skill abilities like "hide in shadows", "pick-pockets", etc. This can also be used with Adventures Dark & Deep for the skills of classes like Bard, Jester, Acrobat, and Mountebank.
I've also finished mocking up a nice house rules document for myself. It's just Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, with certain clarifications and additions from S&W Core, and Basic Fantasy. It's all technically open game content, so when I've formatted it to my liking, and mocked up a cover, I'll be sure to share. Obviously I'll be releasing a supplement with the above material.
If I do create a supplement look forward to the following classes: Bard, Acrobat, Minstrel, Jester, Mountebank, Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Witch-Hunter, Scout, Martial Artist, Assassin, Mystic, Druid, Illusionist, Savant, Alchemist, and Psychic. I know it sounds like a lot, but each class is basically a collection of 5 to 10 abilities, usually very simple and short in description. I might post soon about each class to give an idea what my partner and I have come up with.
Right now I'm looking to mock up a set of reference sheets that quickly lay out what each class can do, nothing publishable, but something to play with. I already have hand written notes on what each class, but I don't have an explanation for any of the abilities yet. Of course this is all subject to demand, of which there is very little.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Simple Class Creation
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)