As far as Old School D&D characters are concerned, you can have any flavor, as long as it’s vanilla. Old School characters are completely anonymous, expendable, and replaceable. Any personality that develops is purely accidental. 3e characters have the opposite problem; too many choices in creation and it takes forever. For a DM, it must be like having pretend tea party with a bunch of antique china dolls. You don’t dare play too rough with starting 3e characters.
I’d like to have a happy medium of characters that are easily differentiated from one another, but fairly simple to make up. AD&D and 3e got it right in this regard; having more classes is better. More character options and real differences between classes taken by different races is something Old School could benefit from. (As long as those class differences mean more than plusses to dice rolls (3e) or how many squares you can move in a round (4e).)
These listings of powers and rules are something of a mish-mash of several different versions of D&D. This list does not pretend to be all-inclusive, authoritative, or even test-played. It’s just meant to explore the concept of demi-human classes being different than the human classes in an Old School environment.
***********
Humans may be any class, up to any level, but may not multi-class. Their only advantage is a bonus to earned experience, so human characters should always advance the quickest.
The demi-human classes listed are the typical adventurer types. There are Elvish and Dwarvish Clerics and such, but their societies frown upon them making a habit of hanging out in dungeons. For multi-class characters, earned XP is split equally between both classes. The other classes posted here should advance in level at about half the rate of the human equivalent. I’m being vague on certain items because of the differences between different rules sets.
Elf base racial characteristics:
Infravision
Improved chance to detect secret doors
Resistance to sleep and charm spells, and Ghoul paralysis
Elven Sword Mage (Fighter/Mage): Can wear armor and cast spells, but that armor has to be Elven or magical (in other words, expensive, salvaged, or gifted), else they lose their spell casting ability. They may use any type of shield or weapon but must have a free hand to cast spells in combat. As a practical matter they will typically only use one-handed melee weapons without a shield. Hit Dice 1d6.
Elven Arcane Thief (Thief/Mage): Has the full range of thief skills and restrictions. They may cast spells in combat, as long as they are wearing Elvish leather armor or magic leather armor and have a free hand. Hit Dice 1d4.
After 8th level, Elves may no longer advance as a Mage, but can continue to advance as a fighter or thief at half the human rate. Note: if the elf character had the aptitude to reach the master Mage level, they wouldn’t be adventuring. They’re too valuable to Elvish society.
Half Elf base racial characteristics:
Infravision
Improved chance to detect secret doors
Resistance to sleep and charm spells, and Ghoul paralysis
Arcane Tracker (Ranger/Mage): Limited to leather armor (does not have to be magic) and one-handed melee weapons, no shields. Cannot advance past 6th level as Mage. Hit Dice 1d8 with two 1d8 at first level.
Sword Mage: Mage progress ends at 6th level, however they can wear any normal armor, up to chainmail. Still requires a free hand to work magic. A bit heartier than the Elf version, Hit Dice 1d8.
Arcane Thief: Mage progress ends at 6th level, however they can wear non-magical leather armor. Still requires a free hand to work magic. A bit heartier than a normal Thief or Mage, Hit Dice 1d6.
Dwarven Defender:
Infravision
Hit Dice 1d8.
Natural –1 (or +1) to AC due to small size.
Saving throw bonus
Detect changes in stonework/underground environment
They are restricted from using human-sized armor, large shields, longbows, and human two-handed melee weapons. They may use a human-sized longsword or axe as a two-handed weapon. (Essentially limited to 1d8 damage weapons.)
Dwarven Rage: May rage up to three times per day. This rage causes bonus damage on a single hit (the player may call on this ability after rolling the damage dice) +4 (levels 1 to 4), +6 (levels 5 to 10), +8 (level 11 and up).
Halfling Acquisitions Expert (Burglar):
Infravision
Natural –2 (or +2) to AC due to small size.
Hit Dice 1d6.
Ranged combat at one length lower. (Long range is medium range, medium range is short range, and short range is point blank to a Halfling.)
Fearless: Immune to fear based spells or effects.
Lucky: Halflings may make a reroll of any failed saving throw.
Charm: If not in combat, Halflings may attempt to distract intelligent creatures, essentially capturing all of their attention. (This is owing to Halflings being seen as inherently cute, harmless, and silly by other races.) The level of this effect is equal to the Halfling’s level. The victim is allowed a saving throw each round, as long as nothing hostile or startling happens. For a group, only roll for the being with the best saving throw and take that for the entire group. Halflings with high Charisma should get a bonus. (Again owing to differing rules, this is left to the DM to decide on.) Caution: This ability doesn’t work other Halflings.
Standard Thief abilities and restrictions. Any leather armor a Halfling uses must be cut down to their size. They are restricted from most human-sized melee weapons. Short swords, maces, etc. may be used as a two-handed weapon. (Essentially limited to 1d6 damage weapons.) Halflings are restricted from longbows, but may use short bows.
Halflings would also seem to merit a special Bard class. But then again, “Bards suck.” Why bother?
Half Orc Berserker:
Infravision
Natural –1 (or +1) to AC due to thick skin.
Hit Dice is 1d12.
Bonus damage: Natural +1 to all melee damage.
Conditionally Fearless: Immune to fear based spells or effects, but only in combat.
Fast healing: Half Orcs heal at twice the normal rate, regardless of Constitution. Magical healing and potions are twice as effective. (Note: I’m still thinking about quick natural healing rules. Call them healing surges if you must. In lieu of that, with every hour of rest, a Half Orc regenerates 1 hp plus any Con bonus)
Half Orcs may not wear any armor. They can use any type of shield. Half Orcs may use human-sized two-handed swords and axes one-handed.
Battle Frenzy: In melee combat only, a Berserker gets multiple attacks per round. Two attacks at levels one to four, three attacks at levels five to ten, and four attacks starting at level 11.
And I don’t care what even my own rules call for, I’m house-ruling my Half Orc Paladin, Smite, into the game, because he rocks.
