Streamlined Men and Magic

[inkmeister]

Here I wanted to share about my intention to streamline the original game. Most of the folks I will have the chance to play with anytime soon are totally new to RPG's. I introduced my wife to D&D lately (Moldvay) and it was eye opening to realize how complex the game can seem at first. There have been some other threads that cover some of these same issues from different angles and have inspired me. Here are some of the changes I intend to make.

1) Drop ability scores - this is probably the most controversial move. Frankly, the abilities don't do enough to be worthwhile IMO. Charisma gets a lot of ink in M&M, but when you add it up, it even usually does less than the Moldvay version for any given level of charisma, and the application is somewhat convoluted (Moldvay cut out a step, simplifying it). Intelligence = # languages doesn't make sense to me, and otherwise intelligence doesn't do anything. Str and Wis are useless. Getting rid of these simplifies the character creation process for a beginner. It is one less thing to think about. Just pick a class and move on. I know abilities are a sacred cow, but getting rid of them means one less thing (6 less things) on the character sheet to distract one from thinking in character about what you want to do and how to do it. Keep your head in the game, not in the character sheet. This also gets rid of the whole "my character sucks cause he has a 6 and 7 for ability X and Y." Even if the 6 or 7 doesn't mean a penalty, it still sucks for a lot of people to see a low score like that.

2) One saving throw. I just pick the median saving throw for each class, and that is the one save. S&W style. I might let fighters have a bonus for physical saves, and magic users have a bonus for magical saves. Like a +2 or something. Or not.

3) Drop the cleric (and since it is 3LBB, there is no thief either). 2 classes exist: Fighting men and Magic users. This is very easy to explain to a newbie. (Clerics are awkward to explain to people, I think, mainly because there aren't a lot of examples of this type in fiction or games). I just don't like clerics anyway, for a lot of the reasons others speak of; they aren't very sword and sorcery, they are too christian for my campaign, and they make the gods seem too "real" and "present." If anyone wants to play a priest (or druid) with powers, that is some kind of magic user. Otherwise they can play a religious fanatic fighting man. Without the cleric, undead will probably have to be handled a little more carefully, and that's fine. I'll probably ditch level drain. I might (or might not) move some cleric spells into the magic user spell list. But I want to keep the overall list of spells pretty short and sweet.

4) Ditch alignment. I don't really despise alignment, but I don't really need it either. I think I read Rob Kuntz saying in his early games he disregarded it, so I think even in the very oldschool there is basis for not using it. At any rate, it takes too much time to explain it to beginners. I'd rather roleplay that stuff out. I'll probably have to take certain spells and the like into consideration, but it shouldn't be too bad.

5) # Spells known = spells one can cast per day. I like this harsh little rule from Moldvay! It makes each caster potentially unique. Different magic users are differentiated by their special powers. Plus it simplifies the game a little.

6) Simpler language system. I just don't like the D&D languages. Not every creature type needs it's own language. I'm thinking goblinoid can cover many species. There can be an "ancient" language. Less languages is good. I like the idea of there being cryptic writings or creatures who speak mysterious languages, setting up situations where a character who thought to take a certain language will be rewarded for the choice, but it doesn't have to be so crazy as the default system (language for pixies, centaurs, orcs, gnolls, goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, dwarves, gnomes, elves, medusae, dragons, etc - come on!). AS for characters and language, the default assumption will probably be 1 language for humans, 2 for demi humans, +1 for magic users. Maybe a 6 on a D6 will give anyone a bonus language. Haven't totally thought it through, yet. Comments welcome.

7) LotFP encumberance. I like encumberance rules a lot. I think they are important. This is a simpler style. With total beginners, I'll probably not emphasize encumberance much, but after a couple sessions, this is coming in.
-----------------------
I toyed with ascending armor class and attack bonus style. I still feel mixed, but I'm leaning towards classic descending values. I use Thaco instead of matrixes.

Anyhow, thoughts welcome. Debate welcomed. Criticism welcomed.

