When I first started playing table top, my introduction was Battletech. If you are familiar with the game you will know it has rules covering every action possible. Especially when you add in supplements like Tactical Operations, you truly do have a system with rules covering every conceivable circumstance. Therefore, when I got into role playing games, I assumed I needed a system that did just that. Most systems however were extremely complex or didn't make much sense to me.
At the time, 4th Edition was the current version of Dungeons & Dragons, so I looked into it. The game just didn't make much sense to me. The way the rules were laid out, and the powers and abilities were not logical to me. I was used to games that tried to be realistic, so having a powers system just felt strange, and wasn't something I wanted. After all, I was doing Viking Age reenactment back then, and I wanted a game that accurately portrayed combat.
Then I stumbled upon Runequest, and Basic Role Playing. It was brilliant! Everything you could possibly want to do was handled by a skill or attribute, and they were all rated as a percent chance. Roll under the percent score, and you succeed. It was a fantastic system, and to this day my preference for any game that is not medieval or fantasy. I had a lot of fun with Runequest, and played that almost exclusively.
I could remember back in my child being enamored by Dungeons & Dragons though. The episode of Dexter's Laboratory, with his miniatures and charts, and the magic of it all. Of course any other pop culture references made it seem all the more intriguing, such as on the Simpsons (or after I already was playing AD&D and saw it on Freaks and Geeks). I don't remember exactly why or how, but that intrigue lead to me searching for the original version of D&D. Sadly, I don't even recall where I discovered Swords & Wizardry, it may have even been a random google search one late night, but I found it. I was amazed.
Such a simple game, with so few rules conveying everything I need to play a fantasy adventure game. The artwork of the Swords & Wizardry: White Box rules I found were so retro, yet sparked my imagination so vividly. With that, I started one of my best long running campaigns, and of course many one shots and late night games with random friends.
It was such a blast, and when I found out I could use material from a variety of games and sources, I went mad with delight. However, I still stuck with OD&D. Why add a Barbarian class, when there's already a Fighter? I added the Thief because it was a fantasy classic, and I felt it was different enough from the Fighter. In those days, I only added spells, monsters, and treasures, not caring about properly converting. After all, with such as simple and low-power baseline, balance isn't really a concern. What's the harm in giving my 1d6 hit point players a +1 sword? They couldn't hit anything anyway.
Eventually I came across a copy of 1st Edition AD&D, and it re-ignited that intrigue I felt when I was a kid, and when I first found Swords & Wizardry. It was familiar, and I was already so comfortable with the OD&D rules, that adding the few tidbits found therein, seemed like no big deal. Drawing connections and acknowledging similarities I began to imagine the ways I could bridge the gap between editions, and make a unifying game (much like 5E said it was going to do).
Now, when you're playing a game, you (or at least me) start to think that it's the rules that make it fun. After all, with out the rules you'd just be playing pretend (I now realize the most noble of pursuits). If rules didn't matter, you could just play Monopoly like a dungeon crawl, right? At this time, in the late 2000's, early 2010's, there were so many cool retroclones, and supplemental materials. All of those lovely games and publications, had such "fun" rules. Rolling different combinations of dice, and "customizing" characters with special abilities felt "fun".
That's when the poison struck. For the last few years I had the game design bug. I mean if some rules were fun, wouldn't more fun rules be better? Don't get me wrong, this can be true, and some games do it really well. Battletech, as I first mentioned, really does have some cool rules. Some simpler games even, like Greymatter with it's variety of classes and races provide an excellent and elegant framework for adventuring.
Now a days though, it seems I've come full circle. I want a game that's about exploration, and problem solving. Why do I need a Barbarian Class? Why do I need more systems and sub systems? Aren't attack rolls, saving throws, and hit points enough? This doesn't mean I'm going to just play straight White Box (though I may), and I'm not completely averse to some extra character options, but I'm definitely more interested in a simple game.
Stay Zen my friends.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
A Little More on Armor Class
So after going through a few monster books (OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, and Pathfinder), I've come to the conclusion I'm definitely going to simplify armor class. First and foremost I'm just not finding a reason to have any armor class better than AC 0[20], heck even AC 2[18]. As far as difficulty is concerned I'm really starting to appreciate that difficulty in Dungeons & Dragons should almost entirely be derived from hit points/hit dice. A lot of guys on the OD&D boards have said that, and I'm starting to agree. (Not withstanding difficulty from traps, environment, tactics, etc. Speaking purely mechanically). It provides plenty of room for variety, progression, and gives an easy way of gauging difficulty.
As I said in my last post, this also simplifies monster creation and conversion. There are now four main armor types: None, Light, Medium, and Hard/Heavy; correlating to Unarmored, Leather, Chain mail, and Plate Mail. Unarmored is obvious, Leather works for most fur and hide, and Plate Mail is great for tough metallic scales, and the like. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any creature that has similar natural defenses to chain mail, but quit simply it provides a decent option for heavy hide, or softer natural scales. Not a perfect system, but simple and good enough for me.
Creatures that are particularly agile, dexterous, fast, or perhaps very small, can get a +1 (ascending AC), similar to the players' ability due to a 15+ in Dexterity. Those with an ability to fly are granted a +1, with a combat modifier of -4 to attacking flying creatures with ranged weapons when the creature has not attacked you. Enchanted creatures, or those described as naturally/magically unable to be struck are at another +1. I don't think I want to go any higher than +1 for any armor class abilities. This caps the maximum armor class at AC 1[19]. This goes in line with the whole armor class as degree, and the best armor class is 1st class armor.
