Bear with me, as much of this is off the top of my head, though fairly recently.
In the OSR there is both the opinion that: A) modern rule sets encourage "roll-playing" and emphasize character ability, and B) the Thief is the start of that trend. While the second opinion is not quite so common, it is still espoused by prominent OSR figures, such as Grognardia and Philotomy. Whether or not that opinion is correct (it is an opinion), there is precedence for the argument.
However I think a lot of guys are misreading, or not reading all of it, or forgetting what they're reading. In OD&D the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet (proto-DMG) clearly has rules for finding and setting off traps, surprise (stealth), outrunning monsters (athletics), finding secret doors (perception), etc... All of these rules have a die roll that can be made, usually a range of pips on a six-sided die. Furthermore in Men & Magic there is reference to some abilities modifying those rules, though specifics are never given.
I think the big difference between OD&D, and later games however, was how those rules are presented. Rules for character abilities resolving problems are found in the Referee's booklet, instead of the player's booklet. Therefore it is left up to the Referee to determine what happens in those situations, instead of players demanding what gets to happen. A sort of sub-point in this, is that in OD&D those situations are presented as dangers that can be sprung on characters, or helpful tricks. In later editions much more importance is placed on giving the players control, and making the world safer for them. This means more rolls: does the trap spring? did the character pass a saving throw? did the character pass a skill check? etc.
Another item I think a lot of OSR guys don't think about is how the Thief could actually function (I'm not going to say should, because I don't know how it was intended). They argue that "before the Thief came along, everyone could do those things!". I'm not quite so sure about AD&D, but I do know that Greyhawk does not invalidate the LBB's. Therefore all of those rolls are still there for other classes to make. What makes the Thief unique, is that those abilities progress and improve over time. In fact if we look at some of the Thief's abilities, they start off relatively close to a percent equivalent to the d6 rolls, if not a little lower. A similar thing happens with the Ranger in 1E, having a 50% chance of surprise, instead of the usual 2 out of 6.
Furthermore OSR types like to bemoan how "roll-playing" prevents "role-playing", but if that were the case, the LBB's are just as guilty; as I already pointed out the rules are there. If you can "role-play" and problem solve in character with LBB OD&D, then why not with a thief class? Let the player make the roll; if they fail it or don't have the skill, let them role-play it out. Now I most certainly won't argue that later editions put a higher emphasis on "roll-playing", as I've experienced that first hand. 3E players, and those I've been playing with in D&D Next, heavily rely on their rolled skill checks.
How do I feel about the Thief? Well I do think it started a bad trend, but not that of skill rolls. I think it started class bloat, in both the number of classes to later be found, and the amount of abilities each class has. It was introduced simultaneously with the Paladin. While the Paladin had a few restrictions, and benefits, it remained very similar to the Fighter, even in experience points needed. The Thief however, was an entirely new class, not a sub-class; complete with new attack tables, restrictions, and experience point progressions. Furthermore the Thief has a laundry list of abilities: Back Stab, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Hear Noise, Remove Traps, Open Locks, etc...
In every later edition of D&D we see more independent and different classes, with ever expanding class abilities. In 3rd Edition, they entirely did away with any sort of class hierarchy, and made every class independent and separate. Furthermore, to make them interesting enough to play, and balanced against each other, large lists of abilities and options were provided.
I'm thinking of getting rid of the Thief in my games, and making most of the class feel more like kits/backgrounds/specialties (thought not completely like 2E did). I've already discussed this before, each class having only a couple unique abilities they are good at, and that makes them interesting to play. With this method, I had originally intended four archetypes, just like 2E, mostly because the Thief/Rogue has become such a tradition of D&D.
However, as you could guess, I'm starting to question the necessity of the Thief. After all, couldn't the Thief just be a light-Fighter, that's good at dealing with hazards? The Rogue, a sneaky Fighter that deals in Subterfuge? I don't anyone would argue that an Assassin wouldn't be a perfect type of Fighter subclass.
I'm thinking this would greatly simplify my house rules. In white box OD&D, you have three clear archetypes: Martial, Arcane, Divine. Only three hit dice types (d4, d6, d8), with no need to later strengthen certain classes against each other. Three attack progressions, and three saving throw progressions. Three clear combat roles; straight damage dealing combat, spell sword that strengthens and heals, and finally the dedicated spell caster. The Thief or Rogue would simply deal damage in a different way. In fact there are things the Thief and Fighter can both do, simply in different ways; like bashing open doors vs unlocking them.
Furthermore this would encourage me to expand upon the original system of general adventuring skills. How to you handle stealth, climbing, traps, etc... I'd emphasize "role-playing" and problem solving, while providing fall backs like the X out of d6 roll, or general percentage chances. I wouldn't necessarily want to develop a full skill system like 3E, or a proficiency system like 2E; but the possibility of improving those general skills over time wouldn't be precluded. If I did all of that, I could simplify a lot of the "skill monkey" classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Thief, Barbarian etc... Giving those classes small, but unique, ability lists.
