As I said in the previous post, I own the LBB's and I have decided to skip the clones and go to the source. This is owed in large part to Philotomy's Musings. He re-opened my eyes to a lot of things, and even opened them to some I'd never seen. Thanks again for that.
Anyway, I want to start out with just the three: Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasure, and The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures. If I use stuff from the supplements and/or periodicals, it will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Nothing comes in whole-cloth. Also, I will be keeping a close guard on my house ruling tendencies. I want house rules to exist to:
a.) Maintain consistency once a table ruling has been made.
b.) Fill in "gaps". I believe these gaps were left intentionally to "force" referees to house rule, thereby making each referee's D&D unique to him.
I do not want to add unnecessarily to the game, so no new player classes. I do not want to change drastically, or worse yet rewrite, systems or subsystems. So, my new magic system will be mothballed with my other house rules. The systems and their subsystems are what make D&D what it is. You see, it occurred to me after I actually named my house rules that it wasn't D&D anymore. I was calling it something else because it was something else. It was based on D&D (through Swords & Wizardry), but it couldn't be rightfully called D&D anymore.
So, I guess I have become a purist. The three LBB's are canon, everything else, whether mine or from another source, gets a long hard look before it gets in. From this post forward, any references I make to D&D are to be understand as referring to the LBBs only. No Greyhawk or other supplemental material.
Monday, November 28, 2011
My House Rules
My house rules are on hiatus. This is indefinite, I may get back to them (gamer ADD is still ADD, after all), or I may not. I have the LBBs, so I have decided to simply use them. I'll expound on this further in my next post. I'm splitting the two posts for clarity.
Misconception Monday: Combat
Combat in D&D was a thorn in my side for a long time. I have a confession: I starting gaming as a wargamer. That being the case, I craved a degree of realism in my gaming, or at least an attempt to make sense. Combat in D&D really and truly does neither, at least when you operate under the misconception that D&D combat models combat.
Let's look at it:
1.) All weapons do d6 damage
2.) Armor makes you harder to hit
3.) The notion of hit points
4.) Time
5.) Initiative
Not only are the points I listed rather ambiguously described (if at all), there are also many things missing from a realistic combat model. Things like variable weapon damage (added in Supplement I), armor should absorb damage rather than make it more difficult to hit the wearer, damage should carry penalties, a one-minute combat round is far too long, and initiative was vague.
Yet, consider this: D&D combat does not model combat. It actually models results. The dice rolls along the way are simply for dramatic tension, it is the result that truly matters. As long as the system arrives at the proper conclusion (ie delivers the proper result based upon the circumstances of the combat), the system did its job. D&D is a game and like any other game it exists to determine the winner of its particular contest. We play Monopoly to drive our loved ones into abject poverty, not to argue over whether the person with the shoe should have a -4 to their roll because they are "walking" around the board.
It is also useful to consider D&D's genesis: it was a miniatures wargame. Delivering a consistent, believable result was Chainmail's goal, as with any wargame. It naturally became D&D's goal as well. I believe this is why combat is one of the most difficult things to house rule in D&D. People are trying to house rule a lack of realism by adding realistic bits and pieces. There isn't a lack of realism, there is an absence of realism. You can't add house rules to something that doesn't exist. If you want more realistic combat in D&D you will have to write it from the ground up, not try to bolt it onto D&D results-modelling combat.
If you wanted to somehow house rule some X factor into the formula that delivers the results, that is more plausible. I'm not entirely sure how, or even why, someone would want to, though. The results delivered by D&D's combat system are consistent, fairly accurate, and above all, realistic. At least as realistic as a fantasy game can be, anyway.
Let's look at it:
1.) All weapons do d6 damage
2.) Armor makes you harder to hit
3.) The notion of hit points
4.) Time
5.) Initiative
Not only are the points I listed rather ambiguously described (if at all), there are also many things missing from a realistic combat model. Things like variable weapon damage (added in Supplement I), armor should absorb damage rather than make it more difficult to hit the wearer, damage should carry penalties, a one-minute combat round is far too long, and initiative was vague.
