No, I'm not going to try to follow what a number of other bloggers are doing; trying to guess or give ideas for the next edition of D&D. I'm just thinking out loud about the next D&D game I run. Rules, campaign ideas, plot hooks, NPCs and such. I don't think I'll put anything too spoiler-ish on here.
First off, which version? Well, most of my life I played 1st ed. AD&D with some house rules, so I'm most comfortable with that ruleset. However, I like the simplicity of Swords & Wizardry. It is certainly easier to roll up a character with S&W as opposed to 1e. Of course, that's a difference of maybe 10 minutes, but it's still a difference.
Stats/Ability Scores - 3d6 straight down is nice, but I really dislike the whining of those from later editions. "My character sucks because he doesn't have a stat above 13!" "Ugh, he's a moron with an Int of 12." "How can he be a useful fighter with only a 14 Strength?" Makes me want to slap them.....So, what has worked is 2 rerolls after the original 3d6 are done. I still get whining but now they feel like they had a chance to "fix" the character.
Classes & Races - S&W is really nice with it's simple classes: Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling. Honestly, I have found that I dislike the druid, ranger and paladin of AD&D. And long ago, I learned to forbid Assassin from PC choices. Not worth the trouble. If I go AD&D (or OSRIC), I might just limit the classes to Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief. If they can get the proper scores, then maybe I'll relent and allow Illusionists and Rangers. Then I'll limit the races to Human, Elf, Half Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, and Halfling. The original Half-Orc was pretty worthless as a player race because I kept forgetting to play the discrimination card. Not worth it. Other classes or races.....I remember reading somewhere that one group allowed the "classes" in the Men section of the MM: Dervish, Berserker, Bandit, Buccaneer, and Caveman. Maybe for humans only.....
Hit Dice & Hit Points - S&W uses d6's for everyone. Nice and simple. Greyhawk Supplement split the HD up to d8 for fighters, d6 for Clerics, and d4 for MU's. AD&D has d10 for Fighters, d8 for Clerics, d6 for Thieves, and d4 for MU's. And what about some bloggers pointing out that one interpretation for Hit Points for each level is that you roll all the dice each level. In other words at 3rd level you rolled 3 dice and that was your HP for that level. Meaning you could lose HP by going up a level. Interesting idea but I think the players would balk at that. Even if I said that if you rolled less, you got to keep your old total. Nope, too rough on the players I think. In the past, I have given max HP for just the 1st level and in other campaigns for the 1st 3 levels. It helps the PC's live longer.....
Alignment - You know, alignment never really played that much of a role in my games. The players pretty much knew they were supposed to be heroes and thus were supposed to be role models of a sort. They weren't nasty to townsfolk or went out of their way to be jerks. At least, not 30 years ago when we started playing this game. Nowadays, it seems that the players like having their characters do jerky and stupid stuff. I wonder if it's something which video games have influenced because those games have railroad tracks which won't let you derail so most players try to make the game crash by doing these things. Hmmm, anyway, maybe I'll just go with Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as choices. 3 is easier to work with than 9.
Starting Gold & Equipment - One of the choices I have presented for my other campaigns is an heirloom item. An ancestor was an adventurer and has passed down his favorite magic item to the PC. It's nice to start with one item that's a +1 whether it's a weapon, shield, ring or something relatively minor. However, when Dungeon Crawl Classics presented a preview of their RPG (is that out yet?) they had a wonderful list of "Previous Occupations" which included two random items. These have been much more fun than the magic items so I'm definitely keeping this part. Also, grabbing the "Ye Fast Pack" list from the old Lost City module (B4) makes outfitting the characters a whole lot easier. Pick one pack, pick one melee weapon & one ranged weapon, get chain mail if you're a fighter or cleric, none or leather for a mage.
House Rules - there's always a few. Some were mentioned above. Magic-users get the same spell bump for high Int that clerics get for high Wis. Magic-users can also wear leather with a 1 in 6 chance of spell failure. No weapon restrictions for clerics. Mages may use a sword only if it's magical. Spells are gained from spell books, other casters, or scrolls ONLY. No automatically suddenly knowing a spell like in later editions. Another thing I liked from a recent game was the GM stating "determine a connection between your character and the character of the player on your (rolls die) left". That one will be used too. All rolls on the table and when the DM calls for them: no pre-rolling. The DM holds onto all character sheets at the end of the game. If you want to take yours home to "fix up", make a copy at the table and take that. Originals stay with the DM. At the beginning of each game, a sheet will be passed around for 20 d20 rolls and 20 d6 rolls. That'll be my sheet to check for opening doors, finding traps, or determining surprise. Initiative will be with a d10 to determine in which segment your character goes, so roll low.
Critical Hits & Fumbles - I have used these somewhat in the past. Usually it helps the opponents more than the players, but the players like the feeling of "doing extra damage" because of a lucky roll. So, what I've done in the past is if you roll a natural 20, roll d%. I have a chart which allows for something special 25% of the time, otherwise it's just a max damage hit. On the opposite side, if you roll at natural 1, I have another d% chart which causes problems 25% of the time. Otherwise, it's a free attack by one opponent. I haven't used it in a while and I may need to go hunt it down...or recreate it.
