I'm going to start writing down some of my "gaming ethos", or more less how I'm going to start running my games. I'm probably going to write up a nice document for my house rules, to keep track of what I want in my games, and maybe as a sort of explanation for players. Right now I want to talk a little more about classless D&D, and Adventurers.
Something that's already been talked about in the OSR, is how game balance either sucks or is not necessary. I'm definitely of that school of thought, though I'll explain how I particularly feel about it. There should be some semblance of party balance, in that the game should be fun for everyone. However I don't think it needs to be carefully policed, and measured precisely. I think players should do what is fun for them, and that be that. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, because each player is playing the game they way they want to; IE their approaching the challenges presented to them in their own fashion. In that particular example I think I've already discussed how to balance magic, and that is through costing resources (gold, scrolls, etc). Everyone is capable of using magic, in one way or another, it just costs them, and it is that choice; whether to spend their resources on magic items, or better weapons, armor, and troops, that makes the game interesting.
There is the argument, however, that not everyone should be able to do everything. Some argue for the sake of game balance, others for specialty, and others for realism. I've already addressed the first issue above, and elsewhere, through I'll recap quickly. Balance isn't a problem if everyone can do everything, as long it costs something; and that choice of what to use your resources on, is at least to me, a choice that makes things interesting.
As far as every player being "unique" this is either a non-problem, or one that involves particular players. Say Geoffrey wants to play an insane sorcerer. Well Geoffrey is going to call dibs on any magical items the party finds, particularly scrolls and magical staffs. The insane part, he handles by "role-playing" (I know a crazy thought, role-playing, and not use rules-defined, "character abilities). Now Jeff, thinks this is a cool idea. So Jeff starts "acting insane" and trying to grab all the magical items he can. This can be perfectly fine, but if actually bothers Geoffrey, he just needs to tell Jeff: "Hey man, that's not cool, you're stealing my idea, and it's making the game less fun for me". That simple. If Jeff doesn't stop, either kill his character, talk to him again, or stop playing with him.
Realism, however is a funny concern, because we're playing D&D. If you are concerned with realism: "why does Robert's character get to the play the lute too? He didn't write that into his character background, and he's not a Bard!", you're playing the wrong game. I'm not normally for the "Heroic D&D" game, at least not in the superheroes, Pathfinder, sense. I do like the Hercules, and Beowulf style heroics. Something that I can agree on, is that while you're "normal people facing heroic challenges", I can agree you're a cut above the rest. You're motivation, alone shows your not just the average peasant farmer. The fact you've rolled ability scores, as a mechanic, represents this.
So how do we handle realism? We don't. We assume competence. Take the show Hercules for example. Hercules, is a generally competent, talented adventurer. He can pick up a lute and start playing. These things, are really mundane tasks, and anyone should be able to do them: pick locks, break down doors, sing, etc. Maybe you need a attribute check, or maybe your attributes can determine how good you are at them. High dexterity? You play the lute pretty damn well. Low charisma? I don't think you'd be able to sing to well.
You're not talking about mundane tasks, I hear you say. You're talking about true Heroics! Inspiring battle songs, disarming complex traps, etc. Well these are handled by...role playing. Describe your actions, build your character background as you play. This part requires a fair referee, but as you do things, you should get better. At the very least, Heroics are when dice come in to play. Maybe you need to make a die roll, because there is a chance of failure. Maybe you've been picking locks this whole adventure, and you've been playing with a puzzle box on your down time, and maybe your Referee rules that you've got a better chance than normal to disarm the trap.
These function just like the rules do, with two very big differences. 1) You don't need the rules, and 2) You're not restricted by the rules (IE class abilities, and skill systems). All I'm doing here, really, is using common sense, and extrapolating the underlying logic of the rules system. Yes this style of gaming isn't for everyone, but it's super simple, and it's a ton of fun (with the right kind of players, usually called "friends).
To clarify, this isn't even playing with "no rules". You have tons of metrics available to help in determining rulings. Even without classes, you've got Level and Attributes. You're level can determine your power, and even effectiveness, and your attributes can determine competence and what you can try. Like I said, I'm really just jotting down what I'm thinking lately, and using this as a sort of "gaming manifesto".
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Percentile Checks
Last time I talked about task resolution I discussed OD&D's X in 6 chance system. I like that system a lot, but there are also other ways of resolving activities in the game. If you want a more "AD&D' style system, switch to percentile checks. I've noticed almost everything in AD&D (at least 1E for the most part) has the percent chance listed next to it. Even if it is checked using X in 6 chances on a d6, or X in 10 chances on a d10, there is usually a percent listed in parenthesis. Several sub systems, as well, take advantage of the percentile dice: grappling, and disease spring to my mind as some examples.
This is an extremely simple, easy to grasp, and easy to convert to system. If you're using the AD&D books, use the percent chances listed. If it's a X in Y chance roll (found in OD&D, B/X, and AD&D), simply find the percent chance using basic math (X divided by Y). With the d20 system this becomes slightly more problematic. You can use the DC+1 (difficulty class), divided by 20 to come up with the percentage chance for an unmodified roll. For every plus +1 it increases +5% chance, and for every -1, it decreases -5%. If there is a usual modifier, (like an attribute check), you can subtract the modifier from the DC, add 1, and then divide by 20. The reason it's problematic is that the point of the d20 system, is to constantly be changing modifiers. But it can work. If you're using this system, it's doubtful you'll be using much d20 system material anyway (or you'd just stick with the d20 system). (Note that +1, accounts for the fact the roll is EQUAL or better than, not just better than.)
Some of the most obvious benefits of this system is that it's pretty common sense. If you're Referee is good with math, has some life experience, then coming up with chances for actions can be pretty easy. It's also straight forward: when you say you have 50% chance, people know what it means, so it makes it even easier on players to decide what to do, or to negotiate wit the Referee on what's fair. If you take the time note the most common tasks in your games, you won't need to make it up on the spot much anyway. In fact this is what I plan to do; go through all the fantasy games I have, and note down percent conversions for tasks that are common in my games, or may come up. In fact, this opens you up to converting material from so many games (Runequest, BRP, Arduin, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc.).
As far as "modifiers", there are at least two routes you can go of, that I know of. I might make a universal table, like the Thief modifiers, that gives simple percentage modifiers based on attributes, for relevant tasks. No more than a -15%/+15%. In this fashion, you have the most simple (and closer to the d20 system), plus and minus modifiers. If you want it to hew a little closer to most d100 games, you can use multipliers, and division.
