Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2022 17:17:41 GMT -6
I'd play using just MUs, Clerics and Thieves (maybe start at 4th Level) - keep the weapons restrictions and lean hard into employing and equipping hirelings
Ars Magica but fun
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 10, 2022 17:23:56 GMT -6
One player in his group tried to make AD&D classless using the Skills & Powers option. I hated it. He wanted to make it more like the HERO System. So I was like, why not just play HERO instead? We were both in a regular HERO group anyway.
I enjoy playing the HERO system, but sometimes, I just want to play D&D without all the optional material. No bells and whistles, no major changes. The basic game may be seen as a simple game by today's standards, but like buttered toast, it's comforting.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 10, 2022 21:42:06 GMT -6
Then you move into the territory of a classless game. Just a big list of options for the player to create their own character. Might as well play GURPS. How does removing one class makes the game classless? Why you don't consider the same about removing the Cleric or the Thief?* The Fighter is the class with less options around. The only thing he does is to Fight. When you remove Clerics you do remove a lot of options. When you remove Thieves you do remove lots of options. But removing the Fighter, that have almost no option or "abilities", specially in the older editions, move the game in a classless territory? How? EDIT: * Not assuming you do or don't, it was a poor way of in fact, asking you a question about if you do. Oops, I read your post in the context of the fighter & mu only discussion.
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jan 13, 2022 20:38:27 GMT -6
For my home game I have kept the Magic-User, Fighter and Cleric I kept cleric as a Templar for the good or evil god to bring the cosmic clash in the foreground Everything else or other classes is situational Sneaking and climbing is for the unencumbered Lock-picking and Wilderness survival and tracking can be justified urban or rural background, so a rural born fighter could be a "Ranger' as a descriptor not class. Assassins are fighters or the occasional magic users who is a paid professional Paladins are just a type of NPC group ala Dervishes etc I like LukeGearing idea that even Magic is something gained as a character add on so to speak not a class Aug 29, 2021 23:42:34 GMT 13 LukeGearing said: I have written a small section of a planned much-larger hex-crawl. Whilst intended for my (nearly unrecognisable) OD&D hack, it should be perfectly usable for a normal game. You can grab a PDF here. I am bad at linking This one odd74.proboards.com/thread/15064/small-hexcrawl-ruislip-surrounds
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 14, 2022 2:33:18 GMT -6
I've been thinking a little more about this topic and why I have come to believe that the three classes presented in Men & Magic are not enough to sustain a long-term campaign within my fantasy world.
First of all, my games often include long breaks between adventurers. I like when characters have something productive to do during that downtime. Some might be working a trade, others might by taming beasts, mixing alchemical compounds, designing mechanical devices, raising an army, and so on. Now, I could hand-wave all of those activities, but I prefer creating systems to help support more far-reaching improvisation (I want my guy to build a steam-powered airship. How can I do that?). I also enjoy when characters can specialize in and use those support skills to aid them in their adventures (My guy's an engineer, he should be able to pick locks and disable traps better than the woodsmasn, who in turn prevents us from getting lost).
I was also considering party roles. I want parties that feel different week to week depending on who shows up to the game. If Erikle, the group's most heavily armored warrior, is absent, the group will have to modify their tactics to compensate.
I enjoy seeing character fill these roles:
* Heavily armored, defensive warriors * Highly mobile, lightly armored swashbucklers * Two-handed bruisers * Stealthy loners who strike from the shadows * Specialist Mages (illusionists, fire mages, summoners, etc.) * Resourceful support characters (alchemists, engineers, healers, merchants, thieves, etc.)
The way OD&D handles specialization is through magical items. Unfortunately, I've always preferred filling my dungeons with incredibly powerful but dangerous artifacts rather than +1 swords and rings of fire resistance.
