Counting Coins (Part 1)

I've been wanting to write this post since Friday. Unfortunately, I figured that I should probably write a couple-three other posts first in order to "set the stage" for my ideas. But, well, spending the last two days solid on taxes (just got 'em e-filed at 1am this morning, thank you very much) has pushed back all my posting...and anyway, now I've got money on the brain.

[speaking of push-backed posts: still have returned to the Crowns of Blood series and Game of Thrones just started up again...at least in South America. Haven't had a chance to watch it yet...maybe later today...but I'm sure it'll inspire me to get back to my hack of Pendragon]

One of the things I'm doing these days with my designs is to abstract equipment/items, cutting out that particular "hard aspect" of resource management. This is something that's been evolving for me over the last several years. It started a while back with my B/X play when I created basic equipment lists for each class based on a player's 3D6 roll for "starting gold" (I was kind of tired of low-income characters blowing their wad on plate mail and having nothing left over for standard adventuring equipment). A large part of this was in aid of speeding the chargen process: hand the player a card, cross-reference the number rolled and then note your starting possessions. It worked fairly well.

Later, when working up my DMI (card-based) game system, I was even more abstract...the cards dealt to players determined their "important characteristics" (I think I use a different term in the rules, but I don't want to look it up right now), and diamonds dealt to the character's hand represented any kind of important "resources," including special equipment. It was very non-specific, but (without going into too much detail), say you were playing my DMI "supers" game: a character like the Hulk would probably have no diamonds dealt to him (because the Hulk doesn't use equipment), whereas a Batman-type guy would have lots of diamonds to represent the shtick he pulls out of his bat-belt or his various vehicles and Bat Cave and whatnot. The "items" the diamonds represent might change from session to session (just as the specific gear ol' Batman uses changes from adventure to adventure) but the basis of his powers (lots of goodies/gadgets) doesn't change. A Reed Richards type might have a single (big) diamond in his hand to represent the one Earth-shaking invention Mr. Fantastic pulls out of his stretchy brain every few comics.

ANYway...abstract. But not very Old School.

Cry Dark Future...my B/X-based "Shadowrun" style game (which has since morphed into something much more post-apocalyptic) was a return to B/X gear-counting sensibilities. You had "New Dollars" (or whatever) to spend instead of gold, and you were picking up similar NDs from adventures instead of D&D-type treasure...such ca$h being used to provide all the upgrades to your adventurer that you'd expect in an Old School-type game (instead of magic items you're upgrading your automatic weapons and cybernetic-implants, etc. Spell research remains largely the same). Very resource-based in the traditional sense.

However, a funny thing happened during play-testing: I observed (and other groups, too) that players weren't really interested in "bullet-counting." Or worrying about how many hours of juice was in a particular piece of gear. The resource management of individual equipment items was a real secondary concern (if that!) to the slam-bang action of blazing away in cinematic fashion. As opposed to aiding the immersion, forcing players to track every nuanced resource was breaking their immersive process. Asking a sniper character's player what type of ammunition he was going to use for a long shot, he replied "the best one." The granularity of gear wasn't as important to the action at hand. And away, who am I to say how much a bionic limb costs in a futuristic economy?

Plus chargen for a game like CDF takes a shit-long time if players are buying their own gear...there's simply too much, compared to the short lists of D&D.

So when I started revising CDF I figured a way to abstract gear selection. CDF was reworked as a class-based system (with classes determining the character's available suite of cybernetic gear), and then a choice of equipment based on the character's Intelligence (INT) score, such picks being limited when it comes to "expensive" selections from the gear list.

Because no matter how rich characters get, the kind of "missions" they go on in CDF only allows them to carry so much gear anyway. And tying that gear to INT helps to model a lot of real world "inconveniences" in an abstract fashion. Gear that a person forgot to bring (even though he meant to and even laid it out on the table the night before). Gear that's batteries died, or that suffered a break in transport to the drop site. Gear that hasn't been well-maintained due to laziness or ineptitude. Gear that's been misplaced or stolen or sold for food between adventures. Gear that gets brought along but that the character forgets he has in his pocket/pack. Gear that just mysteriously breaks or stops working because you're living in a post-apocalyptic region where resources are scarce to fix or repair equipment...you've got to prioritize what's important. INT determines the absolute number of "useful" pieces of equipment the character has for a particular session...and yes, the number is modified by the character's level of experience (because experienced adventurers are more prepared...duh).

[characters automatically start with a couple weapons regardless of INT, of course, because those are your livelihood and necessary survival tools and I know you're maintaining those without me having to ask]

The most recent stab at a "new" fantasy heartbreaker (which is currently being revised...see last post) uses a similar "useful item" system, except that it's based on an ability score called Wit (because there are seriously learned wizard-types who are a little too addled/befuddled to remember to pack the tinderbox). Now this was fine when my FHB was about heroic heroes doing heroic things and not worrying about finding treasure (they had a much "grander quest" to accomplish). But with the recent revisions...to one of conquest and colonization in a Brave New World...there's a need to account for coin counting and the collection of goodies. After all, in a fantasy adventure game based on treasure hunting, counting treasure is the way we count points.

"JB, you're losing me," says one of my readers. "I can see simplifying gear selection (maybe), but why does that create any issue with acquiring treasure (and counting it) in the 'normal' fashion? You find 2000 shiny gold doubloons, and you get 2000 XP...no big deal, right?" Um, sure, except there's the little part about encumbrance to consider, another thing I intend to abstract.

[see, this is why I needed to log earlier topics BEFORE starting this one]

While I haven't (yet) written about it, I had all but decided to axe STRENGTH as an ability score from the list of abilities describing characters. The multiple reasons will be dealt with in soon-to-be-forthcoming post. But then I got hipped to this post from GusL (remember me talking about him?) on using a super-simple abstract method of counting encumbrance which, while not perfect, is the perfect complement to my abstract gear-selection-process. Because while "what you remembered to bring along" might be set by the limits of your character's Wit, what you find (and pick up) along the way is not.

But THAT is actually putting the cart before the horse. I've been thinking a lot about treasure lately (being in the presence of a lot of real world treasure does that), and then I stumbled across this year-old post from Alexis...

[I can almost hear him yelling at me to leave him the fuck out of my abstract B.S. schemes. Sorry, pal]

...and its precursor prompt post from John Arendt (just for reference; not nearly as pertinent). It's really not a new gripe...it's something I was blogging about waaaay back in 2010. While Alexis's post points to a different issue (how much treasure monsters have in relation to each other), he rightly points out that the system is fundamentally arbitrary (numbers of value...both for character advancement and for cost of in-world goods...is largely subjective). Combined with this earlier post of his...and, yeah, throw in this excellent one, too, on gemstones...and you start to get an idea of where my brain is headed: abstract treasure accounting.

This one's a fancy piece.

[just BTW, Alexis's posts on gems...see here and here...went a long way towards explaining my befuddlement at the rinky-dinkness of medieval jewelry. I've been to a lot of museums over in Europe...in Bavaria, Prague, Spain, Italy, France...and seen a lot of crowns and tiaras and bracelets and whatnot that looked like so much battered costume jewelry. Granted, many pieces were hundreds of years old, the precious metal bent and dinged, but what really disappointed me were the gemstones set in the pieces. They didn't LOOK like gems (at least, to my UNeducated historical mind) but rather like polished, shiny stones. They were not cut, you see, and were probably plenty valuable for their luster and color and rarity. I was expecting cut gems (like something from, oh say, an illustration in one of my gaming books) rather than colorful smooth circles of what could have been "pretty glass." The lighting in the museums probably didn't help much]

Part of this also has to do with my research into the history of South America's conquest (much of what might have been deemed "treasure hunting" as well). The thing is this: not only is the value of treasure arbitrary and fully modifiable in terms of it's game worth (i.e. what amount of treasure constitutes enough XP to "level up"), but it is of relative value in the game world as well. It doesn't matter that a gemstone is "worth 500 g.p." if my character has no way to determine, nor collect the value. So what if I find a platinum and ruby-studed crown worth 50,000 gold...who will be willing (and able!) to buy such a thing? It's doubtful the local "gem-changer" has 2.5 tons (the D&D weight of 50K coins) of gold sitting in his back room, waiting for such a piece to come along.