This also means every creature can be struck by anyone. I prefer my campaign world to be a little more grounded. If it exists you can kill it. That's also because it can kill you. This has a myriad of other benefits to the game. You can keep the attack matrices lower, since every character already has a minimum 10% chance of hitting the toughest creature. When you make the natural progression of attack ability lower, it now makes +1's from other sources far more meaningful. Now your +1 to hit from Strength actually is remarkable. That +1 sword? That's really useful now.
I also think this puts less of an emphasis on how well you can hit your enemy, and more on how hard you hit them, and other more interesting factors of battle, like who and in what order. No missing is the big deal, and not hitting. I know some guys may agree with that, but I'm kind of tired of playing AD&D games where you tediously roll and miss most rounds in combat. I prefer faster, lethal combat. I personally don't care if players can hit a monster every turn, that's exactly why we have hit points that increase with level. It's supposed to be how long you last in combat, and therefore how long you can be out adventuring. Finally, I think having a Fighter that has a 95% chance of hitting is enemy is exactly what the Fighter is supposed to be.
I probably had more to say, but I may have forgot some points, however there really isn't much to say on the matter, other than it's what I like and makes the game play the way I want it to. One final thought though is player Armor Class. Now with this system it makes player and monster AC function much more similarly than before, since they are based on similar principles. However if you consider the players' abilities to get AC bonuses from other places, such as magical armor, training in special techniques, and as reward for role playing, players can potentially get a much higher AC than monsters. I'm okay with this.
While I don't want my players to be superheroes, I think letting them have this one avenue to increase survivability is fine. After all they are routinely facing creatures with much higher hit dice, and therefore much higher to-hit abilities. This also means players who prefer to focus on increasing their defenses a truly different option.
That's all for now guys, stay Zen.
As I said in my last post, this also simplifies monster creation and conversion. There are now four main armor types: None, Light, Medium, and Hard/Heavy; correlating to Unarmored, Leather, Chain mail, and Plate Mail. Unarmored is obvious, Leather works for most fur and hide, and Plate Mail is great for tough metallic scales, and the like. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any creature that has similar natural defenses to chain mail, but quit simply it provides a decent option for heavy hide, or softer natural scales. Not a perfect system, but simple and good enough for me.
Creatures that are particularly agile, dexterous, fast, or perhaps very small, can get a +1 (ascending AC), similar to the players' ability due to a 15+ in Dexterity. Those with an ability to fly are granted a +1, with a combat modifier of -4 to attacking flying creatures with ranged weapons when the creature has not attacked you. Enchanted creatures, or those described as naturally/magically unable to be struck are at another +1. I don't think I want to go any higher than +1 for any armor class abilities. This caps the maximum armor class at AC 1[19]. This goes in line with the whole armor class as degree, and the best armor class is 1st class armor.
This also means every creature can be struck by anyone. I prefer my campaign world to be a little more grounded. If it exists you can kill it. That's also because it can kill you. This has a myriad of other benefits to the game. You can keep the attack matrices lower, since every character already has a minimum 10% chance of hitting the toughest creature. When you make the natural progression of attack ability lower, it now makes +1's from other sources far more meaningful. Now your +1 to hit from Strength actually is remarkable. That +1 sword? That's really useful now.
I also think this puts less of an emphasis on how well you can hit your enemy, and more on how hard you hit them, and other more interesting factors of battle, like who and in what order. No missing is the big deal, and not hitting. I know some guys may agree with that, but I'm kind of tired of playing AD&D games where you tediously roll and miss most rounds in combat. I prefer faster, lethal combat. I personally don't care if players can hit a monster every turn, that's exactly why we have hit points that increase with level. It's supposed to be how long you last in combat, and therefore how long you can be out adventuring. Finally, I think having a Fighter that has a 95% chance of hitting is enemy is exactly what the Fighter is supposed to be.
I probably had more to say, but I may have forgot some points, however there really isn't much to say on the matter, other than it's what I like and makes the game play the way I want it to. One final thought though is player Armor Class. Now with this system it makes player and monster AC function much more similarly than before, since they are based on similar principles. However if you consider the players' abilities to get AC bonuses from other places, such as magical armor, training in special techniques, and as reward for role playing, players can potentially get a much higher AC than monsters. I'm okay with this.
While I don't want my players to be superheroes, I think letting them have this one avenue to increase survivability is fine. After all they are routinely facing creatures with much higher hit dice, and therefore much higher to-hit abilities. This also means players who prefer to focus on increasing their defenses a truly different option.
That's all for now guys, stay Zen.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
OD&D House Rules
Just going to make a quick post on the house rules I'm currently working. The goal this time is not make so many changes, but to try and play the game a little more straight. What I'm doing that's most drastic is just drawing from multiple sources. I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel. I'm just trying to compile a solid foundation for my future games. The most important goal for me, as it's always been, is to establish the best framework for using material from anywhere I want. I'll try to explain below. Of course the outline below follows the framework of Microlite20, though this isn't actually a rules post, just thoughts on the matter.