For example, I'm thinking my Thief would have: Stealth (which only he could use in combat), Security (finding/removing traps, etc.), and some sort of Sneak Attack. My Ranger would have animal handling skills, and dual-wielding, but tracking and survival skills would probably be cut. My Barbarian would be focused on the Constitution and Dexterity bonuses the 1E Barbarian had, but cutting most of his tertiary skills, or the abilities that the 3E Barbarian latched onto.
Well this was much longer than I intended, so I'm off for the evening, er uh morning I suppose.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Alternate Class Skill System
I noticed a lot of people have a problem with Castles & Crusades SIEGE engine. I've also noticed from playing with my players that the original d% system for Thief skills is extremely easy to use. Furthermore players love it, because they know precisely what chance they have of succeeding. There's also no need for adding modifiers on the go, and it definitely cut down on powergaming. Even my more 3E oriented players loved it.
So as an alternative to more complex systems, simply make most class related abilities a percent roll. I'll leave the details up to you, but for myself I've even eliminated the table for Thief skills. Instead all skills for any class start at 35% (25% if you want a tougher game), and increase by 5% every level till they reach 90%, at which point they increase 1% per level.
While this does sacrifice some granularity, it is extremely simple and quick. You don't even need a table. You can have ability scores modify if you like, but with my 35% system I already took that in to account. If you look at the Thief skills in AD&D, if you add in the dexterity and racial adjustments, you get around 25-35% for the average of skills.
Of course there are non-skill class abilities as well, but those are usually described within themselves; either being at-will, daily, spell-like, etc... This would simply be for skill abilities like "hide in shadows", "pick-pockets", etc. This can also be used with Adventures Dark & Deep for the skills of classes like Bard, Jester, Acrobat, and Mountebank.
I've also finished mocking up a nice house rules document for myself. It's just Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, with certain clarifications and additions from S&W Core, and Basic Fantasy. It's all technically open game content, so when I've formatted it to my liking, and mocked up a cover, I'll be sure to share. Obviously I'll be releasing a supplement with the above material.
If I do create a supplement look forward to the following classes: Bard, Acrobat, Minstrel, Jester, Mountebank, Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Witch-Hunter, Scout, Martial Artist, Assassin, Mystic, Druid, Illusionist, Savant, Alchemist, and Psychic. I know it sounds like a lot, but each class is basically a collection of 5 to 10 abilities, usually very simple and short in description. I might post soon about each class to give an idea what my partner and I have come up with.
Right now I'm looking to mock up a set of reference sheets that quickly lay out what each class can do, nothing publishable, but something to play with. I already have hand written notes on what each class, but I don't have an explanation for any of the abilities yet. Of course this is all subject to demand, of which there is very little.
So as an alternative to more complex systems, simply make most class related abilities a percent roll. I'll leave the details up to you, but for myself I've even eliminated the table for Thief skills. Instead all skills for any class start at 35% (25% if you want a tougher game), and increase by 5% every level till they reach 90%, at which point they increase 1% per level.
While this does sacrifice some granularity, it is extremely simple and quick. You don't even need a table. You can have ability scores modify if you like, but with my 35% system I already took that in to account. If you look at the Thief skills in AD&D, if you add in the dexterity and racial adjustments, you get around 25-35% for the average of skills.
Of course there are non-skill class abilities as well, but those are usually described within themselves; either being at-will, daily, spell-like, etc... This would simply be for skill abilities like "hide in shadows", "pick-pockets", etc. This can also be used with Adventures Dark & Deep for the skills of classes like Bard, Jester, Acrobat, and Mountebank.
I've also finished mocking up a nice house rules document for myself. It's just Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, with certain clarifications and additions from S&W Core, and Basic Fantasy. It's all technically open game content, so when I've formatted it to my liking, and mocked up a cover, I'll be sure to share. Obviously I'll be releasing a supplement with the above material.
If I do create a supplement look forward to the following classes: Bard, Acrobat, Minstrel, Jester, Mountebank, Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Witch-Hunter, Scout, Martial Artist, Assassin, Mystic, Druid, Illusionist, Savant, Alchemist, and Psychic. I know it sounds like a lot, but each class is basically a collection of 5 to 10 abilities, usually very simple and short in description. I might post soon about each class to give an idea what my partner and I have come up with.
Right now I'm looking to mock up a set of reference sheets that quickly lay out what each class can do, nothing publishable, but something to play with. I already have hand written notes on what each class, but I don't have an explanation for any of the abilities yet. Of course this is all subject to demand, of which there is very little.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Simple Class Creation
Over the years there have been several methods made available for creating custom character classes from D&D. Some methods involved point buy systems (like 2E) to determine the class' XP value; others were "classless" systems that let you create your class as you played. Most of these complex systems stem from the subclasses that came out for Original Dungeons & Dragons, via supplements and magazine articles. Classes as we know them today are described via various abilities and restrictions, and usually a laundry list of those. Even back in the 70's "subclasses" were getting unique XP progressions, and tons of abilities and unique traits.
