I think it was 2nd edition AD&D that introduced the world to the Use Rope skill. I'm not sure whether this list o' skills system idea grew out of the game organically or if it was bolted on because other systems were doing it, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. I thought it was cool that my Fighter was a good fisherman and mountaineer. I'm looking at it again now however, and I think that it's not been such a successful idea.
Initially you had class tables, stats and saving throws to give some base values to hang success checks off of. You wanted to try something use the table. If you had no table you would make a strength check, or make a saving throw. If you could replace those class tables, various stunt tables and saving throws with a set of skills maybe that would be better. However the skills didn't replace the old stuff, they were bolted onto the framework so now you had more moving parts. Also the skills didn't really integrate into the classes and they certainly didn't integrate into the level system very well. Add to this you will still have those cases where there is ambiguity and no skill to cover the situation so you are either stuck making new skills or new tables for these new solutions or calling for more stat checks or (sometimes arbitrary) saving throws based on the situations. How many modules had a one off weird effect that was save vs wands? Mixing list of skills with a class/level geared system can probably work, but it isn't going to be a graceful child.
That's why I like the Microlite skill system. The skills and the stats are integrated with the classes and level advancement and they are generic enough that when they are matched to a Stat they can apply to most situations. You don't need special saving throws because you can assign a skill or stat check to do the same function. The 4 Microlite Stats are STRength, DEXterity, MIND, and CHArisma. The 5 Skills are Physical, Subterfuge, Communication, Knowledge and Survival. It's a 4x5 grid system. By using them individually or mixing these up with the stat bonus applied to the Skill value you can assign a base number to most activities that aren't covered by (the few) denoted combat or magic rules. Also depending on how a task is described by the players you can assign a more appropriate base number.
Say your players want to leap a wide chasm - you can use Physical + STR bonus to see if they do it. The Rogue isn't happy with this due to a low STR stat, and describes using a sapling as pole to vault over it so you let her roll Phys+DEX instead. To convince the henchmen to follow them into a magic portal you can say Comm+CHA or MIND bonus depending on if they make a stirring oration or a reasoned plea. Pick a pocket - Sub+DEX, out lie a minstrel - Sub+Comm, hide a ferret in their pants... um perhaps Sub+STR? Use a friggin rope? Well that depends on what you use it for but however it is used you have a lot of options here including Sub+MIND (rope tricks), Phys+STR (climbing a rockface), Survival+MIND (making a snare loop), Comm+CHA (Well you get the idea).
The class bonuses to the Skills also reinforces the system, not only mechanically but by encouraging styles of problem solving. Fighters who are always working with their bodies are consequently utilizing their physical skills, Mages are going to be better at Knowledge based tasks, and Rogues get benefits from doing things the sneaky way.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
and miscellaneous
I'm sure glad that Delta posted an article on his Stone Encumbrance system because I think I would use that if encumbrance became an issue. I won't be adding in any rules for it into Beacon anyway aside from "use common sense". I've already got way more rules than I thought I would have. I'm going to try to have an update to the draft doc up in the next couple weeks or so which includes more detailed magic spell lists. They are more detailed in that they include information on ranges and duration.
I also picked up the Moldvay/Cook Basic D&D box off of the eBay. I'm pretty happy about that because it comes with the Keep on the Borderlands module and I've wanted a copy of that one like forever. I think Keep on the Borderlands is the seminal work of the Points Of Light style that I would most like to run as a campaign setting. In the past I always seemed to have kings and empires at war and Terrible Events come creeping into my campaigns and I think that next time I want to avoid this. Less San Gréal and more Sanford and Son. Module B2 will be a good study guide.
