|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 10, 2016 16:03:42 GMT -6
I'm writing a retroclone whose antecedents are Holmes, Marsh and Mentzer. This board is not exactly the right venue, but you are the right people to see it. The player's guide is done except for the cover, which is only mocked up. You can see it at my blog, link below.
|
|
LouGoncey
Level 4 Theurgist
"Lather. Rinse. Repeat. That's my philosophy."
Posts: 108
|
Post by LouGoncey on Aug 13, 2016 6:15:03 GMT -6
I like limiting Levels to 6. Keeps the game challenging.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 13, 2016 7:07:56 GMT -6
Thank you for looking. Thank you for the encouragement.
The reason for using six levels in the Players' Book is to keep things as simple as possible. Very few campaigns exceed level six in practice. In a normal group of players playing at a regular pace, a level six cap can take a year or more to reach. Monsters presented are (mostly) limited to 10 HD which, especially in groups, are an appropriate threat for canny players with level six characters.
However, it is possible that your campaign does go past level six. Or, you would like to oppose the player-character with higher level opponents. Or you would like to keep production of permanent magic items at the more appropriate level 9.
Therefore, the referee's guide will present extended experience level charts, magic spell progressions, and extended attack and save charts. Additionally, you will find spells for characters of levels 7-12. Again, six levels is plenty to sate your players' thirst for adventure but it's up to you to decide which way to play.
In a larger sense, that's the ethic I've chosen: to provide the ref with different options for playing, in order to encourage experimentation. Boiling the DIY ethic and OSR mind set into a short rule book meant to be used by young adults is too hard for me to do, but I can sprinkle a little of it in here and there.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 22, 2016 22:55:02 GMT -6
I can't wait to dip into this. But I'll have to, until I get home. The work servers say "no" to Google docs. d**nit! I will comment as soon as I can sneak a peek.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 23, 2016 5:11:06 GMT -6
I've only had a very quick look. I have and really enjoyed the original Basic Treasure Hunters with its Lord of the Rings feel. So much of what is here I'm also going to love. Two things irk me at the first hurdle however; firstly is the A5 or booklet style presentation as it's difficult to print, staple and manage in hardcopy format - I haven't advanced to the stage where I'm comfortable with digital rule books at the table. This I guess is a fairly minor quibble but I see it as an unnecessary obstacle to me using the game. Full-size legal or A4 is the way to go. Secondly, I'm surprised to see statistics boiled down to -1, 0 and +1. Fair enough, that was the solid basis of Treasure Hunters and it made perfect sense there since the modifier applied to a throw of 2 six-sided dice. Here the die being modified is twenty-sided making the basic character a magnitude weaker than the advanced counterpart. Not sure why you took that decision? Anyway, lots more reading to do.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 23, 2016 10:56:43 GMT -6
I can get you the Word doc if you want to re-format it. The A5 size is an experiment.
the +1 to -1 is mean to be super-simple. It's really very little difference from B/X, which grants a bonus or penalty of 2 for a score of 18. It's good input though. Thank you for looking.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 23, 2016 13:44:10 GMT -6
Based on mike's critique, I did reconsider the +1 to -1 scale for bonuses and penalties. What I have decided is that the bonuses are right for now.
Bonuses and penalties to rolls of +1 to -1 works for Mythical Journeys is because a lot of checks are on 1d6. A +1 on 1d6 is equivalent to 16.67%, a little more than up to +3 on 1d20, which is up to a 15% bonus.
The main checks that are done on 1d20 are attacks, saving throws, and ability checks. Ability checks are rare because a lot of checks are subsumed by specific 1d6 checks. Only dexterity affects attack rolls, and only for missile attacks. Dexterity also affects armor class. Strength does not affect attack rolls, only damage rolls. Wisdom affects magic saving throws. Ability checks look at the whole ability score, not the bonus or penalty.
The main checks on 1d6 are surprise, sneaking, searching, and feats of strength such as bend bars/lift gates. These are checks largely important within the dungeon.
The checks on 2d6 are reaction checks. Charisma affects reaction checks. It should not overwhelm the dice though.
