Yearly Archives: 2013

Alternate cleric magic

17 Replies
Giotto – The Miracle of the Spring

Here is an idea for another way to do cleric magic, based on a d6 roll and my idea of competency (which is character level divided by 2, round up).

All cleric magic is ritualistic, and requires a turn (10 minutes) to attempt. This time represents the cleric petitioning for aid, reciting prayers or sutras, and so forth. Roll 1d6, add competency, subtract disfavor (see below), ritual succeeds on a 6. If the magic works, the cleric gains a point of disfavor. Disfavor is reset to zero when the cleric returns to civilization (generally, between sessions). Rituals available would be the standard spell list and max level of spell known would be equal to competency, just like for magic-users. Or maybe competency minus one to make it so that clerics don’t get any spells at first level.

Clerics are thus differentiated from magic-users, as cleric spells do not require preparation, are not useful during combat (unless they have been performed beforehand), and consume exploration time. This does slightly change the number of spells that can be cast per session. For example, a second level cleric would be able to get off two cures (or other spells) rather than one, but this is offset by the uncertain amount of time required to petition for aid.

Banishing demons or turning undead might also decrease effective competency, though I’m not sure if turning undead should require a roll or not.

Inspired partly by the patron disfavor system in DCC.

Thoughts?

The plague city

5 Replies
Poussin – The Plague at Ashod (WikiPaintings)

I’ve been reading a book called Necropolis: London and Its Dead (a souvenir I picked up in Cambridge), and it gave me an idea for a campaign. Just jotting it down here so that I don’t forget.

The seat of the empire, the City, has served as the seat of power and the source of culture for ages untold. The hegemonic family’s rule has been unchallenged. But now, plague stalks the city, and the Heavenly Family was one of the first to succumb. In the power vacuum that followed, lords stood dumbfounded, but only for a moment before they were at each other’s throats.

Quickly, the disease raged unchecked, and the city descended into chaos, law fleeing to the hills with the nobles outside the now cursed city walls. The one accord the warring nobles made was to seal the city from the outside, hoping to save the surrounding lands by a great quarantine.

The PCs have been sealed within. Food dwindles, and many of those with arcane knowledge have turned to necromancy, either to preserve themselves from slow and painful death through un-death, or to make use of city’s now greatest resource: corpses uncountable. This is D&D as survival horror, with “treasure” often being another meal. Like insanity in Call of Cthulhu, death, while not fated, would be to some degree expected at some point.

In addition to some human classes, several types of B/X-style race as class undead would be playable, and would probably have some sort of humanity stat (perhaps shoehorned into wisdom) which would be the undead analogue of constitution/hunger for the still living. Negotiating the factions, building new power structures within the anarchic confines of the City, and maintaining enough resources to survive would be the primary objectives of gameplay. Perhaps playing an undead would need to be unlocked first, by finding and performing the appropriate necromancy.

OSR Dogma Recency

50 Replies
N1 Cover (source)

It has long been thought that many old school gaming principles are fundamentally reinventions and reinterpretations rather than rediscoveries. Here is more evidence for that, from N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God, page 20:

The DM must remember that it is important that the party get to the dungeon. Encounters that are obviously too strong for the group (especially if they have been weakened by previous encounters) should be reduced or bypassed—for example, the party might come across a predator’s kill or war party’s trail instead of the the actual monsters; or they might be able to sneak past a monster that is otherwise engaged. On the other hand, a very strong party might encounter up to double the number of creatures or more. In all cases the DM should match the challenge to party strength and to the general flow of the adventure.

Basic D&D has some similar advice, but the text from N1 is notable in that A) it is even more explicit and B) it occurs in the first “beginner” module, ostensibly designed to teach new referees and players how the game works. N stands for “novice-level” and N1 was published in 1982. If this passage was found in a recently written module by someone like James Raggi or Matt Finch, it would be considered the rankest of heresies.

Personally, I prefer OSR distrust of predetermination and balance over the TSR advice. Why bother even putting numbers to challenges beforehand if you are just going to scale them to party strength? Why roll dice if you are not willing to live with the result?