It's been an acceptable statement for years that adventurers would much prefer precious items like gems and jewelry over sacks of coins. But sacks of coins are readily spent, easily converted to real goods, easy to divide amongst companions. There's no need to find reliable (competent and honest) appraisers or fences for the loot. There's no need to know kings who MIGHT have access to stacks of coins and be interested in acquiring such items (the wealth of the nobility is mainly tied to their land...and who's to say an unscrupulous lord wouldn't consider treasure found within his domain to be his "by right" and simply take it?). If I want to buy a horse, I can probably get one for a ruby...but I might not get exact change in the bargain.

[and when the local tax man comes a-calling, what are you going to pay him with if all you picked up was a fancy silver bracelet? Your magic boots?]

Treasure is treasure is treasure. Some is more valuable, some is less, but in a primitive society that doesn't have, say, a global economy like ours with auction houses (on-line and off) and plenty of extremely wealthy folks keeping an eye out for desirable stuff...well, you may just be better off with a sack of silver or gold. At least you won't be much worse off than the guy with a sack of "the good stuff."

SO...now we come back to encumbrance. We have three basic containers in D&D, with (per B/X) an extremely easy measure of how much each holds:

Small sack: 20 pounds of treasure
Backpack: 40 pounds of treasure
Large sack: 60 pounds of treasure

Nice easy numbers, which will be the basis for a whole new method of treasure accounting, encumbrance, and (drum roll, please) experience point acquisition and advancement.

All of which will be laid out in Part 2 (since this post is getting long).

15 Minutes to Blog

It is 5:46pm my time. In (roughly) fifteen minutes, hell will more or less break lose in my home as one-half the help leaves and I am left managing my small children with one less person and no mother coming home tonight. "Cry me a river," says the single parents living in the USA that can't afford the kind of childcare that small money buys in Paraguay. I know that. I'm not saying I'm suffering terribly...just that what is a "non-usual" situation for me and my family creates (some) discomfort. And that my writing time is limited.

(11 minutes to go)

Probably people think I've been futzing around the last so-many odd hours since my last post. Or doing taxes. Or have run out of inspiration after so many thousands of words pumped out in recent days. Nope...that's not it. Well, maybe the "futzing around" part...but that's what I might (deprecatingly) call my "research." I've just been slogging through the internet you know. Today spent several hours intensely researching the conquest ("colonization" if you want to use the Wikipedia term) of South America. The Pizarro's were assholes (as were the Portuguese), and they took up entirely too much of my time...I really don't care much about what's west of Argentina or north of the Brazil's southern border.

Mostly I've been spending time catching up on Paraguayan history (which I haven't done for a few months since first coming down here). It's depressing as shit.

(7 minutes)

Other than real world history, I've been reading blogs, blogs, blogs. A lot of Tao. A lot of Hill Cantons. A few others. Old Dragon magazine articles by Ed Greenwood (as suggested by HC), and MAR Barker essays (and commentary on same in other blogs). Because I'm doing fucking-A world building.

Which I hate and which is daunting and which I'd like to do right for a change.

Because the FHB I was working on waaaay back in the September-November months (you can check previous blog posts labeled under Moon) is getting an overhaul. Because (and I'll explain this in a future post) I doubt it could be taken quite as seriously as I had originally intended.

Plus I want to do something that makes use of my time down here. The stupid environment in which I live. This fucking country with its heat and ants and bullshit "social values."

And treasure finding. This isn't a land of heroes. My FHB was going to be a fairytale, "heroic" fantasy adventure game. Nah. People want to dig coin out of ancient temples in jungles. Let's go with that.

(two minutes over)

More later. People are (nicely) sticking around as a I type this up. There will be posts in the near future on the following:

The Magnificent Seven
The Big Six
Skill Trees
Counting Coins

And maybe some stuff about world building in South America. Maybe not till next week...but then again, maybe tonight (I've been having serious bouts of insomnia lately).

More later.

(four minutes over)

"It Doesn't Rain, But It Pours"

This is my "street."

Despite the saying, I hadn't literally found this to be the case until we moved to Ascuncion. Holy cats! It's rainy season right now, and the street in front of my house is a stream that goes up to mid-shin in places (after stepping out o the car I got doused in water up to the knees; had to change my pants)...and we're fairly elevated! The main boulevard (a block over) is an f'ing river. You'd think I wouldn't have bothered taking D to school today, but funny enough I've gotten...well, not "used to" the weather, but I'm a bit more adaptable to the garbage roads and road conditions. Or maybe I'm just not as timid as I once was.

[it probably helps that I drive an SUV here, and that it's not my car...definitely wouldn't try my Jetta back home in these conditions!]

ANYway, it is storming away outside, but I wanted to throw out a quick blog post, before I get back to writing. Yes, I've been writing lately...writing up a storm, if you'll pardon the expression. I want to get through as much of this book as I can before my current "mental deluge" dries up, so posting will probably be light the next week or two.

Or four, more likely...we're heading home (Seattle) for the holidays next week (traveling on my birthday, actually) and will be there through Thanksgiving: the greatest holiday ever invented by Americans. For my non-American readers (I know I have a few), allow me just to wax on for a moment. Combine family and a celebration of appreciation and cooperation (at least, that's what we're taught in grade school) with football, an all-day feast, and three-to-six pies of different flavors. The best part? The next day's a holiday, too. Drink as much as you like and nurse your hangover with turkey sandwich leftovers while catching up on those videos you've been meaning to watch.

[Black Friday shopping is a sucker's game, just by the way...I opt out whenever possible]

So, yeah...back in Sea-Town we'll have lots to do (seeing folks, going to the 'Hawks vs. Cardinals, buying peanut butter and tortillas to stuff our suitcases...), so probably not much time to write OR blog. We'll be back in Asuncion before December, but then heading for Mexico at the end o the year (to visit the other side of the family).

Hey! Is anyone interested in what I'm writing? Since no one in Paraguay is (no, my family doesn't care either). Welp, work progresses on the fantasy heartbreaker...and man-o-man, I am really digging on it. I've been using Holmes Basic as a model, but I don't thing I'm going to get it come in at his 48 pages. Unless I'm able to skim some page count from the monster section, which is possible (still debating how I want to organize that, actually...same problem I have with the revised version of Cry Dark Future). Maybe 60 (including art), but we'll see. We'll see.

[really need to get back to it]

But this is one that I am hopeful will be ready for play-testing by the holidays, and I may just start emailing interested folks "beta" versions before the New Year. If you belong to a gaming group living in...oh, say, Oakland or Jacksonville or New York and you're looking for something to do during Sundays in December, you might want to keep me in mind. I'll be asking for volunteers (on the blog) sometime in the next few weeks.

Well...if all goes well, that is.
: )

Not my car.

Might and Magic (Redux)

Because many folks don't appreciate the football (or, at least, don't share my obsession with the NFL), I feel it best I follow up today's earlier post with a gaming-related post.

['course, if you DO enjoy the football stuff, you might find my reflections mildly amusing...or at least something worth arguing about]

So remember last week when I was talking about "color-coded magic" and "wizard schools" and whatnot (you can read the post here, if you missed it)? Okay, well, yeah, I worked out the spell lists and such over the weekend. That is to say: new magic system complete.

I was still able to keep elements from my prior system (like cross-polinization of magic and building on prior knowledge). I was able to break the magic up into separate "themes" (and, yes, the themes include some color-coding). The spells are still limited in number to a "Fantastic Forty" plus a "Forbidden Four." 

