Lately, I've been contemplating rebooting my entire D&D campaign. Why?
Well, I've been gradually shifting some of the world's events in a dark direction. There are horror elements - more Gothic than anything else, although I have had a couple of body-horror ideas to make my players' skin crawl - which culminated in a near-death at the hands of what two of the players hypothesized is some kind of eldritch god. (I'm not telling.) In fact, now that we've tentatively switched to AD&D2, I've had half a mind to cough up ten bucks for the nice PDFs of some Ravenloft books.
And who is running in this campaign at the moment? A cleric named Thebabicus, a druid named Steve (whose player has, so far, shown up to two of the last five sessions), and - until recently - a B/X elf named Boss Awesome. This group of mountebanks have dubbed themselves Team Awesomesauce. Pretty hard to take things seriously when everyone treats it like a joke.
Given this, I'm tempted to just have a Poison Rain Vornado come and sweep the party off to a faraway land that's almost as goofy as they are.
The other reason I want to reboot is that I finally bought the Cook/Marsh Expert Rulebook, and it's pretty cool. I've actually started on a little project which I hope to write more about soon, which this acquisition has finally made possible. For a while, I was thinking of running a game using Basic Fantasy. Pros: Good rules, easy to run, free to download (and print, at my university), and I already have a paperback copy. Cons: Some of the rules aren't to my liking. I realize that house-rules are easy to implement with this and other OSR games, but I have this feeling like it's not worth my time to modify the rules too much. If I have to change a bunch of the rules, why not just play a game that has those rules the way I like it?
Which is why I'll probably go with B/X if I reboot my campaign. I'm debating who to invite back. I feel like having a break where we play video games for a while will ease the frustration they might feel at switching systems again, much less back to the one we started with! The slowly forming "core" group has three good players who (from what I gather) would be fine with a serious game if it was presented to a fresh audience, and one player who has a great deal of rules mastery (having spent years running the Rules Cyclopedia) but a tendency to make a joke out of things. I've started sketching out a less serious campaign, and I might invite him back to that one; alternatively, I might try out one of his own gonzo campaigns, and play for a while.
Speaking of me playing: that's another reason to use B/X. If B did want to be the Dungeon Master for a while, the Basic Rulebook would be a hell of a lot easier to learn from than AD&D2 (the latter of which has, at least in the DMG, some pretty bad advice in it).
On the other hand, I've recently started talking to a guy I've known tangentially for a few years, who has a good deal of experience running various editions of D&D (including 5e, for which I might join his campaign if he gets one going), as well as Savage Worlds. I'd certainly like to have a good number of people available for a B/X game. Plus, one of J's friends came last time, and did a pretty good job. The more the merrier... especially since I'm planning to use B/X by the book for the Less Serious Game.
That's right! Uniform weapon damage! No negative hit points! (Maybe maximum HP at 1st level, but that's it.) Ha-HA!!
I feel like this is how Barry Sonnenfeld would do it if he was a DM: darkly funny and often absurd, but very deadly to the unwary (or unlucky).
Well, it's 1:21 AM as I finish up this post. Sorry if it's a little disorganized and weird... but for those of you who play OD&D on the reg', that shouldn't be a problem, should it? :D
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Thanks!
Lately I've gotten a couple of shout-outs on other blogs. A few days ago, JB of B/X Blackrazor pointed out a couple of possible solutions to my conundrum on uniform weapon damage, and then mentioned me in his post on axes. And now, Stelios of The Word of Stelios has mentioned my recent post on gender in gaming in a post recounting some similar experiences.
I'm glad to see that I've been writing some things worthy of taking notice, but even nicer is Stelios' description of this 'spot as "a new blog worth reading".
Wow. What can I say, but... thank you! Thanks to both JB and Stelios for their insights and kind words. I'll do my best not to disappoint!
I'm glad to see that I've been writing some things worthy of taking notice, but even nicer is Stelios' description of this 'spot as "a new blog worth reading".
