Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Breaking My F***ing Heart
I was originally going to write up a post entitled "Three RPGs That Suck," but my brain has been preempted today by thought that has taken root and has given me no peace a'tall: designing my own fantasty heartbreaker.
No, not a retroclone. I've already considered writing up my own retro-version of B/X for mass production (something to go hand-in-hand with The B/X Companion) and discarded the idea due to A) the sheer amount of (well done) B/X clones already floating around, and B) laziness. Nope I'm talking a real-live fantasy heartbreaker of the variety described by Ron Edwards.
Just to get it out of my system.
Why now? What's prompted this? Well, truthfully the whole DCC system...it is waaay inspiring in a way that other D&D deritives (like C&C, Palladium, and HackMaster Basic) are totally NOT. I'm mainly just curious if I can work it out right now to where it would be...um...exceptionally fun. I don't know that I'd ever publish it.
Now, just so everyone knows: this is completely a hush-hush side project that needs to be kept on the DL. My wife has already laid down the law that I'm not supposed to be starting any more projects until I've finished my current ones (*sigh*) AND I need to focus on only one at a time (*double sigh*). It seems I've been stretching myself too thin lately, and until Baby D learns to sleep through the night it's important that at least one of us gets some snoozing done at night.
HOWEVER, this is just a little something I'll be tinkering with in my "doodle time" ...you know, during work meetings and afternoon breaks when I've got little better to do than fool around with stuff. Besides, I don't even have a numerologically superior name for this one...can't publish without a good name!
Okay that's it...this was just a quick "check-in" post. Tomorrow, I'll write about the three disappointing RPGs.
: )
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
More Thoughts on DCC
The more I read through the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (beta), the more things I see that I like.
I’m not talking about artwork…God no!...presentation is a secondary consideration IF THAT. There are plenty of games with great artwork, inspiring artwork, that are complete duds as far as I’m concerned. And there are other games (Boot Hill for example) that are well designed (both from a game standpoint and practical layout) that may have less-than-stellar graphic presentation.
And everything in between, of course. However, I’ve seen more than one review that praised DCC on its artistic merits and that’s probably the LAST thing on my mind right now.
[for what it’s worth, I find the illustrations in the pdf to be a mixed bag]
No, when I say I’m seeing things I like, I’m talking about in-depth rules delving. There are more than a few things that I’m really digging.
Not that the game is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Of course not…it’s still in the playtesting stage! And the game is, at its foundation, a “fantasy heartbreaker,” much as was HackMaster Basic, and that is just a no-go.
Or is it? I’ll come back to that in a minute.
Maybe I should talk about what I LIKE first…you know, start on a positive note? It’s just so hard when there are so many things that irritate me. Hmm…better get THOSE out of the way, first:
D20 Sensibilities: Look, I know a lot of people like Pathfinder/D20. That’s fine and dandy. Doing a variation of it…even a “slimmed down” version…is making a heartbreaker of a heartbreaker. To me, DCC misses an opportunity by using D20isms (like initiative, skill checks, and ascending AC).
Over-Use of Random Tables: Um…that’s it.
Over-Complicated Combat: See the first two along with the addition of crits and fumbles (especially varying by class-level-equipment).
Minor Issues with Character Creation: Discussed in a prior post.
ALSO: Certain class-related issues, specifically specificity of character background based on intersection of class and alignment, certain skills (notably thieves), certain conceits (dwarves’ “sword and board”) and certain holdovers from old school editions (like infravision). I haven’t read through the spell caster stuff yet, so I can’t speak to my feelings on clerics and wizards or the magic system.
[by the way, there are some aspects of DCC I can’t discuss due to their absence from the pdf…notably advancement systems, awarding of XP, GM information/direction, etc.]
So, yeah, you’re probably asking what does JB like considering all of the above?
Quite a few things actually:
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
This is by far the biggest food-for-thought area in DCC. I consider my own (not-yet-published) “B/X knockoff” games to be fairly innovative in this regard, but DCC does an excellent job even within the confines of the usual OS dungeon crawl model of “collect XP, level up.”
I absolutely LOVE the “start as Normal Human” requirement of the game. I’ve written before that 1st level characters should be respected individuals in the game world, but forcing characters to start at 0-level REALLY drives this point home. I’ve got a 1st level character that doesn’t have a single ability over 11, and let me tell YOU he could wipe the floor with half-a-dozen 0-level characters (at least!). It is so damn inspiring to see your hit points rocket up from 2 to 12 (not to mention, picking up armor and a two-handed sword), that you don’t care some other guy rolled a 17 strength for his 0-level farmer. Yeah, try to hit me with your cudgel, buddy!
I even went out and bought a new miniature for my (otherwise fairly pathetic) character.
When I played Rifts, my absolute favorite OCC (after the doomed/tragic Juicer) was the Vagabond…the Palladium equivalent of the 0-level nobody, complete with trucker cap and maybe a knife for defense. I always saw so much potential in this class…after all, it’s not like he can’t later “borg-up” or get kidnapped by spluggortha and tattooed with magic powers. I even forced my brother to play a vagabond in my original Rifts game, and he DID end up with a bionic leg…after I burned off his flesh one with a Wilke’s laser pistol.
Point is, there is something very satisfying in the idea of the “normal dude becoming heroic” model. It may be why I dig Harlan Ellison’s writings (recently watched Dreams with Sharp Teeth, and one of Ellison’s critics talks about his knack for showing the dignity of the everyday person by throwing said person into the cauldron). DCC does this in a very simple, very practical way.
AND unlike, say, a White Wolf game, this is done IN PLAY. What do I mean? Well, let’s look at WW…say Aberrant (superhero game) or Vampire (Goth superhero game): in either one, part of the chargen process involves doing a “prologue;” figuring out what your character was BEFORE he acquired “great powers” in hopes that background will give you some grist to grind in-play (angst or backstory or whatever). DCC has the Normal Humans go through their prologue in-play (the first session), which instills in the player’s mind what their urchin or pig-farmer really was like before he became badass.
[side note to DCC designers: I recommend making the “level 1” after session 1 a hard-and-fast rule. It jibes with B/X (“normal humans that gain ANY experience points become 1st level characters”), AND it allows players to get to the badassery in the 2nd session]
So, yeah…Normal Humans. That might not even be a bad house rule for B/X (making players start at 0-level). I’m not 100% there on the way chargen is handled, and I think the number of PCs each player has should be based on the number of players in the group. But it’s an excellent start.