Hmmm, that's enough for now. Pretty much covers the rules. Campaign ideas next time.
8 comments:
I've found 12 sets of 3d6 in order solved the problem of expectations.
Players who were open to it picked "interesting" stat spreads. Min/Max-ers got to pick the super-stats they wanted.
And then, since death follows swiftly when players choose poorly, they all soon find themselves either picking another set or rolling another dozen sets of 3d6 in order.
Regarding "determine a connection between your character and the character of the player on your (rolls die) left" notion, Diaspora (a Traveller clone using the FATE ruleset) takes this a step further with some multi-step group character creation rules:
http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/diaspora-srd.html#characters
They also have some interesting ‘Cluster’ creation rules where you, as a group, create a shared universe (in Traveller terms, you create a subsector, each person providing some creative input to planets, etc.):
http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/diaspora-srd.html#clusters
Ideally with Diaspora, you create ‘Clusters’ (planets and places) as a group, then create your characters within this shared universe. Works great if your group all wants to be part of the creative process (not all groups have this dynamic though).
Smallville RPG has the entire first session be their ‘Pathways’ process where you create relationship maps and shared background -- sort of like Traveller but much more relationship and soap-opera drama oriented.
Also I wrote about yet another way to do this that I came up with Character Connections.
My problem with the "invent a connection" is it presumes character stability.
You can't whip a character up, figure out who he is and how relates to all these other people, and then have him die 5 minutes later to a spider, a failed saving throw (or equivalent), etc.
It's another of the "narrative development" elements imported from creative writing courses that I believe is corrosive to role-playing.
It works with something like Savage Worlds where there really is effective "plot immunity"; the conceit of the system is that all the PCs are heroes or anti-heroes on the model of pulp fiction.
But if I'm doing improv with a bunch of other theater people, none of us worry about motivation or "party relationships". You have the rules of the game, you have a few hooks, and where it goes from there is anyone's guess. There is a moderator or referee, of sorts, but his job is not so much to enforce the rules as to keep the game moving; i.e., when the current game starts to lag, introduce a new trope to create the opportunity for more improvisation.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I think one of the fundamentally unexplored sources of division among gamers is that some of us prefer our game sessions to be more like improv and others prefer something more akin to a collaborative storytelling project.
I'm firmly in the improv camp, having spent 15 years working the "frustrated novelist" angle of the game and not enjoying it very much.
My apologies, Chris. What I meant was, if this will be an ongoing campaign, I would use the "connection" house rule just to encourage more cooperative gameplay. The Kobold Campaign I ran earlier was so successful (I believe) because all the players took it for granted that their characters were part of an organization and needed to protect each other. There was significant discussion about how to solve problems and plan ahead instead of the sometimes goofy and self (or group) destructive impulses of picking on each other.
But, if it's a short game, con game, or pick up game, I'd not use this rule.
Okay...I see where you're going, Steve.
But I'm still uncomfortable even in a "campaign" situation. But I'm not a big fan of "setting up" the campaign from the first meeting of the players.
The campaign emerges from the series of adventures; the adventures don't occur within the context of a pre-planned campaign.
I think that's where I had difficulty sustaining Flashing Blades for more than a few sessions. It requires a different kind of prep and assumes a different style of play.
I should clarify that, while I don't care for establishing relationships from the outset of play as a DM, I don't loathe and execrate it as a player.
It makes sense for a certain kind of game; e.g., Stan's SW game.
And it becomes necessary if you've got a concept (Kobold Campaign or a Firefly-inspired Traveller game).
What I'm trying to say is that, IMO, once you start working to determine the relationships among characters at character creation, you've moved beyond a "random walk", as it were, and into a conception of the game that will assume character permanence and account for narrative flow: there's a story that's being told and at least some aspects of that story have been determined before the first throw of the dice.
Here's a very interesting article on the different player types: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html.
What I've come to believe is that in many groups you're going to have diverse play styles (min/maxers, improv, storytellers, etc.) and so if you as a GM can do a bit in each category (boss fight for min-maxers, free-form sandbox part of the session for improv types, advance the meta-plot for the storytellers, etc.), ideally in each game, you can keep everyone satisfied.
Chris, I'm thinking I'm a 'Storyteller' player mostly, and I'm guessing you're a 'Charactor Actor' (using the terms in that article above).
I wonder which one Steve is?
Possibly, but I'm not buying the conclusions they drew and the categories the constructed to fit their data.
Anytime you do a sample and the survey instrument returns "22% in each category" with 12% left over you've got an invalid instrument...and that will result in invalid conclusions.
As it stands, I'm not a fan of props, voices, etc. in my gaming. I can go to the theater for that.
That's part of why I pointed to improv: no costumes, no sets, no plot, no self-respect; just a free-form play that results from the interaction of people trying to have fun within the constraints of a loose set of rules.
Practically speaking, once you have a "boss-fight" for one player, and some plot coupons for another, etc. you're out of the realm of what I think tabletop RPGs do best and trying to compete with video games. And, for that market of gamer, the tabletop game will lose. Every time.
I really think it is either-or: Either the game is open-ended and driven by the players actions or it isn't.
The illusion of open-ended play created to mask a pre-determined plot line, with boss battles and all the rest, really doesn't interest me for very long.
Post a Comment