That all being said, I've found games like RuneQuest result in characters that feel quite similar to one another: everyone always wants to do a bit of everything, which isn't my goal. I want thieves that steal, knights with shining armor, and alchemist that lob vials of acid. Classes impose a degree of forced specialization that I think improves the game.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2022 5:13:51 GMT -6
I disagree that specialisation is through magical items. IMHO these are props or tools that are useable by all members of the class. One fighter is not differentiated from another by which magic items he can use. I think OD&D intentionally has few, general-purpose classes and that specialisation is achieved through player agency to do whatever they like.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 14, 2022 5:50:16 GMT -6
I disagree that specialisation is through magical items. IMHO these are props or tools that are useable by all members of the class. One fighter is not differentiated from another by which magic items he can use. I think OD&D intentionally has few, general-purpose classes and that specialisation is achieved through player agency to do whatever they like. I think I misunderstood something. Are you saying that the primary way OD&D characters different themselves with one another is time management?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2022 6:01:18 GMT -6
Not exactly; moreso by player choices. It's the player who chooses what his figure will do and therefore will not do. Or put another way: the players chooses what the figure will specialise in because he chooses to do that thing over other choices whenever he has the opportunity to do so.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 14, 2022 6:09:32 GMT -6
So a character who works as a sailor during downtime should become an increasingly experience sailor (better able to predict the weather, spot hazards at sea, tie knots, catch fish, swim through choppy waters, etc.)?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2022 6:49:39 GMT -6
Sure, why not? The player drives the direction of his character's evolving role in the campaign by his choices.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 14, 2022 7:01:11 GMT -6
I think our approaches are not really so different.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Jan 14, 2022 9:03:19 GMT -6
I think this is where I philosophically agree while my approach differs.
Where I agree is player agency and choices differentiate characters, which can also lead to which magic items are kept or employed, etc.
Where I differ is in moving that player agency out of the context of adventure and into the context of "down time" or what's happening outside the adventure.
I personally have little love for getting immersed in or refereeing mini-games of Papers & Paychecks and its variations (Slipknots & Sailors, Tanning & Trappers, etc.) simply to "rationalize" what a character is good in.
Perhaps a table of secondary skills, with player-referee partnership to handwave time in between adventures ... but adventures nonetheless for me!
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jan 14, 2022 16:10:56 GMT -6
I think this is where I philosophically agree while my approach differs. Where I agree is player agency and choices differentiate characters, which can also lead to which magic items are kept or employed, etc. Where I differ is in moving that player agency out of the context of adventure and into the context of "down time" or what's happening outside the adventure. I personally have little love for getting immersed in or refereeing mini-games of Papers & Paychecks and its variations (Slipknots & Sailors, Tanning & Trappers, etc.) simply to "rationalize" what a character is good in. Perhaps a table of secondary skills, with player-referee partnership to handwave time in between adventures ... but adventures nonetheless for me! Certainly doesn't have to be downtime Reference to previous (mis)adventures is a perfect way to suggest a PC has a reasonable chance as doing something
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jan 22, 2022 23:59:15 GMT -6
I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems relevant to the discussion. In a 2e Planescape campaign, I introduced my elf character as a thief. The party was about 4th-5th level before they realized that was my profession; my class was fighter/magic-user. My spells were all utility for thievery, and my levels were lower than everyone else so my fighting wasn't optimal. It was managed through a lot of notes to the DM, which kept everyone looking sideways at the " thief" lol.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 23, 2022 0:37:28 GMT -6
Absolutely, Punkrabbitt ! The naming conventions of class are often misleading. Still, when I imagine a thief through the lens of fantasy, the first image that springs to mind is more similar to the thief class than to a magic-user bent on petty crime. Just because a fighter or a magic-user can engage in thievery, I do not see a reason to discourage a player from playing a dedicated thief who hones his skills in mundane lockpicking and stealth over time in the same manner a fighter improves his swordsmanship. If a player comes to me and tells me, I want to play an steam-punk style inventor, I won't tell the character, "Oh, just play a magic-user and imagine your spellbook is a bundle of blueprints and your spells are really contraptions." While that is one possibilities, I would be much more inclines to ask the player to help me draft up a class. Why? Because a steampunk inventor is not a magic-user, and should not be treated as such.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 23, 2022 0:42:25 GMT -6
Certainly doesn't have to be downtime Reference to previous (mis)adventures is a perfect way to suggest a PC has a reasonable chance as doing something That can be done if the characters in your game are assumed to have a lifetime of wide-reaching experience behind them. I, however, have always been of the opinion that 1st-level characters are barely competent morons, more likely to win the Darwin Award than the Medal of Honor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2022 8:39:53 GMT -6
You can interpret a level 1 character's competence in a lot of ways. I think they've had some specialized training, at least a bit. A level 1 Cleric can already turn the Undead to give one example. Is this a matter of faith or training? That's the kind of thing a referee has to tailor to his or her specific campaign.