Yet, consider this: D&D combat does not model combat. It actually models results. The dice rolls along the way are simply for dramatic tension, it is the result that truly matters. As long as the system arrives at the proper conclusion (ie delivers the proper result based upon the circumstances of the combat), the system did its job. D&D is a game and like any other game it exists to determine the winner of its particular contest. We play Monopoly to drive our loved ones into abject poverty, not to argue over whether the person with the shoe should have a -4 to their roll because they are "walking" around the board.
It is also useful to consider D&D's genesis: it was a miniatures wargame. Delivering a consistent, believable result was Chainmail's goal, as with any wargame. It naturally became D&D's goal as well. I believe this is why combat is one of the most difficult things to house rule in D&D. People are trying to house rule a lack of realism by adding realistic bits and pieces. There isn't a lack of realism, there is an absence of realism. You can't add house rules to something that doesn't exist. If you want more realistic combat in D&D you will have to write it from the ground up, not try to bolt it onto D&D results-modelling combat.
If you wanted to somehow house rule some X factor into the formula that delivers the results, that is more plausible. I'm not entirely sure how, or even why, someone would want to, though. The results delivered by D&D's combat system are consistent, fairly accurate, and above all, realistic. At least as realistic as a fantasy game can be, anyway.
Some Thoughts on Classes
I really dig the basic, three-class scheme of D&D. They are broadly defined, broadly capable, and free to develop in any direction the player should choose. I'm a little torn on the thief. I like the basic idea that there is a need for a stealthy and/or mechanically competent character. I like the idea that said character is shady, with amorphous morals. However, once you give a class the ability to do something, then, by implication, you've denied the ability of the other classes to do it. The most cursory of examinations bears this out.
I am not a fan of subclasses, nor of the plethora of classes that have appeared in supplements and periodicals. I feel that the foundation upon which they are built is too narrow to allow them to function in the adventuring party, without compromising what should be the core tenets of the class. To wit:
Paladins
With the stricture of personal alignment, plus the limitations of associating with others of like mind, this alone is enough to make the paladin a questionable class to allow. Also, as Lawful beings, they should have serious problems with killing in the name of acquisition. They have a vow of poverty hanging over their heads, so why would they go on a treasure hunt in the first place? Unless the campaign is designed to be some sort of holy quest, paladins simply do not fit with long-term play.
Rangers
This one is fairly simple. Why would a wilderness warrior, sworn to defend a certain area, seek his fame and wealth in a dungeon? Pursuing or tracking fell creatures to an underground lair, sure. A serious career as a glory-and-riches dungeon delver, hell no.
Druid
See Ranger, multiply by 10.
Monk
Head east, Caine, there's no place for you here.
Assassin
Killer-for-hire on an extended career branch as a dungeon delver? I don't see it. Purpose-hired by the party to take out a specific threat, absolutely, but nobody in the party should keep an assassin on retainer.
Obviously, there are plenty more, but I think you get the idea. I have no problem with these as NPCs. I think they are more than fine when they are in the game for a specific purpose related to their raison d'etre.
I also feel that, in most cases, the subclass actually outperforms the base class. Paladins and Rangers have all the benefits of the Fighting-Man, plus all their cool class abilities. The assassin fights much better than the thief, has thief skills (albeit at a delayed development), and trumps the Backstab with the auto-kill Assassination Table. Even if that fails, he still does Backstab damage.
No, for my money, the Big Three are the Only Three. The rest are too purpose-driven, but make fine additions as NPC henchmen or villains.
I am not a fan of subclasses, nor of the plethora of classes that have appeared in supplements and periodicals. I feel that the foundation upon which they are built is too narrow to allow them to function in the adventuring party, without compromising what should be the core tenets of the class. To wit:
Paladins
With the stricture of personal alignment, plus the limitations of associating with others of like mind, this alone is enough to make the paladin a questionable class to allow. Also, as Lawful beings, they should have serious problems with killing in the name of acquisition. They have a vow of poverty hanging over their heads, so why would they go on a treasure hunt in the first place? Unless the campaign is designed to be some sort of holy quest, paladins simply do not fit with long-term play.
Rangers
This one is fairly simple. Why would a wilderness warrior, sworn to defend a certain area, seek his fame and wealth in a dungeon? Pursuing or tracking fell creatures to an underground lair, sure. A serious career as a glory-and-riches dungeon delver, hell no.
Druid
See Ranger, multiply by 10.
Monk
Head east, Caine, there's no place for you here.
