I've been reading some interesting articles on character generation and the bonus increases from 0e onwards. As Philotomy wrote in his post, OD&D characters don't need high rolls. In later editions the bonus became bigger at the upper range of atributes, so to does the drive for exceptional rolls when making a character. Many DMs will say "suck it up and play." Indeed, that is part of role play; to play the rolls you get. Back in the day everyone expected to play a weak wizard, or clumsy cleric, etc. But should we really force players to take characters with multiple bad rolls?
I have come around to the "low bonus" way of thinking, and it is changing how I think about classes. In S&W there are very few stat based bonuses that go beyond +2. Notably, the Fighter's Parry modifier for AC and maximum spells for Magic-Users. Making more of the rolls based on class or level rather than atribute will negate the need for great scores. Obviously, if the atribute bonus is minimal the players can worry less about getting good rolls.
Still this raises the question of how to roll up a new character. I think Lord Kilgore makes an interesting point when he says, 'it's easier to change character creation than to change the bonus structure.' With all the OSR blogs I'm surprised that the ways we used to roll up characters are no longer even mentioned. They aren't as limiting as roll 3d6 in order, but still don't hand the player 18s for everything. So here are some old school character generation rules from way back...
3d6, Reroll 1s
This was probably the most common way to do it and it has an interesting effect on the bell curve. Unlike, 4d6 and toss the lowest, this has no effect on the high end of the spectrum. However, it does push up the low end, effectively making the range 6-18 for players. Either roll in order or roll and assign will work. I usually go with roll and assign, mainly to let the players choose their class.
Roll 2 Characters
A real classic, have each player roll up 2 characters with straight 3d6 in order. You let the player choose which one to use. In exceptionally dangerous campaigns you can have the unused character become an NPC henchman.
Roll (3d6)x7, Toss the Lowest
Another very common system was to make an extra atribute roll. The player uses the highest 6 rolls for the atributes and assigns them at the end. Might be able to use this with a roll in order system and replace a score of your choosing with the last one.
Note that none of these were used with the 1-for-2 point buying system.
2011-11-16
Balancing Classes in Swords & Wizardry
I'm working on modified classes for my S&W campaign. One thing is for sure they need a little help, as written the classes in the Complete Handbook are perhaps authentic but also a bit thin and even contradictory. I am not a min/max stat head that thinks each class needs to be able to deal equal damage at all experience levels. I don't even mean power balance exactly... I mean balanced for fun.
I can tell you that a 1st level Magic-User is not that much fun to play, epically in a large party. Go ahead and cast your one spell, then watch the fighters beat on monsters for several hours until the party can be persuaded to sleep. Sure creative use of flaming oil and darts can make up for some of it. But you're always falling back on tactics anyone could use, but don't generally bother to because they can... I don't know... use a sword or a bow.
Once you get to 5th level it all changes. The DM tells the Magic-User, "You can now cast Fireball." Well, if you can find a scroll at any rate. With a decent number of 1st and 2nd level spells you are a much more survivable combatant with the ability to buff armor and damage. What does the DM tell the fighter in vanilla S&W? "You can... um... attack with a roll one better than last level." The fighter might ask if he can still chainsaw his way through minor monsters, but... well no, these are HOBgoblins and 1+1HD monsters so sorry.
Gamers may say that the Magic-User is supposed to hard to play in the begining and gets more fun later. While Fighters are great from the start and are a more equipment based class rather than skill or ability based. OK so who wants to play the not-fun class up front? Who wants to wait for whatever the DM feels like handing out later? I mean how easy is it to find a player willing to go Cleric? And at least on paper it's a viable early game power house with armor, spells and decent To Hit rolls.
Thieves are crazy too, I know the skills model isn't popular with everyone. Players like it because they can easily imagine using these actions. However, I'm not even sure I know how to DM these rules as written. One really bizzar effect is persistent bad armor class. Without the heavy Dexterity bonuses of later versions of the game a Thief is quite defenseless. Of course they are supposed to hide, but with scores like 30% at 5th level who would rely on that? It seems weird that a 1st level Thief with 13 Dex is is hit by the same roll as a 10th level Thief with 18 Dex.
I want to balance the player fun in the classes, between each other, as well as between low and high levels. Here are my basic requirements for re-designing the classes, which I'll be working on in future posts.
I can tell you that a 1st level Magic-User is not that much fun to play, epically in a large party. Go ahead and cast your one spell, then watch the fighters beat on monsters for several hours until the party can be persuaded to sleep. Sure creative use of flaming oil and darts can make up for some of it. But you're always falling back on tactics anyone could use, but don't generally bother to because they can... I don't know... use a sword or a bow.