[talysman]

I had some of the same ideas, or close to them, back when people were wondering what you'd put into a $2.99 version of D&D. For example, I cut back to two classes and neutral alignment (but human only.) Of course, my intention there was to create a subset of the rules, so that rules could be added in later; so, instead of eliminating the ability scores, assume that all scores are 10 so that they don't need to be explained unless someone wants something different. Likewise, the three alignments exist, but you assume all characters are neutral so that you don't have to explain alignment.

In terms of languages and the full ruleset, I actually don't give each humanoid a separate language, but assume that goblinoids, for example, speak debased forms of dwarvish that is mutually intelligible, and orcs speak corrupted elvish.

[inkmeister]

Hey Talysman - I read your blog post about the 2.99 D&D and enjoyed it. That played some part in my thinking which led to my post here. Thanks!

I like what you do with D&D language.

[waysoftheearth]

I wrote up a similar list of simplifications a while back, here.

[blackbarn]

I'm down with those changes, Inkmeister, even the removal of ability scores. On the one hand, they are fun for giving players an immediate sense of who they are playing and can inspire some good things, but there are as many negatives. The high/low drama and lack of actual in-game meaning for some scores, while others have an effect, for example. It also bothers me that Wisdom is never even explained. I think these things should have some use regardless of what class you are (since all classes random roll all the scores - any of them might be your "one great attribute") or may as well be gone and we can assume you are good at your job, or make you roll for your one class score, perhaps. I guess if none of them had in-game benefit they would be fine, maybe that is one way to go. But not having them at all frees players up greatly, as well, to imagine the character they want, based only on class.

I suppose the only thing I'd change in your list would be to simply ditch encumbrance. I like the idea of it, but have still never seen a version I really like. They always become more trouble than they are worth in play. The simplified one you mentioned (or even Delta's, which I prefer) is still probably too much. It's not like my players are prone to carrying ridiculous amounts anyhow, and I think that level of detail just does not fit with the rest of D&D, especially as applied to something as mundane as what you are carrying.

More and more alignment is starting to seem like a burden for me. I don't mind it, but the game just seems to flow more naturally without it. My players all seem to choose Neutral anyhow, so why bother? It's clear nobody wants to feel boxed in. Either that or Law and Chaos are not things normal people can even relate to.

I also agree with you on languages. I'd just feel silly writing down something like "Language: Medusa"... why not have regional languages, reasonable monster/tribal languages, and maybe some special or lost languages and that's it?

Clerics. Technically I have them in my game, but no one is playing one and no NPC cleric has yet been encountered or sought. I find them as problematic as you do. Never liked the class and just don't see how it fits in. It's awkward, in my opinion. Thief as a standard would fit better than cleric, though I am not using thieves at all for similar reasons. And it is not missed.

[Vile Traveller]

It all sounds good to me, even the removal of alignment which can be the most difficult concept for neophytes to get their heads around. Abilities are also not that important in play, as you say, although they seem to help players visualise their character as an individual rather than just a stereotype. But newbies will probably not need that level of detail.

[Finarvyn]

I find it funny, in this age of monsterously thick rulebooks, that anyone would want to take M&M (which weighs in at 36 half-pages, or 18 sheets of paper) and thin it out.

I like your suggestions for languages and encumbrance, but otherwise I like the original rules better than your revisions. I'll have to look into the ones posted by the other guys to see what I like or dislike there as well, but I really hate to change my OD&D much. I'm pretty stuck in my ways. :-)

[inkmeister]

Blackbarn, thanks for your, as usual, detailed and thoughtful response. You sum up my feelings about ability scores very well. You also have probably convinced me about encumbrance. In the thread WaysoftheEarth linked to (thanks WotE for linking it here!), someone suggested that encumbrance mostly works out to the whole party moving at 60ft per turn, and thus it makes sense to just handwave encumbrance and assume leather moves 90ft, and metal moves 60'. That's probably roughly what I'll do. I know others here (finarvyn, etc), don't really bother with encumbrance. That's cool. I think it's easy to make a judgment call if someone tries to carry what is obviously just too much stuff.

