zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 14, 2013 7:10:57 GMT -6
In campaigns I've played in, the cleric - which nobody wanted to play as - was mostly a healer. No one wants to be the ex hospitaller knight turned vampire hunter? I think the cleric's arsenal of crosses, flails, and silver stakes is just about the most badass a class can get. Anyone who plays the cleric as a goody two shoes healer instead of a demon-slaying fanatical chaplain hasn't been reading enough dark fantasy. ...well then, I guess me and my 14-year-old friends hadn't been reading enough dark fantasy. We were pretty busy with school.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 13, 2013 21:04:48 GMT -6
In campaigns I've played in, the cleric - which nobody wanted to play as - was mostly a healer. Most of the people I played with (this would be back in the 2e days) opted for weapons and armor themed to match their deity; I remember an elf cleric who worshiped a nature-god and wore leather armor and wielded a bow - it seemed to fit. The idea of a cleric in plate armor armed with a mace must have been roundly unappealing to a bunch of teenagers in the 90s.
The paladin - which everybody wanted to play as - was a knight dedicated to a deity (and, more to the point, dedicated to kicking butt). They presented a much more inviting vehicle for the unabashed power-mongering that characterized those 2e games. Deciding to play a paladin basically meant signing up for the 10k race to unearth a Holy Avenger or die trying.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 11, 2013 7:47:28 GMT -6
Everyone’s on the edge of their seat to know what happens, no lawyering, no “systemy” blather about fortitude or reflex, just a DEATH RAY!! ... It works. I hear you. It certainly works if the danger in question actually is a death ray - but what if it's a blast of radiation? What if it's a meteor shower? What if it's a ray that puts you in a coma instead of killing you (i.e., a COMA RAY!!)? "DEATH RAY!!" is certainly a cool term; nobody's disputing that, but if your campaign happens to be relatively lighter on death rays and heavier on other kinds of sudden perils, it might not be the best term to use. Besides, are "fortitude" and "reflex" any more "systemy" than "strength" or "constitution"? To put it another way, if you were just "making up some $hit you thought would be fun" - a practice that merits much ring-kissing in these parts - "death ray" is a pretty rad way to go. But like all incursions of a setting into the rules (even necessary ones, of which there probably are some!), it necessarily constricts campaign possibility-space. And that is the drum I have been banging here for as long as I can remember, so maybe I should take five...
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 8, 2013 16:30:21 GMT -6
Was curious to harvest the board's wisdom: In your experience, what kind of bonus does a starting first-level fighter have on a to-hit roll in TSR-era D&D? In other words, when you total up things like a STR bonus, weapon specialization (if you use it), and so on, what are most fighters adding to the d20 roll? This isn't a "what's the mathematical average according to a set of rules" question but rather a "what's your gut feeling given the fighter PCs you've seen and played" question.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 7, 2013 8:17:20 GMT -6
True enough; I was just leafing through the 2E Complete Book of Elves, thinking how much fun it would be to start a campaign based on the funky old kits in there (Remember how awesome the Bladesinger was? Oh, you weren't 10 years old when the book came out? Never mind.) On the other hand, an intricate taxonomy of PC types seems to me like the kind of thing that could be tethered closely to the aesthetics of one's campaign instead of to the mechanics of a rule set. Therefore:
I think this has to do precisely with the relationship between the rules and a campaign! Whether "we really need a thief class" depends on who "we" are and what kind of campaign we want to enjoy. Ideally, the value of an elegant set of rules lies in its accommodation of that kind of campaign, whatever it is. One hopes that the campaign will be good - but your good campaign and my good campaign may differ substantially, and a set of sufficiently elegant rules will help us both.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 7, 2013 8:04:39 GMT -6
I've played a bit of 4E and some Pathfinder; combat in the former especially is so unbearably long and complex that six-hour sessions just to get from one end of the valley to the other are not uncommon. I'll take any opportunity to play any edition of the game, but come on now.
This plan has served me well even in rules-light contexts, given the people I usually play with: A long dungeon (which for them is like 10-12 areas) brings about a kind of fatigue, nobody particularly likes making big elaborate maps, etc. An outdoor area with a number of small interiors to explore might have the same "dungeon square footage" as a huge megadungeon, but it always seems to move faster.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 6, 2013 8:12:54 GMT -6
First, props to Inkmeister for a) mentioning Searchers of the Unknown and b) noting that women do indeed play the game.
