More DnD Luv-

NPC Damage-dealt Table-

20-12 - 1d8 (5)
11-10 - 1d6 (4)
09-01 - 1d4 (3)


Quick NPC-Kill Table-

20-12 - Dead
11-10 - Dies after action of next Round
09-01 - Still Alive

DM adds the PC's Fighting Man Level to the d20 roll


After First Hit NPC Reaction Table-

20-12 - Remains on-task
11-10 - Fighting Withdrawl (-1 to hit/+1 to AC)
09-01 - Drops heavy gear and flees

DM adds the NPC's HD to the d20 roll

Micro Campaign Design Tables-

Roll d20 for the tables below, unless otherwise directed:

TABLE I: The General Place-

20-12 - A Trippy Place (Tesseract, Rubik's Cube, Giant Ball of Lint in intergalactic space, etc.)
11-10 - A multitude of advanced subterranean complexes with occasional 'bolt-holes' leading out into the mysterious unknown.
09-01 - A world, possibly a planet, possibly a Realm (trapezoid with edges one can sail off, etc.)

TABLE II: Life-

20-12 - Vibrant, rich, full of unimaginable diversity of life forms
11-10 - As varied as Earth's heyday of megafauna (Irish Deer, Giant Sloths, Mamoths, etc.)
09-01 - Sparsely populated, or with very little diversity (Axebeaks, Cacti, Joshua Trees, Orcs, and Firenewts, for example)

TABLE III: Distant Past-

20-12 - The Gods Made The World Yesterday, and the Races, Today; Hello!
11-10 - The Ancients Destroyed Themselves in a One Day War, at least 1,000 years ago
09-01 - The past is an uncountable long chain of disasters and empires of super-science and sorcery

TABLE IV: Middlin' Past-

20-12 - A Dark Lord held Sway throughout the Land until Slain by a Hero
11-10 - Petty kingdoms battled for 2d6+3 centuries, plagues killed 1d4-5ths of the population, trade mushroomed afterwards
09-01 - Savage Warlords vie for semi-nomadic fiefdoms from 3d6 centuries ago until now; skip TABLE V, goto VI

TABLE V: Recently-

20-12 - Lesser Minions of a/the Dark Lord are gaining strength and numbers in the (1. North, 2. East, 3. South, 4. West)
11-10 - Trade disputes are currently (1-3.) heading towards war, or (4-6.) just now ending
09-01 - Monstrous armies erupt from the wilds and surge against Humanity

TABLE VI: Number of Big Players-

20-12 - 1d3, each with hundreds of thousands or millions of troops
11-10 - 1d6+2, each with tens or hundreds of thousands of troops, and great navies or war machines
09-01 - 2d12 Tribes, 1d4 Races, and Demonic Noble Houses at war with each other, using the Races as mercenaries

TABLE VII: Newest Stuff-

20-12 - Great Alchemical Wonders (magical war machines, wish magics, etc.)
11-10 - Stainless Steel and Steam Engines
09-01 - Iron and Silk

d20 Combat Advantage Critical Table-

For the D&Ders:

When a PC generates a Critical Hit (by whatever means one does in your game), (have the Player) roll on the following table:

20-11 Double Maximum Damage, Gain a Free Strike, and a Free Move
10-01 +1d4 Damage, and Gain a Free Move

If the DM desires, perhaps modify the d20 roll by Fighting Man Level and/or Hit Dice.

Gamelords, LTD: Thieves' Guild 2nd Edition (NiB)-

Like others of my era, I was treated to the Gamelords, LTD's adverts for Thieves' Guild in various gaming mags, among them of course, The Dragon.

My friend, Scott Charlton (of PCInc Arcanis fame) owned a copy, as did Mike B. years earlier, so I had some experience with it before purchasing a copy sometime in-between (I may have purchased it from Mike).

Having found this copy, New in Box for what I was willing to pay for it, I ordered -- and it arrived this morning.


The Thieving Book, and the CharGen Rules


The character sheet, and a nifty coupon.

A The Grand Tapestry Exclusive: Jeff Berry: "What's Old School Gaming?"-

The following was an unsolicited (but much enjoyed) e-mail I have received this fine day from Jeff Berry, friend to and gamer with both Dave Arneson and Professor M. A. R. 'Phil' Barker, as well as the author of the Tekumelani wargames rules set: Qadardalikoi.