I finally took a look at the OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk a few days ago. Something I noticed about the Paladin, the first subclass introduced, was that it wasn't very unique to itself. In other words, it was still just a fighter, with a few quirks. This reminded me a lot of the treatment of subclasses in the Rules Cyclopedia; wherein Paladins and Rangers were simply Fighters, with a few special abilities, like casting spells. Why did this change?
I thought to myself "why not go back to it?". With my Dungeon Crawl variant, there were four core classes, and a slew of subclasses, each with 2-3 special abilities, and 1-3 restrictions or drawbacks. These classes still resembled the current (current since AD&D 1E really) sorts of classes with several of the abilities being rather complex. Bards had special spell progressions, an assortment of Thief skills; Monks had lay on hands, Thief skills, and increasing unarmed damage with multiple attacks; and so on.
I've decided now that "subclasses" if I'm even going to call them that, are basically just going to be a few special abilities, with a few restrictions. Let me outline specifically what I mean this time, and how it's different than what I described above. The basis of the system is this:
Every subclass gets one cool ability; one unique and interesting feature that makes them different and worthwhile to play. This includes the core classes; Fighters are going to get an AC bonus, and Strength bonus; Thieves get their skills and backstab; and so on. Then for every restriction a class takes, they are allowed one more ability; it is up the Referee to determine what he sees as a fair trade off.
This is really no different than AD&D, or the OD&D supplements. The main differences are that I'm going to limit it to 3 abilities, and 2 restrictions for most subclasses. If I keep the abilities simple, but interesting, there is no need to have separate XP progressions, or to treat them as separate classes entirely. To better illustrate my idea, I'll give some examples.
PALADIN
(Ability) Lay on Hands: The Paladin can heal 1d4 hit points per level once a day, on either himself or others.
(Ability) Detect Evil: The Paladin may cast the Detect Evil at will, taking one minute to focus on the spell.
(Restriction) Alignment: The Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. If the Paladin ever acts against this alignment, he must seek repentance, or lose all his Paladin abilities.
RANGER
(Ability) Dual Wield: The Ranger is skilled in his with two weapons. When fighting with two weapons, the Ranger makes one attack roll; if it is successful he rolls damage for both weapons totaling the damage done.
(Ability) Surprise: Rangers are sneaky and surprise on 1-4 on a d6.
(Restriction) Armor: Rangers need to be agile and light on their feet, therefore they are restricted to leather type armors.
They both seem familiar I hope. One thing you'll notice is the lack of spell casting ability for either class. This is a decision I've come to after much consideration. In AD&D even, Paladins and Rangers don't gain their spell casting ability till around 9th level; furthermore it is a very minimal spell ability. One of my old school players doesn't even recall Rangers being able to cast spells in 1st Edition (they are). When he played he simply played a Ranger till around 9th level, and then dual classed to a Druid.
It dawned on me that's the point of dual classes and multi-classes. If you want to play a hybrid Fighter/Cleric, just play a Fighter/Cleric. There is not need for a in between class that is either A) Less powerful than both or B) More powerful than either. Multi-classing done right is balanced enough, if you divide the XP amongst both classes, and it's not all that complicated.
Then we move on to spell casting subclasses. This is even easier, as there is already precedent with the Druid and Illusionist. Simply give them a different spell list, and appropriate restrictions, and there you go. In fact I've decided to make my Bard a Cleric subclass, instead of a Thief subclass; as I'll admit the 2E Bard (despite being my favorite), is rather broken.
Well that's all for now, hopefully I got my point across.
I finally took a look at the OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk a few days ago. Something I noticed about the Paladin, the first subclass introduced, was that it wasn't very unique to itself. In other words, it was still just a fighter, with a few quirks. This reminded me a lot of the treatment of subclasses in the Rules Cyclopedia; wherein Paladins and Rangers were simply Fighters, with a few special abilities, like casting spells. Why did this change?
I thought to myself "why not go back to it?". With my Dungeon Crawl variant, there were four core classes, and a slew of subclasses, each with 2-3 special abilities, and 1-3 restrictions or drawbacks. These classes still resembled the current (current since AD&D 1E really) sorts of classes with several of the abilities being rather complex. Bards had special spell progressions, an assortment of Thief skills; Monks had lay on hands, Thief skills, and increasing unarmed damage with multiple attacks; and so on.
I've decided now that "subclasses" if I'm even going to call them that, are basically just going to be a few special abilities, with a few restrictions. Let me outline specifically what I mean this time, and how it's different than what I described above. The basis of the system is this:
Every subclass gets one cool ability; one unique and interesting feature that makes them different and worthwhile to play. This includes the core classes; Fighters are going to get an AC bonus, and Strength bonus; Thieves get their skills and backstab; and so on. Then for every restriction a class takes, they are allowed one more ability; it is up the Referee to determine what he sees as a fair trade off.
