Lately I've been going over all my relevant bookshelf material, trying to box away things I no longer need out to reference. Last night I came up to 2nd Edition AD&D materials and hesitated. I haven't played this version in over 12 years and don't think I ever will again. I sold off most of the splatbooks a few years back at Council of Five Nations and kept only the core book materials. I opened the Player's Handbook and started re-reading....
I had forgotten how far from D&D they had tried to go. Removing half-orc as a race, adding new level limits and class options, renaming classes, making the bard class a part of the game but eliminating monk and assassin, and adding in the precursor to the skill system in 3.0 called non-weapon proficiencies. Only now am I seeing that most of what I hated about 2nd edition was the fact that it WASN'T D&D as I knew it. Yet, in some ways, it harkened back to simpler times of Classic D&D when all the rules fit nicely into one rulebook under 200 pages.
The assassin and monk classes were added by Dave Arneson through his Blackmoor supplement and, although TSR had the rights to Gygax's materials, I'm not so sure about Arneson's. Perhaps that's why these two classes disappeared from 2nd edition altogether. I think it was just that they really had no place in a game in which the players were supposed to be heroic (not to mention the backlash against D&D in the early 1980's from religious groups). So mysticism and brutalistic backstabbing were removed from the game. This left little incentive for making evil characters except for priests and thieves.
Renaming the classes was more or less the least important change made. The main classes kept their flavor regardless. Now we had the Warrior, Priest, Rogue, and Wizard as class groups, with the iconic classes of Fighter, Cleric, Thief, and Mage as prime examples. Paladins, Rangers, Bards, and Illusionists were still intact, but the Druid became an example of a specialized priest. I liked some of the changes made to the Priest class, but the Specialist Wizard classes could have been better thought out. Thieves also suffered a bit in their execution. Bards were a mess - not really able to do much very well and sort of an added class for nostalgic reasons. The classes added by Unearthed Arcana were so broken that they were removed and placed back in as Class Kits in the splatbooks. The 3rd edition Barbarian makes much more sense and could work in a 2nd edition sense. The Cavalier was never a good idea - more of a cultural choice than a class choice since it was dependent on social station, something that never applied to player characters.
The Monster Manual was a complete mess. Although making each monster have its own page in a binder may have seemed like a good idea at the time, it led to a lot of lost monsters and broken half-filled binders that were too big to carry safely to the game. I preferred the later Monstrous Manual with it's normal book binding.
The thing I hated the MOST about 2nd edition was the institution of the Forgotten Realms as the main campaign of the game. I actually liked the 1st edition version of it better than the Drizz't dominated, drow heavy world (with all the family names stolen directly from D3 - Vault of the Drow, a GREYHAWK based publication written by Gygax). The blatant crunch of all things D&D into this world made it more of a mockery than a valid campaign setting. Even the "resurrection" of the Greyhawk campaign left me wanting, since the concepts eliminated a lot of the previously published materials and removed Iuz as the main campaign nasty, and raising the lich Vecna to replace him in importance (a creation of Brian Blume, I believe, and never a part of Greyhawk). The horrors perpetrated to the Greyhawk campaign were written by a number of authors who either never read Gary Gygax's novels and modules, or simply wanted to make something completely different. It showed the lack of creativity that they simply didn't make a NEW world instead of polluting Greyhawk with such horrible plots and NPCs.
Still, the ruleset was robust and capable of supporting hours of game play with only some preparation time necessary to pull it off. I found adlibbing to be extremely easy in this system, so much so that I could weave an adventure with little more than a map, a vague idea of what I needed to happen, and feedback from the players. That was a happy time for me!
So perhaps I can go back into the 2nd edition books and pull out some gems to use, or perhaps run the game again using the bare bones engine and see about a direct conversion from 1st to 2nd, or from Basic/Expert to 2nd. A game consisting of nothing more than Fighters, Priests, Wizards, and Rogues appeals to me, but of course I would use only Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, and Humans as the character choices without the half-elves or half-orcs. I never agreed with half-breeds being a viable character choice.
2nd edition has enough customization built in to it to allow each base class to seem very different. Using Specialty priests, wizard school specialization, thief ability point selection, and fighter weapon specializations really allows each player to go in the direction they desire. Paladins could be war-like priests, rangers could be rogues or fighters with bow specialization, illusionists and druids are simply versions of the wizard and priest classes, assassins are simply evil thieves that strike from the shadows and use poison, etc. Using the unarmed combat system from 3rd edition would allow for monk-like fighters to exist, or even monk-like priests (which existed in Greyhawk as worshippers of Xan Yae and Zuoken). Yep, this could work very well! Great, another distraction....
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Instant Death Encounters
I've long admired 1st Edition AD&D and the simplicity of the system to resolve many of the facets of role-playing in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world. One portion of the game I dislike immensely is the feeling of distress when a beloved character's life hangs on a single roll of a die regardless of ability or circumstance. I speak of the saving throw or instant death situations.
Some of the worst monsters in the game are those that can kill with a simple hit or glance. Green slimes, violet fungi, bodaks, etc can destroy a character regardless of how skilled the player or what level the character may be. Instant death attacks like poison, disintegration, and death rays get a saving throw, but if the dice are feeling capricious your character is pretty much dead on the spot.
Poison was a problem I fixed by making it damage over time, allowing a slow poison spell to actually work since you can't possibly cast it the same round the person is poisoned before they die. In order for this to work I had to take into account poison strength and onset times to determine the duration of the poison in the system and damage dealt with each "tick". Energy drain attacks can also be made less lethal by providing a character a saving throw vs. Death Ray against the attack.
However, there are some monsters that break all the rules. Green slime is particularly vile in that it transforms the victim into green slime, eliminating even the possibility of resurrection! Violet fungi rots flesh, destroying the limb that contacts the creature, although determination of the limb affected in a hit point system is unknown and not well described. The Monster Manual is full of assorted special abilities that are poorly defined and leave the characters dead more often than not.