“Hey, J. What about Gnomes?”
“They’re good eatin’. What about them?”
J.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Texas Cup Race: “Charles Nelson Hammond”
This is why we kid, because we care about Chris Myers improving his material. We put up with the groaners, because every so often he busts out a zinger. Of course, even Carl Edwards couldn’t resist commenting on Jeff Hammond wearing, what was for all intensive purposes, an ascot. So, with Fred from “Scooby Doo” in tow this Fox NASCAR broadcast began.
Yes, it was much like a cartoon, a Digger cartoon in fact. The merchandising empire spokes-rodent was, thankfully pretty low-key in his appearances, if not ignored, throughout the race. The way God intended.
I liked “DW’s Rant,” and wouldn’t mind if this was a semi-regular feature. However, the topic was really self-serving for the network. This goes back to the Bristol race. Fox is begging for some controversy to stir up some interest. DW seems to be blaming NASCAR for being too authoritative. How about adding the sponsors and the up-armored, Tank-of-Tomorrow vehicle as also diffusing some tensions.
Well as the broadcasters noted, this race had a lot of lead changes. Great. Finally, a race where several drivers had a good chance to win based their abilities and their cars’ setup. As opposed to one driver dominating the day, with only the possibility of some fluke taking him out. The downside is that this leaves me little to complain about, and apparently little to comment on about the race itself. I’ve always been afraid this would happen. I wonder if NASCAR discussion might disappear entirely if the fans are made too consistently happy.
I have to give Fox one big up and one big down in the way they handled the end of the race. On the negative, what happened to Carl Edwards in his last pit stop? Why weren’t they covering the leader’s pit stop? It’s not another “Tiregate” issue, but really this was a big broadcasting whiff, as it impacted the race finish. Thankfully, Fox’s director made a good decision after the checkers in carrying the Jeff Gordon’s and Steve Letarte’s radio chatter. Those two certainly the expressed the emotion in ending Gordon’s season plus win-less drought better than any commentator could.
I could swear I heard the crowd cheering after Jeff won the race. Don’t they know that they hate him? Has Jeff been replaced by Kyle Busch as NASCAR’s most despised driver? I hate fair-weather haters. Or perhaps the fans were in a giddy, euphoric mood as Junior managed to lead the race for like two seconds under green and were confused into cheering for anything.
Dad called me right after Jeff’s exuberant Victory Lane interview. “Where’s Ingrid?” he began. Dad wanted to see her new hairstyle after reading my blog. Oh, and it gets worse. Drivers are all superstitious. Ingrid and Ella (and Mr. Hendricks) may not invited back to the track until Jeff loses again. I have mixed feelings about that possibility.
J.
Yes, it was much like a cartoon, a Digger cartoon in fact. The merchandising empire spokes-rodent was, thankfully pretty low-key in his appearances, if not ignored, throughout the race. The way God intended.
I liked “DW’s Rant,” and wouldn’t mind if this was a semi-regular feature. However, the topic was really self-serving for the network. This goes back to the Bristol race. Fox is begging for some controversy to stir up some interest. DW seems to be blaming NASCAR for being too authoritative. How about adding the sponsors and the up-armored, Tank-of-Tomorrow vehicle as also diffusing some tensions.
Well as the broadcasters noted, this race had a lot of lead changes. Great. Finally, a race where several drivers had a good chance to win based their abilities and their cars’ setup. As opposed to one driver dominating the day, with only the possibility of some fluke taking him out. The downside is that this leaves me little to complain about, and apparently little to comment on about the race itself. I’ve always been afraid this would happen. I wonder if NASCAR discussion might disappear entirely if the fans are made too consistently happy.
I have to give Fox one big up and one big down in the way they handled the end of the race. On the negative, what happened to Carl Edwards in his last pit stop? Why weren’t they covering the leader’s pit stop? It’s not another “Tiregate” issue, but really this was a big broadcasting whiff, as it impacted the race finish. Thankfully, Fox’s director made a good decision after the checkers in carrying the Jeff Gordon’s and Steve Letarte’s radio chatter. Those two certainly the expressed the emotion in ending Gordon’s season plus win-less drought better than any commentator could.
I could swear I heard the crowd cheering after Jeff won the race. Don’t they know that they hate him? Has Jeff been replaced by Kyle Busch as NASCAR’s most despised driver? I hate fair-weather haters. Or perhaps the fans were in a giddy, euphoric mood as Junior managed to lead the race for like two seconds under green and were confused into cheering for anything.
Dad called me right after Jeff’s exuberant Victory Lane interview. “Where’s Ingrid?” he began. Dad wanted to see her new hairstyle after reading my blog. Oh, and it gets worse. Drivers are all superstitious. Ingrid and Ella (and Mr. Hendricks) may not invited back to the track until Jeff loses again. I have mixed feelings about that possibility.
J.
St. Petersburg ALMS race: Something Missing
I was planing on writing an Indy 500 blog and decided I’m only commenting on other non-NASCAR races if I saw something worth writing about. When I sit down for a NASCAR race, I’m always worried that nothing comment-worthy is going to happen. Somehow, plenty of stuff always comes up. The day it doesn’t, I guess I should stop.
This ALMS race was entertaining. There were only two significant passes, and while I rail at NASCAR for boat racing (few passes for the lead on track), I go into a sports car race with entirely different expectations. Forgive me for not naming names and teams, but again I don’t watch American Le Mans for the personalities, so much as for the cars. Where else can you see Ferraris banging fenders with Porsches? The series best selling point, the cool cars, tends to overshadow the drivers, completely backward from NASCAR marketing.
Still, there was stuff missing from what I had seen from previous broadcasts. Teams: Penske and AGR. The Aston Martins (privateer and factory). The factory corvettes. The entire GT1 class (such as it was to begin with). The P1 Audi’s. Hopefully, some of these cars will return after Le Mans in France runs. There was still plenty of variety with BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Dodge Viper, Ford Mark VII, Panoz, and a privateer Corvette. The field was a bit thin, especially in the Prototypes. Anyone watching on TV or in person, likely got what they were looking for anyway.
