|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 16:46:23 GMT -6
So NPCs with class and level got a full share?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 12:45:54 GMT -6
Thanks PD. I think we're getting to the root of it. There's a "feel" and an ethic to the LBBs that is very hard or impossible to duplicate once you clean it all up.
I just finished my house rules. Hard to say how many words, but the page count is a lot lower than I thought it would be. A lot of it is just for fast reference; the rest is specific chargen guidelines- basically, it makes it so the several other players don't need to own the books or clones.
So you are actually right, there's not a ton to write. The only thing I added was specific initiative rules. I also changed a very few rules for dungeon and wilderlands play because I use them and like them. Domain level play, if it ever gets there, is greatly codified and improved. And I don't use CM, so I wrote my own mass skirmish rules and jousting rules- but again, these are really ancillary and nit-picky. The LBB body of work stands on its own.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 25, 2015 0:00:00 GMT -6
So wait, in order to make a game that's better, I have to not write down some of the rules I use? Rather, I should be vague and allow the referee to do some of the work? I'm not trying to be flippant or snarky here. Is that actually what you intended to say?
The closest I get to that is my appreciation for SW WB, for putting alternate rules in boxes near the "official" rule. I think that's a neat thing there.
My idea is to put much, but not all of the rules into the player's rule book and save the intricate ref-side minutia and "how comes" for the referee's guide. But that's not really the same thing, is it? In order to meet your platonic ideal, PD, as I understand it, one would rather have to write some asymptotic rule approximations. True? Again, not trying to be a dick. Trying to understand what you mean.
On a related tangent, I don't see how you can play the LBBs 100% in isolation without writing a good deal of rules for yourself. I am currently putting together those rules for a face to face LBB game, and I fear I will be running to 20 printed pages before I'm satisfied. At that point, Mise well just write a whole game!
And maybe that's the answer, PD: playing the LBBs is kind of like writing your own game. Breathing life into blood and gristle hanging upon a skeleton called od&d. This is not a bad thing. Is this closer to what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 22:55:16 GMT -6
Having a stronghold is COOL. Being a baron is COOL. Putting mechanical pencil to graph paper and designing your own castle is COOL. Having a place to store your treasure that's safer than an old foot locker behind the petrified stump is COOL.
I'm frankly surprised that people need to see characters motivated towards building THEIR OWN CASTLE. Come on people, a castle? COOL.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 15:44:55 GMT -6
Frank Mentzer's immortals are at least in theory are dependent upon number and zealotry of their worshipers. He has a nice article up on Pandius about it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 9:56:23 GMT -6
Aldarron: I would very much like for you to read Treasure Hunters and to judge it by that standard: does it "feel" right? Does it groak the roots and compass of the original games? This is not a challenge to you but rather an entreaty. I want to get the feel of it right.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 24, 2015 9:48:02 GMT -6
Holy war, if you use it, is a feature not a bug. But there are lots of examples of medieval settings which are more accepting and cosmopolitan than we take for granted in our collective imagination.
I set my campaign in fantasy transylvania at the turn of the 16th c. At least three kinds of Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and muslim adherents lived in that time and place and religion was a secondary motivator to ethnicity. It's a nice analog to elves, dwarfs, hobbits and men. And orcs. Lots of orcs.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 23, 2015 22:28:15 GMT -6
To reference oaksspaulding's second definition of retroclone, I would more properly call that kind of game an "homage game" where the object is clearly early games. My own game (soon to be "our" own game) is an homage game. The DNA is ODD, but the mechanicals are different, and there are a number of more modern conventions inherent.
Additionally, most retroclones per se lean a little on more than one edition and/or get filtered through the gauzy veil of "editorial judgment" and "taste", which is a plus IMO. There is much more to a game experience than bare bones numbers, and the game author's writing style and presentation choice is instrumental to germinating the seed that grows to become the eventual table experience.
Of the ODD retroclones proper currently available, I like Torch & Sword for its brevity and atmosphere and I like Delving Deeper for readability and completeness. These are my 1 and 1A for reference works.
I like Full Metal Platemail better than either of them by a hair's breadth because of what it adds to the LBBs. Notably, cool monsters and a general cleanup of corner-case rules. The delineation between the cleric and anticleric and the wilderness adventure section are particular treats in FMPM.
I think IF is going to knock it out of the park by the way. I don't like much from Greyhawk personally but that is no indictment of IF, which is a super product.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 23, 2015 15:49:37 GMT -6
MOAR THIEFS!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 23, 2015 15:48:32 GMT -6
Yes so much fondness for this
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 23:44:59 GMT -6
Thieves ought to get the best saves IMO in a game where demi-men can't be thieves. In a game where they can be thieves, their natural save advantage would be sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 23:41:42 GMT -6
To Red Baron: oops. I have you confused with Dan Boggs. Sorry.
To Mr. Mornard: that seems like an awful lot of paperwork to figure out how much XP you get. Well, that's how it's done, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 22:49:28 GMT -6
1 GP = 1 XP, taxes included. But if you got that gold from your serfs, and the level ratio between a lord and a normal man 1:9+, you should only collect a fraction of xp on gold from taxes . Hi Dan. I really enjoy your work, and especially your discourses on your blog. I don't follow. Regardless of the source, does not one gold crown ='one gold crown?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 20:51:21 GMT -6
1 GP = 1 XP, taxes included.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 19:04:34 GMT -6
Cleric XP is low because cleric's abilities top off lower. All classes are not created equal.