For attribute checks, you can use the method mentioned above, or you can use something closer to BRP's, attribute x 5. If that's too easy (it can yield up 90% chances), you can use x4 (12-72%), or x3(9-54%) even. In Call of Cthulhu, the multiplier can even be based on the situation's difficulty. I'm not sure which one I'll stick with, but I'm leaning more towards the above, since it's simple.
Of course there's always the old school option, and use percentage and other options. Use 3d6 roll under for attribute checks, X in Y chances for racial abilities, d% for adventuring tasks, etc...
As a final word, I'll just restate what I've said above. I like this system a lot, because I'm going to be able to come up with a list of common adventuring tasks, and determine their percentage chances, with some common modifiers. It's simple, easy to grasp, and really straight forward. Furthermore, this list will be for the Referee only, so I will request rolls when I think their needed. It won't be a player tool to turn the game into "roll-playing".
This is an extremely simple, easy to grasp, and easy to convert to system. If you're using the AD&D books, use the percent chances listed. If it's a X in Y chance roll (found in OD&D, B/X, and AD&D), simply find the percent chance using basic math (X divided by Y). With the d20 system this becomes slightly more problematic. You can use the DC+1 (difficulty class), divided by 20 to come up with the percentage chance for an unmodified roll. For every plus +1 it increases +5% chance, and for every -1, it decreases -5%. If there is a usual modifier, (like an attribute check), you can subtract the modifier from the DC, add 1, and then divide by 20. The reason it's problematic is that the point of the d20 system, is to constantly be changing modifiers. But it can work. If you're using this system, it's doubtful you'll be using much d20 system material anyway (or you'd just stick with the d20 system). (Note that +1, accounts for the fact the roll is EQUAL or better than, not just better than.)
Some of the most obvious benefits of this system is that it's pretty common sense. If you're Referee is good with math, has some life experience, then coming up with chances for actions can be pretty easy. It's also straight forward: when you say you have 50% chance, people know what it means, so it makes it even easier on players to decide what to do, or to negotiate wit the Referee on what's fair. If you take the time note the most common tasks in your games, you won't need to make it up on the spot much anyway. In fact this is what I plan to do; go through all the fantasy games I have, and note down percent conversions for tasks that are common in my games, or may come up. In fact, this opens you up to converting material from so many games (Runequest, BRP, Arduin, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc.).
As far as "modifiers", there are at least two routes you can go of, that I know of. I might make a universal table, like the Thief modifiers, that gives simple percentage modifiers based on attributes, for relevant tasks. No more than a -15%/+15%. In this fashion, you have the most simple (and closer to the d20 system), plus and minus modifiers. If you want it to hew a little closer to most d100 games, you can use multipliers, and division.
For attribute checks, you can use the method mentioned above, or you can use something closer to BRP's, attribute x 5. If that's too easy (it can yield up 90% chances), you can use x4 (12-72%), or x3(9-54%) even. In Call of Cthulhu, the multiplier can even be based on the situation's difficulty. I'm not sure which one I'll stick with, but I'm leaning more towards the above, since it's simple.
Of course there's always the old school option, and use percentage and other options. Use 3d6 roll under for attribute checks, X in Y chances for racial abilities, d% for adventuring tasks, etc...
As a final word, I'll just restate what I've said above. I like this system a lot, because I'm going to be able to come up with a list of common adventuring tasks, and determine their percentage chances, with some common modifiers. It's simple, easy to grasp, and really straight forward. Furthermore, this list will be for the Referee only, so I will request rolls when I think their needed. It won't be a player tool to turn the game into "roll-playing".
No Internet!
Our router died on us recently, but luckily a good friend gave us a spare; so that's why I haven't posted anything. I know I go through manic rushes of posts, then periods of nothing. Anyway I haven't a bunch of stuff I want to talk about soon, and now I have internet on my PC again. Before I just had my wife's media PC, and that's not great for writing on.
I'll mostly be posting about idea's I have for OD&D, and expanding upon some solid advice I've heard for running games. I even got to test a lot of them out last night, and they worked really well. In fact I got to play for the first time in a while, and it was a blast. Another good friend of mine (and a total real life bad ass and druid), is moving away for a nice job, so we had a bit of send off sessions for one of his long time characters.
I won't bother with a session recap, I'm not very good at those, and they are always very long. Suffice it to say I got to test out some ideas, I really like. One thing that really struck a chord with me, was what our other friend said. He'd had this idea for a sort of "half-elemental" character, that would channel an electric attack through a sort of "spike and cable" weapon. No problem. I let him cast shocking-grasp at-will, once per round with one of his two attacks. There was a couple other abilities he had, small things, that the player wanted, that weren't a problem (enhanced perception, stealth, etc...). They were tenth level characters, and our friend who was leaving wanted the game to be a bit over the top.
What's important though, is what our friend said after the game. He had been trying for years, using various different games, to play this character concept he had. It was only with me refereeing, using something rules light like OD&D that he had finally gotten to play the character he always wanted. Yes, I know, it's possible in other games, and I'm sure there's something out there (like Mutants and Masterminds) that would have let him do this using the rules. However, in the years he had this character in mind, he was never able to do it.
In the past few months, I've played Pathfinder and D&D NEXT a lot, since that's what most of my new friends like to play. I've sat in on a session of World of Darkness. I don't know what the real reason, and maybe it's just coincidence (or arrogance), but nothing was as fun as last night. Everyone left terribly excited, the game was so full of energy, and there was no complaints or arguing all night. It could have just been the group of players (it was all players who don't get to play often). According to a different player, it could be the Referee (I won't flatter myself though). Or maybe, just maybe, the rules can get in the way, and despite the feel good saying everyone likes to toss around nowadays, maybe the rules do matter. In all likeliness it's a combination of all three (and probably more factors), as it is with anything in life.
Something I did notice though, that is making me like "gamey" D&D (Pathfinder, NEXT) less and less, is we didn't miss the rules. We didn't miss the pages and pages of character abilities (in fact the party Cleric, hated having such a large spell list). We didn't miss specific rules, or battle-grids, or miniatures. I know this isn't anything new, and it's the whole point of the OSR, but so many people have been slipping in more and more rules. I can't remember who pointed it out, but it's "supposedly" the natural progression; to go from "Basic" to "Advanced" D&D. However the more I spend time playing new games, and even using rules like AD&D, the more I get annoyed by the game, and the less creative the players are.
I think there is clearly room for AD&D, "Gygaxian" D&D. It's fun, in it's own right, and there's a reason it's still played. It's fun to have Rangers, Bards, Paladins, etc. It's fun to have class abilities, but after a while I think it gets boring "power attacking" each turn, or tracking "daily, at-will, and encounter" abilities. I'm sure I'm crossing into not-D&D territory here, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think classes are all that important to the adventuring and fun of D&D.