And that’s not the end of what I like in character development. The max level 5 thing is excellent. I don’t know if the final version of DCC will have more (or unlimited) levels but I think a practical limit of 5 or 6 isn’t a bad thing at all. Do fighters need three-four attacks per round when they can do Mighty Deeds of Arms? I don’t think so. Do PCs need dozens or scores of hit points? Probably not. As I said, my 1st level dwarf is sooo head and shoulders above the Normal Human it’s sick…but I’d suspect a dragon would take him down in a chomp or two regardless (and that should apply even up to 3rd level). I’ve been enamored of the “low max level” thing ever since someone suggested using the Holmes Basic Edition as a complete game by itself (where characters only go to 3rd level).
I dislike most of the level titles they’ve come up with, but I applaud the fact they use level titles at all. If made non-alignment-specific it would cut down the number to an easily remembered number, making class descriptions useful forms of identifying badass individuals by title.
CLASS DISTINCTION
You can see the B/X roots in DCC’s inclusion of “The Great Seven” classes, though this in itself isn’t worthy of praise. I mean, it’s already been done…if my only concern is fewer archetypal classifications and “race-as-class,” I can still play B/X (or Labyrinth Lord), right?
What IS of note is the distinctions between the classes. Wow.
Each class gets a handful of unique abilities specific to their class, giving each class a very different play-style. Sure there is some over-lap, but not enough to make, say, dwarves feel like “short fighters with infravision.”
If I was to try my hand at a fantasy heartbreaker, THIS is definitely something I’d want to look at doing.
Don’t get me wrong, I truly do enjoy the simplicity of B/X character classes. But there is a lot of holdover from OD&D in B/X and Moldvay demihumans are, for the most part, simply fighting men with a couple bennies and a level restriction. DCC is better.
And it’s a HUGE improvement over D20 where classes are simply varied combinations of the same formula: X number of skills, Y number of bonus feats, Z hit dice…along with A base attack bonus and B saving throw bonuses. Aside from the different combinations of variables, there are very few class abilities that really distinguish PCs from each other in D20…especially once they start multi-classing.
Now REGARDING the specific class distinctions in DCC there is certainly room for improvement. However, some of them are spot-on. Adding level to warrior’s initiative (a la the Solo from Cyberpunk)? Genius (and only workable with D20 initiative, so that’s +1 for them). Advancing attack die for warriors and dwarves? VERY EXCELLENT…and makes “strength bonus” a truly secondary consideration in melee (while still being a contributing factor). Luck bonuses for thieves? Very cool AND appropriate…and same with those furry footed Halflings who (as described by Tolkien) always seem to possess such an inordinate amount.
And I really like linking so many of the class abilities (including thief skills) to ALIGNMENT. Again, here’s something I’ve done in my B/X-based games: linking alignment more mechanically to the game system to make it more of a factor. But by linking it directly to CLASS ABILITIES (as DCC does), it essentially provides multiple character archetypes where only a handful previously existed…that is NOT something I ever thought about, as I still associate “alignment” with “role-playing.”
DCC still associates alignment with role-playing, but more literally…choice of alignment determines what ROLE your character will play in the game!
AND…
That’s it for now. As I said, I’ve only just skimmed the cleric/wizard sections so I can’t make a judgment yet on whether or not I like their particular rules. However, I will be returning to DCC (and my thoughts on it) over the week, especially as my group play-tests further.
Oh, yeah…almost forgot:
This Rob Kuntz interview…along with Oddyssey’s recent musings have been bubbling in my brain along with James Raggi’s statement:
- Make the game accessible
- Make the game fun to PLAY
It might offend some folks to say, but I think these are the two ingredients missing from the vast majority of RPGs. While B/X may well have met these criteria back in 1981, the simple fact that it is out-of-print greatly limits its accessibility. And many, many “in-print” (i.e. current RPGs) are inaccessible to the average Joe based on their presentation (huge books, RPG assumptions, poor layout interspersed with prose/fiction)...to say nothing of their actual (fun) playability.
DCC isn’t a complete game. It isn’t “finished” yet. I have no idea if it will be a runaway hit or a passing novelty people pick up for a week or two before turning back to their AD&D and retro-clones.
But I’m starting to feel that it’s fine to TRY. It’s not just tilting at windmills to take a swing at a fantasy heartbreaker. If you make a good enough game, people WILL buy it. Really.
I’m not talking about artwork…God no!...presentation is a secondary consideration IF THAT. There are plenty of games with great artwork, inspiring artwork, that are complete duds as far as I’m concerned. And there are other games (Boot Hill for example) that are well designed (both from a game standpoint and practical layout) that may have less-than-stellar graphic presentation.
And everything in between, of course. However, I’ve seen more than one review that praised DCC on its artistic merits and that’s probably the LAST thing on my mind right now.
[for what it’s worth, I find the illustrations in the pdf to be a mixed bag]
No, when I say I’m seeing things I like, I’m talking about in-depth rules delving. There are more than a few things that I’m really digging.
Not that the game is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Of course not…it’s still in the playtesting stage! And the game is, at its foundation, a “fantasy heartbreaker,” much as was HackMaster Basic, and that is just a no-go.
Or is it? I’ll come back to that in a minute.
Maybe I should talk about what I LIKE first…you know, start on a positive note? It’s just so hard when there are so many things that irritate me. Hmm…better get THOSE out of the way, first:
D20 Sensibilities: Look, I know a lot of people like Pathfinder/D20. That’s fine and dandy. Doing a variation of it…even a “slimmed down” version…is making a heartbreaker of a heartbreaker. To me, DCC misses an opportunity by using D20isms (like initiative, skill checks, and ascending AC).
Over-Use of Random Tables: Um…that’s it.
Over-Complicated Combat: See the first two along with the addition of crits and fumbles (especially varying by class-level-equipment).
Minor Issues with Character Creation: Discussed in a prior post.
ALSO: Certain class-related issues, specifically specificity of character background based on intersection of class and alignment, certain skills (notably thieves), certain conceits (dwarves’ “sword and board”) and certain holdovers from old school editions (like infravision). I haven’t read through the spell caster stuff yet, so I can’t speak to my feelings on clerics and wizards or the magic system.
[by the way, there are some aspects of DCC I can’t discuss due to their absence from the pdf…notably advancement systems, awarding of XP, GM information/direction, etc.]
So, yeah, you’re probably asking what does JB like considering all of the above?
Quite a few things actually:
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
This is by far the biggest food-for-thought area in DCC. I consider my own (not-yet-published) “B/X knockoff” games to be fairly innovative in this regard, but DCC does an excellent job even within the confines of the usual OS dungeon crawl model of “collect XP, level up.”
I absolutely LOVE the “start as Normal Human” requirement of the game. I’ve written before that 1st level characters should be respected individuals in the game world, but forcing characters to start at 0-level REALLY drives this point home. I’ve got a 1st level character that doesn’t have a single ability over 11, and let me tell YOU he could wipe the floor with half-a-dozen 0-level characters (at least!). It is so damn inspiring to see your hit points rocket up from 2 to 12 (not to mention, picking up armor and a two-handed sword), that you don’t care some other guy rolled a 17 strength for his 0-level farmer. Yeah, try to hit me with your cudgel, buddy!
