Over on Dragonsfoot, I responded to a request for ideas on how to limit magic in a low-magic campaign and had some positive response to my solution for limiting clerics, so I'm posting it here, with expanded material.
By default, clerics are supposed to serve their patron deities, but it's up to the GM how to handle this. My suggestion: track a Piety score, openly on the player character's sheet or secretly, tracked by the GM. Assuming the old-school approach to clerics (no spells at first level, spell levels range from 1 to 5,) Piety starts at 0 and can reach a maximum of 5.
Every time the cleric does something that serves the deity's will, make a reaction roll for the deity, adjusted as feels appropriate. On a good result, Piety increases by 1. At the GM's option, an excellent reaction may mean an increase of 2. Conversely, make a reaction roll for affronts to the deity or violation of taboos, to see if Piety decreases.
How does Piety affect clerics? Option 1 is to limit the maximum spell level usable. Piety 0 means the cleric doesn't have enough faith to cast any spells. Piety 5 means the cleric can cast any spell available, based on the character's level.
Option 2 is to limit the type of spell usable. A simple interpretation is to allow healing spells at Piety 1, purely defensive spells at Piety 2, and all other clerical spells at Piety 3+. A more elaborate approach is to breaks spells into more spell types or create unique spell groups for each religion, perhaps with a domain approach as used in AD&D 2e: you get access to your deity's primary domain at Piety 1, secondary domain at Piety 2, defensive spells of any domain at Piety 3, and other spells at Piety 4.
I have some more thoughts on Piety for later posts.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Reviewing Games and Adventures
People are all a-buzz about this comment, and similar comments on a review in a blog:
You should not base a review of a game or adventure on actual play.
You are not reviewing a play session or a play group. Actual play gets reviewed in actual play posts. The game is not the session. GMs can modify rules and adventures, even unconsciously; players will adapt themselves to what other players are doing. This makes actual play worthless for reviewing a product.
It's true that you review a movie after you watch it. That's because the movie is the product. For games and adventures, the printed text, graphics and maps are the product. You review that.
You'd think that would be obvious.
“Wondering why some game reviewers are idiots. Newspapers don’t review movies based on a script. Why review a module without playing it?”I left the name off because that's not important for what I'm about to say. I'm not going to say what other people are saying. I'm going to say what I haven't heard anyone say yet.
You should not base a review of a game or adventure on actual play.
You are not reviewing a play session or a play group. Actual play gets reviewed in actual play posts. The game is not the session. GMs can modify rules and adventures, even unconsciously; players will adapt themselves to what other players are doing. This makes actual play worthless for reviewing a product.
It's true that you review a movie after you watch it. That's because the movie is the product. For games and adventures, the printed text, graphics and maps are the product. You review that.
You'd think that would be obvious.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Luck and Endurance vs. Healing
Continuing the hit points/hit dice discussion, Banesfinger's other example was of a low-CON, low level MU healing faster than a high-CON, high-level fighter. Again, this may or may not be a problem with suspension of disbelief depending on what you're trying to believe in, what kind of game you're playing. How you view hit points is going to affect how you view the problem.
If you are interpreting the attributes as quantitative differences between characters, this example is going to peeve you to no end. Especially if you interpret hit points as physical toughness. Logically, under those circumstances, CON should affect hit points and healing. Higher CON should mean more hit points and faster healing. You may need a house rule here that says you get, say, a 3d6 vs. CON roll every week to heal extra damage; the higher the roll, the more damage healed, unless the roll is higher than CON.
If you are playing in a gritty style, then this won't be as big a problem, because the real problem is hit points increasing with level. You're much more likely to take a BRP/GURPS solution for gritty and realistic play: hit points equals CON, hit points do not increase with level.
If you are playing a high-action style game and also interpret hit points more as luck than physical toughness, there is no problem. Scratch that: CON hp bonuses nag me. I'm tempted to disallow them except for dwarves and halflings, because that's their special feature. What I might do instead is allow high CON characters to reduce physical damage only, sort of like having a point of damage resistance.