I'm sure I'm getting into a second blog post here, but if you look at the original three classes: Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting-Man, I think they were only there because of Vancian magic. I know you "need" Vancian magic to have that proper D&D feel, but like I said, Gygaxian D&D has it's place, but after a while I think everyone wants to make it there own. Anyway, that's for another post.
I'll mostly be posting about idea's I have for OD&D, and expanding upon some solid advice I've heard for running games. I even got to test a lot of them out last night, and they worked really well. In fact I got to play for the first time in a while, and it was a blast. Another good friend of mine (and a total real life bad ass and druid), is moving away for a nice job, so we had a bit of send off sessions for one of his long time characters.
I won't bother with a session recap, I'm not very good at those, and they are always very long. Suffice it to say I got to test out some ideas, I really like. One thing that really struck a chord with me, was what our other friend said. He'd had this idea for a sort of "half-elemental" character, that would channel an electric attack through a sort of "spike and cable" weapon. No problem. I let him cast shocking-grasp at-will, once per round with one of his two attacks. There was a couple other abilities he had, small things, that the player wanted, that weren't a problem (enhanced perception, stealth, etc...). They were tenth level characters, and our friend who was leaving wanted the game to be a bit over the top.
What's important though, is what our friend said after the game. He had been trying for years, using various different games, to play this character concept he had. It was only with me refereeing, using something rules light like OD&D that he had finally gotten to play the character he always wanted. Yes, I know, it's possible in other games, and I'm sure there's something out there (like Mutants and Masterminds) that would have let him do this using the rules. However, in the years he had this character in mind, he was never able to do it.
In the past few months, I've played Pathfinder and D&D NEXT a lot, since that's what most of my new friends like to play. I've sat in on a session of World of Darkness. I don't know what the real reason, and maybe it's just coincidence (or arrogance), but nothing was as fun as last night. Everyone left terribly excited, the game was so full of energy, and there was no complaints or arguing all night. It could have just been the group of players (it was all players who don't get to play often). According to a different player, it could be the Referee (I won't flatter myself though). Or maybe, just maybe, the rules can get in the way, and despite the feel good saying everyone likes to toss around nowadays, maybe the rules do matter. In all likeliness it's a combination of all three (and probably more factors), as it is with anything in life.
Something I did notice though, that is making me like "gamey" D&D (Pathfinder, NEXT) less and less, is we didn't miss the rules. We didn't miss the pages and pages of character abilities (in fact the party Cleric, hated having such a large spell list). We didn't miss specific rules, or battle-grids, or miniatures. I know this isn't anything new, and it's the whole point of the OSR, but so many people have been slipping in more and more rules. I can't remember who pointed it out, but it's "supposedly" the natural progression; to go from "Basic" to "Advanced" D&D. However the more I spend time playing new games, and even using rules like AD&D, the more I get annoyed by the game, and the less creative the players are.
I think there is clearly room for AD&D, "Gygaxian" D&D. It's fun, in it's own right, and there's a reason it's still played. It's fun to have Rangers, Bards, Paladins, etc. It's fun to have class abilities, but after a while I think it gets boring "power attacking" each turn, or tracking "daily, at-will, and encounter" abilities. I'm sure I'm crossing into not-D&D territory here, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think classes are all that important to the adventuring and fun of D&D.
I'm sure I'm getting into a second blog post here, but if you look at the original three classes: Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting-Man, I think they were only there because of Vancian magic. I know you "need" Vancian magic to have that proper D&D feel, but like I said, Gygaxian D&D has it's place, but after a while I think everyone wants to make it there own. Anyway, that's for another post.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Mapless D&D: A Campaign Idea
Not in the sense of using battle maps and miniatures, but in the sense of no campaign map. Lately I've been having real trouble coming up with a campaign map, mostly just because I'm picky. My main campaign setting Iron Vale, just kind of happened, and the main part of the world is pretty good. I have no problem filling out terrain, or placing landmarks; I can never decide on continent shapes. With Iron Vale I just started with a small town (Redburrow), and placed some interesting places in close proximity. It's really rather incomplete, but in the two years I've run the game, no one's wandered past a single map sheet. For reference its roughly 22 x 19 hexes of 8 miles in length.
With Iron Vale I was able to create the illusion if mystery, and completeness by suggestively labeling the borders of the paper. To the North was the "Savage Lands", to the south the "Deadly Marsh", and the east and west were simply "The Lands of the East/West". I made it clear the towns found in the setting were small, and of relatively no interest to outside forces. I'm thinking I can take this concept even further.
If you're at all familiar with the Redwall series, by Brian Jacques, he pulls a similar stunt. For most of the early books, the focus is on Redwall Abbey and the nearby woods. There are in fact maps of the locals, but there isn't much detail, because Brian Jacques emphasizes the mysteriousness of the land and the unknown. By making Redwall Abbey the focal point, he has an anchor for his characters and their adventures, as well as reference point for every other location in the world. Of course other authors accomplish the same thing, but I'm thinking I can apply this particular concept to D&D, to help me.
Recently, in fact, I've been trying to help my wife learn how to game master. This way I can get a chance to play, even if it is just one on one (which is another topic, because we actually have a lot of fun that way). I even suggested to her, if she didn't want to take the time to intricately map out her world, she can start small, using descriptive language for reference. "Blackwood is 5 days march from Oakhurst...". Why wouldn't I take that advice?
I suppose because I normally run a very sandbox type campaign, and I usually insist on having the semblance of a real world for my players to be able to do whatever they. Why not do that on a smaller scale? The world can be a dangerous place, and they can have some sort of safe haven (like the Keep on the Borderlands), from which they can launch their expeditions. I can map out a smaller area, or possible have no map at all.
If we take the Redwall concept even further, we can have a library, or wise old figure familiar with the local lore. Through role playing, chatting with the old monk, or exploring the library, they can come across references to local ruins or ancient tombs. Then they can go off exploring like usual.
If they get board of the local, I can come up with more semi-isolated locales, they can spend "a month sailing to the distant shores of Albion". This ties into what I've been talking about lately, bringing D&D closer to the fantasy I grew up enjoying: The Adventures of Robinhood, Knights of the Round Table, Beowulf, etc.
Another part of the reason I've usually insisted on in depth maps, is I've always run somewhat military styled campaigns. It's always been an interest of mine, and something I've felt was important to medieval games. I'm starting to realize now I don't need a grand battlefield (i.e. the world map), and can make military campaigns more narrative in nature. I've also noticed that with all of the games I've run, the players don't really get into the politics, intrigue, or grand military campaigns. Even with my first campaign I ran, which was pretty much focused on raising an army and stopping an invasion, not much of the tactical side of war came up.