This is really no different than AD&D, or the OD&D supplements. The main differences are that I'm going to limit it to 3 abilities, and 2 restrictions for most subclasses. If I keep the abilities simple, but interesting, there is no need to have separate XP progressions, or to treat them as separate classes entirely. To better illustrate my idea, I'll give some examples.
PALADIN
(Ability) Lay on Hands: The Paladin can heal 1d4 hit points per level once a day, on either himself or others.
(Ability) Detect Evil: The Paladin may cast the Detect Evil at will, taking one minute to focus on the spell.
(Restriction) Alignment: The Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment. If the Paladin ever acts against this alignment, he must seek repentance, or lose all his Paladin abilities.
RANGER
(Ability) Dual Wield: The Ranger is skilled in his with two weapons. When fighting with two weapons, the Ranger makes one attack roll; if it is successful he rolls damage for both weapons totaling the damage done.
(Ability) Surprise: Rangers are sneaky and surprise on 1-4 on a d6.
(Restriction) Armor: Rangers need to be agile and light on their feet, therefore they are restricted to leather type armors.
They both seem familiar I hope. One thing you'll notice is the lack of spell casting ability for either class. This is a decision I've come to after much consideration. In AD&D even, Paladins and Rangers don't gain their spell casting ability till around 9th level; furthermore it is a very minimal spell ability. One of my old school players doesn't even recall Rangers being able to cast spells in 1st Edition (they are). When he played he simply played a Ranger till around 9th level, and then dual classed to a Druid.
It dawned on me that's the point of dual classes and multi-classes. If you want to play a hybrid Fighter/Cleric, just play a Fighter/Cleric. There is not need for a in between class that is either A) Less powerful than both or B) More powerful than either. Multi-classing done right is balanced enough, if you divide the XP amongst both classes, and it's not all that complicated.
Then we move on to spell casting subclasses. This is even easier, as there is already precedent with the Druid and Illusionist. Simply give them a different spell list, and appropriate restrictions, and there you go. In fact I've decided to make my Bard a Cleric subclass, instead of a Thief subclass; as I'll admit the 2E Bard (despite being my favorite), is rather broken.
Well that's all for now, hopefully I got my point across.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Everyone's Asking Questions: The What If?-Clones
There seems to be a lot of "what if?" retro-clones coming out lately (I know the proper term isn't retro-clone, as everyone likes to point out to me, but I don't care). My personal favorite is Adventures Dark & Deep, what would have happened if Gary Gygax had stayed at TSR. There's also Dragons At Dawn (an Arnesonian OD&D clone), and the failed Chamions of ZED (an OD&D before OD&D game). The usefulness of such projects is debatable, although I find Adventures Dark & Deep to be a wonderful compilation of AD&D 1E material regardless of "what if?" scenario.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
There is one question though that I've come up with, and is sort of what Arcane Adventures has been: What if TSR hadn't tried to keep Arneson's name out of D&D? More importantly, what AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) hadn't deviated so much from OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons). It's my understanding that there were a number of rules, style, and name changes made to AD&D to ensure that Arneson couldn't claim any rights to it. What if AD&D had simply been a compilation of the OD&D material up to that point?
Now that this isn't necessarily a productive area of discussion, because most people either like OD&D/Basic or AD&D. My recent foray into other games has brought me full circle back to OD&D personally, so I understand why there is the split. Personally I love both games, but I do understand they are quite different, and capture a different feel. However I do see a lot of interchangeable material, and useful supplemental ideas that could be added to OD&D. In fact a lot of people, including myself, do that already. Games like Basic Fantasy (another one of my favorite games) have already published some of those concepts, like separating race and class. There's even a ton of supplemental material on the site that adds material like extra classes and such.
I didn't really go over how I came to my conclusions in my last post, because I want to stop getting into those discussions, as they aren't very productive. I will say this: AD&D is a great game in it's own right. Adding a ton of supplemental material, or cutting a bunch out, as much as I want to that is, makes it a very different game. AD&D is very easy to houserule, however I want to do more than just houserule it. I'll be happy to keep playing with my AD&D material (including Adventures Dark & Deep) whenever I'm in the mood for it, or when I want a complete game with all of those wonderful options.
I do like to houserule, and add extra material to my games, that aren't necessarily purely D&D or even compatible with AD&D. Which is why I'm going to start making digest-sized fanzines (which I may or may not release). Therefore my obvious choice is OD&D/Basic, however now I'm left with the question OD&D or Basic? Personally I love OD&D, it's aesthetic, and the version I play, Swords & Wizardry is written so well as to capture that feel perfectly. Though the first and most basic houserules and supplements I would add, essentially make it Basic: differing hit dice, variable damage, the thief class, etc...
In any case I'm now asking myself the question; what would Advanced Basic Dungeons & Dragons look like? Whether I share my findings, or simply blog about it, is still up in the air. What's great is that both Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy would let me heavily house rule their main documents, and then legally publish the results.