In my opinion, stats should matter only a little. It is just as important that they be aids to the imagination as they are game mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 23, 2016 17:48:59 GMT -6
I can get you the Word doc if you want to re-format it. The A5 size is an experiment. the +1 to -1 is mean to be super-simple. It's really very little difference from B/X, which grants a bonus or penalty of 2 for a score of 18. It's good input though. Thank you for looking. An observation rather than critique sir. B/X has a bonus range of -3 to +3 (as did the original Basic Treasure Hunters). To my mind the original D&D scant modifiers were borne of the 2d6 combat system from Chainmail. Initially, when EGG created the d20 table he (or they) didn't change the statistic modifiers. Later, it was realised that +1 on 2d6 was much more powerful than +1 on d20 and further tweaking was required if ability scores were to remain relevant. Agreed, +1 on 1 six-sided die is a huge boon which leads me to believe that either "d20 combat" is not the way to go or the d6 mechanic should carry a different method of modification (perhaps by class rather than ability)? Just shooting the breeze.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 23, 2016 19:49:50 GMT -6
I am glad you are asking me these questions. Hard questions answered make for a better result.
Okay, I just took a look at my books again. OD&D had almost no bonuses for high or low stats. The Steve Marsh edited B/X had +1 and -1, with scores of 3 and 18 granting +2 and -2. Frank Mentzer BECMI had +3/-3. So we can see as things went along there was a trend toward inflating the in-game value of high and low stats.
By picking the +1/-1 range I do not mean to say one is more correct than another. The desisgn choice I am making is that characters' ability scores are not overly important and don't need such a big reward or penalty. The math seems to work OK to me, with the +1 on 1d6 being a little bigger than a +3 on 1d20.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 24, 2016 4:14:04 GMT -6
Hey Scott -- the game title "Mythical Journeys" puzzles me as it sounds a lot like Gary's "Dangerous Journeys" and/or "Mythus" (which I believe was the name of a DJ worldbook). That doesn't seem to match the details given in the original post ("Holmes, Marsh and Mentzer"). Having said that, I like what I'm reading in this thread so far and plan on poking around to see if I can find a copy of what you have posted so far.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 24, 2016 5:10:44 GMT -6
Hmmm... My Moldvay Basic runs -3 to +3?
Curious though, why go d20 for combat when TH (advanced) followed the 2d6 path? If you really want to keep it simple, drop the poly dice.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 25, 2016 11:52:38 GMT -6
Marv, I'll post another link to the game on my website later today. I didn't pick Mythical Journeys to sound like anything else, I just like the name. I would have stuck with Treasure Hunters, but that's already too confusing. There are two games with that name!
Mike: The reason I'm writing Mythical Journeys is to make a game that is compatible with other OSR games. It's not meant to be an improvement or update to Treasure Hunters (although don't we always strive to make the current thing better than the last?) Do we need another increasingly-idiosyncratic clone? Oh, no, absolutely not. It's just for fun. And you're right about the +3 to -3 in B/X. I'm not sure what I was looking at. Maybe the Charisma table, but that still doesn't track perfectly with what I was saying earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 25, 2016 15:05:01 GMT -6
Back to Odd Men & Monsters
Here's the updated list of monsters. It's about 145 altogether.
Ant, Giant Ape, Albino Basilisk Bear, Cave Bear, Grizzly Beetle, Fire Beetle, Giant Spitting Berserker (see Viking) black pudding blink dog Boar, Giant Bounder Buccaneers Marines and Pirates (N, L, C) Bugbear Carrionet Cat, Lion Cat, Sabre-tooth Tiger Centaur Centipede, Giant Chimera chimera Cockatrice Crocodile, Giant Dinosaur, Carnivore Dinosaur, Herbivore Dinosaur, Pterodon djinn and efreet doppleganger Dragon Turtle Dragon, Black Dragon, Blue Dragon, Gold Dragon, Green Dragon, Red Dragon, White Druid Dwarf Elemental, Water Elf Evil Fighter (veteran, villain, black knight) Evil Magi (initiate, magi, necromancer) fire beetle Fish, Giant Piranha Fly, Giant Carnivorous Gargoyle gargoyle gelatinous cube ghoul Ghoul (Undead) giant centipede giant rats giant tick Giant, Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, Stone giant, cloud gnole gnome goblin gray ooze green slime griffon harpy Hawk, Giant hell hound hippogriff Hobgoblin horse, light, medium, heavy, draft, mule Hydra, Normal, Pyro and Cryo Kobold Leech, Giant Lizard, Giant Gecko Lizardfolk Lycanthrope, Werebear Lycanthrope, Wereboar Lycanthrope, Werewolf manticora Mastodon Men, Berserker Men, Brigand Men, Dervish Men, Merchant Men, Merfolk Men, Nomad Men, Pirate Men, Rangers of the North Minotaur minotaur mummy Nagzul Neanderthal ochre jelly Octopus, Giant Ogre ogre Ogre, quantum Orc Owl Bear owl bear Owl, Giant Oxidation beast Pegasus pixie purple worm Satyr Scorpion, Giant shadow Shambling Mound shrieker Skeleton (Undead) skeleton Snake, Giant Python spider, giant stirge The Gorgon The Hydra The Medusa Toad, Giant treefolk troglodyte Troll Unicorn unicorn vampire Viking Wasp, Giant wererat, weretiger, werewolf wight Wolf Wolf, dire wraith yellow mold Yeti Zombie (Undead)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 25, 2016 16:33:08 GMT -6
Marv, I'll post another link to the game on my website later today. I didn't pick Mythical Journeys to sound like anything else, I just like the name. I would have stuck with Treasure Hunters, but that's already too confusing. There are two games with that name! Hey, Scott, no intent on my part to be critical.I was just saying that from the thread's title I automatically made one set of assumptions, from the info in the thread I got a different perspective. Knowing what your TREASURE HUNTERS stuff looks like, I'm sure that MJ will be solid! Oh, and I'm happy to see Nazgul on your monster list!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 25, 2016 17:57:07 GMT -6
If anyone has the gravitas and credentials to give thoughtful criticism, even if it's negative, it's you. By the way, everyone's welcome to pile on. It's all for fun after all!