All just some ideas I'm toying around. I'm trying more and more to play to my strengths and interests when it comes to D&D; help avoid DM burnout, and generally have a better time playing games with friends. After all, if it's not fun anymore (if it's frustrating), why keep doing it?
With Iron Vale I was able to create the illusion if mystery, and completeness by suggestively labeling the borders of the paper. To the North was the "Savage Lands", to the south the "Deadly Marsh", and the east and west were simply "The Lands of the East/West". I made it clear the towns found in the setting were small, and of relatively no interest to outside forces. I'm thinking I can take this concept even further.
If you're at all familiar with the Redwall series, by Brian Jacques, he pulls a similar stunt. For most of the early books, the focus is on Redwall Abbey and the nearby woods. There are in fact maps of the locals, but there isn't much detail, because Brian Jacques emphasizes the mysteriousness of the land and the unknown. By making Redwall Abbey the focal point, he has an anchor for his characters and their adventures, as well as reference point for every other location in the world. Of course other authors accomplish the same thing, but I'm thinking I can apply this particular concept to D&D, to help me.
Recently, in fact, I've been trying to help my wife learn how to game master. This way I can get a chance to play, even if it is just one on one (which is another topic, because we actually have a lot of fun that way). I even suggested to her, if she didn't want to take the time to intricately map out her world, she can start small, using descriptive language for reference. "Blackwood is 5 days march from Oakhurst...". Why wouldn't I take that advice?
I suppose because I normally run a very sandbox type campaign, and I usually insist on having the semblance of a real world for my players to be able to do whatever they. Why not do that on a smaller scale? The world can be a dangerous place, and they can have some sort of safe haven (like the Keep on the Borderlands), from which they can launch their expeditions. I can map out a smaller area, or possible have no map at all.
If we take the Redwall concept even further, we can have a library, or wise old figure familiar with the local lore. Through role playing, chatting with the old monk, or exploring the library, they can come across references to local ruins or ancient tombs. Then they can go off exploring like usual.
If they get board of the local, I can come up with more semi-isolated locales, they can spend "a month sailing to the distant shores of Albion". This ties into what I've been talking about lately, bringing D&D closer to the fantasy I grew up enjoying: The Adventures of Robinhood, Knights of the Round Table, Beowulf, etc.
Another part of the reason I've usually insisted on in depth maps, is I've always run somewhat military styled campaigns. It's always been an interest of mine, and something I've felt was important to medieval games. I'm starting to realize now I don't need a grand battlefield (i.e. the world map), and can make military campaigns more narrative in nature. I've also noticed that with all of the games I've run, the players don't really get into the politics, intrigue, or grand military campaigns. Even with my first campaign I ran, which was pretty much focused on raising an army and stopping an invasion, not much of the tactical side of war came up.
All just some ideas I'm toying around. I'm trying more and more to play to my strengths and interests when it comes to D&D; help avoid DM burnout, and generally have a better time playing games with friends. After all, if it's not fun anymore (if it's frustrating), why keep doing it?
Classes Without Classes and Magical Magic
I've been moving into some scary territory lately with my thinking. I'm heading towards the bare bone, lighter than light rules like Microlite20, and WhiteBox (which I've always heavily house ruled). I'm starting to think of house rules that further simplify the game, instead of add "depth" or "customization". Who knows where it will lead me, or if I'll change my mind again. There are always more complex rules system to switch to if I do.
Right now though, I've talking with my wife about running, essentially "classless" D&D. I should really say, running only one class: the "Adventurer". I know a few D&D style games do this, Searchers of the Unknown is the first that springs to mind. I'm thinking everyone will get a d6 hit die, players and monsters. I'm going to stick with Ascending AC because it's easy, and I'm thinking everyone will get +1 "to hit" per level, using the 20-AC method, instead of 19-AC like Swords & Wizardry suggests. I know number inflation is bad, but this is simple, and it's OD&D, so it's not like you get a lot of bonuses. In any case it will cap at 10. If I do use descending AC, I'll have a single table for all creatures based on hit dice.
Another reason for coming to this conclusion, is something I discussed in my "Spell Dice" post. Magic is usually the longest section of most rule books. Furthermore, it causes a lot of the problems of later games. Weird special abilities, long lists to keep track, slowing down game play, feelings of the game being "unbalanced" (a non-problem). My solution, something a lot of people (at least on the OD&D boards) have discussed, is to make magic truly magical.
To accomplish this, everyone will start of as a plain "Adventurer", and magic will have to be discovered and learned. What I really mean is stumbled upon. I won't go into too much detail, but I'll give some examples. I want ancient rune stones, sacred altars to ancient gods, and cursed tombs of bygone kings to play a larger part in my games. Magic will be more environmental, stumbled upon, and mysterious.
Right now I'm thinking of four types of magic in my game: material, ritual, sorcery, and alchemy. I'll go over material last, but it will be "D&D" magic: scrolls, staves, wands, and spell books that have to be found, purchased, etc. Ritual will be the most common I'm thinking. Ceremonies, lasting anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 days, that have cosmic, almost incidental consequences. Influencing the universe, trapping creatures, summoning minions, opening portals, etc. There will almost always be some material components required. Rituals will have to be learned, probably from some ancient tome, or performed by a wise and old sage. Carcosa, and Call of Cthulhu d20 are great examples of this system.
Sorcery will be spells that can be memorized, and then cast spontaneously, however at a great price. Sorcery will probably have to be taught, by some experienced Wizard. Casting sorcery spells will usually cost hit points, and sometimes it will drain attribute points. Crypts & Things as well as Microlite20 are examples of this method.
Alchemy will the art of crafting potions, salves, tinctures, and oils. Players will have to purchase or scavenge ingredients, and have the proper tools to brew and mix their concoctions. Potions will usually be of the usual D&D variety, 3rd Edition and Pathfinder having good systems that could be used as inspiration. Furthermore The Elder Scrolls series has always had a fun alchemy system, and the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide has a section on herbs and ingredients.
Finally material magic will be use of magical items to either cast spells or cause magical effects. The most rudimentary forms of this will be magical weapons, though I'm starting to not like them. It's a purely aesthetic difference, but I prefer "ancient" or "finely crafted" items to grant the more basic +1s and +2s. Judges guild used special materials like mythril, something else I prefer doing. If I do include magical weapons, they will be of a truly magical nature, like Fire Blades or Lightning Hammers.