Attributes
Attributes of 15 or higher grant a +1 to relevant rolls and statistics. Strength for damage and to-hit, Constitution for hit points per hit die, Dexterity for armor class, etc. Stats are determined by 3d6, and arranged to taste.
An interesting rule I found is using Charisma to determine party leader/caller. I found it under Dave Arneson's house rules. I think it's a great way to make Charisma a useful ability. I've also found that having a party leader is extremely important for group cohesion honestly. It's very interesting to note as well that Arneson's "party leader" was purely an in character leader, and does not have to be someone the group likes in real life, but literally a sort of company manager, which makes sense in a group of explorers.
Races
This is one of the tougher ones for me. On one hand I love OD&D's idea of having almost no apparent difference between the races (except a few saving throw bonuses, and class restrictions), and then having a bunch of adventuring "skills" in the Referee's section of the book, affected by race. On the other hand I think just having a simple attribute score modifier system for them is totally adequate, and I like the simplicity of it.
Classes
Magic-Users and Clerics as is. I'm debating using Wizard and Priest as the names, just because it reminds of the old Roguelike games (basing my rules, on a game, based on D&D, funny too me). I'm toying with the idea of restricting Priests to chain mail, just because it splits up the armor types nicely, and gives the Fighter one more specialty.
Fighters are a tough one. Going by the book is an okay option, just letting them kill stuff plain and simple. I'm thinking at least giving them an extra attack at 10th level would be nice. Maybe giving them a couple +1's to damage and to-hit as they progress. Also thinking of renaming the class "Knight". This doesn't make much sense actually, as the idea behind OD&D is that the Fighter can be any type of fighter (Barbarian, Samurai, Soldier, etc.). I just like the way Knight sounds honestly, nothing important really.
Thief/Rogue is definitely not being included. I used to understand most people's thoughts on cutting the Thief out, but I always enjoyed them, and thought they were a classic RPG staple. Now a days though, I just can't stand the way modern players insist on playing the Thief. They think it's an excuse to try and steal everything, and back stab other players. Furthermore, they absolutely insist on using the Thief's skills as frequently as possible. One player would try and climb a tree every time they got into a combat, or every time they were travelling, just because it was one of their skills on their character sheet.
I really don't want to include skills, or at least not skills on the character sheets, for the above mentioned reasons, so definitely not Thief. However, I really like having four classes, and I like the idea of a lighter fighter type. I think the Ranger is a great fit, and it's always been one of my favorite classes, especially the 1E Ranger. With that said, his main ability of 50% chance for surprise is kind of a skill, so I don't know if I want to include that. On the other hand I've always liked how that was such a simple implementation of a "skill" that wasn't complicated, and already present in the game. Though to counterpoint that, I don't players having separate chances for surprise, given that they are supposed to be a team. Rangers could be allowed a separate roll for surprise though, giving them an independent opportunity for a first attack, or ability to hide.
Just those four classes should suffice. There is the temptation to go kitchen-sink like usual, but typically it just complicates the game, and makes players more focused on mechanical character development. Arduin has some cool classes though, with a nice weird-fantasy feel, so I'm still considering this aspect.
Hit dice will be the Greyhawk variant, most likely, with the Ranger getting a d6, instead of the Thief's d4.
Skills
I'm going to just keep a list of common adventuring tasks, with percent chances, and maybe a chance out of d6/d8 roll as an option (keep players on their toes, I love when they have no clue what whether they should roll high or low). I'll be using examples from OD&D to start my list, and I'll probably check AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, Palladium Fantasy RPG, and Runequest for some ideas.
Magic
Nothing special here. I am going to use the 2E AD&D spells instead of straight OD&D. The only real reason for this decision is that there a ton of spells available, and they are neatly divided into Priest and Wizard.
Combat
OD&D combat, but I'll be combing AD&D 1E & 2E for some common combat modifiers, like high ground, and flanking.
I have a new system for grappling and wresting: both characters involved in the grapple roll a d20 adding their level/hit die total. Players can add their Strength or Dexterity bonus, depending on the description of their actions. Whoever rolls higher wins. You could have a character declare ahead of time, that they are going to grapple a character attempting to attack them. They would just do the above, and the attacker would make the usual attack roll. I'm going to use the basic monsters add their level/hit die total for attack rolls (ascending armor class), so it would work out the same. If the defender loses, the attack functions as normal. I think the player would probably have to not have already attacked/moved that turn. I'll probably make a post detailing this more later.
Monsters
The point of this is that you should be able to use monsters from anywhere, with little to no conversion. The only real concern is Armor Class. If you just left most non OD&D monsters as is, they have rather high Armor Classes, and they can get out of hand, even in AD&D, with AC -10[30]. This isn't so much a problem if I use the AD&D attack matrices (which I plan to do). However I find it kind of silly, because there doesn't seem to be much logic to how the AC's for most monsters were determined. Also, if you check out the XP rewards chart from AD&D 2E, for example, you only get a higher XP reward for huge differences in armor class. Why does an AC 0[20] increase a monsters XP worth, and not an AC 1[19], or an AC -10[30]?