|
|
LouGoncey
Level 4 Theurgist
"Lather. Rinse. Repeat. That's my philosophy."
Posts: 108
|
Post by LouGoncey on Aug 26, 2016 18:24:06 GMT -6
even though I am giving S&W:Whitebox a go for my next campaign, I have to give you a shout-out for your 'tic-tac-toe' preferred method for rolling up characters...
Consider it yoinked...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 27, 2016 12:37:05 GMT -6
The monster list stands at 160. It's a lot of men, actually. And a lot of man-types. 160 sounds like an incredible number, but it's 117 once you take out all the men and man-types.
Amber Hulks Ant, Giant Ape, Albino Basilisks Bear, Cave Bear, Grizzly Black (or Gray) Pudding Blink Dogs Boar, Giant Bugbears Carrionet Cat, Lion Cat, Sabre-tooth Tiger Centaurs Centipedes, Giant Chimeras Chub Toads Cockatrices Cyclopes Dinosaur, Apatosaurus Dinosaur, Elasmosaurus Dinosaur, Plesiosaurus Dinosaur, T Rex Dinosaur, Triceratops Displacer Beasts Djinn Dolphins Dragon Turtle Dragons, Black Dragons, Blue Dragons, Golden Dragons, Green Dragons, Red Dragons, White Dryads Dwarves Efreet Elementals Elementals, Air Elementals, Earth Elementals, Fire Elementals, Water Elves Fairies Fire Lizard Gargoyles Gelatinous Cubes Ghost Ghouls Giant Beetles, Fire Beetle Giant Beetles, Giant Stag Beetle Giant Crabs Giant Crocodile Giant Eels Giant Frog Giant Leech Giant Octopi Giant Otter Giant Sea Spider Giant Shark Giant Slugs Giant Squid Giant Wasps Giants, Cloud Giants, Fire Giants, Frost Giants, Hill Giants, Stone Giants, Storm Gnoles Gnomes Goblins Gorgons Gray Ooze Green Slime Griffons Harpies Hell Hounds Hippogriffs Hobbits Hobbits, bounders Hobgoblins Horses, Draft Horse Horses, Heavy Horse Horses, Light Horse Horses, Medium Horse Horses, Mules Hydras Inexorable Pursuers Insects or small animals Kobolds Lamprey Leprechaun Liches Lizard Men Lycanthropes Lycanthropes, Werebear Lycanthropes, Wereboar Lycanthropes, Wererat or Rat Man Lycanthropes, Weretiger Lycanthropes, Werewolf Manta Ray Manticoras Medusae Men, Bandits Men, Berserkers Men, Brigands Men, Buccaneers Men, Cavemen Men, Dervishes Men, Druids Men, Evil Acolytes Men, Evil High Priest Men, Evil Initiates Men, Evil Magi Men, Evil Necromancers Men, Evil Prelates Men, Mermen Men, Nomads Men, Orcish Men, Pirates Minotaurs Mummies Nagzul Nixies Nymphs Ochre Jelly Ocxidation Beast Ogres Ogres, Quantum Owl Bears Pegasi Phase Spiders Pixies Purple Worms Rocs Sahuagin (Devil-Men of the Deep) Salamanders Satyrs Sea Monsters Shadows Shambling Mound Shrieker Skeletons Stirges Titans Treefolk Trolls Unicorns Vampires Whale Wights Will O'Wisps Wraiths Wyverns Yellow Mold Yeti Zombies
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 28, 2016 21:36:45 GMT -6
I'm working up two different takes on hex crawling. One will be rules-light for most situations, and the other will be detailed, so you can conceivably play an entire hexcrawling campaign. Both currently scheduled for book 3, the referee's guide.