The usual magic items may be found in treasure hoards, and ancient ruins. Ring of the Cat-Burglar, Cloaks of Invisibility and the like. However what players will most likely covet are Scrolls, Wands, and Staves. One benefit of magic only be found this way, is it will make it the party's. Hopefully at least, if the party finds a single scroll, they will use it as a group tool; not as an individual player's ability. However if a player wants to be a Wizard they will need to hunt down magical items to equip themselves with. These items will be costly to maintain, and limited in ability, since it will most likely be one spell per item. This leads me to my next topic: role playing through choice.
Now this may seem archaic, over-simplified, or even like "bad role play", but I've come to the realization most classes are just equipment choice. At least they can be. If you want to be a knight, equip plate mail, shield, and long sword. If you want to be a swashbuckler, wear leather armor and grab a rapier. If you want to be a wizard, grab a magical staff.
This is great for several reasons. Players won't be shoe horned into how they play the game. Their character's will evolve as they play. Some abilities will be restricted by current equipment; metal might spoil magic (I know this isn't the actual case in D&D) so no armor for wizards. You can't be stealthy in metal armor, so only leather for rogues and sneaky types. When players get bored with a play style, they can sell or store their equipment, and outfit themselves differently.
Of course there are other avenues of "character customization" through game play. You can grant miracles for pious characters who sacrifice frequently, perform burial rituals, and pray at their God's alter. A character that uses only one weapon their whole career may gain a bonus "to-hit" with that weapon. If a character frequently fights a particular enemy, and role-plays a true hatred for them, they might gain a bonus to damage. This also lets characters evolve through game play, and models the class feature progressions and feats of newer games.
Anyhow, I'm going to provide some examples for how to equip a character to role play. This isn't all encompassing, it's just some examples.
If you want to play a thief, this is probably the best example of equipping your character with the right tools. Be sure to have lock picks, climbing rope and grappling hook, a dagger for backstabbing, and light armor to be stealthy. I've already gone over how I would handle the thief in my games, so I won't bother repeating myself.
A player wanting to have a bard would obviously want an instrument of some sort, a song book or journal (useful for taking notes on lore). In real life, armies have used musicians for morale and organization for ages. A simple +1 bonus to rolls (attack, damage, saving throws, etc.) if the character performs inspirational music, whether before or during is up to the Referee. Some Bards could take the opposite approach like a Jester, and taunt or demoralize enemies. Such performances could also serve to distract creatures, and if the Bard practices they could eventually send creatures into a trance. The Bard's music could also improve his initial disposition with encountered parties.
If the player were to abstain from blood shed by using blunt weapons, pray frequently, and observe the rights and ceremonies of his religion, he might start to gain miraculous powers to heal or bless others and himself. Such a character would want to carry a holy symbol or relic, a prayer book of some sort or other religious text, and possibly other religious miscellany like candles or incense.
Players wanting to play a ranger or scout, like a rogue, would need to dress light to move quickly and quietly. Ranged weapons would be preferred, to hunt quarry and attack from cover. Using two weapons is an option as well, and I would allow them roll damage for both, taking the higher value rolled, on successful attacks. Traps for catching animals, or caltrops for setting up ambushes are another must for such a character. General wilderness equipment should be carried such as rope, a ten foot pole, an axe and knife, etc. Finally vials, bottles, sacks, and pouches for storing gathered materials like foods and ingredients are extremely useful. In fact food is often useful when trying to befriend wild animals.
To play a cavalier the character would obviously need a horse. This is expensive of course, so the character would have to work up to such a status, as would be the case in real life. The horse alone is of major benefit, usually granting at least a +2 in combat, and allow speedy movement. Most games have rules for charging, and that is done even easier while mounted, and the benefits would possibly be even more. In many rule sets a lance, while mounted does double damage, a favorite tactic of one of my players in fact.
An interesting take on the usual "Druid/Ranger" animal companion type might be a beastmaster or animal trainer. I would encourage if the player did want a more nature-friendly druid, that they seek out an animal companion and role-play the encounter, attempting to befriend an animal. Animals are not simply conjured from thin air, or called out from the wild. However for a different take, the beastmaster or animal trainer, could buy "tamed" or captured creatures. Of course the more exotic, dangerous, or powerful creatures would be very expensive, or hard to find. To start with though, war dogs, hunting falcons, or a even a smart ferret could be used by a cunning player.
There is the limitation of how much a character can carry on them at one time, which severs as an incidental form of balance. On the other hand, any character who can manage to carry with him a variety of equipment, or reasonably role play many talents at once, can attempt to be "jack of all trades".
None of the above prevents abilities like "class features" or "feats", as I described even further above. Like I said, they would need to be role played, and gained through game play as rewards. Of course this is not a game style for everyone, and games like Swords & Wizardry and Microlite20 point this out. There are tons of games that provide ready mechanics for character customization. I hope the above provides some inspiration, and makes you think about how you play your fantasy adventure games. In fact I've found most class features are highly dependent how the character is equipped, or not equipped (in the case of the Rogue or Barbarian).
Right now though, I've talking with my wife about running, essentially "classless" D&D. I should really say, running only one class: the "Adventurer". I know a few D&D style games do this, Searchers of the Unknown is the first that springs to mind. I'm thinking everyone will get a d6 hit die, players and monsters. I'm going to stick with Ascending AC because it's easy, and I'm thinking everyone will get +1 "to hit" per level, using the 20-AC method, instead of 19-AC like Swords & Wizardry suggests. I know number inflation is bad, but this is simple, and it's OD&D, so it's not like you get a lot of bonuses. In any case it will cap at 10. If I do use descending AC, I'll have a single table for all creatures based on hit dice.
Another reason for coming to this conclusion, is something I discussed in my "Spell Dice" post. Magic is usually the longest section of most rule books. Furthermore, it causes a lot of the problems of later games. Weird special abilities, long lists to keep track, slowing down game play, feelings of the game being "unbalanced" (a non-problem). My solution, something a lot of people (at least on the OD&D boards) have discussed, is to make magic truly magical.
To accomplish this, everyone will start of as a plain "Adventurer", and magic will have to be discovered and learned. What I really mean is stumbled upon. I won't go into too much detail, but I'll give some examples. I want ancient rune stones, sacred altars to ancient gods, and cursed tombs of bygone kings to play a larger part in my games. Magic will be more environmental, stumbled upon, and mysterious.