I'm starting to think the easiest way to deal with this, is what I recall from "Isle of the Unknown". Simply consider whether the monster's defenses are similar to plain flesh, leather, chain mail/scale, or plate mail. You can give a +1 (ascending AC) for a highly agile or fast creature, maybe a +2 for an inhumanly fast creature. Another +1 for any creature that has some defense resembling a shield, or a natural ability to block or parry well. I think it's a +4 for a creature that is flying, though this one may be unnecessary. After all if a creature flies by close enough to attack you, then you can attack it. Perhaps only a +1 for flying creatures, due to agility, and then a -4 to ranged attack rolls when a creature is flying around. Finally, a +1 to +5 for magical defenses (such as being on fire), though personally I don't like using these.
The above should keep Armor Class more inline with white box OD&D armor classes, and be very easy to then convert any creature. It doesn't perfectly remedy the reward problem, but it should limit the ridiculous disparity in AC of later systems. Besides, old school D&D isn't supposed to be perfectly balanced (though the usual imbalance caused by the above is too much for me).
Rewards, Level Advancements, and Statistics
I do believe I'll using 2E AD&D's XP requirements for level, and XP rewards from monsters. It's got he best table and calculation chart that I remember coming across, therefore making conversion of monsters the easiest. It also makes XP and treasure numbers quite high, which is a nice feel. If everything else is kept low (+1's, hit points, etc.), I think it's okay to give out piles of treasure. From my research, and play experience, it's the best middle ground for using material from any edition as well. Players can easily buy equipment from any editions material, gold values of magic items for including them in hoards work well with this model as well.
For treasure, I really like Swords & Wizardry's treasure rules. Simply roll 1d6, and consult a chart giving you a number 2 - 4, multiply that number times the XP of the encounter, and your done. It's elegant, and it's simple. Most importantly, it's worked in all my games so far, and meshes with the advice, I believe found in B/X, stating that around 75% of experience should come from treasure. This rule has also worked well with the 2E AD&D XP charts I mention above. Having used that chart for most of my games, I've noticed it provides a good pace of advancement in games.
Sources & Inspiration
I'm using a variety of sources for this, and I intend to comb through them more thoroughly for ideas, advice, and any other useful material such as rules, tables, charts, monsters, treasure, etc. Below are some of the places I'm digging in for this project. The long term goal though, is to use material from literally anywhere and everywhere, the following is just what I'm starting with.
(Sources are in no particular order)
Attributes
Attributes of 15 or higher grant a +1 to relevant rolls and statistics. Strength for damage and to-hit, Constitution for hit points per hit die, Dexterity for armor class, etc. Stats are determined by 3d6, and arranged to taste.
An interesting rule I found is using Charisma to determine party leader/caller. I found it under Dave Arneson's house rules. I think it's a great way to make Charisma a useful ability. I've also found that having a party leader is extremely important for group cohesion honestly. It's very interesting to note as well that Arneson's "party leader" was purely an in character leader, and does not have to be someone the group likes in real life, but literally a sort of company manager, which makes sense in a group of explorers.
Races
This is one of the tougher ones for me. On one hand I love OD&D's idea of having almost no apparent difference between the races (except a few saving throw bonuses, and class restrictions), and then having a bunch of adventuring "skills" in the Referee's section of the book, affected by race. On the other hand I think just having a simple attribute score modifier system for them is totally adequate, and I like the simplicity of it.
Classes
Magic-Users and Clerics as is. I'm debating using Wizard and Priest as the names, just because it reminds of the old Roguelike games (basing my rules, on a game, based on D&D, funny too me). I'm toying with the idea of restricting Priests to chain mail, just because it splits up the armor types nicely, and gives the Fighter one more specialty.
Fighters are a tough one. Going by the book is an okay option, just letting them kill stuff plain and simple. I'm thinking at least giving them an extra attack at 10th level would be nice. Maybe giving them a couple +1's to damage and to-hit as they progress. Also thinking of renaming the class "Knight". This doesn't make much sense actually, as the idea behind OD&D is that the Fighter can be any type of fighter (Barbarian, Samurai, Soldier, etc.). I just like the way Knight sounds honestly, nothing important really.
Thief/Rogue is definitely not being included. I used to understand most people's thoughts on cutting the Thief out, but I always enjoyed them, and thought they were a classic RPG staple. Now a days though, I just can't stand the way modern players insist on playing the Thief. They think it's an excuse to try and steal everything, and back stab other players. Furthermore, they absolutely insist on using the Thief's skills as frequently as possible. One player would try and climb a tree every time they got into a combat, or every time they were travelling, just because it was one of their skills on their character sheet.
I really don't want to include skills, or at least not skills on the character sheets, for the above mentioned reasons, so definitely not Thief. However, I really like having four classes, and I like the idea of a lighter fighter type. I think the Ranger is a great fit, and it's always been one of my favorite classes, especially the 1E Ranger. With that said, his main ability of 50% chance for surprise is kind of a skill, so I don't know if I want to include that. On the other hand I've always liked how that was such a simple implementation of a "skill" that wasn't complicated, and already present in the game. Though to counterpoint that, I don't players having separate chances for surprise, given that they are supposed to be a team. Rangers could be allowed a separate roll for surprise though, giving them an independent opportunity for a first attack, or ability to hide.
Just those four classes should suffice. There is the temptation to go kitchen-sink like usual, but typically it just complicates the game, and makes players more focused on mechanical character development. Arduin has some cool classes though, with a nice weird-fantasy feel, so I'm still considering this aspect.
Hit dice will be the Greyhawk variant, most likely, with the Ranger getting a d6, instead of the Thief's d4.
