|
Post by hamurai on Jan 24, 2023 23:11:14 GMT -6
I’m intrigued by the impression that it’s very much geared to improvisation. It probably needs to have things strongly tied in to the setting and situation and characters at hand, as opposed to being a ‘machine’ that’s very interesting in the abstract. Physical combat appears to be less a sub-game in itself than an application of general rules for challenges (e.g., the three resource point pools). Correct, the basic rule is used for everything - in case of combat, the difficulty is represented by the enemy, the Target Number to hit is the difficulty times 3. That's also used to evade attacks from that enemy. There are a few exceptions, when enemies attack as "level +1" or something, and if you have applicable skills, you reduce the difficulty by 1 or 2 (before multiplying), depending on your skill level. If the difficulty falls to 0, the check is passed automatically. You can reduce the diffculty in other ways, like by using Effort, which means you spend some points of your stat pools to reduce the difficulty. Depending on your level (Tier), you can do that once or several times. I think it’s the Cyphers of the title that were mostly literal treasures (one-shot magic items) in Numenera, but call for some other rationale in other contexts because they’re pretty important to exciting flow of the game. Yep. In fantasy games, these would be potions, wands, magic arrows and other items which have 1 or just a few charges. In near Sci-Fi these could be drug injections, special ammo, etc. Not everything will be easy to tie into the game, and some Cyphers will just not fit your game, but that's for the GM to decide. The few and big steps in advancement might be less jarring to many OSR people than to folks accustomed to 20 levels, but I gather that there is (at least in the Claim the Sky supplement for the comicbook superhero genre) provision for extending to 15. That's true. It's just not a system for power-gamers and number crunchers. But that doesn't have t obe bad, does it? A shortcoming I’ve seen alluded to is in vehicle combat (but may be relevant to other contexts). Allegedly the maths of the abstraction break down in ways that remind me somewhat of Tunnels & Trolls. My guess is that’s probably easier to fix with a simple change of formalism in Cypher. I don't remember vehicle combat, to be honest. Our GM said he used the same stats and rules as for characters when it was vehicle vs vehicle, I believe. But it didn't come up a lot, so I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 24, 2023 9:27:26 GMT -6
Of course that's what you can also do. In combat situations, different specials trigger from 17-20, the higher the better. You can then choose between additional damage or minor or major effects, which can generally be disarming the enemy, throwing them down, cornering them, breaking a hold/enchantment etc, or anything that fits the situation.
For example, in our Numenera campaign one of our group hit a phasing creature with a natural 20, which can trigger a major effect. The creature possessed the phasing ability because of some tech in its body, and the player decided that the hit damaged this tech and the creature lost the ability, making it easier to hit for the rest of the group. The GM went with that and after the second natural 20 from another character, we together thought it'd be interesting to see what happened if that phasing tech malfunctioned. So it did, and the creature went in and out of phase without control, unable to attack or interact much with its environment. Our stereotype warrior player decided that this won't be a real victory and he wanted to attack again, to make sure the thing is dead. He rolled a natural 1, so the GM was allowed to bring into play an Intrusion, so the attack actually struck the creature exactly when it was in phase again, but the hit totally crashed the phasing tech and the entire group was hurled into a pocket dimension along with the dead creature. The next adventure was to find a way out of this mess. Some players don't come up with lots of fun ideas for special effects but we worked together and our GM was always glad to find out what mess we'd get ourselves into with our great ideas.
