Ground Zero

 This is where it begins, my "journey" with One D&D. I don't care for that name, so I will be using D&D 2024, or when the context is understood, simply 2024.

Briefly stated, while I will forever adore the LBBs, I never played with only the first three. When my gaming career started, we already had the first three supplements, as well as Strategic Review and maybe a few issues of the Dragon. I grew up with class abilities and variable weapon damage (although I still love the elegance of all weapons doing d6). My point is, class abilities are baked into my gaming history. That's why games like GURPS or Runequest, while I love how they read, will never move me like D&D does.

Enough of that. I'm posting about 2024. But first, something about how we got to 2024, specifically, 2014. Read my previous post for context. I had developed the idea in my head that 5E had much more in common with the rules-as-law approach of 3.x, and I wasn't interested. I developed this impression mainly to retcon my agitation with Hasbro. My initial feelings on 5E were very positive when I got it. Then, recently, I started learning that I was laboring under a false assumption. So, I bought the 2024 core books.

So far, I am liking what I see. I still have a lot of reading to do, but my initial impression is that it's sort of moving the LBBs forward. It almost feels like they started with the spirit of the game in 1975-76, and added the best-of-the-best changes from then until now. I know that sounds weird, but I know what I mean. It just feels more open, more free, than 3.x or 4E. Don't get me wrong, those editions have a lot that I like, too, just not enough to achieve long-term attention from me.

Anyway, this is just a rough and dirty first thought. Almost like a place holder that will hopefully lead to something more regular. If anyone is still with me after my five year hiatus, I'd love to know. If it's not too much to ask, please drop a comment and say hi.

I'm Here to Chew Bubblegum and Kick Ass

 . . . and I'm all out of bubblegum

Hello, again. How long has it been, my friends? You may be wondering, what motivated me to write again. Self-reflection. I've always has a knack for self awareness and being dialed in to my own bullshit. That didn't really stop me from indulging in it, but it did provide grist for self loathing. Self, self, self.

Anyway, I won't bore you with the minutia, but I have discovered the joys of AI assistance the last few months. One of the things I've been using it for is game design. It's been a tremendous collaboration. It's prompted me to resurrect many old ideas that had grown cumbersome over the decades due to so many disparate notes scrawled on too many pieces of paper, impossible to collate, cross-reference, or index. In other words, unusable. AI can do all that. I just have to upload all the ideas, thoughts, and random musings, and AI can focus it all into something I can actually work on.

In the gathering of these notes, I walked these dusty halls, seeking things I had written for my world of Aranor, this being the only remaining place where some of it was stored. In so doing, I reread some of my posts on 5E, and thus we approach the crux of this post.

2014

I won't bore you with self-serving cross links. I was very excited (to say the least) by the release of 5E. Sadly, my enthusiasm for new rules, in any game, rarely survives reality. What I mean is, I rarely actually play anything new. I rarely play anything at all, in fact, but if I do, I usually opt for something familiar. I believe that stems from social anxiety, but this is not the time to open that can of worms.

Regardless, I was very pleased with 5E, as a rules set. Until. This is where some of you will possibly be tempted to write me off. If so, no hard feelings. I have never been political here. I'm fairly conservative, somewhere between Libertarian and Republican. Socially, I am personally conservative, but I don't really care how anyone else lives their life. Like a lot of people, I only ask to not be subjected to someone else's lifestyle. You do you, and I'll do me. When I saw the blurb in 5E about the game being open to all sexual and gender identities, it flew all over me. I've been gaming since 1976. When I started, the LBBs was all there was. Never in all that long history of gaming had I ever encountered anything prohibiting or limiting a player from playing a character that was gay or identified differently in any way. For that matter, I had gamed with many people whose character was of the opposite sex or a different race (as in societally, black, white, Asian, etc), and there were never any problems. I failed to see the need to have it spelled out so explicitly. It struck me as proselytizing, at best, or brow beating, at worst. In a reactionary move, I decided I didn't want to have a game that preached to me from what its writers deemed to be the moral high ground. So, I got rid of my 5E stuff.