(c) Copyright 2009 Jeff Berry All Rights Reserved. Used here by permission of the author.

Linking to this article is permitted.

I'm a dinosaur, I think...

(This is a short little essay on gaming styles that might be of interest to folks, in response to the various postings I've been reading lately.
All opinions are my own, no warranty express or implied, and are packed by weight, not by volume; some settling of contents may have occurred during shipping and handling...)

Okay, I give up. What's 'old school gaming', and how does it apply to miniatures and role-playing games? I've just managed to get my head around the 'simulationist' and 'narrativist' schools of role-playing games, sorta, but now I'm even more confused. I got started in miniatures back about 1970, and in role-playing about 1975, and I have the feeling that I'm either a dinosaur or trapped like an insect in ancient amber; I still do things the way I have been doing them since that ancient and long-lost time, both in miniatures games and in RPGs.
Am I an 'old school gamer', or just imprisoned by the conditioning I got at the hands of Dave Arneson (of D&D), and Phil Barker (of EPT)?

For the benefit of those of you in the audience who hadn't been born yet, gaming back then consisted of historical miniatures. Period. Sure, some folks had been calling their medieval figures 'orcs' and 'elves' so they could play out the battles from Middle-Earth, and if you took the five SPI "Prestags" board games and put all the maps together - and sorted the counters from all five by color - you had a mega-game that looked just like Tolkein but evaded copyright issues; but, oh my patient listeners, the world of RPGs as you know them just didn't exist.

Enter, stage left, a bunch of bored Twin Cities Napoleonics players; enter, stage right, a bunch of bored medieval players from Lake Geneva.
Net result, D&D, followed in short order in the Twin Cities by something really weird called "Empire of the Petal Throne": all three of the authors involved were old hands at historical miniatures, and their first sets of rules reflected this - the 'Simulationist' school of game design, they tell me. Dave Arneson was a particular example of this kind of design; he was a perfectionist at getting all of the little details nailed down before the players showed up on his doorstep, and he played - like they did - for keeps. Sitting down with Dave to play with him was an invitation to having your heart cut out, doused with Tabasco sauce, and eaten with great glee; you - like all of the folks who regularly played in that group - had to be quick on the uptake, fast on the draw, and really smart; you had to know your stuff, or you'd get handed your head on a platter. The only exception to that was if you were a new player, and didn't come into the game session with an attitude; if you were polite and reasonable, that bunch of unreformed Visigoths would be more then happy to help you learn the game and the rules.

Phil Barker certainly did his own rules, of course, but his natural flair for story-telling usually showed through the rules mechanics.
Tekumel was the setting for his stories and fiction writing, and those of us who gamed with him were the 'bit players' in the story arc and quite often provided him with the 'local color' he used in his books.
Very quickly, he dropped using any rules more complicated then the following:

Prof. Mohammed abd Rahman Barker's Perfected Game Rules:

1) We both roll dice.
2) If you roll high, your view of reality prevails.
3) If I roll high, my view of reality prevails.
4) If we're close, we negotiate.

Simple, yes? I still use this complex and detailed set of rules to this very day, which - I assume - makes me a 'Narrativist' like Phil. Mind you, I also do all of my research and planning ahead of each game session, just like Dave did, so I guess I'm sort of a hybrid of the two genres. And just perhaps, is this hybrid 'old school'? The major objective of any game run by either of those two was to have fun; if there wasn't a laugh or two around the table in the course of the mayhem, we all thought we were slipping up somehow. I try very hard to make sure my players have fun, and I also make damn sure that I know my source material, too.

Over on the miniatures table, I run games pretty much the same way.
Yes, I confess, I did write a set of miniatures rules for Tekumel; it's still in print, still being played, and still being denounced as "too simplistic" by historical gamers (who have never played it) and as "too complicated" by RPG gamers (who have never played it). I might modestly mention that both types of gamers who have played the thing discover that it's neither, but that may not be important; what is important is that I try very hard to provide players with a good time; everyone gets something to do, everyone gets a laugh and some fun, and everyone gets to play equally heroically. I do the figures and the scenery, and that's where I get my jollies; I'm a model-builder before I'm a gamer. (Which may be rank heresy, and probably the subject of another essay.)

So, I think I'm a fossil. I game the same way both Dave and Phil did, and my players don't look at the published rules very much; they seem to be having fun at game sessions, which think is the point of the exercise. We keep it light, simple, and fun; is this 'old school'?