I don't think I'll be quite so dedicated to my idea as Greyhawk Grognard (the creator of Adventures Dark & Deep). He spent many a year reading articles, forum posts, quotes, and source material from Gary Gygax to get a real philosophical and grounded idea of what Gygax's revision would look like. I doubt I'll have the time, or motivation to dedicate myself to that. However I I'll definitely be looking at the various versions of Basic, Arneson's work, and the original supplements. Any material from Advanced D&D that isn't directly conflicting with OD&D or Basic, I'll probably use too.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Good News Everybody!
Well I was going to write my usual long post, with explanations, and excuses, and so on. Luckily Firefox crashed (probably due to my excessive tabs issue), and steered me in the right direction. In fact I almost feel like it's cosmic confirmation (that'd be a great game title...) for the decision I've been making over the last few days. So to sum up what I was going to write, I'll just sort of list off what I'm thinking in quick points.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
First off I've been playtesting an awful lot of Arcane Adventures lately at my FLGS, and it was very successful, but I'm not very happy with how it's gone. It's very clear to me now that mechanics do have a large impact on how the game is played. It's also lead me back to OD&D, how beautifully simple it is, the lack of powergaming aspects, and the general aesthetic and nature of the game.
I also just read through my copy of the Arduin Grimoire and I loved it. The nature of it, how it's just a collection of awesome material, new ideas, and generally helpful material for OD&D. It spells out the differences from the core system, instead of retreading an entire game. It's just the useful new bits, and that's that.
So what does all of this mean? For right now I'm shelving the idea of my own retroclone. Instead I want to focus on creating new and interesting material, and maybe compiling new and interesting material from other sources (like Arduin). Maybe even redo-ing or revitalizing some old-school material, that has kind of been neglected or forgot (Arduin, Judges Guild, etc.).
Tonight I had a sort of realization: zines. When I first got into old school D&D, I read a few e-zines/fanzines (whatever you want to call them), and thought they were kind of interesting, but relatively useless. Of course I might have just downloaded some bad ones (they were free after all), and that could explain it. However I realized that what I'm currently developing, the ideas I have, the subjects I'm pondering over and want to discuss, would all be perfect for a magzine/gazette style publication.
I won't have to worry about releasing more of the same material, only the new stuff I come up with. That also means no copyrighted material, or trying to rewrite stuff that is copyrighted. No worrying about how to word a description for strength, or how a "...turn is ten minutes...". I'm sure some of this shift in mentality comes from the fact that I've recently purchased a bunch of AD&D material, so I know longer feel the need to print it at home. It's also made me realize how ridiculously easy it is to convert any old school material on the fly.
Oh as a side tangent, part of why I'm switching back to OD&D, is my realization of what I want. See I want to use material from any roleplaying game; OD&D, AD&D, Pathfinder, Runequest, Arduin, etc... Trying to shove all of that into AD&D was a terrible idea, because AD&D really is a complete game already. OD&D isn't, so its easy to shove whatever I want in there. See OD&D has no inherent sense of balance; AD&D does; and when you start shoving material from non-AD&D games, or even other editions of D&D in there, it does start to break.
Back to e-zines. Another reason e-zines would be a fantastic route for me is the ease of publication, and the lack of expectation. I know that sounds horrible, since I just talked about how poor some of the ones I read have been. However I just read a post on Grognardia about how I should only be publishing for myself, and you know what's important to me? The rules, the material, and the text. I don't care about art, hardcover books, leatherbound this, or special edition that. If I was to try and publish my stuff as a full role playing game, there is so much expected; art, layout, explanations for every little detail.
I'd personally make a digest size e-zine, so layout would be even easier (single column, instead of two). Plus it would have that awesome OD&D old school feel to it. Of course later, if I decide to make my own full game, I'll have my stuff organized and ready to shove into a full game. In fact Arduin started as a set of supplemental booklets, and eventually turned in to the Arduin Adventure (IIRC). Imagine that I could start with the "Arcane Grimoire" and turn it into the "Arcane Adventure". Just thoughts.
Once again, I know I keep changing my mind. This time though I feel a certain level of confidence, contentedness, and almost "rightness". Expect a lot less excuses, explanations, rants, etc... And hopefully if all goes well, expect more material, monsters, rules, etc... and maybe a few musings.
Monday, September 30, 2013
How Was D&D Played? I Don't Care...
I've been refereeing a diverse play group finally, and it's really cemented my views on Dungeons & Dragons. All of my players have been extremely helpful in playtesting my "Dungeon Crawl" (we've settled on that name for now) rules for Arcane Adventures.
One of my players has been extremely vocal and enthused about the playtest. He's a 3E player, and in interest of making the game fun for himself, and making sure it achieves my goals, he's been intentionally trying to break it. He's not being rude by any means of course, and it's been really helpful, and I see the few things I need to fix before I do anything serious with my game. In fact it's been nice to see that I won't have to make many changes, as my game handles powergaming really well.