I even went out and bought a new miniature for my (otherwise fairly pathetic) character.
When I played Rifts, my absolute favorite OCC (after the doomed/tragic Juicer) was the Vagabond…the Palladium equivalent of the 0-level nobody, complete with trucker cap and maybe a knife for defense. I always saw so much potential in this class…after all, it’s not like he can’t later “borg-up” or get kidnapped by spluggortha and tattooed with magic powers. I even forced my brother to play a vagabond in my original Rifts game, and he DID end up with a bionic leg…after I burned off his flesh one with a Wilke’s laser pistol.
Point is, there is something very satisfying in the idea of the “normal dude becoming heroic” model. It may be why I dig Harlan Ellison’s writings (recently watched Dreams with Sharp Teeth, and one of Ellison’s critics talks about his knack for showing the dignity of the everyday person by throwing said person into the cauldron). DCC does this in a very simple, very practical way.
AND unlike, say, a White Wolf game, this is done IN PLAY. What do I mean? Well, let’s look at WW…say Aberrant (superhero game) or Vampire (Goth superhero game): in either one, part of the chargen process involves doing a “prologue;” figuring out what your character was BEFORE he acquired “great powers” in hopes that background will give you some grist to grind in-play (angst or backstory or whatever). DCC has the Normal Humans go through their prologue in-play (the first session), which instills in the player’s mind what their urchin or pig-farmer really was like before he became badass.
[side note to DCC designers: I recommend making the “level 1” after session 1 a hard-and-fast rule. It jibes with B/X (“normal humans that gain ANY experience points become 1st level characters”), AND it allows players to get to the badassery in the 2nd session]
So, yeah…Normal Humans. That might not even be a bad house rule for B/X (making players start at 0-level). I’m not 100% there on the way chargen is handled, and I think the number of PCs each player has should be based on the number of players in the group. But it’s an excellent start.
And that’s not the end of what I like in character development. The max level 5 thing is excellent. I don’t know if the final version of DCC will have more (or unlimited) levels but I think a practical limit of 5 or 6 isn’t a bad thing at all. Do fighters need three-four attacks per round when they can do Mighty Deeds of Arms? I don’t think so. Do PCs need dozens or scores of hit points? Probably not. As I said, my 1st level dwarf is sooo head and shoulders above the Normal Human it’s sick…but I’d suspect a dragon would take him down in a chomp or two regardless (and that should apply even up to 3rd level). I’ve been enamored of the “low max level” thing ever since someone suggested using the Holmes Basic Edition as a complete game by itself (where characters only go to 3rd level).
I dislike most of the level titles they’ve come up with, but I applaud the fact they use level titles at all. If made non-alignment-specific it would cut down the number to an easily remembered number, making class descriptions useful forms of identifying badass individuals by title.
CLASS DISTINCTION
You can see the B/X roots in DCC’s inclusion of “The Great Seven” classes, though this in itself isn’t worthy of praise. I mean, it’s already been done…if my only concern is fewer archetypal classifications and “race-as-class,” I can still play B/X (or Labyrinth Lord), right?
What IS of note is the distinctions between the classes. Wow.
Each class gets a handful of unique abilities specific to their class, giving each class a very different play-style. Sure there is some over-lap, but not enough to make, say, dwarves feel like “short fighters with infravision.”
If I was to try my hand at a fantasy heartbreaker, THIS is definitely something I’d want to look at doing.
Don’t get me wrong, I truly do enjoy the simplicity of B/X character classes. But there is a lot of holdover from OD&D in B/X and Moldvay demihumans are, for the most part, simply fighting men with a couple bennies and a level restriction. DCC is better.
And it’s a HUGE improvement over D20 where classes are simply varied combinations of the same formula: X number of skills, Y number of bonus feats, Z hit dice…along with A base attack bonus and B saving throw bonuses. Aside from the different combinations of variables, there are very few class abilities that really distinguish PCs from each other in D20…especially once they start multi-classing.
Now REGARDING the specific class distinctions in DCC there is certainly room for improvement. However, some of them are spot-on. Adding level to warrior’s initiative (a la the Solo from Cyberpunk)? Genius (and only workable with D20 initiative, so that’s +1 for them). Advancing attack die for warriors and dwarves? VERY EXCELLENT…and makes “strength bonus” a truly secondary consideration in melee (while still being a contributing factor). Luck bonuses for thieves? Very cool AND appropriate…and same with those furry footed Halflings who (as described by Tolkien) always seem to possess such an inordinate amount.
And I really like linking so many of the class abilities (including thief skills) to ALIGNMENT. Again, here’s something I’ve done in my B/X-based games: linking alignment more mechanically to the game system to make it more of a factor. But by linking it directly to CLASS ABILITIES (as DCC does), it essentially provides multiple character archetypes where only a handful previously existed…that is NOT something I ever thought about, as I still associate “alignment” with “role-playing.”
DCC still associates alignment with role-playing, but more literally…choice of alignment determines what ROLE your character will play in the game!
AND…
That’s it for now. As I said, I’ve only just skimmed the cleric/wizard sections so I can’t make a judgment yet on whether or not I like their particular rules. However, I will be returning to DCC (and my thoughts on it) over the week, especially as my group play-tests further.
Oh, yeah…almost forgot:
This Rob Kuntz interview…along with Oddyssey’s recent musings have been bubbling in my brain along with James Raggi’s statement:
The answer to "Is there room for another...?" is always yes, as long as it's good enoughThere are several billion people in the world. Even if I were to limit myself to just the literate, English-speaking folks I’m sure I’d make a ton of money if I could sell .001% of ‘em on a great fantasy game. The trick to it is two-fold:
- Make the game accessible
- Make the game fun to PLAY
It might offend some folks to say, but I think these are the two ingredients missing from the vast majority of RPGs. While B/X may well have met these criteria back in 1981, the simple fact that it is out-of-print greatly limits its accessibility. And many, many “in-print” (i.e. current RPGs) are inaccessible to the average Joe based on their presentation (huge books, RPG assumptions, poor layout interspersed with prose/fiction)...to say nothing of their actual (fun) playability.
DCC isn’t a complete game. It isn’t “finished” yet. I have no idea if it will be a runaway hit or a passing novelty people pick up for a week or two before turning back to their AD&D and retro-clones.
But I’m starting to feel that it’s fine to TRY. It’s not just tilting at windmills to take a swing at a fantasy heartbreaker. If you make a good enough game, people WILL buy it. Really.
Monday, August 15, 2011
This is how I picture dwarves...
...in our DCC game.
