I've already talked about how most classes can be emulated just by, or mostly through, equipment selection. I'm pretty sure I've already stated I think Wizards and Clerics can be played by purchasing spell scrolls and "miracles" from shops and churches. If one doesn't like the magic shop on every corner world, you could instead say the wizard is making scrolls, having to discover recipes and formulas to create those scrolls, the cost being an abstraction. Anyway on to my idea.
For the basic four classes of D&D I propose the following starting packages.
Fighter: Chain mail, Shield, and three Weapons.
Thief: Thieves tools, rope and grappling hook, dagger, and leather armor.
Wizard: Lesser Wand (level 1 spell, 10 charges), recipe for level 1 spell scroll (gifted by former master), and staff or dagger.
Cleric: Spell Scroll (Cleric, 3 Spells, level 1 each), 1 healing potion, Chain mail, and a blunt weapon.
Spells can be either be randomly selected through dice roll, or chosen by the player, at referee discretion. Weapons should normally be player preference.
Every character should also get 1d6 (3 on average) minor utility items (under 5gp each), or 3d6 gold pieces to spend on extra equipment.
This does give spell casting characters more value to start with, and also equipment that can't normally be purchased. However this is to compensate for the fact there aren't any classes that can naturally cast spells. Besides, with old school D&D, it should be about player cooperation, and what the players actually want to play (and will have fun playing); not about fairness and equality. Everyone could choose to be a wizard, but not everyone wants to be a wizard. If it is of major concern, referees could allow more freely spendable gold to Fighters and Thieves.
These are just some quick packages I've thought up. You could come up with more I'm sure: Rangers getting animal traps, and two small weapons, and a bow; Bards could get an instrument, fancy clothes (c'mon its a Bard), Lenses of Charming, etc...
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
For Something Completely Unrelated . . . Battletech!
I think I've mentioned a couple times that my first interest in tabletop gaming was BattleTech. I thought I'd take the time to post some house rules for that, my wife and I just tested. It seems to be a common thing that people want to speed up or simplify BattleTech. In most cases, like mine, they still love BattleTech, but just want a quick fix now and again, when the full rules are somewhat (or very) inconvenient.
The main contender right now is Alpha Strike, which is pretty cool, but not my cup of tea. It simplifies the game too much for my liking, removing the components I consider essential to BattleTech's feel, namely hit locations and weapon selection. The Quick Start rules also seem to be popular, but once again I feel them just a little lacking. The current house rules we came up with, though, can be used with the Quick Start rules for extremely fast play, or simply used to modify the full rules.
The rules are a bit like D&D in the feel and way they play. They're extremely simple, and definitely increase lethality, chaos, and random chance. Currently I like using them with the Quick Start rules, and adding Heat management, as I said I consider heat essential.
Here are my current BattleTech house rules:
1) All 2d6 rolls are now 1d12. Any roll of 1 on a table, is rerolled (or accepted as 2 or 12, your choice).
2) "To-hit" rolls of 12 are critical hits, causing double damage. Rolls of 1 are critical failures, usually resulting in ammunition jams.
3) Hit location is rolled on 1d8: 1 Center Torso, 2 Right Torso, 3 Left Torso, 4 Right Arm, 5 Left Arm, 6 Right Leg, 7 Left Leg, 8 Head. Attacks to the rear are rolled as normal, but double damage is scored on any torso hit, critical hits scoring triple damage.
Obviously removing bell curves makes the game more random, but I find that you hit more often this way, meaning the game plays faster. The hit locations are also more random, but I noticed with the normal table it definitely had a tendency to hit out towards in (I'm sure intentional)
Some rules I'm considering using:
4) Movement points are per hex, facing changes don't require movement points, and facing is declared at the end of the turn.
All of these changes definitely alter the game play quite a bit, and make it a little less tactical, but that's fine for quick play in my opinion. Furthermore I think it lends itself to larger battles (something I like for sure).
I had also considered a lite version of the game that used a derivative of Total Armor Factor (including Internal Structure), probably cut in half. Hit locations would be rolled for critical hits, representing limb destruction. This would be even faster, and better for large group play, but it wouldn't work with the standard record sheets. I might post this later as well.
The main contender right now is Alpha Strike, which is pretty cool, but not my cup of tea. It simplifies the game too much for my liking, removing the components I consider essential to BattleTech's feel, namely hit locations and weapon selection. The Quick Start rules also seem to be popular, but once again I feel them just a little lacking. The current house rules we came up with, though, can be used with the Quick Start rules for extremely fast play, or simply used to modify the full rules.
The rules are a bit like D&D in the feel and way they play. They're extremely simple, and definitely increase lethality, chaos, and random chance. Currently I like using them with the Quick Start rules, and adding Heat management, as I said I consider heat essential.
Here are my current BattleTech house rules:
1) All 2d6 rolls are now 1d12. Any roll of 1 on a table, is rerolled (or accepted as 2 or 12, your choice).
2) "To-hit" rolls of 12 are critical hits, causing double damage. Rolls of 1 are critical failures, usually resulting in ammunition jams.
3) Hit location is rolled on 1d8: 1 Center Torso, 2 Right Torso, 3 Left Torso, 4 Right Arm, 5 Left Arm, 6 Right Leg, 7 Left Leg, 8 Head. Attacks to the rear are rolled as normal, but double damage is scored on any torso hit, critical hits scoring triple damage.