I also picked up the Moldvay/Cook Basic D&D box off of the eBay. I'm pretty happy about that because it comes with the Keep on the Borderlands module and I've wanted a copy of that one like forever. I think Keep on the Borderlands is the seminal work of the Points Of Light style that I would most like to run as a campaign setting. In the past I always seemed to have kings and empires at war and Terrible Events come creeping into my campaigns and I think that next time I want to avoid this. Less San Gréal and more Sanford and Son. Module B2 will be a good study guide.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Movement and terrain
I didn't want to deal with movement rates and speed. I liked the Microlite movement system where you could move as far as you needed to or as far as I thought would be cool. The bowmen on the stairs are too far away to reach this turn. The Dark Castle is 2 days away, you'll get there around dusk in a couple days (evil laugh).
That's not how the players think however. They want to get up to those bowmen and take them out this turn. They want to get to the dark castle in the afternoon so they can scope it out. They will ask you "how far" and if you show any signs of weakness and mutter some half assed answer like '60', they'll be on you like PCs on a bowman saying "no way! I can run that far in a minute carrying my camping gear to get on a bus!" or "we said we bought the fastest horses in the city! No way it will take 2 days to travel 60 miles!". At least if you have some rules you can point to them and shrug.
I'm not talking power gamers here either. If you are using minis to illustrate positioning this is certainly going to come up. Playing Microlite with my kids and one of the first encounters they had with the battlemap turned into a chase around a couple of trees and they wanted to know exactly how many squares they could move to keep their distance and keep throwing things at the bad guys. I had drawn the trees in just for flavour and they immediately became tactical points in the fight.
I'm not really sure how I want to deal with movement except a vague idea that you can move twice in a combat turn if you want and that it has to be simple. I like the SRD base movement rate of 20 ft. Using minis and a 5 ft. square, that's 4 squares per move or 8 if you just move in that turn. I can even get behind the idea that if you are unencumbered you could move double that, especially if that also covers monsters dropping their weapons and fleeing or fear spells. I would also like to have some differences in speed based on the characters 'quickness' (add 1 square per dex bonus point perhaps?). That means a character with 18 DEX can move 40ft while a character with a DEX of 3 can move 5 ft. (he's real slow to react to stuff, not necessarily physically hobbled). I think I can get away with something like that anyway. I'm not going to get into racial leg lengths or the fleetness of elves or any of that. As for monsters, well you can use their speed out of the SRD* or just make up something. Maybe creatures get to move 20 ft. per pair of legs or something. Flying, swimming - hell I don't want to get into it. Someone has certainly made some charts somewhere.
I also like this idea of move 20 if you extrapolate and say that they can move 20 miles per day on foot (no Dex bonus for non combat movement because you aren't reacting to stuff - you are slogging). That works well for my style and leaves room for the 30 mile per day on horse movement rate that I base my maps on (although I don't know how realistic any of that it is).
As for terrain, well if you are standing on a ledge looking down on the enemy or walking across swampland to get to the castle - this is going to impact combat and movement. How much is the question. And how simple can I make it while still keeping things neato. I think I need to think on it more because I don't just want to be re-writing tables from the Wilderness Survival guide over again.
* I hate leaning on the SRD so much but on the other hand it's a simple web click away and so many of these things have been hashed out for years and are common in a wide range of game supplements - why should I spend a lot of time changing them?
That's not how the players think however. They want to get up to those bowmen and take them out this turn. They want to get to the dark castle in the afternoon so they can scope it out. They will ask you "how far" and if you show any signs of weakness and mutter some half assed answer like '60', they'll be on you like PCs on a bowman saying "no way! I can run that far in a minute carrying my camping gear to get on a bus!" or "we said we bought the fastest horses in the city! No way it will take 2 days to travel 60 miles!". At least if you have some rules you can point to them and shrug.
I'm not talking power gamers here either. If you are using minis to illustrate positioning this is certainly going to come up. Playing Microlite with my kids and one of the first encounters they had with the battlemap turned into a chase around a couple of trees and they wanted to know exactly how many squares they could move to keep their distance and keep throwing things at the bad guys. I had drawn the trees in just for flavour and they immediately became tactical points in the fight.