I've heard that some of the modules where these creatures were first showcased may contain additional rules for dealing with their special attacks. I may need to do some research. For instance, I found this passage on Dragonsfoot today while doing random searches. I details the effects of a violet fungi attack a bit better than in the Monster Manual (still ambiguous, but more information than previously provided...).
"An unfortunate victim loses limbs to the rot at the rate of one per round; the torso rots last, and this causes immediate death. The loss of each limb causes the effective loss of 10% of the victim's total original hit points (rounded up), and this alone may slay an already-damaged victim. However, if a cure disease effect is applied within four full rounds of the hit, the victim's life may be saved. (A regenerate spell will re-grow any one limb and return the hit points for it at the same time.)" (The Temple of Elemental Evil, p.103)
Whether the above passage applies to a specific condition occurring in the dungeon or is the norm is not known. I'll be able to do more research into the older modules, but that means reading them all through....again!
Some of the worst monsters in the game are those that can kill with a simple hit or glance. Green slimes, violet fungi, bodaks, etc can destroy a character regardless of how skilled the player or what level the character may be. Instant death attacks like poison, disintegration, and death rays get a saving throw, but if the dice are feeling capricious your character is pretty much dead on the spot.
Poison was a problem I fixed by making it damage over time, allowing a slow poison spell to actually work since you can't possibly cast it the same round the person is poisoned before they die. In order for this to work I had to take into account poison strength and onset times to determine the duration of the poison in the system and damage dealt with each "tick". Energy drain attacks can also be made less lethal by providing a character a saving throw vs. Death Ray against the attack.
However, there are some monsters that break all the rules. Green slime is particularly vile in that it transforms the victim into green slime, eliminating even the possibility of resurrection! Violet fungi rots flesh, destroying the limb that contacts the creature, although determination of the limb affected in a hit point system is unknown and not well described. The Monster Manual is full of assorted special abilities that are poorly defined and leave the characters dead more often than not.
I've heard that some of the modules where these creatures were first showcased may contain additional rules for dealing with their special attacks. I may need to do some research. For instance, I found this passage on Dragonsfoot today while doing random searches. I details the effects of a violet fungi attack a bit better than in the Monster Manual (still ambiguous, but more information than previously provided...).
"An unfortunate victim loses limbs to the rot at the rate of one per round; the torso rots last, and this causes immediate death. The loss of each limb causes the effective loss of 10% of the victim's total original hit points (rounded up), and this alone may slay an already-damaged victim. However, if a cure disease effect is applied within four full rounds of the hit, the victim's life may be saved. (A regenerate spell will re-grow any one limb and return the hit points for it at the same time.)" (The Temple of Elemental Evil, p.103)
Whether the above passage applies to a specific condition occurring in the dungeon or is the norm is not known. I'll be able to do more research into the older modules, but that means reading them all through....again!
Monday, August 6, 2012
RPG Rewards Rehash
A months ago I asked the question, "Why do people play these Role-Playing Games? What reward to they get from them?" I was hard pressed to get an answer. However, I think the main reason we play a game is to have fun. But fun is different things to different people. Some people like cooperating with other people to achieve a common goal. Others like to disrupt play and cause utter chaos. Some like to hog the spotlight and make themselves seem like gods. Some simply want the connection with other people that such games provide in a safe way without social consequence to themselves.
Curiously, there are some people who simply like things to occur in a pre-planned fashion and they spend more time planning the event than actually doing it. However, there is no 100% guarantee of success in a game that relies on dice for resolution. All the planning in the world cannot predict a roll of a 1 or 20 on an attack. Some people feel the need to cheat probability by substituting their own value for the actual roll. These people are sad and may need more therapy than a game can provide. Those of us who humbly accept failure in an RPG probably were good losers at boardgames and good sports when our team was defeated on the baseball diamond or football field. Sadly, most of the standard gamers that exist are or were "loners" or "exiles" from mainstream society, either by choice or due to lack of social coping mechanisms. Therefore the social interactions needed for mature RPG gaming were never established.
I've often wondered why people play RPGs. There is no real tangible reward. There is no real "winner" or "loser." In fact, the person running the game is essentially providing others with entertainment without really getting anything in return. I've seen many games crumble because one person was stuck with being the DM all the time and eventually real life crept in causing the DM to re-prioritize his or her time. As we have aged this has occurred numerous times due to lack of a job, birth of a child, death of a friend, a player falling to serious illness, etc.
RPGs are hobbies. They are not really games. One can play one-shot adventures on occasion, but these have a decided beginning and end and sometimes occur as infrequently as once a year. Games simply waste time and produce nothing. They are a measure of one's luck or skill. Hobbies are something that people enjoy doing as a means of passing time or releasing stress and usually result in a collection or some crafted item. A character can be seen as a collection of magic items lovingly crafted and developed with a persona all its own, with a story of his adventures being the crafted material. The loss of a collection for a hobbyist is a sad event - so too the death of a beloved character. Such sadness and feeling of loss cannot truly be felt in regular games that exist as mere abstractions. In fact, most games use pawns or markers to represent people participating in the game, thus further disassociating the player from the game. In an RPG the player develops the visual aspect of his or her character and develops a long history and backstory to bring his or her creation to life. Some people are better at this than others. Some need poking and prodding and some are naturals. Still, this piece of paper containing numbers and stats becomes a loved character with their own reactions and wants/needs that may be radically different from the players.
So why do people play these games? I still don't have an answer. They take a lot of time to prepare, take a long time to develop, and demand commitment from all involved to make it work. Yet, I've seen genius emerge in players with the social skills of a gnat, I've seen great role-playing ability grow into a sort of acting skill, and the glint in someone's eyes when they come to a sudden realization in game is just magic to behold. I've been a DM now for many years and I never get tired of the randomness and fun inherent in plumbing the depths of a dungeon and seeing how people react to new situations, situations that I wrote for them to experience. As a player I love solving seemingly daunting puzzles, exploring areas thought to be lost forever to time, and defeating encounter that I had no right surviving. Being a sedentary middle-aged man I live vicariously through my characters and the players that enjoy my games. For most I think it's merely enjoying a shared experience that makes the game most rewarding. Those that work towards this goal have more fun than those that cause problems at the table. And it's the perfection of a well-played game that I've been chasing all these years on both sides of the DM screen.