Vile, thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely. Alignment really is one of those tricky things to explain. Also, different DM's seem to have different ideas of what it all means. Part of me really likes alignment. It seems like the game is saying that you have to take a philosophical stand, and that is cool (to me). But it's tricky to take that stand when you aren't totally sure what it means, especially in the context of This Particular Game with These Particular People; better to let it develop organically. My wife and I ignored alignment in our Moldvay game, and she just naturally acted very much "lawfully" - trying to aid helpless people, right wrongs, etc.

Finarvyn, thanks for your comment too! One thing I wrestle with (because I can be very obsessive) is fetishizing the game as written. I love reading Gygax's whacky style, and I like Moldvay's clean presentation of the game, and part of me wants to be true to the last word of whatever version I'm playing. But someone on another forum pointed out that D&D is a brilliant game that exists underneathe the rules texts, and sometimes in spite of what is written, and I ultimately agree. I am trying to remind myself that the rules are a sort of interface and nothing more - they are a map and not the terrain. So I want to clarify for myself what this game is, and get as straight to that as I can in a way that makes sense to me. All this to say that while I have my copy of OD&D in a single volume that is smaller than combined Moldvay / Cook, I think that the essence of D&D is a lot less than even that. My simplifications (not that I came up with all of them or even any of them) are not really purely for beginners, though I think they will help beginners a lot. At any rate, Fin, I'd gladly sign up and play in your game, too, even with thieves and clerics and ability scores

[Finarvyn]

Hope I didn't come off as too negative. I agree with your fundamental assessment that the basic game system of D&D is the same no matter which rulebook you use. The Gygax rules have a different feel from Moldvay, but both are essentially the same game with a few tweaks therein.

The other thing to consider is that the text of the rules often gets in the way of good play. I often play with just the OD&D insert sheets or a GM screen (the yellow Judges Guild one is my favorite). The rulebook is important as far as understanding the basics of how to play, but the charts and tables are pretty much all I need during play.

Bottom line is that if you find your game works better without some of the details, play that way! I tend to ignore XP and encumbrance rules, and that works for me. Your rules sound great, even though they aren't the combo that I might select formy game.

[inkmeister]

Fin, you didn't come off negative at all. I welcome exactly the sort of response you posted.

I'm curious - you say you ignore XP tables and the like. What do you mean by that? Does that mean you level up PC's by some other method? Fiat? I'd be glad to hear about that - especially if you have come up with your own simplification, which would be especially relevant here. I haven't decided for sure what approach I'll take with XP. I like treasure for XP, but for defeating monsters... I'm not sure. Right now leaning towards 100xp/hd or 50xp/hd.

Other comments, criticism, debate welcomed. I'm surprised at the moment how many people seem to be OK even with the biggest of the changes.

[Finarvyn]

In my campaign, level advancement isn't tied to a number but instead is tied to "significant" accomplishment. In part this is based on how fast I want characters to level up.

For example, I generally award a level at the end of a module, but if I want the party to get stronger faster I may look for a good resting point and level them up then. In "Hobbit" terms, I could either level them up once Smaug is defeated or maybe when they rested in Rivendell.

Another factor is how often we play and how long I intend for the campaign to last. If we play a lot I actually level them up slower so they don't top out too quickly, but if we play infrequently I might level them up faster so they can do cool stuff before the camapign ends.

I should note that a typical campaign for me lasts maybe 9 months or so, then I tend to have players re-roll characters and I throw them into a new setting. I also tend to start them out at 3rd level (as per Gary's house rules) and cap out the level advancement around 6th or 8th level (as per 4th is a "hero" and 8th is a "super hero") so I try to make advancement happen so that they end up somewhere around "super hero" status.

Maybe that helps. That's just the way my games work.

[inkmeister]

Thanks for explaining that, Fin. That approach gets a lot of respect from me; I think that method would work best for a game that doesn't have treasure as a strong driving force.

[Finarvyn]

I like to think about treasure as its own reward, so giving out XP for treasure seems like a double bonus somehow.