Which suggests the question: why do fighting men need so much XP before topping out?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 21, 2015 15:09:31 GMT -6
If we're doing pseudo-medieval, the players should be excluded and snubbed by anyone with a title until they get their own, regardless of tax or upkeep.
1% per month is to keep your swords sharp and belly full in between adventures. Tax on adventuring wealth could be considerably higher- setting up a situation where the characters pay or become hunted outlaws.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 18:24:20 GMT -6
I like sim city build it. There's no wars in it though.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 17:31:34 GMT -6
Chris, just write the game you want. People will like it. Or they won't. Don't let the turkeys get you down.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 8:25:05 GMT -6
The character doesn't know he has one hit point! Nor does he know he is really dumb or foolish. He probably knows he's a weakling, or clumsy, or out of shape, or ineffective in interpersonal communication.
Certainly he knows what his equipment does (unless it is magical) and what his bank balance is.
Well, this is a little far afield. My point is, some stats inform the player and some inform the character.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 1:11:55 GMT -6
In Franks game here, I am having a blast with Ruby. 4 WIS, 4 CON, 1 hit point.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 1:09:18 GMT -6
The thing I have noticed about writing for OD&D is that simpler is better. You don't need to add a ton of rules. In some cases, you don't need any new rules at all.
The more I think about Rastus' version, the more I really, really like it. My only caveat is that it doesn't need to be a class at all. It's more like a background or a kit.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 19, 2015 17:38:16 GMT -6
Psionics! What a weird thing, man. I never got how psionics fit with D&D.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 19, 2015 17:30:17 GMT -6
The thief as written actually works fine as long as the several players don't try to use him as trap bait.
But honestly, everything you need you can find in the LBBs and your own imagination.
Except intitiative rules. That you have to write yourself or steal.
|
|
|
ISBNs?
Mar 19, 2015 0:46:38 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 19, 2015 0:46:38 GMT -6
They're a wicked rip off. Getting one (the most expensive way per ISBN is to buy singles) is like $125. Getting a set of them sets you back like a grand.
BUT, as far as barriers to entry into the clerisy of Teh Professionnal Publishers, I guess its not so bad.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 18, 2015 16:28:19 GMT -6
The party game method:
Everyone sits at the table. Guy 1 rolls 3d6. Everyone assigns that number to one ability score.
Guy 1 passes the dice to Guy 2, who rolls the ability score directly below the first one, with STR obv. following Cha.
And so on.
That way, the party is born together and nobody can grouse about stats. And it's also 3d6 down the line random, with the exception of where to place the very first score.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 18, 2015 11:05:22 GMT -6
The Tic-tac-toe method tickles me.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 18, 2015 8:33:59 GMT -6
You know, the tone of discourse issue is an interesting one. I find I am less likely to self-censor over there. I will post stupid corny snark if I'm feeling it, and I'll share stray ideas there without worrying too much about what value they may prove to contain.
Here I do self-censor. I am careful to respect the tone and to respect the ideas, scholarship and opinions of folks who have a lot more experience than I do with this version of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 17, 2015 20:17:28 GMT -6
My family was raised on 3e. The kids are really happy to play face-up instead of face-in-the-sheet. My daughter never bothered too much with the numbers (and despite this is already a competent referee). My son loves trying new stuff and new games.
My wife... Ach she can't get her head out of modern games. Her main complaint is that not having any "real" info on her character sheet limits her. That not being able to "build" her character limits her. No skills, no feats, no standard array, no prestige classing, etc. She also hates initiative by sides. She says its not fair because she can't maximize her ability to get a jump on the opposition. That she can't count on going at the same time in rolling initiative order. She also hates having henchmen because they "steal" her XP and gold LOL
I know the counter-arguments to all of these objections. I bring it up to show just how hard it is to bring someone who is "stuck" in modern games back to the older ways. TBH here's nothing wrong with the modern games. We still play 3.X too.
It's not just the 3d6 in order. That's the tip of the iceberg. Try telling a modern player he can't play an elf cleric of Elhonna with Zen Archery...!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 17, 2015 11:17:50 GMT -6
Looking at my own setting's demographic breakdown, one out of every 11 fighters is a Paladin. Because I don't use OD&D ability scores, that's why. You only need to roll high one high stat, put it in Charisma, and then play a Lawful fighting man to be a Paladin- at some point. So, much easier than 1 in 720. That means 490 paladins of any level in a population which totals 3.6 million men, women and children. Still incredibly rare, but everyone should know someone who knows a paladin. drive.google.com/file/d/0B_0ONkhGdLg8MGE4RVVCM2JncGc/view?usp=sharing
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 16, 2015 15:21:48 GMT -6
That's a good starting point. But I would suggest that the relative incidence of dead and retired Paladins is much lower than the same incidence for fighting men. By his very nature, Paladins would be more driven and more likely to survive to higher levels.
By the time you get to name level, the number might be much, much closer. Maybe 1 in 6 to 1 in 18 fighting men of level 9 or higher would be a paladin.
|
|