But as for high-level characters in general healing slower than low-level characters, if I'm interpreting hit points as luck, it makes perfect sense. Having hit points means being able to turn deadly or crippling blows into mere scrapes and bruises. If you are in a lot of fights, eventually your luck runs out. High level characters have a greater capacity for luck, but they still recover luck at the same rate as everyone else.
If you are interpreting the attributes as quantitative differences between characters, this example is going to peeve you to no end. Especially if you interpret hit points as physical toughness. Logically, under those circumstances, CON should affect hit points and healing. Higher CON should mean more hit points and faster healing. You may need a house rule here that says you get, say, a 3d6 vs. CON roll every week to heal extra damage; the higher the roll, the more damage healed, unless the roll is higher than CON.
If you are playing in a gritty style, then this won't be as big a problem, because the real problem is hit points increasing with level. You're much more likely to take a BRP/GURPS solution for gritty and realistic play: hit points equals CON, hit points do not increase with level.
If you are playing a high-action style game and also interpret hit points more as luck than physical toughness, there is no problem. Scratch that: CON hp bonuses nag me. I'm tempted to disallow them except for dwarves and halflings, because that's their special feature. What I might do instead is allow high CON characters to reduce physical damage only, sort of like having a point of damage resistance.
But as for high-level characters in general healing slower than low-level characters, if I'm interpreting hit points as luck, it makes perfect sense. Having hit points means being able to turn deadly or crippling blows into mere scrapes and bruises. If you are in a lot of fights, eventually your luck runs out. High level characters have a greater capacity for luck, but they still recover luck at the same rate as everyone else.
Luck and Endurance vs. Cliffs
In a comment to my previous post on hit points/hit dice, Banesfinger said...
A lot has to do with what the players are trying to believe in.
Let's discuss the first example in this post. The 100-foot cliff is a recurring argument and constant target of tweaking. Originally, if you fell 10 feet or more, you took 1d6 damage per 10 feet. Thus, if you fall 100 feet, you should take 10d6 damage: a minimum of 10 points, average of 35. Using S&W core for a moment, since my LBBs are still in storage: a 10th level fighter has 1d6+2 hit points per level up to 9th, plus 3 more points for 10th level; a thief has 1d6-1 per level up to 9th, plus 1 point for 10th level. An unlucky player who always rolls the lowest result on hit dice would have a thief that is guaranteed to die from a 100-foot fall, but the same player's fighter might have about a 50-50 chance of surviving. A lucky player who always rolls high would have a fighter who could survive any 100-foot fall, or a thief who would have roughly a 2/3 chance of surviving.
Does this break belief? If you're playing a gritty game, yes. If you're playing the opposite extreme -- high action -- no, although a lucky player of a thief would probably complain about a lucky player of a fighter if both characters fell off the same cliff. But then, in LBB, or S&W, having high hit points is one of the few class features of fighters; they don't get magic, there's no such thing as skills or feats. Fighters are guys who can survive 1oo-foot falls, or ten sword thrusts. Thieves -- well, thieves were always broken, that's why old school people debate whether thieves should even be allowed. Magic-Users have the same hit dice as thieves, though, and they have to trade the ability to survive a 100-foot fall for the ability to cast spells, possibly including a Featherfall or Levitation spell. That's how they are expected to survive that cliff.
If you're playing somewhat less than high action, on the other hand, and not using one of the tweaks out there, beyond a certain falling distance threshold, you're going to call for save vs. death, or perhaps a CON/System Shock roll, since the original rules say CON allows you to withstand adversity. Falling off a cliff is a little different than being attacked by ten orcs, so it's reasonable to treat it more like near-certain death than something you could potentially avoid.
For something grittier than even save vs. death, GMs typically go for one of the house rules. For example, if I were running a gritty game, I'd say something like every 30 feet of falling distance means one randomly-allocated critical injury of 1d6 per 30 feet. Thus, a 100-foot cliff would cause a base 10d6 damage as normal, but also three 3d6 injuries. I would just need a random body part chart, or more likely I'd roll on a dice map with regions named after body parts. I might also rule that a critical injury to head or ribs with a point value higher than CON requires a save vs. death roll; even on success, note that the character can do nothing until someone comes along to do some first aid, and afterwards the character will have penalties on actions.
