|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 17, 2023 10:09:18 GMT -6
I thought the reason for no metal armor was:
* Move Silently: Armor makes noise either from worn equipment (like swords, backpack, other carried items) clacking against it, or in the case of fully armored, platemail clanking around
* Hide in Shadows: Metal armor reflects more light and stands out in the dark even if you are beyond the lit area (if I'm not using a thief class, I penalize hiding chances based whether they have blackened their armor with dull paint or mud or not.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 14, 2023 9:14:23 GMT -6
Iron Falcon is my game of choice now. The new Handbook of Monsters has a great selection taken from various old school sources. It also fixes some mistakes in the rulebook i.e. some monsters only hit by magic weapons weren't so indicated now corrected and the HD of skeletons and zombies changed from 1/2 and 1 to 1 and 2 respectively. I wish that the old level titles were used (veteran, warrior etc.) but it's a very close simulacra. I’m slightly curious as to the rationale for calling the original (OD&D) HD of skeletons and zombies a ‘mistake’. I’ve started reading IF, and it’s clear that Chris sometimes presents his own preferred variants rather than pursuing fidelity to the original. Along the way, I think his writing has yielded some mistakes in terms of conveying his own intent, but that remains to be seen when he makes choices for revision. The first printing of the rules lists Skeletons and Zombies as 1HD & 2HD respectively. Every subsequent printing has the 1/2 and 1. Not sure what the intent was, but it makes zombies as hard to kill as you would expect them to be, but completely avoidable due to their speed. If it was nerfed, it might be that higher level magic-user players were building armies of zombies that would just flatten living armies due to their durability and never retreating.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 14, 2023 9:08:23 GMT -6
I would really like to vote for both B/X and OD&D. I only run/play OD&D, but having prepped so many campaigns I've read through B/X rules several times and those rules are just straight up clean, simple, organized, and flexible in ways that none of the other rulesets are. It has guidance for everything. BECMI Cyclopedia might be up there too, but something about that product line just doesn't fit right with me.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 10, 2023 8:58:49 GMT -6
I’m so glad you like it so far!! I’ve been curious and anxious about what the response from people who have been playing OD&D as their main game, so that means a lot W.r.t. printing, unfortunately I’m a bit of a perfectionist, but my plan was to create an at-cost POD on Lulu once I was happy with the final product. What I may do though, once I get a working computer (mine was in its final moments while getting ready to post the PDFs!), is create a Lulu-compatible cover for those who want to print ASAP! My actual dream, even though I tend to actually be a very casual RPG player, is to make my own custom set in a 10” box with the hardcover book, a cardstock remake of the Outdoor Survival map, and a bunch of dice and little tokens. I think it’d just be fun to imagine what if D&D didn’t change rules-wise, but if the publishers treated it more like a board game (or maybe Hasbro in some alternate timeline turned it more into one). It probably would be just for me though, since the idea of selling boxes stresses me out. Anyway, to persuade people to hold off on printing just yet, the next version will have stats for the “balor” (whose name I will either black out or write as “REDACTED”, to be cute), and also some reference tables in the appendix (including for ascending AC and a Chainmail-based weapon-vs-armor table). I think little things like that will help it be a more useful onboarding tool besides it serving as a reference for the original, which is honestly how I have been using it. XD Honestly Wilderness travel should be treated like a boardgame. I've played it several ways, but having at least an unlabeled map with outlines of landmass, major landmarks/mountains and moving turn by turn tracking thirst/hunger is a ton of fun. Clearing the land for a barony can get a bit monotonous, but otherwise it's a really good way to physically differentiate between wilderness scale and dungeon scale. Arneson/Gygax were really on to something using different systems for different activities (wilderness, underworld, sea adventures). I like austinjimm 's Wild Lands of Oros interpretation of Outdoor Survival rules the most. Lays it out in a much clearer way and adapts the mechanics a little better for the sword and sorcery setting. I've been pushing him to clean it up for official publication, but I think he's working on the Omphir region of Planet Eris.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 10, 2023 8:47:50 GMT -6
Just a bit north of Austin, TX. Looking to start a weeknight game up here in the coming year. Interesting to read back about some of the Austin players, with the principal heart of old-school in Austin moving out a few years ago. Looking back at posts like that - and looking at the late 00s/early 10s era of the OSR - is like wandering in the ruins of a castle from a bygone era... (to strain this metaphor, there's plenty of good stuff to loot from those ruins too, like all the blogs of that era, the zines, etc.) Hey, man, some of us are still here! I've got a regular group. countingwizard still has an active group, I believe. Also, I am considering offering things through meetup, again. That is how I got back into the hobby and I want new folks to feel welcome to old school gaming and to the original edition. I haven't really had enough time to run (or play D&D) for the past two years; I have a 2-year old. BUT I am putting together material and rules to run a Judges Guild/Wilderlands campaign once a month online. If that goes well, I may eventually run a monthly in-person game, although it would have to be at someone else's house so the toddler doesn't disrupt. We'll see how well a 6-hour 6pm to midnight game does first. Currently compiling a list of JG & supplement rules/guidance; I usually stick with just the 3LBB's and the supplements seem to make it complicated quick. If anyone needs a list of currently interested players in the area from our old-school group, private message me and I'll send you a list of email addresses/names.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 8, 2023 12:52:42 GMT -6