Spell competency and other competencies

4 Replies

Spell competency is the highest level of spell that the magic-user can prepare. This is usually equivalent to experience level divided by 2 (round up). For example, a fifth level magic-user has a spell competency of 3. The original magic-user spell progression followed this pattern up until 6th level spells are considered, which are not gained until 12th level (rather than 11th, as the pattern would require).

I find treating this number as a separate stat is useful. For example, in the spell-casting roll. I imagine it could also be rather useful for some sort of magic duel as well. Relatedly, I read something by Jack on Google Plus about how he has spiced up the fighter class and simplified the thief for his Labyrinth Lord game. One of the abilities he added was a bonus to weapon damage every few levels (not exactly level divided by two in his system, but it easily could be with similar effect).

Does this risk the numerical inflation and illusionism of 4E? Regarding combat, as long as it’s not applied to the accuracy part of the equation, I don’t think so. I probably wouldn’t use this in OD&D, which has a very low numerical baseline (especially if you avoid +1 style magic items, like I do). But I could see it working well in a game that used B/X power assumptions perhaps.

As discussed by Talysman, this kind of “level divided by 2” number also fits well into the reaction roll when opposed by a similarly scoped difficulty number. He uses this as the basis for his X without spells class design paradigm:

The “without spells” approach is based on the reaction roll, and the interpretation of Turn Undead as a reaction roll: subtract the HD of the creature being commanded from the level of the character making the command, double the result, and use it to modify a 2d6 roll. On 9+, the command works.

The math is not exactly the same, but the similarity should be clear, I think. What if we generalized this kind of “reaction roll power” to every class? For example:
  • Cleric: turn undead (opposed by undead hit dice)
  • Fighter: intimidate or rally (opposed by enemy hit dice)
  • Magic-user: casting roll (opposed by spell level)
  • Thief: misdirect or dissemble (opposed by interlocutor hit dice)
And, if almost all capabilities are based on level divided by two, why not cut out the middle man and collapse level into that competency number? Attack progression does not happen every level in OD&D or Basic D&D. Saving throws do not increase every level. The only thing that increases every level is hit dice, and I think most of us can agree than D&D characters end up with too many hit dice anyways. An added benefit of this approach would be to do away with some of the ambiguity around the level numbers (as, for example, third level spells would be useable by third level magic-users).

Dungeon World bag of holding

6 Replies
Image from Wikipedia

Dungeon World has some excellent, interesting magic items. There are very few simple +1 style items, and most of them have clever drawbacks. My only (minor) complaint is that I think the collection would benefit from more consumable or impermanent items, which lead to interesting resource management and also militate against accumulating lots of permanent enchanted items as a campaign progresses.

As an example, consider the DW version of an old classic, the bag of holding. This item is a huge boon, because it allows one to worry less about encumbrance and thus be more likely to have the tools needed for a given situation. This version has a nice twist: you can’t always find exactly what you want, or at least not quickly.

Bag of Holding – 0 weight

A bag of holding is larger on the inside than the outside, it can contain an infinite number of items, and its weight never increases. When you try to retrieve an item from a bag of holding, roll+WIS. ✴On a 10+, it’s right there. ✴On a 7-9, choose one:

• You get the exact item, but it takes a while
• You get a similar item of the GM’s choice, but it only takes a moment

No matter how many items it contains, a bag of holding is always 0 weight.

Yes, this includes some player narrative control, but that’s easy enough to fix if you don’t like it. Here’s a version I might use with OD&D.

When you try to retrieve an item from a bag of holding, roll 1d6. You find:

  • 1-2: junk from the inter-dimensional nexus (ask referee)
  • 3: something similar that you have never seen before
  • 4: something similar that put in previously
  • 5: what you were looking for, but it takes a full turn
  • 6: what you were looking for immediately

That could probably be tightened up a bit, but you get the idea.

The quoted item description above is from DW page 333 and is creative commons licensed. Dungeon World can be found at RPGNow.