Luck and Endurance can only be pushed so far before you have player disbelief.and raised two examples: two characters of 10th level falling from a 100-foot cliff, and a low-CON, low level MU healing faster than a high-CON, high-level fighter. Do these examples break suspension of disbelief?
A lot has to do with what the players are trying to believe in.
Let's discuss the first example in this post. The 100-foot cliff is a recurring argument and constant target of tweaking. Originally, if you fell 10 feet or more, you took 1d6 damage per 10 feet. Thus, if you fall 100 feet, you should take 10d6 damage: a minimum of 10 points, average of 35. Using S&W core for a moment, since my LBBs are still in storage: a 10th level fighter has 1d6+2 hit points per level up to 9th, plus 3 more points for 10th level; a thief has 1d6-1 per level up to 9th, plus 1 point for 10th level. An unlucky player who always rolls the lowest result on hit dice would have a thief that is guaranteed to die from a 100-foot fall, but the same player's fighter might have about a 50-50 chance of surviving. A lucky player who always rolls high would have a fighter who could survive any 100-foot fall, or a thief who would have roughly a 2/3 chance of surviving.
Does this break belief? If you're playing a gritty game, yes. If you're playing the opposite extreme -- high action -- no, although a lucky player of a thief would probably complain about a lucky player of a fighter if both characters fell off the same cliff. But then, in LBB, or S&W, having high hit points is one of the few class features of fighters; they don't get magic, there's no such thing as skills or feats. Fighters are guys who can survive 1oo-foot falls, or ten sword thrusts. Thieves -- well, thieves were always broken, that's why old school people debate whether thieves should even be allowed. Magic-Users have the same hit dice as thieves, though, and they have to trade the ability to survive a 100-foot fall for the ability to cast spells, possibly including a Featherfall or Levitation spell. That's how they are expected to survive that cliff.
If you're playing somewhat less than high action, on the other hand, and not using one of the tweaks out there, beyond a certain falling distance threshold, you're going to call for save vs. death, or perhaps a CON/System Shock roll, since the original rules say CON allows you to withstand adversity. Falling off a cliff is a little different than being attacked by ten orcs, so it's reasonable to treat it more like near-certain death than something you could potentially avoid.
For something grittier than even save vs. death, GMs typically go for one of the house rules. For example, if I were running a gritty game, I'd say something like every 30 feet of falling distance means one randomly-allocated critical injury of 1d6 per 30 feet. Thus, a 100-foot cliff would cause a base 10d6 damage as normal, but also three 3d6 injuries. I would just need a random body part chart, or more likely I'd roll on a dice map with regions named after body parts. I might also rule that a critical injury to head or ribs with a point value higher than CON requires a save vs. death roll; even on success, note that the character can do nothing until someone comes along to do some first aid, and afterwards the character will have penalties on actions.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Hit Points/Hit Dice
Uncle Bear posted a little something about hit points: a couple house rules on representing physical damage effects, plus an introductory paragraph that suggests his philosophy:
But this leads me to my main point: I also have a problem with the way hit dice are used. If hit points are luck and endurance for player characters, they should be for monsters also. For the most part, they are, in the original game. The fact that combat ability is connected to hit dice makes that clear.
But as new monsters were added, people started to think that bigger monsters should automatically have more hit dice. But supernatural creatures tend to have more hit dice as well, to represent how dangerous they are. So what if a creature is a really large demon? The answer became "add a humongous amount of hit dice" and hit die inflation was born. Also, combined with the dissociation of armor class from armor type, this resulted in the need for more detailed "stat blocks" for every conceivable monster; after all, you need to know the HD, AC, and movement rate for every possible creature, don't you?
Well, no. Because most creatures are going to be mostly the same, except for special powers or attacks. You could improvise all ordinary beasts with a handful of notes. You only need to know what is different about a creature to run it.