The coverage was entirely functional. Considering this was an ESPN production, that’s a compliment. The pre-race was no nonsense setup and the commentary was lively and involved throughout the race. Forgive me for not naming names. I know who these people are, but forgot to write their names down. One person I will name is Kelli Stavast. I am familiar with her CORR (off road racing) coverage, and she is totally crush-worthy. In this venue, she seemed a little shaky at times, but I’m sure she’ll grow into it.
The bright, sunny camera views were perfect for this oceanfront race. There were even happy crowd shots. The on-board cameras, especially the rooftop views, were great at bringing the speed and claustrophobia of street racing home. I was disappointed with their video blog racer, Chad Cody (hope I got that name right), because it was interesting, but there wasn’t enough of it.
Will ALMS ever live down ruining Dale Earnhardt Jr’s racing career with that fiery, spinout a couple of years ago? Who knows? In the meantime, they’ve found their niche. Even with some subtractions, the series delivers on what it promotes.
Geek out: Gotta love the mostly classy, upscale commercials during ALMS broadcasts. The slow motion, bullet through the bottle spot for Acura, was my fav.
J.
This ALMS race was entertaining. There were only two significant passes, and while I rail at NASCAR for boat racing (few passes for the lead on track), I go into a sports car race with entirely different expectations. Forgive me for not naming names and teams, but again I don’t watch American Le Mans for the personalities, so much as for the cars. Where else can you see Ferraris banging fenders with Porsches? The series best selling point, the cool cars, tends to overshadow the drivers, completely backward from NASCAR marketing.
Still, there was stuff missing from what I had seen from previous broadcasts. Teams: Penske and AGR. The Aston Martins (privateer and factory). The factory corvettes. The entire GT1 class (such as it was to begin with). The P1 Audi’s. Hopefully, some of these cars will return after Le Mans in France runs. There was still plenty of variety with BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Dodge Viper, Ford Mark VII, Panoz, and a privateer Corvette. The field was a bit thin, especially in the Prototypes. Anyone watching on TV or in person, likely got what they were looking for anyway.
The coverage was entirely functional. Considering this was an ESPN production, that’s a compliment. The pre-race was no nonsense setup and the commentary was lively and involved throughout the race. Forgive me for not naming names. I know who these people are, but forgot to write their names down. One person I will name is Kelli Stavast. I am familiar with her CORR (off road racing) coverage, and she is totally crush-worthy. In this venue, she seemed a little shaky at times, but I’m sure she’ll grow into it.
The bright, sunny camera views were perfect for this oceanfront race. There were even happy crowd shots. The on-board cameras, especially the rooftop views, were great at bringing the speed and claustrophobia of street racing home. I was disappointed with their video blog racer, Chad Cody (hope I got that name right), because it was interesting, but there wasn’t enough of it.
Will ALMS ever live down ruining Dale Earnhardt Jr’s racing career with that fiery, spinout a couple of years ago? Who knows? In the meantime, they’ve found their niche. Even with some subtractions, the series delivers on what it promotes.
Geek out: Gotta love the mostly classy, upscale commercials during ALMS broadcasts. The slow motion, bullet through the bottle spot for Acura, was my fav.
J.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Trouble With Pathfinder
The best thing that has come out Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition has undoubtedly been Paizo. I say that they are the best RPG publisher in the business. I can back this up with their run on Dungeon and Dragon magazines, their modules, and their Adventure Paths. These guys are good. Would that they were using better tools to ply their trade, namely 3e. Paizo is now set to publish their version of those rules, Pathfinder.
The main purpose behind this game is to fix 3e’s grapple rule, and by all accounts, it hasn’t even succeed at that.
Okay, that was uncalled for and not true. Well, not entirely true. I stand by my statement, but the real reason is to keep the 3e rules in print.
Okay, that motive doesn’t really make any sense either. I know Paizo wanted to publish under the OGL/D20 SRD and have access to that material. I understand that they wanted nearly complete backward compatibility with their own published 3e adventures. But essentially any change they made was going to disrupt that and cork off a bunch of 3e grognards. Realistically, the entire audience for 3e already owns the core books. In order to make Pathfinder appealing to that group, they had to “fix” things and add new material, and convert their future adventures to the new system. The snake swallows its tail.
I applaud Paizo’s open design process for Pathfinder and candor about their publishing plans. I question the reality of it. To make the system backward compatible, player suggestions couldn’t really change anything. While open playtesting was incorporated into the design, little fundamentally changed with the rules as written.
I realize the finalized game hasn’t been released and that I’ve only read the Alphas and the Betas, without actually playing them. However, I doubt the game is going to change much when put in print, so I’ll comment on the showstoppers.
First and most importantly, the game is impenetrable to newbies. I can say this because it applies to me. I sense D20 is a simple system, but I’m only guessing, because what I’ve read is mess of modifiers, a multitude of confusing options, and any number of rules exceptions and special cases. Jason Bulmahn, the games’ lead designer, posted on the Paizo message board, “I also want the system to have enough complexity to keep advanced players interested, looking for new crannies and corners of the rules to explore.” That goal has been more accomplished. On the other hand, I have to give an Incomplete on the following statement: “We are aiming this at average gamers, both those who have been playing for decades and those who have just started.”
The unforgivable sin of Pathfinder is that they did nothing to fix the perils of playing a high level game. The game allows for high level play, but breaks down in such a predictable manner that even Paizo’s own Adventure Paths don’t support it. Combat, with a huge numbers of bonuses, actions, and options, is simply unplayable but for the most devoted hobbyists. Suitable threats are limited and also unplayable. Perhaps they should have fixed it by dropping it. Release it later as a supplement with a separate, reworked set of rules.