The next few years (up until recently) my attention stayed on clones, mostly, for a D&D fix. I even have a couple of 5E clones. In the meantime, I started a new job, and one of my co-workers is a 5E guy. It's all he's played. Listening to him made me start thinking that maybe I had cheated myself. I wasn't convinced, though. I had really swallowed all the bad press about 5E, all the negatives that internet folk fixated on. His stories of his sessions were starting to make me wonder. I had started considering re-acquiring the core books, at least.

Then, the buzz about One D&D started. I was still heavily dialed into an internet crowd that was extremely anti-Hasbro and WotC, and that ire stained anything they produced. They would pick apart the smallest details, in a vacuum, and then make broad assertions. Thus it was that I wrote off One D&D as a non-starter for me.

At some point, about 3 or 4 weeks ago, there was a shift in my thinking. I can't explain it, or even pinpoint a catalyst. Something in my mind switched, and I realized that I dont give a single skinny shit about the politics of Hasbro or WotC. I never even knew the politics of TSR. All I care about is a set of rules to act as an effective lens to view my world through. Most of the criticism I see about the new edition is mainly the "little guy" having beef with the "evil corporation", which really doesn't factor. Sheepishly, I admitted to myself that I had attributed far too much influence to spurious criticism. So, I bought the One D&D core books. 

I'm still in the early stages of familiarity, but so far, so good. I want to put my thoughts on One D&D into a clean post devoted to only those thoughts, though. This is more of a journal entry, giving insight to myself and anyone else willing to read it, about the thoughts and attitudes that move me.

If you made it this far, thank you. I'm hoping to get back to posting here, but only time will tell. I have a lot of catching up to do.

A Game of What-if Pt 1

 It has always been on my mind, the familial bond between Chainmail and D&D. I have always been entranced by the OSR titles that explore that DNA. I have pondered my own take on how to meld the two, even to the point of devising my own half-baked attempt. The thing, though, is this: I have always looked at it from a standing start. In other words, I have approached the exercise as if D&D hadn't been written. Alternatively, I have approached it with more of a piece-meal attitude, intent on replacing certain aspects, such as the alternative combat system with that from Chainmail. Yet, in either event, in my mind, my starting point was that whatever I had was the origin point. So, in my design space, my conceit was that I was trying to merge the Chainmail combat system with D&D, and pretend that was the way it was when I opened the box.

I know that sounds weird. It would be difficult for me to express the influence that nostalgia has on my gaming. It informs so much of my gaming, from ordering old Avalon Hill games off Ebay, to how I approach developing ideas for D&D. I want to put my mind in 1976 and approach D&D from there. It may sound delusional at best, or a misguided effort doomed from inception at worst. But it's my time spent with my hobby, and I pursue it for relaxation. If spending some time in 1976 will relax me and bring me some edification, then it was well-spent.

This is intended to be a design log of yet another effort to reconcile Chainmail with D&D. This time is different though. This may be nuanced to the point of nothing more than semantics. It may be putting too fine of a point on it, but this time really is different. The perspective I am approaching from is this:

I've played Chainmail, even fighting battles with the fantasy supplement. Now, it's sometime in 1975 and I've gotten my hands on D&D. I love the ideas and potential I see in it, but I'm not thrilled with how it abandons so much of Chainmail. So, this design log will be all about how I take the finished product of D&D and retool aspects so that they draw more from Chainmail, rather than all-new systems created whole cloth.

In future posts I intend to explore the following:

Classes:

• Bring Fighting-Men more inline with the Heroes and Superheroes of Chainmail
• Give Magic Users more of the "fire at will" aspect of Chainmail wizards, while keeping Vancian casting, because it is flavorful and keeps magic users from dominating the campaign
• Examine Clerics more as members of militant religious orders, rather than priests.
• Thieves will be based more on the GPNL thief, which went on to inspire the Greyhawk thief.

Combat

• Reconcile the three combat subsystems into a seamless, integrated whole

Monsters

• Crack the "code" of the Fantasy Combat Table in order to plug "new" creatures  from M&T into the system.

Treasure

• Reconcile magic swords and armor with the D&D classes and Chainmail combat system.