Count me as one of the people that has a love-hate relationship with hit points. From a story point, I can completely dance along with the concept that they’re abstract and represent bruises and fatigue and such, and that as characters become more experienced their endurance increases and they can go longer and better avoid serious injury in combat. On the other hand, that’s just an after-the-fact story-gamist rationalization of a mechanic that’s really just a hold over from the game’s miniature wargame days. Then again, it is easy to track, and it’s a tangible reminder to the player that their character is in mortal danger as they tick off how many hit points of damage have been taken. I like that part.Now, I don't have a love-hate relationship with hit points, but I do have one with the way hit points are sometimes used. I'm firmly in the luck and endurance camp; I think the fact that hit points increase with level in D&D makes it clear that they are supposed to be completely abstract.
But this leads me to my main point: I also have a problem with the way hit dice are used. If hit points are luck and endurance for player characters, they should be for monsters also. For the most part, they are, in the original game. The fact that combat ability is connected to hit dice makes that clear.
But as new monsters were added, people started to think that bigger monsters should automatically have more hit dice. But supernatural creatures tend to have more hit dice as well, to represent how dangerous they are. So what if a creature is a really large demon? The answer became "add a humongous amount of hit dice" and hit die inflation was born. Also, combined with the dissociation of armor class from armor type, this resulted in the need for more detailed "stat blocks" for every conceivable monster; after all, you need to know the HD, AC, and movement rate for every possible creature, don't you?
Well, no. Because most creatures are going to be mostly the same, except for special powers or attacks. You could improvise all ordinary beasts with a handful of notes. You only need to know what is different about a creature to run it.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Difference Between Classes
Consider for a moment the following incomplete grouping of character classes:
It seems obvious to me that the Fighting-Man and Magic-User classes together represent one approach to classes, while the Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Monk, Paladin and Bard represent an entirely opposed approach to classes, the same approach followed by pretty much all classes created for D&D in Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana, later editions or supplements, or even old school renaissance publications.
The Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Monk, Paladin and Bard are quite definitely professions. They are what a character does for a living, and their abilities -- and they have a lot of abilities -- are designed to help them perform in their profession.
In contrast, the Fighting-Man and Magic-User resemble professions, but are really ways of approaching problems: archetypes. The Fighting-Man solves problems physically, usually by hitting them. The Magic-User solves problems magically. They actually have very few abilities: the Fighting-Man can use a greater variety of weapons and armor, progresses faster in combat ability, and can fight off multiple 1 HD creatures; the Magic-User can learn, prepare, and cast spells.
We can argue about where Clerics, Thieves, and Illusionists fit between these two extremes. The Cleric in theory solves problems through faith in some other being, represented by the turn undead ability and to a lesser extent by the way cleric spells work, but has fighting and magic abilities that are a little too strong. The Thief in theory could be an archetype rather than a profession, but instead of solving problems through craft and guile, Thieves have much more focused abilities plus an alignment restriction imposed because they are conceived as a profession. Illusionists could have been handled as Magic-Users with a unique spell list, but they wind up with a unique experience progression and special item restrictions, making them feel more like a profession.
What I wish had been done is that the game had stuck to the archetypes end of the spectrum and instead added very simple guidelines for modding classes. For example, instead of a separate Illusionist class, keep the Illusionist spell list as an option for Magic-Users, perhaps with a minimum Dex requirement and an experience penalty for the privilege of access. Clerics and Thieves might still fit as separate classes, but I think they need to be seriously redesigned.
- Fighting-Man, Magic-User
- Cleric, Illusionist
- Thief
- Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Monk, Paladin, Bard
It seems obvious to me that the Fighting-Man and Magic-User classes together represent one approach to classes, while the Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Monk, Paladin and Bard represent an entirely opposed approach to classes, the same approach followed by pretty much all classes created for D&D in Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana, later editions or supplements, or even old school renaissance publications.
The Ranger, Druid, Assassin, Monk, Paladin and Bard are quite definitely professions. They are what a character does for a living, and their abilities -- and they have a lot of abilities -- are designed to help them perform in their profession.