[Bold: mine]

I realise that the above will not settle the matter for either the Old Guard, the OSR or New School crowd, but then again, nothing is likely to do so.

Sally-forth unto Adventure, Honour, and Glory!

[RPG] The Thief-

(c) Copyright 2009 Kyrinn S. Eis All Rights Reserved

Here we have the fourth of four classes identified as Iconic in the D&D games:

Thief-

Fight Die: d4
[1st: 100]

Proficiencies-
Armours:
* Light
* Medium
[400]

Arms:
* Simple
* Martial
* (Exotic, each individually)
[300]

Attack Bonus: +1
[300]

Critical Tests-
* Lifeforce : +7 (-1 -100)
* Health : +7 (-1 -100)
* Vigilance : +6 (-1 -100)
* Concentration : +7
* Experience : +7
* Reflexes : +4
* Control : +5 (+1 +100)
[-200]

Technical Skills-
* 2740 for (7) Skills at listed %
* 178 for Stealth Attack
-------------------------------
3818 @ 1st-Level

With these four classes statted-out for the Point-Design, the question now becomes:

'What do I do with players who want characters that go over the 3k limit?'

Obviously there are at least two solutions, namely, allow them to 'pay-off' the overages before advancing; or, to provide players with under-cost characters additional DXP to enhance their characters.

But, I'd like to suggest that adventuring parties for many years have successfully operated on un-balanced synergy between the plain-jane fighter and the zealous but un-initiated clerics, aided by the sapper-skills of the highly trained thief, not to mention the artillery officers, the magic-users.
Once the XPs begin rolling in, the lower-cost fighter will advance more quickly, unless s/he begins to add-on non-textbook abilities, followed by the thief, cleric, and distantly by the magic-user. That, many old-timers will tell you, is natural balance.

My reason for creating the Point-Design system for an Old School Emulator (OSE) was to avoid the ever-increasing specialised NPC and Specialist classes, each with their own XP progressions, and new, difficult to adjudicate powers that could easily prevent an otherwise reasonable character from being permitted into a more standard 'btb' game.
Virually any ability from published back-in-the-day sources, or those of the retro/simulacra games of today can easily be modeled in the Point-Design system, even if it requires a change of view.

I hope this preview has served to pique interests and allay fears.

[RPG] The Fighter-

(c) Copyright Kyrinn S. Eis All Rights Reserved

I have three of the four 'core' classes (yes, yes, I know, the Thief wasn't core back at the dawn of gaming) written up in their Design Point cost format.

FIGHTERS-

Strength is the Fighter's Prime Requisite, and a character must have a Strength score of 9 or higher to become a Fighter. This class is proficient with all standard armours and any Simple or Martial weapon. They also are eligible to become Proficient in individual Exotic Weapons, as they are encountered.

Vrun Continental Authority troopers, Khark jungle barbarians, and the lowly city watch are all Fighters. They are trained for and/or experienced with combat, and have been chosen for their ability to meet problems directly, and overcome them through sheer capability and finesse. It would surprise no one, then, that these Fighters are the best class in general combat, and also lead the other classes in general toughness. Fighters can use many magic items, but tend to squable over magical arms and armour.

The culture, level of technology, and environment from which a Fighter hails, all inform him or her of what it means to be a warrior of whatever sort they are, and what their choices of arms and armour should be.

In rigid cultures, the elan of highly regimented and well-drilled soldiers is every bit as high as that of the tight-knit commando/raider group, or the more chaotic and 'catch-as-catch-can' style of the Adventuring Company.


Fight Die: d8
[1st: 180]

Proficiencies-
Armours:
* Light
* Medium
* Heavy
[700]
Shields
[60]

Arms:
* Simple
* Martial
(Exotics ea. addl.)
[300]

Attack Bonus: +1
[300]

Critical Tests-
* Lifeforce : +8
* Health : +8
* Vigilance : +7
* Concentration : +6 [-1: -100]
* Experience : +6 [-1: -100]
* Reflexes : +5 [+1: +100]
* Control : +3 [-1: -100]
-------------------------------
1,340 @ 1st-Level

(1660) -=Under=- based upon 3000 Design Points

Without going over 'level limits' in FD, or Attack Bonus, the 1st-Level BFRPG Fighter could still afford to Maximise the 1st d8 for [180], add an Exotic Weapon Proficiency [40], and add a point of Focus [100], and still have 1340 XP to begin play with.

