|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 22, 2024 17:38:40 GMT -6
Even if you remove the "in order" prepositional phrase, there is still plenty of ambiguity to enjoy.
In practice, I let players decide, including letting them just choose whatever scores they want. It doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 6, 2024 12:49:22 GMT -6
The increasing importance of ability scores over time was and is a mistake. Certainly not unique to D&D, either.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 3, 2024 17:52:46 GMT -6
Also, I should say that I prefer boxed sets to books, in general. They create a natural limit and length on what can included. It also allows for booklets to make more sense since, in a box, you can easily have a spell booklet, monster booklet, magic item booklet, DM advice, Player rules, etc.
If someone made me Hasbro CEO for a day, the first thing I'd do is commission a full-game boxed set that could be sold at major retailers to replace the current starter sets.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 3, 2024 14:59:47 GMT -6
For 5E, and this is just my opinion, the DMG is completely pointless (mostly just optional stuff) outside of the magic-items. The PHB, is fine, but too complex for my tastes (I'm on an OD&D forum posting, so shouldn't be a surprise there) so could obviously stand to be much shorter in page count.
A single volume 5E would be easy to do, and basically already exists in the free downloadable rules, which is what I use anyway.
And for the record, I like 5E and have played it quite a bit, I just scale it down. The Rules Cyclopedia is the model I wish WOTC would follow. If you can't fit a whole core game in 303 pages, then you might need to find a better editor.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 3, 2024 14:43:34 GMT -6
Some of the information was intended to be hidden from the players, which is why it was originally split up. There may have been a binding cost-benefit as well but that's just conjecture.
These days, a single book would be my preference, since I really wouldn't expect players to have to know any rules. A single volume is easier to reference as well (whether it's a physical book or digital.)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 23, 2024 20:36:44 GMT -6
"OD&D is the perfect game -- just not as written."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 5, 2023 10:30:44 GMT -6
You really only lose the ability to cast spells and turn undead. It makes things more challenging from a combat perspective, which could be fun. If the goal is to keep magic availability roughly the same, then the only modification I can think of would be to throw in a couple extra magic potions here and there.
But really, magic (intelligent) swords more than make up for any supernatural ability losses. Don't be shy with those smart swords!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jan 30, 2023 10:06:15 GMT -6
You really only need to two classes: those that can use magic, and those that can't.
So, for me, magic-users and not magic-users are the only essentials. All the other classes are just flavor variations of those two.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jan 29, 2023 9:39:43 GMT -6
Here's where I'd start:
1. Release older materials as PDFs 2. Make the current edition rules a free stripped-down PDF for those that like playing in-person 3. Invest heavily in VTT since that's the direction things seem to be going? 4. Protect what little IP I can (*see note below) 5. Release a simplified basic boxed set that covers all levels 6. Profit?
So, I guess, just #5 for me...
*Protected IP according to WOTC. Bolded are the monsters:
"Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerun, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, EverChanging Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 2, 2021 22:19:33 GMT -6
Agreed. From a strategic standpoint, you’d certainly want to rig the odds in your favor whenever possible.
The nice thing about OD&D, to your point about abstraction, is that each ref can tailor the game to suit the level of strategy vs. drama and fiddle with the levers of abstraction vs. realism as desired. Not to mention, how much of the game that is to be hidden from players is easier to manage too. OD&D makes all of that very easy to do which is one of its biggest strengths.
Also, and this is building off your original point, I’ve long dreamed of running a D&D game—pretty much any edition—where the players only roll damage while every hit, save, and action is decided by a simple hidden DM d6 roll. They might think I’m rolling a d20 with all sorts of mods and table lookups, but little do they know that they (the Player Characters) will succeed 4 in 6 for everything. Monsters succeed 2 in 6 for everything.
I’d be genuinely curious if the players would ever notice this. Rolling 5 in 6 seems pointless. Just let it succeed. Likewise rolling 1 in 6 feels unnecessary. Just say it fails (or will fail if attempted.) NPCs will succeed 3 in 6 just for fun. They are unpredictable let’s say.
In a theoretical campaign, leveling gives you more HD and an extra attack or damage die and that’s it. For a fighter, that’s every three levels, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 2, 2021 19:34:18 GMT -6
That said, I'm with waysoftheearth preferring OD&D's X in 6 chances. Plenty granular for most things and easier to judge on-the-fly. I just wouldn't throw out 3 in 6.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 2, 2021 19:26:38 GMT -6
Counterpoint: 50/50 is where all the fun lies.