Skills
I'm going to just keep a list of common adventuring tasks, with percent chances, and maybe a chance out of d6/d8 roll as an option (keep players on their toes, I love when they have no clue what whether they should roll high or low). I'll be using examples from OD&D to start my list, and I'll probably check AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, Palladium Fantasy RPG, and Runequest for some ideas.
Magic
Nothing special here. I am going to use the 2E AD&D spells instead of straight OD&D. The only real reason for this decision is that there a ton of spells available, and they are neatly divided into Priest and Wizard.
Combat
OD&D combat, but I'll be combing AD&D 1E & 2E for some common combat modifiers, like high ground, and flanking.
I have a new system for grappling and wresting: both characters involved in the grapple roll a d20 adding their level/hit die total. Players can add their Strength or Dexterity bonus, depending on the description of their actions. Whoever rolls higher wins. You could have a character declare ahead of time, that they are going to grapple a character attempting to attack them. They would just do the above, and the attacker would make the usual attack roll. I'm going to use the basic monsters add their level/hit die total for attack rolls (ascending armor class), so it would work out the same. If the defender loses, the attack functions as normal. I think the player would probably have to not have already attacked/moved that turn. I'll probably make a post detailing this more later.
Monsters
The point of this is that you should be able to use monsters from anywhere, with little to no conversion. The only real concern is Armor Class. If you just left most non OD&D monsters as is, they have rather high Armor Classes, and they can get out of hand, even in AD&D, with AC -10[30]. This isn't so much a problem if I use the AD&D attack matrices (which I plan to do). However I find it kind of silly, because there doesn't seem to be much logic to how the AC's for most monsters were determined. Also, if you check out the XP rewards chart from AD&D 2E, for example, you only get a higher XP reward for huge differences in armor class. Why does an AC 0[20] increase a monsters XP worth, and not an AC 1[19], or an AC -10[30]?
I'm starting to think the easiest way to deal with this, is what I recall from "Isle of the Unknown". Simply consider whether the monster's defenses are similar to plain flesh, leather, chain mail/scale, or plate mail. You can give a +1 (ascending AC) for a highly agile or fast creature, maybe a +2 for an inhumanly fast creature. Another +1 for any creature that has some defense resembling a shield, or a natural ability to block or parry well. I think it's a +4 for a creature that is flying, though this one may be unnecessary. After all if a creature flies by close enough to attack you, then you can attack it. Perhaps only a +1 for flying creatures, due to agility, and then a -4 to ranged attack rolls when a creature is flying around. Finally, a +1 to +5 for magical defenses (such as being on fire), though personally I don't like using these.
The above should keep Armor Class more inline with white box OD&D armor classes, and be very easy to then convert any creature. It doesn't perfectly remedy the reward problem, but it should limit the ridiculous disparity in AC of later systems. Besides, old school D&D isn't supposed to be perfectly balanced (though the usual imbalance caused by the above is too much for me).
Rewards, Level Advancements, and Statistics
I do believe I'll using 2E AD&D's XP requirements for level, and XP rewards from monsters. It's got he best table and calculation chart that I remember coming across, therefore making conversion of monsters the easiest. It also makes XP and treasure numbers quite high, which is a nice feel. If everything else is kept low (+1's, hit points, etc.), I think it's okay to give out piles of treasure. From my research, and play experience, it's the best middle ground for using material from any edition as well. Players can easily buy equipment from any editions material, gold values of magic items for including them in hoards work well with this model as well.
For treasure, I really like Swords & Wizardry's treasure rules. Simply roll 1d6, and consult a chart giving you a number 2 - 4, multiply that number times the XP of the encounter, and your done. It's elegant, and it's simple. Most importantly, it's worked in all my games so far, and meshes with the advice, I believe found in B/X, stating that around 75% of experience should come from treasure. This rule has also worked well with the 2E AD&D XP charts I mention above. Having used that chart for most of my games, I've noticed it provides a good pace of advancement in games.
Sources & Inspiration
I'm using a variety of sources for this, and I intend to comb through them more thoroughly for ideas, advice, and any other useful material such as rules, tables, charts, monsters, treasure, etc. Below are some of the places I'm digging in for this project. The long term goal though, is to use material from literally anywhere and everywhere, the following is just what I'm starting with.
(Sources are in no particular order)
- Original Dungeons & Dragons, as well as it's supplements, Strategic Review, and early Dragon Magazine
- 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide"
- 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeon Master's Guide"
- Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game, 2nd Edition
- Runequest Classic Edition
- Arduin Grimoire, Vol I - IV
- Microlite74 and Microlite81
- Swords & Wizardry
- Dave Arneson's House Rules
- Gary Gygax's House Rules
- Basic Dungeons & Dragons, both B/X and Holmes
- Philotomy's Musings (absolute gold)
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Monster Consistency & More Unusual Sources.
One of the things I used to worry about a lot was having consistent monsters. In a game like OD&D where your players are supposed to logic and reasoning for game play, I felt it was very important to make sure that monsters were stated with due respect to each other. In other words, if you come across a 10 foot giant silver ram, you probably expect it to be weaker than a 40 foot ancient dragon, right?