I'm not really sure how I want to deal with movement except a vague idea that you can move twice in a combat turn if you want and that it has to be simple. I like the SRD base movement rate of 20 ft. Using minis and a 5 ft. square, that's 4 squares per move or 8 if you just move in that turn. I can even get behind the idea that if you are unencumbered you could move double that, especially if that also covers monsters dropping their weapons and fleeing or fear spells. I would also like to have some differences in speed based on the characters 'quickness' (add 1 square per dex bonus point perhaps?). That means a character with 18 DEX can move 40ft while a character with a DEX of 3 can move 5 ft. (he's real slow to react to stuff, not necessarily physically hobbled). I think I can get away with something like that anyway. I'm not going to get into racial leg lengths or the fleetness of elves or any of that. As for monsters, well you can use their speed out of the SRD* or just make up something. Maybe creatures get to move 20 ft. per pair of legs or something. Flying, swimming - hell I don't want to get into it. Someone has certainly made some charts somewhere.
I also like this idea of move 20 if you extrapolate and say that they can move 20 miles per day on foot (no Dex bonus for non combat movement because you aren't reacting to stuff - you are slogging). That works well for my style and leaves room for the 30 mile per day on horse movement rate that I base my maps on (although I don't know how realistic any of that it is).
As for terrain, well if you are standing on a ledge looking down on the enemy or walking across swampland to get to the castle - this is going to impact combat and movement. How much is the question. And how simple can I make it while still keeping things neato. I think I need to think on it more because I don't just want to be re-writing tables from the Wilderness Survival guide over again.
* I hate leaning on the SRD so much but on the other hand it's a simple web click away and so many of these things have been hashed out for years and are common in a wide range of game supplements - why should I spend a lot of time changing them?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Gold Standard
I get that idea that the economy of d&d was based on a gold rush style of inflation where goods were scarce and gold plentiful. Unfortunately these price lists have been used everywhere from border towns to magical fairy cities and items have been tacked on or price adjusted over the years until you have things like a length of chain costing more than the mule that's pulling it or dwarves buying plate armour off the rack.
In my old home brew campaign I tried to institute a couple different monetary systems, there was the focus empire where the silver coin was the base unit and there were Crowns, Royals and Imperials, the island nation to the south used long flat wafers of different sizes called Marks and the sprawling trader nations to the east used a paper money system. Since I'm neither a economist or a history expert I didn't have prices for items ready to use on demand so initially I tried using the AD&D ones or other supplements and just substituted silver for gold when making up prices. Even then it took time to reference them and then it took time to do the conversions between the different economies. This can be fun but mostly it isn't. As much as the default d&d coinage/price system sucks, I understand that most GM's (or their players) don't want to model a complex system like an economy. They want to bust up some shit. Aside from dropping unbalancing magic items and repricing expensive trinkets, when you are using modules from all sorts of places for encounters, it becomes a real drag to constantly tinker and correct the coinage on the fly.
So for Beacon I wanted to keep things close to the SRD while providing an easy out for the masochists that like to tinker*. I've included info from the SRD on equipment and coinage (especially the 10-1 ratios and coin weights of 1/3 oz or 50/lb). I've only tinkered with the price lists a little bit (because I can dammit).
Here's the easy out: There was an old empire now fallen and there is a lot of old coinage from back then still out in circulation. Especially in the dark caves and wild lands. That coinage is pretty durable stuff and people like it and use it a lot even though that use may or may not be looked favorably upon by the local authorities. I think there's a lot of potential in that idea. If you're in a society that has it's own monetary system and you come across a horde of 1/3 oz silver and gold pieces they might be fine using it in their markets or they may want you to exchange that coinage for theirs - they might want to tax it or even confiscate it. Or maybe there are no societies anymore.
Meanwhile there are a lot of good discussions on 'the blogs' about finance and campaign settings and these have useful information on everything from developing resource based economy to barter systems to historical price examples. I like the discussion about on The 25 Mile Hex about Manor Economics which fits in well with the traditional d&d 'end game' and gives some good ideas on how wealth gets carved out of those wilderness maps.