[geoffrey]

Inkmeister, I'm with you on most of that. You might want to check-out Delta's "Target 20" system for rolling to hit and for rolling saving throws. I think it is the best presentation of these two areas. It's easy, easy, easy!

The one thing I do not like on your list is dropping ability scores. Why? It's not because of nostalgia or because of them being sacred cows. Nor is it because I like to use them numerically in the game. Instead I like how they give me a gut-level feel for my character. Let's see:

Str: 10
Int: 11
Wis: 10
Con: 7
Dex: 11
Chr: 4

I just rolled those, 3d6 in order, no cheating. I'm utterly average except for being kind of puny and very ugly and abrasive. Cool. Let's try it again:

Str: 10
Int: 13
Wis: 13
Con: 9
Dex: 10
Chr: 9

Joe Average, except for being a bit on the brainy and wise side. One more time:

Str: 15
Int: 8
Wis: 5
Con: 10
Dex: 7
Chr: 11

A slow dumb-ass who'll kick your ass.

If you have three 6-sided dice, rolling these scores for a character takes a minute or less. In return I get a neat little "personality profile". I especially like to play counter to type. d**n right that last character will be a magic-user, and the middle one will be a fighting man! ;D

Oh, and I don't like switching scores around, or increasing one by decreasing another. I like the purely random "3d6 in order set in stone" method. It's the most fun. In a recent game I had already decided to play a magic-user, and I swear to all the orbital gods that I rolled a 3 for intelligence! It was awesome to have a magic-user with the intellect of a low-grade moron. (AD&D requiring magic-users to have at least a 9 intelligence sucks this sort of fun right out of the game.)

As for experience, I just let the characters increase in level based upon actually playing the game. If Bob the Magic-user is played for X number of hours, then he goes up a level. If you show up and play your character, he'll gain experience. Of course, some groups like the aspect of acquiring xp by acquiring treasure, but not my group. We just like to explore, treasure be d**ned. That way we can explore to our hearts' content without reference to getting xp in any other way than by playing the game.

One more thing: I like tossing-out ALL rulebooks except for M&M. Try ignoring Monsters & Treasure as well as The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures. Wing it for wild, crazy fun! ;D

[inkmeister]

Thanks for weighing in Geoffrey - I've often read and enjoyed things you say about D&D! I like your idea of running without M&T and U&WA. I think I'm starting to really get that original D&D is an example of what a certain type of game can be, but not somehow automatically superior to other forms. I find it inspiring that you delight in going your own direction with the game.

I like what you say for abilities. I really do like ability scores. I like exactly what you just said; they can surprise you and inspire you and give you the chance to take direction from them or rebel and go against the grain. But a lot of people don't like that, and ditching the basically useless abilities allows people to comfortably play what they want without "drama" over crappy scores. Besides, I find myself having to explain over and over why str is different than con, or wis is different than int, when really none of them do anything anyway. The risk of dropping the abilities is that what remains is somehow a little more bland - that's what I take away from what you say, and it's a good point.

Interesting about you and Fin not doing XP for treasure. It is easy for one to get the impression that all oldschool players are quite rigid about this old rule. I may be misguided, but my initial inclination is to run D&D in a more rigid, almost competitive way (some might say gamist). I'll have to see how my wife takes it though - she very well may (hell, probably will), want something a lot looser. And you guys do have simplicity going in your favor - just level up when it seems right, and screw the paper work.

[blackbarn]

This thread touches on one of the funny things about D&D. It's so simple and open, you can add or drop whatever you want, and change it to your heart's content... but few people playing it really change it very much in practice.

I'm "guilty" of that, too. As I pointed out above, there are a number of things that don't sit right with me about the game as written, but I really don't feel good about changing them, either. I kind of feel like if we are playing D&D, it might as well be D&D!

I have to agree with geoffrey about abilities, as well. I don't mind rolling the scores, and also do it 3d6 in order without adjusting afterwards. That's fun and leads to great character ideas. What bothers me is that some are just for flavor like that, but others have real meaning in the game. I'd happily play a game where they either meant nothing rules-wise, or were removed, but lean towards leaving them in for inspirational purposes.