Second, let me postulate that a sufficiently sword-and-sorcery campaign might have room for only one class: If the default Searchers fighter/thief is allowed to cast spells by reading scrolls, conducting rituals, etc., we're not a million miles away from Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; a player who wants to tilt it further in that direction might end up at CAS's Evagh, an armed warlock.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 5, 2013 7:28:00 GMT -6
And it's not just Next. Seems like every game I run is like this now, so maybe it's the players. Back in high school we had a bunch of fanatic role players who were focused and determined to set goals and smash them. Now I have a more laid back group of family and friends who meander and socialize their way through an adventure. My experience bears this out too. Honestly, it suits me better this way!
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 30, 2013 14:15:00 GMT -6
Preeeeeeetty sure there's no danger of that happening. You're right; it's not very likely. But the issue of authorial intent vs. potential play is an important one to clarify with a game like D&D, because (to my mind at least) the game is the most fun when it's just on the edge of what we can imagine. That's not to say I don't love the comfort food of 70s D&D aesthetics, springing to life from the illustrations of Erol Otus and Dave Sutherland - but living in that world forestalls the possibility of the truly weird, and I mean that not just in the "weird tales" sense but also in the sense of the truly sublime.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 30, 2013 14:04:37 GMT -6
Show us on the doll where Holger Carlson touched your PC in a bad way. *rolleyes* This is getting incendiary, so let me dial down the rhetoric and remind us that the stakes of this conversation are: someone reading the thread, playing the game, and having fun vs. someone reading the thread, playing the game, and having slightly more fun. Hardly anything to get exercised about. Certainly not anything to make light of sexual abuse over.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 30, 2013 13:33:26 GMT -6
He's not saying that your character must be identical to Holger; he's saying this book is what the creator of the paladin class was trying to replicate in D&D. I'm happy to concede that Gronan may have meant that, but what he said was that I'd hate to think that a young player interested in early D&D would happen across this thread and sheepishly collapse her otherwise broad notion of what a paladin is or could be according to that quite narrow definition. Surely that's up to the DM and players to decide?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 30, 2013 7:14:57 GMT -6
Paladin = Holger Carlson in "Three Hearts and Three Lions," period. You heard the man: If your paladin is anything other than a facsimile of a character from a book from 1961, you are wrong.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 27, 2013 8:32:32 GMT -6
Good answers, everybody. I like the idea of splitting the difference - maybe everybody starts at level 2d4 and they crack the lair of a youngish dragon.
Of course this is the canonical way to play the game - but if you buy a can of beans and it turns out to be full of bean sprouts, you might be a bit disappointed! I think it's reasonable for newcomers to demand dragons when they sit down to play a game that puts dragons right there on the label.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 26, 2013 21:52:41 GMT -6
Dig, if you will, a picture: A bunch of people come to you and are like, "I understand there's a game where you can enter dungeons and kill dragons. Can you help us play this game? In particular, we want to kill dragons."
Dragons are part of the name of the game, so it's understandable that they'd want to kill some, and quick (as in, during the first session if possible). How would you handle this situation - bump everyone's level up and start them in a dragon's lair? Begin them at first level with a small army of hirelings? Make weaker dragons (hatchlings, etc.) that they can entertain themselves with until they're strong enough to tackle a full-grown dragon?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 25, 2013 9:14:53 GMT -6
And the real problem is that the definition of a "game" is no longer a clear distinction. The OGL of 2000 began our journey on a path that leads us into a gray area that we will never be able to emerge from. I think this is the heart of the matter. In one sense, D&D is whatever Hasbro says it is (or, better, whatever Hasbro allows it to be) because Hasbro owns it.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 24, 2013 16:44:35 GMT -6
To my mind, one of the features that most distinguishes earlier D&Ds from AD&D is that AD&D seems to have been written in order to standardize play among different tables (which might be useful at a convention, say). Earlier D&Ds, it seems, were part of a less formalized practice in which it didn't really matter whether a bunch of people in Tomah and another bunch of people in Albert Lea were playing the game the same way. So I guess this question might have different answers if OD&D is under the microscope than if AD&D is.
On a broader level, there's the weird multiple nature of D&D to reckon with: It's a product owned by Hasbro that you can buy a copy of. It's an activity people get together to do. It's a historically conditioned set of rules and assumptions about imaginary worlds. I guess even a single houserule is enough to make something not the product D&D; if you make people walk around in the woods and hit each other with foam sticks, that's probably no longer the activity D&D; if you sit around and pretend to be members of the Florentine Camerata inventing opera in the late 1500s, you might not be observing the thought-apparatus of D&D anymore.