Maybe "Lobo" isn't exactly right, or maybe I didn't quite grok what Luke was describing regarding the appearance of demihumans in the Land of a Thousand Towers, but sue me...sometimes my imagination puts together a pastiche of various pop culture references. In fact, now that Yorin is 1st level, I'm imagining him to appear a bit more like Mr. Sinister.
But that's just me.
; )
Pretty Good Game Last Thursday
No, I’m not talking about the Seahawks game which, despite the win, saw offensive tackle Russle Okung injured yet again, Tavaris Jackson get sacked half a dozen times, and Kelly Jennings being run over, run through, and generally being beaten like a red-headed step child every play.
No, THAT game showed me the ‘Hawks have a lot o work to get through over the next three weeks.
[as a side note, how about them Tennessee Titans? Matt Hasselbeck looking pretty sharp, huh? And how ‘bout that Jake Locker kid?]
No, I’m talking about our Thursday night game in which we played the Dungeon Crawl Classics beta.
Not bad.
Very, VERY minor complaints so far, and some of these might simply be a matter of “style preference.” DCC is a strange juxtaposition of several things:
- A B/X foundation (including styling and recycled artwork from the Moldvay book)
- House rules ‘ported straight from D20 (and later) editions
- Random tables a la what might be found in the OSR blog-o-sphere and on-line publications
- Indie-style narrative tools coupled with alternative random number generation
The end result feels a bit schizophrenic to me…at least when reading it.
But we didn’t use most of the rules…Thursday we were still in the “funnel” stage. Eight players sat down to the table with a total of 22 PCs between the bunch of us…the DM also provided us with a couple of NPCs to round out the party to an even two dozen. Of the bunch, I believe all but four of us were 0-level (two of the players had played in the prior DCC try-out when I was out of Mexico) but as it was, there were too many PCs for me to get an accurate gauge of who or what everyone was (fortunately, I didn't have to GM).
Not that there’s any real difference between the characters at 0 level. Personally, I found it great to play “normal humans.” I’ve always felt that the simpler the system, the more the game becomes about your character actions and interactions. And playing the equivalent of B/X “Normal Men” still offered great opportunity for characterization…though it didn’t go quite the way I’d initially expected.
Luke, our GM, came back from GenCon with a copy of Patrick Wetmore’s Anomalous Subsurface Environment, and he’s adapted DCC to the Land of One Thousand Towers. Which put MY initial assumptions about my characters a little “off.”
For example, when I originally rolled up my two dwarf pig herders (“Old Orin” and “Young Yorin”) I figured they were a fairly peaceful pair of father-son farmers, not hardened adventurers. I mean an occupation like “dwarf herder” sounds like something they’ve done for awhile, right? If they were hardened ex-mercs they’d be a little tougher.
But that was before I learned about the goth-zombie demihumans, coupled with DCC’s own description of what the dwarf background is all about. When I first created the characters, I never bothered reviewing the classes so stopped at 0-level character creation + “Neutral alignment” (which made them feel like nature-worshipping, druidish types). Now I’m like Oh, they’re short Drow with beards, exiled to the surface world and forced to raise pigs for humans.
These guys are SPITEFUL.
My third character, Bow-Legged Bill, was originally conceived as a Lawful caravan guard…an outrider, born to the saddle (literally, based on his luck). A protector of travelers in a strange land.
Then we got introduced to our NPCs…fellow caravan guards, buddies of Bill’s, who told the story of a caravan being recently wiped out and a good load of gold being available to loot because of it. Opportunists looking for a score at the expense of the very folk they were hired to protect.
These are my character’s buddies?
They were also, inexplicably, armed and armored much better than myself with splint mail, shields and flails (as a zero level flunky, I had a short sword and a couple dozen copper pieces). As we set out on our excursion to liberate the cash of the fallen from the raiders that took it (the unfortunately named “Mock-Tards,” some kind of gnoll-like monster), I realized my initial assumptions about my characters had been way off. Bow-legged Bill was like a dirty cop…and a rookie one at that, only starting to learn how to get in on the take.
It wasn’t too long before we had our first combat encounter…a pack of hungry wild dogs. The DM tried to make us feel bad about killing DOGS but I wasn’t having any of that (I’ve been menaced by wild dogs before…in the woods in Mexico…and they’re not cool). Especially considering my characters were unarmored and only had 1 hit point apiece.
Afterwards, we found that our caravan buddies had been hiding out in their splint mail while the rest of us were fighting for our lives and decided that they weren’t deserving of their high priced gear, and it would be of more use to other party members.
So I mugged ‘em.
Well, maybe I should be a little more specific: my emo dwarves and bad seed security guard lured one of the dudes behind a copse of trees and then brutally murdered him. After that we intimidated his buddy into giving over his armor and weapon and making him walk point for the party.
This, unfortunately, did not sit well with some of my other 20 party members and payback would come later in the evening.
Let’s see, how did that go down again? Oh, yeah…we found the mock-tards’ lair and proceeded to explore it in a huge pile of people. There was some early suggestion of using my pig-sows for setting off traps, but we already had the naked caravan guard up front so I was able to put ‘em off (my pig farmers were rather attached to their pets). There was a trap door that went off at a crossroads and then a couple mock-tards and a wolf came out of the shadows and attacked. A bunch of chaos ensued due to the incredible amount of people and the D20-style initiative rules. All my characters had agility scores under 9 (short-legged dwarves and bow-legged human), so I was generally among the last to act. People died. One guy was trying to keep the trap door open rather than just writing off the guys inside and getting into the fight…I think I tried to kill him, but I was at the “back of the pack” and the GM ruled I couldn’t get up there.
The melee eventually thinned out. Old Orin charged one of the mock-tards and bull-rushed it into the pit, landing his full weight on it and driving it onto the spear of one of the peons climbing out. Unfortunately, Old Orin only had 1 hit point (Stamina/CON of 3) and broke his neck in the attempt.
Bow-legged Bill used a flail on another mock-tard and brained the shit out of it, killing it. The splint mail seemed to fit just fine.
Randy’s characters decided to kill Bow-Legged Bill because he seemed a murderous loose cannon. His first character's assassination attempt resulted in fumbling and stabbing himself in the brain with his own knife. His second assassination attempt…um…I think he missed. However, his third guy, Stiles, was able to hit, and Bill was felled by foul play (he only had one hit point, too).
By this time, all the mock-tards were dead and the party was probably down to half its original size. We found a big ol’ box of treasure and some radioactive rock (identified by Young Yorin the dwarf) which we stashed in a lead box we found. For some reason, Yorin was spared from the bloody purge that claimed Bill, perhaps due to his youth and the thought that he’d been “led astray.” Sure.
Having completed our first outing, the survivors were advanced to 1st level and everyone got to pick a class. Well, everyone but the demihumans (my character’s class is Dwarf…go figure). We found enough treasure to purchase anything “up to scale mail.” Damage in DCC is variable by weapon, so it only makes gamist sense to pick up a long sword and shield. My character has gone from “assistant pig-keeper” to ShadowFell-ish Badass, in a single session…yeah, that’s kind of a weird transition, but that’s the game.
