|
Post by coffee on Oct 8, 2009 16:21:32 GMT -6
In the spirit of friendliness and amiability that pervades this forum, we probably would never say "You can't talk about that here." We might suggest it, however.
But since many of the retro-clones (S&W, Searchers, etc.) either had their start here or got substantial assistance here, I don't feel like talking about them is really different from talking about OD&D. It's certainly not as different as hardcore gearheads going on about the Rules Cyclopedia or the Mentzer Immortals rules.
To me, the retro-clones seem like formalized "house rules to OD&D", and are thus fully within the scope of this forum. As are additional supplements, such as Carcosa.
It's this spirit of inclusiveness that makes it such a great place to be.
I guess I'm remembering when I first found this forum (go ahead, look back at the oldest posts) when I say things like the focus on Original D&D. I found this place originally because I, too, was sick and tired of wading through all the posts about Mentzer this and Rules Cyclopedia that on the "Classic D&D" section of Dragonsfoot.
(As an aside, I have nothing but respect for Frank Mentzer and almost nothing but respect for Aaron Allston, so it's nothing personal when I mention them in this context.)
But then, I've been here for a couple of years now. And they've been pretty good years.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Oct 9, 2009 9:18:28 GMT -6
I don't feel like talking about them is really different from talking about OD&D. Me neither. That's why I find K&KA's attitude so puzzling. To me, the retro-clones seem like formalized "house rules to OD&D", and are thus fully within the scope of this forum. As are additional supplements, such as Carcosa. That was always my feeling as well. I see all the clones as "acceptable house rule variants" of The One True Game. It's this spirit of inclusiveness that makes it such a great place to be. Indeed. I'm very happy to have found this place.
|
|
palmer
Level 3 Conjurer
Foolish Rules Lawyer! Your disingenuous dissembling means nothing to Doom!
Posts: 81
|
Post by palmer on Oct 9, 2009 13:24:54 GMT -6
Group hug!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 3:03:47 GMT -6
I've been considering this:
Players can choose from fighter, cleric, or magic-user; and they can choose from human, elf, or dwarf. No multiclassing. No restrictions on class/race combinations. No level limits.
Demihuman PCs can speak (and probably read) one (and only one) additional language, but there are no "racial abilities" or bonuses for elven and dwarven PCs, no ability score modifiers, no differences in movement rates, and no infravision.
Being a demihuman would come with no "crunchy" advantages other than the extra language, and no drawbacks other than the fact that some NPCs won't like their faces.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Oct 10, 2009 3:17:47 GMT -6
I've been considering this: Players can choose from fighter, cleric, or magic-user; and they can choose from human, elf, or dwarf. No multiclassing. No restrictions on class/race combinations. No level limits. Demihuman PCs can speak (and probably read) one (and only one) additional language, but there are no "racial abilities" or bonuses for elven and dwarven PCs, no ability score modifiers, no differences in movement rates, and no infravision. Being a demihuman would come with no "crunchy" advantages other than the extra language, and no drawbacks other than the fact that some NPCs won't like their faces. That could certainly work. It would have a different flavor than "regular" D&D (if there is any such thing!), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you try it, let us know how it goes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 4:26:08 GMT -6
... no "crunchy" advantages other ... I hope you don't mind my asking, but I see this term used a lot. What is the difference between a "crunchy advantage" and an advantage? I'm sure there is some subtlety I'm not getting here.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Oct 10, 2009 20:58:58 GMT -6
I hope you don't mind my asking, but I see this term used a lot. What is the difference between a "crunchy advantage" and an advantage? I'm sure there is some subtlety I'm not getting here. The term actually doesn't have much meaning in an OD&D context. It was invented to describe a certain style of game design that became more prevalent in later Editions, and became the "one true way" in 4E. Basically each and every rule in the game got "fluff" and "crunch" text. It's easiest to explain by the below example: Cleric Power 2: Holy Hand Grenade Description: You infuse a small object you can throw in one hand with the energy of your God until it glows with a soft warm radiance, and then throw it at your enemies, wherein it explodes.Casting Time: 3 Attack Type: Thrown Missile Range: 20/40 Dmg: 2d8+5 (Thunder) In the above example the "Description" is the fluff. It gives you the visual of what's going on. But the description has no effect on the game that a player can "enforce" against a DM (remember, later editions of the game are built for the 10 year old DM (emotionally speaking, not necessarily chronologically so) who has never done this before, and so eschews the assumption of mature judgment). The only effects the DM needs to allow are the "Crunchy" bits explicitly listed (Casting Time, Type, Range, Damage). Specifically, the above Description about the soft, warm radiance has no effect on the game whatsoever. It would not give away your position if you were hidden in shadows, or penalize a stealth check, or allow you to read by its light - because there is no "crunch" saying that it does. It's just verbiage. If that makes your brain hurt, congratulations - now you know one of the reasons I find 4E brain hemorrhage inducing. In the context of this post, the "crunch" benefits of racial types are the things like "Immune to Sleep" or "Detect Stone Traps." They're rules the player can rely on. But I'm sure you can see why this differentiation is meaningless in an OD&D context, where quite often the "fluff" is also the "crunch." Consider the below spell: M-U Spell: Chaos Detector Duration: 1 day Effect: Any non-magical weapon upon which this spell is cast will glow a faint blue, and hum slightly, if any goblin, troll, giant or orc come within 100 yards of its position. In the above example the description also gives you all the rules you need, and the game relies on the DM to judge the corner cases as they arise. Can you read by it? Sure. How far away can the hum be heard? Just 10'. Etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 21:30:38 GMT -6
"Crunchy" bits are bonuses, abilities, spells, powers, etc. that help characters succeed in tactical situations (especially combat).