Clerics: Pathfinder and 4e seem united in one goal—Screw the Cleric. Whereas 4e tried to make the class irrelevant with healing surges and the Paladin supplanting the role, Pathfinder just castrated them. The “Channel Energy” ability combines “Turn Undead” and healing into one almost useless activity. It’s not very efficient. And why would you play anything other than a “Good” cleric? The “Evi” ones will end up fratriciding everyone in the party every time they channel negative energy. The people on the Paizo board insist this is all a feature and not a bug.
I’m just going to starting nit picking again.
Pathfinder has attempted to make 3e’s base classes appealing, but done nothing about the weirdness of 3e multi-class characters. You know, 6th fighter/ 3rd thief/ 1st monk/ 3 bedroom/ 2 bath characters. How about some restrictions?
They tried to fix 3e skills in the Alpha version. By making them more complex? Chalk one up for the Paizo board posters for shooting this one down. Unfortunately, the all-at-once inadequate/overburdened skills system was left the same, except for getting rid of “Use Rope” and few other edits. How about getting rid of the separate skills system and integrating it into the characters classes?
Feats: dump. Just get rid of them. Add a selected few as class features with level advancement. Chalk another one up for the Paizo board posters. The Alpha version attempted to give characters literal, button-mashing, video game-like attack combos.
Buffs: I’ve seen gameplay posts on the Paizo forum by very knowledgeable players, and even they can’t keep all the plusses straight. Maybe some drastic limits need to be imposed to make this playable.
Iterative, Hastened, Quickened, Immediate, Swift: WTF! Strange, the more actions a character has, the slower the game gets. I wish I could find the post, but one Paizo employee wrote about his experience about playing with his boss, James Jacobs. “I think James was referring to me about abusing multiple actions. In one game, I called out, ‘I cast Quickened Etherealness.’ He shot back without hesitation, ‘Quickened Etherealness is banned from the game.’” (Now that’s a DM!) I have some more thoughts on this I’ll put in another post.
Others and myself put in several pleas for a “Basic” Pathfinder after the completion of the main volume. This would have ideally been a simplified rules set, more or less compatible with the full version. Disappointingly, there was never any official response.
RPG’s can be made by mere mortals on their own. I’ve done it (though not necessarily well). There’s plenty of free systems available on the Internet. I understand the need for publishing companies to make somewhat complex games with many options, at least in order to justify creating a library of material and to differentiate themselves from home-brews. But an intro version, especially for a complex system, is mandatory if you want to attract new players.
Put this “Pathfinder Basic” game in conjunction with their Pathfinder Society scenarios, and you may have a party game. Something that could be played inside of a couple of hours, give the players a clear goal and a reasonable chance of success, no “shopping at the bazaar” during the adventure, just straight-up adventuring (fighting, parleying, puzzle solving).
The OGL has proven to be extremely flexible. Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Mutant Future, Basic Fantasy, OSRIC, and others all publish under it with a wealth of material to support it. Along with that, I believe the D20 system has not been exploited to its full potential. White Box, Microlite 20, Microlite 74, Green Ronin’s True 20 have shown that it’s flexible and can be easy to learn and play. D20 could be the Rosetta Stone system that FUDGE wanted to be. Paizo, push Pathfinder out the door for the 3e grognards. Then think seriously about making a game for the rest of us.
J.
Links of Interest:
Labyrinth Lord
Swords & Wizardry and White Box
Mutant Future
Basic Fantasy
OSRIC
Microlite 20
Microlite 74
True 20
FUDGE
Pathfinder
The main purpose behind this game is to fix 3e’s grapple rule, and by all accounts, it hasn’t even succeed at that.
Okay, that was uncalled for and not true. Well, not entirely true. I stand by my statement, but the real reason is to keep the 3e rules in print.
Okay, that motive doesn’t really make any sense either. I know Paizo wanted to publish under the OGL/D20 SRD and have access to that material. I understand that they wanted nearly complete backward compatibility with their own published 3e adventures. But essentially any change they made was going to disrupt that and cork off a bunch of 3e grognards. Realistically, the entire audience for 3e already owns the core books. In order to make Pathfinder appealing to that group, they had to “fix” things and add new material, and convert their future adventures to the new system. The snake swallows its tail.
I applaud Paizo’s open design process for Pathfinder and candor about their publishing plans. I question the reality of it. To make the system backward compatible, player suggestions couldn’t really change anything. While open playtesting was incorporated into the design, little fundamentally changed with the rules as written.
I realize the finalized game hasn’t been released and that I’ve only read the Alphas and the Betas, without actually playing them. However, I doubt the game is going to change much when put in print, so I’ll comment on the showstoppers.
First and most importantly, the game is impenetrable to newbies. I can say this because it applies to me. I sense D20 is a simple system, but I’m only guessing, because what I’ve read is mess of modifiers, a multitude of confusing options, and any number of rules exceptions and special cases. Jason Bulmahn, the games’ lead designer, posted on the Paizo message board, “I also want the system to have enough complexity to keep advanced players interested, looking for new crannies and corners of the rules to explore.” That goal has been more accomplished. On the other hand, I have to give an Incomplete on the following statement: “We are aiming this at average gamers, both those who have been playing for decades and those who have just started.”
The unforgivable sin of Pathfinder is that they did nothing to fix the perils of playing a high level game. The game allows for high level play, but breaks down in such a predictable manner that even Paizo’s own Adventure Paths don’t support it. Combat, with a huge numbers of bonuses, actions, and options, is simply unplayable but for the most devoted hobbyists. Suitable threats are limited and also unplayable. Perhaps they should have fixed it by dropping it. Release it later as a supplement with a separate, reworked set of rules.