*I think that's a good design motto actually.
In my old home brew campaign I tried to institute a couple different monetary systems, there was the focus empire where the silver coin was the base unit and there were Crowns, Royals and Imperials, the island nation to the south used long flat wafers of different sizes called Marks and the sprawling trader nations to the east used a paper money system. Since I'm neither a economist or a history expert I didn't have prices for items ready to use on demand so initially I tried using the AD&D ones or other supplements and just substituted silver for gold when making up prices. Even then it took time to reference them and then it took time to do the conversions between the different economies. This can be fun but mostly it isn't. As much as the default d&d coinage/price system sucks, I understand that most GM's (or their players) don't want to model a complex system like an economy. They want to bust up some shit. Aside from dropping unbalancing magic items and repricing expensive trinkets, when you are using modules from all sorts of places for encounters, it becomes a real drag to constantly tinker and correct the coinage on the fly.
So for Beacon I wanted to keep things close to the SRD while providing an easy out for the masochists that like to tinker*. I've included info from the SRD on equipment and coinage (especially the 10-1 ratios and coin weights of 1/3 oz or 50/lb). I've only tinkered with the price lists a little bit (because I can dammit).
Here's the easy out: There was an old empire now fallen and there is a lot of old coinage from back then still out in circulation. Especially in the dark caves and wild lands. That coinage is pretty durable stuff and people like it and use it a lot even though that use may or may not be looked favorably upon by the local authorities. I think there's a lot of potential in that idea. If you're in a society that has it's own monetary system and you come across a horde of 1/3 oz silver and gold pieces they might be fine using it in their markets or they may want you to exchange that coinage for theirs - they might want to tax it or even confiscate it. Or maybe there are no societies anymore.
Meanwhile there are a lot of good discussions on 'the blogs' about finance and campaign settings and these have useful information on everything from developing resource based economy to barter systems to historical price examples. I like the discussion about on The 25 Mile Hex about Manor Economics which fits in well with the traditional d&d 'end game' and gives some good ideas on how wealth gets carved out of those wilderness maps.
*I think that's a good design motto actually.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Land of Map
It's Friday and it's game night and for a change of pace I want to write about something on the periphery of the game but that actually has a lot of impact on putting together the core rules - the setting. Most GMs will haberdash together their own settings for a game but most good game systems have an implied setting - even if it's just the one used in their examples. I think that one of the reasons I'm taking so long on how to package the magic section for Beacon is that magic is one of the variable systems that can really be impacted by the setting (XP is another). And by setting I don't mean the location, I mean the entire 'setting' package - the locations yes but also, how much treasure is out there, how much fantastic vs grit. How many wand and healing potions would you expect to find?
I like my adventures to be more gritty than fantastic - you are more likely to be exploring an old ruined temple than a mad wizards death-maze. If you do run across a death-maze then it's probably only got one portal to the netherworld and a small number of magic fountains. So from this you can assume that magic is somewhat uncommon in my preferred setting and therefore I'm not likely to have a long list of random magic items and artifacts in the treasure section or wish spell on the Mage spell lists. Normally you'd be correct but I know that not everyone plays this way so should this go into a core 'rule book' or should it be part of a separate setting book so that the core rules can be used with other more setting appropriate material if the GM chooses? Does this mean I should have a separate document for the spell lists so that folks can use the SRD if they prefer? I don't know. I expect I'll figure something out.
I have a map you know. I made it in Gimp and it has layers (some, like the encounter layer, I'm not going to display to you). Here it is.
I like my adventures to be more gritty than fantastic - you are more likely to be exploring an old ruined temple than a mad wizards death-maze. If you do run across a death-maze then it's probably only got one portal to the netherworld and a small number of magic fountains. So from this you can assume that magic is somewhat uncommon in my preferred setting and therefore I'm not likely to have a long list of random magic items and artifacts in the treasure section or wish spell on the Mage spell lists. Normally you'd be correct but I know that not everyone plays this way so should this go into a core 'rule book' or should it be part of a separate setting book so that the core rules can be used with other more setting appropriate material if the GM chooses? Does this mean I should have a separate document for the spell lists so that folks can use the SRD if they prefer? I don't know. I expect I'll figure something out.