Curiously, there are some people who simply like things to occur in a pre-planned fashion and they spend more time planning the event than actually doing it. However, there is no 100% guarantee of success in a game that relies on dice for resolution. All the planning in the world cannot predict a roll of a 1 or 20 on an attack. Some people feel the need to cheat probability by substituting their own value for the actual roll. These people are sad and may need more therapy than a game can provide. Those of us who humbly accept failure in an RPG probably were good losers at boardgames and good sports when our team was defeated on the baseball diamond or football field. Sadly, most of the standard gamers that exist are or were "loners" or "exiles" from mainstream society, either by choice or due to lack of social coping mechanisms. Therefore the social interactions needed for mature RPG gaming were never established.
I've often wondered why people play RPGs. There is no real tangible reward. There is no real "winner" or "loser." In fact, the person running the game is essentially providing others with entertainment without really getting anything in return. I've seen many games crumble because one person was stuck with being the DM all the time and eventually real life crept in causing the DM to re-prioritize his or her time. As we have aged this has occurred numerous times due to lack of a job, birth of a child, death of a friend, a player falling to serious illness, etc.
RPGs are hobbies. They are not really games. One can play one-shot adventures on occasion, but these have a decided beginning and end and sometimes occur as infrequently as once a year. Games simply waste time and produce nothing. They are a measure of one's luck or skill. Hobbies are something that people enjoy doing as a means of passing time or releasing stress and usually result in a collection or some crafted item. A character can be seen as a collection of magic items lovingly crafted and developed with a persona all its own, with a story of his adventures being the crafted material. The loss of a collection for a hobbyist is a sad event - so too the death of a beloved character. Such sadness and feeling of loss cannot truly be felt in regular games that exist as mere abstractions. In fact, most games use pawns or markers to represent people participating in the game, thus further disassociating the player from the game. In an RPG the player develops the visual aspect of his or her character and develops a long history and backstory to bring his or her creation to life. Some people are better at this than others. Some need poking and prodding and some are naturals. Still, this piece of paper containing numbers and stats becomes a loved character with their own reactions and wants/needs that may be radically different from the players.
So why do people play these games? I still don't have an answer. They take a lot of time to prepare, take a long time to develop, and demand commitment from all involved to make it work. Yet, I've seen genius emerge in players with the social skills of a gnat, I've seen great role-playing ability grow into a sort of acting skill, and the glint in someone's eyes when they come to a sudden realization in game is just magic to behold. I've been a DM now for many years and I never get tired of the randomness and fun inherent in plumbing the depths of a dungeon and seeing how people react to new situations, situations that I wrote for them to experience. As a player I love solving seemingly daunting puzzles, exploring areas thought to be lost forever to time, and defeating encounter that I had no right surviving. Being a sedentary middle-aged man I live vicariously through my characters and the players that enjoy my games. For most I think it's merely enjoying a shared experience that makes the game most rewarding. Those that work towards this goal have more fun than those that cause problems at the table. And it's the perfection of a well-played game that I've been chasing all these years on both sides of the DM screen.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
About Face: New Direction for Basic Campaign
I think I've been approaching all this from the wrong angle. I keep trying to take what I've made in one edition and re-make it in another, hoping that "this time" something will click and the whole will come together. Well, since I've alienated most of my gaming friends, I've had few people to work this out with. I think I need some fresh faces and new perspectives.
That being said, I'm looking to use the Basic D&D rules from 1980 in order to write a new campaign. True to form, though, I'm NOT making something whole-cloth but instead taking a concept I was working towards and making it the forefront of the adventure. And so we come to the Fortress of the Goblin King. The Goblin King has been an enigmatic figure in my Thuin campaign for a long time now. Ever since the beginning I wanted to use an NPC that "broke the rules" and was very difficult to eliminate. This figure wore demonic plate mail that concealed his identity, commanded legions of goblinoids from a mountain stronghold, and had command over powerful magic and potent enchanted creatures. In essence, I wanted him to be like a Sauron or Darth Vader figure - someone the party is never really meant to face directly but could be used to frighten the beejeezus out of them at appropriate moments. I think I got that reaction when I unveiled the Goblin King for the first time to the party when a teleport incident and a geas spell forced them to grab a lich's periapt from the depths of his abode. Luckily the party realized they were in over their heads when they appeared in the throne room and there sat the Goblin King surrounded by giant burning corpses, hefty bugbear guards, and leering gargoyles.
So the Goblin King makes my close villain in the campaign backdrop, someone to be dealt with in the long run but put off for many levels until Name Level is achieved. Once the party deals with the Goblin King's forces and eliminates him as a threat he can either escape to another place or continue to plague the characters in an undead form. Either way it makes for classic Sword & Sorcery goodness.
Gygax had his Castle Greyhawk dominated by the eccentric demi-god Zagyg, Kuntz had his Maure Castle dominated by the eccentric Suel Maure family, and Greenwood had Undermountain with its eccentric Halaster Greycloak. This will be MY version of the classic dungeon (and it's mostly mapped out already!). I just need to finish a few things on the conversion side and then present it to whomever will play.