Obviously removing bell curves makes the game more random, but I find that you hit more often this way, meaning the game plays faster. The hit locations are also more random, but I noticed with the normal table it definitely had a tendency to hit out towards in (I'm sure intentional)
Some rules I'm considering using:
4) Movement points are per hex, facing changes don't require movement points, and facing is declared at the end of the turn.
All of these changes definitely alter the game play quite a bit, and make it a little less tactical, but that's fine for quick play in my opinion. Furthermore I think it lends itself to larger battles (something I like for sure).
I had also considered a lite version of the game that used a derivative of Total Armor Factor (including Internal Structure), probably cut in half. Hit locations would be rolled for critical hits, representing limb destruction. This would be even faster, and better for large group play, but it wouldn't work with the standard record sheets. I might post this later as well.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Dungeon Crawl Boardgame
More and more lately I've begun to understand the divide between games. I'm pretty sure I can make a game like I talked about before (I don't remember if I deleted the original post); one that captures the spirit of early computer role playing games (Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Wizardry, Rogue, Nethack, etc.). I've come close to having a finished product several times, things just keep getting in the way. What I do think I can pull off rather quickly is a Dungeon! like board game, that has the ability to utilize the vast amount of material available for d20 D&D.
With a board game, I don't have to worry about being able to handle every situation, or have so much internal consistency or real world logic. I can use a bit more abstraction. It will still be fun, and it will give me my dungeon crawl fix. In doing research I've noticed a lot of guys turn to games like Dungeon!, DungeonQuest, HeroQuest, and even the D&D board games for the same thing.
Just some immediate thoughts I've come up with, is to handle traps via saving throws. The Thief will obviously get the best progression, representing his skill training. Traps will all be handled based on the Perception DC, and that's it. If the save passes, the character avoids the trap, if he fails, the trap is sprung. With attack based traps, there is no need to roll, damage is simply dealt.
Another option, since I'll also have to handle Surprise, and Perception, is to simply cut half the skills in the game. Either have a set progression for the "classes" or allow normal skill purchasing, with reduced points. If I do include skills I'm thinking Disable Device, Stealth, and Perception should cover most anything you'd do in a dungeon crawl board game. You'd be able to sneak away, spot hidden items/creatures, and disarm traps. I'd probably rename them Traps, Sneak, and Search/Spot.
One of the problems I have with 3E style play is multiple rolls. With traps for example you make a Perception Roll, Disable Device Roll, and then either an Attack roll or Saving Throw (sometimes both!). Three to four rolls to decide whether or not a trap harms your character. Hence why the above solution was to relegate it to a single "saving throw" style roll. With sneaking (to handle surprise) you have to make a Stealth roll, and the opponent makes an opposed Perception roll, and vice versa. I could relegate this to a single opposed roll, but then that requires the monster to have said skill, which brings me on to my next thought.
While I'd already have a much smaller stat block than standard d20 D&D, I hate having to have skills for monsters, even if it is only 3 (really 2) skills for them. I definitely prefer the old school method of having player characters work different then monsters. In the case of sneaking I could give it players only, as a sort of "check for a free combat turn" mechanic (of course I still need a DC). This would bring it inline with Dungeon! where players always attacked first. This wouldn't be so bad, as it will pretty much be a combat oriented board game, with players have several encounters per day.
It will definitely need random encounter tables and such. I'm thinking of making a d6 roll for every room, door, and hallway. In rooms hallways a roll of 1-4 is empty, 5 is a trap, and 6 is a wandering monster. In empty rooms a 6 means treasure, then another roll is made to check the container; 4 is hidden (maybe), 5 is locked, and 6 trapped. In a room with an encounter, treasure will be there 4+ (maybe), and will probably not be trapped or locked (maybe). For doors a roll of 4 is stuck, 5 is locked, and 6 is trapped. For the actual random encounter tables, the CR system is pretty nice and will definitely be useful in that regard.
That's all I have for now. Though something of interest, is my wife has given me dead lines. She wants me to have a playable product (of any sort) every Friday for us to play. Doesn't matter if it's an RPG or a board game. This is partly what's inspired this post. If it's anything good I'll be sure to share (to whoever might stumble across it).
With a board game, I don't have to worry about being able to handle every situation, or have so much internal consistency or real world logic. I can use a bit more abstraction. It will still be fun, and it will give me my dungeon crawl fix. In doing research I've noticed a lot of guys turn to games like Dungeon!, DungeonQuest, HeroQuest, and even the D&D board games for the same thing.
Just some immediate thoughts I've come up with, is to handle traps via saving throws. The Thief will obviously get the best progression, representing his skill training. Traps will all be handled based on the Perception DC, and that's it. If the save passes, the character avoids the trap, if he fails, the trap is sprung. With attack based traps, there is no need to roll, damage is simply dealt.
Another option, since I'll also have to handle Surprise, and Perception, is to simply cut half the skills in the game. Either have a set progression for the "classes" or allow normal skill purchasing, with reduced points. If I do include skills I'm thinking Disable Device, Stealth, and Perception should cover most anything you'd do in a dungeon crawl board game. You'd be able to sneak away, spot hidden items/creatures, and disarm traps. I'd probably rename them Traps, Sneak, and Search/Spot.