I have a map you know. I made it in Gimp and it has layers (some, like the encounter layer, I'm not going to display to you). Here it is.
 |
| The Land of Map |
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Critical Hitting
It is a simple thing to say you have a 5% chance to do full damage or double damage. That can be exciting and it can be enough. I totally encourage this if it's the style of play you want. However...
I am a fan of the Iron Crown Enterprises Role Master Series, even if I don't think I'd want to play it again. Coming off AD&D in high school, Role Master seemed like a fantastic system to us. All those percentile tables were great and the critical hit tables were just full of awesome. Nose breaking, brain bursting, fire scorching awesome. All those looking up tables and rolling took a toll on the game however and after a year or so we switched the campaign over to a much simpler percentile die system (Marvel Superheros). Since then I have always had a soft spot for the distribution curve* and unfortunately, aside from character stat generation this isn't satisfied in d20. I did think about using 2d10 for d20 but the system isn't designed for it and I believe that you would get a lot of grief and wasted die rolling by bolting it on. I did want to keep something of that alive however so the perfect place to do it was in a Critical Hit table.
There is something special about a % table**. Maybe it's because the most common results come from the middle and generally the things you want to have happen (or not happen) are the first and last item on the list. Those events are pretty rare so when they happen they really stand out. It's fun putting them together and once you flesh out the middle, you can relax a bit on game balance and put in some cool bits. Your critical hit/miss table can have a mage loose 1d6 MIND points from a botched spell or have a fighter shatter his opponents shield (or his shield arm!), because it's not going to happen that often. It provides a way to damage armour and keep blacksmiths busy fixing chain-mail, it provides churches with Restoration spells another source of income. And when you roll that triple sized fireball and perhaps kill half your party - you'll remember it as special too.
* ok more of a angle than a curve with percentile dice, but still a probability graph!
** note I totally got this ass backwards if you read Trevors' comments below but remember that it's been like two decades since I played rolemaster. The important part is that Beacon used 2d10 for critical hits because it's kick ass.
I am a fan of the Iron Crown Enterprises Role Master Series, even if I don't think I'd want to play it again. Coming off AD&D in high school, Role Master seemed like a fantastic system to us. All those percentile tables were great and the critical hit tables were just full of awesome. Nose breaking, brain bursting, fire scorching awesome. All those looking up tables and rolling took a toll on the game however and after a year or so we switched the campaign over to a much simpler percentile die system (Marvel Superheros). Since then I have always had a soft spot for the distribution curve* and unfortunately, aside from character stat generation this isn't satisfied in d20. I did think about using 2d10 for d20 but the system isn't designed for it and I believe that you would get a lot of grief and wasted die rolling by bolting it on. I did want to keep something of that alive however so the perfect place to do it was in a Critical Hit table.
There is something special about a % table**. Maybe it's because the most common results come from the middle and generally the things you want to have happen (or not happen) are the first and last item on the list. Those events are pretty rare so when they happen they really stand out. It's fun putting them together and once you flesh out the middle, you can relax a bit on game balance and put in some cool bits. Your critical hit/miss table can have a mage loose 1d6 MIND points from a botched spell or have a fighter shatter his opponents shield (or his shield arm!), because it's not going to happen that often. It provides a way to damage armour and keep blacksmiths busy fixing chain-mail, it provides churches with Restoration spells another source of income. And when you roll that triple sized fireball and perhaps kill half your party - you'll remember it as special too.
* ok more of a angle than a curve with percentile dice, but still a probability graph!
