Sunday, September 23, 2012

Magic thoughts.

First up, Vancian magic can go get f@cked. In my book spell drain is the way to go. A few big spells as your buggered and need a lie down and cup of tea. Wizards have to to be thinkers... better a few well placed smaller spells throughout the day, and one megadeath boom-boom when it is absolutely necessary.
I also like giving players the option to get energy from risky sources. Chaos mutations, bargains for unholy tasks (yep, giving wizards scenario hooks they MUST complete) or hooking into seriously unstable juice that could fry you.
What I feel is that, as a wizard player you have access to phenomenal power that makes all the other player classes tremble... But....
Gandalf casts only a few spells, and you get the impression its only when absolutely necessary. Being the keeper of immense power is a thrill, as is having secrets from other players... secret tasks to fulfill for spell pacts.

What if you get a bonus for each spell you DONT let the other players see?

Wizard: Take to the mountains... I shall deal with this fiend!
Warrior: what? How- your an old man and that... Thing is..
Wizard: This wizard has his ways young warmonger... Now go!

Magic makes or breaks an rpg system in my book. Balancing wizards against warriors has always been a sticking point- but I feel the blow by blow nature of dundred will counter this somewhat. Warriors are hella fun.
I am wondering if, in addition to pre-baked spells, if wizards should get the same flexibility to do stuff on the fly.
Spells perhaps, like weapons, could be used in various ways. Take the marvel character magneto. He uses his powers to open doors, disarm, torture, trap and in combination with metal clothes to give himself flight. He has power over metal.
Now just giving a pc 'power over metal: 30" is a bit vague. How much metal? How fast? Well, a +30 metal mastery could be equivalent of a human with a stat of +30. So you can lift what a strength +30 human could, throw it with the aim of a +30 archer, make a wall that is -30 to climb or destroy.

Its not very old school. Not as flavorful as magic missile or prismatic rays. A mix is important.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Ready to roll!

I always liked the way Shadowrun had a full body painting on each character archetype with a typical profile. My favorite character 'hotwire', was grabbed straight from one of these when I arrived late to the first session or my original pc died (I forget now). Over time she grew from generic decker to a more personalized, well rounded (and somewhat odd) character. The moral of the story- having pregens handy is good.

So D'undred shall have them!

I picture a page per character- full length painting, stats all done and items blocked in ready for 'bracketing' (so you get ___________(hand weapon +20 and fill in Bastard Sword (hand weapon +20).

.... And your away!

There should be different archetypes for each class present, such as Burley Fighter (tank), Swift Fighter (duellist), Sickly Necromancer, Frail Wizard, Battle mage, Charming Rogue, Petty Thief, catburgler and so on, giving you a clear idea of what your playing from the get go.

Of course, you can always generate your attributes and buy trappings, but thats optional.

One things certain... I will include a random name generator table for players to enjoy. With tables for sexes, classes and races.
You know the fun names these throw up... Gel/gor/finger/true= Gelgor truefinger. Raghorn leastbit, Emmadmir wherryknot.
Katniss Eberdeen. Larree HellMore. Etc.
Heck, a table of quirks for inspiration would be fun too. Big nose+ sneer+ limp? Winning smile +interesting scent+ grey streak? Nervous laugh+body hair+fascinated with blue.

Love those.







Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Square free zoneage

If you are not familiar with DM Scotty's DM'sCRAFT channel on youtube, go check it out.

He shows you how to quickly knock up custom dungeon tiles for a few cents each using little more than corrugated card and a hot glue gun. He dances neatly along the line of visually enhancing the rpg experience without distracting from the imagination by producing stuff in broad gestures. Great stuff.
Here are some simple test tiles I knocked up a while back using his techniques.


DM Scotty shows how to use a measuring stick to go grid less in DND. I am used to skirmish so this makes sense, but nothing is stopping you drawing grids or dots on your tiles if you want I suppose.


Blow by blow

Another day away from the pc, so its 'compensate with D'undred blog' time.

My homebrew rules have always been blow-by-blow rather than DnDs abstraction of 6 seconds combat time.
This has always made sense to me- after all, the challenging cry of the DM is ' what do you do?'. Just replying 'I attack the ' seemed like a non decision to me.
I set the players challenges and puzzles, they come up with creative ways to solve them. Combat is no different.
My players are given the freedom to invent combat moves in response to slower or matched initiative NPC actions. I say what the enemy appears to be doing- the player says how they plan to counter the move.

DM: Rogue! The first Gnoll reached you, swinging its foul, dung smeared, jagged shortsword at your belly.

John: I rush at him, breaking left at the last moment and stabbing my dagger into the meat of neck!

[roll]

DM: you do! Yet your blade bites deep into the Gnolls shoulder as you rush past, tearing at the muscle! Free blow.

John: I drop down into a squat letting my full body weight tear the dagger downwards!

DM: Ouch. Bonus ten. Roll em

[rolls]

John: oh crap.

DM: the gnoll spins sharply, levering your blade out of your grip. It remains embedded in its thick muscle!

John: nuts.

DM: Callista, the female Bugbear charges at you, before you can reach she....