If a player is odds-on to succeed or fail, then just let them succeed or fail--no reason to roll. Let the ref make the call.
And is the assumption that the player knows their odds for every action? Why would they ever choose any action that's 2 in 6 to succeed unless forced to by the ref? Every roll would be 4 in 6 if the input is always binary. Besides, what's more exciting than willingly choosing a 50/50 action? That's where all the fun and drama lives.
Ref: The horde chases you to a dead-end overlooking a chasm 40-ft deep and 8-ft across. Player: I want to jump the chasm. Ref: The floor is slippery. That's 2 in 6 to succeed. Player: Nevermind--I'll try to scale down the chasm assuming my chances of not falling improve.
Player: I want to jump the chasm. Ref: Plenty of traction. That's 4 in 6 to succeed. Player: I jump!
Player: I want to jump the chasm. Ref: That's 3 in 6 to succeed. Player: Bloody hell...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 1, 2021 20:52:37 GMT -6
My ranking from most to least memorable:
SW TESB RotJ TPM TLJ TFA RotS RO TRoS AotC Solo
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 12, 2021 7:38:03 GMT -6
Fin's Method™ is becoming the standard the more I play.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 5, 2021 13:01:43 GMT -6
Yeah, and you know, within the OT there is a difference between a Jedi Knight (Ben) and a Jedi Master (Yoda). Furthermore, all Jedi Knights in the OT are humans, take it FWIW. Good point. And likewise, on the dark-side, the differences between the more battle-hardened Vader (Lord title and all, now focused on domain-play, but also similar to an evil cleric) and the manipulation-oriented Emperor who's putting out classic evil-wizard in a tower vibes with lots of lightning bolt slots available. At the end of RotJ, obviously Palpy's Geas spell had worn off Vader and Luke made his save vs Charm Person roll. Also, with Yoda's age and ears, he's more of an elf-type to me (well, an elf with a sense of humor.)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 5, 2021 9:45:53 GMT -6
In OD&D terms, force-users are magic-users. Non-force users are non-magic users, oops, I mean, Fighters. It's really that simple. In the 70's when I ran OD&D Star Wars I based the Jedi on the Cleric instead of the Magic-user, but used a spell list which was a lot like the Magic-user's. Gave more of a "fighting spellcaster" vibe. That's a good compromise to separate the more "warrior-like" Jedi from the more "old and wise" Jedi (or general force-users.)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 5, 2021 9:44:07 GMT -6
In OD&D terms, force-users are magic-users. Non-force users are non-magic users, oops, I mean, Fighters. It's really that simple. I don't feel it's that simple unless we're talking about multiclass characters for almost every Jedi/Sith in the Movies/Comics. I mean, Magic-Users aren't good fighters, but a lot of "force-users" are very good Fighters at least when they're using Lightsaber. The conversion Magic-User = Force-User doesn't hold well for our beloved Jedi if we're using the original Magic-User abilities. Just treat lightsabers as jedi-only staves (or magic swords) and now M-Us (Jedis) are now great fighters! M-Us can be great fighters with the right gear and training (spells.) AFAIK, wizards (or space wizards) can still be super strong and agile even within an OD&D framework. The biggest thing that separates force-users from force-insensitives are their magic powers and skill with lightsabers. Just think spells and staves instead.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 2, 2021 21:51:00 GMT -6
In OD&D terms, force-users are magic-users. Non-force users are non-magic users, oops, I mean, Fighters. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 2, 2021 21:47:48 GMT -6
I really don't bother with alignment languages. But, in the spirit of the thread, if your INT is above 12, then you can communicate with most common monsters. Otherwise, you speak common. If your INT is below 9, you're functionally illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 12, 2021 16:04:01 GMT -6
FWIW, I have no issue with race/class/alignment restrictions, generally speaking. Same goes for class-based weapon/armor restrictions and also for race-based level limits. I just want them to be campaign-specific and not baked in the system, which is why I remove them. Also remove ability scores but that's a whole 'nother topic.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 10, 2021 19:51:26 GMT -6
I did away with level limits for all classes and races. I gave humans a second saving roll if they failed the first (which ultimately came down to most players rolling two saves at once to save time). I've played OD&D for decades. These changes have made no overall difference I've ever been able to discern in how the game plays. And a difference that makes no difference is no difference. Exact same. I haven't played over decades like you, but I quickly came to the same conclusions. In actual play, it makes no difference. Same with race/class restrictions, alignments, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 23, 2020 20:54:24 GMT -6
Making 5E more old-school and closer to the 3lbbs by removing negative racial modifiers*? Yes, great idea.