One of the problems I have with 3E style play is multiple rolls. With traps for example you make a Perception Roll, Disable Device Roll, and then either an Attack roll or Saving Throw (sometimes both!). Three to four rolls to decide whether or not a trap harms your character. Hence why the above solution was to relegate it to a single "saving throw" style roll. With sneaking (to handle surprise) you have to make a Stealth roll, and the opponent makes an opposed Perception roll, and vice versa. I could relegate this to a single opposed roll, but then that requires the monster to have said skill, which brings me on to my next thought.
While I'd already have a much smaller stat block than standard d20 D&D, I hate having to have skills for monsters, even if it is only 3 (really 2) skills for them. I definitely prefer the old school method of having player characters work different then monsters. In the case of sneaking I could give it players only, as a sort of "check for a free combat turn" mechanic (of course I still need a DC). This would bring it inline with Dungeon! where players always attacked first. This wouldn't be so bad, as it will pretty much be a combat oriented board game, with players have several encounters per day.
It will definitely need random encounter tables and such. I'm thinking of making a d6 roll for every room, door, and hallway. In rooms hallways a roll of 1-4 is empty, 5 is a trap, and 6 is a wandering monster. In empty rooms a 6 means treasure, then another roll is made to check the container; 4 is hidden (maybe), 5 is locked, and 6 trapped. In a room with an encounter, treasure will be there 4+ (maybe), and will probably not be trapped or locked (maybe). For doors a roll of 4 is stuck, 5 is locked, and 6 is trapped. For the actual random encounter tables, the CR system is pretty nice and will definitely be useful in that regard.
That's all I have for now. Though something of interest, is my wife has given me dead lines. She wants me to have a playable product (of any sort) every Friday for us to play. Doesn't matter if it's an RPG or a board game. This is partly what's inspired this post. If it's anything good I'll be sure to share (to whoever might stumble across it).
Monday, March 24, 2014
Advanced Fantasy - Fighter
Right now I'm working on my Advanced Fantasy set of house rules. Before, with Arcane Adventures, I ran into a big problem, because I was trying to mix all of the versions of D&D ever; Basic, OD&D, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3E, Pathfinder, Retroclones, etc... Any idea that I thought was cool, I wanted to use. I didn't realize at the time, there was such a difference in game play focus. Now to achieve that, I've switched to a largely free form method, that we've been having a bast playing. At the same time, I love AD&D, and generic D&D is pretty fun.
To make things easier I've decided to only include ideas and material from AD&D inspired games. The list I have for right now includes: 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Adventures Dark & Deep, Castles & Crusades, and a tiny bit from 3rd Edition and Pathfinder. Later I might include some material from other games, like Grey Matter (a fun Swords & Wizardry expansion, that is just awesome), or Blood & Treasure.
As of right now I've started to work on classes, as I feel that is the most defining part of AD&D style play. This is also the part I'm never fully happy with in any game. Something might have all the classes I want, but they might suck. Another might have some awesome classes, but be missing a key one. You get the idea.
I'm starting with the four core classes to get an idea of what power level I want the game to be on. From there I'll decide if I want to do the "subclass" system from 1st Edition, the "class groups" from 2E, make every class independent like 3E, or make them all function like "kits" like I've talked about before. So far I have notes for the Fighter class finished, which I'll share below.
Fighter Notes
Something a lot of people know, and why so many people have gone back to playing TSR era D&D, and it's derivatives, is that it's largely the same. For several classes, the Fighter being the prime example, it's the same across the board for TSR era D&D. The 2nd Edition Fighter, is the same as the 1st Edition one, just with the material from Unearthed Arcana included. Since Adventures Dark & Deep is largely a 1E clone, it's the same there as well. So for three of my sources the Fighter has the following:
Hit Dice: d10
Weapons & Armor: All
Abilities:
Exceptional Strength - The Fighter has the ability to have better bonuses to attack rolls and damage than other classes.
Constitution - The Fighter also has better possible bonuses to hit points from constitution.
Extra Attacks - The Fighter gains extra attacks, in fractional attacks, such as attacking twice every other round. In 1st Edition, he also has the ability to attack less than one hit die creatures a number of times equal to his level.
Weapon Specialization - Using the weapon proficiency system, the fighter can specialize in a weapon, gaining +1 "to hit", +2 damage, and an extra attack every other round.
Castles & Crusades, attempting to be a 1E/2E inspired game, has a Fighter looking mostly the same. It has weapon specialization, which works slightly differently: +1 attack and damage, increasing to +2 at level 7. He has multiple attacks against 1HD creatures, and he gains an extra attack at 10th level. The hit dice and armor are the same.
3rd Edition and Pathfinder add the use of feats, which function similarly to weapon proficiencies. I'm still not sure if I'll include feats, but it's a possibility. In Pathfinder they add some benefits for armor that are largely irrelevant in older D&D, since there aren't armor check penalties; then armor mastery adds damage reduction (an interesting thought). The fighter gets weapon training, that functions like weapon specialization, and finally weapon mastery that increases critical hit damage. There's also a bonus to Will saves.
Advanced Fantasy
With all of that in mind I already have a picture of what my fighter class will look like. The d10 hit dice, and same weapons and armor allowed, of course. Abilities as follows:
Exceptional Strength - I'm going to go with the +3/-3 modifiers found in B/X I think, so the fighter will simply get to double his Strength bonus to Damage (not to attack rolls).
Extra Attack (10th Level) - I like this from Castles & Crusades, and feel it's much easier for players to get.