Actually, it's a Fantastic Fifty and Forbidden Five...but one book is for NPC's only. After all, in this particular heartbreaker, PCs are supposed to be Heroes. You can't have heroes using the same terrible magic as the bad guys! Those guys are EVIL...you're supposed to be striving against the Forces of Darkness, not adopting their weapons.

[on the other hand, I'm thinking of installing some sort of "corruption mechanic" a la D6 Star Wars or The Mutant Chronicles. Is that too much for a "basic" game? Maybe]

ANYway, yeah. Just so you know. Once I finish the write-ups, I'll see how much of the magic is compatible with the existing B/X system (understanding that it would need to replace the current "Vancian" system) and if it makes sense, I'll post some spells here.  But we'll see. Let me finish the actual writing/text first.

The First Book of Magic...Collect All Five!

Later, gators.
: )

Considering Witches

Didn't have much time yesterday (don't have much time today, either). I'm still considering what would be the "set spell lists" or even the choice of "schools" should I go that route (as discussed a couple days ago). In other words, haven't made any progress on dismantling the magic system already written for the new fantasy heartbreaker.

Maybe it's because (subconsciously?) I think it's a bad idea? Maybe.

But flavor...I like flavor. Flavor is important. It makes a game tasty. Without flavor, you might have a robust game system, chock-full of nutritious, caloric-value (just to carry an analogy too far), but I want more than that. I'm not trying to create Hero System: Fantasy or GURPS: Wizards or something. Too bland for my taste. The idea of different schools of magic is flavorful.

Anyhoo...part of the reason I didn't do any work/writing yesterday is that I was again perusing old Dragon magazines. In this case, I was reading every article I could find on witches and witchcraft (for those who're curious that includes issues #5, #20, #43, and #114). I didn't have access to these issues back when I wrote up a "B/X Witch" for The Complete B/X Adventurer...but even if I had, I'm not sure I would've used much of the stuff here.  Certainly not the gemstone level titles (a little too Amway-esque)...not sure where that idea came from. Maybe some of the more interesting NPC spells from issue #5; some of those are pretty cool.

[strange there's no author attached to that article. Wonder if anyone ever figured out the writer]

The point is, maybe because it's so close to Halloween, I've got witches on the mind. I dig the concept of witch mythology (the fantasy witch if you will) - both good and bad - and wouldn't mind seeing something witch-like in the new heartbreaker. The problem is, how to do it without being offensive to folks. 

I remember Long's book with much fondness.

Modern witches, for those who don't know, are very different from the critters you find in classic fantasy literature... whether you're talking The Wizard of Oz or Narnia or those old school Halloween masterpieces. They're very different from the witches portrayed on television and 21st century film, too...but that's not the kind of witch I'm interested in (the witches of Charmed or whatnot are meant for a  different RPG than D&D and its ilk). Nor am I talking about the Satanic, Black Mass coven-types of B-horror films, either.

For me, "old school" witches are more fun than frightening...even if the bad ones do (on occasion) eat children. From Baba Yaga and The Old Sea Hag to the beautiful Circe or Morgan Le Fey...the solitary witch is what I'm talking about. That chick in the first Conan movie or Glenda of Oz. In many ways, they are the female equivalent of the solitary sorcerer: someone who has removed herself from society (generally, by her own choosing) in order to practice her craft. Perhaps out of the (real medieval) fear of being burned at the stake by one's neighbors.

When these Halloween-y witches get together at all, it's only once a year or every seven years or every century (depending on the story) to celebrate in a big brouhaha (bruja-ha?), otherwise staying out of each other's way unless engaged in some petty rivalry or magical dispute. Apart from these occasional gatherings of celebrated solidarity, these "fantasy witches" are private individuals, opting out of any sort of politics, mundane or magical. Any "Queen of Witches" title is more honorary (or a straight recognition of power) than an actual office to which other witches owe "fealty." I daresay the term might be one designed to poke fun at Earthly feudal titles...the witches are, after all, opting out of standard patriarchal society.

Ah, vinyl. In rotation every Halloween.

Does that all make sense? I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm talking about a tradition of folklore and fiction. I'm not trying to "perpetuate stereotypes" of witches, I'm talking about enjoying some of those stereotypes in a fun fashion...and a little Grimm-dark fantasy to a fantasy adventure game.

Still, maybe that doesn't fly with some folks. Certainly, I've put my "pulp B/X adventure" game on-hold indefinitely because, no matter how one slices it, any game that includes "savages" (or even "natives") is going to tick someone off. It's borrowing from fiction that was created at a time when Colonialism and white privilege was "okay" (and being packaged and sold to folks of a white privilege persuasion). The pagan persecutions and witch-burnings of earlier centuries was also deemed "okay" at the time, and that is where the majority of our folklore on the subject (with its "wicked witches") comes from. If I do a "for fun" version of witches that buys into that folklore, I may be perpetuating harmful perspectives that some people will apply to real world witches and pagans (both present day and historical).

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I don't want to offend folks. I don't want to contribute to ignorance. And I don't want to include "disclaimers" in my writing...it wouldn't be a big enough section of the game to warrant such singular treatment (in my opinion), anyway.

Am I making too much out of this? People don't worry how elves or wizards are portrayed in RPGs because we consider these to be fictional creations...magic is considered fictional in general and real life hermetic magicians are considered delusional by most of the population (similarly, no one worries about offending people of the "Jedi Religion"). I don't think dwarves are offensive to little people, as they are based on a fairy race of Norse mythology. But witches...well, a lot of people really  did get tortured and murdered back in the day for their non-Christian beliefs. Real people. And there are plenty of real people today that consider themselves witches, though they don't sport pointy hats and green skin. Making light of the history is a bit like making a game where your intrepid explorers (*ahem*) shoot "savages" (pick a continent). And running with folklore that demonized a particular group of individuals is kind of "making light," no?

Maybe I'M just overly sensitive. But, well, that's what I'm thinking about today. More later, I'm sure.

It's not easy being green.

Might and Magic (Part 2)

[continued from here]

People may notice that the list of blogs listed in the sidebar include a random sampling of non-active blogs that probably need to be deleted...and perhaps someday they will, if I ever get around to getting active on Patreon (and want to make blog listing a "reward" for some level of support). However, I still hold out hope that these might "fire up" again, at some point in the future. And sometimes, I still reference them for their old posts.

Such is the case with long dead Grognardia. As I wrote in Part 1, I was up till the wee hours combing through old (digital) copies of The Dragon, and I was using some of James's old posts to add a bit of additional perspective. Just in random passing, I came across this old post of his and (especially in view of my recent thoughts, dissatisfaction with magic-users as is/was) it reminded me of something. I hate the lumping of spell-casters into one or (at most) two types "magic paradigm."

See my post on this back in 2010. At the time, I was working on The Complete B/X Adventurer (man, THAT has been selling like hotcakes the last two months, just by the way) and in an effort to add more content to a skinny book, decided to throw in some different types of spell-casting classes. I ended up with five total (gnomes, mystics, summoners, tattoo mages, and witches), each with their own variant form of magic...not just "magic-users with different spell lists," but completely different approaches to the form and function of magic. The bee in my bonnet (at the time) was this idea that isn't it Goddamn boring to have everything simply be arcane or divine?

Let me answer that: Yes. Yes it is.

This is the reason you don't find illusionists in D&D after 1st edition (at least, not as a core class). First, ya' fold all their spells under a heading called "arcane," then you say:

"Hey, if you want to specialize in illusion magic, pick illusion spells."

Much as I want a certain cosmology in my game world, I don't want a unified field theory of magic.