Of course, in my own game I leave them as-is, with Strength bonuses from Greyhawk so fighting men don't seem quite as screwed.

[waysoftheearth]

There's no "wrong or right" way to do these things, which is (partly) why it makes for great discussion. Like others here, I wouldn't dispense with ability scores lightly.

For me, the six abilities are quintessential D&D. Despite a hundred other things changing over the version of the rules, the six PC abilities have been there, front and center, in every iteration of the game. In short, they are iconic.

Not only that, they are incredibly useful!

For players, they are immensely useful in figuring out "who this character is". It is the player's job to make his PC memorable, and the ability scores are one helluva big help in doing this. Okay, my new PC has this set of stats... so what do they mean? And who is this guy anyway?

Why does he have a low strength score? Is he a halfling? Or a child? Or is he a she? Or does he suffer a wasting disease? Or from the tremors?

High intelligence might be indicative of a proper education, street cunning, a knack for observation or deduction, or the taint of demon-blood in the veins. Low intelligence might indicate illiteracy, inability to figure, cerebral palsy, or simply a nasty knock to the head as a child. Or yesterday.

Low wisdom might indicate extreme youth, brashness or gross forgetfulness. High wisdom could signify advancing years, a photographic memory, "visions" or "voices" in ones head, or even Elvishness (if Elves are wise and live for long years in your game).

And what of a low dexterity score? Is he clumsy? Short-sighted? Or cursed? Is he a failed circus acrobat? Or is it all an act put on to gain attention?

And what of a low constitution score? Does he have leprosy? Or the plague? Did he scarcely survive an arrow taken in a hunting accident? Or a spear through the chest in a battle? Or a year of torment in the Duke's dungeons? Is he a scarcely functional automaton put together in some Frankenstein-like experiment?

Charisma? High charisma could indicate social influence or station or office. Or it could indicate grace and charm, or physical beauty, or all of the above. Low charisma could indicate banishment or excommunication (a black cross literally branded to the forehead!). It could indicate a foul mouth, or temper, or ugly habits such as spitting, swearing, flatulence and so on.

There must be thousands of ways in which players can use the ability scores to "interpret" who their PC is. Sure, it is possible to dream this stuff up without ability scores, but having the ability scores put right there under your nose is a strong motivator to "join the dots".

Rolling at least one high/low score gives the player something to work with. Rolling all average scores is the more problematic case, IMHO.


That is all for the player before we even start adventuring. But then, of course, there are innumerable ways in which ability scores can be mechanically useful to the referee during play too

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 14, 2012 21:27:16 GMT -6 blackbarn said:

Of course, in my own game I leave them as-is, with Strength bonuses from Greyhawk so fighting men don't seem quite as screwed.

I don't reckon the Fighting Man is as "screwed" as many people seem to think. I wrote up a summary of his capabilities here: The Humble Fighting Man .

And I've also noticed since then that Fighting Men are able to sense invisible opponents:

PIXIES ... are naturally invisible... although certain monsters such as Dragons and high-level fighters will be aware of their presence.

(M&T p16)

This ability possibly kicks in at 4th or 8th level, depending on what you consider to be "high level" in your game

[Vile Traveller]

Nov 15, 2012 0:34:35 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

And I've also noticed since then that Fighting Men are able to sense invisible opponents:

PIXIES ... are naturally invisible... although certain monsters such as Dragons and high-level fighters will be aware of their presence.

(M&T p16)

Excellent find!

[Finarvyn]

Nov 14, 2012 20:58:23 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Interesting about you and Fin not doing XP for treasure. It is easy for one to get the impression that all oldschool players are quite rigid about this old rule.
<snip>
And you guys do have simplicity going in your favor - just level up when it seems right, and screw the paper work.

You aren't that far off on the XP thing ... many old schoolers do believe that XP=GP is the only way to play. I just happen not to be one of those.

Nov 14, 2012 20:58:23 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I may be misguided, but my initial inclination is to run D&D in a more rigid, almost competitive way (some might say gamist). I'll have to see how my wife takes it though - she very well may (hell, probably will), want something a lot looser.