The 3lbbs not using the term "race" anywhere in the text and using "character-types" instead? Yes, also a great idea.
3lbbs? Yes, great idea!
*Yes, I realize that the 3lbbs utilizes racial, I mean "character-type", level limits in lieu of negative ability mods, but IMO, these are much more readily ignored being campaign-based rather than ability scores which are session-based.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 3, 2020 10:54:42 GMT -6
Just reuse the maps and dungeons for something else to save some time and your investment. Winging it, even with a module, is still essential, in my opinion. Modules just save you some time but shouldn't dictate how the game is played.
They allow you to not have to draw new maps, create new NPCs, and create new monsters. You DMing style should still be as if you created the module yourself. I know some people don't like modules, but I like them, since I still DM as if they were my own invention and they are a great source of inspiration in a "learn by example" kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 30, 2020 9:35:32 GMT -6
I'm sadly more down on the series.
I found the Netflix show to be overly confusing with the jumping timelines and a little too Xena/Hercules for my tastes. Henry Cavill seems like a nice guy but is a poor actor for carrying a series. I didn't care for the actress playing Yennefer either. Those roles need a lot charisma. Cavill's monotone gets old quick. You could see Anya "acting" in every scene like she's doing a stage play.
It's not gonna be GoT anytime soon since I see very little discourse about it outside of nerd/gamer circles. GoT, OTOH, was a true 4-quadrant phenomenon, that ultimately disappointed in the end.
I would love to see GoT and Star Wars rebound soon. Maybe the GoT prequels can spark some joy the way The Mandalorian did for SW.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 13, 2020 12:42:38 GMT -6
2-3 hours is the sweet spot for me. 2 hours is fine as long as sessions are very regular (weekly sessions, for instance.) Otherwise, I'd rather carve out a 3 hour block if sessions are more infrequent than weekly. More than 3 hours seems to encourage lots of breaks and attention starts to wane, especially online where I almost exclusively play.
As the DM, I prefer to always leave players "wanting more," so I prefer shorter sessions overall. Shorter 1.5-2 hour sessions also allow for easier prep, which I'm always a fan of. Any session shorter than the runtime of a movie seem hardly worth the effort, at least for adults.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 18, 2020 11:16:28 GMT -6
FWIW, here is the AD&D 2E chart:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 17, 2020 12:45:26 GMT -6
I agree though that OD&D-bonuses was probably designed for 2d6 mechanics. OD&D as a vestigial 2d6-based game is starting to make more and more sense to me, whether or not that was actually ever the case, historically. You can play OD&D with just a pair of dice and everything just clicks for some reason. As an example, for the various "tiers" of the attack and save matrices, just add a simple +1 to 2d6 throws. Damage and HD are already d6-based, while reaction, morale, turn undead, etc. are obviously natively 2d6-based.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 17, 2020 12:38:51 GMT -6
You could extend that to all editions of D&D (and most RPG's, right?). The rules for a TTRPG are just a way to introduce some degree of randomness into a shared, imaginary headspace amongst players. Almost by definition would it be impossible to codify a "perfect" set of rules for such a circumstance, when those circumstances are ever-changing, ever-evolving and ultimately unpredictable. Video games, Card games, board games, etc. all have a finite set of possibilities that can be wholly governed by a certain ruleset. RPGs and some aspects of sports essentially require some degree of common sense and flexibility when making rulings. They only variable factor is the amount and complexity of the randomness desired, subjectively.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Apr 28, 2020 10:42:11 GMT -6
Snagged a copy. Very nice!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 28, 2020 13:13:25 GMT -6
Here’s how I do OD&D Elves:
1. Spell progression as Cleric 2. XP progression as M-U 3. Save and attack as F-M 4. Limited to 8th level
|
|