[hmm...I say this after already creating a brand-new variant magic system for the current project consisting of a single list of spells: the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Sigh...back to the drawing board...again]

I like the idea of different magical schools, each dedicated to a different brand of enchantment. Fire mages, necromancers, druids, etc. It's not a terribly original concept, I realize: I believe I first saw this kind of paradigm circa 1983 with DragonQuest (I created a stone giant who was a member of the Earth Magic college...sadly, we never had the chance to do more than chargen that day...). Ars Magica does a little of this, too, and I've used the concept a couple times in past FHBs I was developing ("LORE," which I briefly mentioned before, had some of this). The original WHFRP had demonologists, necromancers, battle mages, etc. each with their own separate spell list, skills, and (in some cases) horrifying drawbacks.

I dig this...it has a very old school (please, PLEASE forgive the use of that term!) pulp fantasy vibe. Like the rival wizard guilds in a Leiber story trying to show off why their magic is supreme (shades of 70's Hong Kong flicks with feuding martial art schools). Heck, it's the kind of thing that could work well with the concept of "wizard duels." Forget counter-spells: an illusionist doesn't know the first thing about countering a fire mage's spell. But create a mechanic to simulate dueling, and you can still have two mages of different backgrounds duking it out.

Now that I think of it, this is a big part of why I dug Magic Cards, waaaay back: the idea that you were a Red Mage or a Blue Mage or whatever, and the deck represented your spell book. I always liked working with a "theme;" but then, I've long been one of those people that prefer the fluff of a game over practical application (often to my detriment). Hmm...now that reminds me of the Rankin-Bass film Flight of Dragons with its different colored "wizard brothers."

Of course, that just reminds me of Tolkien (again) with its grey, white, brown, and blue wizards...and weren't Frank Baum's witches color-coded as well? Differing magic by color has a long and distinguished tradition, I suppose...

*ahem*

And to tie this back to the last post... One thing I was considering (just an idea, mind you), is providing more static spell lists for magicians. Limiting them (I suppose you'd say) rather than throwing this huge list of spells at players, only to have them (mostly) choose the same spells over and over. There would be some variation, of course (just as fighters get to choose what weapons they want to carry), and perhaps different lists depending on theme (a druid style list versus the illusionist, for example). Magicians would still acquire effectiveness with experience, though perhaps not so much a greater repertoire of spells. And the spells that would be gained (with increase in level) would be equally limited...something akin to Barker's EPT (1st edition) skill trees, building on knowledge already known.

No necromancers, though...otherwise everyone wants to be one.

The trade-off here...or, rather, what would be gained...would be an increased effectiveness from the get-go. Your magician (or pyromancer or whatever), would have a number of spells at his or her disposal right from 1st level...perhaps the equivalent (in D&D terms) of seven or eight spells ranging in magnitude of 1st through 3rd level. Something fairly equivalent to Gandalf, in other words. None of these would be over-powering, "game changing" sort (unless applied in creative fashion)...most would be of the "utility" type (said utility being determined by the school or "theme" of magic).

Anyway, just an idea I have...I'll see if I can work up some sample lists in the next couple days and post 'em to the blog. I have a strong suspicion that long-time players of the MU class in D&D might hate-hate-hate this concept for a number of reasons: it undermines the work they've put into mastering spell lists, it reduces the choices/options they have, it penalizes the creative strategies they've developed over years of play, it doesn't have the same feel as Vancian D&D, etc. And if folks DO raise these objections, I say: FINE. Go play D&D.

Take your 1st level sleep bomber or charm personer with your bandolier of throwing knives and go play D&D. Pick your edition...it's all the same (except that recent ones let you shoot lasers...um, "cantrips"...just like Harry Potter). Go skulk behind the fighters and clerics for umpteen game sessions until you've acquired enough points that you can be effective. Go do it...I'm not going to stop you! And when you've reached the lofty level where you outclass the non-spell-casters and there's the potential threat of grumbling, you can always incorporate feats and maneuvers and weapon specialization and be a merry band spending an entire game session on a single battle that will be a challenge for your immensely talented party.

That's one way to play (and a time honored one, to be sure). I'm just trying to work on a different way: one that appeals to me. I'm a guy who doesn't play magic-users...like never ever ever. And not because I don't like magic or something. I love stories of wizards and sorcerers and magicians and witches (well, most such stories...sorry, Ms. Rowling). Gandalf is a personal favorite...in fact, I lied! I did...once...play a wizard in 3rd Edition, and I modeled the character on Gandalf, right down to taking Martial Weapon Proficiency: Sword.

[I believe I related this story in the past? We couldn't get past the first obstacle in the adventure because I, as the party wizard, had not taken the "correct" spells. 'What do you mean you don't have fly? You're seventh level!' The DM, folded the adventure in disgust and our session ended. It was the last time I've ever played a straight wizard PC]

I don't like magic-users in D&D. I don't like the way they're conceptualized, I don't like their mechanics, I don't particularly like their steep power curve (and I'm a person that likes power!). So, I want to make a magician class that I'd like to play. That's all this is, folks.
: )

Heroic Smack Talk

Back in August, the Prismatic DM posted a neat idea about modeling the dramatic "throw down" in your B/X or LL game. It reminded me of my old blog post on vows, but with a more immediate, impactful effect on game play. Which is (in my mind) better...because it's something that can be practically implemented by player choice, rather than waiting for the DM to "set something up."

Anyway, cool as it was I wasn't 100% down with the mechanics of the maneuver, and I hadn't given it much additional thought until I was posting yesterday's entry on Eowyn. I said I wanted to model the same type of Eowyn-Nazgul interaction in the new heartbreaker, and I've already got a couple systems that will work (in aid of) that goal, but I really don't have anything for the "throw down" or heroic smack talk (as I like to call it) in place.

Not that what Eowyn does is really a challenge. In B/X terms, it's more of a standard negotiation (reaction check) kind of maneuver. "Hey, leave my dead uncle alone, huh? I don't want to fight over this." But the character blows the reaction roll and the fight's on. Not that Eowyn has a low Charisma, but there's probably a penalty involved here given the overall circumstances.

Usually, smack talk is made to ENCOURAGE a fight. Unlike the B/X reaction check, where combat only results due to a low roll, there are times in heroic fiction when a person is actively trying to entice an individual to battle. That's the kind of "smack talk" I'm talking about. And while it may not apply to Eowyn's case, as she was trying to discourage a fight, there are times when one might want to go the other way.

SO...I offer two slightly different game mechanics for your perusal. Both should be compatible with B/X. I call them The Goad and The Challenge.

The goad is what you use to encourage a fight with a lesser opponent. This is the classic dun moch maneuver of Star Wars (when Dooku or Vader taunts some lesser Jedi into a fight). This is Rage getting Armor all riled up so that he loses his cool in combat. The goad issues a challenge to the weaker opponent (a character of lesser HD/level), calling into question the character's courage and saying, "Here, come get me. Heck, I'll make it easy for you."

To goad an opponent, the person goading (called "the antagonist") rolls 2D6 using their Charisma reaction modifier. The result of the goad (which must be done prior to initiating combat) is determined by consulting the following table:

• 2 or less: the target is immune to the goad (or future goads); if the target of the goad chooses to fight anyway, she receives a +1 bonus to attack rolls against her antagonist, who receives no benefits.
• 3 to 5: the target is immune to the goad and future goads from this antagonist.
• 6 to 8: the goad has no effect; the target may choose whether or not to fight; if the target chooses to fight, treat this result as a 9 to 11 instead.
• 9 to 11: the goaded target must fight, receiving a +1 bonus to attack rolls (the antagonist leaves himself open, inviting the attack). However, anytime the goaded target misses an attack, the antagonist immediately receives a bonus attack against the target. The effects of the goad continue until the goaded target receives an attack that inflicts maximum damage.
• 12 or more: as the 9 to 11 result except that the target is goaded into attacking recklessly, suffering a -2 penalty to all attack rolls instead of receiving a +1 bonus.

How's that? Individuals more than four HD/level lower than the antagonist should be immune to a goad attack (assuming they have an accurate gauge of the antagonist), as should ALL 1st level characters. You don't want the neighborhood ogre calling out newly minted adventurers!