Once you get to 5th level it all changes. The DM tells the Magic-User, "You can now cast Fireball." Well, if you can find a scroll at any rate. With a decent number of 1st and 2nd level spells you are a much more survivable combatant with the ability to buff armor and damage. What does the DM tell the fighter in vanilla S&W? "You can... um... attack with a roll one better than last level." The fighter might ask if he can still chainsaw his way through minor monsters, but... well no, these are HOBgoblins and 1+1HD monsters so sorry.
Gamers may say that the Magic-User is supposed to hard to play in the begining and gets more fun later. While Fighters are great from the start and are a more equipment based class rather than skill or ability based. OK so who wants to play the not-fun class up front? Who wants to wait for whatever the DM feels like handing out later? I mean how easy is it to find a player willing to go Cleric? And at least on paper it's a viable early game power house with armor, spells and decent To Hit rolls.
Thieves are crazy too, I know the skills model isn't popular with everyone. Players like it because they can easily imagine using these actions. However, I'm not even sure I know how to DM these rules as written. One really bizzar effect is persistent bad armor class. Without the heavy Dexterity bonuses of later versions of the game a Thief is quite defenseless. Of course they are supposed to hide, but with scores like 30% at 5th level who would rely on that? It seems weird that a 1st level Thief with 13 Dex is is hit by the same roll as a 10th level Thief with 18 Dex.
I want to balance the player fun in the classes, between each other, as well as between low and high levels. Here are my basic requirements for re-designing the classes, which I'll be working on in future posts.
- Fighter: More high level benefits, extra attacks are popular, maybe even perks or abilities based on weapons.
- Magic-User: Some low level benefits, giving the player something to do besides hiding, but not making them into psuedo-warlocks which always seemed like flashy archer replacements.
- Cleric: Anything to make them more fun, perhaps holy symbols with magical effects, or sermons and prayers, which might make them more like Bards.
- Thief: Re-configure the skills to make them more consistent and usable, though maybe fewer, and do something about the armor class.
- Sub-Classes: I haven't mentioned them yet, and I don't really like most of them, and they seem over-powered, especialy at high level, but I will do something with them.
2011-11-15
RPGs, CRPGs and the OSR Revolution
Back in the day we were all "old-school" by default. In the early 1980s AD&D was new, a new way to play a game, a new way to socialize, a new way to solve problems. Back then everything was created from scratch, sure we had modules and supplements and Dragon Magazine, but the tropes and mainstays of the genre had yet to be defined. The formulaic solutions to well defined problems were still being invented; every foetid stink from the mouldering dungeon was a breath of fresh air in creative terms.
You can see the effect most easily in CRPGs and especially in the terminology used in MMORPGs to discuss tactics. Of course CRPGs have always been less nuanced than paper & pencil games, but even through the end of the 1990s there was a sense of possibility, of emergent behavior through combination of play styles. A great example is UserUnfriendly's Cheese Guide for Baldur's Gate 2. This guide is no mere list of exploits, it explores unintended effects and creative solutions to tough situations. Another example is NetHack, which has more surprises and inventive interaction than many table top campaigns I played in my youth.
With the rise of more tactical fantasy games and the limited communication available to MMO players, games like EQ and WoW created a short-hand for the techniques they use to win battles. This method of thinking has come back to RPGs through reverse osmosis. Since people who play CRPGs (MMO or not) are often the same ones who now play the paper & pencil games a general feel and mindset has settled on game rule sets and on gamers themselves. Of course 4E and the proliferation of feats and perks is an example, players want fun things for their characters to do. An easy way for the games to provide this is through explicit rules. "Hey my character has Expert 2-Weapon Fighting so I get a bonus of ..."
It isn't only the vast number of special attacks, class builds, and unique equipment that have changed the games. The very nature of thinking about playing has changed too. Of course everyone in the 1980s knew the fighter had to stand in front and protect the party, but the thinking was rudimentary. Now we have, "pulling aggro", "damage soaking", "DPS builds," and many other very precise methods for efficiently defeating enemies and players expect these to be equally valid in any rules-based RPG, computer or otherwise.
Can I unknow these concepts? Is there a way to be a naive, and less constrained player? Does moving away from the current highly defined rules sets mean moving back to an earlier era? Some games defy the trend without "retro" solutions, and provide other models to combat and character. Diceless systems like Amber take an entirely different approach and have rules-based, but non-randomized conflict. Another example I would recommend is In A Wicked Age which is even further into the story-telling end of the continuum. However, I'm not really familiar with the paradigm of diceless games and while I like the ideas behind it, it seems to take a special kind of RPG gamer.
What does all this have to do with the Old School Revival? I recently decided to take the plunge and get into the retro-clone world and I bought the Swords & Wizardry Complete Handbook (cheap on PDF). I wanted something that I could pick up and play, that was easy to explain, and left a lot of room for variety. So part of it is my comfort zone as a DM, but I also think that the minimal structure will allow me to present a more creative campaign and give my players a better experience. There's an interesting article by Tavis that discusses some of these issues. I originally assumed I'd be playing Labyrinth Lord, as that was closest to my experience, but something funny happeded. I was drawn to the simpler system of S&W and the creative juices began to flow. I'll be blogging about my campaign ideas and house rules here so stay tuned.