Clerics: Pathfinder and 4e seem united in one goal—Screw the Cleric. Whereas 4e tried to make the class irrelevant with healing surges and the Paladin supplanting the role, Pathfinder just castrated them. The “Channel Energy” ability combines “Turn Undead” and healing into one almost useless activity. It’s not very efficient. And why would you play anything other than a “Good” cleric? The “Evi” ones will end up fratriciding everyone in the party every time they channel negative energy. The people on the Paizo board insist this is all a feature and not a bug.
I’m just going to starting nit picking again.
Pathfinder has attempted to make 3e’s base classes appealing, but done nothing about the weirdness of 3e multi-class characters. You know, 6th fighter/ 3rd thief/ 1st monk/ 3 bedroom/ 2 bath characters. How about some restrictions?
They tried to fix 3e skills in the Alpha version. By making them more complex? Chalk one up for the Paizo board posters for shooting this one down. Unfortunately, the all-at-once inadequate/overburdened skills system was left the same, except for getting rid of “Use Rope” and few other edits. How about getting rid of the separate skills system and integrating it into the characters classes?
Feats: dump. Just get rid of them. Add a selected few as class features with level advancement. Chalk another one up for the Paizo board posters. The Alpha version attempted to give characters literal, button-mashing, video game-like attack combos.
Buffs: I’ve seen gameplay posts on the Paizo forum by very knowledgeable players, and even they can’t keep all the plusses straight. Maybe some drastic limits need to be imposed to make this playable.
Iterative, Hastened, Quickened, Immediate, Swift: WTF! Strange, the more actions a character has, the slower the game gets. I wish I could find the post, but one Paizo employee wrote about his experience about playing with his boss, James Jacobs. “I think James was referring to me about abusing multiple actions. In one game, I called out, ‘I cast Quickened Etherealness.’ He shot back without hesitation, ‘Quickened Etherealness is banned from the game.’” (Now that’s a DM!) I have some more thoughts on this I’ll put in another post.
Others and myself put in several pleas for a “Basic” Pathfinder after the completion of the main volume. This would have ideally been a simplified rules set, more or less compatible with the full version. Disappointingly, there was never any official response.
RPG’s can be made by mere mortals on their own. I’ve done it (though not necessarily well). There’s plenty of free systems available on the Internet. I understand the need for publishing companies to make somewhat complex games with many options, at least in order to justify creating a library of material and to differentiate themselves from home-brews. But an intro version, especially for a complex system, is mandatory if you want to attract new players.
Put this “Pathfinder Basic” game in conjunction with their Pathfinder Society scenarios, and you may have a party game. Something that could be played inside of a couple of hours, give the players a clear goal and a reasonable chance of success, no “shopping at the bazaar” during the adventure, just straight-up adventuring (fighting, parleying, puzzle solving).
The OGL has proven to be extremely flexible. Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Mutant Future, Basic Fantasy, OSRIC, and others all publish under it with a wealth of material to support it. Along with that, I believe the D20 system has not been exploited to its full potential. White Box, Microlite 20, Microlite 74, Green Ronin’s True 20 have shown that it’s flexible and can be easy to learn and play. D20 could be the Rosetta Stone system that FUDGE wanted to be. Paizo, push Pathfinder out the door for the 3e grognards. Then think seriously about making a game for the rest of us.
J.
Links of Interest:
Labyrinth Lord
Swords & Wizardry and White Box
Mutant Future
Basic Fantasy
OSRIC
Microlite 20
Microlite 74
True 20
FUDGE
Pathfinder
Deathmatch: 4e vs. Retro-Clone/Pathfinder
Within two years either 4e or the Retro-Clone movement/Pathfinder (united in cause, divided in method) will be effectively dead. That is to say, not gaining any new players and losing what it has. I wrote that on paper a year ago, but I’ll give myself another year.
Of course, the likeliest possibility is that they’re both dead in that timeframe.
Hasbro could plug the plug on pen and paper D&D at any moment for reasons that only make sense to their accountants. They could relaunch D&D as an online-only service, buying out Everquest or something. Or they could make D&D just a miniatures board game (well, that’s already pretty much 4e), or a collectible card game (shudder), or combine the two for 5e (petite mal seizure).
Paizo, God bless them, may be only prolonging the inevitable with Pathfinder/3e, they just don’t know it yet. Don’t worry. Their Golarion setting and adventures will live on using another system.
And the clones, divided and squabbling over what is “real” D&D is will never amount to anything. It is the domain of fanatical altruists, as well as opportunists looking for a trendy marketing niche, like Monte Cook. On the other hand, their games are free and resources plentiful, so they won’t die a final death either.
Is D&D a hobby/passion with an expiration date for most people? Superhero comic books, the bulk of new comics, are a hobby most people can only stomach for so long. In the span of about five years, you’ll see essentially every type of superhero story there’s ever been. Is D&D the same? Can the average person only do role-play so many times before abandoning it, perhaps picking it up and dusting it off every so often to remind themselves why they liked it and why they stopped? Sort of reminds me of my old Dark Tower game.
I've said plenty about 4e, and I have something to say about Pathfinder’s ultimate survivability in another blog. For the Old School, I have two areas of overall concern. In another post, I'll get to some specific issues.
First, I hope Grognardia is right and that we are on the cusp of a New Old School. More Old School style, but with a better rules framework, incorporating Make It Your Own with the best in playable new ideas. Trying to satisfy the grognard community with one system is a fool’s errand, but a central, published product to rally around is essential. It has to be new material, not a nostalgic rehash of rules systems come, gone, and replaced. It has to be user expandable, with clearly labeled differences between core rules and optional rules. Paizo might be the best option for this mythical product, if they can just pull their head out of their 3e rear.
Meanwhile, I worry about the current OS fascination with mega-dungeons. Does “Old School” really work best in dungeons? “Explore till you die” seems like the OS motto. 4e with healing surges, an easier trap detection mechanic, minions, and a complete reliance on minis, seems like a better fit in such an environment. 4e is Old School in that regard at least. OS, with its looser, judgement call rules and the threat of easy character death, might work better in places like small lair-type dungeons, or thieving an urban business, combat arenas, or raiding a mysterious outdoor temple. Places that could conceivably be studied first before they were assaulted and where escapes could be quicker.