Different tactic from Eowyn.

Now a challenge is similar to a goad, but here the the challenger is calling out someone of equal or greater HD/level. The challenger rolls a 2D6, again modified by any Charisma reaction modifier (how lordly/intimidating is the challenge?). The result of the challenge depends on the result of the die roll:

• 2 or less: the target is immune to the challenge (or future challenges from this source); if he chooses to fight he receives a +1 attack bonus against the challenger (the challenger receiving no benefits).
• 3 to 5: the target is immune to the challenge and future challenges from this person
• 6 to 8: the challenge has no effect; if the target chooses to fight treat this result as a 9 to 11 instead.
• 9 to 11: the target accepts the challenge (i.e. the target must fight); the challenger receives a +2 attack bonus and a bonus die of hit points (rolled immediately) for the duration of the fight.
• 12 or more: as a 9 to 11 result except that the target of the challenge fights at a -2 penalty to all attacks, as he seeks to prove his greater skill "playing" with the challenger.

Issuing a challenge can really give the edge to someone of equal level, and so DMs may wish to limit the bonus effects only to targets that are of actual greater HD/level than the challenger, though a successful challenge (9+) should still entice the target to fight...a result of 12 or greater, should force the target to make a morale check or surrender to the challenger. Again, this is only for challenged targets of HD/level equal to the challenger.

It should probably go without saying that only sentient creatures (and only those with the ability to mutually communicate) can issue or accept goads and challenges.

I suppose that some negotiations, like the one between our friends Eowyn and the Witch-King, have an implicit challenge within them...a do this, or else kind of negotiation. With this type of system, you really can't mix and match...a challenge is something designed to provoke someone to battle...which is not at all what Eowyn was trying to do. She was attempting to back off the Nazgul: a "Get thee hence, demon!" kind of thing. In many ways, this is the equivalent of a turning attempt...and perhaps it should be modeled as such and not limited to clerics/undead (think Gandalf vs. the balrog: "You shall not pass!").

Hmmm...that may be fodder for another blog post.
; )

Okay, that's enough for now; I've got a baby to attend to and coffee to brew (not necessarily in that order). I will say that I want to return to the concept of "vows" sometime this week. But, yeah...got to go now (hold on, bebecita!)...

Eowyn

Long before I ever started this blog, probably shortly before (or, more likely, shortly after) I discovered The Forge and became really interested in the nuts and bolts of game design, I tried my hand at creating a system for a new fantasy RPG...one very different from B/X or D&D.

In fact, I'm going to say it was before I discovered "indie game design" because that was about 2005, and this was an idea I came up with when traveling in Canada with my wife back in the early 2000s...maybe even before we got married (which was in 2000). Whew...a loooong time ago.

This game idea was called "LORE" (which was an acronym for something, though I can't remember exactly what), and I can't seem to find the docs that had my notes...they're probably on some old zip drive back in Seattle. Anyway, back in those days, my main objective was to make sure that character creation could model various (fantasy) literary personalities (Conan, Elric, etc.) from the get-go without needing to wade through a bunch of "low levels" to become a proficient character. And the main literary person I used to model the LORE system was Tolkien's character, Eowyn.

This pic is too small.

Eowyn is one of my favorite characters from literature...at least as far as bit parts go. I dig most everything about her; I identify with many things about her. I think many people do: for most of us there have been times that we've been underestimated in our lives or frustrated at the pull between doing one's duty and doing what we want to do. Those who are younger siblings may have felt the pang of being told we need to "stay home" while the older sibling goes off to do something we want to do...and older siblings (like myself) have felt the guilt of not being "responsible enough" (even when our rebellion is only within our own minds). There are some archetypal emotions at work here.

But, mainly I like Eowyn because she kicks ass. This is the equivalent of an unblooded, 1st level fighter...and yet she's not afraid to talk smack to the Lord of the Nazgul. And then she backs it up by killing off his evil dinosaur mount, going toe-to-toe with the guy, and sticking her sword betwixt his eyes. Eowyn is pretty badass...at least in Tolkien's book.

There's no crying in battle!

I am on record as saying I received immense enjoyment from the Peter Jackson LotR films, and that I feel they do an excellent job of staying true to their source material (if you own/watch the Extended Version DVDs...which I do). But while I really, really, REALLY like Miranda Otto in the role of Eowyn, and find her interpretation of the character quite good (along with Jackson's writing, she really helps fill out and bring life to a literary character), I pretty much HATE the direction/depiction of her climactic scene on the Pelennor Fields. What is this: cowering? Is she going to cry or something? And the cheap way she delivers the line, "I am no man" after the Witch-King is already on his knees? What the hell is that? Kicking an enemy when he's down?

The scene in the book shows a stronger, confident character. First off, she calls out the bad guy right from the beginning...she gives him a chance to back off, and lays all the cards on the table, long before the first clash of battle...even before drawing her sword. But here...I'll quote the text, and you tell me what sounds better:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!" 

A cold voice answered: "Come not between the Nazgul nd his prey. Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where they flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye." 

A sword rang as it was drawn. "Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."

"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" 

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."

[see what I'm talking about? this isn't some chica who's in over her head, backed into a corner and just trying to make a stand. She's just as proud and lordly as Aragorn or Theoden or Boromir or any of them. Except, of course, she actually kills something bigger than an orc. She can talk the talk AND walk the walk]

The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood she whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes...

...Suddenly the great beast beat its hideous wings, and the wind of them was foul. Again it leaped into the air, and then swiftly fell down upon Eowyn, shrieking, striking with beak and claw.

Still she did not blench: maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings, slender but as a steel-blade, fair but terrible. A swift stroke she dealt, skilled and deadly. The outstretched neck she clove asunder, and the hewn head fell like a stone. Backward she sprang as the huge shape crashed to ruin, vast wings outspread, crumpled on the earth; and with its fall the shadow passed away. A light fell about her, and her hair shone in the sunrise. 

Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.

[a few things to notice, here. One is the constant attention Tolkien pays to the Witch-King's eyes, for (aside from the crown floating above his head), nothing other part of the creature's head is visible. This is starkly different from the "empty helmet" (and hollow eyes) of Jackson. Then there's the potency of the Nazgul. In Tolkien's prose there's only two hits: "Me hitting you, you hitting the floor." Jackson's Nazgul swings his ridiculously over-sized flail no less than seven times before finally connecting with Eowyn's shield. It looks silly on screen (again, I say this as a fan of the film trilogy), making a battle between two champions look like...I don't know...a cheesy Kevin Costner-style fight scene. It makes me wince to watch the thing]

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee. 

"Eowyn! Eowyn!" cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground, torn and tumbled; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world.

See, there's no clever repartee from Eowyn once the fight starts...just business. She's "all in" before the Nazgul even decides she's worth his attention (I cut out the bits where he ignores the hobbit for a worm writhing in the mud). It's a classic scene of fantasy literature, that makes me dig the character much more than the weak-sauce portrayal in Jackson's film. This is why I still love those Rankin-Bass  films...in addition to their beautiful animation, they adhere as closely to the text as they can while still being edited for time constraints.

Check out the video here. The dialogue and sequence is near word-for-word perfect.

Anyhoo, LORE of course was never completed, nor even developed to a point suitable for play-testing. But the idea of building a game capable of creating an "Eowyn-like" character is still something in which I'm interested. It's something I'm paying attention to as I work on the new heartbreaker (though, as magic is more prominent, it's unlikely I'll really get there. Hey, it's not supposed to be a LotR role-playing game!).

Just a couple more notes (I know this post is getting long):

Interesting that in Chainmail the Wraith figure can only be slain by another "fantasy character," like the Hero or Super Hero. I suppose Eowyn fits the bill as a "Hero" (she's certainly not the Super Heroic "Conan archetype"), which means she can slay a Nazgul on a 2D6 roll of 12. A pretty legendary task to be sure.