My experience is that women don't tend to enjoy the competition aspect of role playing, but in general prefer to have a more cooperative game. (Maybe that's just the women who have drifted in and out of my groups over the decades. Hard to know what 51% of the population thinks from a dozen or so data points.) I find that the game that I run today with wife and kids is vastly different in style than the game I ran 35 years ago with high school buddies. Back "in the day" my game was more gonzo with battles galore -- slaying gods and the like -- whereas my game today is more traditional and conversational. My ladies enjoy an occasional battle, but if that's all the game is they lose interest in a hurry. That was part of the problem of 4E, where they complained we were moving from one tactical situation to the next but were skipping over the parts they liked best.

[inkmeister]

A strong case from WaysoftheEarth for ability scores. I do agree with everyone here that they are iconic. Though there is apparently some old manuscript - and I can't even find the link now - that shows the ability scores used to have different names before publication, which says to me that the whole thing is a work in progress. The fact that even Gygax was changing things around after LBB D&D shows that it was a work in progress. I guess the reason a lot of us go back to OD&D is that it is a sweet game even if it is lopsided and quirky. Well, you guys are giving me a lot to think about.

Thanks for your comments about lady gamers, Fin! To be clear, combat is one of my least favorite aspects of the game. When I say competitive (probably a poor choice of words), what I mean is in reference to something Mike Mornard said about the old games with Gygax. Roughly, he said he would leave the game at night in a sweat, and that the game had a serious atmosphere. Luke Crane (creator of Burning Wheel) pointed out that he had nightmares after running Moldvay D&D, and one of his players did too (they called it PTSD&D). I'm not aiming to give anyone nightmares, but I like the idea of the game having a certain intensity. Whether I can create that, or whether my wife of all people will enjoy it, I don't know. But I've done gonzo planehopping godslaying gaming, I've done 3e power gaming w/ railroads, and now that I'm behind the DM screen, I'm wanting to do this idealistic "old school" thing. After giving it a shot with the wife for awhile, we may settle into something a lot looser. But yeah, combat is not a big part of it for me, but a good degree of risk and challenge is. IT very well may not appeal to a lot of folks though.

[Deleted]

I agree with WotE about the scores, but I did read an interesting post by one of the "old guard" from TSR (Frank Mentzer, I think but it might have been Tim Kask) in which they completely blow-off ability scores.

He spoke of allowing players to choose their scores, or assigning all 18s, or all 11s, and just getting on with the game. So, even though they left the scores in, the certainly minimized the importance of them.

Like others in this thread, I enjoy the ability scores for the take it gives me on a character. I don't write back-stories, but I do like to come up with a one line description. For instance, I had a fighter once with a good strength score but low dex, so I made a grievous wound to his arm a part of his history. It interfered slightly with his ability to use a bow and arrow.

[inkmeister]

Interesting, Cameron. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that was Tim Kask - watching some of his interviews and the like, he just comes off that way. When I used to DM AD&D 2e as a teenager, I'd somewhat let the players choose their stats, within reason. Tim Kask has a very loose approach in general. I don't want to speak for him, but I get the impression he often starts games off at a high level (ie 8th), and doesn't seem to do much if any prep for his games. It's an interesting contrast with others who meticulously draw and key their dungeons and campaign worlds.

I don't mind at all that this thread is focusing a lot on the ability score aspect of my original post. In thinking about the abilities, and particularly blackbarn's point that a potential problem (depending on who looks at it) with the original scheme is that some abilities seem to matter and others don't. I have thought of implementing different abilities, not unlike microlite. Str, Dex, Mind, and Cha. Mind would potentially give a bonus spell to MU's (no clerics in my game), or bonus exp to everyone else. Str would give bonus HP and bonus dmg in melee, dex would give improved AC and improved chance to hit (melee or ranged). Cha would be unchanged (though maybe simplified per moldvay - it works out roughly the same by my reading). The problem here is it's just not the iconic six abilities. Eh this is just mental masturbation. But I enjoy it.