What's great though is we've been having really constructive conversations about our styles of game play. This player, my wife, and myself have been discussing the differences from the mix of AD&D we play, and 3E which he plays. The best part of these discussions is we acknowledge the differences, and always come to the agreement that neither is superior, both are fun, in different ways.
This player has also played some AD&D when he was younger, and several of the players at the store have played AD&D. I've also been discussing ideas and how we play our games with those players as well. As I've said before, I never actually played AD&D in it's hay day (I wasn't even alive back then), I've really just been discovering AD&D/Old School D&D through the web, retroclones, and the books I mange to find.
From the discussions with these players, I'm finding that only one player I've gotten to talk to extensively on the matter played AD&D the way I've heard it played. This player is in my game, which is working great to add to the diversity. He's loving how old school my game feels, and he shares my mentality strongly, that every editions has cool stuff to add to the game. However like I said, he's about the only player who still has a positive view of AD&D after all of these years.
What I have noticed about the players who don't like AD&D, is that they are very self-centered in their playing style. This is by no means an insult, and my 3E player will proudly exclaim he's selfish when he plays. There's nothing wrong with that, when people play games they want to win, and that in itself is selfish. I have noticed that this affects the game though; in that they play the game to suit their whims and accomplish their goals. My old school players on the other hand; play the game to accomplish the game's goals and work in the game world.
In other words, the real difference between old school and new school is the player mentalities of whether the game is meant to fit the player, or the player fit the game. Neither option is bad really, but this is the point I'm getting to about how D&D used to be played. I wasn't around back then, and I don't know if the majority of old school bloggers actually represent how games were played back then, but what I do know is how they're being played now.
I just found this site and, this particular article is of great value:
http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...
Something I found extremely interesting is that my 3E player admitted that AD&D allows for much more creativity than 3E, because of a lack of rules. I do not know if the rules lite mentality was actually used back in the 80's, or if people actually did roleplay out traps and challenges. What I do is that several people have pointed out that it can be played in a creative way, and that's the way I'm playing it.
One of my players has been extremely vocal and enthused about the playtest. He's a 3E player, and in interest of making the game fun for himself, and making sure it achieves my goals, he's been intentionally trying to break it. He's not being rude by any means of course, and it's been really helpful, and I see the few things I need to fix before I do anything serious with my game. In fact it's been nice to see that I won't have to make many changes, as my game handles powergaming really well.
What's great though is we've been having really constructive conversations about our styles of game play. This player, my wife, and myself have been discussing the differences from the mix of AD&D we play, and 3E which he plays. The best part of these discussions is we acknowledge the differences, and always come to the agreement that neither is superior, both are fun, in different ways.
This player has also played some AD&D when he was younger, and several of the players at the store have played AD&D. I've also been discussing ideas and how we play our games with those players as well. As I've said before, I never actually played AD&D in it's hay day (I wasn't even alive back then), I've really just been discovering AD&D/Old School D&D through the web, retroclones, and the books I mange to find.
From the discussions with these players, I'm finding that only one player I've gotten to talk to extensively on the matter played AD&D the way I've heard it played. This player is in my game, which is working great to add to the diversity. He's loving how old school my game feels, and he shares my mentality strongly, that every editions has cool stuff to add to the game. However like I said, he's about the only player who still has a positive view of AD&D after all of these years.
What I have noticed about the players who don't like AD&D, is that they are very self-centered in their playing style. This is by no means an insult, and my 3E player will proudly exclaim he's selfish when he plays. There's nothing wrong with that, when people play games they want to win, and that in itself is selfish. I have noticed that this affects the game though; in that they play the game to suit their whims and accomplish their goals. My old school players on the other hand; play the game to accomplish the game's goals and work in the game world.
In other words, the real difference between old school and new school is the player mentalities of whether the game is meant to fit the player, or the player fit the game. Neither option is bad really, but this is the point I'm getting to about how D&D used to be played. I wasn't around back then, and I don't know if the majority of old school bloggers actually represent how games were played back then, but what I do know is how they're being played now.
I just found this site and, this particular article is of great value:
http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...
Something I found extremely interesting is that my 3E player admitted that AD&D allows for much more creativity than 3E, because of a lack of rules. I do not know if the rules lite mentality was actually used back in the 80's, or if people actually did roleplay out traps and challenges. What I do is that several people have pointed out that it can be played in a creative way, and that's the way I'm playing it.
Monday, September 23, 2013
What 3.5/d20 Is Great For
I've recently come into possession of several 3rd Edition books, a Pathfinder Core Rulebook, a set of core 4E books, and already have a nice collection of varied roleplaying game books. I've been mulling over some thoughts I've already had, and have come to some realizations about those thoughts, in particular relation to official D&D games.