Frank Mentzer chooses to run his games in such a fashion that a character never has to roll to mount a horse under a non-stressful circumstance or to make a camp fire in grasslands area, because he assumes a questing adventurer has competence in basic adventuring things. Obviously the rules with his name attached have a lot of skill rolls and other assumptions that run counter to this, so it's kind of a similar example to Gary writing all those rules for AD&D he never used. I guess they're for people who want them for a specific campaign style.
I'm kind of with Frank, though. Bob the Fighter can ride a horse because he's Bob the Fighter, not Bob the pig farmer or Bob the town simpleton. If he's trying to mount a horse while running from bandits or leap onto a horse's back from a rooftop at night, that's gonna be a die roll or two, but that's different. If he couldn't use one of the very basic tools of the adventuring trade he'd have no business being a Fighter at all. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 23, 2022 10:57:22 GMT -6
@ampleframework
I totally agree. Which is why I chose the phrase "barely competent". The cleric can turn undead and ride a horse, but hasn't had time to also become an apprentice blacksmith, a food tester, an alligator trainer, a hairdresser, a soldier, a lawyer, a painter, and a man/lady of the count all in one short period of adolescence.
Like Lewithwin. He's got a bit of fighter/magic-user under his belt, but he isn't close to mastering either craft. He's a decent fisherman, but a failed sailor. He might be able to ride a horse, but he probably couldn't train an owlbear (or a charmed goblin). That might not stop him from trying, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2022 12:47:50 GMT -6
@ampleframework I totally agree. Which is why I chose the phrase "barely competent". The cleric can turn undead and ride a horse, but hasn't had time to also become an apprentice blacksmith, a food tester, an alligator trainer, a hairdresser, a soldier, a lawyer, a painter, and a man/lady of the count all in one short period of adolescence. Like Lewithwin. He's got a bit of fighter/magic-user under his belt, but he isn't close to mastering either craft. He's a decent fisherman, but a failed sailor. He might be able to ride a horse, but he probably couldn't train an owlbear (or a charmed goblin). That might not stop him from trying, though. Yeah, I see what you're getting at. I was just clarifying my own ideas. I try to take a lot of cues from guys like Mentzer and Schick because I looked up to their writing style and imaginations for a long time. I tend to try to keep things basic and archetypal, as well, while leaving room for personal player interpretations for how characters ought to be. Your character in my campaign is "dumb" but he knows the basics of what he does and he succeeds when he puts his mind to things. You can have it both ways to a certain degree in the original game.
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Jan 23, 2022 14:18:04 GMT -6
Certainly doesn't have to be downtime Reference to previous (mis)adventures is a perfect way to suggest a PC has a reasonable chance as doing something That can be done if the characters in your game are assumed to have a lifetime of wide-reaching experience behind them. I, however, have always been of the opinion that 1st-level characters are barely competent morons, more likely to win the Darwin Award than the Medal of Honor. Oh by previous (mis)advenutres, I meant in game ones So say a 5th level characters who's player calls back to an adventure they had at 2nd level where they spent 6 months on a sailing ship trying to find the right island that the treasure map pointed to, when again finding themselves in a nautical situation, might be a bit for capable/useful to the ships crew now.
|
|