[Deleted]

"Intense" is not the same as "competitive." These days I'm happy if everybody is paying attention.

We look at ability scores as treasures. "What kind of character am I going to get now?"

Also, how can anybody think the Fighting-Man is screwed, when the highest level PC in Greyhawk was a fighter? How are people playing fighters, anyway? Nobody can stand there and take -- and dish out, round after round -- damage like a well equipped high level fighter.

[inkmeister]

A further thought regarding ability scores - albeit not really a new point in the big scheme of things: the problem is that as written in OD&D, the abilities are largely kind of pointless outside of interpretation, which really exists outside the rules anyway and can be handled any number of ways. But you go the other way, like GreyHawk or AD&D or even Moldvay, and you get into "inflation." In itself there is nothing wrong with bigger bonuses and numbers, but the the inevitable complaint arises: how can my character be any good if he or she doesn't have the awesome bonuses? So then there has to be a new way to get ability scores into the higher ranges, ie 4d6 drop lowest, and you also end up with some players crying that their character is hopeless. How is a really weak character going to compete with a much better one? Which wouldn't be an issue at all if there were no abilities in the first place.

I think Luke Crane is right that D&D has often fought with itself on this issue. Gygax was fighting with his own numbers by the time AD&D came around. I guess at the end of the day it is really a question of who you want to please (and there are no wrong answers).

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2012 10:26:19 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Also, how can anybody think the Fighting-Man is screwed [...]

I sure don't! In point of fact, I (almost) always play fighters. Then, I imagine the faces of my patients on the orcs, goblins, etc...

It's very cathartic.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 15, 2012 10:34:26 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

the problem is that as written in OD&D, the abilities are largely kind of pointless outside of interpretation

You do say "largely... pointless", so I guess it comes down to what you mean by "largely", but I don't think your point is entirely true. "As written" the 3LBBs (+FAQ) have it (from memory) pretty much like this:

Strength
Adjusts how much can be carried.
Adjusts the chance of breaking down doors.
Grants XP bonus to fighters.
Also it is strongly implied throughout (the descriptions of Ogres, Trolls, Giants, Efreet and Djinn come immediately to mind) that high strength causes additional damage. EGG supposedly allowed +1 damage to PCs with high strength at his table, and many refs besides did and still do the same.

Intelligence
(If higher than wisdom) gives all PCs a number of starting languages.
Grants XP bonus to magic-users.

Wisdom
(If higher than intelligence) gives all PCs a number of starting languages.
Grants XP bonus to clerics.

Dexterity
Adjusts missile attack rolls.
Adjusts 1d6 initiative rolls (see the FAQ).
Grants XP bonus to thieves (if you choose to use them).

Constitution
Adjusts hit points per hit die.
The basis for system shock survival (petrification, resurrection etc.)

Charisma
Adjusts number of henchmen.
Adjusts henchmen loyalty.
Adjusts NPC reactions (which is probably the single most important mechanical adjustment in determining whether or not a 1st level PCs will make it to 2nd level).

Of course, the wonderful thing about OD&D not specifying every last detail to the ref is that it strongly encourages him to fill in what is (in his view) missing. This is what's golden about of the original edition. You are meant to house rule it.


For example, you could (if desired) immediately add to the above:

Intelligence: use the number of starting languages as the number of starting spells for magic-users.

Wisdom: use the number of starting languages as the number of starting spells for clerics.

And so on.

Nov 15, 2012 10:34:26 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

But you go the other way, like GreyHawk or AD&D or even Moldvay, and you get into "inflation."

Going with the numbers inflation game was a huge philosophical shift for D&D. It led, ultimately, to the "character build" games of 3E, 3.5E and 4E. The "character build" game is all about exploiting the rules in order to get the biggest numbers. The subsequent act of employing those numbers in an adventure scenario is almost just a "test bed" to see how well your "build" performs.

OD&D is different. There are no "character builds", and there are very few "numbers" to be got. This is a Very Good Thing IMHO, because it means the game is firstly about problem solving and adventuring, of which the mechanics of combat are just one part. In OD&D it is player strategy which is paramount to success, not honing better and better "character builds" as new rules with better "powers" become available.