Combat Dominance - Multiple attacks against 1 hit dice or lower creatures. I feel this is a hallmark of the original Fighter, and definitely strengthens him against other classes.
Weapon Specialization: I'm not sure on the specifics of this. It will mostly depend on whether I include feats or weapon proficiencies, but definitely something along the lines of +1 "to hit" and damage.
A simple fighter, and will probably be one of, if not the simplest class for players to choose from. I think this is clearly recognizable as an AD&D fighter, and interesting enough, but not too complex. Next I'll discuss the Cleric, Wizard, and Thief. They should be pretty quick posts, because they're also relatively the same across the board.
To make things easier I've decided to only include ideas and material from AD&D inspired games. The list I have for right now includes: 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Adventures Dark & Deep, Castles & Crusades, and a tiny bit from 3rd Edition and Pathfinder. Later I might include some material from other games, like Grey Matter (a fun Swords & Wizardry expansion, that is just awesome), or Blood & Treasure.
As of right now I've started to work on classes, as I feel that is the most defining part of AD&D style play. This is also the part I'm never fully happy with in any game. Something might have all the classes I want, but they might suck. Another might have some awesome classes, but be missing a key one. You get the idea.
I'm starting with the four core classes to get an idea of what power level I want the game to be on. From there I'll decide if I want to do the "subclass" system from 1st Edition, the "class groups" from 2E, make every class independent like 3E, or make them all function like "kits" like I've talked about before. So far I have notes for the Fighter class finished, which I'll share below.
Fighter Notes
Something a lot of people know, and why so many people have gone back to playing TSR era D&D, and it's derivatives, is that it's largely the same. For several classes, the Fighter being the prime example, it's the same across the board for TSR era D&D. The 2nd Edition Fighter, is the same as the 1st Edition one, just with the material from Unearthed Arcana included. Since Adventures Dark & Deep is largely a 1E clone, it's the same there as well. So for three of my sources the Fighter has the following:
Hit Dice: d10
Weapons & Armor: All
Abilities:
Exceptional Strength - The Fighter has the ability to have better bonuses to attack rolls and damage than other classes.
Constitution - The Fighter also has better possible bonuses to hit points from constitution.
Extra Attacks - The Fighter gains extra attacks, in fractional attacks, such as attacking twice every other round. In 1st Edition, he also has the ability to attack less than one hit die creatures a number of times equal to his level.
Weapon Specialization - Using the weapon proficiency system, the fighter can specialize in a weapon, gaining +1 "to hit", +2 damage, and an extra attack every other round.
Castles & Crusades, attempting to be a 1E/2E inspired game, has a Fighter looking mostly the same. It has weapon specialization, which works slightly differently: +1 attack and damage, increasing to +2 at level 7. He has multiple attacks against 1HD creatures, and he gains an extra attack at 10th level. The hit dice and armor are the same.
3rd Edition and Pathfinder add the use of feats, which function similarly to weapon proficiencies. I'm still not sure if I'll include feats, but it's a possibility. In Pathfinder they add some benefits for armor that are largely irrelevant in older D&D, since there aren't armor check penalties; then armor mastery adds damage reduction (an interesting thought). The fighter gets weapon training, that functions like weapon specialization, and finally weapon mastery that increases critical hit damage. There's also a bonus to Will saves.
Advanced Fantasy
With all of that in mind I already have a picture of what my fighter class will look like. The d10 hit dice, and same weapons and armor allowed, of course. Abilities as follows:
Exceptional Strength - I'm going to go with the +3/-3 modifiers found in B/X I think, so the fighter will simply get to double his Strength bonus to Damage (not to attack rolls).
Extra Attack (10th Level) - I like this from Castles & Crusades, and feel it's much easier for players to get.
Combat Dominance - Multiple attacks against 1 hit dice or lower creatures. I feel this is a hallmark of the original Fighter, and definitely strengthens him against other classes.
Weapon Specialization: I'm not sure on the specifics of this. It will mostly depend on whether I include feats or weapon proficiencies, but definitely something along the lines of +1 "to hit" and damage.
A simple fighter, and will probably be one of, if not the simplest class for players to choose from. I think this is clearly recognizable as an AD&D fighter, and interesting enough, but not too complex. Next I'll discuss the Cleric, Wizard, and Thief. They should be pretty quick posts, because they're also relatively the same across the board.
Too Many Projects
This post is mostly for myself, to help keep track of all the ideas I've talked about, and have floating in my head. I'm not saying I'm actually going to do any of these, and they're definitely subject to interest and need. However I do want to keep track of the cool ideas I have, in case I do want to start working on them. As I work on them, I'll probably just take notes on my own, but I might post ideas from time to time, as I already have.
Wizards & Warriors - A Microlite20 derivative that uses a spell dice system for magic, thus simplifying the game, and removing the need for spell lists and books.
Warband - A very basic, OD&D like game where the goal is to raise an army, and conquer the land. Very much Mount & Blade inspired, hence the name.
Arcane Adventures - My main house rules. This is what I've been posting about a lot, when it comes to my "edition-less" and "class-less" gaming ideas. There will only be the "Adventurer" class, and everything will be up to player and referee cooperation. Magic will be rare, mysterious, but still open to everyone's use. There won't be a skill system, but common adventuring tasks will have a % chance listed, with common modifiers, that the referee can use for making rulings.