I already wrote about an easy way to handle this: make a reference chart with monsters of each level/AC/HD/Attack, etc. to let you to stat monsters accordingly. This is excellent, but I want to point out that it's not THAT important. Yeah, you should avoid drastic nonsense, like having a full grown bear be weaker than a small wolf, but don't sweat it too much. Why not have a level 2 kobold? He's a little tougher, and he's a nice surprise. Maybe have him wearing a nice gold necklace, or wielding a polished sword, as a bit of fair warning.
Basically I used to worry a lot about "properly converting" material from other games. Now, I don't think I care so much. Maybe I'll use the 1E Gnoll this session, and toss a 3E Gnoll in next session. That 3E was just a sergeant. I want to start using more monsters from a variety of sources without thinking about it too much. Of course, using the suggested monster creation reference chart, would make it way easier to just take monster concepts, and create them for my games. Either way works I think. Using something like 1E or 2E as a base system, would also kind of stick the game mathematically in the middle of OD&D/Basic and 3E/4E/Pathfinder in terms of character strength relative to monster strength.
In any case, as always I suggest checking out every source you can for material, and not just monsters, but anything. The usual suggestions everyone goes to is Fantasy literature, comics, and movies. Check out video games too, if that's not apparent to you. I like to use music as inspiration too, heavy metal being the best source I've found (especially for campaign ideas). Obviously more adventurous DM's will plunder non D&D game sources like Palladium, Runequest, etc. Don't forget board games, like my buddy picked up a game called Mystic Vale that has some cool stuff in it, like a Moon Wolf (IIRC). Yugioh, and Pokemon honestly have some cool stuff, and I'm personally gonna check out "Boss Monsters", even if it comes off as silly.
I'm going to try and start making more posts with cool material sources, and hopefully some in depth looks, with actual suggestions. Here's some stuff I'm currently looking at that I hope to investigate and write about more:
I already wrote about an easy way to handle this: make a reference chart with monsters of each level/AC/HD/Attack, etc. to let you to stat monsters accordingly. This is excellent, but I want to point out that it's not THAT important. Yeah, you should avoid drastic nonsense, like having a full grown bear be weaker than a small wolf, but don't sweat it too much. Why not have a level 2 kobold? He's a little tougher, and he's a nice surprise. Maybe have him wearing a nice gold necklace, or wielding a polished sword, as a bit of fair warning.
Basically I used to worry a lot about "properly converting" material from other games. Now, I don't think I care so much. Maybe I'll use the 1E Gnoll this session, and toss a 3E Gnoll in next session. That 3E was just a sergeant. I want to start using more monsters from a variety of sources without thinking about it too much. Of course, using the suggested monster creation reference chart, would make it way easier to just take monster concepts, and create them for my games. Either way works I think. Using something like 1E or 2E as a base system, would also kind of stick the game mathematically in the middle of OD&D/Basic and 3E/4E/Pathfinder in terms of character strength relative to monster strength.
In any case, as always I suggest checking out every source you can for material, and not just monsters, but anything. The usual suggestions everyone goes to is Fantasy literature, comics, and movies. Check out video games too, if that's not apparent to you. I like to use music as inspiration too, heavy metal being the best source I've found (especially for campaign ideas). Obviously more adventurous DM's will plunder non D&D game sources like Palladium, Runequest, etc. Don't forget board games, like my buddy picked up a game called Mystic Vale that has some cool stuff in it, like a Moon Wolf (IIRC). Yugioh, and Pokemon honestly have some cool stuff, and I'm personally gonna check out "Boss Monsters", even if it comes off as silly.
I'm going to try and start making more posts with cool material sources, and hopefully some in depth looks, with actual suggestions. Here's some stuff I'm currently looking at that I hope to investigate and write about more:
- Roguelikes: Ultima, Wizardry, and Nethack (video games)
- Moonstone: A Hard Days Knight (video game)
- Mystic Vale, and Boss Monster (both tabletop card games)
- The Golden Key, by George MacDonald (short story)
- Dark Souls, and Witcher (more video games)
Stay Zen guys.
I Was Wrong
I don't if it's because I thought it was cool, if it's because I'm an insufferable nerd, or if I just didn't get it before, but I was wrong. It's not so fun to talk about game mechanics. I don't need to make my own game. I was wrong and I can admit that. Let my old posts serve as a reminder of what I don't want to be again.
In other words, SHUT UP AND PLAY THE GAME. I can't remember who else said this, but man I'm kind of tired about hearing about the tedious differences between old school games. I don't care if there is a -1 AC difference between a monster in different editions, or if the name for a saving throw changed by one word.
I'm only going to try and post cool stuff from now, like stuff that makes me go "wow, that's cool!". Anyway, this is my last apology, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself with "I know, I know, I changed my mind...".
Keep up the Zen, right?
In other words, SHUT UP AND PLAY THE GAME. I can't remember who else said this, but man I'm kind of tired about hearing about the tedious differences between old school games. I don't care if there is a -1 AC difference between a monster in different editions, or if the name for a saving throw changed by one word.
I'm only going to try and post cool stuff from now, like stuff that makes me go "wow, that's cool!". Anyway, this is my last apology, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself with "I know, I know, I changed my mind...".
Keep up the Zen, right?
Retrolite20, Monsters, and Spells
I meant to write a longer post tonight, but got side tracked as usual. Anyway...
(By the by I'm probably not going to hyperlink stuff anymore. OSR links die too often, I don't want to link without permission, and I'm too lazy to make links for readers who aren't there (Hello Absent Reader!), etc.)