I’ll be interested to see how things go this week, and I am looking forward to another session (this time with more than 1 hit point). We'll see whether I can put paid to the trecherous Stiles or not.
“Spiteful.” That’s the word of the week.
: )
No, THAT game showed me the ‘Hawks have a lot o work to get through over the next three weeks.
[as a side note, how about them Tennessee Titans? Matt Hasselbeck looking pretty sharp, huh? And how ‘bout that Jake Locker kid?]
No, I’m talking about our Thursday night game in which we played the Dungeon Crawl Classics beta.
Not bad.
Very, VERY minor complaints so far, and some of these might simply be a matter of “style preference.” DCC is a strange juxtaposition of several things:
- A B/X foundation (including styling and recycled artwork from the Moldvay book)
- House rules ‘ported straight from D20 (and later) editions
- Random tables a la what might be found in the OSR blog-o-sphere and on-line publications
- Indie-style narrative tools coupled with alternative random number generation
The end result feels a bit schizophrenic to me…at least when reading it.
But we didn’t use most of the rules…Thursday we were still in the “funnel” stage. Eight players sat down to the table with a total of 22 PCs between the bunch of us…the DM also provided us with a couple of NPCs to round out the party to an even two dozen. Of the bunch, I believe all but four of us were 0-level (two of the players had played in the prior DCC try-out when I was out of Mexico) but as it was, there were too many PCs for me to get an accurate gauge of who or what everyone was (fortunately, I didn't have to GM).
Not that there’s any real difference between the characters at 0 level. Personally, I found it great to play “normal humans.” I’ve always felt that the simpler the system, the more the game becomes about your character actions and interactions. And playing the equivalent of B/X “Normal Men” still offered great opportunity for characterization…though it didn’t go quite the way I’d initially expected.
Luke, our GM, came back from GenCon with a copy of Patrick Wetmore’s Anomalous Subsurface Environment, and he’s adapted DCC to the Land of One Thousand Towers. Which put MY initial assumptions about my characters a little “off.”
For example, when I originally rolled up my two dwarf pig herders (“Old Orin” and “Young Yorin”) I figured they were a fairly peaceful pair of father-son farmers, not hardened adventurers. I mean an occupation like “dwarf herder” sounds like something they’ve done for awhile, right? If they were hardened ex-mercs they’d be a little tougher.
But that was before I learned about the goth-zombie demihumans, coupled with DCC’s own description of what the dwarf background is all about. When I first created the characters, I never bothered reviewing the classes so stopped at 0-level character creation + “Neutral alignment” (which made them feel like nature-worshipping, druidish types). Now I’m like Oh, they’re short Drow with beards, exiled to the surface world and forced to raise pigs for humans.
These guys are SPITEFUL.
My third character, Bow-Legged Bill, was originally conceived as a Lawful caravan guard…an outrider, born to the saddle (literally, based on his luck). A protector of travelers in a strange land.
Then we got introduced to our NPCs…fellow caravan guards, buddies of Bill’s, who told the story of a caravan being recently wiped out and a good load of gold being available to loot because of it. Opportunists looking for a score at the expense of the very folk they were hired to protect.
These are my character’s buddies?
They were also, inexplicably, armed and armored much better than myself with splint mail, shields and flails (as a zero level flunky, I had a short sword and a couple dozen copper pieces). As we set out on our excursion to liberate the cash of the fallen from the raiders that took it (the unfortunately named “Mock-Tards,” some kind of gnoll-like monster), I realized my initial assumptions about my characters had been way off. Bow-legged Bill was like a dirty cop…and a rookie one at that, only starting to learn how to get in on the take.
It wasn’t too long before we had our first combat encounter…a pack of hungry wild dogs. The DM tried to make us feel bad about killing DOGS but I wasn’t having any of that (I’ve been menaced by wild dogs before…in the woods in Mexico…and they’re not cool). Especially considering my characters were unarmored and only had 1 hit point apiece.
Afterwards, we found that our caravan buddies had been hiding out in their splint mail while the rest of us were fighting for our lives and decided that they weren’t deserving of their high priced gear, and it would be of more use to other party members.
So I mugged ‘em.
Well, maybe I should be a little more specific: my emo dwarves and bad seed security guard lured one of the dudes behind a copse of trees and then brutally murdered him. After that we intimidated his buddy into giving over his armor and weapon and making him walk point for the party.
This, unfortunately, did not sit well with some of my other 20 party members and payback would come later in the evening.
Let’s see, how did that go down again? Oh, yeah…we found the mock-tards’ lair and proceeded to explore it in a huge pile of people. There was some early suggestion of using my pig-sows for setting off traps, but we already had the naked caravan guard up front so I was able to put ‘em off (my pig farmers were rather attached to their pets). There was a trap door that went off at a crossroads and then a couple mock-tards and a wolf came out of the shadows and attacked. A bunch of chaos ensued due to the incredible amount of people and the D20-style initiative rules. All my characters had agility scores under 9 (short-legged dwarves and bow-legged human), so I was generally among the last to act. People died. One guy was trying to keep the trap door open rather than just writing off the guys inside and getting into the fight…I think I tried to kill him, but I was at the “back of the pack” and the GM ruled I couldn’t get up there.
The melee eventually thinned out. Old Orin charged one of the mock-tards and bull-rushed it into the pit, landing his full weight on it and driving it onto the spear of one of the peons climbing out. Unfortunately, Old Orin only had 1 hit point (Stamina/CON of 3) and broke his neck in the attempt.
Bow-legged Bill used a flail on another mock-tard and brained the shit out of it, killing it. The splint mail seemed to fit just fine.
Randy’s characters decided to kill Bow-Legged Bill because he seemed a murderous loose cannon. His first character's assassination attempt resulted in fumbling and stabbing himself in the brain with his own knife. His second assassination attempt…um…I think he missed. However, his third guy, Stiles, was able to hit, and Bill was felled by foul play (he only had one hit point, too).
By this time, all the mock-tards were dead and the party was probably down to half its original size. We found a big ol’ box of treasure and some radioactive rock (identified by Young Yorin the dwarf) which we stashed in a lead box we found. For some reason, Yorin was spared from the bloody purge that claimed Bill, perhaps due to his youth and the thought that he’d been “led astray.” Sure.
Having completed our first outing, the survivors were advanced to 1st level and everyone got to pick a class. Well, everyone but the demihumans (my character’s class is Dwarf…go figure). We found enough treasure to purchase anything “up to scale mail.” Damage in DCC is variable by weapon, so it only makes gamist sense to pick up a long sword and shield. My character has gone from “assistant pig-keeper” to ShadowFell-ish Badass, in a single session…yeah, that’s kind of a weird transition, but that’s the game.