Favorable and unfavorable saves

10 Replies

Swords & Wizardry collapsed all the saving throws into a single number, with some class-based modifiers. For example, clerics get +2 when saving against paralysis or poison, and magic-users get +2 when saving against spells. The traditional saving throw categories do provide atmosphere (death ray, dragon breath), but are somewhat cumbersome and nonintuitive.

One thing I’ve been doing recently is using “most favorable” or “least favorable” save numbers for cases where the choice of what save category to use is not immediately clear. If it seems like something the class in question would have some competence with, the character gets to use the most favorable. Where this has come up most is for the saving throw involved in carousing-like activities.

I have previously discussed simplifying saving throws by deriving them directly from character level. Here is another approach. Rather than have one column of saves per class, as S&W does, or use the more complicated multi-save system as did the original TSR editions, why not have two progressions by level: favorable and unfavorable. All classes would reference the same values, but would differ as to which number was used by situation. This method would require two numbers, but would avoid needing any class-based or situational modifiers.

Putting this idea into Third Edition terms, combat oriented classes would use the favorable numbers for direct physical situations, whereas magic-users would use the favorable numbers for resisting sorcery or mental effects.

Saving Throw Competency by Class
Class Favorable Unfavorable
fighter fortitude reflex, will
magic-user will fortitude, reflex
thief reflex fortitude, will

The cleric does not fit quite so neatly into the 3E classification. A cleric should probably have favorable saves when dealing with demonic or undead threats, for example, but not necessarily for situations that require general toughness. Classes like the cleric would be easily handled by this proposed dual number system, without needing to spell out the types of threats beforehand.

Bifurcated Saving Throws
Level Favorable Unfavorable
1 – 3
12
16
4 – 6
10
14
7 – 9
8
12
10 – 12
6
10
13+
4
8

These numbers are derived from the OD&D fighter best and worst saves. I chose the fighter because A) the fighter is the most fundamental class and B) fighter saves improve every third level rather than the less frequent schedules of the other classes. The resulting pattern is also quite nice and easy to remember, as the two numbers always differ by 4 (20%) and always improve by 2 every tier (once a player has written down 12/16 they never even have to every consult the table again as long as that basic rule is remembered).

All classes would use the favorable number for the 0 HP death save.

I am aware that some people think that saving throws should be collapsed into ability checks, but I do not think that is the best approach for a level-based game, as improving saving throws should be a reward for longterm successful play, not a trick of the dice at first level. See here for more on my philosophy of saving throws.

Dungeon World weapons

Leave a reply

The weapons system in Dungeon World is perhaps the best (for my purposes) that I have seen in any published RPG. It uses a tag-based system to distribute effects between the various weapons. Thus, they become distinctive while offering interesting trade-offs. Best of all, it looks like it could be dropped, unmodified, over a flat d6 or class-based damage system in D&D. Dungeon World itself assumes class-based damage.

It’s not perfect, as there are some items that are just plainly suboptimal other than cost (such as elven arrows versus normal arrows), and I’m never satisfied with cost being the main differentiator because it is not really much of an obstacle in a game about treasure hunters (DW is by assumption less coin-heavy than traditional D&D though, so maybe it works there).

Below I have reproduced the DW weapon rules, since Dungeon World is creative commons licensed. Hence the legitimacy of this cut-and-paste job. Thanks to Adam and Sage for making their work available in this way. In the published book, this material is on pages 324 through 326.

For other weapon systems that try to approach the problem similarly, see:

General Equipment Tags

These are general tags that can apply to just about any piece of gear. You’ll see them on armor, weapons or general adventuring tools. Applied: It’s only useful when carefully applied to a person or to something they eat or drink.