In a D&D game, a major effect could be chopping off a beholder's eye-stalk or a hydra's head, a minor effect might just blind the eye for some time.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2023 23:38:27 GMT -6
Thanks hamurai Can you really get those special results too often? Well, if you use a d6 and use the 6 as the special result, they'd all be the same - and then, which do you use? 17-20 all have slightly different specials in combat, which would be subsumed in the roll of 6. If you rule you get a special on 5 and 6, the chance to get one increases quickly. Of course, if you like to speed up combat and give players an advantage, that's an option.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2023 23:36:05 GMT -6
(3) "God Forsaken" is the fantasy sourcebook for the system, and probably the least cool of the three so far, but it talks about different styles of fantasy play. That was actually not that bad! I haven't played this setting, but from reading it, I'd say it's a nice non-standard, dark fantasy setting. I'd also like to add the (older) "Predation" setting book to your list. If you remember Dino Riders, you know a lot about the setting. We've played a one-shot and it was fun. Another setting from the older Worlds of the Cypher System Kickstarter is "Gods from the Fall" where the PCs take on characters who have the spark of the gods in them, and try to rekindle the flames. It's a rather special setting which didn't really click with my group back then. The Superhero setting "Unmasked" is not the generic Superhero thing, it's about teenagers who just got their powers, so play would probably include a lot of role-playing about how to continue to live their lives with the powers. One of the stretch goals in said KS was "Expanded Worlds" which had lots of ideas for homebrew settings. But I believe the second edition core book and the new setting books include include all the info you'd find in Expanded Worlds. My personal experience with the system in short: * As a GM I really liked it. I like rolling the dice, but not rolling in between allowed me to spin the story undisturbed and I remember once when playing Numenera, I was so caught in telling the story and my players were listening so intently, we just forgot to roll. * As a GM, I really like how adventures are presented. VERY open, only the major plot points are given but you can switch many of them if you want. The modules give advice on what it possible there. My one-shot adventures fit on 2 pages which I just tucked into my DM screen. Not much game downtime spent on reading. * As a GM introducing friends to the setting, I liked how quickly we were able to start. We tried Warhammer Fantasy RPG with the Cypher System, I pre-selected a couple of things for the players to choose from, they filled in some numbers and we played several hours on the first evening afterwards. * As a player, I liked character creation. Basically, you combine a "class" and a Focus, which is your special - you could combine a "caster" class with a Focus like "Possesses a Shard of the Sun" and be a cleric of light, or a flaming wizard; or combine the same Focus with a "warrior" class and get a paladin with a flaming sword etc. (I'm using D&D references but of course you can do whatever you like, dependign on the setting.) * As a player, I liked the easy rules. I made reference cards with the main rules on a paper the size of a business card, combat rules on the back. * As a player, I liked the resource management aspect of using special powers. You have 3 stats in the game, special powers use stat points to activate, but enemy attacks reduce these stat pools as well. * As player and GM I realized that advancement wasn't meant to cover huge campaigns. There are basically 6 levels, each accomplished by advancing 4 stats with XP. There are optional rules for continuous advancement after Level 6, but as far as I remember, they bascially mean you either lose your powers and start over with a new Focus, or you add a new Focus on top which could break game balance when you play with power-gamers. That said, even in our Numenera campaign we never got past Level 4, which took a while. I trust Monte Cook Games here, that probably works after all. * Some players disliked the player-faced rolls, arguing that if an enemy misses or hits was just GM will. True, but if you want randomness, you can easily just roll a die and use the result as you like.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2023 23:07:01 GMT -6
It uses a d20 for task resolution. You basically take the difficulty, multiply by 3, and that's the number you need to hit on the d20 roll. Modifiers impact the difficulty before the final target number is determined, so you figure out any penalties or bonuses, then multiply that final outcome by 3. Keeps it pretty straightforward. Sounds like I could omit the "multiply by 3" step, omit (or maybe scale back) "modifiers", and then just throw a d6? There are some factors which might reduce the Target Number by 1 or 2. It's not often though, usually you reduce your difficulty step and reduce it, then it's multiplied by 3. You also get to choose special results for rolling a 20, and in combat when you roll 17-20, the higher the better. In combat you can mostly boost your damage, or with 19 and 20 maybe disarm, cripple, or otherwise gain an effect. Rolling a 1 means the GM can use an "Intrusion", which was already mentioned. They can introduce a complication to the situation, like the character dropping their weapon, an enemy thought dead rallies, etc. Very basically, you're right, though! "No, Thank You, Evil!" is the related game for kids which uses a d6 and similar mechanics, though less complicated. I'd advise against using the d6 mechanic for the Cypher games, though, as you'd lose all the special rolls or get them too often.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2023 14:27:03 GMT -6