I’ll be interested to see how things go this week, and I am looking forward to another session (this time with more than 1 hit point). We'll see whether I can put paid to the trecherous Stiles or not.
“Spiteful.” That’s the word of the week.
: )
Thursday, August 11, 2011
If you think...
...I have much more on my mind than tonight's preseason game of the Seattle Seahawks in San Diego, I'm afraid you're much mistaken. Sorry...geeking out over football is just "one of my thanks;" I do hope to form some some thoughts/reflections of DCC after tonight's game. But otherwise, I just can't get up any gaming posts.
Too much excitement to see which O-linemen get injured and how bad Tavaris Jackson sucks!
; )
Too much excitement to see which O-linemen get injured and how bad Tavaris Jackson sucks!
; )
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Thick with Thieves
It seems like I’ve discussed thieves a lot over the life of this blog…and so why should I stop from posting something more.
I’ve never been one to play a thief. When I played D20, I had a dwarf who multi-classed as a fighter-thief in order to meet the duelist (prestige class) pre requisites. In my youth, my main character (over several years) was a 1st edition bard, who was more of a fighter than anything else. In Pat Armstrong’s on-line B/X game, I had the opportunity to play a thief for a single session.
That’s about it.
I’m writing this to explain I have no great love for the thief class…nothing particularly compels me to make it better or cooler or more effective. However, it IS a class I’m interested in keeping around, and it is important for me to emphasize what the thief class is.
Thieves are thieves.
I don’t see them as “rogues;” to my mind all B/X characters are roguish to some degree. I don’t consider them lightly armored fighters…a lightly armored fighter is a fighter with leather armor. I don’t even see them particularly as a “scout” for the party (though the thief in our group often gets used as one). Any character that requires a light source to “see” in the dungeon is going to have a damn hard time sneaking up on anyone.
Thieves are thieves. They are adventurers (just like all the other PCs), with a particular set of class abilities…what we call “thief skills.” Using the Rules As Written makes this class ability REALLY ineffective. SO ineffective, that he probably won't use any of them…with the exception of climb walls (a high chance of success) and backstabbing (automatically successful, assuming you hit the target).
What do you call a guy that climbs walls and backstabs folks? Especially considering his normal trappings (leather armor and some type of throwing/missile weapon to take advantage of a high DEX)? I don’t know…not a thief, though. Maybe a monkey commando or something.
So, I allow thief skills to automatically succeed in my game. I encourage thief characters to do more than climb walls and backstab. Many sessions we won’t even see backstabbing or wall climbing.
But we DO see the use of thief skills. Searching for traps, picking locks, moving silently. Our party thief gets to act like a thief and doesn’t face epic failure time and time again due to low percentile scores. It’s pretty neat.
Is there a downside to it? Not really. Let’s talk about it in practice:
Picking pockets: our thief player has only picked two or three pockets, generally NPCs in town. This has allowed him to pick up a treasure map that he could have otherwise purchased (without spending money) and take back some coins that he had previously used to bribe someone for information. He hasn’t made any fantastic hauls using the skill, but he has been able to add characterization to the way his character handles himself…without worrying about the chance of failure (and thus side-tracking the party with some sort of arrest scenario).
Opening locks: when there are locks to be picked, the thief gets his chance to open them. Without a thief, the party would have to resort to other methods (finding keys, using knock spells, bashing open chests with an axe, etc.). Allowing the thief to open locks gives the character a chance to shine, gives the party a chance to conserve resources (like knock spells), and allows the game to continue at a brisk pace as the players select the right tool (in this case, the thief) to overcome a minor obstacle. It doesn’t help against magic locks or puzzles, and so there are still ways for me (as the DM) to stymie PC progress, should I so choose. It creates incentive for the PCs to keep the thief alive.
Climbing walls: there are plenty of ways for a thief to fall and hurt himself without worrying about making climb rolls (our thief has fallen into a pit or two). Again, this makes the thief a useful tool of the party to save on other resources (levitation and fly spells), and provides the players with a method for negotiating some obstacles (like cliffs and such) without worrying about the thief dying. I DO require a roll for a hurried or “rapid ascent” (for example, when the thief was attempting to escape the grasp of a wraith in our last session).
Finding (and removing) “small mechanical traps:” probably the main item on the list that would make DMs hesitate with removing skill rolls. However, one must consider the limitations of the skill:
1) PCs must actually search an area for a trap to have a chance to find it.
2) The trap must be of the “mechanical device” variety for the thief to find it.
3) It takes time (1 turn) to search for traps…time for torches to burn out, or lantern oil to be used up, or wandering monsters to come around.
Having the ability to find traps doesn’t mean the thief will necessarily find anything…and it speeds up play. Let me give a couple of “actual play” examples:
- The party comes to a dead end. Some party members want to search for secret doors, the thief searches for traps. No traps are found (there aren’t any). The thief gives the “all clear,” based on his knowledge as a subject matter expert. The party can breathe a sigh of relief as they look for secret doors.
- The party comes to a door. After listening and hearing nothing, the thief kicks in the door. The door opens smoothly and the thief plunges through and down an 80 foot pit (the dungeon garbage chute, well-used by the resident denizens). There was no “trap” to find, but the thief still takes a spill.
- Examining a ruined bedroom with a collapsed ceiling, the party finds skeleton still in the bed, a large boulder having apparently crushed the victim’s skull and upper torso. The thief levers the rock from the remains and sees a silver and sapphire necklace beneath amongst the crushed bone fragments. Excitedly grabbing for it, a fist-sized spider scurries from beneath the bed covers and bites his warm flesh, filling the thief’s veins with poison. Another party member bludgeons the creature but the thief writhes on the floor in agony.
Just because thieves automatically find traps, doesn’t mean caution can be thrown to the wind. Trip wires, floor plates, poisoned needles, and covered pits are all readily found by the searching thief. Magical traps, crumbling stonework, and live animals are NOT so easily discovered…and even when they are (by a detect magic spell, dwarf, or careful prodding with a 10’ pole) they cannot simply be disarmed by the thief.
Does allowing thieves to “automatically” find mechanical traps make the dungeon non-hazardous? No. But is it useful to have a thief in your party? Absolutely. No one wants to deal with a poisoned needle if they don’t have to!
Hiding in Shadows/Moving Silently: While I haven’t been a stickler for it, my baseline consideration for moving silently is that the thief not be heavily encumbered with jingling treasure. However, even if the thief “sneaks ahead,” he still has to roll for surprise himself with any creatures encountered. So long as he’s not (and he’s not carrying his own light, giving himself away), he should be able to creep upon monsters unnoticed and leave, reporting back valuable intelligence to the party. He cannot simply “take on” enemies by himself, as they’ll probably surround him and kill him. Allowing move silently gives him a way to contribute to the party and again, conserve resources (like clairvoyance and wizard eye).