Second, in B/X both wraiths and (the more Nazgul appropriate) spectres are immune to normal weapons, so Eowyn wouldn't have been able to harm them anyway (though, of course, in B/X such creatures don't wield physical weapons, as they certainly do throughout Tolkien's books. Yes, I know, I know...there's a big difference between literature and RPGs. But I'm talking modeling, here, and many features of D&D were modeled after Tolkien's work). Eowyn isn't really an adventurer either (though perhaps she'd like to be one) and might be better modeled by Moldvay's NPC monster, the Noble:

"Noble" is a general term for the lord of a castle and any of his or her relatives.

The noble is is a three hit dice monster with AC 2 (presumably plate & shield) and damage of 1D8 (or per weapon). This would certainly be a good model for Theoden in B/X and probably both Eomer and Eowyn. But I'm just saying...

"Come get some, dwimmerlaik!"

The Basic Weapon List

All right! So now I come to the end of my series (yesterday's post was really the last "concept" post) detailing my thoughts on the weapons that should be included in a basic fantasy adventure game like the one I'm currently working on. That was the real point of these posts (in case it wasn't clear)...this blog is serving as my "design notes," so that interested persons can see my thought process (and so that I don't have to include a bunch of sidebars in the game as to "why the designer is doing this"...don't you hate needless padding?).

However, before I post my final list, I wanted to post a few addendum thoughts regarding missile weapons: in an indoor or subterranean environment (like a "dungeon") there's really not much call for long range weapons. Not only are you working with fairly short distances before your arrow hits a wall, not only are you losing the ability to "arc" missiles (due to a capped ceiling), not only are the quarters cramped in general with monsters who (in the main) are trying to get into melee...not only that, but in the darkness you're probably going to be out-shooting your light sources.

So for my game, I don't need a lot of shooting weapons. Certainly not the seven found on the battlefields of Chainmail (short bow, horse bow, longbow, composite bow, light crossbow, heavy crossbow, arquebus). Heck, I don't even need all four to six of the ones in older "basic" editions of D&D. Give me bow, crossbow, and rock (thrown or "slung") and I'm good. And no, I'm not going to worry too much about ranges.

Having got that out of the way, here's the weapon list for my basic heartbreaker:

Ye Old Armory

Axes
- Battle Axe*
- Hand Axe (t)
Blades
- Dagger (t)
- One-Handed Sword
- Long Sword*
Missiles
- Bow
- Crossbow
- Sling
Others
- Club*
- Mace/Hammer
- Spear*(t)
- Two-Handed Weapon

* indicates weapon may be used with 1 or 2 hands
(t) indicates weapon may be thrown 

Weapon Notes

• Unless stated otherwise, all weapons have a maximum damage of 6
• Two-Handed Weapons have a maximum damage of 8
• All axes add +1 to maximum damage
• All swords add +1 to attack rolls
• Crossbows, Maces, Hammers, and Two-Handed Weapons add +2 to attack rolls versus heavy armor (though the latter loses this bonus in tight quarters).
• Daggers, Clubs, and Slings subtract 2 from attack rolls AND maximum possible damage
• Crossbows require a full (10 second) round of combat to reload

Okay,  that should just about do it. The "two-handed weapon" entry includes all pole arms, zwiehanders, giant mauls, etc. The exact type of two-handed weapon doesn't matter as they are all...from the standpoint of game mechanics...effectively the same weapon.

Any questions? Comments? Additional thing I need to consider? Or should I just start working on my post about "wandering monsters?"
: )

Getting Folks Down

[AKA "Considering the Role of Unarmed Attacks in Abstract Combat"]

I'm a combat-phile. I'm a pacifist in real life and spend mucho time explaining to my child why violence is a terrible, terrible thing. I'm anti-war, anti-gun...hell, I'm pretty much anti-professional fighting (including boxing).

[yes, I realize there is a degree of violence in American football and that this is part of its appeal as a sport...we all draw the line at the hypocrisies we're willing to live with]

And yet the study of violence, weapons, and combat...both historical and present day...is a personal, unreasonable, serious interest of mine. Actually, "interest" might not be a strong enough term, though "passion" is probably too strong. I've previously speculated that in a past life I was probably some sort of bookie or super-fan of gladiatorial death sports, and this contributes to my semi-obsession. If I was an actual warrior (or someone who died by violence) I would likely not be so attracted to combat this life around.

But, ya' know what? Past life speculation is mostly mental masturbation, if perhaps slightly more practical (from a developmental standpoint) than researching poleaxes. I accept the dichotomy of my weirdness. And besides, this is a gaming blog with an emphasis on D&D, right? My readers will forgive my masturbatory research on bloodletting a lot faster than my digressions on goofy woo-woo New Age stuff.

Such is the blog-o-sphere in which we reside.

So...I'm a combat-phile: a real Martian (i.e. of the Mars persuasion), at least when it comes to favorite subjects of study. And so it is that I dig on trying to model cool combat stuff in my gaming, even as I try to make gaming about something other than combat.

[maybe I should be playing 4th Edition...Jeez!]

And when I find another combat-phile (professed or not) floating around the blog-o-sphere, I can purloin "food for thought" for days. Such is the case with Mr. Taylor's Spells & Steel blog. The particular blog posts I'm waxing on today can be found here and here. The quick summary:

• Even in armed combat, the empty hand and grappling (locks, throws, and strikes) was immensely important to medieval combat, and
• His design concepts for allowing unarmed maneuvers to occur on "critical" attack rolls (and how he chooses to model these types of attack)

Now for me, I am not interested in modeling actual, specific, blow-by-blow combat...my opinion has been (and continues to be) that abstract combat system plus active imagination provides the potential for far more realism than turn-by-turn, tactical detail...and at the same time has the greater potential for cinematic, flamboyant combat, too.

[sorry, Brian Gleichman...this is not the least of things on which we disagree]

An attack roll tells you whether or not you were successful at inflicting damage on your opponent (and using my revised combat system, it also tells you how successful you were if you did, in fact, succeed). The detail of what happens in a given round is a matter of the narration provided by the DM (and/or player) based on the amount of damage inflicted. It is presumed that a proficient fighter using an arming sword (or whatever) is elbowing and punching and rapping the guy with the pommel in addition to "cutting-and-thrusting." If the damage inflicted is less than mortal, the narration can (and maybe should) include some sort of unarmed, non-blade/bloodletting action.

Having said that, there's something about the concept of downing your opponent that begs to be modeled.

Historically, armored knights were juggernauts on the battlefield...man-sized tanks in an age that was conspicuously lacking in efficient anti-tank weapons. The best, surest way to kill an armored man was to get him on him back and drive a long, sharp weapon through a visor slit or a chink in the guy's carapace. Even Chainmail (ahh...again with the much-beloved Chainmail) models this in their man-to-man combat mechanics. The 2D6 roll needed to kill a man in plate armor is:

Dagger: 12

Sword: 10

Spear: 11

Pole Arm: 9

However, in all of these weapons, the target number drops to 7 if the opponent is "dismounted and prone." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell there are no rules in Chainmail for getting a man prone.

Footing, or lack thereof, can be a decisive factor in hand-to-hand combat. Bad footing (specifically, being bogged down in a muddy battlefield) is what allowed Henry V to achieve such an incredibly lopsided victory against the French in the Battle of Agincourt. 

And, so it is that I've been spending a little time working on the subject of how to get folks down...as in down on the ground.