Bumping this thread and posing a question:
How should continual light or infravision change the encounter distance?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 26, 2021 9:24:46 GMT -6
I'm talking about the number of choices in your campaign. There are tons of spells, monsters, magic items, settings, and even classes (if you consider the fan-made classes available on the web during the 2E era). Do you need all of them in your game? If not, how would you determine the maximum? There's no right or wrong answer for this question; it all depends on your needs. It becomes too much when the referee is overwhelmed by how much they need to track for each player, or when gameplay requires too much detail to be tracked by players. Otherwise the sky is the limit. For example new players in my campaign only get to play as fighters, clerics, or magic-users; but I do allow them to play advanced character types (I don't have additional classes, just skills/special abilities/and restrictions) once they have played at least a session or two. I try to place the burden of tracking all this stuff on the player so that it doesn't slow me down. This way players get to choose the amount of detail they want to track, and are rewarded with a playstyle/roleplay that suits their needs. More choices = More Novelty That said, I really hate additional races. It adds a lot to the referee overhead; like additional passive abilities that apply in specific situations (e.g. elf detect secret doors), NPC/Monster Reaction adjustments, enforcing race restrictions, etc.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 8, 2021 14:58:29 GMT -6
I feel that the right answer is the ammo dispels the illusion. That is because rarely is someone going to hug or reach out and touch an illusion, and I feel the intent was that any attempt to affect the illusion should dispel the illusion. I get wishy washy about whether missed attacks should also count, since it seems unfair to give illusions AC 2 like a dragon.
As far as illusion of a dragon creating a fire from it's dragonbreath, I think it should only apply if the caster states it for that turn, otherwise that part of the illusion doesn't exist (and also might be an indicator to players fighting an illusion that it is not real).
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 3, 2021 10:12:58 GMT -6
I really need to try and run the U&WA naval rules. I always default to something easier, but from what I remember the last time I tried to run it, the rules feel more wonky than usual. The standard encounter distance doesn't appear to work here; or at least if the players are intending to avoid the encounter.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 30, 2020 13:45:11 GMT -6
My in-game explanation is: The more competent, experienced, and renowned characters become, the more high maintenance they become. Ex: gambling more, more extravagant living, etc. These aren't necessarily things controlled by the player; and it also explains why sometimes the random events I periodically roll for, are determined by actions of the character rather than the player. Characters have their own personality. You can't be in control of them the entire time. It's also why players can typically have a stable of characters in my campaign, even though I usually limit play to one character at a time.
But I really like carousing for extra XP if the games are more infrequent (like monthly). It's a really fun mini-game.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 30, 2020 13:10:26 GMT -6
Dragon Magazine #60 had this great article about Elves and it tries to explain how ghoul's paralysis worked. Yeah. Just from observing how ghoul paralysis works out by the rules, I eventually came to that same conclusion too. It's also why you don't get a save vs paralysis (that's wands only). I also figure it's probably not as intense as magical paralysis, and so wouldn't require a survive adversity check. Like they aren't literally frozen in place, they are just made unable to act or defend themselves (indecisive) out of fear.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 30, 2020 13:06:18 GMT -6
It's worth noting that a Chainmail turn is perhaps more akin to an OD&D round. In any case, Ghoul paralysis is only relevant for that specific combat - the question is mainly if it takes someone out of the fight entirely or merely makes them skip a turn. Yep. You get it. And those extra rules wouldn't be able to apply because you wouldn't be able to move any figures during combat other than to engulf the enemy (highly unlikely due to post-melee morale check) or enjoin combat from a nearby unit.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 23, 2020 12:36:47 GMT -6
I just want The Dying Earth taped on a 1970s BBC soundstage. I'd support a kickstarter for this.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 23, 2020 8:55:15 GMT -6
Tithes are a requirement to be a part of the community. But adventurerers are transient. I would think the only time they would give money to a religious order is in exhange for an equally valued service.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 19, 2020 17:41:37 GMT -6
I don't understand why D&D would be a movie and not a series.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 18, 2020 8:05:22 GMT -6
Aren't tithes more of an abrahamic religion thing? I mean obviously it was another name given for paying taxes to support government, but it would have been impractical to pay a monetary tithe towards every temple and god available to worship; most people worshipped more than one.