The spell-casters are significantly more 'expensive', as you will soon see.

[RPG] & [MISC.] UWoM and Old School-

(c) Copyright 2009 Kyrinn S. Eis All Rights Reserved

In today's post on the Worshop thread, I describe last night's thrilling adventure.

One item of character creation that had completely slipped my mind whilst working on the Point-Design system was a method employed in Basic Fantasy RPG's 2008 Almanack for variant classes, such as the Barbarian's 'double Str mod to hit and damage' and 'double Dex mod to AC while unburdened with armor'.
Fortunately, in UWoM, this is easily rectified through the use of dedicated Focus points, purchased at a 25% discount, to accomplish the same effect. Likewise the Ranger's 'double Dex mod to hit with a Longbow.', etc.

Ironically, I find myself using an unorthodox method of determining an encounter's severity: rolling 1d12. Why a d12? I imagine it is a clock-based meme, and I also use it to determine more precise direction, as was used in last night's adventure when Tybalt made a leaping attack onto a giant flightless bird.
I told his player that on an 11-1, he would be facing it head on, and that it would get an 'attack of opportunity' > shudder at the TETSNBN reference <. The player, Mike, looked at me in puzzlement, "On an 11 through 1? That means only on a 12 I'll get by without an attack?" I laughed and clarified, and all was laughs until he rolled a 12 on the die. Fortunately, the thing rolled a 1 on its d20, and Tybalt rolled a critical on his 3x Stealth Attack. Snap!
So, for all of my standardisation in getting rid of the quirky n in d6 mechanics, I use clock-memed d12s to determine both intensiy and direction. Along similar lines, I think a limited d6 mechanic may show-up in the system. One keyed to the Blood/Nature of the character, as is present in its sister (non-OS) system.
I realise folks like James Maliszewski of Grognardia may not feel that UWoM is mechanically Old School, if only for the Point-Design system, but I think that is perhaps misplaced pre-judgment not talking everything else into account -- and for good reason, given how little has been unveiled. I do wonder, though, if he extends Old School appelation to Skyrealms of Jorune. My guess is, 'no.' If that is the case, I can certainly understand 'grogs' not feeling that UWoM is OS.

I am saddened to think that World of Thool, with its marsupial gnomes, may be on an extended, or dare I write, permanent hiatus. That is one blog I would really lament the death of.
Please come back! The linguo-spores need a voice!

In other, semi-Old School news, I purchased Dennis 'Chariot of the' Sustare's SWORDBEARER for the third-time (the other two having been lost to time), but only got the two books (better them than nothing, although the box art was pretty cool, too).
There is just something about that game that I am mystified by and attracted to...

[RPG] The Plethora of Rolling Methods in Old School games-

(c) Copyright 2009 Kyrinn S. Eis all rights reserved

Everything boils down to Percentile, or a clever die-mechanic for its own sake.
Combat on 1d20 was an afterthought, but it 'stuck', and contemporary games like Swordsmen & Spellslingers' reversion to 2d6, or Tunnels & Trolls' continued use of the 2d6 Saving Roll, illustrate that a tight bell-curve works fine, so long as the limitations of the curve and its havoc on Percentages is taken into account.

In my attempt to remain faithful to the Old School, I occasionally argue with myself regarding the best die-mechanic to employ for a given situation. In general, I emulate existing principles, if only for generic applicability, such as the ubiquitous 1d6 for Ambush, Detecting Architectural Features, Surprise, and Trap-springing.

But, knowing that a '1 or 2 on d6' is really a 33% makes me occasionally want to wander from the simple homage, toward something more akin to ICE's Rolemaster. And then I stop myself.
But, why is potentially deadly combat better on a d20 with its chunky 5% blocks, when less critical 'Thieving Skills' are more precise with their d%?
Why!?

Tradition, and Portability.

If my game is to be Old School from a mechanics PoV; if it is to be generically compatible with OD&D, S&W, or BFRPG; it 'ought' to follow Tradition for Portability's-sake. Right?
Picking up a neo-Old School adventure module and running it in UWoM is greatly facilitated by having standardised mechanics (although, yes, OS is all about self-reliant and adaptable GMs/Refs), but more importantly, a Labyrinth Lord (etc.) ought to be able to pick up an UWoM adventure or supplement and have minimal conversion work -- if only out of professional courtesy.