[rolls]

Shoulder smashes into you, lifting you up and slamming you against the wall.

Jane: so I am in the air?

DM: yes, pressed against the stone wall, feet off the ground by about two foot.

Jane: bitch! I ram my magic wand into her eye.

[rolls]

DM: ...gouging into her cheek, but causing her to wince. Free blow.

Jane: I grab the fur on her cheek with one hand to keep her face still and repeatedly stab at her eyes.

[rolls]

DM: The bugbear growls and pushes you upwards with both arms. Your back scrapes against the rough hewn wall. Your face comes within inches of a sharp stalactite.

Jane: aiiiieeee!!!!

DM: Mungor the Dwarf?

Bill: "Drop that Wizard! For a start you do not know where the filthy bitch has been!". I leap and bring my axe down onto the back of the bugbears legs.

[rolls]

DM: Slicing weakly at her thick hyde, that's unlike you! Blow 2?

Bill: I spin backwards, this time angling upwards into her spine. "I said drop the tome jockey!!!"

[rolls]

Bill: thats more like it!

DM: The heavy blow crumples the greasy armor plates on her back and sends the howling Bugbear reeling to... here. Callista still at arms length, her skirts flailing above your head.

Jane: "aaaaaaiiii!"


Combat continues in this manner, usually resulting in more baddies piling in as the players are having a ball.
The problem with this system is it does mean a lot of talking for the DM who has to set up and answer each attack. The benefit is players get super engaged, coming up with ways to hurt things- often using whatever is at hand.
In order to facilitate players responding to npc attack descriptions with their own counter moves, I use a reverse initiative system.
The slowest PC goes first, then we work upwards to the fastest. Players sit around my table clockwise in initiative order. At any time a player to the right can interrupt a player to his left and perform a reaction to their announced move or aid them.

Npcs and monsters slot in around


Monday, September 17, 2012

Blow by blow

Another day away from the pc, so its 'compensate with D'undred blog' time.
My homebrew rules have always been blow-by-blow rather than DnDs abstraction of 6 seconds combat time.
This has always made sense to me- after all, the challenging cry of the DM is '(insert threatening dramatic event) what do you do?'. Just replying 'I attack the (insert monster/gazebo)' seemed like a non decision to me.
I set the players challenges and puzzles, they come up with creative ways to solve them. Combat is no different.
My players are given the freedom to invent combat moves in response to slower or matched initiative NPC actions. I say what the enemy appears to be doing- the player says how they plan to counter the move.



DM: Rogue! The first Gnoll reached you, swinging its foul, dung smeared, jagged shortsword at your belly.

John: I rush at him, breaking left at the last moment and stabbing my dagger into the meat of neck!

[roll]

DM: you do! Yet your blade bites deep into the Gnolls shoulder as you rush past, tearing at the muscle! Free blow.

John: I drop down into a squat letting my full body weight tear the dagger downwards!

DM: Ouch. Bonus ten. Roll em

[rolls]

John: oh crap.

DM: the gnoll spins sharply, levering your blade out of your grip. It remains embedded in its thick muscle!

John: nuts.

DM: Callista, the female Bugbear charges at you, before you can react she....

[rolls]

....Shoulder smashes into you, lifting you up and slamming you against the wall.

Jane: so I am in the air?

DM: yes, pressed against the stone wall, feet off the ground by about two foot.

Jane: bitch! I ram my magic wand into her eye.

[rolls]

DM: ...gouging into her cheek, but causing her to wince. Free blow.

Jane: I grab the fur on her cheek with one hand to keep her face still and repeatedly stab at her eyes.

[rolls]

DM: The bugbear growls and pushes you upwards with both arms. Your back scrapes against the rough hewn wall. Your face comes within inches of a sharp stalactite.

Jane: aiiiieeee!!!!

DM: Mungor the Dwarf?

Bill: "Drop that Wizard! For a start you do not know where the dirty tyke has been!". I leap and bring my axe down onto the back of the bugbears legs.

[rolls]

DM: Slicing weakly at her thick hyde, that's unlike you! Blow 2?

Bill: I spin backwards, this time angling upwards into her spine. "I said drop the tome jockey!!!"

[rolls]

Bill: thats more like it!

DM: The heavy blow crumples the greasy armor plates on her back and sends the howling Bugbear reeling to... here. Callista still at arms length, her skirts flailing above your head.

Jane: "aaaaaaiiii!"



Combat continues in this manner, usually resulting in more baddies piling in as the players are having a ball.
The problem with this system is it does mean a lot of talking for the DM who has to set up and answer each attack. The benefit is players get super engaged, coming up with ways to hurt things- often using whatever is at hand.
In order to facilitate players responding to npc attack descriptions with their own counter moves, I use a reverse initiative system.
The slowest PC goes first, then we work upwards to the fastest. Players sit around my table clockwise in initiative order. At any time a player to the right can interrupt a player to his left and perform a reaction to their announced move or aid them.
Npcs and monsters slot in around the PCs that they are closest to- as I play them more as dramatic threats then as characters with a turn. This can often mean I forget to move some NPCs in the heat of battle, and players of other systems mention that its hard to judge the initiatives of enemies.
Because of the looseness of the system, I have been considering exploring a more rigid turn system for Dundred.
Someone (DnD with porn stars?) mooted an alternate system that sounded good. Leader rolls ini for pc team. Then team decides themselves which order they go, The game then alternates one pc, one NPC. Left overs move at the end.
Hmmm. Favorite systems anyone?