I've espoused my love of Microlite20 before. I don't recall if I've discussed Retroroleplaying.com before, but I love that site, and I think they have the absolute best Microlite20 material. Microlite74 and Microlite81 are both "near retroclone" variants of Microlite20, allowing you to use the d20 SRD and relevant material in an old school fashion. Rock on, totally excellent.
I'd totally just have switched to playing these games ages ago, except they do two things I find really important, in a very non old school way: Treasure and Experience Points. The biggest thing 3E changed that I can never get past is the way it handles Treasure and Experience. The math should work out basically the same, and I don't care so much about not giving XP for Gold, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Old school experience systems are just so simple and straight forward. Coupled with Swords & Wizardry's brilliant treasure system (1d6 roll determining X 2-4 value of the encounter's XP), and I just feel compelled to stick with old school games.
Serious side note here, this is genuinely the largest reason I stick with old school RPGs (D&D, Runequest, Palladium, etc.). I just don't grok with newer games when it comes to reward systems. Most are too vague, or just too "feel good" for me (gain a level, whenever it feels right? I want to earn my levels!). Whenever I consider switching to 3E or Pathfinder, I just can't stand the idea of giving out treasure in any way they suggest in the books.
With all this in mind, and I'm sure I've said I'm going to do this before, I feel inspired to make a true Retroclone Microlite. I'm not saying I'm going to release it, I might if it ends up cool. What I want to do, is just kind of make a reference booklet of the AD&D or OD&D rules in a Microlite20 format. Basically, just a retro Microlite20 for old school material, instead of d20 SRD material.
Just for kicks, here's a list of some stuff I want to include:
Nothing over ambitious, probably nothing useful, but that's currently what I'm working on.
This also allows me to do another one of the activities I've been desiring: a board game dungeon crawl. Simply using the 1E DMG's solo play charts will suffice for me. It gives me a game like Dungeon! with all of the good actual D&D material. Since it's old school, it's extremely easy to convert any material to Old School D&D and Microlite20, so there's no end to content I can add to this personal project.
This leads me to my next projects. Another conclusion I've come to in regards to not publishing my own games is my inability to write. I'm sure I could practice and get better, but that's not really in my priorities. I've realized what I really want, isn't to publish my own stuff, but to collect stuff for D&D. The main collection being monsters. Rather than publish my own retroclone with tons of monsters, I just want to compile all of the monsters I can come across.
What I'd like to do for this is create my own sort of Monstrous Compendium library. Find any monster I find interesting, type up a page of information from it (probably just copy it from whatever source, since I won't be releasing it), and stick it in a series of binders. Just a massive library of monster reference for my games. The next step will be to do this spells. Though that's a bit more of a crazy beast, even if there are less spells per say.
(By the by I'm probably not going to hyperlink stuff anymore. OSR links die too often, I don't want to link without permission, and I'm too lazy to make links for readers who aren't there (Hello Absent Reader!), etc.)
I've espoused my love of Microlite20 before. I don't recall if I've discussed Retroroleplaying.com before, but I love that site, and I think they have the absolute best Microlite20 material. Microlite74 and Microlite81 are both "near retroclone" variants of Microlite20, allowing you to use the d20 SRD and relevant material in an old school fashion. Rock on, totally excellent.
I'd totally just have switched to playing these games ages ago, except they do two things I find really important, in a very non old school way: Treasure and Experience Points. The biggest thing 3E changed that I can never get past is the way it handles Treasure and Experience. The math should work out basically the same, and I don't care so much about not giving XP for Gold, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Old school experience systems are just so simple and straight forward. Coupled with Swords & Wizardry's brilliant treasure system (1d6 roll determining X 2-4 value of the encounter's XP), and I just feel compelled to stick with old school games.
Serious side note here, this is genuinely the largest reason I stick with old school RPGs (D&D, Runequest, Palladium, etc.). I just don't grok with newer games when it comes to reward systems. Most are too vague, or just too "feel good" for me (gain a level, whenever it feels right? I want to earn my levels!). Whenever I consider switching to 3E or Pathfinder, I just can't stand the idea of giving out treasure in any way they suggest in the books.
With all this in mind, and I'm sure I've said I'm going to do this before, I feel inspired to make a true Retroclone Microlite. I'm not saying I'm going to release it, I might if it ends up cool. What I want to do, is just kind of make a reference booklet of the AD&D or OD&D rules in a Microlite20 format. Basically, just a retro Microlite20 for old school material, instead of d20 SRD material.
Just for kicks, here's a list of some stuff I want to include:
- Classic AD&D and Fantasy Classes: Fighter, Rogue/Thief, Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, Assassin (maybe...), and possibly some obscure ones like Jester, Samurai (hat tip to Wizardry), and Acrobat. I'll be using the 1E versions as much as possible, adding things from other games/sources as necessary/desired.
- Castles & Crusades attribute modified saving throw system, with Swords & Wizardry saving throw target numbers (or there abouts). I just think this is one of the niftiest rules in any retroclone. Of course I might decide to go with something more Arduin, just to give this a Hackmaster feel (so many rules!).
- A Bard based on a mix of 1E & 2E, using the 1E Illusionists spells.