If the Old School movement becomes synonymous with only dungeon crawls, no matter how inventive or clever, it dies. Stuff like Dragonlance and Paizo Adventure Paths became popular because players and DM’s wanted more. If Old School can get it’s act together with a system, expanding the playing environment needs to be the next goal.
J.
Link of Interest:
Grognardia
Of course, the likeliest possibility is that they’re both dead in that timeframe.
Hasbro could plug the plug on pen and paper D&D at any moment for reasons that only make sense to their accountants. They could relaunch D&D as an online-only service, buying out Everquest or something. Or they could make D&D just a miniatures board game (well, that’s already pretty much 4e), or a collectible card game (shudder), or combine the two for 5e (petite mal seizure).
Paizo, God bless them, may be only prolonging the inevitable with Pathfinder/3e, they just don’t know it yet. Don’t worry. Their Golarion setting and adventures will live on using another system.
And the clones, divided and squabbling over what is “real” D&D is will never amount to anything. It is the domain of fanatical altruists, as well as opportunists looking for a trendy marketing niche, like Monte Cook. On the other hand, their games are free and resources plentiful, so they won’t die a final death either.
Is D&D a hobby/passion with an expiration date for most people? Superhero comic books, the bulk of new comics, are a hobby most people can only stomach for so long. In the span of about five years, you’ll see essentially every type of superhero story there’s ever been. Is D&D the same? Can the average person only do role-play so many times before abandoning it, perhaps picking it up and dusting it off every so often to remind themselves why they liked it and why they stopped? Sort of reminds me of my old Dark Tower game.
I've said plenty about 4e, and I have something to say about Pathfinder’s ultimate survivability in another blog. For the Old School, I have two areas of overall concern. In another post, I'll get to some specific issues.
First, I hope Grognardia is right and that we are on the cusp of a New Old School. More Old School style, but with a better rules framework, incorporating Make It Your Own with the best in playable new ideas. Trying to satisfy the grognard community with one system is a fool’s errand, but a central, published product to rally around is essential. It has to be new material, not a nostalgic rehash of rules systems come, gone, and replaced. It has to be user expandable, with clearly labeled differences between core rules and optional rules. Paizo might be the best option for this mythical product, if they can just pull their head out of their 3e rear.
Meanwhile, I worry about the current OS fascination with mega-dungeons. Does “Old School” really work best in dungeons? “Explore till you die” seems like the OS motto. 4e with healing surges, an easier trap detection mechanic, minions, and a complete reliance on minis, seems like a better fit in such an environment. 4e is Old School in that regard at least. OS, with its looser, judgement call rules and the threat of easy character death, might work better in places like small lair-type dungeons, or thieving an urban business, combat arenas, or raiding a mysterious outdoor temple. Places that could conceivably be studied first before they were assaulted and where escapes could be quicker.
If the Old School movement becomes synonymous with only dungeon crawls, no matter how inventive or clever, it dies. Stuff like Dragonlance and Paizo Adventure Paths became popular because players and DM’s wanted more. If Old School can get it’s act together with a system, expanding the playing environment needs to be the next goal.
J.
Link of Interest:
Grognardia
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I dis 4e
It’s as good an RPG as could have been designed by a corporation. It’s good that Marketing had a seat at the design meetings. It’s bad that the seat was at the head of the table and everybody else was just there to take their orders.
There’s a psychological element to the dislike of this game that isn’t fair, but if WOTC didn’t want enemies then they shouldn’t have made them. I’ll start with the two worst issues.
They cancelled Dragon and Dungeon to create a monthly online service. Like it or not, ready or not, Internet subscriptions are poised to gut the newsstand. The loss of these printed magazines was like losing an old friend, but the community can still gather around the D&D website, I guess. The worst aspect of this for WOTC was turning their best asset, Paizo, into their biggest competitor.
Dishonesty about 4e was the bigger problem. Even when everyone knew they were working on the new edition, they denied it to keep 3.5 sales going. How bad did Paizo make WOTC look as their Pathfinder playtest was open and public, while 4e test players were under non-disclosure agreements? This has left a lingering bad taste in my mouth.
It was designed to be a collectible miniatures game, some hellish cross between chess, backgammon, and Pokemon. It’s also been designed to be incompatible with all previous versions. So, shell out for the minis and hope you get what you want in the booster packs, and you may as well throw out all your old books and adventures and buy new ones. At least, that’s what WOTC hopes you’ll do. Like I said, marketing ruled the creation of this game, not game designers.
I’ll throw in my tacky, nit-pick game issues. The ones that I know of, that is.
-Treasure parcels: Allowing the players to pick their treasure? How on earth did this rule get in there? That doesn’t even happen online.
-Skill challenges: From what little I understand of this procedure, I don’t understand it. I have heard the same from people who play the game.
-Traps: Somehow, what got slimmed down on monster stat block, got added to the trap stat blocks.
-Saving Throw continuing conditions: From what I’ve read, this is one of those things that adds needless complexity to the game. The same thing goes for monsters’ power recharge rolls.
-Immediate Interrupts: I think this rule actually goes back to 3e. Whatever. It reminds me of Attacks of Opportunity and other such nonsense. Look, when it’s my turn in a combat round, it’s MY turn.
-Character death: 4e players may actually have to willfully want their character to die in order to make it happen. Meanwhile in a harsh Old School environment, every dungeon is “Tomb of Horrors” to a low-level character. Is there a possibility of finding a happy medium? I wonder how a player with only 4e experience would react to any other RPG, especially games where characters can actually die suddenly.