So, what's a girl to do, but stick with Tradition?
---

* UWoM's combat isn't based upon an Armour Penetration 'to hit', but a more Palladiumesque 'physical connect' premise, and this reflects in a lower base number to be scored on the d20, although Str still figures in a modifier for brute attacks, while Dex figures for 'finesseable' attacks and ranged. Once a hit is determined, damage is rolled, and the Armour die is subtracted from the result before Dodge Points are deducted from the target.

* Con still figures into Dodge Points, but (Constitution score + Str mod.) is the terminal Threshold for actual damage, not simply 0 or -10.

* Percentile rolls are made as 'higher is better', rather than 'roll-under', with 100 as the target number, because, psychologically, higher seems better/cooler, and generating a 128 on a Pick Locks just seems to tell me as a Referee that you did it a lot faster than the cat who rolled a 101. Likewise, Binding Wounds are made on d%, and modifies how much damage is actually treated.

That leaves us with the quirky n in d6 rolls, of which I'm of the opinion that 'higher is better' should apply to as well. But, do these rolls on d6 make sense?
I'm this close to switching them out for d%.

Thoughts?

[RPG] The Next Steps-

(c) Copyright 2009 Kyrinn S. Eis all rights reserved

After much calculation and tabulation, I think the Point-Design system for Character Creation is complete-enough to build all of the standard FRP trope 'Classes' (Fighter, Mage, Holy, and Rogue), as well as most, if not all, 'sub-Classes' (Assassin, Barbarian, Dedicated Warrior, etc.)
My next step is to collate the extant XP progression tables from my model RPG (Chris Gonnerman's excellent Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game), to create a 'generic' XP table to be used by the Referee for pacing purposes.

Pacing in the Point-Design system is important insomuch that it prevents outright distortions of the power ramp characters follow, as well as helping keep the entire party in a degree of parity (not true Balance, mind you). Thus, allowing more minor purchases to be made 'live' in-game (such as increasing Technical Skills such as those often attributed to 'Thieves': Trap Removal, Hiding, and so forth), but retraining rampant escalation of Spell Slots/Points or Fight Dice, etc.

In my Alpha Playtest Group (APG hereafter), the player controlling Tybalt the Bard purchased 9 Spell Points once we had converted the characters over to the P-D system. I thought about that over the week, and asked him to scale back the total to 4 purchased points (in line with a 2nd-Level M-U), but I then granted him the +2 from Tybalt's Charisma modifier. Though the difference was only three points, I felt as though things were less likely to spiral out of control should I not pay meticulous attention to the character's development. Likewise, other Ability Score bonuses had already figured in (Constitution toward Dodge Points, and Strength / Dexterity toward Attack Bonus, etc.).

As I have noted on the Dragonsfoot Workshop thread, I am reluctant to port over too many fiddly bits of Latter Day RPG design sensibilities, such as sharply-defined special abilities (Untraceable Steps, Vanish From View, or the like), and must now decide which, if any, will make the translation, and what sort of mechanic will address these sorts of situations otherwise.

Toward that end, I have already introduced -Focus-, which are generic points which the player may ask to apply to various established die-roll functions such as the Ability Test, Critical Tests (known in other games s Saving Throws), Technical Skills (in which case they are treated as +5% each), or the quirky 1d6 'Detect' or 'Surprise' mechanics so ingrained in the Old School systems. In the last case, given the mathematics of a d6, I have decided that it will take 3 Focus to emulate a +1 (worth roughly 16.67%) on the d6 rolls.
Also, in my initial write-up of the Devoted Warrior (a Paladin by another name), I have introduced the concept of the 'dedicated purchase' (currently at a 25% discount) toward such abilities as 'Smiting' a particular foe-type, or Dedicated Focus exclusively for detecting the foe-type. Furthermore, by simply dividing the cost by the 'number of times usable per day', a further reduction in cost is garnered.
I think these mechanics resolve most of the Latter Day special abilities rather nicely. We shall see...

I had asked on Dragonsfoot for some brainstorming assistance on the general topic of Perception, and how to handle it in the game.
Perhaps stimulated by that request, a poster started a General Discussion topic on the very subject, spawning the fairly typical demographic break-downs of: 'No need for a die roll'; 'Int or Wis'; and the occasional more unusual concept ('Int, Wis, or Cha, depending on the context' -- I especially liked that one).
So, now, I ask you for your input here. Thanks. :)