  • Awkward: It’s unwieldy and tough to use.
  • +Bonus: It modifies your effectiveness in a specified situation. It might be “+1 forward to spout lore” or “-1 ongoing to hack and slash.”
  • n coins: How much it costs to buy, normally. If the cost includes “-Charisma” a little negotiation subtracts the haggler’s Charisma score (not modifier) from the price.
  • Dangerous: It’s easy to get in trouble with it. If you interact with it without proper precautions the GM may freely invoke the consequences of your foolish actions.
  • Ration: It’s edible, more or less.
  • Requires: It’s only useful to certain people. If you don’t meet the requirements it works poorly, if at all.
  • Slow: It takes minutes or more to use.
  • Touch: It’s used by touching it to the target’s skin.
  • Two-handed: It takes two hands to use it effectively.
  • n weight: Count the listed amount against your Load. Something with no listed weight isn’t designed to be carried. 100 coins in standard denominations is 1 weight. The same value in gems or fine art may be lighter or heavier.
  • Worn: To use it, you have to be wearing it.
  • n Uses: It can only be used n times.

Weapons

Weapons don’t kill monsters, people do. That’s why weapons in Dungeon World don’t have a listed damage. A weapon is useful primarily for its tags which describe what the weapon is useful for. A dagger is not useful because it does more or less damage than some other blade. It’s useful because it’s small and easy to strike with at close distance. A dagger in the hands of the wizard is not nearly so dangerous as one in the hands of a skilled fighter.

Weapon Tags

Weapons may have tags that are primarily there to help you describe them (like Rusty or Glowing) but these tags have a specific, mechanical effect.

  • n Ammo: It counts as ammunition for appropriate ranged weapons. The number indicated does not represent individual arrows or sling stones, but represents what you have left on hand.
  • Forceful: It can knock someone back a pace, maybe even off their feet.
  • +n Damage: It is particularly harmful to your enemies. When you deal damage, you add n to it.
  • Ignores Armor: Don’t subtract armor from the damage taken.
  • Messy: It does damage in a particularly destructive way, ripping people and things apart.
  • n Piercing: It goes right through armor. When you deal damage with n piercing, you subtract n from the enemy’s armor for that attack.
  • Precise: It rewards careful strikes. You use DEX to hack and slash with this weapon, not STR.
  • Reload: After you attack with it, it takes more than a moment to reset for another attack.
  • Stun: When you attack with it, it does stun damage instead of normal damage.
  • Thrown: Throw it at someone to hurt them. If you volley with this weapon, you can’t choose to mark off ammo on a 7–9; once you throw it, it’s gone until you can recover it.

Weapons have tags to indicate the range at which they are useful. Dungeon World doesn’t inflict penalties or grant bonuses for “optimal range” or the like, but if your weapon says Hand and an enemy is ten yards away, a player would have a hard time justifying using that weapon against him.

  • Hand: It’s useful for attacking something within your reach, no further.
  • Close: It’s useful for attacking something at arm’s reach plus a foot or two.
  • Reach: It’s useful for attacking something that’s several feet away— maybe as far as ten.
  • Near: It’s useful for attacking if you can see the whites of their eyes.
  • Far: It’s useful for attacking something in shouting distance.

Weapon List

The stats below are for typical items. There are, of course, variations. A dull long sword might be -1 damage instead while a masterwork dagger could be +1 damage. Consider the following to be stats for typical weapons of their type—a specific weapon could have different tags to represent its features.

Ragged Bow
near, 15 coins, 2 weight
Fine Bow
near, far, 60 coins, 2 weight
Hunter’s Bow
near, far, 100 coins, 1 weight
Crossbow
near, +1 damage, reload, 35 coins, 3 weight
Bundle of Arrows
3 ammo, 1 coin, 1 weight
Elven Arrows
4 ammo, 20 coins, 1 weight
Club, Shillelagh
close, 1 coin, 2 weight
Staff
close, two-handed, 1 coin, 1 weight
Dagger, Shiv, Knife
hand, 2 coins, 1 weight
Throwing Dagger
thrown, near, 1 coin, 0 weight
Short Sword, Axe, Warhammer, Mace
close, 8 coins, 1 weight
Spear
reach, thrown, near, 5 coins, 1 weight
Long Sword, Battle Axe, Flail
close, +1 damage, 15 coins, 2 weight
Halberd
reach, +1 damage, two-handed, 9 coins, 2 weight
Rapier
close, precise, 25 coins, 1 weight
Dueling Rapier
close, 1 piercing, precise, 50 coins, 2 weight

OD&D deluxe reprint

21 Replies
Image from wizards.com

Wizards of the Coast is reprinting OD&D! From the site:

Each booklet features new cover art but is otherwise a faithful reproduction of the original, including original interior art.