Also did work on encounter tables and treasure tables. Nothing is set yet but it looks good.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 31, 2016 10:14:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Aug 31, 2016 14:15:45 GMT -6
I like what I see so far. Not positive if you're using ascending or descending armor class, but I'll wait and see. Sorry to see that your world has only evil high priests and no nice high priests.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 31, 2016 16:35:41 GMT -6
I like what I see so far. Not positive if you're using ascending or descending armor class, but I'll wait and see. Sorry to see that your world has only evil high priests and no nice high priests. Oh dear LOL no there are plenty of good priests and magic users running around, but they're less likely to fight the party. The underlying morality is presented as pretty black and white, even though there's no rule for it. To me the game seems unlikely to inspire lots and lots of fights between two teams of good guys. We will use descending AC. A question for the assembled host:Is it okay, do you think, to go only with descending AC, or should I follow the de facto style guide and do both descending and ascending?
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Aug 31, 2016 18:12:11 GMT -6
Oh dear LOL no there are plenty of good priests and magic users running around, but they're less likely to fight the party. The underlying morality is presented as pretty black and white, even though there's no rule for it. To me the game seems unlikely to inspire lots and lots of fights between two teams of good guys. Then this cannot be set in the Marvel universe. .... At least not the Marvel Universe of the 20th century. The current comics, unlike most of their movies, made it easier for scripters by changing everyone's alignments. Superamalgamated bummer. I've always thought that was a klunky carryover from minis. That was the number one thing that made combat confusing to me and to every person I taught. Eventually, I had two rules for AC. 1 - If players wanted AD&D "by the rules," then blows & arrows would halt in mid-air if AC was gooder enuff; or 2 - We dumped AC completely. It's more fun if you switch from one to the other every combat turn. Guaranteed to get rid of that player who eats all the snacks but never brings any,.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Aug 31, 2016 21:49:09 GMT -6
I'm impressed with the innovative concept of ascending AC but I'm having trouble seeing how to implement it here. Ascending AC doesn't work with this rule set because the attack matrix is set up for descending AC. There's not even any THAC0 in the rules. I'm not even sure where I would explain ascending AC and THAC0 and/or assign base attack bonus increases. It would take an entire alternate explanation of combat. I don't even know what book I would put it in.
So the cost/benefit analysis says not to include it.
But
I'm still listening
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Aug 31, 2016 21:53:29 GMT -6
It's more fun if you use both at the same time. 😁
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 2, 2016 12:10:42 GMT -6
Boy howdy, but do I loathe formatting monster stat blocks! The tedium is killing me.
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Sept 2, 2016 13:33:31 GMT -6
Now you see one of the great attractions of TnT.
All seriousness aside, I am really loving reading your posts (progress reports?) because the steps of creating are, in themselves, interesting. The creator's reactions and frustrations with those steps (which almost always leads to unexpected places) are even more interesting - and fun. Thank you for letting us inside your head.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 2, 2016 13:48:00 GMT -6
There will probably be few posts of substance for a little while as I slog through the monster blocks and do the embryonic-level layout that I do... picking art and placing it roughly where it should be. I have a guy who does excellent layout work that you can see in the now-finished MJ Players Guide (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_0ONkhGdLg8bDlZOWtSMWlFWFU). I'm a duffer but I know what art I like, etc.
I'm through the "D" monsters now. After I do "zombie" I will go back to see what monsters I want to add into the list, hunt down likely stat blocks for them, and put them in. Still looking at about 160 guys. May decide to cut some for space reasons, but that's where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 20, 2016 4:49:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Sept 23, 2016 3:02:27 GMT -6
Now I am playing around with presenting monsters by taxonomy rather than in alphabetical order. That's how Gary did it and it makes a lot more sense to me than alphabetical. It's not like there's 100 pages of monsters and you need to be able to find them with an index or something.
Now, do I present them by type and then by hit dice, or by type and then alphabetically?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 28, 2016 8:42:26 GMT -6
Now I am playing around with presenting monsters by taxonomy rather than in alphabetical order. That's how Gary did it and it makes a lot more sense to me than alphabetical. It's not like there's 100 pages of monsters and you need to be able to find them with an index or something. Now, do I present them by type and then by hit dice, or by type and then alphabetically? type then hit dice would be my dream listing.
|
|