As I understand it, that's why most people left offerings of different objects at respective altars when they went to ask for big things.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 17, 2020 8:13:41 GMT -6
In Chainmail, since Ghoul paralysis only applies for one turn, it keeps figures from attacking in additional combat rounds for that turn, and you typically can't move figures in combat unless it's to surround the enemy. Nazgul paralysis is longer so it has a rule that grants exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 16, 2020 22:49:22 GMT -6
The letter of the rules says it goes without a save, but surely the spirit of the rules suggests it expects one. Ghouls have inordinately-high punching weight otherwise, I think. In Chainmail elves are resistant to ghoul paralysis and moving them next to a paralyzed unit frees them. I used that in D&D to allow an elf to "heal" a ghoul-paralyzed individual. That's only Nazgul paralysis. Ghouls are very easily turned by Clerics though. And if you have platemail it's only one attack you typically have to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 16, 2020 11:31:14 GMT -6
The easiest and most effective way I have found to implement upkeep is that characters must pay 1% of their XP (rounded up) in gold, at the beginning every session, or every in-game week (if multiple weeks pass), as long as the prior week was spent resting. Upkeep covers every need for that character, such as arms/weapons maintenance, housing, food/drink, mounts; needs increasing the more experience that a character has.
Instead of tracking hitpoint recovery separately using the super long recovery rules, I allow a full week of rest to fully recover all hitpoints.
So 1 week of rest = 1 week of upkeep.
Any time I need to track monthly costs, I use real life months instead of in-game months.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 16, 2020 11:25:07 GMT -6
My interpretation of Ghoul Paralysis is pretty straight forward:
Ghouls who hit a figure will automatically paralyze without saving throw (because saving throws are for wands like the paralizing wand). Elves will not be effected. If the ghouls had initiative, the victim still gets to act if they were paralyzed that round. Paralysis lasts for 10 rounds.
I would actually like to try paralysis lasting only 1 round, since I run a D&D round as an undefined length turn of limited duration. Defining rounds this way, players basically have the choice between making an attack, moving, casting a spell, split-move and fire, or another non-standard action (like finding an object in their bag), and it all takes one turn. It flows much smoother than the CHAINMAIL system, which is move, then adjudicate combat attacks until one side wins, then move again.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 16, 2020 11:09:56 GMT -6
There are so many different ways to adjudicate how elves operate. I try to make it easier and clearer, and don't worry about in-game explanations for mechanics. Here is how I run them at my table, given what is written: - When a player creates an elf, they use one character sheet and for class, level, experience, next level, and hit points, they use a / to differentiate the stats belonging to each class so that both are displayed; ex: fighter/magic-user, 1/1, 0/0, 2000/2500, 6/4.
- At the beginning of each adventure, the player picks one class, and operates as that class using everything on the side of the slash that is appropriate.
- Elves may always use the higher of the two max hitpoint totals at any time.*
- Elves make saving throws and attack rolls as the class they are operating as.
- As a fighter, elves may cast spells. Even while wearing armor.
- As a magic-user, elves can use any weapon, but can't wear any armor unless it is magical.
- Elves get +1 to damage while using any magic weapon.
- Elves can split move and fire (move AND missile attack in the same turn).
- Elves are hated by orcs, and hate orcs; meaning if they choose to attack in combat and an orc is present, the orc must be attacked first.
- Elves are limited to 4th level fighting-man, and 8th level magic-user.
- Elves are unaffected by Ghoul paralysis.