Next up, Balancing Classes in Swords & Wizardry...
You can see the effect most easily in CRPGs and especially in the terminology used in MMORPGs to discuss tactics. Of course CRPGs have always been less nuanced than paper & pencil games, but even through the end of the 1990s there was a sense of possibility, of emergent behavior through combination of play styles. A great example is UserUnfriendly's Cheese Guide for Baldur's Gate 2. This guide is no mere list of exploits, it explores unintended effects and creative solutions to tough situations. Another example is NetHack, which has more surprises and inventive interaction than many table top campaigns I played in my youth.
With the rise of more tactical fantasy games and the limited communication available to MMO players, games like EQ and WoW created a short-hand for the techniques they use to win battles. This method of thinking has come back to RPGs through reverse osmosis. Since people who play CRPGs (MMO or not) are often the same ones who now play the paper & pencil games a general feel and mindset has settled on game rule sets and on gamers themselves. Of course 4E and the proliferation of feats and perks is an example, players want fun things for their characters to do. An easy way for the games to provide this is through explicit rules. "Hey my character has Expert 2-Weapon Fighting so I get a bonus of ..."
It isn't only the vast number of special attacks, class builds, and unique equipment that have changed the games. The very nature of thinking about playing has changed too. Of course everyone in the 1980s knew the fighter had to stand in front and protect the party, but the thinking was rudimentary. Now we have, "pulling aggro", "damage soaking", "DPS builds," and many other very precise methods for efficiently defeating enemies and players expect these to be equally valid in any rules-based RPG, computer or otherwise.
Can I unknow these concepts? Is there a way to be a naive, and less constrained player? Does moving away from the current highly defined rules sets mean moving back to an earlier era? Some games defy the trend without "retro" solutions, and provide other models to combat and character. Diceless systems like Amber take an entirely different approach and have rules-based, but non-randomized conflict. Another example I would recommend is In A Wicked Age which is even further into the story-telling end of the continuum. However, I'm not really familiar with the paradigm of diceless games and while I like the ideas behind it, it seems to take a special kind of RPG gamer.
What does all this have to do with the Old School Revival? I recently decided to take the plunge and get into the retro-clone world and I bought the Swords & Wizardry Complete Handbook (cheap on PDF). I wanted something that I could pick up and play, that was easy to explain, and left a lot of room for variety. So part of it is my comfort zone as a DM, but I also think that the minimal structure will allow me to present a more creative campaign and give my players a better experience. There's an interesting article by Tavis that discusses some of these issues. I originally assumed I'd be playing Labyrinth Lord, as that was closest to my experience, but something funny happeded. I was drawn to the simpler system of S&W and the creative juices began to flow. I'll be blogging about my campaign ideas and house rules here so stay tuned.
Next up, Balancing Classes in Swords & Wizardry...
2011-11-14
The Seven Geases
This is a blog for my thoughts on old-school RPGs and whatever else crosses my mind.
For your amusement you may attempt to prounounce the title of my Blog, "The Seven Geases," though I do not recommend it. It is the title of a Clark Ashton Smith story and the word "geas" is apparently the source of some phonetic controversy.
Like many kids who played D&D in the 1980s I was exposed to a multitude of words through reading alone. Using these in public made one sound very erudite, provided they were pronounced correctly. My favorite word "crenulation" is not too hard to figure out, and "wyvern" is bad enough, but no one had ever heard "geas" used in conversation. Although we pronounced it "gi-as" we knew it was wrong.
There is a short but informative thread at The Straight Dope discussing it. It is related to the Gaelic word "geis," and is found in Irish mythology. If you know anything about old Irish words you should know this; they are not pronounced how an American would guess from the spelling. I will go with the the OED where "geas" is pronounced with a "sh-" sound at the end, so "gesh" it is.
For your amusement you may attempt to prounounce the title of my Blog, "The Seven Geases," though I do not recommend it. It is the title of a Clark Ashton Smith story and the word "geas" is apparently the source of some phonetic controversy.
Like many kids who played D&D in the 1980s I was exposed to a multitude of words through reading alone. Using these in public made one sound very erudite, provided they were pronounced correctly. My favorite word "crenulation" is not too hard to figure out, and "wyvern" is bad enough, but no one had ever heard "geas" used in conversation. Although we pronounced it "gi-as" we knew it was wrong.
There is a short but informative thread at The Straight Dope discussing it. It is related to the Gaelic word "geis," and is found in Irish mythology. If you know anything about old Irish words you should know this; they are not pronounced how an American would guess from the spelling. I will go with the the OED where "geas" is pronounced with a "sh-" sound at the end, so "gesh" it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)