|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 8, 2017 14:48:39 GMT -6
Great research there. Very interesting, thank you. That's my fault for hitting the first relevant google link and not looking further down the results list.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 6, 2017 12:36:23 GMT -6
Thanks for all the background history everyone. I started with 2E (crits are an optional rule) and Basic (20s are auto hits) hence my historical confusion. So many good ideas being thrown around! It's nice to see all the different ways people implement the concept. I've never read or played 1E, so many conventions therein are lost and foreign to me. It's also nice to see that many people eschew crits completely which seems to fit with GG's philosophy. Anyone know how DA felt about crits? Also, here is a great post I found about the history of critical hits while googling: songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/a-short-history-of-critical-hits-in-dd/
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 4, 2017 19:59:12 GMT -6
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most of what's mentioned above concerning rolling a 20 would also apply to rolling a 17, 18, or 19 as well, right? A 17 or higher always hits according to the charts, I think. That would make rolling a 17-20 all equally special! That's pretty cool!!
Also, is it common to assume that a 20 always hits no matter the magic bonuses/penalties and a 1 always misses?
I'm surprised that so many people don't do anything special for rolling a 20, but I totally dig it. One less thing to worry about. And just to reiterate, I'm not arguing for crits. As I said above, I'm glad they aren't a written rule.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 3, 2017 22:47:21 GMT -6
There isn't a need, but some find it exciting. To me, the excitement of rolling a 20 isn't about doing more damage, but about hitting when the odds are low. I've never played in a game without crits but I'd really like to.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Nov 3, 2017 20:50:57 GMT -6
While I agree that rolling maximum damage is essentially a "critical hit," there is something so visceral and satisfying about rolling a 20 on the to-hit roll. As long as it works both ways (PCs and monsters) then i'm okay with the added variability and unpredictability of crits.
I will also say that all critical hit and fumble rules should be mostly optional and campaign-specific. I'm actually glad they aren't a written rule in OD&D. As written, each group already has to decide whether or not 20s and 1s are auto hits and misses, respectively, since those situations aren't in the rules either.
Bonus question: Does anyone know when critical hit house rules began appearing in the hobby? Did they exist pre-AD&D?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 30, 2017 13:45:26 GMT -6
I love d6s, but I do not love dice pools. It's my eternal struggle.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 4, 2017 23:06:04 GMT -6
Thanks to everyone for the replies. A group of 9 is very doable and your analysis waysoftheearth is great as usual. I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm not too far off from these numbers much like Scott Anderson. Right now we have 4 PCs, 2 NPCs, and a friendly lammasu (don't ask lol). I'm gonna give it a go and float the idea of a good ol' fashioned dungeon crawl sometime before the holidays. I'm sure I'll screw something up but that's the best way to learn. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 4, 2017 13:21:12 GMT -6
This is all very interesting to me. Without any bearers or mules, a typical fighter/cleric can only carry about 2000 GP at a time before becoming immobile according to the encumbrance rules. I guess that's either a trip back to town every 2000 XP, or coins should be largely ignored and only the most valuable treasures hauled out of the dungeon. A combination of both sounds cool.
I'm liking the strategy of it all for sure. It adds another fun layer to the game. I might have to try this out and see how it goes.
It could be interesting to see what the players decide to do (or not do). I just worry about pacing progression properly in a dungeon, but hopefully that could come with more practice. Also, I think the rules say that characters can only gain 1 level of XP per adventure. That would help mitigate any mistakes I make estimating the amount of treasure to place per level. It sounds like most of this depends on how dungeon-centric I want the the next campaign to be.