It is my desire to divorce specific experience I have from my thinking on this project. In other words, there won't be any ascending AC, stat-based saves, or even single save numbers. I will only consider including things that were available as of my (admittedly arbitrary) start date. That will probably include Greyhaw, Strategic Review, and possibly Blackmoor and maybe early issues of the Dragon. That doesn't mean that anything from them will be included, I'll just consider them available.

So, there it is, the foundational philosophy of this project. As always, comments, advise, thoughts, and encouragement are always welcomed.

Zero to Hero

 Welcome to 2021.

So, I had an epiphany. I realized one of the reasons I like OD&D and the Z2H model. If you reference my last post, it is about the part of me that enjoys a more heroic playstyle right out of the gate. It also touches on how 4e supports such a game.

It occurs to me that OD&D functions similarly in its design space, which is the zero-to-hero model. The thing about it, though, that was at the focal point of my epiphany, is that beginning PCs are pretty much common folk. They don't have powers or hit point kickers. Magic users can't cast cantrips at-will. Clerics don't even have spells at 1st level. Fighters have the same chance to-hit as everyone else at 1st level. These are common people who have chosen, or had thrust upon them, a life of adventure.

They may be looked upon with a healthy dose of distrust by their fellow commoners. Yet, by the time they've reached 3rd level or so, the common folk of their home area are starting to look to them to solve dangerous problems. The magic-user can conjure illusions, become invisible, read minds, or bind opponents in a mass of webs. The cleric can cure wounds with a touch and protect himself or others from evil. He can also drive away skeletons and zombies with a command. Fighters can endure longer in combat than normal men, biding their time to land that telling blow. Fighters at this level are also likely outfitted with enchanted armor and/or weapons.

Yet, I believe, that whether at 1st level or higher, they are looked upon with a mixture of awe and envy by their fellow commoners. The barkeep knows that the magic-user could have been him, if only things had been different. The blacksmith knows it could have been him with the gleaming enchanted armor and impossibly sharp magic sword, if only he'd apprenticed to the wandering mercenary.

They all started from the same place. The PCs weren't touched by destiny or singled out by fate. At least not yet. Those proclamations are the province of historians and biographers. In the beginning they are all cut from the same clothe. Far more die in the vain attempt at fame and glory than attain such status.

I think that in a way that is what I find so appealing about this style. I can identify with it. I'm nobody special. If I statted myself out, I wouldn't have a single bonus. But. . . if I could find a sword or a cranky old man that knows a spell or two, I could one day be the guy that saves the village and is everybody's hero. Even if it is just for a day.

 

An Oversight Addressed

 Good morning,

I realized there is a gaping hole in my coverage. I've never really talked about D&D 4e. I mentioned it in a post on 5e, but that's it. Now, this may seem perfectly natural, given my many poetical waxings on old school nostalgia. D&D 4e is widely regarded as the least D&D of all additions, which by extension should leave it far outside the orbit of old school aficionados. 

I want to go on record here and now as saying, I love 4e. Take that assertion with my usual caveat: I do not have a play group, either f2f or online, so I don't actively participate in any 4e games. Perhaps I would be more accurate in saying that I love how it reads and inspires my imagination.

I have far often been frustrated by characters, both my NPCs and PCs, that aren't supported by mechanics. Put down the torches and pitchforks. I know I'm not the only one that has played a fighter that is conceived of as being this hard-hitting northman with a big axe and bigger attitude. Yet, when the dice hit the table, the thief has a better damage output. Nobody's fault, just the way the dice fall. The thief's player is using a long sword and consistently rolls 7s and 8s for damage while I roll 3s and 4s mostly.

I realize that there is more to being the badass fighter in the party than meting out damage. The fighter has more hit points (or should) and can wear heavier armor. I know those are meaningful benefits, but damnit, fighters should be killing things, not functioning as party meat shields.

So, that is one thing I really like. The powers structure makes your character not simply occupy his niche, he OWNS that niche.

And about the powers mechanic: I love how it makes wizards so much more like their Chainmail progenitors. In Chainmail wizards could become invisible at will and throw either Fireball or Lightning Bolt every turn. BAM! 