I can’t recall any instances of hiding in shadows to date. Usually, the players are “on the move” and by the time the thief finds himself in a situation where he’d LIKE to hide (i.e. when the party is spotted by monsters), he is unable to hide (having already been spotted). The party does not set-up a lot of traps or ambushes for monsters.
Hear noise: If there is noise loud enough to be heard, it is heard. If it’s not, it’s not. I’m not sure why this needs to be a special skill. Demihumans hear better than humans.
All right, I think that’s about it. Likewise, for dwarves I allow their “stone knowledge” skill to work automatically (if there’s something to discover, they discover it…so long as they’re looking). I also allow PCs automatic insights into certain aspects of a dungeon/adventure based on their class…for instance, clerics know religious items when they see them or have an idea what might be a profane act within a given holy place, dwarves and elves recognize items that were crafted by members of their own species, etc.
So far, none of these things have been a problem in the game…I am completely satisfied that the danger/risk level is still high in the game, and pleased that thieves are more effective at their main class feature, i.e. their skills. For me, it makes the game feel a little more tactical and a little less of a “crap shoot.” PCs are in charge of deciding what action they want to take, and the thief isn’t playing Russian Roulette every time he tries to use a basic ability of his class.
Let’s face it: no other class faces gross bodily harm for failing to use a class ability. If a cleric blows a turning check, they don’t have to make a save versus level drain (for example) the way a thief needs to save versus poison for missing a disarm/find traps roll.
Let me contrast this system with EARLIER games; here’s what I saw:
- Thieves skulking around the back of the party, shooting arrows or looking for a good opportunity to backstab in the midst of an encounter.
- Thieves hoping they wouldn’t be called on to use any of their thief skills.
- Players complaining when they were called on; especially if they then failed (and risked death because of it).
- The only “risk-taking” thieves were newbie players, ignorant of possible consequences (last seen with Vince in White Plume Mountain). Fortunately for Vince, his character started at mid-level (6th or 7th) for the adventure AND he was extremely lucky on more than one occasion with his skill rolls.
Don't know if Matt is reading this, but he can feel free to comment if he likes the "skill-less system" or not. Do you feel that I have taken the challenge out of the game for you by allowing your skills to all succeed?
; )
I’ve never been one to play a thief. When I played D20, I had a dwarf who multi-classed as a fighter-thief in order to meet the duelist (prestige class) pre requisites. In my youth, my main character (over several years) was a 1st edition bard, who was more of a fighter than anything else. In Pat Armstrong’s on-line B/X game, I had the opportunity to play a thief for a single session.
That’s about it.
I’m writing this to explain I have no great love for the thief class…nothing particularly compels me to make it better or cooler or more effective. However, it IS a class I’m interested in keeping around, and it is important for me to emphasize what the thief class is.
Thieves are thieves.
I don’t see them as “rogues;” to my mind all B/X characters are roguish to some degree. I don’t consider them lightly armored fighters…a lightly armored fighter is a fighter with leather armor. I don’t even see them particularly as a “scout” for the party (though the thief in our group often gets used as one). Any character that requires a light source to “see” in the dungeon is going to have a damn hard time sneaking up on anyone.
Thieves are thieves. They are adventurers (just like all the other PCs), with a particular set of class abilities…what we call “thief skills.” Using the Rules As Written makes this class ability REALLY ineffective. SO ineffective, that he probably won't use any of them…with the exception of climb walls (a high chance of success) and backstabbing (automatically successful, assuming you hit the target).
What do you call a guy that climbs walls and backstabs folks? Especially considering his normal trappings (leather armor and some type of throwing/missile weapon to take advantage of a high DEX)? I don’t know…not a thief, though. Maybe a monkey commando or something.
So, I allow thief skills to automatically succeed in my game. I encourage thief characters to do more than climb walls and backstab. Many sessions we won’t even see backstabbing or wall climbing.
But we DO see the use of thief skills. Searching for traps, picking locks, moving silently. Our party thief gets to act like a thief and doesn’t face epic failure time and time again due to low percentile scores. It’s pretty neat.
Is there a downside to it? Not really. Let’s talk about it in practice:
Picking pockets: our thief player has only picked two or three pockets, generally NPCs in town. This has allowed him to pick up a treasure map that he could have otherwise purchased (without spending money) and take back some coins that he had previously used to bribe someone for information. He hasn’t made any fantastic hauls using the skill, but he has been able to add characterization to the way his character handles himself…without worrying about the chance of failure (and thus side-tracking the party with some sort of arrest scenario).
Opening locks: when there are locks to be picked, the thief gets his chance to open them. Without a thief, the party would have to resort to other methods (finding keys, using knock spells, bashing open chests with an axe, etc.). Allowing the thief to open locks gives the character a chance to shine, gives the party a chance to conserve resources (like knock spells), and allows the game to continue at a brisk pace as the players select the right tool (in this case, the thief) to overcome a minor obstacle. It doesn’t help against magic locks or puzzles, and so there are still ways for me (as the DM) to stymie PC progress, should I so choose. It creates incentive for the PCs to keep the thief alive.
Climbing walls: there are plenty of ways for a thief to fall and hurt himself without worrying about making climb rolls (our thief has fallen into a pit or two). Again, this makes the thief a useful tool of the party to save on other resources (levitation and fly spells), and provides the players with a method for negotiating some obstacles (like cliffs and such) without worrying about the thief dying. I DO require a roll for a hurried or “rapid ascent” (for example, when the thief was attempting to escape the grasp of a wraith in our last session).
Finding (and removing) “small mechanical traps:” probably the main item on the list that would make DMs hesitate with removing skill rolls. However, one must consider the limitations of the skill:
1) PCs must actually search an area for a trap to have a chance to find it.
2) The trap must be of the “mechanical device” variety for the thief to find it.
3) It takes time (1 turn) to search for traps…time for torches to burn out, or lantern oil to be used up, or wandering monsters to come around.
Having the ability to find traps doesn’t mean the thief will necessarily find anything…and it speeds up play. Let me give a couple of “actual play” examples:
- The party comes to a dead end. Some party members want to search for secret doors, the thief searches for traps. No traps are found (there aren’t any). The thief gives the “all clear,” based on his knowledge as a subject matter expert. The party can breathe a sigh of relief as they look for secret doors.
- The party comes to a door. After listening and hearing nothing, the thief kicks in the door. The door opens smoothly and the thief plunges through and down an 80 foot pit (the dungeon garbage chute, well-used by the resident denizens). There was no “trap” to find, but the thief still takes a spill.