Right now I'm thinking of four types of magic in my game: material, ritual, sorcery, and alchemy. I'll go over material last, but it will be "D&D" magic: scrolls, staves, wands, and spell books that have to be found, purchased, etc. Ritual will be the most common I'm thinking. Ceremonies, lasting anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 days, that have cosmic, almost incidental consequences. Influencing the universe, trapping creatures, summoning minions, opening portals, etc. There will almost always be some material components required. Rituals will have to be learned, probably from some ancient tome, or performed by a wise and old sage. Carcosa, and Call of Cthulhu d20 are great examples of this system.
Sorcery will be spells that can be memorized, and then cast spontaneously, however at a great price. Sorcery will probably have to be taught, by some experienced Wizard. Casting sorcery spells will usually cost hit points, and sometimes it will drain attribute points. Crypts & Things as well as Microlite20 are examples of this method.
Alchemy will the art of crafting potions, salves, tinctures, and oils. Players will have to purchase or scavenge ingredients, and have the proper tools to brew and mix their concoctions. Potions will usually be of the usual D&D variety, 3rd Edition and Pathfinder having good systems that could be used as inspiration. Furthermore The Elder Scrolls series has always had a fun alchemy system, and the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide has a section on herbs and ingredients.
Finally material magic will be use of magical items to either cast spells or cause magical effects. The most rudimentary forms of this will be magical weapons, though I'm starting to not like them. It's a purely aesthetic difference, but I prefer "ancient" or "finely crafted" items to grant the more basic +1s and +2s. Judges guild used special materials like mythril, something else I prefer doing. If I do include magical weapons, they will be of a truly magical nature, like Fire Blades or Lightning Hammers.
The usual magic items may be found in treasure hoards, and ancient ruins. Ring of the Cat-Burglar, Cloaks of Invisibility and the like. However what players will most likely covet are Scrolls, Wands, and Staves. One benefit of magic only be found this way, is it will make it the party's. Hopefully at least, if the party finds a single scroll, they will use it as a group tool; not as an individual player's ability. However if a player wants to be a Wizard they will need to hunt down magical items to equip themselves with. These items will be costly to maintain, and limited in ability, since it will most likely be one spell per item. This leads me to my next topic: role playing through choice.
Now this may seem archaic, over-simplified, or even like "bad role play", but I've come to the realization most classes are just equipment choice. At least they can be. If you want to be a knight, equip plate mail, shield, and long sword. If you want to be a swashbuckler, wear leather armor and grab a rapier. If you want to be a wizard, grab a magical staff.
This is great for several reasons. Players won't be shoe horned into how they play the game. Their character's will evolve as they play. Some abilities will be restricted by current equipment; metal might spoil magic (I know this isn't the actual case in D&D) so no armor for wizards. You can't be stealthy in metal armor, so only leather for rogues and sneaky types. When players get bored with a play style, they can sell or store their equipment, and outfit themselves differently.
Of course there are other avenues of "character customization" through game play. You can grant miracles for pious characters who sacrifice frequently, perform burial rituals, and pray at their God's alter. A character that uses only one weapon their whole career may gain a bonus "to-hit" with that weapon. If a character frequently fights a particular enemy, and role-plays a true hatred for them, they might gain a bonus to damage. This also lets characters evolve through game play, and models the class feature progressions and feats of newer games.
Anyhow, I'm going to provide some examples for how to equip a character to role play. This isn't all encompassing, it's just some examples.
If you want to play a thief, this is probably the best example of equipping your character with the right tools. Be sure to have lock picks, climbing rope and grappling hook, a dagger for backstabbing, and light armor to be stealthy. I've already gone over how I would handle the thief in my games, so I won't bother repeating myself.
A player wanting to have a bard would obviously want an instrument of some sort, a song book or journal (useful for taking notes on lore). In real life, armies have used musicians for morale and organization for ages. A simple +1 bonus to rolls (attack, damage, saving throws, etc.) if the character performs inspirational music, whether before or during is up to the Referee. Some Bards could take the opposite approach like a Jester, and taunt or demoralize enemies. Such performances could also serve to distract creatures, and if the Bard practices they could eventually send creatures into a trance. The Bard's music could also improve his initial disposition with encountered parties.
If the player were to abstain from blood shed by using blunt weapons, pray frequently, and observe the rights and ceremonies of his religion, he might start to gain miraculous powers to heal or bless others and himself. Such a character would want to carry a holy symbol or relic, a prayer book of some sort or other religious text, and possibly other religious miscellany like candles or incense.
Players wanting to play a ranger or scout, like a rogue, would need to dress light to move quickly and quietly. Ranged weapons would be preferred, to hunt quarry and attack from cover. Using two weapons is an option as well, and I would allow them roll damage for both, taking the higher value rolled, on successful attacks. Traps for catching animals, or caltrops for setting up ambushes are another must for such a character. General wilderness equipment should be carried such as rope, a ten foot pole, an axe and knife, etc. Finally vials, bottles, sacks, and pouches for storing gathered materials like foods and ingredients are extremely useful. In fact food is often useful when trying to befriend wild animals.
To play a cavalier the character would obviously need a horse. This is expensive of course, so the character would have to work up to such a status, as would be the case in real life. The horse alone is of major benefit, usually granting at least a +2 in combat, and allow speedy movement. Most games have rules for charging, and that is done even easier while mounted, and the benefits would possibly be even more. In many rule sets a lance, while mounted does double damage, a favorite tactic of one of my players in fact.
An interesting take on the usual "Druid/Ranger" animal companion type might be a beastmaster or animal trainer. I would encourage if the player did want a more nature-friendly druid, that they seek out an animal companion and role-play the encounter, attempting to befriend an animal. Animals are not simply conjured from thin air, or called out from the wild. However for a different take, the beastmaster or animal trainer, could buy "tamed" or captured creatures. Of course the more exotic, dangerous, or powerful creatures would be very expensive, or hard to find. To start with though, war dogs, hunting falcons, or a even a smart ferret could be used by a cunning player.
There is the limitation of how much a character can carry on them at one time, which severs as an incidental form of balance. On the other hand, any character who can manage to carry with him a variety of equipment, or reasonably role play many talents at once, can attempt to be "jack of all trades".
None of the above prevents abilities like "class features" or "feats", as I described even further above. Like I said, they would need to be role played, and gained through game play as rewards. Of course this is not a game style for everyone, and games like Swords & Wizardry and Microlite20 point this out. There are tons of games that provide ready mechanics for character customization. I hope the above provides some inspiration, and makes you think about how you play your fantasy adventure games. In fact I've found most class features are highly dependent how the character is equipped, or not equipped (in the case of the Rogue or Barbarian).