There's nothing inherently valuable about "playing D&D" as opposed to "playing this other game we came up with." You can call it bananas foster, and I'm still going to enjoy it. (I'll also probably still refer it as "D&D," though, just so people know what I'm talking about.)
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 19, 2013 7:37:32 GMT -6
Of course you could just ignore or handwave all of that, but that only makes your game poorer. Maybe it makes one's game poorer, but maybe the aesthetic of one's game is defiantly anti-quotidian, leaving no room for purchasing mundane items. Maybe what the magic-user really needs money for is to buy fabulous robes, mantles, and cowls. Maybe there's no money in the campaign world. Maybe everything operates on the barter system. Maybe the PCs are kings and empresses, and everything they could ever need (except the things they need in order to complete the campaign) is made available to them. you can't just make sweeping statements when there are so many different games out there. On this we are agreed.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 18, 2013 6:55:05 GMT -6
Can someone direct me to an explanation of "Jmal & Grognardia and the ensuing cluster****"? I heard he had to withdraw from blogging due to some very unfortunate family business, but that hardly seems to merit "cluster****".
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 18, 2013 5:49:06 GMT -6
Anybody differentiate weapons by cost? It's one of the few statistics actually provided for weapons in the LBBs. I was thinking of something like: On an attack roll of 1 (natural), a weapon must make a saving throw to avoid being broken. The score for the save is 16, which is extrapolated from the saving throw tables in Monsters & Treasures, where a +1 weapon saves with a 14, +2 with a 12, etc. Each weapon can add its initial cost per Men & Magic as a bonus to the save. So a club (not listed with a price) would get no bonus, a spear (1 gp) would get a +1, a battle axe a +7, a sword +10, etc. This would give an incentive to buy more expensive weapons if possible because they would less likely to break, and also to have back-up weapons. I like the idea of weapons breaking and needing to be replaced after a while, so this would simulate the wear on weapons - the more times used, the more chance for eventual breakage. Just a thought I had today. I like the idea of making weapon quality (and breakability) a mechanical issue - but I think I'd prefer to do so in a way that doesn't necessitate an extra roll. Is there a simpler way to handle this?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 9, 2013 16:58:40 GMT -6
Last of all, I do find balance discussions interesting, as I am interested in the game aspect of the game, as well as the creative/roleplaying/world exploring stuff. Me too. I was being a little provocative, but honestly - if we're all here on the OD&D Discussion boards to do anything, it's to discuss the rules. This is a great conversation, and there's nowhere I'd rather have it. Edit: I guess some people are probably here to do PbP games rather than just to discuss the rules. That's cool too.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 9, 2013 8:17:34 GMT -6
An aside: If Fin's experience (and moreover as a player this time, not as a DM) suggests that he would enjoy the game more if M-U's had more versatility or power, then it seems to me that he should disregard our solemn admonitions to the contrary and just give his M-U's more versatility or power. That which holds true in a game of D&D holds true only to the extent that the people seated at the table agree to it.
My guess is that the evolution of rules to restrain the power of the M-U was probably sparked by players at home games and cons in the 1970s and 1980s whose inventive mischief began to disrupt their campaigns. The only "official" solution was for TSR to legislate against these problems in the rulebooks. But of course there's also an unofficial solution, one that inheres in the social plane of D&D: Work out a consensus at the table for how M-U's should be handled. Fin is taking steps toward precisely this solution, I think.