If they play their cards right, they will release a hardcover compilation and then PDFs at staggered intervals. If that’s a real wood box, I’m sold. And who am I kidding? I’m pretty sure I will pick one up even if it’s not.

The only real downside: Chainmail is not included.

OD&D moves

7 Replies

Here are the rules for my dialect of OD&D, restated in Dungeon World* style moves.

  • Hack and slash: d20 attack roll, look up result by class on attack matrix
  • Volley: d20 attack roll with a ranged weapon, modified by dexterity
  • Defy danger: roll a saving throw as appropriate to the situation
  • Discern realities: X in 6 search roll, takes one exploration turn
  • Parley: 2d6 reaction roll, modified by charisma
  • Last breath: at 0 HP, save vs. death (success = unconscious, failure = death)
  • Encumbrance: take -1 per # of items beyond strength score to most rolls
  • Make camp: rest for a night; if uninterrupted, regain 1 HP
  • Undertake a perilous journey: roll wilderness random encounter checks
  • End of session: mark upkeep costs, roll for events
  • Level up: this is part of end of session for me
  • Carouse: spend treasure to get XP; this should happen prior to level up
  • Supply: other than standard purchases, thieves also have streetwise
  • Recover: re-roll hit dice (generally at the beginning of a session)
  • Recruit: 2d6 reaction roll modified by charisma and market supply
DW moves that don’t seem to have good equivalents:
  • Defend
  • Spout lore
  • Outstanding warrants
  • Bolster
I would like a more formalized system for defending, but so far all I have is that shield bearers grant a +1 AC bonus to their employer (I don’t think this particular house rule has stuck though). Some D&D referees use intelligence checks as a sort of spout lore move, but I tend to be more descriptive. Players tell me what they examine, and I provide details as appropriate. Outstanding warrants seems like a good way to ensure that actions have consequences, and I’m going to think more about how that might apply to D&D. Bolster allow PCs to get bonuses to certain kinds of actions by preparing during downtime. Not bad, but doesn’t seem necessary.
Encumbrance is an awkward fit for a move, but it does have system weight in both DW and OD&D, so it seems reasonable to include it in the list. The equivalent of the end of session move in my OD&D game really encompasses all of the downtime actions between sessions, including level up and carouse.
Now, I’m not claiming that “moves” are just a different way to talk about things that we already do. They actually do function differently. For one thing, Apocalypse World uses a single resolution system when it comes to dice (roll+STAT) while OD&D uses a plethora of resolution systems. But there is some correspondence between the two models, and probably far more than is often acknowledged by the two schools of play.
The game concept of moves in Apocalypse World is commonly misunderstood by old schoolers. Moves are not equivalent to actions or powers. They are not a menu of things to do. Instead, they represent when the rules kick in to resolve uncertainty “in the fiction” (to use the terminology popularized by AW).
* Apocalypse World (AW) and Dungeon World (DW) are used somewhat interchangeably.

Balance redux

9 Replies

Anything that is a threat to PCs can also potentially be used by PCs creatively.

This is why balance is unnecessary in an open-ended game.
I don’t think game fairness (which is really what we are talking about when we talk about balance) depends upon being able to defeat foes. A threat could be totally impervious to PCs and still useful to them. Consider the hypothetical invincible monster (such as, for example, the Dungeon World version of the Tarrasque). All you need to do is figure out how to get the paths of your other enemies to cross with the Tarrasque, and it will do your dirty work for you.
The same is true, of course, for even the most devious traps or the most deadly hazards.