The number of weapons in my new heartbreaker are fairly limited...moreso even than the weapon list of B/X (which is quite a bit more limited than later editions of D&D). The reasons for this will (perhaps) be explained in a later post...but for the most part, weapons have a maximum damage rating of six, meaning that (without adjustment for high strength) the best damage one can achieve is six points, by rolling six over the defensive class ("AC") of an opponent. Just to reiterate, the "attack roll" is your die roll to see how effective you were at inflicting damage upon your opponent in the (10 second) melee round...a minimal success means only minimal damage was inflicted. In terms of locks  (for damage) and strikes (for damage), this is inclusively assumed within the (gauged success) of the attack roll. Breaking a dude's arm, or giving him deep bleeder might be the result of 4 or 5 damage (depending on the number of HPs the opponent has) while punching him in the gut or clubbing him with the hilt of you weapon might represent 1 or 2 damage. Okay?

But what about throws and takedowns? These bestow an effect on an opponent (what 5th Edition might call "conditions") along with the possible addition of damage (depending on how hard the opponent hits the dirt). I don't have "critical hits" like Mr. Taylor (though rolling high is a better success than just barely hitting one's target number), so I have to consider a different mechanic to impose my will on my opponent, and I think the best way to do so is by sacrificing damage inflicted.

SO...as an attacker, you can choose to lose four points from the damage of a successful attack in order to down your opponent. This means you cannot "down" an opponent unless your attack roll is at least moderately successful (four over the target needed to hit), and it limits the amount of damage inflicted to 0-2 (unless the person doing the throwing is exceptionally strong and skilled)...in which case you might break the poor fool's neck or dislocate one of his joints.

Now there is a caveat here...a trained fighter isn't likely to be flipped by a peasant, no matter how lucky the attack roll. To represent this, an opponent cannot be downed unless the attacker's attack bonus equals or exceeds the attack bonus of the opponent. Attack bonus (for PCs) is determined by class and level: +1 per level for fighters; +1 per two levels for all others. Using multiple attackers (ganging up on the tough guy) can boost your attack rating for this purpose, but you're still going to need a lot of peasants to take down a veteran warrior.

"That tickles!"

[takedowns should also be limited to humanoids of "usual anatomy" that do not exceed a certain size...I don't really see ogres being subject to judo throws]

This actually melds well with the combat system as it stands. I said most weapons have a max damage of six. Unarmed attacks actually have a max damage of two (and suffer a -4 penalty to their attack rolls...it's really tough to knock someone out with your fists when their wearing full battle kit). This means its easier to takedown someone when you're using a weapon...whether because you can hook their leg or their arm or achieve a lock or use the weapon's leverage or because you just don't have a disadvantage of wading in empty-handed. True, this means that a character lacking strength cannot achieve a takedown without a weapon to assist (because the maximum damage that can be inflicted doesn't equal four)...but if you really want your aikido master character, you can choose to specialize in unarmed combat, which increases you max damage with a weapon by +2. So there.

[having said that, I might need to add in some sort of exception for the cinematic "running tackle" maneuver...maybe allow a character's full damage bonus for such a maneuver, rather than half? This would allow characters with STR 14 to takedown an opponent with an unarmed attack, though the attacker would likewise end up prone. Heck, maybe just give a +2 attack/damage to such a suicidal tactic...something to thing about]

So what happens once you get your opponent down on the ground? Do we get a 2D6 auto-kill result like Chainmail? That hardly seems fair (or appropriate) for my heroic fantasy game. If I was using 5E's advantage/disadvantage mechanic in this game, I'd be tempted to bring that into play against a fallen target (that is, in fact, what 5E does for the "prone" condition)...but so far I've been able to hold off on using A/D in this game (I am using it all over the place in my rewrite of Cry Dark Future).

I think that what I want to do is give a substantial bonus to attacks against the downed opponent...something like +4 to the attack roll until the defender can get back on his feet. The prone dude needs to lose his action/attack if he's going to regain his footing...and you can't fight with a two-handed weapon from a prone position (you can, but you won't have the same leverage/damage inflicting ability). You probably can't use a shield either while prone (at least, not while making attacks from the ground). A +4 bonus is pretty substantial...it doesn't negate the wearing of heavy armor completely (that would be +6), but it renders it less effective than "light armor" (you lose the ability to increase distance between yourself and your opponent). It means you're going to have a better chance of inflicting serious damage on your downed foe...which is, after all, what I was aiming for here.

"Who's laughing now, buddy?"

Neat, huh?

: )

Counter-Spells (for real this time)

OKay, moving on...counter-spells are something I've been wanting to write on since Eric Treasure commented that it would be good (for magic-users) if one could combine the "no saving throw" thang with a workable counter-spell mechanic. "Workable" is the operative word. Remember me writing about cutting down on dice rolls during combat, especially reactive/defensive rolls (like parrying/dodging?). Well, that's the main principle here preventing me from using some sort of dice-roll counter-spell "save" type thing.

Chainmail had counter-spells: an opposing wizard can spend his entire action during the round to counter the spell of another wizard. A 2D6 roll is made with the target number determined by the difference in power levels between the two (targets range from 7 up to 11). Here we have something workable...the counter-spelling mage still only receives one die roll for his "go" in combat (as opposed to a dice roll to cast a spell). But then, D&D doesn't have casting rolls.

[as an aside, Five Ancient Kingdoms, largely inspired by Chainmail, uses a similar mechanic for counter-spells]

As far as I'm aware, the first published attempt at counter-spells in D&D is found in 3rd edition (though admittedly it's been a loooong time since I've owned a 2nd edition book or played that version...and I didn't play it more than a couple times). And it's pretty cumbersome: the wizard has to actually know and have memorized the spell which she wants to counter. Then, if the would-be counter-speller makes a successful skill roll (*barf*) to identify the enemy wizard's spell, she can counter it by burning her memorized version of the same spell.

The way counter-spelling works in 3E, it just doesn't look very useful. I actually played quite a bit of 3E and never once saw an attempted counter-spell. I mean, if you have flesh to stone and the enemy has flesh to stone, why not just try to stone them before they stone you? Because you lost initiative and your spellcraft skill roll is easier than your fortitude save? I guess...but this is just fiddly rules for the sake of fiddlyness builtin the already shaky foundation of an inconsistent approach to magic (in earlier editions magic-users always had good saving throws versus magic because it was a save versus magic; beginning with 3E, different spells started targeting different...well, you know I wrote a whole series on this, so I'm not going to go through that again).

I've no idea what 4E's approach to counter-spells is because, you know: garbage. But 5E actually has a very simple solution: a 3rd level spell called "counterspell." You cast counterspell as a "reaction action" to another wizard trying to cast a spell: if the spell is 3rd level or lower it's countered, if it's 4th or higher it might be countered depending on a die roll (though a mage can memorize counter spell at a higher spell slot in order to give it more auto-dispelling "punch"). This is very similar to the use of dispel magic as a counter-spell in 3rd edition, except for the auto-effect. It's kind of a Magic: The Gathering approach to counter-spelling ...throw down your two mana "instant" to knock out the opponent's spell.

I have this card in a shoebox somewhere.

[Note that dispel magic still exists in 5E (as a separate spell) but it is used to dispel existing magic, not magic being cast]

Here's the thing about counter-spells: how you implement them is going to say a lot about what magic is in your world and how it (magic) operates. It's going to (in part) define something of the cosmology of your world.

If you've got Vancian magic (D&D) and you need to cast the actual spell to achieve a counter (as in 3rd edition), you are reinforcing the idea of spells as living things, with only their identical siblings being able to successfully combat each other. If you say you just need to learn and memorize a candle-snuffer like 5E's counter-spell, you're saying that magic is a harnessing of forces easily disrupted and dispersed with the right application of "zing."

When you define magic in this way...i.e. when you start nailing down the cosmology...it behooves you as a designer to consider the implications. If magic is so easy to disrupt that it only needs a 3rd level counterspell, then many professional adventurers are going to want to study at least a few levels of wizard just to pick up that ability (or to be able to read a scroll with it or whatever).