Perhaps 4e’s worst sin is that it seems to have delineated all the rules so thoroughly. The ragged gray, improvisational edge that all RPG’s live in when played in the wild, has been erased. I think this was supposed to help shield players and DM’s from bad playing experiences from arguing over the rules (like an online game). They missed the point. Much like children playing Cowboys and Indians, the arguing was an integral part of the game. The participants shape the rules. This is stated or implied in most RPG’s.
If the intention of “hard” rules was to have less arguing and more role-playing, it may have only half succeeded. 4e players seem to tend to metagame more with concrete rules, looking for every advantage that the rules allow. Finding the best method to crack an encounter is the focus, just like a video game. Ironically, this actually sounds Old School, challenge the player, not the character. But rather than using creativity and logic in a situation, it’s a matter of finding the best combo move with the dice. Like good chess and monopoly players, experienced 4e players will be easy to spot in a game. Again, not too much different from some Old School players and DM’s, who end up in some kind of “Spy vs. Spy” mentality with tricks, traps, and raiding dungeon rooms.
The bigger question may be how close are WOW and D&D’s virtual tabletop getting to replicating the in-person D&D experience? As WOTC has made D&D more like a video game that difference has eroded significantly. I have to believe that the next version of D&D will get them out of the publishing business altogether and into an online subscription model. The only question in my mind is when. At least at that point, the grognard/retro clone movement wins, however Pyrrhic the victory.
All is not lost. While many long-time gamers have embraced 4e, the target audience of this edition was new players, specifically collectible card players and online gamers. There are several nods to WOW to make the game seem very familiar, including rules for games without a referee. With the combat rules having easy analogues to the computer game, the in-person RPG opens up whole new dimensions for these players. Gabe from Penny Arcade seems like the perfect conversion story. The old-timers, meanwhile, like to have a new set of rules to play with and break, I suppose. D&D may be coming back around to its roots, away from character drama, huge settings, and adventure paths, and this is the perfect system for dungeon hacking.
Given its prop-driven nature, 4e seems like it would be hard to improv and role-play, but the RP in face-to-face RPG apparently can’t be suppressed. Check out this quote from Gabe:
“We went from basically playing a board game with dice and minis to something much more interesting. It's just been awesome to watch them go from being a little embarrassed to be playing D&D and not wanting to look stupid to really to embracing their characters. I've got a friend who plays a Dragonborn and is actually speaking Draconic at the table…”
Now that sounds like D&D.
J.
Source:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/3/4/
There’s a psychological element to the dislike of this game that isn’t fair, but if WOTC didn’t want enemies then they shouldn’t have made them. I’ll start with the two worst issues.
They cancelled Dragon and Dungeon to create a monthly online service. Like it or not, ready or not, Internet subscriptions are poised to gut the newsstand. The loss of these printed magazines was like losing an old friend, but the community can still gather around the D&D website, I guess. The worst aspect of this for WOTC was turning their best asset, Paizo, into their biggest competitor.
Dishonesty about 4e was the bigger problem. Even when everyone knew they were working on the new edition, they denied it to keep 3.5 sales going. How bad did Paizo make WOTC look as their Pathfinder playtest was open and public, while 4e test players were under non-disclosure agreements? This has left a lingering bad taste in my mouth.
It was designed to be a collectible miniatures game, some hellish cross between chess, backgammon, and Pokemon. It’s also been designed to be incompatible with all previous versions. So, shell out for the minis and hope you get what you want in the booster packs, and you may as well throw out all your old books and adventures and buy new ones. At least, that’s what WOTC hopes you’ll do. Like I said, marketing ruled the creation of this game, not game designers.
I’ll throw in my tacky, nit-pick game issues. The ones that I know of, that is.
-Treasure parcels: Allowing the players to pick their treasure? How on earth did this rule get in there? That doesn’t even happen online.
-Skill challenges: From what little I understand of this procedure, I don’t understand it. I have heard the same from people who play the game.
-Traps: Somehow, what got slimmed down on monster stat block, got added to the trap stat blocks.
-Saving Throw continuing conditions: From what I’ve read, this is one of those things that adds needless complexity to the game. The same thing goes for monsters’ power recharge rolls.
-Immediate Interrupts: I think this rule actually goes back to 3e. Whatever. It reminds me of Attacks of Opportunity and other such nonsense. Look, when it’s my turn in a combat round, it’s MY turn.
-Character death: 4e players may actually have to willfully want their character to die in order to make it happen. Meanwhile in a harsh Old School environment, every dungeon is “Tomb of Horrors” to a low-level character. Is there a possibility of finding a happy medium? I wonder how a player with only 4e experience would react to any other RPG, especially games where characters can actually die suddenly.
Perhaps 4e’s worst sin is that it seems to have delineated all the rules so thoroughly. The ragged gray, improvisational edge that all RPG’s live in when played in the wild, has been erased. I think this was supposed to help shield players and DM’s from bad playing experiences from arguing over the rules (like an online game). They missed the point. Much like children playing Cowboys and Indians, the arguing was an integral part of the game. The participants shape the rules. This is stated or implied in most RPG’s.
If the intention of “hard” rules was to have less arguing and more role-playing, it may have only half succeeded. 4e players seem to tend to metagame more with concrete rules, looking for every advantage that the rules allow. Finding the best method to crack an encounter is the focus, just like a video game. Ironically, this actually sounds Old School, challenge the player, not the character. But rather than using creativity and logic in a situation, it’s a matter of finding the best combo move with the dice. Like good chess and monopoly players, experienced 4e players will be easy to spot in a game. Again, not too much different from some Old School players and DM’s, who end up in some kind of “Spy vs. Spy” mentality with tricks, traps, and raiding dungeon rooms.
The bigger question may be how close are WOW and D&D’s virtual tabletop getting to replicating the in-person D&D experience? As WOTC has made D&D more like a video game that difference has eroded significantly. I have to believe that the next version of D&D will get them out of the publishing business altogether and into an online subscription model. The only question in my mind is when. At least at that point, the grognard/retro clone movement wins, however Pyrrhic the victory.
