|
Post by countingwizard on May 1, 2020 10:03:10 GMT -6
Thank goodness. Very happy it's working out.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 30, 2020 14:28:04 GMT -6
This rule originates in Chainmail, but is carried over in the section for monsters in Volume II: Monsters & Treasure in the LBBs: Some argue that this rule only applies if using the chainmail tables.
If you use the rule, it does not differentiate between monsters, supernormal men, classes, or anything. It just applies to everything in the list above it or however you think it should apply.
If you think it should apply to players too, it's not specific to just Fighting-Men, but any creature (because it was written for everything in the list above it). You are free to put limitations on it however you want.
You then need to define what "normal men" are because that is who multiple attacks will apply to. "Normal men" could mean anything. It could mean non-players. It could mean 1st level player characters. It could mean players whose attacks are equivalent to a 1st level fighting-man. It could mean creatures whose attacks are equivalent to a 1st level fighting-man. The only definition we have is on the Men Attacking Matrix in Volume I. Note that this does not say 1st level fighters are normal men; nor does it say 1st-3rd level fighters. It's brief, and tries to concisely say that normal men are equal [in combat ability] to 1st level fighters. Well, a lot of things are equal to 1st level fighters too. And it's entirely open to referee judgment.
There are a few examples of "supernormal" in the breakdown, and there is much argument on which should be considered a normal man; ex: mermen, cavemen, etc. Coming from the Chainmail rules, the terminology was broken down between Fantastic Figures (any figure appearing in the Fantastic Supplement) and Normal Figures (any figure in the preceding sections). Even that can be argued over.
If you don't like the 1 attack per HD rule for players, volume I also provides a list of Fighting Capability, but that IS specifically and explicitly for Chainmail tables. It provides both the number of men in capability the character should fight at, as well as the Fantastic Combat Table ability of the character.
Given the right combination of interpretations, you can end up with a system in which characters are giving each other multiple attacks because neither one qualifies as a normal man even though they possess multiple HD.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 30, 2020 10:56:54 GMT -6
I'm wondering if a "shifting standard" might help and be easy enough to handle? Assume all wood/cloth/leather item prices are in copper, part/all metal item prices are in silver, and armor kicks the price up one tier (leather armor price in silver, metal armor price in gold.) That makes copper somewhat useful, but only just enough that players won't automatically dismiss it. As for stocking treasure, I think one or two coin types in any given treasure stash is about right. Perhaps copper should be limited to the 1st and 2nd dungeon levels, where the monsters might be raiding villages? Or each dungeon level would have a base treasure type with a 50% chance of a second coin type (or maybe a 1 in 3 chance of copper, 1 in 3 chance of gold for second coin type?) The only reason I use and enjoy gold as the standard, is because as an individual character with at most 12 hirelings they can take into the dungeon, the numbers are reasonable and easy to track. The only time I would consider switching scales is for stronghold level play where a player needs to pay for outfitting and feeding armies. As a player I hate having to make change and record decimals or lesser coinage.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 30, 2020 10:25:52 GMT -6
It's important to mix in some fantasy figures too in both scenarios since figuring out how to integrate them is the basis for D&D.
And believe it or not the base shape and size of each figure plays a huge part. The originals were irregular shaped.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 30, 2020 8:58:53 GMT -6
What I am really trying to do is wrap my head around using Chainmail and D&D together. And everyone is getting me a lot of help in that department. Which I really, really appreciate. There are a lot of ways to do this. I recommend just using the LBB's as written and a copy of the Chainmail rules. The best approach is to run a battle of armies with fantastic figures and normal figures, and then run a battle of man-to-man combat using fantastic figures and normal figures. Takes about an hour each. Once you do that, you get a better understanding of how the changes from D&D fit in (d6 damage and d6 hitpoints, and maybe the alternate combat tables if you don't want to use the chainmail tables). Chainmail is waaaaay more open to interpretation than the LBB's so every referee seems to run it differently. The issue with OSR is that retroclones are usually first and foremost a set of house rules, and second an interpretation of the rules as written; probably to circumvent copyright infringement. The issue with OD&D is that even without dozens of possible interpretations of the rules from the LBB, you also have to deal with whether or not an author chooses to include rules/content from the first three supplements, and if they interpret OD&D as using Chainmail that exponentially increases the number of interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 28, 2020 18:57:06 GMT -6
There are two reasons why Baldur's gate doesn't jive with D&D play.