Sometimes my mood is on low powered, zero-to-hero stuff. I still love that style and it still has a place in my gamespace. Sometimes, though, I want something more heroic, where the characters are mechanically destined for greatness and where the villains are more than dirt-eating cultists.

One of the things that I love about Chainmail that has never translated to well to D&D is the divide between the mundane and the heroic. In the Chainmail fantasy supplement, a character can't even engage with a true monster, like an ogre, unless they have heroic status. This sort of bakes the role of adventurers in society right into the rules. No version of D&D really captures this. I think, though, that the power structure and mechanics of 4e gives PCs a status and capability far beyond the common inhabitants of the campaign world and could simulate that commoner/hero dichotomy.

That's a smattering of what I like about 4e, at least conceptually.

Subtle Genius

I have long been enamored of the d6 HD/d6 weapon damage paradigm. It essentially models the notion that death is always one good damage roll away. Unless, of course, we're talking about higher level characters. Another windmill I have long tilted at is the, in my opinion, lowly state of the fighter. Judging by XP requirements (in the LBB) , fighters should be very stiff competition, ability-wise. Yet, their only benefit that happens automatically is hit points. The other is use of magic swords, which is dependent upon finding a magic sword (of the appropriate alignment).

If you look at Chainmail, you can see that Heroes are forces in a fight, and Superheroes are wrecking balls. They attack as 4 and 8 figures, respectively, against "normal" opponents. Which essentially means that they attack 4 or 8 times against 1HD opponents using the Alternative system. Additionally, under Chainmail, they were considered Fantastic Creatures, and were essentially immune to attack from less than 4 "normal" figures. It's important to note that in Fantastic Combat, a "hit" equals killed.

That is something I have long sought to bring into my D&D, the "lost" abilities of the fighter vs "normal" types. Just giving them multiple attacks didn't fully satisfy, so I kept tinkering and thinking.

At this point, it seems appropriate to mention, I have always been enamored of the elegant simplicity of the LBBs and it is there that I spend most of my time. I have disdained, in my later years at least, such high-falootin' ideas as variable HD and damage. Then, the other day, the subtle genius of E. Gary Gygax finally hit me (again).

If most "normal" types do d6 damage, and a fighter has d8 HP (per Greyhawk), then "normal" types will have to gang up on a Hero to take him down in one round anyway. Just like in Chainmail. And while they are ganged up on him, he'll be attacking them four times per round, or more. When that realization sunk in, I felt like a weight had been lifted.

Sometimes I forget that D&D combat is all about modelling outcomes. It is all about determining who wins the fight. It isn't concerned with who wins individual rounds, that sort of thing exists primarily for entertainment. D&D is about who wins the fight. I'm no statistician, but I have the feeling that the outcome of 4 "normals" ganging up on a Hero in Chainmail, would come pretty close to the outcome of 4 "normals" ganging up on a 4th level fighter from Greyhawk.

Skill Resolution in Classic Traveller

 

The Foundational Elements

• All skills are tied to an attribute
• Some skills are usable untrained, some are not
• No DMs based on skill levels

The Basics

• If Skilled Roll 2D under relevant attribute
• If Unskilled Roll 3D under relevant attribute

The Rest

• If Skilled at least one level, may attempt skill a number of times equal to level
• If Skilled at zero level (Skill-0) roll 2D under, with a DM-1

Example: Delmar O'Donnell is the chief mechanic on a ship hurtling toward a certain doom following an encounter with an Oolatran corvetter. Delmar is a pretty fair mechanic (Engineer-2), and smart as a whip besides (INT B). Thus, he can make two attempts, rolling 11 or less, to affect the necessary repairs to his ship's drive.

Note: There may be instances where multiple rolls may be attempted in order to determine a degree of success, or wherein a certain number of successes may be required. These cases will be determined by the referee. It may also be possible to make matters worse by attempting to further one's success. This is the Leave Well Enough Alone rule.

I think covers it. Any comments would be appreciated. If anyone actually uses this, I would love to hear how it runs.



N.B. I conceived this for Classic Traveller (including Cepheus Engine). I'm not entirely sure how it might work with other editions/iterations. I would be very curious to learn if anyone uses it thus.