"Fluffy" bits have no utility in tactical situations, but may help players imagine their characters and their actions, and may have some impact in role-playing situations.
I regret my choice of words. I wanted to say that I don't mind players choosing to play elves or dwarves because they think it would be fun, but I don't want them to play once race or another because they think they're superior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 4:02:44 GMT -6
I regret my choice of words. I wanted to say that I don't mind players choosing to play elves or dwarves because they think it would be fun, but I don't want them to play once race or another because they think they're superior. Hey, don't regret your words. I'm fairly certain everyone else here knew what you were saying and, after IrdaRanger's excellent explanation? So do I. You're doing fine.
|
|
palmer
Level 3 Conjurer
Foolish Rules Lawyer! Your disingenuous dissembling means nothing to Doom!
Posts: 81
|
Post by palmer on Oct 11, 2009 21:13:31 GMT -6
That's very helpful, Irdaranger. I'd seen that terminology used here and there, but I wasnt' sure exactly what it ment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2010 5:38:55 GMT -6
I just read a 'blog post about this thread, and was amazed at how completely the 'blogger misrepresented the information presented here.
I wish folks would just play the game the way they like to play it, and didn't spend a lot of time spreading disinformation when others do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 2, 2010 7:21:54 GMT -6
It would be interesting to get a link to this, dubeers.
Keep in mind that most folks who don't hang out here much probably don't uderstand the true style of this board. Essentially, we get along without annoying snipes, flames, and trolling. If someone thinks we're all at each other's throats over this (or other) issue, they haven't been here long enough to understand.
I'm not sure what was misrepresented, but my guess is that some clown thought that either none of us follow the rules or that all of us cap characters at low levels just becasue the rules say so. Am I close?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2010 13:40:06 GMT -6
I can't recall the link any longer, and it is probably a good thing. The poster, and a few of the respondents, came away from this thread with an inaccurate assessment of what was being discussed. I don't want to start a flame war, which is why I didn't post a comment on that thread ... but I just had to get it off my chest and thought this thread was as good as any.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 6, 2010 10:23:27 GMT -6
Any DM and group who enjoys level limts and such like restrictions for demihumans must certainly use them, because fun is the purpose of the game. But I wouldn't be one of those who finds level limits for some characters while others are unlimited to be a fun concept. <shrug> If I think there should be species differences in terms of level progression I use adjustments to XP. Same with multiclassing.
I'd bet a grand that placing limits on some racial types stems, conciously or not, from Gygax's career as an insurance salesman. Insurers deal with limits and probabilities based on character traits all the time. The philosophy behind "Actuary Tables" as they are called, seems well infused in the AD&D rules and that doesn't sit well with the heroic, imagine the impossible, way I like to approach D&D. But it is a game, and those who prefer the "realism" of selective limits should certainly apply them and ignore nonsense right or wrong arguments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 10:43:24 GMT -6
Any DM and group who enjoys level limts and such like restrictions for demihumans must certainly use them, because fun is the purpose of the game. Thank you for the kind words, but I was doing that already and I intend to keep doing it. And, in a friendly and respectful way, I disagree. The problem was: I wearied of having the idea I was doing something wrong by not doing away with the level limits pointed out to me, hence the post. It certainly wasn't intended as a challenge to players and referees who don't use them. It was my response to charges of being "rules bound" and "unwilling to make the game my own." My campaign bears little resistance to the rules as written, even in its infancy back in the 1970s. Level limits just happened to be something I liked ... seeing my world as more like Conan's than Frodo's. Not that this is superior way of running the game, just the one I like to run. I've played in many variants, including unlimited demi-human advancement. It doesn't break the game, not even close to it; but it does flavor the campaign in a way inconsistent with my vision for it. The game is very much my own, and I weary of charges of badwrongfun because I don't have 20th level Elf F/MUs in it. An interesting and credible idea.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Jan 9, 2010 16:14:07 GMT -6
I am running a game where level limits are soon to be tested, as our elf has hit Ftr Level 4, so he now has to adventure as a MU, and our dwarf is at Ftr Level 5, so in one more level he is "done". It will be interesting to see how the player enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) the experience. A level 6 dwarf is probably about as good as a level 8 human fighter in value, but he may not feel that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2010 17:32:58 GMT -6
I would be very interested to read of your experience with them.
May I assume you made it plain to your players the caps were in place?
And the players agreed to them?
In the '70s I had no trouble with them but there weren't that many players interested in demi-humans back then. Everyone seemed to see themselves as a Conan, or Knight of Camelot, or Merlin the Wizard.
I can't speak for how the hobby went from there because, for various reasons, I ceased gaming around the time UA for FEADAD came out.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Jan 9, 2010 17:47:40 GMT -6
I would be very interested to read of your experience with them. May I assume you made it plain to your players the caps were in place? And the players agreed to them? yes and yes
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Jan 14, 2010 10:36:38 GMT -6
Personally I run very humanocentric games anyway. But I like to remove the level caps and double all the XP requirements per level for demi human characters. This means they are always far behind other characters after first level, but I prefer that view on them. Their increased lifespan means they don't have as much drive to improve so it takes them longer.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 14, 2010 12:07:49 GMT -6
Welcome Norse!
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jan 14, 2010 12:31:34 GMT -6
Wow, I didn't eve catch that Norse was a new member.
Welcome to the community.
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Jan 15, 2010 3:07:20 GMT -6
Cheers guys
|
|