** note I totally got this ass backwards if you read Trevors' comments below but remember that it's been like two decades since I played rolemaster. The important part is that Beacon used 2d10 for critical hits because it's kick ass.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
eXPerience
I get where the Microlite experience system is coming from - counting up encounter levels (EL) is simple and easy to work with, but for my mind I need to have wiggle room to add or subtract the amount of experience based on game play and for that I wanted more granular units. I could have worked with EL if I hadn't wanted to give XP for spent treasure or hand out little XP perks for good game moments. As it is I went with a general goal of 100XP per HD so that I could throw in 25 or 30 XP here and there. Going with this makes it easy to put the level requirements at multiples of 1000 so level 1 is 1000XP, level 2 would be 2000, level 11 would be 11000. I also like handing out 25 and 50 XP bonuses for little game play things like figuring out the magic lever or babysitting the kolbolds. If I were to be running on a level *100 system I would be worried about handing out too much or seeming miserly handing our 1 or 2 XP. I did like the mechanic in Microlite of once you level you wipe out your XP and start counting again - for no particular reason except simplified record keeping.
Now when I say a 1HD monster is worth 100 XP that doesn't mean that all 1 HD monsters are worth 100 XP. A little 3hp goblin is not worth 100 XP, a crazed dwarf with his torch over a pool of oil probably is. I like to mix it up a little when handing out XP but you could follow the basic system and assign a straight 100/HD and it should work out. You can even go with a variant with 50/HD or 200/HD depending on how long you want to play out each level and it should work well since level * 1000 is pretty simple to work with.
I'm not worried that it doesn't average out with or track with experience point tables in d&d or other d20 style game in particular. I think that the with difference in game styles and difficulties and amounts of treasure in d20 fantasy systems already out there you can get away with this and still track pretty well with the modules and supplements at each level no matter how you got there. Some games are tough and some are Monty Haul and a level 4 cleric is probably going to be pretty much the same mechanically whether you got there in one adventure or in six.
As for experience for spending treasure - well I think this is a great idea to get dragged out of the old school systems. Giving XP for spending treasure does two things - it rewards lots of adventuring things aside from combat and it gets rid of treasure so that players need to get more. Also having to spend it on 'tithes and training' makes sure it gets spent and not just converted to some other kind of swag. The 10 to 1 rate of exchange is a guesstimate based on what I consider my treasure levels will be. I wanted to make the treasure component less than 1/3 of the XP so I pegged it to 10gp. I can see a good adventurer at level 8 accumulating 25,000gp to spend on training and charity somehow. And if they are not wanting to part with their money, well they'll be out there fighting it up then.
Now when I say a 1HD monster is worth 100 XP that doesn't mean that all 1 HD monsters are worth 100 XP. A little 3hp goblin is not worth 100 XP, a crazed dwarf with his torch over a pool of oil probably is. I like to mix it up a little when handing out XP but you could follow the basic system and assign a straight 100/HD and it should work out. You can even go with a variant with 50/HD or 200/HD depending on how long you want to play out each level and it should work well since level * 1000 is pretty simple to work with.
I'm not worried that it doesn't average out with or track with experience point tables in d&d or other d20 style game in particular. I think that the with difference in game styles and difficulties and amounts of treasure in d20 fantasy systems already out there you can get away with this and still track pretty well with the modules and supplements at each level no matter how you got there. Some games are tough and some are Monty Haul and a level 4 cleric is probably going to be pretty much the same mechanically whether you got there in one adventure or in six.
As for experience for spending treasure - well I think this is a great idea to get dragged out of the old school systems. Giving XP for spending treasure does two things - it rewards lots of adventuring things aside from combat and it gets rid of treasure so that players need to get more. Also having to spend it on 'tithes and training' makes sure it gets spent and not just converted to some other kind of swag. The 10 to 1 rate of exchange is a guesstimate based on what I consider my treasure levels will be. I wanted to make the treasure component less than 1/3 of the XP so I pegged it to 10gp. I can see a good adventurer at level 8 accumulating 25,000gp to spend on training and charity somehow. And if they are not wanting to part with their money, well they'll be out there fighting it up then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)