Advanced Fantasy - Basically just my house rules for AD&D. I think I've said before that, while my preferred fantasy isn't Gygaxian*, and the most fun I have is free-form D&D, I do still love Gygaxian D&D. I could just use Adventures Dark & Deep, but I don't feel it captures the "D&D feel" everyone is used too. Sometimes I just want to have a party of Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Wizards, and not worry about creatively coming up with stuff on the spot.
Elder Scrolls d20 - If I wanted to actually emulate the Elder Scrolls, I think a d100 game would be more appropriate. However I think Elder Scrolls captures the "spirit" of D&D rather well, so apply the principles to a d20 game might work. Mainly it would be skill based, which is why it would need to use the "d20 system", and not just be old school D&D. For magic, you would take each school as a separate skill, using the bonus to beat a "Casting DC" or some such. It would use Int (or Wis) + Mod/level to determine a "Magicka" score, which would function like Microlite20's casting.
I don't feel the need to make any sort of "OD&D" or "B/X" project for a few reasons. B/X is ready to go out of the box. If you want OD&D, you play OD&D, because, well it's OD&D. It's weird, its pulpy, it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but has a hidden logic that feels good. I don't think there's anything I could do for either that would beneficial. AD&D on the other hand has had so many revisions, and editions, and none of them completely agree. For me I want to have all of the Gygaxian material in one place, even if it's not strictly Gygaxian.
I don't see why all of these couldn't be relatively compatible, meaning only one set of monsters would be necessary to make. If I did ever make my own game company, I could simply release them all under a "Fantasy Adventures" title, then release a "Bestiary" as a general fantasy gaming resource. I could do the same thing with spell books for the most part - Advanced Fantasy would actually have spell lists, since it will have AD&D style classes, and Arcane Adventures will be able to use any set of spells. I could even include a small section on any spell book for "Using in Arcane Adventures", or some such.
*When I say Gygaxian, I'm referring to a style of fantasy adventuring that has come to be, largely due to the work of Gary Gygax. While 3rd Edition D&D isn't strictly Gygaxian in play style, it has most of the elements of Gygaxian fantasy: magic items as treasure, the AD&D Classes, AD&D Races, etc. At this point D&D has become a genre of fantasy all its own, and I think that can be attributed to the style Gygax pushed for and published with 1st Edition, that was later expanded upon in 2nd and 3rd Edition. While later versions may not be what Gygax would want, there definitely his brainchild.
Note also that I'm not trying to exclude Arneson's part in D&D. He has a distinctly different feel to his games and works. Gygaxian D&D is basically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and the derivatives there of.
Wizards & Warriors - A Microlite20 derivative that uses a spell dice system for magic, thus simplifying the game, and removing the need for spell lists and books.
Warband - A very basic, OD&D like game where the goal is to raise an army, and conquer the land. Very much Mount & Blade inspired, hence the name.
Arcane Adventures - My main house rules. This is what I've been posting about a lot, when it comes to my "edition-less" and "class-less" gaming ideas. There will only be the "Adventurer" class, and everything will be up to player and referee cooperation. Magic will be rare, mysterious, but still open to everyone's use. There won't be a skill system, but common adventuring tasks will have a % chance listed, with common modifiers, that the referee can use for making rulings.
Advanced Fantasy - Basically just my house rules for AD&D. I think I've said before that, while my preferred fantasy isn't Gygaxian*, and the most fun I have is free-form D&D, I do still love Gygaxian D&D. I could just use Adventures Dark & Deep, but I don't feel it captures the "D&D feel" everyone is used too. Sometimes I just want to have a party of Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Wizards, and not worry about creatively coming up with stuff on the spot.
Elder Scrolls d20 - If I wanted to actually emulate the Elder Scrolls, I think a d100 game would be more appropriate. However I think Elder Scrolls captures the "spirit" of D&D rather well, so apply the principles to a d20 game might work. Mainly it would be skill based, which is why it would need to use the "d20 system", and not just be old school D&D. For magic, you would take each school as a separate skill, using the bonus to beat a "Casting DC" or some such. It would use Int (or Wis) + Mod/level to determine a "Magicka" score, which would function like Microlite20's casting.
I don't feel the need to make any sort of "OD&D" or "B/X" project for a few reasons. B/X is ready to go out of the box. If you want OD&D, you play OD&D, because, well it's OD&D. It's weird, its pulpy, it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but has a hidden logic that feels good. I don't think there's anything I could do for either that would beneficial. AD&D on the other hand has had so many revisions, and editions, and none of them completely agree. For me I want to have all of the Gygaxian material in one place, even if it's not strictly Gygaxian.
I don't see why all of these couldn't be relatively compatible, meaning only one set of monsters would be necessary to make. If I did ever make my own game company, I could simply release them all under a "Fantasy Adventures" title, then release a "Bestiary" as a general fantasy gaming resource. I could do the same thing with spell books for the most part - Advanced Fantasy would actually have spell lists, since it will have AD&D style classes, and Arcane Adventures will be able to use any set of spells. I could even include a small section on any spell book for "Using in Arcane Adventures", or some such.
*When I say Gygaxian, I'm referring to a style of fantasy adventuring that has come to be, largely due to the work of Gary Gygax. While 3rd Edition D&D isn't strictly Gygaxian in play style, it has most of the elements of Gygaxian fantasy: magic items as treasure, the AD&D Classes, AD&D Races, etc. At this point D&D has become a genre of fantasy all its own, and I think that can be attributed to the style Gygax pushed for and published with 1st Edition, that was later expanded upon in 2nd and 3rd Edition. While later versions may not be what Gygax would want, there definitely his brainchild.