Saturday, February 22, 2014
My OD&D Thief and Attribute Checks
The more I read and work on games and rules, the more I love OD&D. Simplicity. After talking to a few people online, and thinking pretty deeply, I've decided I'm not going to codified any player's rules anymore. At least not many. Maybe the weapons list. Other than that, they get nothing.
I know that sounds drastic, but I've figured out what I absolutely hate when it comes to D&D: Character Optimization. I hate when I give a player a list of options to choose from, and inspire creativity; then they analyze the mechanics, and pick the "optimal" choice. Not the coolest, not the funnest, but the "optimal". What's going to do max damage per round (I hate when they use MMO terms like DPS), not what would be fun to role play.
In fact it really killed me for the last few months to run "Arcane Adventures" and have players ignore most of the rules, and go with what's familiar, or what's the "best". For example I tried to make several techniques (ie feats) that have actual fun dice rolling mechanics. Like rolling damage twice and taking the higher of the two, or exploding damage, etc. Instead players always take the straight +1's, or double damage, etc. Furthermore they ignore any class that isn't Ranger, Paladin, Druid, etc.
Anyway, that's where I'm at in gaming. I'm either going to play with other old schoolers that don't need rules to role play, and will do what they want, and I'll reward for them that; or I'll play with guys who basically just want Pathfinder, and we'll just play that or NEXT. On one hand this kind of depresses me, because there are a lot of actually cool rules out there; rules that make you go "oh man that sounds really fun!". On the other hand, I'm tired of collecting all sorts of cool material and fun rules, to have it be over-analyzed and ignored.
On to the main point of this article, my OD&D Thief I'm going to start using. I know I just said I'm going to stop codifying stuff, so this is really more just my own notes for how I'd handle such a thing. In fact, I might not make it a class, just part of my house rules for any character that chooses to make the right preparations.
Why am I not using the Greyhawk Thief anymore? Well I'm starting to agree that it does lead to the more modern style of gaming. Tons of class abilities, specific skills with their own progressions, etc. A lot of what I talked about above, I feel the Thief contributes to, even if it's not solely responsible. Speaking of which, this thief does not progress in his abilities. He gets some stuff, and that's it. Probably why I'm leaning more towards it not being a class, but just common rulings.
More or less what I'm thinking right now is, if someone purchases lock-picking tools, they get a 1 in 6 chance to unlock doors. This has the advantage of not making a ton of noise to attract wandering monsters. If the character is only wearing light (leather) armor, has no lights, and is unencumbered, they have a 3 in 6 chance to surprise. If the character gains surprise, and has a one handed blade weapon, they gain a +4 to hit, and deal double damage on a successful strike.
This is pretty much the Thief. He just doesn't get better at his skills. What's great about this is, anyone can be a thief. Anyone can do these things. Which leads me to what I'm going to start using as a general task resolution system.
I love the X in 6 chance of OD&D. Most things are handled by a chance out of rolling a d6. Surprise, for example, has a 2 in 6 chance of occurring. That means a roll of a 1 or 2 on a d6 results in surprise. This is also used for smashing in doors, checking for secret doors, etc. Later in AD&D (I can't remember if it's in Greyhawk), the "break down doors" check is modified by strength.
I've started using Gygax's (also Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox) attribute bonus rule, of 15+ grants you a general +1 bonus with that attribute. This is great for the above system. Then Dexterity can grant a bonus for surprise, Wisdom for checking for secret doors, etc.
I get that this doesn't progress as your character gains levels, but I don't really care anymore. If the player role plays well, and keeps at it, I can grant an additional +1. If it's really relevant to whatever class he's playing, or class he's role playing (IE if he says he's a "Bard" when he's really just a fighter), he might get another +1.
The best benefit of this to me, is that it makes the +1 a big deal again (something a lot of old schoolers have talked about).
This is pretty much where I'm at in my line of thinking now. The more I read the original three booklets for D&D, the more I see they really are "as complete as possible". Even if every possible scenario isn't covered, the rules and concepts are provided to help you figure out to handle them.
I'm particularly thinking of making my own super-specific set of house rules, like a lot of people have done, particularly back in the day. I'm thinking of using my Spell Dice system to handle magic, and defining the most common adventuring tasks in my campaigns, using the X in d6 system. After that, just a good equipment list, and whatever Referee advice I need to keep handy (random tables, hell yeah).
I know that sounds drastic, but I've figured out what I absolutely hate when it comes to D&D: Character Optimization. I hate when I give a player a list of options to choose from, and inspire creativity; then they analyze the mechanics, and pick the "optimal" choice. Not the coolest, not the funnest, but the "optimal". What's going to do max damage per round (I hate when they use MMO terms like DPS), not what would be fun to role play.
In fact it really killed me for the last few months to run "Arcane Adventures" and have players ignore most of the rules, and go with what's familiar, or what's the "best". For example I tried to make several techniques (ie feats) that have actual fun dice rolling mechanics. Like rolling damage twice and taking the higher of the two, or exploding damage, etc. Instead players always take the straight +1's, or double damage, etc. Furthermore they ignore any class that isn't Ranger, Paladin, Druid, etc.
Anyway, that's where I'm at in gaming. I'm either going to play with other old schoolers that don't need rules to role play, and will do what they want, and I'll reward for them that; or I'll play with guys who basically just want Pathfinder, and we'll just play that or NEXT. On one hand this kind of depresses me, because there are a lot of actually cool rules out there; rules that make you go "oh man that sounds really fun!". On the other hand, I'm tired of collecting all sorts of cool material and fun rules, to have it be over-analyzed and ignored.
On to the main point of this article, my OD&D Thief I'm going to start using. I know I just said I'm going to stop codifying stuff, so this is really more just my own notes for how I'd handle such a thing. In fact, I might not make it a class, just part of my house rules for any character that chooses to make the right preparations.
Why am I not using the Greyhawk Thief anymore? Well I'm starting to agree that it does lead to the more modern style of gaming. Tons of class abilities, specific skills with their own progressions, etc. A lot of what I talked about above, I feel the Thief contributes to, even if it's not solely responsible. Speaking of which, this thief does not progress in his abilities. He gets some stuff, and that's it. Probably why I'm leaning more towards it not being a class, but just common rulings.
More or less what I'm thinking right now is, if someone purchases lock-picking tools, they get a 1 in 6 chance to unlock doors. This has the advantage of not making a ton of noise to attract wandering monsters. If the character is only wearing light (leather) armor, has no lights, and is unencumbered, they have a 3 in 6 chance to surprise. If the character gains surprise, and has a one handed blade weapon, they gain a +4 to hit, and deal double damage on a successful strike.