Does anyone have a "go to" OD&D module or example for placing treasure based on dungeon level? I don't currently own any TSR modules and the rules only specifically talk about random generation. How does it usually work? I've never ran or played in a megadungeon (more than a couple levels). I've heard the Mentzer B/E books have good examples of play. Would those help?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 3, 2017 21:53:10 GMT -6
But "XP for gold" has nothing to do with "world simulation." It is an artifact designed to create the kind of game Gary and Dave wanted. ^^^And that's probably the single best reason and the only justification needed. I certainly agree with everyone that as a game abstraction it's a very elegant and well-designed solution to track progression that Gary and Dave perfected right out the gate. It's both practical and ties XP, wealth, combat, spellcasting, domain-play, encumbrance, and movement together very nicely. Heck, even Super Mario uses gold coins to gain HD (ahem, lives). It's a classic notion that's had a massive influence on many types of games. I think if I attempted it the way it was originally designed, I'd be very liberal with "Bags of Holding" and such to avoid the awkwardness of carrying around buckets of treasure without having to resort to taking a team of treasure-bearers and pack mules into a dungeon. I think with some trial and error, I could figure out how much treasure to sprinkle around the world and keep the pace of progression to everyone's satisfaction. I'd also put more emphasis on gems and jewelry and such to make things easier. Then again, maybe most of this was all hand-waved anyway. I wish I could have seen it in action. Anyhow, as I said, I tend to go back and forth. I see the many merits of the original system. Lately, I've just been lazy tracking all this stuff which is all my own fault. It doesn't seem like anyone has noticed or been bothered by it (yet, lol). Luckily, at this point, everyone is happy to just show up and play without worrying much about XP. This could change one day I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 3, 2017 19:26:20 GMT -6
I always go back and forth on this. One nice benefit of XP for Gold™ is that it encourages exploration and creative means of treasure acquisition (i.e. combat avoidance). It also deemphasizes killing everything in sight which can be good or bad depending on the group. I'll admit that some groups prefer hunting monsters to hunting treasure and vice versa.
On the other hand, earning XP almost exclusively affects combat and spellcasting (see a thread I made detailing this in this sub which I need to update). Logically, I don't understand why avoiding combat and stuffing your pockets with coins, gems, jewelry should make you better at fighting and casting spells. Fighting and casting spells should be the primary XP earners since those are the things that are affected by XP. Gold is extremely useful and powerful all on it's own without any need for additional XP-related perks.
Likewise, a thief who never fights and sneaks around stealing treasure shouldn't get better at fighting. The thief should get better at stealing and sneaking. However, thieves are a whole other can of worms.
All said, I've ended up just leveling PCs every 5-6 sessions which will take a weekly group at least a year to reach name level. Anyone can give up their "session XP" to another character if they wish to spread the wealth and bring up a lower level PC. I don't track XP, encumbrance, movement rates, or milestones (however, players can track anything they want if they think it would be fun or more realistic) so this isn't an issue for us and everyone seems happy with it.
I'm at the point in life where I want the biggest motivator to be attendance and consistent participation (sadly). I will also say that playing online has certainly helped attendance.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 30, 2017 13:07:02 GMT -6
Welcome back, Ways! That's an interesting proposition: can a magic sword with speech and Read Magic cast a spell from a scroll? The rule of cool (my favorite rule!) says yes. A sword with those abilities would be able to cast MU spells from a scroll. And? What a fun item to have in play, too! I like it. An intelligent sword can't acquire scrolls on its own. A fighter can't read non-protection scrolls without an intelligent sword capable of reading magic. However, with their powers combined...!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 29, 2017 17:39:41 GMT -6
Just for reference, here are some snippets from M&T that I could find:
M&T (p. 26-26):
Medallion of ESP, 3” Range* Medallion of ESP, 9” Range* Amulet vs. Crystal Balls and ESP* Scarab of Protection from Evil High Priests* Bag of Holding* Brazier Commanding Fire Elementals Bowl Commanding Water Elementals Efreet Bottle* Displacer Cloak* Elven Cloak and Boots* Boots of Speed* Boots of Levitation* Boots of Traveling and Leaping* Broom of Flying Helm of Reading Magic and Languages* Helm of Telepathy* Helm of Chaos (Law)* Flying Carpet* Drums of Panic, 24” Range* Horn of Blasting, 10” Range* Gauntlets of Ogre Power* Girdle of Giant Strength*
*Usable by all classes
M&T (p. 25): "All wands usable by Magic-Users only" [Staves are M-U/Cleric]
M&T (p. 32): "All “Protection” spells can be used by any character who is able to read" [Scrolls]
M&T (p. 33): "Rings are usable by any type of character."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 27, 2017 22:32:46 GMT -6
Great post. That is all.
|
|
|
1979
Sept 27, 2017 22:03:52 GMT -6
grodog likes this
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 27, 2017 22:03:52 GMT -6
I wasn't alive in 1979, but I bought the MM PDF reprint and it is as awesome as I imagined it to be. I use it as a reference for every edition. It's a classic.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 27, 2017 21:56:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 19:06:34 GMT -6
You are making us all look bad krusader74 ! Lol, very nice walkthrough there. I don't understand it all but it's really cool of you laying things out like that. Above and beyond!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 3:10:33 GMT -6
For reference:
Cumulative normal distributions in 0.5 intervals: 16% 31% 50% 69% 84%
Compared to d6: 17% 33% 50% 67% 83%
That's a d**n near perfect match!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 1:52:55 GMT -6
People have trying to make dice pools happen for decades. It's always the sexy option. But, in my limited experience, linear probabilities just flow better at the table and from a design perspective.