*Added rule to give Elves more of a reason to level up as a fighter.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2020 10:30:06 GMT -6
I've been pondering about general skills lately. Having played with quite a few 3E guys lately, I'm hating the D20 system, for numerous reasons. The reliance on roll-playing, and in fact discouraging of problem solving is almost painful. However there are certain things that must be delegated to dice rolls, for game reasons. Surprise rolls are an immediate example, and so is finding Secret doors, and even springing traps. All of those rules are presented in "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures", usually relegated to a chance on a d6 roll. While I do find this mechanic rather elegant, I do see some areas where a unified mechanic, or even scalable one could be desirable. For example, while I hate the d20 mechanic, having that fall back on, with provided guidelines is kind of nice. Furthermore the ability for players to improve those abilities over time is nice, and having some classes with those abilities highlighted can be even nicer. Being a convert from Runequest/Call of Cthulhu, I've been considering a d% system. This would be great as there's already a precedence, at least in AD&D. Lots of abilities (surprise namely) is presented as a % chance in many places. A nice chart with common percentage chances for various situations would be extremely helpful. Further the limit vs d20's limitless modifiers vs target number is nice. So my question to you guys is thus: How do you handle general adventuring skills? How do you prevent it from turning into "roll-playing"? Is it all in the way you present it, or do the mechanics really matter that much? Lately, I've been using the Midkemia Press Cities booklet when players want to get detailed about stupid stuff (imo) like skills. I'm coming around to it for a few of the things that matter, but let me talk about what the system is first. The Midkemia Press Cities booklet lists a bunch of mundane skills that tradesemen, craftstmen, etc. would normally make use of. The booklet lists them because it partly determines how successful you are working at a full-time job in the city. But those aren't things I care about. Skills range from 1 to 100 in rating. Normally you would need to pay someone to train you over a period of time and then you'd get a starting skill amount. In my game, since I want it to be adventure focused and not a mundane boorfest, I allow characters to have innate skill at anything they want to attempt. I'll usually look at the skill list and find a skill that closely matches what they want to accomplish, and have them roll to see what their starting skill amount is: (1d100 / 4) +/- intelligence XP adjustment. So if they had intelligence of 13, and rolled a 87, I would round up and give them 27 (22+5) skill. Normally after formal training, your skill would start at a flat (1d100 / 2) + 5. In my system, after training you would move to the higher amount. All my skills are occupation based, so example skills include: Farmer, Baker, Cook, Merchant, Horse Trainer, Hunter (separate skill for each terrain type), Ship Builder, Carpenter, etc. The way skills are utilized in practice are whether an attempt to use them succeeds or fails. So a character must roll d100 equal to or less than their skill. Right now, this primarily comes up in things like finding food. So if the character says they want to fish a stream, they roll their Fisherman skill and we see if it's a success or not. For things like finding water, I made up a Waterfinder skill. The degree of success is usually determined by how long they spent doing the task. If they were searching for food after travelling all day, they would only find enough food to feed themselves (1 ration). If they spend an entire day doing it, they find 1d6 rations. If more than one person are doing the same task and they want to do it together, they add the scores together and roll once. If they want to look separately and spread out their chances to find more, they roll separately. Encounters that occur take into account player decisions. It's a little interesting in how the skills make their way into the game. I run the basic three classes for example, but have created specialized versions of those classes such as Thieves, Paladins, Rangers, etc. Rangers in my game don't get spells, but they do start with trained skills in all the Hunter categories and Tracking.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2020 9:50:26 GMT -6
The best way I've found to deal with high ego swords, is to write them down in the marching order. They are basically a character that demands a full share of treasure and will Leroy Jenkins the shirt out of a group to fulfill their purpose. The only rule that is confusing to me, are the rules that dictate why a sword would try to leave possession.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2020 9:46:01 GMT -6
Austin TX. I'm only running games online right now. Friday and Saturday nights via Roll20. Very sad my favorite referee, Jimm Johnson, moved out of state. He formed the core of old school D&D community here. By the time things get back to normal I'll have a baby and not nearly enough time for gaming, although I'll probably try to keep the roll20 game going in some form. Busy trying to train up new referees and spread the LBB gospel. As always, my game is open to anyone interested in playing: app.roll20.net/join/6051595/kKHqdA
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 12, 2020 9:32:22 GMT -6
The biggest compatibility problem between OSR and 5e is that 5e is designed around stories while OSR (at least the D&D side) is designed around dungeons. And it comes right down to how XP is awarded. The old versions of D&D predominantly rewarded XP for finding treasure. 5e doesn't. That's the difference between a dungeon being designed around trying to explore every nook and cranny to find the treasure, and a dungeon that's designed around trying to complete a mission or move the story forward.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Nov 11, 2020 15:03:37 GMT -6
I like the idea of spell complexity chart and rolls. I have no ******* clue how that chart is supposed to be used. It is impenetrable.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 20, 2020 12:38:38 GMT -6
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I take the passage literally. Clerics may use any non-magic weapon they please, but only non-edged magic weapons. Why? Because it's MAGIC! As long as it's consistent, it doesn't have to make sense. Same thing with magic-users, they can use non-magical weapons and armor but the enchanted stuff doesn't work for them. If they try, the enchantments fail and they get no bonuses nor abilities. I use this too, but depending on setting, certain adherants (for different gods) may receive bonuses or have restrictions. Like one gets a bonus to healing but is forbidden from resurrection. Another may be forbidden edged weapons but start with an extra 1st level cleric spell. I'm of the opinion that unless there is a mechanical impact on the rules as intended, players should be unrestricted wherever possible, and somewhat accommodated if novel.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 6, 2020 10:05:48 GMT -6
On one hand, it would be easier for the person playing remotely not having to tediously arrange and rearrange figures. On the other they wouldn't have direct control of troops.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 6, 2020 8:04:59 GMT -6
I would really appreciate a Chainmail miniatures game. Sounds like something that can be set up in roll20 or some other virtual boardgame thing with measuring sticks. If someone organizes it I may even donate a pizza.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 1, 2020 10:04:24 GMT -6
I'll be there. If only so you guys can throw tomatoes at me.
|
|