Note also that I'm not trying to exclude Arneson's part in D&D. He has a distinctly different feel to his games and works. Gygaxian D&D is basically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and the derivatives there of.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
More Warband Ideas
Last time I talked about my Smoke & Steel idea; a campaign focused around only fighters that are heavily customized. I'm thinking of taking the complete opposite route for Warband, and making it extremely simple and rules light. The whole point of the game will, pretty much be wargaming, but with more possible granularity. I, personally, think it would be fun to start off with a low level, single character, and work his way up to a captain, war chief, and maybe one day king.
Currently I'm thinking of using OD&D as a basis, and stripping out pretty much all of the fantasy aspects, and a few rules. I think first ability scores can go. I'm thinking there wont be any 0 level characters, everyone starts of as a 1st level character, with a single hit dice. This way player characters wont be any different than NPCs. Normally this would looked at as a bad thing, but in this case, it's about your war-band (hence the name).
I'd use a singular saving throw, as sort of catch all for any non-weapon based attacks. In that regard I'd go with a single saving throw, like Swords & Wizardry. I'd also use Ascending Armor class, since that fits my combat system from the last post. +1 to hit per level, or per 1/2 level might work pretty well.
For experience I'm definitely thinking 100xp per hit die. Since it will only be human on human fighting (for the most part), this works out pretty well. It's simple, and there probably won't be very many special abilities for encountered enemies. Since everyone would be a fighter, there would only need to be one experience progression, either starting at 2,000 or 1,000 (depending on the mood of the game). This means only 10 to 20 kills to get to next level, which I think would work really well for a very military oriented game. I wouldn't give straight gold for experience, but I would probably offer training on a 1 for 1 basis.
I don't think feats, as they currently work, would go well with large scale combat. I usually adjudicate combat maneuvers anyway, so I could do that for duels and smaller skirmishes. I do think something like AD&D's weapon proficiencies could work well with mass combat; simple +1's to weapons. After all plenty of military units drill to be proficient with their commonly used weapons. There's also room for some minor maneuver like abilities, like "Shield Bash": where you could add your shield's bonus "to hit" or damage, instead of defense (or in addition too).
I was originally very for a large and long armament list, because I feel that was OD&D's original way of letting you customize fighters. Though historically not many units were uniformly armed, instead similar weapons were grouped together. I'm thinking a large list for Player Characters and "Heroes", and simply a "weapon type" equivalent list for units: Polearms, Small Weapons, Medium Weapons, etc... I'm also thinking instead of rolling for damage with units, you'd just have an "average rating". For example a 1d6 spear would have an average rating of "3", and you'd just multiply that by the number of men that hit (using the previously mentioned combat system).
If I do go with a more simplistic system for mass units, I might even consider leaning closer towards the OD&D model, at least in some ways. I think the Hero representing multiple men system would be really helpful. That could determine number of attacks, or something similar. A level vs Armor Class type, and Weapons vs Armor Type systems could be incorporated easily this way too.
Just some ideas. I might ask to play this soon with the wife, and maybe get it all down.
Currently I'm thinking of using OD&D as a basis, and stripping out pretty much all of the fantasy aspects, and a few rules. I think first ability scores can go. I'm thinking there wont be any 0 level characters, everyone starts of as a 1st level character, with a single hit dice. This way player characters wont be any different than NPCs. Normally this would looked at as a bad thing, but in this case, it's about your war-band (hence the name).
I'd use a singular saving throw, as sort of catch all for any non-weapon based attacks. In that regard I'd go with a single saving throw, like Swords & Wizardry. I'd also use Ascending Armor class, since that fits my combat system from the last post. +1 to hit per level, or per 1/2 level might work pretty well.
For experience I'm definitely thinking 100xp per hit die. Since it will only be human on human fighting (for the most part), this works out pretty well. It's simple, and there probably won't be very many special abilities for encountered enemies. Since everyone would be a fighter, there would only need to be one experience progression, either starting at 2,000 or 1,000 (depending on the mood of the game). This means only 10 to 20 kills to get to next level, which I think would work really well for a very military oriented game. I wouldn't give straight gold for experience, but I would probably offer training on a 1 for 1 basis.
I don't think feats, as they currently work, would go well with large scale combat. I usually adjudicate combat maneuvers anyway, so I could do that for duels and smaller skirmishes. I do think something like AD&D's weapon proficiencies could work well with mass combat; simple +1's to weapons. After all plenty of military units drill to be proficient with their commonly used weapons. There's also room for some minor maneuver like abilities, like "Shield Bash": where you could add your shield's bonus "to hit" or damage, instead of defense (or in addition too).
I was originally very for a large and long armament list, because I feel that was OD&D's original way of letting you customize fighters. Though historically not many units were uniformly armed, instead similar weapons were grouped together. I'm thinking a large list for Player Characters and "Heroes", and simply a "weapon type" equivalent list for units: Polearms, Small Weapons, Medium Weapons, etc... I'm also thinking instead of rolling for damage with units, you'd just have an "average rating". For example a 1d6 spear would have an average rating of "3", and you'd just multiply that by the number of men that hit (using the previously mentioned combat system).