If it isn't already apparent to you, every kind of book is useful in D&D. Particularly in old school D&D there is a great emphasis placed on knowledge, fluff, and flavor text. OD&D and AD&D particular have numerous references on reading literature for inspiration, and going to the local library to find out about areas of interest. In games that have no rules systems for out of combat activity, real world knowledge can be used to fill in the gaps, and actually roleplay what will happen. Of course this also means that any RPG material can be used with D&D to help fill in gaps, especially in older editions where rules subsystems are encouraged, you can wholesale import rules from other games.
With that caveat out of the way, what is common in every edition of D&D in particular? Hit Points and Armor Class. In fact that is what really makes D&D, D&D; the d20 attack roll. This means that every edition's monsters in particular, are generally usable across the board with minimal tweaking. This is especially true for converting newer monsters to TSR era D&D. Any hit point value can be easily converted to a hit dice value; use whatever editions combat tables for monsters to determine attack roll value; and finally "flip" and possibly reduce armor class.
Before I start hearing contentions about how "mathematically" there is a huge difference between editions, I want to point out that there actually isn't. If you stop seeing every kobold as a "kobold", and start seeing them as different kinds of kobolds, or different monsters altogether, with similarities, you are now free to use every editions book. In fact, maybe you like 3E's kobold better than AD&D's, that's great, you now have a better version of a monster you want to include. So instead of thinking about how monsters that are found in all versions of the game, as being different, consider them as more monsters to use. Maybe change the description, or include them as leaders or super-variants.
What's of great interest to me, as a DM, is 3rd Edition/d20 monsters. I have a copy of Call of Cthulhu d20, and it hit me like a brick: I want to toss some Cthulhu monsters at my players! I love the cosmic horror aspect, and there's already several Cthulhu monsters in D&D. I was going to convert some from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, but it's d100 and would be a bit of work. Now I can just use the monsters from my d20 book. Another brainstorm I had was using the Star Wars d20 books. There's a Rancor action figure in my FLGS and I joked about sending it after my players, when I realized, "Oh wait, I can!".
With the d20 system its extremely easy to convert monsters to old school D&D. There's a few conversions guides online, but I'll go over some of what I've been doing to quickly use 3.5 monsters in my game. There's no attempt to scale their difficulty or make them easier to fight, because the player's will be rewarded with ample XP, and as a DM I can determine what's reasonable for them to fight.
First off lets look at Armor Class. If you're using something like Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, or Castles & Crusades, simply us the Armor Class as is. If you're really bothered about ridiculously high AC, cap it at 30 like it was in older games. BFRPG has a lovely conversion document that scales armor classes above 25 (IIRC). If you're using AD&D of some sort, simply subtract the AC from 20, and once again you can limit it to -10, and even scale AC over -5, or 0.
Combat stats are extremely easy, because you can just look up their attack values in the edition you're using. Use the combat tables or formulas appropriate to your chosen edition.
Feats and special abilities are going to be more difficult, but can either be largely ignored, or you can look up how they work. Every edition has had special monster abilities, like swallowing whole or ability drain. You can either take the time to convert the rules/modify them, or do the real old school method and adjudicate the abilities based off flavor text.
Finally the most important aspect is Hit Points and Hit Dice. I found out that the number in parenthesis for 3.5 monster books, is actually the maximum hit points for old school monsters of the same type. So you can either divide that number by 8 and come up with their d8 hit dice value; or you can simply roll up the hit dice as only d8, either ignoring or including the extra hit points. Determining the number of Hit Dice is extremely important, because this is used for rewarding experience points, and for determine relative level (and therefore difficulty) of the monster. Personally I'm using (and loving) the 2E Ravenloft appendix for determining monster experience value. This table, and most old school XP tables, includes ways of adding monster abilities to their level, to get a general idea of a monster's level.
To me the above is relatively simple, and I've been applying the methods, with great success in my games. This has encouraged me to look at all sorts of d20 books for inspiration, and resources for Arcane Adventures. There are the Star Wars d20 books if you want some exotic alien-like monsters; there is Swords & Sorcery books, very genre appropriate (especially the Tome of Horrors series for old school games); Pathfinder has some wonderful Bestiaries, and the revisited series that's great for themed adventures.
I haven't had a good chance to look over the 4E monster manual, but a player has already agreed to help me convert some monsters from it that he wants to face. I can't imagine it would be much different than what I've discussed above. Once again divide hit point values by 5 or 8 (depending on whats' appropriate), adjudicate special abilities, Flip/Reduce/ or use armor class as is, and determine XP value.
There are obviously more useful books than just the monster books, but to discuss them all in detail like above would take a whole book (Arcane Adventures...). My wife has been browsing Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, and I've looked at it with her. It's filled with wonderful magic items, that have great fluff, and whose mechanical aspects can either be ignored, or easily converted to be appropriate for old school gaming. I already use several Dungeon Master Guides for random tables, and general advice for my campaigns. My player's love using various editions Player's Handbooks for character fluff, special abilities that I let them gain through role playing for example, and other information.