Assassin
Killer-for-hire on an extended career branch as a dungeon delver? I don't see it. Purpose-hired by the party to take out a specific threat, absolutely, but nobody in the party should keep an assassin on retainer.
Obviously, there are plenty more, but I think you get the idea. I have no problem with these as NPCs. I think they are more than fine when they are in the game for a specific purpose related to their raison d'etre.
I also feel that, in most cases, the subclass actually outperforms the base class. Paladins and Rangers have all the benefits of the Fighting-Man, plus all their cool class abilities. The assassin fights much better than the thief, has thief skills (albeit at a delayed development), and trumps the Backstab with the auto-kill Assassination Table. Even if that fails, he still does Backstab damage.
No, for my money, the Big Three are the Only Three. The rest are too purpose-driven, but make fine additions as NPC henchmen or villains.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Philotomy's Exceptional Musings
I am greatly enamored of Swords & Wizardry, 'tis true. However, in all my zeal for that most excellent of clones, I completely overlooked the original. Thanks to stumbling across Philotomy's insightful dissertation, I have rediscovered the True Source. For anyone, anyone, with any level of interest in the OSR, this is a must-read. Do yourself a favor and check this one out.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Updated House Rules
I have uploaded an updated version of my house ruled Swords & Wizardry. I changed the name to Crucible Fantasy Roleplay. This update includes a full-color cover, changes to the art, additions to art, initiative section, basic "To-Hit" tables, weapon damage tables, and damage and healing. As always, comments are encouraged and welcome.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Alternate 1976
I read a blog post somewhere (sorry, I forget where) about a guy who was planning a campaign with a product cut-off of mid-'76. Nothing published after that was to be allowed. Anything prior was fair game, which included all of the Strategic Reviews and some other things I didn't recognize.
I love that idea. I've spent the better part of my 35 years gaming trying to recapture the first 3 years. I've tried it with different versions of D&D, different games altogether, and other methods too numerous to mention. There was a pure joy in the game then, and that is the kind of lightning that is hard to get in a bottle. I've tried to go back to the Little Brown Books, but with the stream-of-conscious writing compounded by being spread across six books, it is frustrating.
Enter Swords & Wizardry. As I have said before, I love S&W. So, I started thinking about simply turning back my gaming clock to 1976, like the other guy did. That started me to thinking. I could just get the Gray Book, which is a usable compilation and organizing of the six books, and really get back to my roots. Then, I realized, I would have to do a lot of house ruling to get the game to where I wanted it (see my personal S&W on my googledocs for some of my house rules). I was torn. You see, my house rules are extensive and when I'm done, they will almost amount to a new game. Definitely not the game I was playing in '76.
So, what to do? The purist route with Gray Book and minimal house rules? Or, my personal S&W, with extensive house rules based on 35 years in the hobby?
My decision is to use my rules (which I'm calling Crucible, btw, changed from The Book of Orange), with any supplements, such as magazines or non-TSR stuff, cut off at October 1976.
As you can see, I house ruled my options. . .
I love that idea. I've spent the better part of my 35 years gaming trying to recapture the first 3 years. I've tried it with different versions of D&D, different games altogether, and other methods too numerous to mention. There was a pure joy in the game then, and that is the kind of lightning that is hard to get in a bottle. I've tried to go back to the Little Brown Books, but with the stream-of-conscious writing compounded by being spread across six books, it is frustrating.
Enter Swords & Wizardry. As I have said before, I love S&W. So, I started thinking about simply turning back my gaming clock to 1976, like the other guy did. That started me to thinking. I could just get the Gray Book, which is a usable compilation and organizing of the six books, and really get back to my roots. Then, I realized, I would have to do a lot of house ruling to get the game to where I wanted it (see my personal S&W on my googledocs for some of my house rules). I was torn. You see, my house rules are extensive and when I'm done, they will almost amount to a new game. Definitely not the game I was playing in '76.
So, what to do? The purist route with Gray Book and minimal house rules? Or, my personal S&W, with extensive house rules based on 35 years in the hobby?
My decision is to use my rules (which I'm calling Crucible, btw, changed from The Book of Orange), with any supplements, such as magazines or non-TSR stuff, cut off at October 1976.
As you can see, I house ruled my options. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)