That being said, I'm looking to use the Basic D&D rules from 1980 in order to write a new campaign. True to form, though, I'm NOT making something whole-cloth but instead taking a concept I was working towards and making it the forefront of the adventure. And so we come to the Fortress of the Goblin King. The Goblin King has been an enigmatic figure in my Thuin campaign for a long time now. Ever since the beginning I wanted to use an NPC that "broke the rules" and was very difficult to eliminate. This figure wore demonic plate mail that concealed his identity, commanded legions of goblinoids from a mountain stronghold, and had command over powerful magic and potent enchanted creatures. In essence, I wanted him to be like a Sauron or Darth Vader figure - someone the party is never really meant to face directly but could be used to frighten the beejeezus out of them at appropriate moments. I think I got that reaction when I unveiled the Goblin King for the first time to the party when a teleport incident and a geas spell forced them to grab a lich's periapt from the depths of his abode. Luckily the party realized they were in over their heads when they appeared in the throne room and there sat the Goblin King surrounded by giant burning corpses, hefty bugbear guards, and leering gargoyles.
So the Goblin King makes my close villain in the campaign backdrop, someone to be dealt with in the long run but put off for many levels until Name Level is achieved. Once the party deals with the Goblin King's forces and eliminates him as a threat he can either escape to another place or continue to plague the characters in an undead form. Either way it makes for classic Sword & Sorcery goodness.
Gygax had his Castle Greyhawk dominated by the eccentric demi-god Zagyg, Kuntz had his Maure Castle dominated by the eccentric Suel Maure family, and Greenwood had Undermountain with its eccentric Halaster Greycloak. This will be MY version of the classic dungeon (and it's mostly mapped out already!). I just need to finish a few things on the conversion side and then present it to whomever will play.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Original D&D Explanations and Thoughts
After attempting to make an AD&D Primer, converting my original campaign to Basic D&D format, and transcribing the original Gygax modules into digital format, I've finally decided to head back to the original version of the game I love - the "Little Brown Box" version of Dungeons & Dragons by Gygax and Arneson.
A while ago I was converting all the original booklets to digital format (i.e. painstakingly editing from a bad .pdf file and typing in sections of text and tables that did not translate). I spent a few days reading and converting these rules and found them to be incomplete. In order to play the game it seemed that you needed the original miniatures rules published back in 1974 by Gygax and Perren named CHAINMAIL. I've never really liked miniatures warfare, not being so enamored with the complex military terms you needed to learn in order to understand what the hell was going on. Besides, my needs were in Man-to-Man combat, specifically Fantasy based, not military maneuvers of 20:1 ratio minis on some random outdoor map. These rules contained the information I needed somewhere between the covers, but it's been out of print for decades. Luckily I was able to buy a digital copy of one through Paizo before Wizards converted to 4th edition.
I spent a few days typing the info over since the tables didn't translate and apparently all the "a"s and "o"s looked the same to the computer due to the font used (can't tell you how weird it is to have to correct every word with an "a" and "o" in it, especially since most of those are valid words that spellcheck won't pick up). During my transcription I discovered that the DUNGEON! game borrowed heavily from this version of D&D in terms of how it was played. The combat tables are based not on level as in current D&D but on character type and armor worn. Since there were only 3 classes (Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric) a table was easy to determine using Fighting Man as the basis. The main entries were for Hero (level 4 or 4 men) and Superhero (level 8 or 8 men). All human combatants use the same two fighting types, modifying by level or down. For example, a 1st level Fighting Man (Veteran) attacks as a Hero -3, a 2nd level Fighting Man (Warrior) attacks as Hero -2, and so on all the way to 6th level Fighting Man (Hero +2) at which point it switches at 7th level to Superhero -1. Now the table used is very simplistic depending on who you are attacking and with what weapon. Interestingly, the damage for ALL hits is 1d6 regardless of whether you're using a dagger or a halberd - its the hit that makes the difference, not the damage of the weapon. A mortal strike, after all, is a mortal strike whether it be a blade to the gut or being cleaved in twain.
The numbers on the table are very close to those in the DUNGEON! game. In other words, 2d6 are rolled to attack instead of a d20. Therefore, a +1 or +2 bonus makes a big difference in the results of the roll. Therefore, all magic weapons were either of +1 or +2 value, Strength was not even considered for purposes of damage or to hit, and missile fire only applied a +/- 1 as a modifier for high or low Dexterity scores. Ability scores had little effect on combat. Number of combatants were more important in the great scheme of things.
In order to attack you had to work off one table or another as the Chainmail rules built on themselves, from standard combat with troop types, to Man-to-Man skirmishing at the individual scale, all the way to fantasy creatures and magic weapons/armor determination. Since creatures did not normally use weapons there was a table to be used for generic combat between creature types (Fantasy Combat Table or FCT). When fighting someone in armor you used the weapon vs. armor combat table. All very confusing. Gygax came up with a new combat table presumed to be used with a d20 (precursor to the Basic D&D combat rules). In Basic, all weapons did the same damage as well, unless you opted for the Variable Weapon Damage rules as introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement I rulebook. It's a shame that the simple D&D combat rules couldn't be made to work as well as hoped, but then the game had to evolve to cover more complicated situations. I wonder if it's possible to work within the strictures of the Original D&D game and use a more evolved version of the game. Likely much of the complexity would be removed and we'd all go back to a hack'n'slash fest - the core fun of the game in any case!
A while ago I was converting all the original booklets to digital format (i.e. painstakingly editing from a bad .pdf file and typing in sections of text and tables that did not translate). I spent a few days reading and converting these rules and found them to be incomplete. In order to play the game it seemed that you needed the original miniatures rules published back in 1974 by Gygax and Perren named CHAINMAIL. I've never really liked miniatures warfare, not being so enamored with the complex military terms you needed to learn in order to understand what the hell was going on. Besides, my needs were in Man-to-Man combat, specifically Fantasy based, not military maneuvers of 20:1 ratio minis on some random outdoor map. These rules contained the information I needed somewhere between the covers, but it's been out of print for decades. Luckily I was able to buy a digital copy of one through Paizo before Wizards converted to 4th edition.