Wow. What can I say, but... thank you! Thanks to both JB and Stelios for their insights and kind words. I'll do my best not to disappoint!
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Gender & Gaming: my experiences
This is obviously not intended to be a comprehensive, dissertation-level treatise on how women are represented and portrayed in tabletop gaming. It's just a few notes on how the gender makeup of my games has changed over time.
My first group of players, in high school, consisted of two guys and two girls: IS, GM, MC, and LO, respectively. Eventually, one of the guys left, was sporadically replaced by another guy, and not long afterwards the gaming group broke up for a number of reasons.
The next couple of groups I tried running consisted entirely of male players, two of whom (CC and SC) are in my current group as well. That set of attempted campaigns - one using AD&D2, the other a marginally more successful B/X excursion - dissolved before too long, due to other commitments by many of the players. My extremely short-lived Pathfinder Beginner Box group likewise consisted of three guys.
The group I'm running now has a rotating cast, but what appears to be the most stable set of players is much like my first group: LO, B (a mutual friend of MC), CC, and a veteran gamer I'll call J. SC plays from time to time, but a mix of work commitments and transportation issues frequently keep him from showing up.
I'm considering handing over the reins as Dungeon Master to B after everyone has a chance to play AD&D2 a little more thoroughly, due to my hectic class schedule this semester. It'll be interesting to see how she puts her own spin on things, gender-wise.
(Also: I'm not surprised that there weren't many female D&D players in the 1990s. Both AD&D2 and the Rules Cyclopedia use "he" as an all-purpose, ostensibly gender-neutral pronoun, and the art for every single character class in AD&D2 - except the Ranger, for which there is none - shows male examples. By and large, women don't appear in the 2e illustrations at all except as enemies, which is pretty sad considering how the Moldvay Basic Rulebook went out of its way to always use "he or she", and gave illustrations of powerful heroines - even on the cover!)
My first group of players, in high school, consisted of two guys and two girls: IS, GM, MC, and LO, respectively. Eventually, one of the guys left, was sporadically replaced by another guy, and not long afterwards the gaming group broke up for a number of reasons.
The next couple of groups I tried running consisted entirely of male players, two of whom (CC and SC) are in my current group as well. That set of attempted campaigns - one using AD&D2, the other a marginally more successful B/X excursion - dissolved before too long, due to other commitments by many of the players. My extremely short-lived Pathfinder Beginner Box group likewise consisted of three guys.
The group I'm running now has a rotating cast, but what appears to be the most stable set of players is much like my first group: LO, B (a mutual friend of MC), CC, and a veteran gamer I'll call J. SC plays from time to time, but a mix of work commitments and transportation issues frequently keep him from showing up.
I'm considering handing over the reins as Dungeon Master to B after everyone has a chance to play AD&D2 a little more thoroughly, due to my hectic class schedule this semester. It'll be interesting to see how she puts her own spin on things, gender-wise.
(Also: I'm not surprised that there weren't many female D&D players in the 1990s. Both AD&D2 and the Rules Cyclopedia use "he" as an all-purpose, ostensibly gender-neutral pronoun, and the art for every single character class in AD&D2 - except the Ranger, for which there is none - shows male examples. By and large, women don't appear in the 2e illustrations at all except as enemies, which is pretty sad considering how the Moldvay Basic Rulebook went out of its way to always use "he or she", and gave illustrations of powerful heroines - even on the cover!)
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Uniform Weapon Damage
I've used uniform weapon damage (really uniform attack damage, since monsters don't always fight with tools) for my past two B/X game sessions, and I like it a lot. I was worried at first that players would balk at their "normal" swords and two-handed swords being reduced to the damage range of a short sword or bow, but all of us greatly enjoy the simplicity. No fiddling to consult one's sheet for the strength of one's chosen method of attack; just find a cube and toss it. This also works nicely with the spells provided in B/X, since magic missile now does slightly more potential damage than most weapons.