Now, d100 is overkill to me (the very best humans can't discern much less than 1.5 normal cumulative variation or about 6.6% (VERY close to the d20 5% granularity). This is why the d20 is perfect. If you rolled a d20 30 times and announced "success" every time a 15 or higher was rolled, then did the same thing with a 14 or highter, would you be able to to pick out the subset of rolls that succeeded more often? Well in this case some people might be able to but not most. This puts the d20 right on the edge of human awareness which is perfect. Almost nobody could tell the difference between event A occurring 66% of the time and event B occurring 67% of the time. 1% is just too granular for humans.
Single d6 rolls match up with 0.5 normal distribution intervals almost perfectly which is an amazing coincidence. This is why the d6 gets so much love. It's the best die for everyday modelling and observations. The five degrees of nonzero granularity that a d6 provides fits the way nature works the best. I believe that we humans can sense that somehow with the d20 approaching our limits of casual observation.
Thus, straight d20 and d6 rolls hit the sweet spot for me. If your design is made so that the pool size never changes (monopoly, yahtzee, reaction checks, etc.) and the extremes aren't much less 6.6% then they can work out great. So maybe don't give up quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 0:19:55 GMT -6
Updated link in previous post to reflect changes.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 12, 2017 23:53:12 GMT -6
Now my question is, what would be the probability distribution of the 3-18 results in each case? anydice.com/program/cea2Click "At Most" to get chances of success or "At Least" for chances of failure in your roll under system (it would be reversed in a roll over system). EDIT: Try the link again. I made some goofs.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 12, 2017 23:05:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 10, 2017 22:59:55 GMT -6
Mine is called Whip It Out
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 10, 2017 21:28:52 GMT -6
Yeah those are super cute. Here's the D&D version from reddit:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 10, 2017 20:22:08 GMT -6
I nominate Dinkie Rizzle as the forum's official mascot!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 9, 2017 0:27:26 GMT -6
"Overthinking & Arguments" "Lawyers & Mathematicians"
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 8, 2017 23:58:34 GMT -6
"Heroes & Magic" seems like a logical choice. "Monsters & Magic" could work for alliteration purposes. Either of those would attract 10-year-old past me to the game.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 2, 2017 19:51:27 GMT -6
I'm afraid there isn't much in the way of consistency. It's pretty much an ebb and flow. An art form if you will. The best thing you can do is jump in, make mistakes, find your flow and run with it! Start with Gygax's view in OD&D: a score of below 9 is below average (BAD). Abilities from 9-12 are average (nearly ALL characters, PC or NPC, will have these scores in everything). Abilities above 12 are above average (GOOD). Start there and refine by acknowledging that scores above 14 are "exceptional". Practice and you should be able to take it from there Great advice, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 2, 2017 17:45:22 GMT -6
An idea:
On a miss, allow the PC susceptible to friendly-fire a wands saving throw. They get hit on a failed throw.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 2, 2017 17:31:21 GMT -6
That makes sense, thank you. I really dig the speed and simplicity. This is actually what I meant by Referee fiat: using the scores subjectively to make decisions or at least influence die rolls. Sometimes my own simplicity doesn't convey enough information. I wish I had more experience with these methods. Care to share any examples of this murquhart72 ? These methods appeal to me, but I also want to be consistent with my players. I'm so used to combat and reaction bonuses and that being pretty much all of it. 5E is a much different story in how abilities are treated and in some ways I like it, but I've always been annoyed with the arbitrary DCs 5E uses for noncombat stuff. What scottenkainen said about pretty much allowing or not allowing noncombat stuff is something I want to try. I also like foxroe 's suggestions of ways to use the actual scores for similar things normally given only as bonuses. Lots of good ideas in here. Thanks everyone!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 2, 2017 16:44:53 GMT -6
Sure. I've certainly got my own house rules. But I've never tried to just condense the LBBs down. Someday! When I take big rulebooks it's worth my time to condense because they are often full of flavor text and fluff, but the LBB don't need much condensing because they are already so tiny. Oh, and the reference sheets in my LBB box is actually OD&D condensed. All of the key tables but no paragraphs. I was ecstatic to find out that when I ordered my PDF reprints, they included original scans of the reference sheets. They aren't even recreations. They are warts and all. It is my most-used OD&D PDF, no exaggeration. The only custom change I made was removing the watermarks with a plain text editor after decompressing the PDF. I'm glad WotC decided not to encrypt them.
|
|