It's a really quick game system and easy to adapt to any setting, really. We've played Cyberpunk, Warhammer, and several pre-defined Cypher Settings (The Strange, Numenera) and it worked nicely. The amount of character development is limited in the vanilla game, though. The idea is to value story and exploration above numbers.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 15, 2023 23:28:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 7, 2023 10:48:18 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with Over the Edge, the link to download their OGL and SRD doesn't seem to work? www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/WaRPSystemPackage.zip (direct link in case you have trouble) You have to scrol lto the bottom of the page to find it. Also, it didn't work right away with Chrome for me, for some reason. Firefox did the trick, though. Later tries also worked with Chrome.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 3, 2023 10:57:20 GMT -6
As for myself, I'm thinking of dropping even the cleric in a new campaign I am planning, and just going with FM and MU. It's not just that they step on both fighters and magic users, they also take the wind out of undead. I am always bored and disappointed when an undead encounter is negated by a single roll. I think the roll to turn undead causes the same issues that thief skills do, a rote roll tied to a specific class that makes the other classes irrelevant in that moment. That depends on how your Turn Undead ability works - ever since I read OD&D's entry "Monster turned away" we play that the affected undead actually just turn away, they can't bear the sight of the cleric and their holy symbol. It doesn't matter if they actually "see" them, it's pretty much instinct to them to shrink away, cower down... But they don't run away, so they'll still be there and need to be destroyed. The cleric can't use other abilities while holding the undead at bay, so no healing the others who combat those undead who didn't turn away. Destroy the cleric's concentration and the turned undead will recover within [2d4-HD] rounds and attack the cleric with priority. Just some ideas to limit the Turn Undead ability.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 2, 2023 1:36:58 GMT -6
Happy New Year, folks!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 31, 2022 1:57:35 GMT -6
Yeah, ChatGPT is amazing. Ask it to write a D&D adventure, you'll get a good synopsis and only have to flesh it out and draw maps. It's also good at writing Manowar songs
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 29, 2022 2:50:20 GMT -6
I'm toying around with making the Thief the "basic class" and adding other abilities, like better fighting capability or magic, on top.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 29, 2022 0:59:22 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing your ideas!
Concerning Phantasmal Forces: I know, the wizard needs to be stationary, but I could have him hide behind a terrain piece, cast the spell and create a dragon, fly it to the enemy and attack them until destroyed/dispelled or until the 4 turns are up. Then I can create a new dragon. Since "Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack", I'd need someone or something able to detect hidden creatures to even be able to attack and disturb the wizard who keeps creating Phantasmal Forces. (Spell-casting doesn't seem to break this invisibility.) And now for the really strange idea: Sure, while PF lasts the wizard can't cast other spells or shoots missiles. But what if I create a phantasmal wizard? Shouldn't they be able to do just that?
Polymorph: Complexity 4, even if it does actually turn the wizard into another creature, what's the point? Phantasmal Forces creates another creature which means the wizard doesn't have to move into battle himself, and PF is only C2. If polymorphed, I effectively trade the wizard for another unit, don't I? Unless I polymorph into a unit which can see hidden enemies, I don't know why I should.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 28, 2022 0:30:03 GMT -6
The first time reading Chainmail was an "Aha!" moment for me where some of these spells were concerned. I can see how this would be very useful in battle, but I suspect many spells were just ported over to D&D before anyone realised they were more suited to wargaming than RPGs. In that case, allow me to point you and the rest to the Chainmail sub-forum and my yet unanswered thread: Spells: Hallucinatory Terrain, Phantasmal Forces & Polymorph Also, I guess these imported spells might have their use once you reach the barony tier of the game, if the situation fits.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 27, 2022 1:11:47 GMT -6
This might also be a spell for NPCs, as Geas/Quest seem to be assumed mainly as an excuse why stuff works some way or other. PCs might move through a wood only to discover later that it was a group of monsters. "Haha, twist!" Not sure how often that spell would be useful in a normal campaign. I mean, the spell is always useless when the enemy knows the area. For example, if you want to stealthily attack a castle, the guards will probably be quite alert if there's a sudden wood popping up outside the castle walls.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 27, 2022 1:00:22 GMT -6
Of course, "monsters" are not necessarily "characters", could be non-player "characters" though. NPCs are technically "monsters", though, if they're "found in the dungeon" (see M&M "Non-Player Characters", p.12 Premium Edition (PE)).
"Characters" are PCs or NPCs, so Reincarnation works for "monsters" as long as they fit the above definition, at least RAW. My guess is, the idea is that no one would use that spell on any random creature, only named "characters", either in player or DM control.
"Creatures" might exclude constructs.
In M&T, the monster table has the heading: "MONSTER REFERENCE TABLE, HOSTILE & BENIGN CREATURES:"
"Robots, Golems, Androids" are the last explanatory entry before the treasure section begins (M&T p.22 PE), and they're not on the monster table. Probably just coincidence, because they're "Self-explanatory monsters which are totally subjective as far as characteristics are concerned", so a table entry wouldn't make sense.