I spent a few days typing the info over since the tables didn't translate and apparently all the "a"s and "o"s looked the same to the computer due to the font used (can't tell you how weird it is to have to correct every word with an "a" and "o" in it, especially since most of those are valid words that spellcheck won't pick up). During my transcription I discovered that the DUNGEON! game borrowed heavily from this version of D&D in terms of how it was played. The combat tables are based not on level as in current D&D but on character type and armor worn. Since there were only 3 classes (Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric) a table was easy to determine using Fighting Man as the basis. The main entries were for Hero (level 4 or 4 men) and Superhero (level 8 or 8 men). All human combatants use the same two fighting types, modifying by level or down. For example, a 1st level Fighting Man (Veteran) attacks as a Hero -3, a 2nd level Fighting Man (Warrior) attacks as Hero -2, and so on all the way to 6th level Fighting Man (Hero +2) at which point it switches at 7th level to Superhero -1. Now the table used is very simplistic depending on who you are attacking and with what weapon. Interestingly, the damage for ALL hits is 1d6 regardless of whether you're using a dagger or a halberd - its the hit that makes the difference, not the damage of the weapon. A mortal strike, after all, is a mortal strike whether it be a blade to the gut or being cleaved in twain.
The numbers on the table are very close to those in the DUNGEON! game. In other words, 2d6 are rolled to attack instead of a d20. Therefore, a +1 or +2 bonus makes a big difference in the results of the roll. Therefore, all magic weapons were either of +1 or +2 value, Strength was not even considered for purposes of damage or to hit, and missile fire only applied a +/- 1 as a modifier for high or low Dexterity scores. Ability scores had little effect on combat. Number of combatants were more important in the great scheme of things.
In order to attack you had to work off one table or another as the Chainmail rules built on themselves, from standard combat with troop types, to Man-to-Man skirmishing at the individual scale, all the way to fantasy creatures and magic weapons/armor determination. Since creatures did not normally use weapons there was a table to be used for generic combat between creature types (Fantasy Combat Table or FCT). When fighting someone in armor you used the weapon vs. armor combat table. All very confusing. Gygax came up with a new combat table presumed to be used with a d20 (precursor to the Basic D&D combat rules). In Basic, all weapons did the same damage as well, unless you opted for the Variable Weapon Damage rules as introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement I rulebook. It's a shame that the simple D&D combat rules couldn't be made to work as well as hoped, but then the game had to evolve to cover more complicated situations. I wonder if it's possible to work within the strictures of the Original D&D game and use a more evolved version of the game. Likely much of the complexity would be removed and we'd all go back to a hack'n'slash fest - the core fun of the game in any case!
Monday, May 14, 2012
DM Theorycrafting
I've been working on my own private D&D v.5 over the past few years, mostly during downtime at work or when the mood hits me. I'm trying to reconcile the eloquence of the 1st edition simplicity with the hard and fast (and more consistent) rules of the D&D 3.x era. I like the idea of allowing humanoids character levels, having stats for some monsters, and basically making everything work in a similar way so that one does not have to memorize too many rule exceptions.
My first stab was at instant-kill game mechanics. No one likes them - players and DMs alike. The way in which they were handled in the past was simply "save or die." Later editions made them merely a momentary inconvenience. Spells like slow poison and neutralize poison become useless when the poison effect is immediate. So I decided to opt for a damage over time system for poisons, where there is a save modifier, an onset time, and a standard 1d6 damage per turn or round depending on the potency. Such poison typically will have an "Effective Duration" since the body seeks to somehow purge it and heal itself. However, this gives spells like slow poison and neutralize poison a chance to save someone.
Energy Drain taking levels away is a campaign killer. Imagine that your party paladin manages to finally struggle to 5th level then faces a wight. Due to an inability to hit the wight (or turn it), the paladin may be locked in combat for a number of rounds, each of which could result in a loss of level (and less chance to affect said undead creature). Since the loss has no saving throw and cannot be prevented in any way, this is sort of a game breaker. The solution? Make the loss a Constitution point instead. It has no effect on experience points, affects hit point totals and system shock/resurrection survival, and the number of times a character can be brought back from the dead. Even if the character somehow restores his Constitution to the previous value (through the cleric spell restoration), the number of times he or she can be brought back to life is forever affected and cannot be changed. This also works for vampires and makes more sense than a mere touch draining away 2 very difficult higher levels. Imagine a group of adventurers facing off against a vampire and his 2-3 vampire minions. They would be dead very quickly! With this fix, the play can proceed with minimal hassle and unless the party members have very low Constitution to begin with, the combat can come to a more equitable conclusion.
Ability scores for AD&D are a nightmare with the % strength for fighter types and the increased charts provided in the Unearthed Arcana and Deities and Demigods supplements. Monster stats were hinted at in the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual, but no concrete stats were provided. The very range of stats in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate that higher and lower scores are possible. I prefer the stat adjustments used in the Moldvay version of Basic D&D over those in the Player's Handbook. They seem to make more sense to the game. Any bonus from strength over +3 seems overkill to me, given the amount of damage a fighter can do with multiple attacks and magical bonuses. A more streamlined version of the stats must be implemented! For example, using the preferred stat arrangement and the expanded limits:
25 Supreme godlike stat
24 Greater godlike stat
23 Intermediate godlike stat
22 Lesser godlike stat
21 Demigodlike stat
20 Heroic Legend stat
19 Exceptional or heroic stat
18 Top of normal humanoid range (+3)
16-17 Superior range (+2)
13-15 Above normal range (+1)
9-12 Normal range of character mediocrity (+0)
6-8 Below average range (-1)
4-5 Very low range (-2)
3 Bottom of humanoid range (-3)
2 Creatures below humanoid stats
1 Least creatures' stat
0 Non-existent condition or stat
You can see that most of the creatures in D&D are measured on the human scale (hence the reason why demi-humans have their stats adjusted during character creation) and all other creatures in the multiverse must therefore ALSO exist in this range. Since size and HD determines damage ranges for most of the really large creatures in the game, no stats are needed to determine relative strengths, constitution, dexterity, etc. All creatures were given a nebulous intelligence stat, so that gives a basis for Intelligence (and Wisdom by inference). Charisma for creatures is a pretty useless stat, although suffice to say that leaders among animals and humanoids will have higher charisma (or strength, whichever is more desired by the species). This more linear representation of attributes make more sense than breaking out percentages between integer points, especially when done at the very high end of the range. What does this mean for some magic items that give monster stats to players? Well, I suppose that those Gauntlets of Ogre Power might just grant a 19 Strength for the wearer, since Ogres and Hill Giants seem to be of the same build (but the larger giants deal more damage and have larger HD of course). Giant Strengths can remain as they are since damage and Hit Dice determine how well these creatures fight better than adjusting for strength for each attack.