If I do go with a more simplistic system for mass units, I might even consider leaning closer towards the OD&D model, at least in some ways. I think the Hero representing multiple men system would be really helpful. That could determine number of attacks, or something similar. A level vs Armor Class type, and Weapons vs Armor Type systems could be incorporated easily this way too.
Just some ideas. I might ask to play this soon with the wife, and maybe get it all down.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
D&D as a Tool Kit
**Warning: This is a very stream of thought, unorganized post. I'm tired, and kind of just want to write right now.
This has been talked about before, but normally in the sense of "D&D is a tool kit that can let you play fantasy (sometimes other) role playing games". As in, within the rules given, there are various tools provided to let you customize your game. But what if we made a "D&D Tool Kit" that let you build your own D&D? That's what D&D Next was supposed to be, but I just don't feel that it accomplished that all too well (not yet at least). I'll go ahead and muse on the subject, just for kicks. This is in no way a game plan, or something I intend to do, but it would be cool.
First lets talk about layout, organization, etc. What I'm thinking of is something like Basic Fantasy, mixed with the Pathfinder SRD. Release a really basic core set of rules, and then make a billion supplements, possible one page, self contained PDFs. Then you could conveniently print out a binder full of rules. Eventually, you could release pre-customized, or ready-to-roll, rule sets: "Basic", "Advanced", "Original", etc., much like Microlite20 does.
On to some actual ideas of things that would part of this system. Lets start with the most basic of basics: Ability Scores. (Here, you'll see what I'm actually talking about.) I prefer more to the point language, so I wouldn't go on about "Strength is a character's ability to lift heavy things...", but I would explain the effects of Strength on game play, and how altering Ability Scores, and selecting an option affects game play. I would present four basic options for Ability Scores: no modifiers, +1/-1, +3/-3, and +5/-5.
In other words; the original option, where Ability Scores did not modify much in game, but instead acted as a vague representation of the character's, for Referees to use as they pleased. With this option, and in fact as a blurb in the beginning of the section, I would emphasize that regardless of modifiers from ability scores, they can be used in many sorts of ways. The second method would be a +1 on 15+ score, and -1 on 7- scores. This is from Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, and is used by quite a few folks, who like to have some impact from exceptional scores, but not much.
The third option is from Basic D&D, and is used in Castles & Crusades, and other retroclones that like to clean up old school AD&D style play, without resorting to the large modifiers found in later games. The fourth option is from 3rd Edition, and would be for superheroic game play.
Clearly, you wouldn't use any of these options together, you'd pick one. You'd tell your players: "Hey this is how were doing attributes this campaign". They're all there for reference, and to choose from. The tricky part with this project, would be making a system that jives with all of these options, which is why I'd use OD&D as my basis. OD&D originally didn't have many modifiers from ability scores, but the supplements added them in; which is basically the idea here. This is nothing new really, I'd just be presenting it a different way.
Part of the beauty of this system is that you have a genuine choice when customizing your rules. If you want hard, gritty game play, use very few player bolstering abilities as possible; no ability score modifiers, restrict classes and kits, use as lower attack progression, etc.
Some other ideas I don't feel like typing out all the way right now, I'll quickly quip about here. For classes I'd offer a single "Adventurer" option, like in Searchers of the Unknown; the four basic archetypes, like in Basic D&D; and then Kits & Subclasses like in AD&D. Some of the obvious mechanics with options are Experience point progressions, Attack Bonuses, Saving Throws, etc.
With Experience Points you have the options of 3E style unified progression, with Slow, Medium, and Fast progressions. You also have Encounter based XP tables you can offer, or my preference, old school Hit Dice/Level based XP. You can also offer OD&D's 100xp/hit die option.
Attack bonuses are pretty straight forward. You can offer a Slow, Medium, and Fast set (possibly 4 if you want to be closer to AD&D). If you're using the "Adventurer" option, then it's Referee's discretion how fast he wants his players' combat bonuses to progress. If you go the more classic route, with separate classes and kits, then assign the appropriate attack progressions to those classes.
For saving throws you can offer the Single Saving Throw (Swords & Wizardry), Traditional (Parlyzation, Death Ray, etc.), Attribute Based (Castles & Crusades: Strength, Constitution, etc.), or the 3E style Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
For common adventuring tasks you can present some skill systems, like d20 or percentile; or you can list the percent changes, or dice rolls necessary for common tasks. In fact you can have the simple B/X and OD&D method of having just a couple activities with the required d6 rolls, listing the percentage chances in parenthesis like AD&D. From there on any other, more complex, or less common tasks are simply percentage chances.
Magic would be interesting, as long as you are cautious to use consistent key words and terminology. If you chose a more abstract, classless approach you could incorporate any system. Of course, as long as all methods of spell casting have restrictions, and costs, then you can conceivably use all of them at once (not a single character, but coexisting in a game world).
With so many options it can get confusing though, even if it is just presented as a tool box. You could take a more "levels of depth option". Instead of alternatives and options, you provide layers of complexity. To go back to saving throws; instead of offering all of those methods, you can simply offer the Single Saving Throw, and the Attribute Throw options. These options are a little more interchangeable and compatible.