Nov 15, 2012 10:34:26 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I guess at the end of the day it is really a question of who you want to please (and there are no wrong answers).

I agree whole-heartedly with you on that. And let's not forget that it's equally important to please the ref!

Have an exalt

[Vile Traveller]

Good point about the other uses of abilities in OD&D, I tend to forget that there are more bonuses in the original than there are in Holmes (where dropping abilities would really have very little effect). But as has been brought up earlier, as a player I think the main point of abilities is always about character visualisation because, in the big scheme of things, they don't have that much effect on play other than as prime requisites. You might think about getting rid of the effect of abilities, but keeping the abilities as purely descriptive elements just like age or hair colour.

[inkmeister]

WaysofEarth, thanks for the exalt. Thanks for your time in writing detailed responses, too. I happily concede that ability scores do have some effects in the game.

I'm just conflicted about them in general. In a way they are kind of like the cleric for me; I can see how the cleric is important to the way the game plays and how the game has evolved over time. At the same time, the execution feels flawed to me. I feel far more strongly about the cleric in this regard than I do about ability scores. To me the cleric is inelegant to the point of ugliness. On the other hand, I want to like the abilities, but I think that to like them, I would want them to be better balanced and to "mean more." I'm not sure I like where that line of thought takes me. It's something to contemplate further. It may be that if I keep them, I'll leave them completely mechanically meaningless, as some have suggested (let me say here that I really like how you interpreted the abilities, WaysoftheEarth). Otherwise I'll have to tinker until I feel that they represent mechanically what I think they should.

I like the discussion in this thread. I like some of the talk about simplifying leveling up and XP. I can see where in some games (probably not with the wife) I would want to play more btb on XP, but I think with my wife I will probably shift more towards a freeform approach, especially since we are both finding Moldvay B/X to be so brutal in this regard.

I am curious if others handle languages differently than btb.

I'm curious what people think about a single saving throw.

I am now sold, due to this thread, on basically ignoring encumbrance, just basing it off armor type and what I judge at the moment to be a "normal" load. I'm pretty sure the wife doesn't want to bother with encumbrance in the game - she has to deal with my silly self in real life as it is.

Anyway - other thoughts on simplifying the game (not strictly for newbies - but in general ... cutting away any "fat")?

[verhaden]

Nothing game changing, but I've been house ruling initiative like this for a few years now with great success:

I roll 1d6 (once, regardless of # monsters) and so do all of my players. Highest result goes first, and play resolves clockwise around the table.

I don't like "counting down" and I find that players get distracted easily enough, so if there are interruptions it's as simple as "Well, Scott went last, so it's my turn!".

I always roll the monsters first, so it creates some interesting tension for the players when I get a 5 or a 6. If everybody but the last guy rolls poorly, everybody's eyes are on that last roll and many cheers are had when they best me.

Also, your character's intelligence bonus, not their dexterity score, modifies their initiative roll. My players have referred to this as the 'Sherlock Holmes' effect.

***

I always keep a page or two of random tables of names for players and NPCs alike. I also have a stable of 'spare' PC sheets for unannounced, one time only players or for those who don't want to roll up a new character in the middle of the game.

I also have 'fast packs' of equipment that cost a flat 50sp (base silver economy) for faster character generation.

***

I bought a 3 minute hour glass to regulate game 'turns'. Helps me create set periods of time and creates a sense of urgency in the dungeon. "I flipped this hour glass X times, so all of your torches are nearly burnt up." etc.

See also 'wandering monster' checks. If the group is arguing, stalling, indecisive, etc. I flip the hour glass and give them 3 minutes to come up with a solution. I also don't feel obligated to tell them when I start the sand countdown. Somebody usually catches it and moves things along.

And on that note, 'caller' is a wonderful tool. Make sure your players put someone in that role.

I'm going to stop here because I'm getting into less 'streamlined rules' territory and more 'game running tips' talk.