In contrast, the Fighting-Man and Magic-User resemble professions, but are really ways of approaching problems: archetypes. The Fighting-Man solves problems physically, usually by hitting them. The Magic-User solves problems magically. They actually have very few abilities: the Fighting-Man can use a greater variety of weapons and armor, progresses faster in combat ability, and can fight off multiple 1 HD creatures; the Magic-User can learn, prepare, and cast spells.
We can argue about where Clerics, Thieves, and Illusionists fit between these two extremes. The Cleric in theory solves problems through faith in some other being, represented by the turn undead ability and to a lesser extent by the way cleric spells work, but has fighting and magic abilities that are a little too strong. The Thief in theory could be an archetype rather than a profession, but instead of solving problems through craft and guile, Thieves have much more focused abilities plus an alignment restriction imposed because they are conceived as a profession. Illusionists could have been handled as Magic-Users with a unique spell list, but they wind up with a unique experience progression and special item restrictions, making them feel more like a profession.
What I wish had been done is that the game had stuck to the archetypes end of the spectrum and instead added very simple guidelines for modding classes. For example, instead of a separate Illusionist class, keep the Illusionist spell list as an option for Magic-Users, perhaps with a minimum Dex requirement and an experience penalty for the privilege of access. Clerics and Thieves might still fit as separate classes, but I think they need to be seriously redesigned.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Layers
I am still working over at my Game Chef 2009 blog on A Sea Deep, Cursed, and Rotting, putting together a rules summary for that game, which incidentally contains some portable rules for a character details module and an action effects module that I would use in conjunction with other games, including D&D. I touched upon a topic there that might be useful to get into in more detail here: effects layers.
Suppose you have a not-uncommon situation in D&D: a thief hiding in shadows, sneaking over to a place of concealment, then ducking when a guard hears a noise and throws a dagger towards the source of the sound. How do you handle attack and defense?
I'd tend to think of this as layers. The guard has to peer through the shadows to see what's happening near the crates, then examine the crates to note the thief's position, then aim the dagger at the dodging thief. I could have the thief player roll for the depth of the shadows at the time the thief hides, then compare the guard's Intelligence to the quality of the shadows; if the guard's stat is higher than the score for the shadows, the target gets a 1-point improvement to AC, but if the guard's Intelligence is lower, it's a totally random throw. The same could be done for the concealment aspect; I'd only have to roll Intelligence for the guard once, and only roll for the shadows and concealment once each, but I'd have to reroll if the conditions changed.
I'll have more to say about layers later.
Suppose you have a not-uncommon situation in D&D: a thief hiding in shadows, sneaking over to a place of concealment, then ducking when a guard hears a noise and throws a dagger towards the source of the sound. How do you handle attack and defense?
I'd tend to think of this as layers. The guard has to peer through the shadows to see what's happening near the crates, then examine the crates to note the thief's position, then aim the dagger at the dodging thief. I could have the thief player roll for the depth of the shadows at the time the thief hides, then compare the guard's Intelligence to the quality of the shadows; if the guard's stat is higher than the score for the shadows, the target gets a 1-point improvement to AC, but if the guard's Intelligence is lower, it's a totally random throw. The same could be done for the concealment aspect; I'd only have to roll Intelligence for the guard once, and only roll for the shadows and concealment once each, but I'd have to reroll if the conditions changed.
I'll have more to say about layers later.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Distractions
I know I need to finish up the psionics posts with rules for natural psionic characters, but I've been busy ruminating over whether to join Game Chef 2009. I have an idea, and was encouraged to run with it. So, I have a another, dedicated blog for A Sea Deep, Cursed and Rotting. The Ancient Mariner meets The Tales of the Black Freighter, with a touch of Pirates of the Carribean and Night Gallery.
It will use some of the same rules I've been fiddling about with here, plus some other rules to make stuff relevant to zombie mariners happen.
It will use some of the same rules I've been fiddling about with here, plus some other rules to make stuff relevant to zombie mariners happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)