- Simplistic encounter system for Solo play, or easing the Referee's work in actual play. Something reminiscent of dungeon crawl board games, with "check door, go into room, kill, check for loot, etc." system. Not anything rigid you'd have to follow for actual play, but useful as an outline regardless. Also borrowing Wizardry's marching order system, because it simplifies range attacks and who is in combat.
Nothing over ambitious, probably nothing useful, but that's currently what I'm working on.
This also allows me to do another one of the activities I've been desiring: a board game dungeon crawl. Simply using the 1E DMG's solo play charts will suffice for me. It gives me a game like Dungeon! with all of the good actual D&D material. Since it's old school, it's extremely easy to convert any material to Old School D&D and Microlite20, so there's no end to content I can add to this personal project.
This leads me to my next projects. Another conclusion I've come to in regards to not publishing my own games is my inability to write. I'm sure I could practice and get better, but that's not really in my priorities. I've realized what I really want, isn't to publish my own stuff, but to collect stuff for D&D. The main collection being monsters. Rather than publish my own retroclone with tons of monsters, I just want to compile all of the monsters I can come across.
What I'd like to do for this is create my own sort of Monstrous Compendium library. Find any monster I find interesting, type up a page of information from it (probably just copy it from whatever source, since I won't be releasing it), and stick it in a series of binders. Just a massive library of monster reference for my games. The next step will be to do this spells. Though that's a bit more of a crazy beast, even if there are less spells per say.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Starting Over
I can't believe it's been 2 years since I've posted on here. Time flies, eh? There was the divorce, then the move, and now a new job. The usual.
I wanted to scrap all of this, and start from scratch. However, one of my few readers, a long time ago, told me to keep the stuff on here for posterity. A remembrance of what I used to think. I think he was right. I can be reminded of how nuts I am. Besides, I'm thinking of going back and doing "Revisit" articles on some of my old stuff. In any case, I have a few final decisions:
I'm just going to play OD&D with some house rules, maybe AD&D on occasion. There is no need to make my own game. There's already so many out there. I've also realized that it has nothing to do with the rules.
The beauty of old school D&D, especially OD&D, is that you can use any material with it, because there are so few rules to get in the way. I know, enough people have written about that, so I'll save the speech. Long story short, when I get on into the OSR it was a time when everyone was making their own game, and I just thought it would be really cool to contribute my own little piece to the gaming world. Instead, I realize I have lot better stuff to share.
For example, I'm working on a Martial Arts system that can be slipped into anyone's campaign. Hopefully I'll be writing about it soon, but it's basically just a Feat system you can purchase with gold, instead of XP. It solves a lot of the problems I (and others) have with most Feat and character customization systems out there. It's also a nice aesthetic for it, and inline with my original "Techniques" system I made for Arcane Adventures. Finally, it gives me a martial arts system for an RPG that isn't too complex.
What else have I been up to? I have a couple cool settings I'm working on. One is Viking-Samurai, which I'm really surprised no one else has done yet. The other is an Enchanted Isle, with an Enchanted Forest. Definitely going to be going to Majestic Wilderlands, Isle of Unknown, Dreamlands, and of course King Arthur and other classic Fairy Tale settings for inspiration.
I had a lot I wanted to write about when I was at work today, but it seems I forgot most of it. It's okay, my handy dandy notebook is usually on me to jot down ideas.
In any case, I just plan on sharing cool ideas, and maybe a few commentaries from now, like most of the other OSR guys. Hopefully I remember to keep writing.
Happy Gaming guys.
I wanted to scrap all of this, and start from scratch. However, one of my few readers, a long time ago, told me to keep the stuff on here for posterity. A remembrance of what I used to think. I think he was right. I can be reminded of how nuts I am. Besides, I'm thinking of going back and doing "Revisit" articles on some of my old stuff. In any case, I have a few final decisions:
I'm just going to play OD&D with some house rules, maybe AD&D on occasion. There is no need to make my own game. There's already so many out there. I've also realized that it has nothing to do with the rules.
The beauty of old school D&D, especially OD&D, is that you can use any material with it, because there are so few rules to get in the way. I know, enough people have written about that, so I'll save the speech. Long story short, when I get on into the OSR it was a time when everyone was making their own game, and I just thought it would be really cool to contribute my own little piece to the gaming world. Instead, I realize I have lot better stuff to share.
For example, I'm working on a Martial Arts system that can be slipped into anyone's campaign. Hopefully I'll be writing about it soon, but it's basically just a Feat system you can purchase with gold, instead of XP. It solves a lot of the problems I (and others) have with most Feat and character customization systems out there. It's also a nice aesthetic for it, and inline with my original "Techniques" system I made for Arcane Adventures. Finally, it gives me a martial arts system for an RPG that isn't too complex.
What else have I been up to? I have a couple cool settings I'm working on. One is Viking-Samurai, which I'm really surprised no one else has done yet. The other is an Enchanted Isle, with an Enchanted Forest. Definitely going to be going to Majestic Wilderlands, Isle of Unknown, Dreamlands, and of course King Arthur and other classic Fairy Tale settings for inspiration.
I had a lot I wanted to write about when I was at work today, but it seems I forgot most of it. It's okay, my handy dandy notebook is usually on me to jot down ideas.
In any case, I just plan on sharing cool ideas, and maybe a few commentaries from now, like most of the other OSR guys. Hopefully I remember to keep writing.
Happy Gaming guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)