This is all just speculation and mental seepage. I am considering doing something like this for my house rules, but it will probably only be with the rules I like, as a sort of "Rules Compendium" to keep them all in one place, so I can customize rule sets to the campaigns I want to play. I rarely run a game system "as is", and when I want to play that game I usually house rule it anyway, or ignore a lot of the rules. So say I want to play AD&D, I might just grab the rules from my "Compendium" that make up AD&D, and shove that in one document. All just thoughts, and sleepless ideas.
This has been talked about before, but normally in the sense of "D&D is a tool kit that can let you play fantasy (sometimes other) role playing games". As in, within the rules given, there are various tools provided to let you customize your game. But what if we made a "D&D Tool Kit" that let you build your own D&D? That's what D&D Next was supposed to be, but I just don't feel that it accomplished that all too well (not yet at least). I'll go ahead and muse on the subject, just for kicks. This is in no way a game plan, or something I intend to do, but it would be cool.
First lets talk about layout, organization, etc. What I'm thinking of is something like Basic Fantasy, mixed with the Pathfinder SRD. Release a really basic core set of rules, and then make a billion supplements, possible one page, self contained PDFs. Then you could conveniently print out a binder full of rules. Eventually, you could release pre-customized, or ready-to-roll, rule sets: "Basic", "Advanced", "Original", etc., much like Microlite20 does.
On to some actual ideas of things that would part of this system. Lets start with the most basic of basics: Ability Scores. (Here, you'll see what I'm actually talking about.) I prefer more to the point language, so I wouldn't go on about "Strength is a character's ability to lift heavy things...", but I would explain the effects of Strength on game play, and how altering Ability Scores, and selecting an option affects game play. I would present four basic options for Ability Scores: no modifiers, +1/-1, +3/-3, and +5/-5.
In other words; the original option, where Ability Scores did not modify much in game, but instead acted as a vague representation of the character's, for Referees to use as they pleased. With this option, and in fact as a blurb in the beginning of the section, I would emphasize that regardless of modifiers from ability scores, they can be used in many sorts of ways. The second method would be a +1 on 15+ score, and -1 on 7- scores. This is from Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, and is used by quite a few folks, who like to have some impact from exceptional scores, but not much.
The third option is from Basic D&D, and is used in Castles & Crusades, and other retroclones that like to clean up old school AD&D style play, without resorting to the large modifiers found in later games. The fourth option is from 3rd Edition, and would be for superheroic game play.
Clearly, you wouldn't use any of these options together, you'd pick one. You'd tell your players: "Hey this is how were doing attributes this campaign". They're all there for reference, and to choose from. The tricky part with this project, would be making a system that jives with all of these options, which is why I'd use OD&D as my basis. OD&D originally didn't have many modifiers from ability scores, but the supplements added them in; which is basically the idea here. This is nothing new really, I'd just be presenting it a different way.
Part of the beauty of this system is that you have a genuine choice when customizing your rules. If you want hard, gritty game play, use very few player bolstering abilities as possible; no ability score modifiers, restrict classes and kits, use as lower attack progression, etc.
Some other ideas I don't feel like typing out all the way right now, I'll quickly quip about here. For classes I'd offer a single "Adventurer" option, like in Searchers of the Unknown; the four basic archetypes, like in Basic D&D; and then Kits & Subclasses like in AD&D. Some of the obvious mechanics with options are Experience point progressions, Attack Bonuses, Saving Throws, etc.
With Experience Points you have the options of 3E style unified progression, with Slow, Medium, and Fast progressions. You also have Encounter based XP tables you can offer, or my preference, old school Hit Dice/Level based XP. You can also offer OD&D's 100xp/hit die option.
Attack bonuses are pretty straight forward. You can offer a Slow, Medium, and Fast set (possibly 4 if you want to be closer to AD&D). If you're using the "Adventurer" option, then it's Referee's discretion how fast he wants his players' combat bonuses to progress. If you go the more classic route, with separate classes and kits, then assign the appropriate attack progressions to those classes.
For saving throws you can offer the Single Saving Throw (Swords & Wizardry), Traditional (Parlyzation, Death Ray, etc.), Attribute Based (Castles & Crusades: Strength, Constitution, etc.), or the 3E style Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.
For common adventuring tasks you can present some skill systems, like d20 or percentile; or you can list the percent changes, or dice rolls necessary for common tasks. In fact you can have the simple B/X and OD&D method of having just a couple activities with the required d6 rolls, listing the percentage chances in parenthesis like AD&D. From there on any other, more complex, or less common tasks are simply percentage chances.
Magic would be interesting, as long as you are cautious to use consistent key words and terminology. If you chose a more abstract, classless approach you could incorporate any system. Of course, as long as all methods of spell casting have restrictions, and costs, then you can conceivably use all of them at once (not a single character, but coexisting in a game world).
With so many options it can get confusing though, even if it is just presented as a tool box. You could take a more "levels of depth option". Instead of alternatives and options, you provide layers of complexity. To go back to saving throws; instead of offering all of those methods, you can simply offer the Single Saving Throw, and the Attribute Throw options. These options are a little more interchangeable and compatible.
This is all just speculation and mental seepage. I am considering doing something like this for my house rules, but it will probably only be with the rules I like, as a sort of "Rules Compendium" to keep them all in one place, so I can customize rule sets to the campaigns I want to play. I rarely run a game system "as is", and when I want to play that game I usually house rule it anyway, or ignore a lot of the rules. So say I want to play AD&D, I might just grab the rules from my "Compendium" that make up AD&D, and shove that in one document. All just thoughts, and sleepless ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)