My own game...*ahem*...that is to say, the game on which I'm currently working doesn't have "counter-spells." It also doesn't have spell design, either. It's a fairly finite world in that regard: the magic is what the magic is, and spells are limited to the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Mastery of said spell list is possible, with dedication and sacrifice, but it's a noteworthy feat. These spells cannot be countered...nor are there saving throws...but we're talking about reshaping the universe and breaking natural laws here, not things that can be brushed aside by humans. Even magically trained humans...if you unleash the beast, it's gonna' roam. Spell-breaking (of the remove curse stamp) is possible, but requires a broader base of knowledge than most other magics.

'Course, that's all subject to change: the game's not even to the play-testing stage.
; )

Because I do like the idea of counter-spells. Or rather (and more accurately) I like the idea of opposing magicians struggling against one another. The idea of the "wizard duel" which was so poorly implemented (IMO) in the Ars Magica game. The concept that when two wizards meet in battle, they can effectively neutralize each other...leaving the resolution of an encounter to the sword-wielders or (if one wizard can get the upper hand) decisively turning the tables for one side.

But that's something I've yet to work out. Heck, I hadn't even put much thought into it till writing this (too busy worrying about hats, I guess). It is something I'm considering now, though, and for the new heartbreaker, it will probably take the place of any "counter-spelling" mechanic.

Just as an aside: I was talking to my (three year old) son a couple days ago and I asked him, "If you were an adventurer living in olden times, would you rather be a caballero or a mago?" His response? Caballero ("knight"). Why? Because they have armor and swords and get to fight. What does a mago ("magician") do? They do magic and make potions. Can't they fight? Not like knights.

He really is a boy after my own heart.

Curly Horns and Counter-Spells

It will probably come as little surprise to readers that I fall into the camp of preferring "real world" armor and weapons in my RPG over the fantasy arms and armor depicted found in many of the commercial RPGs being published these days. I mean that's really "old school," right? And I'm (kind of) one of those "old school guys?" At least, when I'm not doing silly things like talking about how to chop saving throws.

For me, it's not about having a more "realistic" world, it's just a matter of aesthetic preference: I want armor (and weapons) in my game to look practical and functional, not like something out of Star Trek (do half-orcs still use "double-axes?" I don't see them in the 5E Basic PDF).

However, the same aesthetic does not apply when it comes to wizards. Wizards don't wear armor and don't (usually) use many, so there's no reason for anything they wear to be "practical" or "functional." For me, wizards should be as eccentric and flamboyant as possible. Well, maybe not "as possible," but definitely they need more than a single color robe and a pouch of spell components.

Even if magic in the game is limited or understated. Hell, especially if magic in the game is limited or understated. Wizards need to be able to rely on their reputation and their appearance even more than their magic...they don't want people challenging them or requiring tests of their magical might. Why? Because their magic IS limited. Whether it's a finite number of spell slots or spell points or fatigue levels or whatever, nearly all RPGs place some sort of limiting factor on the use of magic. If they didn't, I suppose they'd take over the (fantasy) world, right?

I dig on curly horned hats.

So a certain amount of intimidation (or outright flimflammery) should be cultivated by the wizard. An air of both mystery and panache. Magic might be understated, but the wizard himself (or herself) should never be! Unless you're trying to escape a good ol' fashion witch-burning or something.

[do you use the Spanish Inquisition in your D&D campaign?]

With this in mind, I am strongly considering including a new (and abbreviated) random hat table in the new heartbreaker. I wrote yesterday that it can be difficult to convey mood, but things like a selected list of backgrounds or appearance/description options can help, depending on their specificity. Whereas my previous hat table (the one you find in The Complete B/X Adventurer) is both large and (quite) whimsical, this one will be short and focused...after all, it's a very, very small part of a simple (basic) fantasy adventure game.

[a little update...the tables are all but completed since starting this post and they look pretty good!]

Hmmm...the section on counter-spells is getting pretty long. I'm going to throw that in a separate blog post. Sorry!

More Evil

I've blogged about evil before. But Alexis had a good post yesterday that gives an excellent description of the difference between what he calls "Disney evil" and "ordinary evil" (the latter being the type of evil you find with disappointing frequency in our own, real world), and the benefit of injecting a bit of the latter into your gaming. It's part of his ongoing series on introducing adventures and motivating players, and its well worth a read.

Just FYI: the new heartbreaker I'm working on features evil of a "fantasy evil," which is somewhere in between, though closer perhaps to "Disney evil." Its atrocities are things like turning people into monsters and undermining civilization and making the world into a playground for the forces of Darkness. It's non-ordinary stuff, for sure.
; )

Fire and Lightning

I spent a lot of my free time yesterday afternoon reading Charles Taylor's blog Spells and Steel, in which he records his ideas and thoughts while designing an RPG system that simulates "a low-magic, 14th-century Europe." It's good stuff, a lot of it combat based...which is, of course, totally my cup of tea. Hell, a lot of his concepts and conclusions are ones I've already reached (and sometimes implemented myself), so he's a guy after my own heart...though one with a lot more background in real medieval fighting. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing his game, once it's in a published form.

But...isn't there always a "but?" Maybe...BUT it also got me thinking this: do we really need another low-magic, medieval Europe game that's dark and gritty and realistic even in the abstract? Haven't I been doing too much of that kind of thing myself?

Actually, this has nothing to do with Mr. Taylor's project; his thing looks pretty cool. This is a post I've been wanting to write since...mmm, since about 20 minutes after I posted my last post on chopping spell saves.

One of the things I tried to do with Five Ancient Kingdoms was remove some of the "wa-hoo" factor of D&D while still keeping a "magical" feeling to it. That was not really a design goal I had PRIOR to starting the project: my original concept was something "gritty, low-magic, sword & sorcery-style" with "lots of sand and turbans." What I ended up with was Golden Age Islam and 1001 Arabian Nights. That's what happens when you try to find a way to justify clerics in a non-Western European setting.

*sigh*

ANYway, I like the end result (mostly), as it turned out plenty magical and yet less "wa-hoo" except in (perhaps) the way Ray Harryhausen Sinbad movies are (at least they're grounded in some real world mythology/folklore). It's not all white-hooded assassins and blazing sword paladins and wizards blasting shit with fire and lightning. And yet...

And yet, as I work (off and on) on yet another FHB...this one smaller in scope and more basic in design (and more typical in dice shape)...I find myself wondering: should there be maybe just a bit more, "wahoo?"

I left fireballs and lightning bolts out of Five Ancient Kingdoms because it didn't fit with the Arabian Nights concept...didn't fit with the S&S concept for that matter. I wanted to keep the killing of things to cold steel, rather than elemental magic. Let fighters fight and magicians do...um..."magical things." Yes, the magical folks have a few spells that do auto-killing niftiness, but generally they aren't dealing damage with their magic.

And, when I consider the new game, I kind of like the idea of a sorcerer who can strike someone dead "with fire and lightning." Probably not a dragon, of course...but I do like the image from the film Dragonslayer where Ulrich is standing on a mountain, doing his Aleister Crowley impression, pulling lightning from the clouds. I kind of like the idea of "mystic lightning" in the same vein as, say, Return of the Jedi or Big Trouble in Little China.

"See? That was nothing. But that's how it starts..."

I don't want battlefield magic of the Chainmail variety (which is what was adapted to D&D), dudes just hurling balls of death 'like it ain't no thang.' But I do like the idea of a wizard with a mad on incinerating some miscreant mundane with elemental magic just for the chump's impudence. Ya' know what I'm saying?

Anyway, the new FHB is supposed to be more fantastical, heroic in nature and, if not psychedelically outrageous, at least a bit more whimsical (and, yet, dark). Mood is a tough thing to convey through a design process, though some RPGs have succeeded in the past...not just with art and presentation, but with rules and mechanics.

So, since I've decided to axe saving throws, I think I can spare an extra page to add a few more spells to the list. This is shaping up to be a decent game...too bad it's going to be a few months before I can try play-testing it.