1. Combat puzzles. The game is designed around unforgiving combat encounters that require reloading instead of accepting losses, and frequently require the right combination of luck and spell/item usage to win the encounter. 2. Dialogue. The games have a wall of dialogue and railroad you through the story constantly. I like the characters though and prefer playing as them than custom created ones and exploring their backstories. 3. Real-time With Pause. This style of game requires lots of awkward micromanagement instead of a turn to turn style.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 28, 2020 11:37:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 30, 2020 13:25:28 GMT -6
I don't know Alex. He seemed like a nice enough guy, but I assume there is a story about him? There are good things and bad things about everyone in our hobby. He can go a bit overboard sometimes with things he is passionate about. And he'll make sure you know how he thinks thing should be. That said, I miss getting to play with him sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 27, 2020 9:40:50 GMT -6
When I go to DriveThru and look at the entry my screen looks okay, but the one posted here doesn't. www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1521143848061455&set=p.1521143848061455&type=3&theaterNot sure if you can see it or not, but a guy named Alex Johnson posted his view. It shows a price of $1.95 with a line through it, and next to that price is (in red) $3.90 and this makes it look like it's just been marked up instead of looking like it was recently marked down. Of course it was Alex Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 27, 2020 7:38:44 GMT -6
I thought all you have to do to get your character sheet published is figure out how to use Github and put your code on there?
I mean I plan on it eventually, it just looks like it has some complicated steps to it and I'm prepping for a game.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 26, 2020 9:07:14 GMT -6
I’m guessing you have to be signed onto Google to see the pics. Even the link doesn’t come up for me on my stupid apple phone. Ugh. I’ll see them on the computer I’m sure. Sounds real interesting! Work filter. Signed in through a vpn that is blocking it. No indication that was what was going on in the original link, but that separate link shows up as blocked for me. I google searched and I think I found the same image. Might be a little more complicated to make due to the ambiguity of some of the fields. Roll 20 also isn't very friendly if you exceed the standard width.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 25, 2020 20:41:49 GMT -6
Just saying that I made a fairly accurate copy .... Lemme just say that's pretty dang cool. I don't have the skill, but I would love to see someone take a stab at making Tsojconth style sheets on Roll 20. For those not aware, the Caverns of Tsojconth is more or less Gygax's first published module, made for Wintercon 5 in 1976. There are no character sheets in it per se, but there are half a dozen pre-gen character handouts in the same format - so basically filled out character sheets. I've always liked the way it was layed out. Here is a pic. Image not showing. Use imgur or something.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 25, 2020 9:08:52 GMT -6
I will say, that roll20 is absolutely NOT built for mobile platforms. You will need a larger screen than a phone for roll20 and similar applications.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 23, 2020 11:52:38 GMT -6
I use the bottom left corner of that character sheet like this: But it can also be used to show/track the players other things. Like saving throws. If you need me to add some fields or prefill the sheet with some info, let me know and I can post the code for you. I am not willing to completely reformat the layout, nor willing to code in calculations or formulas. Also, I'm willing to link to your games on the splash page for my own campaign. I would like to note next to your link on whether characters can be transferred to your games. Just list your link here if you want me to share it. You guys can link to my campaign as well, but I'm not accepting character transfers at the moment until I get a few more dungeon levels mapped and keyed (running my 15-level NTRPG con Planet Eris dungeon, only have 2 1/2 floors mapped, and 2/3rds of the first floor properly keyed and stocked). Linky: app.roll20.net/join/6051595/XsxIDQ
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 23, 2020 11:47:13 GMT -6
I built this sheet using the first character record sheet from 1976. I like this format because players don't need to keep or track as much, the referee just needs the charts and tables in front of them. It is possibly to build one that tracks the attack matrix and saving throw matrix as well, but having those automatically populate may be a bit more effort. You need premium membership with roll20 to add these to your campaign. My Custom Roll20 Character Sheet The Original 1976 Character Sheet HTML Layout CSS Styling
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 22, 2020 18:33:21 GMT -6
I do not believe it is possible. We could try by making me a DM of your campaign and maybe it will let me modify/update it with the new character sheet.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 22, 2020 12:19:09 GMT -6
Yeah. I asked my brother who is an actual web-developer if there was a layout program that can make forms easy like this or convert pdf forms, and the answer was no. You have to do it on your own by hand. Like back in 2001. So that is what I did.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 22, 2020 10:45:50 GMT -6
Just saying that I made a fairly accurate copy of the original character sheets using the roll20 custom character sheets. Did this last week for the start of my weekly OD&D game. Posting the code and screenshots below: My Custom Roll20 Character Sheet The Original 1976 Character Sheet HTML Layout CSS Styling