Edit: Anyway, to answer the topic's title: In a normal game, I'd say "Yes, characters are creatures." Since M&M tells us we could literally play anything we want, it might be that characters are non-creatures, assuming robots, androids and golems are excluded for a reason from the monsters/creatures table. Personally, I'd assume a "creature" to be anything of sentience, but I guess I'd have to check the LBBs if that holds up to all mentions of creatures.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 26, 2022 1:34:08 GMT -6
The wizard gets answers, but they're so overwhelming that the caster's mind is not only incapable of understanding the answers, but goes insane while processing the images/sounds/feelings conveyed by whatever answered. I might allow a wizard player to later dig into their own crazy memories and try to make sense of it, or go insane again trying. Might be an interesting adventure idea: The wizard manages to expel the memories into a pocket dimension outside of their own head, and the party can go in and try to decipher the clues they can gain from this crazy world. And mess up some childhood memories, too
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 24, 2022 12:54:01 GMT -6
Without having thought much about the mathematics of it, presumably healing times would remain static throughout most of the character's career, wouldn't they? Assuming Greyhawk HD, anyway. The MU is guaranteed to be fully healed up in 4 days no matter what level, the fighter in 8. In effect it's the same as saying that a character heals X% of hits per Y period of rest. Indeed. A 1st-level FM with 7 HP lost would take just as long to recover as a 10th-level FM with 70 HP lost. I wonder, though, if that's good or bad. Can't decide yet. Plus, I think I'd rather have all classes heal equally fast, so a MU with only half as many HP as their FM companion will take the same time recovering from losing only half of the HP. Maybe a static recovery of the average number (rounded up) gained by each Hit Die would even it out. So, MU recovers 3 HP, FM recovers 5 HP, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 24, 2022 0:17:44 GMT -6
Since Holmes' 1 to 3 HP matches the levels covered by Basic, one idea I've had is to have the amount regained correspond to level. 1 HP per day at 1st, 2 HP per day at 2nd, etc, and then extend that progression to higher levels. Possibly modified by the Constitution bonus/penalty per day. Interesting idea. That'd really speed up healing, but too much? Consider a 10th-level FM with high CON and maximum HP, they have 90 HP. They'd heal 11 HP per day, so they're almost entirely healed for the full amount after 8 days. A 10th-level MU with normal CON and maximum HP would have 40 HP and be fully healed within 4 days. Now, using a realistic amount of HP and assuming the presence of a cleric would mean a party would fully heal after around 4 days or so? Sounds like more heroic play. Maybe the CON score could be used as a cap here. You can quick-heal as many HP as you have CON, but the rest would have to be healed slowly. That way, you'd make sure characters can catch a quick breath but not be ready for the next dragon-slaying campaign in a breeze.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 24, 2022 0:06:16 GMT -6
One more thing. It's really weird that Moldvay's Basic has a rule about natural healing and BECMI/RC does not. Absolutely. I was baffled when I realized that. But then I thought it may be an indicator that natural healing of HP was not happening, as every party had their healing potions and/or clerics and/or other healing items readily available, so natural healing was not a thing in the games of old? Not sure about that assumption, but it's the only way I can wrap my head around the idea that natural healing would be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 23, 2022 23:54:10 GMT -6
It's used to "conceal... as", that makes it clear for me it's an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 22, 2022 10:27:36 GMT -6
This, exactly! The first is a general statement, the second compares one to the rest and that's the way @alderon and I read it. Curious how you would than express “every other day” in that sentence with the intent of skipping a day? What about "every second day thereafter"?