This is pretty much the Thief. He just doesn't get better at his skills. What's great about this is, anyone can be a thief. Anyone can do these things. Which leads me to what I'm going to start using as a general task resolution system.
I love the X in 6 chance of OD&D. Most things are handled by a chance out of rolling a d6. Surprise, for example, has a 2 in 6 chance of occurring. That means a roll of a 1 or 2 on a d6 results in surprise. This is also used for smashing in doors, checking for secret doors, etc. Later in AD&D (I can't remember if it's in Greyhawk), the "break down doors" check is modified by strength.
I've started using Gygax's (also Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox) attribute bonus rule, of 15+ grants you a general +1 bonus with that attribute. This is great for the above system. Then Dexterity can grant a bonus for surprise, Wisdom for checking for secret doors, etc.
I get that this doesn't progress as your character gains levels, but I don't really care anymore. If the player role plays well, and keeps at it, I can grant an additional +1. If it's really relevant to whatever class he's playing, or class he's role playing (IE if he says he's a "Bard" when he's really just a fighter), he might get another +1.
The best benefit of this to me, is that it makes the +1 a big deal again (something a lot of old schoolers have talked about).
This is pretty much where I'm at in my line of thinking now. The more I read the original three booklets for D&D, the more I see they really are "as complete as possible". Even if every possible scenario isn't covered, the rules and concepts are provided to help you figure out to handle them.
I'm particularly thinking of making my own super-specific set of house rules, like a lot of people have done, particularly back in the day. I'm thinking of using my Spell Dice system to handle magic, and defining the most common adventuring tasks in my campaigns, using the X in d6 system. After that, just a good equipment list, and whatever Referee advice I need to keep handy (random tables, hell yeah).
Friday, February 21, 2014
Smoke & Steel
Usually when I role-play, I prefer rules light games that take advantage of the fact there is a Referee. That's one of the biggest things I love about OD&D, and that first moment that "clicked". Players could JUST describe what they were doing, and you could figure out what would make sense to have happen.
On the other hand I'm a war gamer, and some times I just like a "gamey" game with fun rules and lots of options (I love BattleTech). Now I don't think the d20 system is real tactical war game. It has lots of "tactical" rules, but I personally don't feel it is a solid tactical war game. Complex? Sure. Comprehensive? In a way. But that's neither here nor there, and it's really a matter of opinion.
What I do think d20 handles well (3E D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) is character customization. While I do find RAW (Rules As Written) 3E a bit much for my personal taste, I still like it better than GURPS. You have games like BRP and Pendragon, but they most involve customization through skill selection, and that's pretty much it. D&D and GURPS have quirks, special rules, powers, and odd abilities that players just like. GURPS however is way to complex, and tries too hard to be realistic for my tastes.
As I said, 3E is a bit too complex, but Microlite20, is not.
I'm currently working on a fun little project I'm calling Smoke & Steel. It's for a campaign I want to run for my wife, wherein she will have a small party of fighters. Eventually she can build up her forces, amass an army, build a kingdom, etc. The whole point of the game though, will be to customize her fighters, and eventually build up a little army.
In OD&D and old school D&D, customizing is as simple as how you outfit your character, and how you play them. My wife loves to play creatively, using various tricks and traps to her advantage, and usually doesn't rely on class features to have fun. Just this once though, I think it will be a fun change of pace for us.
Right now I'm starting with Microlite20, adding back all six ability scores. I'm going to heavily edit, and supplement feats. I'm going to make a bunch of classes, but they're going to be a lot closer to "kits": they'll just be a set of restrictions and benefits to the fighter class; everyone will get a feat every level or so. I'm going to add henchmen rules, which weren't really that great in 3E; the ability for her to amass a true army, and hire on troops without the "Leadership" feat. I'm also thinking of plundering FantasyCraft for "backgrounds". I'm not sure about skills, because all in all this is going to be pretty much straight combat; with out of combat being purely role-played and refereed. For race there will only be human, as it's going to be a quasi-historical setting; though I might include different human races to choose from. Most importantly I'll be expanding the weapons list with everything I can find and think of.
Basically I'm taking the parts I think are fun about d20 and shoving them in one set of house rules. In the end there will be several avenues for customizing your characters. I doubt I'll share it, unless anyone shows interest. But it's nice to write about it, and keep track of what I'm thinking.
On the other hand I'm a war gamer, and some times I just like a "gamey" game with fun rules and lots of options (I love BattleTech). Now I don't think the d20 system is real tactical war game. It has lots of "tactical" rules, but I personally don't feel it is a solid tactical war game. Complex? Sure. Comprehensive? In a way. But that's neither here nor there, and it's really a matter of opinion.
What I do think d20 handles well (3E D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) is character customization. While I do find RAW (Rules As Written) 3E a bit much for my personal taste, I still like it better than GURPS. You have games like BRP and Pendragon, but they most involve customization through skill selection, and that's pretty much it. D&D and GURPS have quirks, special rules, powers, and odd abilities that players just like. GURPS however is way to complex, and tries too hard to be realistic for my tastes.
As I said, 3E is a bit too complex, but Microlite20, is not.
I'm currently working on a fun little project I'm calling Smoke & Steel. It's for a campaign I want to run for my wife, wherein she will have a small party of fighters. Eventually she can build up her forces, amass an army, build a kingdom, etc. The whole point of the game though, will be to customize her fighters, and eventually build up a little army.
In OD&D and old school D&D, customizing is as simple as how you outfit your character, and how you play them. My wife loves to play creatively, using various tricks and traps to her advantage, and usually doesn't rely on class features to have fun. Just this once though, I think it will be a fun change of pace for us.
Right now I'm starting with Microlite20, adding back all six ability scores. I'm going to heavily edit, and supplement feats. I'm going to make a bunch of classes, but they're going to be a lot closer to "kits": they'll just be a set of restrictions and benefits to the fighter class; everyone will get a feat every level or so. I'm going to add henchmen rules, which weren't really that great in 3E; the ability for her to amass a true army, and hire on troops without the "Leadership" feat. I'm also thinking of plundering FantasyCraft for "backgrounds". I'm not sure about skills, because all in all this is going to be pretty much straight combat; with out of combat being purely role-played and refereed. For race there will only be human, as it's going to be a quasi-historical setting; though I might include different human races to choose from. Most importantly I'll be expanding the weapons list with everything I can find and think of.
Basically I'm taking the parts I think are fun about d20 and shoving them in one set of house rules. In the end there will be several avenues for customizing your characters. I doubt I'll share it, unless anyone shows interest. But it's nice to write about it, and keep track of what I'm thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)