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 10, 2020 11:00:47 GMT -6
Here's one particular note about compass points and dungeon maps: If dungeons existed in real life and we went down into them (and especially if some of us were actual dwarves and elves with superhuman senses), we wouldn't have a compass or a magical sense of direction to orient us and our makeshift map. This is true. However, we WOULD have a whole slew of other environmental information that would help us navigate. There would be areas where the air is slightly warmer, or cooler, or moister or dryer. Areas where the air current would be stronger, or weaker, or peculiarly intermittent or completely absent. Areas where the draft would make a slightly different sound, or carry a distinct scent. Areas where the walls and the floor are smoother due to erosion, or rougher because of less erosion. Where the walls glisten with more moisture, or are duller because of dryness. Where that peculiar reddish mineral ore in the wall is visible in thicker, or thinner, or more frequent, or less frequent, or differently oriented veins. Where the bricks are larger or smaller or a different colour than elsewhere, or where some of them have ancient maker's stamps. Or they're just more, or less, smoothly laid. And a whole slew of other details, too. All this is navigaton information that we would have in a real-life dungeon, but which we DON'T have in the game, because the DM is not going put in the effort to come up with, keep track of, and relate to us all this. In other words, the DM is giving the players far less information than they would have in real life. It is therefore not at all unfair for the DM to balance this artificial and "irrealistic" dearth of one type of navigational information by offering a similarly artificial and "irrealistic" surfeit of another type of navigational info - a sense of compass bearings. Gary Gygax: Just let your players use directions. It's not worth holding up play just to spend an extra 5 minutes of them asking questions to get an accurate map when you could have just described it right the first time.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 9, 2020 11:01:49 GMT -6
I have had soooooo much discussion about the Chainmail rules since my post, and ran OD&D using as much of the the combat framework as I could. I think what I need to do next is methodically play with each system found within the Chainmail rules.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 7, 2020 22:44:22 GMT -6
I just don't see how anyone can tell which way is north in the Underworld. They pick a direction, and that direction is north. Also it is very difficult for Dwarves to get lost while underground.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 6, 2020 18:10:44 GMT -6
Oh yeah. I forgot about that technique. I hadn't seen any of the original authors use it, but I've seen notation like that in how the early dungeoneering video games were developed. It looks kinda hard to use unless something is marked on the map at that point itself; like a symbol or such. While players are moving around, I would completely skip whats there if it's only indicated in the notes. Probably more useful for something where the symbol is shared, like a statue, trap, door, etc. Just have something off to the side with the reference for the coordinate and use that to specify that object's unique feature.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 5, 2020 13:48:21 GMT -6
Historical maps may have longitude and latitude markings. That’s different. And if you’re using military maps that would be different again because they use grid north. What I’m talking about is specifically maps designed for the sport of orienteering. If you don’t see a compass rose they are already oriented for magnetic north in most cases. You could put your compass along the right edge and rotate the map until it faces north and your map would be oriented in relation to the topography it represents. If you’re using an old map you should check the date on it. Declination is changing a little each year. That is cool.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 5, 2020 12:51:39 GMT -6
Just like the use of maps in the real world, a northerly bearing compass point is for orienteering your map. A quick fact about the sport of orienteering is that the topo maps do not always contain a compass rose. In these cases the right edge of the map is considered to be oriented due north. W-HAT?! That's crazy. I did not know that. I just assumed it's however the legend/title is oriented determines north. And I've seen a lot of historical topographic maps.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 5, 2020 9:59:28 GMT -6
I think the best justification for why a referee should utilize dungeon north is the same justification for giving actual exact measurements. The referee is communicating to one or more players the nature of an environment. If you do not describe this environment in relation to a static universal, you are going to have to describe things in terms of a variable (i.e. compare it to something else). For example, if I do not utilize dungeon north, I will have to explain it from the perspective of the player position relative to the way they enter the new area. This can be challenging for me the referee if I need to somehow show a visual for the shape of the room (which I prefer to do). Which side should be up? That requires translating from the original map. I'm already juggling a few dozen other things, the least of which is 10 people telling me different things they want to do. The trade off in being vague with direction is not worth the cost for what it adds to the game. Except when the players find themselves in a brand new location, having entered via teleport or trap without knowing any direction. At that point I designate a random new dungeon north until players can figure out where they are by making their way back to a mapped area and re-orient themselves.