Perhaps instead of using Strength for carrying capacity and damage, we could adapt the formula from Villains & Vigilantes - Carrying Capacity = (Str/10)^3 + Con/10) x 1/2 weight. This translates into some number of pounds which indicates how much weight a person can lift and move with. Referring to a table listing various carrying capacities one can then arrive at a base amount of damage a person can do. Since a weapon is little more than a tool for transferring and amplifying natural strength, one needs only come up with a factor to multiply the natural damage of a weapon wielder. This way, whether you're dealing with a 40 lb kobold wielding a small axe or a massive frost giant wielding a similar axe, the axe multiplier stays the same and the base damage of the creature is always the same. Say that a creature has base damage of 1d4 (calculated from a chart and the formula) and is using a long sword with a multiplier of x2. The damage for the sword would become 2-8. No strength modifiers are needed since they are already taken into consideration in the formula. No size or weight considerations are needed either since the formula takes these into consideration. You can assume that a club is a club regardless of size and the damage simply comes from the wielder since the wielder must be strong enough to lift the weapon and use it properly. The only problems you run into are those creatures that can change size (spriggan, et. al.) or spells that change size (enlarge/reduce, polymorph, etc.). In this case the new carrying capacity must be recalculated.
I wonder if encumbrance can be somehow scaled to be more simplistic as well. As it is, movement in 1st edition and previous editions is poorly defined as to how it is used in combat. Later versions are very explicit and allow movement and attacks during the round, but the definition of the round has inflated and deflated over the years. It began as 6 seconds, was inflated to 60 seconds (1 minute), then reduced again to 6 seconds. The exploration turn has always been 10 minutes, but even then the pace is ridiculously slow, even given the rates for mapping and investigation. I'm not a fan of the 1st edition movement scales, but the 3.x version works for me. I don't like 3.x skills taking the limelight, but I think that the better defined rolls for surprise, hiding, sneaking, and listening are way better.
This conversion is on hold until such time as I can complete my other projects. I'm continuing to review the rules as written in search of a "better way" but it seems that no one will currently be able to release the perfect version of the D&D ruleset. It's curious to note that the Wizards of the Coast developers are approaching the game from the same angle. I doubt that we would agree on the particulars of what makes D&D such an iconic game. They have an agenda of selling games to the masses - my only agenda is to play in a system in which I feel comfortable and happy. Those two views are pretty much at odds, and have been since Gygax was ousted from TSR back in the day.
My first stab was at instant-kill game mechanics. No one likes them - players and DMs alike. The way in which they were handled in the past was simply "save or die." Later editions made them merely a momentary inconvenience. Spells like slow poison and neutralize poison become useless when the poison effect is immediate. So I decided to opt for a damage over time system for poisons, where there is a save modifier, an onset time, and a standard 1d6 damage per turn or round depending on the potency. Such poison typically will have an "Effective Duration" since the body seeks to somehow purge it and heal itself. However, this gives spells like slow poison and neutralize poison a chance to save someone.
Energy Drain taking levels away is a campaign killer. Imagine that your party paladin manages to finally struggle to 5th level then faces a wight. Due to an inability to hit the wight (or turn it), the paladin may be locked in combat for a number of rounds, each of which could result in a loss of level (and less chance to affect said undead creature). Since the loss has no saving throw and cannot be prevented in any way, this is sort of a game breaker. The solution? Make the loss a Constitution point instead. It has no effect on experience points, affects hit point totals and system shock/resurrection survival, and the number of times a character can be brought back from the dead. Even if the character somehow restores his Constitution to the previous value (through the cleric spell restoration), the number of times he or she can be brought back to life is forever affected and cannot be changed. This also works for vampires and makes more sense than a mere touch draining away 2 very difficult higher levels. Imagine a group of adventurers facing off against a vampire and his 2-3 vampire minions. They would be dead very quickly! With this fix, the play can proceed with minimal hassle and unless the party members have very low Constitution to begin with, the combat can come to a more equitable conclusion.
Ability scores for AD&D are a nightmare with the % strength for fighter types and the increased charts provided in the Unearthed Arcana and Deities and Demigods supplements. Monster stats were hinted at in the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual, but no concrete stats were provided. The very range of stats in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate that higher and lower scores are possible. I prefer the stat adjustments used in the Moldvay version of Basic D&D over those in the Player's Handbook. They seem to make more sense to the game. Any bonus from strength over +3 seems overkill to me, given the amount of damage a fighter can do with multiple attacks and magical bonuses. A more streamlined version of the stats must be implemented! For example, using the preferred stat arrangement and the expanded limits:
25 Supreme godlike stat
24 Greater godlike stat
23 Intermediate godlike stat
22 Lesser godlike stat
21 Demigodlike stat
20 Heroic Legend stat
19 Exceptional or heroic stat
18 Top of normal humanoid range (+3)
16-17 Superior range (+2)
13-15 Above normal range (+1)
9-12 Normal range of character mediocrity (+0)
6-8 Below average range (-1)
4-5 Very low range (-2)
3 Bottom of humanoid range (-3)
2 Creatures below humanoid stats
1 Least creatures' stat
0 Non-existent condition or stat
You can see that most of the creatures in D&D are measured on the human scale (hence the reason why demi-humans have their stats adjusted during character creation) and all other creatures in the multiverse must therefore ALSO exist in this range. Since size and HD determines damage ranges for most of the really large creatures in the game, no stats are needed to determine relative strengths, constitution, dexterity, etc. All creatures were given a nebulous intelligence stat, so that gives a basis for Intelligence (and Wisdom by inference). Charisma for creatures is a pretty useless stat, although suffice to say that leaders among animals and humanoids will have higher charisma (or strength, whichever is more desired by the species). This more linear representation of attributes make more sense than breaking out percentages between integer points, especially when done at the very high end of the range. What does this mean for some magic items that give monster stats to players? Well, I suppose that those Gauntlets of Ogre Power might just grant a 19 Strength for the wearer, since Ogres and Hill Giants seem to be of the same build (but the larger giants deal more damage and have larger HD of course). Giant Strengths can remain as they are since damage and Hit Dice determine how well these creatures fight better than adjusting for strength for each attack.