Aren't we the people who weren't supposed to care about game balance? Maybe that's a rather 2009 notion for the 2013 OSR community to embrace.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 28, 2013 10:47:14 GMT -6
Perhaps I would need to keep to-hit bonuses the same and not adjust AC. I think this is what I might do - double damage and HP but leave everything else alone. You could even give a bonus to damage equal to the attacker's HD if you want to compensate for the diminished effect of ability score bonuses.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 28, 2013 7:40:55 GMT -6
My feeling is that if you have a bunch of players who love to roll a bunch of dice, tweaking the rules to allow them to roll more dice is a capital idea. The only thing that seems a little weird to me is that the party will be relying on magic weaponry for to-hit rolls - in other words, absent magic weapons (and especially at low levels), it'll be really tough to land a hit on the enemy. Maybe this isn't a big deal, but with kids in particular I'd be careful about making to-hit rolls any harder than they usually are, because a string of misses can be very frustrating for a young person who just wants to get in there and deal some damage.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 23, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -6
Two-handed weapons, however, present a difficulty for me. Why wield a two-handed weapon if they do not do extra damage, since one is precluded from using a shield? I think I've answered my own difficulty. Men & Magic on page 14 already has numerical differences for the various weapons: the costs! After the PCs have slain a group of bandits, they naturally loot their stuff. A two-handed sword is much more valuable than a spear (for instance), regardless of them both doing the same amount of damage. Using the guideline found on page 9 of module B2 ("purchases from adventurers are at 50% of listed cost"), the PCs could sell a looted two-handed sword for 7 g.p. and 1 e.p., whereas they'd get only a single e.p. for a looted spear. It isn't about combat. It's about treasure. As I read this, the high cost of two-handed weapons makes them even less appealing to PCs, then: They're more expensive, probably heavier, and no more effective in battle. It's doubly d**ning if the PCs' weapons tend to get lost or destroyed in your game.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 22, 2013 7:36:59 GMT -6
My feeling about the magic-user - I shudder just typing that unwieldy, unmusical name - is that its power relative to other classes is less at issue than the lameness of having to use darts when one runs out of spells to use in combat. (Darts!) Fin's "zap" spell is a good way around this issue, I think, because it basically "reskins" an unlimited supply of darts as a spell. No doubt an enterprising player could come up with variants on "zap" that would convey a bit more style, DM permitting.
In some campaigns, a magic-user might be among the "women, children, and untrained" - but in others (including most campaigns with people under 30 playing in it, I've found) a magic-user is supposed to be an awesome wizard with eldritch powers that strike fear into the hearts of her foes. If I were going to play as a magic-user, I'd want to use magic, and I'd want to use it every round.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 21, 2013 8:24:51 GMT -6
For a middle road between d6, and variable, how about Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox's where normal weapons do d6, daggers, and small weapons like that doing d6-1, and two-handed swords and the like doing d6+1? That's probably a good way to handle variable damage too. Let me ask, though: Does the pleasure of using d4s, d8s, and d10s alongside d6s count for nothing? I'm not a dice fetishist - nor do I have much inclination to invest in d16s, d5s, etc. - but I think if I were going to jettison variable damage dice, I'd probably just ditch the d20 too and go back to the d6-only Risus hack I used to use (which is perfectly fun and can be played by raiding a few board games).
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 18, 2013 16:55:04 GMT -6
I've been thinking a bit about a magic system that does away with a fixed list of spells in favor of a general rule for spellcasting: player tells DM what her wizard wants to do, DM tells her which die to roll, spell backfires tragically (or comically) on a 1. I think this would only work in a high-trust table environment.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 21:15:35 GMT -6
The relative dangerousness of a weapon is already relevant if you're already accepting variable weapon damage. Sorry, I should have been more clear: How dangerous actual weapons are, like in real life, isn't something I care about, nor do most of the players I encounter. (Loath though I am to bring up GNS stuff, I think this may be a gamist vs. simulationist thing.) What I really want is a system that makes the character's choice of weapon a decision that has both flavor and tactical ramifications but doesn't add to the game's mechanical overhead. Using the Searchers system, a two-handed melee weapon deals the most damage; a one-handed melee weapon deals a bit less but can accommodate a shield; a ranged weapon can be fired from a distance; and a small weapon can be concealed or used to make a sneak attack. Edited to add: In other words, it's about rules designed for the players rather than the characters.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 11:03:07 GMT -6
I use the Searches of the Unknown principle: One-handed melee weapons deal 1d8, two-handed melee weapons deal 1d10, ranged weapons deal 1d6, small weapons deal 1d4; no attack adjustments, and I don't really care how much space is required. This is still pretty simple without draining one's choice of weapon of its mechanical import. Plus it lets us use more of our dice. I paid for them, after all... I'm interested in the justification for the 1d6 for ranged weapons; why are two-handed weapons 40% more lethal than crossbow or longbow arrows? You know, I'm not sure. Because you can operate them from further away, so the user is safer? I certainly don't know whether an arrow shot from a longbow is more or less dangerous than a two-handed sword in real life (nor do I find it particularly relevant to the game). You'd have to ask Nicolas, I guess - maybe he'll see this thread and respond.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jun 17, 2013 8:33:24 GMT -6
I use the Searches of the Unknown principle: One-handed melee weapons deal 1d8, two-handed melee weapons deal 1d10, ranged weapons deal 1d6, small weapons deal 1d4; no attack adjustments, and I don't really care how much space is required. This is still pretty simple without draining one's choice of weapon of its mechanical import. Plus it lets us use more of our dice. I paid for them, after all...
|
|