The reason we use exact measurements is the same. I could go the entire game describing halls and spaces in relative terms. Its large. Its very large. Its cramped. Etc. Unless the player can read my mind though, they have no idea what "large" even means. "Large" compared to what? So then I would have to start describing things in terms of things they have already encountered. The hallway you are in is twice as large than the one you entered. The room before you is smaller than the previous two. Not using exact measurements makes it impossible to map; a key component of classic play.
By making things unclear and not specific or exact, you are introducing communication errors. These are not desirable. You want the players to understand what you imagine and envision in as much detail, with as few words, as possible. The difficulty of interpreting poor communication is frustrating, not rewarding. The source of obstacles should be within the dungeon, not coming from the referee. Referees should utilize any technique that allows them to more clearly communicate with players. My argument is that dungeon north and exact measurements are critical to this goal.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 4, 2020 20:33:13 GMT -6
Moderator Note: Split off from here: odd74.proboards.com/post/225860/threadRandom thought which has just occurred to me: why do we add north points to dungeon maps? I always describe in terms of left and right, as most of the time (all the time?) characters have no idea which direction is north. Dungeon north is for the referee, not the players.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 4, 2020 13:45:14 GMT -6
I plan on getting a physical version of it. It looks really satisfying. Make sure that you look at the book's free preview before you buy. Since it shows every single page, you can be 100% sure of your purchase before you buy. There's only one thing worse than someone not buying your RPG book: Someone being sorry that he bought it. Tetrimorph printed the whole thing out before you published it, and let me thumb through it. I know I won't have any regrets. It's a solid product.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Mar 3, 2020 20:08:53 GMT -6
I plan on getting a physical version of it. It looks really satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 28, 2020 13:43:04 GMT -6
d**n. Having run the game a few different ways, and talking about it endlessly, and the fact that dexterity adds some mechanics, I think I'm going to have to try a different Chainmail sequence for D&D. I may use this one, where both sides complete a segment before the next segment occurs: - Declare Spells
- Determine Initiative (ties indicate simultaneously resolved, winner chooses to whether to take move segment first or last)
- Move Segment (sequential)
- Move, Split-Move & Missile Fire, and/or takes Pass-Through Fire
[li]Combat Segment (sequential by initiative)[/li] - Melee combat can be refused if conditions are right (move out of melee range), giving up 2nd missile attack or spell
- Missile Fire, Spells*, Melee Attacks Resolve by initiative, all at the same time
[li]Post-Melee Morale Check for Enemy & Hirelings[/li][li]Return to Step 1[/li][/ul] *Spells can't be cast unless the magic-user remains both stationary and undisturbed by attack.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 28, 2020 11:16:22 GMT -6
Right this second I'd go with both. Might regret that in the morning. That would be cool as shirt. What I really want to know is are the life forms trapped inside turned to stone since they are "held in separate areas of the mirror." Also does the mirror have to be operated by a magic-user (or set to operate untended) to trap souls? Or does it have to be operated to see, converse with, and release a soul trapped within? Is the magic-user operating the mirror immune to the effects of the mirror?
|
|