Perhaps instead of using Strength for carrying capacity and damage, we could adapt the formula from Villains & Vigilantes - Carrying Capacity = (Str/10)^3 + Con/10) x 1/2 weight. This translates into some number of pounds which indicates how much weight a person can lift and move with. Referring to a table listing various carrying capacities one can then arrive at a base amount of damage a person can do. Since a weapon is little more than a tool for transferring and amplifying natural strength, one needs only come up with a factor to multiply the natural damage of a weapon wielder. This way, whether you're dealing with a 40 lb kobold wielding a small axe or a massive frost giant wielding a similar axe, the axe multiplier stays the same and the base damage of the creature is always the same. Say that a creature has base damage of 1d4 (calculated from a chart and the formula) and is using a long sword with a multiplier of x2. The damage for the sword would become 2-8. No strength modifiers are needed since they are already taken into consideration in the formula. No size or weight considerations are needed either since the formula takes these into consideration. You can assume that a club is a club regardless of size and the damage simply comes from the wielder since the wielder must be strong enough to lift the weapon and use it properly. The only problems you run into are those creatures that can change size (spriggan, et. al.) or spells that change size (enlarge/reduce, polymorph, etc.). In this case the new carrying capacity must be recalculated.
I wonder if encumbrance can be somehow scaled to be more simplistic as well. As it is, movement in 1st edition and previous editions is poorly defined as to how it is used in combat. Later versions are very explicit and allow movement and attacks during the round, but the definition of the round has inflated and deflated over the years. It began as 6 seconds, was inflated to 60 seconds (1 minute), then reduced again to 6 seconds. The exploration turn has always been 10 minutes, but even then the pace is ridiculously slow, even given the rates for mapping and investigation. I'm not a fan of the 1st edition movement scales, but the 3.x version works for me. I don't like 3.x skills taking the limelight, but I think that the better defined rolls for surprise, hiding, sneaking, and listening are way better.
This conversion is on hold until such time as I can complete my other projects. I'm continuing to review the rules as written in search of a "better way" but it seems that no one will currently be able to release the perfect version of the D&D ruleset. It's curious to note that the Wizards of the Coast developers are approaching the game from the same angle. I doubt that we would agree on the particulars of what makes D&D such an iconic game. They have an agenda of selling games to the masses - my only agenda is to play in a system in which I feel comfortable and happy. Those two views are pretty much at odds, and have been since Gygax was ousted from TSR back in the day.
Basic or Original D&D Snafus
The conversion process continues apace, but with several breaks for what I like to call "reality checks." I'm stuck on which alignment system to use. Given the Basic three-alignment system does not seem to work logically in the system, I need to come up with some other method. At first I thought that simply changing from one axis (Lawful - Chaotic) to the other (Good - Evil) would solve the problem, but then adding in the sub-classes to the mix makes me realize that this is perhaps not enough. Moving to a 5-alignment system (LG, LE, N, CG, CE) also seems to not make much sense, although curiously this seemed to be the system the Monster Manual used. Ever wonder why there are so few monsters not of these five alignments? The nine-alignment system has been in place since 1st edition and has not changed since that time. This may be the method to use since it has seen the least amount of modification (although there are numerous people who have balked at the definitions of this system).
Curiously, I looked up Assassins last week and realized that they were originally conceived of as having a Neutral alignment, and were not necessarily allowable as player characters (required DM permission), although the same could be said of all the non-standard classes in OD&D. Given the rationale in the description I could see this as a possibility, however the game is entrenched in Good vs. Evil, black vs. white, and killing for profit is very much an evil thing in my book. Use of deadly poisons is also an arguably evil thing. I believe that the Assassin may have been the antithesis of the Paladin as originally conceived.
So let's look at the Paladin class. The only real requirements of being a paladin are a high Charisma (17 or 18 score) and having to be and remain Lawful in alignment (later Lawful Good). Since Lawful = Good in the old system, this is rather redundant and a poor requirement given that there are only 3 choices and one (Chaotic) is typically avoided for player characters. So all the characters in D&D are typically Lawful or Neutral. Having a requirement like this is ridiculous since you probably would select that alignment half the time anyway. Moving to the 5-alignment system, there is still only one additional choice, so the limiting requirement is not such a limitation after all. The Paladin gets a lot of useful abilities for these requirements. Now, the high Charisma is not so easy to downplay, but I can remember lots of paladins running around in our early campaigns, and I can guarantee that most of them were NOT rolled using 3d6 (or even 4d6).
Assuming that Paladins are used, LG would be the alignment restriction to keep. Using Druids limits them to Neutral in alignment. Assassins would be required to be the same alignment as thieves, but lean heavily towards Evil alignments. I would not keep an Assassin from being Neutral, but such a character would have to prove themselves to be more of a bounty hunter with a bring 'em back alive motto, or someone sent for religious or political reasons to take out only evil dictators or threats to civilization. Such a character could be considered Neutral, but never Good by any means. In fact, it's interesting to note that except for the use of poison, such a character is essentially a Paladin sent to take out what their superiors tell them to. The difference is that the assassin wants to be paid, but the paladin donates his loot to some other charitable organization and cannot retain large amounts of wealth. Given that D&D is all about the rewards (treasure especially), an Assassin makes more sense in a traditional dungeon than a paladin. This is probably the reason why the "novelist" approach to gaming came into being, to give those goody-two-shoes a reason to be in an adventuring party when they make much better mission-appointed temple agents and patriarch guards.