- Examining a ruined bedroom with a collapsed ceiling, the party finds skeleton still in the bed, a large boulder having apparently crushed the victim’s skull and upper torso. The thief levers the rock from the remains and sees a silver and sapphire necklace beneath amongst the crushed bone fragments. Excitedly grabbing for it, a fist-sized spider scurries from beneath the bed covers and bites his warm flesh, filling the thief’s veins with poison. Another party member bludgeons the creature but the thief writhes on the floor in agony.
Just because thieves automatically find traps, doesn’t mean caution can be thrown to the wind. Trip wires, floor plates, poisoned needles, and covered pits are all readily found by the searching thief. Magical traps, crumbling stonework, and live animals are NOT so easily discovered…and even when they are (by a detect magic spell, dwarf, or careful prodding with a 10’ pole) they cannot simply be disarmed by the thief.
Does allowing thieves to “automatically” find mechanical traps make the dungeon non-hazardous? No. But is it useful to have a thief in your party? Absolutely. No one wants to deal with a poisoned needle if they don’t have to!
Hiding in Shadows/Moving Silently: While I haven’t been a stickler for it, my baseline consideration for moving silently is that the thief not be heavily encumbered with jingling treasure. However, even if the thief “sneaks ahead,” he still has to roll for surprise himself with any creatures encountered. So long as he’s not (and he’s not carrying his own light, giving himself away), he should be able to creep upon monsters unnoticed and leave, reporting back valuable intelligence to the party. He cannot simply “take on” enemies by himself, as they’ll probably surround him and kill him. Allowing move silently gives him a way to contribute to the party and again, conserve resources (like clairvoyance and wizard eye).
I can’t recall any instances of hiding in shadows to date. Usually, the players are “on the move” and by the time the thief finds himself in a situation where he’d LIKE to hide (i.e. when the party is spotted by monsters), he is unable to hide (having already been spotted). The party does not set-up a lot of traps or ambushes for monsters.
Hear noise: If there is noise loud enough to be heard, it is heard. If it’s not, it’s not. I’m not sure why this needs to be a special skill. Demihumans hear better than humans.
All right, I think that’s about it. Likewise, for dwarves I allow their “stone knowledge” skill to work automatically (if there’s something to discover, they discover it…so long as they’re looking). I also allow PCs automatic insights into certain aspects of a dungeon/adventure based on their class…for instance, clerics know religious items when they see them or have an idea what might be a profane act within a given holy place, dwarves and elves recognize items that were crafted by members of their own species, etc.
So far, none of these things have been a problem in the game…I am completely satisfied that the danger/risk level is still high in the game, and pleased that thieves are more effective at their main class feature, i.e. their skills. For me, it makes the game feel a little more tactical and a little less of a “crap shoot.” PCs are in charge of deciding what action they want to take, and the thief isn’t playing Russian Roulette every time he tries to use a basic ability of his class.
Let’s face it: no other class faces gross bodily harm for failing to use a class ability. If a cleric blows a turning check, they don’t have to make a save versus level drain (for example) the way a thief needs to save versus poison for missing a disarm/find traps roll.
Let me contrast this system with EARLIER games; here’s what I saw:
- Thieves skulking around the back of the party, shooting arrows or looking for a good opportunity to backstab in the midst of an encounter.
- Thieves hoping they wouldn’t be called on to use any of their thief skills.
- Players complaining when they were called on; especially if they then failed (and risked death because of it).
- The only “risk-taking” thieves were newbie players, ignorant of possible consequences (last seen with Vince in White Plume Mountain). Fortunately for Vince, his character started at mid-level (6th or 7th) for the adventure AND he was extremely lucky on more than one occasion with his skill rolls.
Don't know if Matt is reading this, but he can feel free to comment if he likes the "skill-less system" or not. Do you feel that I have taken the challenge out of the game for you by allowing your skills to all succeed?
; )
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Indie-Gaming?
I've mentioned before that long before I got back into D&D, I spent a lot of time swimming the waters of the indie-gaming scene, especially with regard to thoughtful design theory. In fact, it's the kind of thing one really can't "turn off" once you've started doing it...you just end up getting a much more narrow (dare I say, "elitist") perspective on this RPG hobby.
For example, I look at D&D through the same design lens with which I view any new game I pick up, purchase, or play. The reason I'm so hip on the B/X Dungeons & Dragons is that I find this particular edition to be an incredibly excellent game. No, it does not do some of the things indie games do, but it does everything D&D does (at least, everything I want it to do) very well. Like 9 stars out of 10 for me.
This is why, after playing it nearly non-stop for nearly a year (more?) and trying various house rules and tinkerings, my current game is almost completely "straight B/X." The only deviations from the original Red & Blue books?
- Clerics don't have to memorize spells in the morning (cast on demand)
- Thief skills (and dwarf, halfling abilities) automatically work, no roll
That's it. My "weapon variations?" Dropped. Firearms? Phased out. Magic-user studies/spell learning? Exactly as written. New classes? Well, we still have one guy playing a "scout," but for the most part he works just like any other character...I mean, it's such a basic concept you can't really distinguish him from a leather clad fighter (one that can read tracks).
Anyway, it's a great game, something I don't need to harp on (again) to my readers, I'm sure. But what about that whole indie community with which I used to spend so much time prior to (allegedly) joining the OSR?
The last few days I've been buzzing around those sites again, mainly The Forge (which has gotten considerably more streamlined in the last year...yow!). I just wanted to see what I was missing, you know? If anything.
What I found in the "Actual Play" forum (the place I used to go to learn about and read about and get excited about new indie games) is: 4th Edition D&D.
What the F*CK?
Certainly, it's not ALL 4E, but enough of it...5 posts on the first page, 10 on the 2nd, with pages and pages of discussion thread. To me, this is so...gross. I mean, it's like going to your neighborhood farmer's market and seeing a Walmart has set up a stand. If you read the "about" page of The Forge you'll find the following:
This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games. What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author, or creator-owned.
Hmm...it's strange enough to see ANY discussion of D&D on the site (not that it's not a touch-stone subject for most of us who "grew up in the hobby;" but so much of the indie-theory is about alternate approaches to game design). But isn't Hasbro's latest-greatest kind of the antithesis of independent, creator-owned games? Aren't these the folks that killed (or cut the legs off) the OGL, making their product even more faceless and corporate and soulless than it already was?
I guess I've become an elitist's elitist. Man, I am such a jerk!
I can't even bring myself to engage in these on-line discussions. Ideas and questions about how to tinker with 4E and "make it better" just makes me want to ask, "why the hell even bother?" But even that is a losing discussion...I mean, why would I want to waste time - any amount of time - discussing how to "tinker" 4E on a site that purports to be devoted to the promotion and creation of indie RPGs?
I mean, what could such a discussion possibly be in aid of?
Sorry for yet another mini-rant. I guess I've just been in a bad mood today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)