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Comparitive threats


Okay, so hands up who goes numb at the thought of setting up balanced monster encounters in D&D?
The D&D approach of phone books of creature statistics always bugged me.  Coming from tunnels & trolls, where monsters just get a Monster Rating (MR) that defines their hit dice, I always found the D&D way of having an appropriate list of monsters to throw against players at certain levels a little bit daft.  I want two displacer beasts showing up but... hmmm... can the players take these on?
Apart for my penchant for Displacer beasts, I love beholders and Aspects of Tiamat.  I never get to use them in D&D because my players are usually only on a few months stay and never get up the level.  Sure, whacking kobolds is fun for a bit, but most of these guys are experienced and want some variety.  I could kick them off at higher levels, but then they miss out on their early adventures.
Why, as a lowly adventurer, can't I take on a beholder... just one thats a little bit shit?
Why take the time to get the exact right number of monsters to match up against a party of adventurers, and what happens when you have a wide mix of pc levels?



So it occurs to me that one neater way of tying up the threat encounter is to treat monsters as difficulty ratings or, like T&T, just give them a level.  A threat level.  The exact attacks and powers of the creature are layed out, and their appropriate threat levels- but ultimately you can set your level at whatever you like.
A level 4 player can take on a threat level 4 and do well.  A level 8 threat would wipe the floor with them, leaving a small gap to overcome and a larger one to escape... just.
The beauty of a threat level system is this... any scenario can work for any level of player character.  You simply have to change a number.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Can you fly a plane? Uh no... Can you?

Hey folks,
So I am waiting for a bus, and stats are on my mind.
So far for Dundred, I have been considering merging the main class abilities directly into the main attribute profile to do away with skill lists.

For example, if I split the catch all concept of dnds dexterity into agility, manual dexterity and aim, you can express rangers, rogues and nimble elves/acrobat/monk types in those three numbers.

Dexterity (manual) becomes purely about picking- locks, pockets and disarming traps. Rogues prevail.

Aim is for rangers (classic shooty types) and throwing knife types.

Agility is for action heroes... Reflexes, dodging, fighting, running and climbing.

I feel all your sub classes such as paladin, cavalier, viking, barbarian, acrobat, assassin and duel weapon ranger appeared because the basic class system just could not fully describe what players wanted to play.

My hunch is, by opening up the statistics to encompass more of the skills, you can express these in the stats.

What strikes me is the benefit of everyone being base skill assumed, noting down only exceptional expertise or weaknesses. You play heroes, and, by and large, you should be good enough to have a fair attempt at anything the players can imagine if their stats allow it.

What if we assume that all player characters can read, ride, climb, drive a stage coach, make camp, dance, care for weapons and equipment, handle animals and make a bow.

Of course, specialized training is needed for certain things, such as magic, poison making, alchemy, languages, healing- but these can all be roped together under 'knowledge' or 'lores', which would be a more atmospheric title. Anything that is purely yes/no can be a lore- the rest appears in stats.

Sure, everyone can ride... but the guy with high agility can ride well. The fighter may be able to disarm a simple spike trap, but a dextrous rogue is needed for the intricate clockwork bomb. Hell, even wizards can wear armor if they are strong enough to bear the weight.

You cant do that, should not echo around the game table... More, gee thats really unlikely...

So the stats I am toying with are...

Might (strength)
Agility (speed, nimbleness, balance)
Dexterity (pick locks,pockets,disarm)
Aim (shoot, throw)
Combat (might+agility/2)
Constitution (stamina, save vs. poisons/pain/fire)
Charisma (control npc for poor roleplayers)
Sense (detect, notice clue, wisdom)
Will (cast spells, save vs.spells)

I don't think an intelligence or wisdom stat need exist, as I find players are most engaged when they play using the full extent of their wits. The easiest way to handle it is filtering info to the player. Low 'sense' means less info given. Keen eyes are nothing without the mind to interpret the info... Therefore sense covers both detect and comprehension. Knowledge is covered by the concept of lores. Simply letting the DM give different info to players with different lores.

Charisma is on a knife edge, but though a player cannot play wiser than he is, they can influence npcs with a roll of the dice. The DM can take any compelling argument role played by a charismatic player whose character is a grumpy, mean looking type as the npc not trusting them, and vice versa. Charisma also acts as a good balancer for dwarves and barbarians... not putting points on charisma makes them more reliant on fighting, but bards and rogues can talk their way out with charm. Basically if you manipulate npcs you need a good charisma or charm stat.

I am also weighing up a 'faith' stat for priests and monks, but will works just as well for them. Of course you could make faith a resource that is replenished by charity, kindness, prayer and sacrifice, and the DM can deduct points for anti-priestly behavior. So perhaps yes.