All is not lost. While many long-time gamers have embraced 4e, the target audience of this edition was new players, specifically collectible card players and online gamers. There are several nods to WOW to make the game seem very familiar, including rules for games without a referee. With the combat rules having easy analogues to the computer game, the in-person RPG opens up whole new dimensions for these players. Gabe from Penny Arcade seems like the perfect conversion story. The old-timers, meanwhile, like to have a new set of rules to play with and break, I suppose. D&D may be coming back around to its roots, away from character drama, huge settings, and adventure paths, and this is the perfect system for dungeon hacking.
Given its prop-driven nature, 4e seems like it would be hard to improv and role-play, but the RP in face-to-face RPG apparently can’t be suppressed. Check out this quote from Gabe:
“We went from basically playing a board game with dice and minis to something much more interesting. It's just been awesome to watch them go from being a little embarrassed to be playing D&D and not wanting to look stupid to really to embracing their characters. I've got a friend who plays a Dragonborn and is actually speaking Draconic at the table…”
Now that sounds like D&D.
J.
Source:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/3/4/
I <3 (heart) 4e
Not enough to want to play it, but I like some of their rules or concepts enough to steal them as house rules. Take note that I haven’t played the game or read the rule books, so I’m commenting on the concepts as I understand them.
First, I applaud 4e for dispensing with Vancian magic. If nothing else, this was worthwhile. Anybody who wants to play a wizard character wants to cast spells during a fight. Putting a dividing line between combat spells and non-combat rituals also gets a hearty cheer from me. Spells that can be cast in combat should be different than utility/divination/whatever spells.
They’ve created some sort of standardized system for non-standard combat maneuvers and instituted Action Points as a way to allow heroic stunts. Other systems already use variants of this. Let the swashbuckling begin.
There are actual meaningful differences between different races being the same class. Unfortunately, these differences seem to just amount to counting off squares in combat and various bonuses, but I really like the idea.
Streamlined monster stat blocks and abilities: Well, anything would be an improvement over 3e stat blocks that might cover several pages for a major NPC in Dungeon magazine. It’s cool though to make monster powers easier to play and to see what a monster can do at a glance. It’s bad in that seemingly every power again involves counting squares.
Skills rules: They couldn’t be any worse than 3e. Use Rope? Out of class skills, anyone? Skills are trained or untrained with bonuses based on level. If you’re going to use skills, this at least seems simple.
Spell duration: Counting off rounds for spell length is nuts! There I’ve said it. Combat can be complex enough without having to keep track of a bunch of spell effects. If you have to have a rationale for spells only lasting for an encounter, say that they’re adrenaline activated.
Minions: I really like this idea. It fits in well with the heroic fantasy genre. It lets the players feel cool. It makes the main villains look that much tougher. Why bother tallying hit points for hoards of nothing monsters?
Healing surges: Not per se, but I like the notion. 4e Adventuring parties do not have to have clerics. Granted, parties still pretty much have to consist of characters in assigned roles, since 4e assigns party roles even more stridently than Old School. This is an unfortunate by-product of its dependence on miniatures in combat. But the is idea is there, buried, that you could have parties that don’t have a traditional composition. Why not a gang of thieves? A cadre of mercenaries? A class field trip of wizards from Hogwart’s? (Scratch that last one.) Pity that they didn’t go further with it.
Defense stats: AC, fort, will, and reflex are static values. D20 should have been set up to work like this from the beginning.
See, I do have some respect for 4e. There’s some good ideas in there, and I’ve only listed the ones I know about. Of course, I’ve also got a post of things I don’t like coming up.
J.
First, I applaud 4e for dispensing with Vancian magic. If nothing else, this was worthwhile. Anybody who wants to play a wizard character wants to cast spells during a fight. Putting a dividing line between combat spells and non-combat rituals also gets a hearty cheer from me. Spells that can be cast in combat should be different than utility/divination/whatever spells.
They’ve created some sort of standardized system for non-standard combat maneuvers and instituted Action Points as a way to allow heroic stunts. Other systems already use variants of this. Let the swashbuckling begin.
There are actual meaningful differences between different races being the same class. Unfortunately, these differences seem to just amount to counting off squares in combat and various bonuses, but I really like the idea.
Streamlined monster stat blocks and abilities: Well, anything would be an improvement over 3e stat blocks that might cover several pages for a major NPC in Dungeon magazine. It’s cool though to make monster powers easier to play and to see what a monster can do at a glance. It’s bad in that seemingly every power again involves counting squares.
Skills rules: They couldn’t be any worse than 3e. Use Rope? Out of class skills, anyone? Skills are trained or untrained with bonuses based on level. If you’re going to use skills, this at least seems simple.
Spell duration: Counting off rounds for spell length is nuts! There I’ve said it. Combat can be complex enough without having to keep track of a bunch of spell effects. If you have to have a rationale for spells only lasting for an encounter, say that they’re adrenaline activated.
Minions: I really like this idea. It fits in well with the heroic fantasy genre. It lets the players feel cool. It makes the main villains look that much tougher. Why bother tallying hit points for hoards of nothing monsters?
Healing surges: Not per se, but I like the notion. 4e Adventuring parties do not have to have clerics. Granted, parties still pretty much have to consist of characters in assigned roles, since 4e assigns party roles even more stridently than Old School. This is an unfortunate by-product of its dependence on miniatures in combat. But the is idea is there, buried, that you could have parties that don’t have a traditional composition. Why not a gang of thieves? A cadre of mercenaries? A class field trip of wizards from Hogwart’s? (Scratch that last one.) Pity that they didn’t go further with it.
Defense stats: AC, fort, will, and reflex are static values. D20 should have been set up to work like this from the beginning.
See, I do have some respect for 4e. There’s some good ideas in there, and I’ve only listed the ones I know about. Of course, I’ve also got a post of things I don’t like coming up.
J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)