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 22, 2022 2:59:00 GMT -6
Here's the relevant portion of the handwriten Blackmore notes from Greg Svenson's 1972 Chainmail booklet: "Life and death: Mortal 7 pt. damage to kill Hero 14 pt. " " " Super Hero 28 pt. " " " Wizard 21 pt. " " " recover 1 pt./day" And here is the quote from Beyond this Point be Dragons - Mark Buffkins 1973/74 edit of the D&D draft: "RECOVERY: At the end of combat, all loss of hits must be made up for the victim to be completely “recovered”. Hits are usually recovered at a rate of 1 to 2 per day for lower level creatures, and more for those with more hits to lose. The amount is up to the Referee, but it should not be easy to recover from near-death blows." Personally, I'd say that's hardly proof because HP are handled differently in D&D than described in these Blackmore notes; and they're clearly not recovered the way described in BtPbD. For me, it's clear because of the stress on "On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained", followed by a "but", therefore "every other day" means "each following day" in contrast to them not being the first. I know, that's just my personal understanding and probably influenced by the fact that I'm not a native speaker of English. Since I've always found 1 HP/day to be too slow a healing rate, it never even crossed my mind it could mean something else, which would indicate an even slower rate of healing. In the end, I believe it's just one more example of ambiguous, "crappy" writing which serves to confuse as much as it does to clarify. It's always been my main (and only real) complaint with OD&D, as I believe that a writer of a game should either state a rule in a clear and unmistakable way, or leave it out entirely, so the players can make their own.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 18, 2022 1:37:59 GMT -6
Finarvyn you might want to take a look at the free basic rules here: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/272802/OldSchool-Essentials-Basic-RulesSo you can see the layout, how it's written and presented, the artwork etc. The boxed set has the booklets of OSE, not the all-in-one tome. It has some space left for you to add other booklets later, for example the Advanced classes backported from AD&D, or some adventure modules. (I recommend Winter's Daughter, I ran it at a con and it was great fun.) Personally, I prefer B/X slightly over any other edition. I have an old Basic set for the fun of it, for nostalgia, to flip through the pages.... But at the table I prefer a cleaned-up version. A product that lets you reference stuff quickly. The OSE booklets are a good way to do this, the caster can keep their Spells booklet, someone might want to look up their character class, another booklet. The DM has the Rules booklet maybe, or looks up stuff on the DM screen, which is really good in my opinion. It has nice artwork to look at for the players, and nothing but clean info for the DM. I guess if I had to find a bad thing about OSE, it would be the "clean" aspect. If you're used to the sometimes charmingly confusing old booklets, the unprofessional artwork, the small text and walls after walls of it, and you like all this - well, OSE doesn't have that. Which is good when actually playing, in my book. If you see the old Basic box sets as a piece of art which takes some time to make sense of, then OSE is more of a modern tool which is easy to use. B/X for the younger generations, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 15, 2022 22:59:14 GMT -6
If I was to list the top 3 things about 3.0 OGL would be #1. SRD would be #2 and ascending AC would probably be #3, that or removing all race/class/level restrictions. My #3 would be Saving Throws Fortitude, Reflex, Will. I totally agree about Ascending AC. Descending AC is the one thing that confuses most folks when they try an older edition.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 14, 2022 10:03:20 GMT -6
I know it's not "the same", as in "it is a vintage product", but if accessibility and ease of use is important, I'd recommend going for Old School Essentials. The presentation is modern and easy on the eye, it's put together well and collects info where it makes sense. Optional rules are there, too, like if you want to get rid of race-as-class. There are several very good modern modules (with old school atmosphere but no endless text walls) for it, too. Rules are available either as a full "tome" which includes everything, or as booklets, which collect basic rules, characters, spells, monsters etc. in different little booklets, which are perfect for looking up a piece of info during play.
And if need be, you can expand the game via the Advanced books, which backport AD&D classes and optional rules to B/X.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 13, 2022 23:26:39 GMT -6
Again, thanks for sharing! Our 5E DM is very happy right now
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 12, 2022 23:19:36 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing! I have never had a look at S&S and now I know I didn't miss a thing. Personally, I think S&S has some useful information in it for the OD&D ref. .... And a bunch more, I'm sure. Does it also have spell effects explained for CM spells? I'd love some explanation on these.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 12, 2022 7:40:43 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing! I have never had a look at S&S and now I know I didn't miss a thing.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 11, 2022 0:31:00 GMT -6
When I was DM, I never had a character die from any of the lower undead, only a vampire, and I ruled that the transformation takes a while. Apart from being influenced by Vampire the Masquerade, common belief and stories I had heard told about people being buried and then rise as vampires, so I ruled that transformation takes place upon next new moon (also to contrast it to lycanthropy). My players then had d30 days to get their friend to a place where they can at least prevent undeath from happening, or maybe even resurrect him.
When I was player, another PC got killed by a Shadow and they immediately rose as a Shadow.
In general, when thinking about it, I'd say corporeal undead take some time to transform, but a transformed soul (like a shadow, a wraith...) can be transformed on the spot by the traumatic experience.
|
|