If it isn't already apparent to you, every kind of book is useful in D&D. Particularly in old school D&D there is a great emphasis placed on knowledge, fluff, and flavor text. OD&D and AD&D particular have numerous references on reading literature for inspiration, and going to the local library to find out about areas of interest. In games that have no rules systems for out of combat activity, real world knowledge can be used to fill in the gaps, and actually roleplay what will happen. Of course this also means that any RPG material can be used with D&D to help fill in gaps, especially in older editions where rules subsystems are encouraged, you can wholesale import rules from other games.
With that caveat out of the way, what is common in every edition of D&D in particular? Hit Points and Armor Class. In fact that is what really makes D&D, D&D; the d20 attack roll. This means that every edition's monsters in particular, are generally usable across the board with minimal tweaking. This is especially true for converting newer monsters to TSR era D&D. Any hit point value can be easily converted to a hit dice value; use whatever editions combat tables for monsters to determine attack roll value; and finally "flip" and possibly reduce armor class.
Before I start hearing contentions about how "mathematically" there is a huge difference between editions, I want to point out that there actually isn't. If you stop seeing every kobold as a "kobold", and start seeing them as different kinds of kobolds, or different monsters altogether, with similarities, you are now free to use every editions book. In fact, maybe you like 3E's kobold better than AD&D's, that's great, you now have a better version of a monster you want to include. So instead of thinking about how monsters that are found in all versions of the game, as being different, consider them as more monsters to use. Maybe change the description, or include them as leaders or super-variants.
What's of great interest to me, as a DM, is 3rd Edition/d20 monsters. I have a copy of Call of Cthulhu d20, and it hit me like a brick: I want to toss some Cthulhu monsters at my players! I love the cosmic horror aspect, and there's already several Cthulhu monsters in D&D. I was going to convert some from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, but it's d100 and would be a bit of work. Now I can just use the monsters from my d20 book. Another brainstorm I had was using the Star Wars d20 books. There's a Rancor action figure in my FLGS and I joked about sending it after my players, when I realized, "Oh wait, I can!".
With the d20 system its extremely easy to convert monsters to old school D&D. There's a few conversions guides online, but I'll go over some of what I've been doing to quickly use 3.5 monsters in my game. There's no attempt to scale their difficulty or make them easier to fight, because the player's will be rewarded with ample XP, and as a DM I can determine what's reasonable for them to fight.
First off lets look at Armor Class. If you're using something like Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, or Castles & Crusades, simply us the Armor Class as is. If you're really bothered about ridiculously high AC, cap it at 30 like it was in older games. BFRPG has a lovely conversion document that scales armor classes above 25 (IIRC). If you're using AD&D of some sort, simply subtract the AC from 20, and once again you can limit it to -10, and even scale AC over -5, or 0.
Combat stats are extremely easy, because you can just look up their attack values in the edition you're using. Use the combat tables or formulas appropriate to your chosen edition.
Feats and special abilities are going to be more difficult, but can either be largely ignored, or you can look up how they work. Every edition has had special monster abilities, like swallowing whole or ability drain. You can either take the time to convert the rules/modify them, or do the real old school method and adjudicate the abilities based off flavor text.
Finally the most important aspect is Hit Points and Hit Dice. I found out that the number in parenthesis for 3.5 monster books, is actually the maximum hit points for old school monsters of the same type. So you can either divide that number by 8 and come up with their d8 hit dice value; or you can simply roll up the hit dice as only d8, either ignoring or including the extra hit points. Determining the number of Hit Dice is extremely important, because this is used for rewarding experience points, and for determine relative level (and therefore difficulty) of the monster. Personally I'm using (and loving) the 2E Ravenloft appendix for determining monster experience value. This table, and most old school XP tables, includes ways of adding monster abilities to their level, to get a general idea of a monster's level.
To me the above is relatively simple, and I've been applying the methods, with great success in my games. This has encouraged me to look at all sorts of d20 books for inspiration, and resources for Arcane Adventures. There are the Star Wars d20 books if you want some exotic alien-like monsters; there is Swords & Sorcery books, very genre appropriate (especially the Tome of Horrors series for old school games); Pathfinder has some wonderful Bestiaries, and the revisited series that's great for themed adventures.
I haven't had a good chance to look over the 4E monster manual, but a player has already agreed to help me convert some monsters from it that he wants to face. I can't imagine it would be much different than what I've discussed above. Once again divide hit point values by 5 or 8 (depending on whats' appropriate), adjudicate special abilities, Flip/Reduce/ or use armor class as is, and determine XP value.
There are obviously more useful books than just the monster books, but to discuss them all in detail like above would take a whole book (Arcane Adventures...). My wife has been browsing Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, and I've looked at it with her. It's filled with wonderful magic items, that have great fluff, and whose mechanical aspects can either be ignored, or easily converted to be appropriate for old school gaming. I already use several Dungeon Master Guides for random tables, and general advice for my campaigns. My player's love using various editions Player's Handbooks for character fluff, special abilities that I let them gain through role playing for example, and other information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)