But now... we've started moving to AD&D2. One key mechanic of both versions of AD&D is the two categories of weapon damage: one for small- or medium-sized creatures (or smaller), and one for large-sized creatures (or larger). For most weapons, this is a step down in die size - it's harder to take down an ogre with daggers than it is to defeat an orc, no matter how few hit points the former has. But for some of the larger weapons, the damage die actually increases. This presumably reflects that more force can be put into a warhammer blow when the target is easier to hit.
I like this mechanic. But how would I have it alongside uniform weapon damage? To retain the type of speed I get in B/X, I can't have both. I'm thinking I'll stick with uniform for now (unless the players unanimously want variable), and try out the differing damage types when they face a Large opponent.
EDIT 2016-01-27: Well, I feel like an idiot. I've gotten so dependent on Firefox spell-check that I misspelled "broadsword" in the above caption. Fixed now.
But now... we've started moving to AD&D2. One key mechanic of both versions of AD&D is the two categories of weapon damage: one for small- or medium-sized creatures (or smaller), and one for large-sized creatures (or larger). For most weapons, this is a step down in die size - it's harder to take down an ogre with daggers than it is to defeat an orc, no matter how few hit points the former has. But for some of the larger weapons, the damage die actually increases. This presumably reflects that more force can be put into a warhammer blow when the target is easier to hit.
I like this mechanic. But how would I have it alongside uniform weapon damage? To retain the type of speed I get in B/X, I can't have both. I'm thinking I'll stick with uniform for now (unless the players unanimously want variable), and try out the differing damage types when they face a Large opponent.
 |
| A broadsword, or a magic missile? Ultimately, it doesn't matter! (Pic from the Japanese Rules Cyclopedia) |
EDIT 2016-01-27: Well, I feel like an idiot. I've gotten so dependent on Firefox spell-check that I misspelled "broadsword" in the above caption. Fixed now.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Less Magic
One of the cool things about the AD&D2 splatbook The Complete Fighter's Handbook (the only one of these splatbooks I own a physical copy of, although that may change if I ever find a good copy of the Historical Reference series) is that it gives guidelines for running alternative campaigns. It has suggestions for low-magic and no-magic games. The former still allows certain classes to have their special abilities - paladins can still lay on hands and turn undead - but prevents any player character from learning and casting spells. Although it doesn't say this explicitly, since this section is about running a warriors-only game, this could still be easily extended to other classes, such as clerics (who could still turn undead) and druids (who could still do all the stuff they do).
This gives me an idea. I've long been considering converting my current B/X game to AD&D2, if the players would be up for it. Here's the current group of players, all 1st level:
This provides me with an interesting situation should I convert the characters to AD&D2: I can do a low-magic game with no problem. First-level clerics in pre-Wizards D&D can't cast spells anyway, so if I removed that ability it wouldn't be sorely missed. And as for wizards (including the ubiquitous elven fighter/wizard), I'm thinking of allowing them... but only as specialists. They would specialize in a school and be unable to learn or cast spells from any other school, except from magic items like wands, staves, and rods - and even then, they would still be limited by the opposition school.
Having no mages nicely limits the number of potential spellcasters (though not excessively, since I'll be using Method V - 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste - for any new characters). And having no priest spells is an interesting idea, although I'm not sure if I would make use of it. Yet another advantage for AD&D2 is that monster XP values are doubled, which will lead to the characters getting to that elusive 2nd level in a slightly shorter amount of time... especially if I quit being so stingy with the gold pieces.