The Ranger class can either be considered to be Lawful (Good) in nature or Neutral if using the old system, although I tend to see them as more CG or NG in the 9-alignment system seeing as they are tutored by druids and elves. Their selfless nature, endangering themselves for the good of others, seems much more in line with a good alignment, but their not-so-direct methods of attacking from the shadows and using ranged weapons tends to keep them from a traditional and military (lawful) style of fighting, much like the elves. They make better scouts and agents than leaders. I could see rangers as being Neutral in the old system, but that seems counter-intuitive to me since the alignment requirement seems to dictate the actions of the Ranger. So I suppose that the Good alignment component remains.
In the end we get to the 1st edition paradigm for the classes, and as much as I hate to admit it, the 1st edition rules work better in so many ways. However, I am still a fan of the Basic version of combat. In my first games, we would mix the two systems together to make the whole thing work and it seemed like it did for a long time. It wasn't until I started trying to piece together the rules for combat from the Dungeon Master's Guide that all the confusion started. Is the added complexity good? It seems to be, but at some point adding more to the game takes away from the enjoyment as the later versions proved. You can only seem to have fun so long as you keep it as a game - the more of a hobby you make it the more involved you get and seek answers in-game to questions that never really can be resolved with the roll of a die.
I'm going to keep trying to resolve the differences, but I still feel like the evolution of the game into 1st edition and beyond is a natural course of such things and that in the end we should end up simply picking bits and pieces from each edition that work the best. Accepting limitations once everyone has been given all the options is very difficult unless the DM can somehow explain why choosing these things is not necessarily better. Some people just want to be the most powerful thing on two legs and will lord over everyone else to get it. Thankfully I am not one of those people and neither are the people I currently play with.
Curiously, I looked up Assassins last week and realized that they were originally conceived of as having a Neutral alignment, and were not necessarily allowable as player characters (required DM permission), although the same could be said of all the non-standard classes in OD&D. Given the rationale in the description I could see this as a possibility, however the game is entrenched in Good vs. Evil, black vs. white, and killing for profit is very much an evil thing in my book. Use of deadly poisons is also an arguably evil thing. I believe that the Assassin may have been the antithesis of the Paladin as originally conceived.
So let's look at the Paladin class. The only real requirements of being a paladin are a high Charisma (17 or 18 score) and having to be and remain Lawful in alignment (later Lawful Good). Since Lawful = Good in the old system, this is rather redundant and a poor requirement given that there are only 3 choices and one (Chaotic) is typically avoided for player characters. So all the characters in D&D are typically Lawful or Neutral. Having a requirement like this is ridiculous since you probably would select that alignment half the time anyway. Moving to the 5-alignment system, there is still only one additional choice, so the limiting requirement is not such a limitation after all. The Paladin gets a lot of useful abilities for these requirements. Now, the high Charisma is not so easy to downplay, but I can remember lots of paladins running around in our early campaigns, and I can guarantee that most of them were NOT rolled using 3d6 (or even 4d6).
Assuming that Paladins are used, LG would be the alignment restriction to keep. Using Druids limits them to Neutral in alignment. Assassins would be required to be the same alignment as thieves, but lean heavily towards Evil alignments. I would not keep an Assassin from being Neutral, but such a character would have to prove themselves to be more of a bounty hunter with a bring 'em back alive motto, or someone sent for religious or political reasons to take out only evil dictators or threats to civilization. Such a character could be considered Neutral, but never Good by any means. In fact, it's interesting to note that except for the use of poison, such a character is essentially a Paladin sent to take out what their superiors tell them to. The difference is that the assassin wants to be paid, but the paladin donates his loot to some other charitable organization and cannot retain large amounts of wealth. Given that D&D is all about the rewards (treasure especially), an Assassin makes more sense in a traditional dungeon than a paladin. This is probably the reason why the "novelist" approach to gaming came into being, to give those goody-two-shoes a reason to be in an adventuring party when they make much better mission-appointed temple agents and patriarch guards.
The Ranger class can either be considered to be Lawful (Good) in nature or Neutral if using the old system, although I tend to see them as more CG or NG in the 9-alignment system seeing as they are tutored by druids and elves. Their selfless nature, endangering themselves for the good of others, seems much more in line with a good alignment, but their not-so-direct methods of attacking from the shadows and using ranged weapons tends to keep them from a traditional and military (lawful) style of fighting, much like the elves. They make better scouts and agents than leaders. I could see rangers as being Neutral in the old system, but that seems counter-intuitive to me since the alignment requirement seems to dictate the actions of the Ranger. So I suppose that the Good alignment component remains.
In the end we get to the 1st edition paradigm for the classes, and as much as I hate to admit it, the 1st edition rules work better in so many ways. However, I am still a fan of the Basic version of combat. In my first games, we would mix the two systems together to make the whole thing work and it seemed like it did for a long time. It wasn't until I started trying to piece together the rules for combat from the Dungeon Master's Guide that all the confusion started. Is the added complexity good? It seems to be, but at some point adding more to the game takes away from the enjoyment as the later versions proved. You can only seem to have fun so long as you keep it as a game - the more of a hobby you make it the more involved you get and seek answers in-game to questions that never really can be resolved with the roll of a die.
I'm going to keep trying to resolve the differences, but I still feel like the evolution of the game into 1st edition and beyond is a natural course of such things and that in the end we should end up simply picking bits and pieces from each edition that work the best. Accepting limitations once everyone has been given all the options is very difficult unless the DM can somehow explain why choosing these things is not necessarily better. Some people just want to be the most powerful thing on two legs and will lord over everyone else to get it. Thankfully I am not one of those people and neither are the people I currently play with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)