This gives me an idea. I've long been considering converting my current B/X game to AD&D2, if the players would be up for it. Here's the current group of players, all 1st level:
- Adira, a fighter
- Elia, a thief
- Steven, a cleric
- Thebabicus, a cleric
- Ulreth, a fighter
This provides me with an interesting situation should I convert the characters to AD&D2: I can do a low-magic game with no problem. First-level clerics in pre-Wizards D&D can't cast spells anyway, so if I removed that ability it wouldn't be sorely missed. And as for wizards (including the ubiquitous elven fighter/wizard), I'm thinking of allowing them... but only as specialists. They would specialize in a school and be unable to learn or cast spells from any other school, except from magic items like wands, staves, and rods - and even then, they would still be limited by the opposition school.
Having no mages nicely limits the number of potential spellcasters (though not excessively, since I'll be using Method V - 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste - for any new characters). And having no priest spells is an interesting idea, although I'm not sure if I would make use of it. Yet another advantage for AD&D2 is that monster XP values are doubled, which will lead to the characters getting to that elusive 2nd level in a slightly shorter amount of time... especially if I quit being so stingy with the gold pieces.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Stripping down AD&D (2nd Edition) to the bare essentials
To illustrate how much tinkering AD&D 2nd Edition can handle without becoming unbalanced or incomplete (in the way that 3.5e seems to become), I'm just going to make a list of all the optional and tournament rules in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master Guide, any of which can be left out completely and still leave the game fully playable. The ones in italics are explained only in the DMG.
Chapter 1: Ability Scores
Chapter 1: Ability Scores
- Maximum Number of Spells per Level (Optional)
- (technically, Multi-Class and Dual-Class aren't marked as "optional", but a DM certainly doesn't have to allow them)
- Slow Advancement (Optional)
- Exceeding Level Limits (Optional)
- Creating New Character Classes (Optional)
- (the entire chapter is optional, except for the rules on tracking which a ranger needs)
- Encumbrance (Optional) (divided into the following subcategories)
- Basic Encumbrance (Tournament)
- Specific Encumbrance (Optional)
- Encumbrance and Mounts (Tournament)
- Horse Traits (Optional)
- Armor Made of Unusual Metals (Optional)
- Spell Components (Optional) (it can be assumed that every spell is V+S+M, like in B/X)
- Determining Spell Components (Optional)
- Researching Extra Wizard Spells (Optional)
- Individual Experience Awards (Optional)
- Training (Optional)
- Weapon Type vs. Armor Modifiers (Optional)
- Group Initiative (Optional) (this refers to modifiers, which are all technically optional)
- Individual Initiative (Optional)
- Weapon Speed and Initiative (Optional)
- Pole Arms and Weapon Frontage (Optional)
- Shields and Weapon Frontage (Optional)
- Critical Hits (Optional)
- Parrying (Optional)
- Specific Injuries (Optional)
- Hovering on Death's Door (Optional)
- Aerial Combat (Tournament)
- Aerial Combat (Optional)
- Artifacts and Relics (Optional)
- Jogging and Running (Optional)
- Terrain Effects on Movement (Optional)
- Command Words (Optional)
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Ghostbusters: A Frightfully Cheerful Role-Playing Game (1986)
I've run this one for my partner, who is not a fan of RPGs, but is a fan of Ghostbusters. It's rules-light enough that we didn't have much trouble.
The only issue is, we need a Ghost Die. Sure, we could just use a normal d6 with weird coloring, but that's lame. My home-made one looks okay, but I'm worried that the paint I used will rub off too easily. I think I found something that might work well as a substitute...
It's available here: http://q-workshop.com/p/288/3102/d6-black-orange-halloween-dice-special-dice.html
(Disclaimer: I am not paid or otherwise compensated to review or promote any of the products I talk about on this blog. I only mention them because I think they're cool.)
The only issue is, we need a Ghost Die. Sure, we could just use a normal d6 with weird coloring, but that's lame. My home-made one looks okay, but I'm worried that the paint I used will rub off too easily. I think I found something that might work well as a substitute...
 |
| You can't see it in this picture, but the 6 is a jack-o-lantern. |
(Disclaimer: I am not paid or otherwise compensated to review or promote any of the products I talk about on this blog. I only mention them because I think they're cool.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)